Vurbal

Re: What Do Active Points Represent To You? That certainly occured to me, and I should probably mention that I see this as more of a theoretical issue since it's only worth putting so much work into. I also wouldn't worry about it for superheroic games because a couple of points here and there (either active or real) don't make all that much difference. I'm primarily looking at it from the POV of someone who mostly plays heroic level, where a little bit of added granularity can make a big difference. In reality it wouldn't necessarily require a complete rewrite of the system, but it would probably require something of a reverse engineering to come up with more basic components to build powers from. The big problem is that attack powers in particular would need to have a base cost built from scratch using a system that more or less results in the same values the system currently uses (which I find to be generally as balanced as you can get). I'll have to think on the subject more, which is fine since that's the kind of thing I normally do to clear my head out at work.

One of my favorite things about Hero is the differentiation between active and real points. To me active points represent the maximum potential of a power. The one place I see a problem with this model is when you completely remove part of a power's mechanical effect. When you do that, assuming my model of active points as maximum capability, it would seem to make more sense to apply a limitation to the base points before applying advantages. For example, let's say you build a fairly straight forward Energy Blast with the No Range limitation. No matter what circumstances you use this power in it will never be usable at range, but it will have the same active points as if it were. Compare that to an EB with a limitation like OIHID that won't be available all the time, but when it is available will be every bit as effective as if it didn't have the limitation. On one hand active points don't make as much difference to me as they once did since I haven't played in a game that used AP limits to balance characters in years. OTOH they still make a difference with respect to frameworks. And of course the END is an issue as well. The No Range EB from the example above costs just as much END as one that's ranged. Assuming you're putting advantages on you'll also have a difference in real points. I can see why the system works the way it does - for the sake of simplicity, but simplicity isn't everything. If it was we wouldn't have active points at all. I also realize that not every example of this would be equally simple to modify. If you apply the No Range limitation to the base cost of an EB it's a nice, clean 3 AP per die. OTOH maybe you want an EB that isn't ranged and also doesn't do BODY. Applying a 3/4 limitation still gets you a base cost of 3 AP per die, whereas it would give you a bigger difference in real cost if applied normally. In fact you could get some very strange results if you consider the following: The Normal column indicates real cost after a -3/4 limitation and the second indicates the real cost for adjusting the base EB cost by -3/4. Half dice are assumed to be 2 AP. Normal | Base Adj --------+---------- 1/2d6 2 | 2 1d6 3 | 3 1 1/2d6 4 | 5 2d6 6 | 6 2 1/2d6 7 | 8 3d6 8 | 9 You could fix it by making it 5 AP per 2d6, but that doesn't really feel right because you spend a different number of points for another die, depending on whether you currently have an odd or even number and it adds even more complexity: Normal | Base Adj --------+---------- 1/2d6 2 | 2 1d6 3 | 3 1 1/2d6 4 | 4 2d6 6 | 5 2 1/2d6 7 | 7 3d6 8 | 8 So do you think this is too much work for too little reward? Is it even worth worrying about? If so, is this the best solution or is there a better way to handle it? Edit: Another thought is that this is simply a side effect of powers having multiple effects and there's no good way to deal with it unless you break the system down into smaller building blocks. Normal attack powers in particular have basic characteristics of being ranged or not and adding to STR or not. Logically, a ranged attack should require a bigger END expenditure than an attack with no range, but in Hero terms it doesn't. In 4th Ed this works out fine for hand attacks because they're only 3 AP per die, but STR damage is still at the full 5 AP per die. Since that also gets into the issue of whether STR is underpriced (which I'm not really trying to get into here) I won't follow that line of reasoning any further.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? I'm Qualified To Satisfy You - The Dirtbombs

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? Water - The Who (from Live At The Isle Of Wight Festival 1970)

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? It'll Be A Long Time - The Offspring

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? Liberation - Chicago Transit Authority

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? I love that song - and in fact the entire Speed Of Sound album.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? The Duelists - Iron Maiden

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? The Attitude Song by Steve Vai just ended. Now Lily, Rosemary, and The Jack of Hearts by Bob Dylan is on.

Re: Characteristic power NCM As amusing as that would be the boss might not approve. But my home network has a Simpsons theme.

Re: Characteristic power NCM Apparently my disagreement was based on my misreading his post. Somehow I thought he was saying he uses NCM the way you normally do in a Heroic level game (ie everyone has it), which would make my comments correct. Since he didn't actually state that I agree with you completely. That's what I get for responding to posts while I'm renaming all the computers at work

Re: Characteristic power NCM

Re: Characteristic power NCM Actually, after thinking about it a little more, I don't consider Von D-Man's approach to even be an application of NCM. What he's really doing is using the NCM values as campaign limits and being restrictive with the Characteristics power.

Re: Characteristic power NCM What you consider a house rule I consider a parameter of a specific game or setting. IOW if you're running a game where no one has NCM theoretically there is no upper limit to characteristics. In reality there are very few games where you'd be allowed to have a character with a STR of 200. That doesn't make capping the value at 60, 70, or whatever value you like a house rule. The rules don't allow or disallow a particular range of characteristics. That's a function of the setting, group, and/or GM. OTOH the cost of characteristics, with or without NCM, is determined by the rules so changing that would be a house rule.

Re: Characteristic power NCM I disagree. Going over NCM limits is always a GM discretion buy. It just happens that most games happen to allow it automatically. Buying powers that aren't standard for a particular game is also normally a GM call. I think Von D-Man's approach is a perfectly logical interpretation of the existing NCM rules, albeit stricter than is commonly applied.

Re: Characteristic power NCM I think whether characteristic powers should be subject to NCM limits depends on the context. In a fantasy game where one player has to pay NCM cost for higher characteristics because he's a half giant I probably wouldn't consider it fair for a wizard to be able to avoid the extra cost because he raises his characteristics magically. OTOH in a cyberpunk game where everyone has access to implants that would raise characteristics to above NCM level I don't see a problem. Where it becomes trickier is in games that don't use NCM as a default. As long as the characteristic powers aren't going to stop the NCM from being enough of a problem to justify the cost I don't see a problem. That might mean that the value of NCM should be adjusted for that character. It might also mean that the GM needs to put more emphasis on situations where NCM will be an issue.

Re: What Are You Listening To Right Now? Just Can't Wait - The J Geils Band

Re: Assumptions within HEROES Fair enough. I tend to think in terms other than supers because I don't really every get the chance to play it. I can see where someone who wouldn't think to ask that question might be fine with playing in a supers game using nothing but 5ER.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES While I don't disagree that a statement like that would be fine, it doesn't really answer the question of what happens when a character dies. It's just mentioning that the question should be asked. I suppose I can see why you might look at it as an omission, but if you don't already realize the question is there the basic Hero toolkit probably isn't enough for you to play the game you want, so once again I'd it more appropriate to discuss in a genre or setting book.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES I'm not saying they don't fit well together, just that you won't use the same pieces the same way, if at all, from one genre to another. If you were to ask me if ressurection is appropriate for a Dark Champions game I'd generally say no. OTOH for a fantasy game the answer might very well be yes. Even something as basic as an energy blast has different implications - the fantasy mage casting a fireball (which other characters probably can't do) vs. the Dark Champions vigilante with a firearm (which every character might have). The system can't provide a meaningful answer without that context. Genre books provide the context, and are therefore the appropriate place for that discussion. The mechanics have to be considered, but not by themselves.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES

Re: Assumptions within HEROES I think I understand your point now. It seems like what you're saying is that it would be useful to have more explanation of the reasoning behind rules to understand why you would or wouldn't want to use a particular option. If that's what you mean then I can see your point. The real problem, as I see it, is that the basic rules are written to intentionally avoid leading players toward any specific decisions as to how the game should be run. Of course you're right that there is always some kind of specific reasoning for mechanics in the game, and it would certainly be useful for new players to have at least a basic understanding of that reasoning to give them a starting point for their own decisions. The problem with doing that in Hero is that it would be nearly impossible to provide that kind of information because you can't find a single unified vision of the type you mention in D&D. I suppose that's the down side to making a system that's designed to do anything. It doesn't give you a particularly cohesive vision for a specific genre. That's why I feel that kind of information fits genre books more. A genre book can relate the possibilities in the system directly to choices a gaming group needs to make to put together an enjoyable game. IMO trying to do that with a reasonable amount of detail in the basic rules would be impossible without adding hundreds of pages unless you only provided information for a single genre. I could go a lot further with my thoughts on this, but I'll save those for more appropriate thread.

Re: Assumptions within HEROES But I tend to agree with what Lucius seems be saying that these aren't system or rules related questions, but rather general genre/setting/rpg topics. The rules relate to this only in their inclusion of how you could bring someone back from the dead. Whether you can do such a thing wouldn't change whether you were playing Hero, D20, or GURPS. If 5ER were simply a treatise on the variety of options that should be considered ahead of time for your games or what sorts of things are appropriate to invoke the desired feel of a genre I would agree, but that's not what it is. It's instructions for using the rules to do whatever it is you want to do. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you' mean a genre, setting, or maybe even Ultimate book should include this topic I'd agree, but if you're saying it should be in 5ER I don't understand why that's any more appropriate than any other genre, setting, or personal preference specific topic

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system? Why? I could see getting rid of Elemental Controls if they still worked like they did in 4th Ed, but I consider both of those frameworks essential to many concepts I want to build.

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system? In a way it is and in a way it isn't. It doesn't change the way those rolls work fundamentally, but moving from d6 being the only die used in the system to using a different die for a large number of rolls seems pretty fundamental to me.