Vurbal

Re: What fundamental thing would you change about the Hero system?

Adjustment Powers

Make all Adjustment Powers have a default Target SFX specified at purchase. If the player can give some reasonable explaination why his power affects a mechanic instead of a SFX and the GM accepts it, then they take the advantage "All SFX Of Power Mechanic +2" on top of any other advantages.

 

But that just me... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

If I were designing the system from scratch I'd probably change some other things like how the size of a character is bought and how size affects attacks, perception, and the like. I'd probably also use either 3d10 or 3d12 for things that used 3d6 now because I like the curve better and would prefer a wider range of results.

Re: How would you construct and Ecstasy Weapon?

I have a character with a couple of ecstasy type powers. The first, Rapture, is a BOECV Entangle. The second, Stimulate, is a Flash to the Mental and Touch groups.

Re: Linked Powers question (in and out of Power Frameworks)

You cannot Link two slots of a framework or a Slot in a Framework to a Power outside a Framework (and the other way).

 

5ER p311 has rules for Linked and Power Frameworks. All other rules are listed under Linked in the Limitations section (5ER p299-301)

You can link a slot to a power that's not in any framework. 5ER has an example of this. What you can't do is link a framework slot to any part of a framework (either the one it's in or a different one), link an entire framework (or multiple slots in the same framework) to the same power or a framework or slot, or link a power to the base cost or reserve of a framework.

Re: Indispensable Books

For me (as a player) the essentials are 5ER and UMA along with the Resource Kit. If I was running a game I'd add the Bestiary, and possibly TUV to that list. Fortunately most of my gaming books from the last 5 years are in PDF format so almost all the books I use are nearly always available to me during a game.

Re: Humorous: Broken arithmetic in system.

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, and thus we can achieve noninteger and counterintuitive results.

 

Or

 

Charge is an exception to the rule of limitations not crossing positive/negative axes, but we take an absolute value of the limitation before tabulation. In which case, we have a scenario in which -1 Charges has the same effect as +1 Charges.

Since powers with Charges don’t cost END to use' date=' a power with a large number of Charges is better than one bought normally — so at a certain point Charges becomes a Power Advantage.[/quote']

In other words what you're talking about isn't a Limitation. If you calculate an Advantage as a Limitation the math will always be broken. It will also always be completely illegal and due to not following the system.

Re: How do you use Regeneration in your campaign?

My initial reaction to 5th Ed Regeneration was negative because of the hand waving issues that others have mentioned. Plus I didn't see the advantage to building it from another power. After reading through this thread I have a little bit different take on it than before, but I still wouldn't build it with Healing.

REC already 'heals' BODY so it makes sense to me to build Regeneration from that and apply an advantage to move up the time chart, but I'd probably make it a +1 per step. That sounds like a lot, and for some games it would be (due to Active Point limits), but I'd also apply a limitation of BODY Only that would vary in value based on the importance of regenerating BODY in the particular game.

For example, in our heroic fantasy games we don't track END on a per turn basis (just for long term Endurance) and sometimes there's a lot of BODY lost in a combat so I'd probably make it a -1. For our current superheroic level urban fantasy game we keep track of END per turn and there's still a significant amount of BODY taken in combat (Regeneration is a common power for this game) so I'd make it a -2. If we were to play a normal supers game we'd still track END normally but I'd expect taking BODY to be much less of a concern so I'd probably value it at -3.

Using those values for BODY Only gives the following totals:

1 REC (2), Reduced Time (+8), BODY Only (-1)

18 Active / 9 Real

1 REC (2), Reduced Time (+8), BODY Only (-2)

18 Active / 6 Real

1 REC (2), Reduced Time (+8), BODY Only (-3)

18 Active / 4 Real

If the Active Points are a problem you can always reduce it to +1/2 per step up the time chart and lower the limitation value accordingly to get the real point total you want. Since we don't worry about AP limits this wouldn't be a problem for us.

Re: Tunneling Question.

Actually what I was saying is that Tunneling itself should maybe not leave holes at all. It should be defined purely as moving the character through a material. If you want to leave the hole' date=' you'd [i']then[/i] have to link the Tunneling to an Attack Power.

 

Perhaps in that case Tunneling can have the clause that an Attack Power to which it is Linked doesn't have to buy Continuous/Area of Effect/Damage Shield/whatever to act on the material through which you travel; as long as the Attack Power is activated in the Phase and overcomes the materials' DEF (and perhaps it can be considered Standard Effect even if the Attack Power when used against a target normally is not), it acts on every hex through which you move with Tunneling. Although it is a minor exception, it is one that would really serve to keep this kind of build a lot simpler.

Interesting. At first glance I really like this. It removes some strange side effects of tunneling like putting holes in things without using an attack power and not being able to tunnel through certain things because you can't put holes in them without an attack power.

Re: Tunneling Question.

Yeah. Your classic D&D-type earth elemental should, it seems, be able to move through earth or stone without disturbing them. Shouldn't need Desolidification for that.

 

Tunneling really isn't the ability to put holes in things. It is the ability for you to move through things. Heck, it could have more the SFX of making the material itself phase out of reality (temporarily), even though some of the more literal-minded of people might try to call that some kind of UAA Desolidification. Maybe it could be defined as some kind of, "teleport," that must cross the intervening space and is blocked by a certain DEF value, for that matter ("I don't go through the stone; I send my dimensional lifeline through").

 

It's just that somehow Tunneling can have the side effect of leaving a hole in things, which we tend to associate with damaging them. Maybe that's what the problem is: if you can both go through a material and leave a hole, it should be bought with a linked Attack Power (or at the very least in the same manner as a Teleport Gate).

Re: Experience increasing

It's not that hard to just say yes or no to how a player want their character to improve. I usually have a rule that limits a character from improving Characteristis for example. No more than n XP in a particular Characteristic per scenario with n depending on how high the Characteristic is and how much it was challenged during that scenario. I don't dock a character XP if they earn more than they are allowed to spend on a particular Characteristic though; they can spend it on other things like Skills' date=' Perks (earned through game play and they want to keep them) and such.[/quote'] I generally try to spend my experience a lot like you're describing. It makes character development feel a lot more organic if I put points into an characteristic, skill, or power gradually and it eventually pays off for a slightly better effect. The character I'm playing currently has a power with Limited Range that I'm going to buy off. He started with a very low range and I've been increasing it just a little bit every session it gets used. At the same time I'm saving points to buy off the limitation when the range is enough for it to be appropriate.

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

So we'll all think that everything he's saying is "only with the GM's permission"?

 

I'm not seeing it

In 5er there's a small section called "Eight Principles For Interpreting And Applying The Hero System Rules". The first 4 basically state that the GM is the final arbiter of what's legal.

Re: Multiple Attacks in a Phase

It's mathematics. You can buy extra REC up to a certain point' date=' but after that it's more cost-efficient to buy SPD as an effective multiplier of your REC.[/quote'] Keep in mind that this wouldn't give you the equivalent of 2 post-12 recoveries. Recovering as an action puts you at half DCV and you can't maintain constant powers or take any action besides turning off powers at the beginning of your phase. Also, if you take damage after your phase starts but before the end of the segment you don't recover anything.

It doesn't matter if there is NCM or not, it's still a legitimate build (provided the extra SPD doesn't itself exceed the NCM).

Since this is well into GM discretion territory, whether it's a legitimate build is really a judgement call. I probably wouldn't allow it, but as with most things that's dependent on whether the player could justify it to my satisfaction.

Re: Let's Talk Disads: Limitation Alternates

I would have given him the friends and family members as DNPC's for that

We talked about doing it that way, but since it would involve a bunch of changing DNPC's for various situations and there would be no rhyme or reason to their power level or how frequency different individuals would be involved it made more sense to use unluck.

Re: Let's Talk Disads: Limitation Alternates

The thing is, with Unluck as the specific example, the number of dice controls BOTH the frequency of occurance and the maximum severity of the effect. As such, reducing the dice but not limiting the effect would cause two things...

#1) Less catastrophic effects occuring on shipboard... including, if one is a literalist, nothing that effects the rest of the party (it takes 4 levels of effect to cause major badness that effects friends as well).

Ergo, no Hyperdrive Failure just as the Star Destroyer is bearing down in attack mode.

#2) Unlucky event that occur to the character outside of the ship.

This is probably more "realistic", assuming that you consider Unluck to be constrained by realism. BUt it's not what the player wanted for his character. Another option, and one we considered, is to give the SHIP Unluck. Except we wanted it to come across more like the character, who was an amazing pilot, was jinxed. No matter what he was flying, bad breaks always seemed to happen to him.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your way, just that I would just handwave it being specific to the ship. Since the frequency goes down the severity automatically goes up to compensate and the same effect is achieved. It should come out at the same cost and effect either way.

Re: Let's Talk Disads: Limitation Alternates

Not only do I think its a fine idea, but I have a few characters lying around where I have done exactly this.

I also support the idea of allowing Disads with Limitations (subject to GM's approval, of course)

 

One semi-Han Solo homage character in my old Star Hero campaign had 4d6 Unluck (only on his ship and ship related activities -1)

I once had a Champions character with unluck that always happened to his friends and family. No limitation on the disad - just the way the unluck manifested itself.

Re: Lets Talk Disads: Enraged/Berserk

I also love Vurbal's idea of the penalties to all actions until the character's passion has run its course. This encourages the player to roleplay their character's passion' date=' and discourages the character from getting distracted along the way.[/quote'] Ironically this seems like exactly the type of mechanic we were heatedly discussing a few days ago. At the time I didn't see the use for it (now I realize I have a character that it would fit much better than standard psych lims) and you said a separate mechanic wasn't necessary (and given the enraged/berserk comparison I'm starting to agree with that). Guess we aren't as far apart on it as I thought.

Re: Lets Talk Disads: Enraged/Berserk

Arbitrary though they may be' date=' I prefer the fixed numbers. Otherwise, characters with high mental stats (mentalists, etc.) are less affected by these disad's than other characters. As it stands, an Enraged for Professor X and the Hulk are both worth the same points. I think Prof X needs to take a discount if he's getting a roll much more likely to succeed, since the disad is much less likely to affect him.[/quote'] I agree completely. In fact I ran into a problem with my current character who I gave lots of strong psych lims (compulsive X, compulsive Y, etc...) but since he's a mentalist he has a reasonably high Ego. A standard roll for those disads would make much more sense because his compulsions aren't remotely related to his overall mental control.

 

The way I see it there are really 2 different issues that this disad would need to address. First is the issue of when it affects the character. A simple 8-/11-/14- (base disad value of 5/10/15) seems like the appropriate mechanic for that. The other is the degree to which it affects the characters ability to take unrelated (or peripherally related) actions.

 

You could set 3 different levels (+0/+5/+10 to disad value) and give skill rolls that don't directly address the disad penalties of -2 for the first level and -4 for the second, and not allow any action that doesn't directly relate to the disad at the highest level.

 

Still feels a little kludgy to me. I'll have to think about it a little more.

Re: Lets Talk Disads: Enraged/Berserk

I like the idea of extending the enraged/berserk mechanic for other results. I'd call it something like Compulsion. As far as skills go I think the real test would be whether it sidetracks you from whatever you feel compelled to do. For example, with Enraged using CSLs for offense leads directly to the result you want, while using them defensively doesn't cross your mind.

Arguably you could be compelled to do something that would require you to use particular skills to overcome obstacles. If you're trying to rescue someone you might need to bypass a high tech security system or use some sort of magic to divine his location. Maybe a good solution would be to have penalties for anything the character does that isn't directly leading to accomplishing the goal or causes any kind of delay. That would (at least partially) simulate being frustrated and distracted. It may end up simply being a GM call as to whether an obstacle is significant enough to justify any kind of delay or peripheral action.

Re: Building a modular rifle

I have to do both. Doing one or the other only gets me so far, and I only get so much enjoyment out of it.

 

I recently started to learn GURP4e (it was a deal, they learned Hero, we learned GURPS). I started out with just trying to play and couldn't grok it. I borrowed some books, read through and got a basic understanding then went back and played again - this time with a much better grasp.

 

it's half control freak, half OCD, half curiousty and half just is.

I'm the same way. Until I read through the rules I won't really have a good grasp of the system. In my case it's mostly because that's how I learn. I can pickup more from reading the rules than a lot of people can by playing for months. I just don't seem to come up with the right questions until I have it all laid out in front of me.

Re: Reasoning from effect or vice versa?

I start by determining what mechanics best simulate what I'm trying to do. That determines the basic power, skill, talent, etc, ... used. Then I look at the special effect. That's primarily used to determine adders, advantages, and limitations, It's also usually the determining factor for whether a framework is appropriate.

If there are multiple ways to build something the determining factor is usually special effect, but in some cases that makes a build that's either overly complicated or greatly over/under-priced so other factors certainly come into play.

Re: Steve's Chat Tonight (Thursday, April 27)

What if I let the badgers provide the projectiles instead of being projectiles?

Re: Transformation

I was thinking of something else . . . specifically' date=' "Spiritual Defense", multiple levels of Power Defense with the Limitation "only versus Spiritual attacks", or perhaps extra Body "only to resist Spiritual Transformations".[/quote']

I like this idea, and would probably take it to another level more specific to the character. A paladin might have it "only to resist evil forces" or something along those lines.

Re: The interaction skills

That's a good way of looking at it. Unless the character has Telepathy and is using it' date=' they really have no way of knowing other than their own experience and knowledge of the person they are talking to.[/quote']

Depending on the character and the situation you could probably apply some kind of Analyze. For example, a con man might have an Analyze Mark skill. Now that I think about it I could add something like that to my current character. He's a compulsive womanizer who's around 2000 years old. He must have figured out a thing or 2 in that time.

Re: Communication - interception and impersonation

I've changed my mind. Upon thinking about it' date=' there's no difference between pretending to be someone's telepathic voice and pretending to be someones real voice except for the sensory conduit. Mimickry (telepathic) would be enough.[/quote'] I'd go with Dust Raven's Shapeshift method. Using Mimicry means that you're going to have to make a skill vs. skill roll (or for longer communications maybe several) to pull it off, and would be likely to get some severe penalties to your roll pretty often. It wouldn't be much cheaper than Shapeshift since you'd probably want at least 5, if not as many as 10 levels with it to make it reliable.

 

Technically Mimicry probably wouldn't be book legal (Mental Shapeshift is specifically listed as doing this sort of thing while mimicry specifically says it's for sound) but if I wanted to make it more of a challenge for the character to pull off I'd probably use it anyway. Or you could just make a your own skill and call it mental mimicry.

Re: How do I build a . . . ?

OK, a little more explanation why I feel the way I do.

 

Two characters get captured, stripped of their gear, and thrown in the dungeon. PC#1 paid points for his sword; PC#2 did not. The characters soon escape because they are, after all, Heroes. So as a GM, I am now obligated to let PC#1 get his sword back because he paid points for it. OK, fine. But PC#2 is out of luck, because he didn't pay points for his. As a game mechanic, that makes sense. But from a narrative standpoint, there may be no logical in-game reason for Sword #1 to be easily recovered while Sword #2 is lost for all time. (It's not like the Bad Guys know one was paid-in-points and the other wasn't.) Yet if I do let PC#2 get his sword back, then he's getting the same benefit as PC#1, even tho he didn't pay any points for it. So it draws a (to me) very artificial line that interferes with my narrative. Anytime I come up against a situation that I can only justify to the players interms of game mechanics (ie - "Sorry, he paid points for his sword and you didn't."), that is usually my definition of a bad mechanic.

 

So to me, it works best if you either make ALL items Independant as a campaign-default, or NO items Independant. Personally, I prefer the former, but that's just my opinion. But either way, you don't really need the Limitation, because it's a campaign assumption.

However, just because it's a focus doesn't have to mean that the character will get the same item, or even one that's funtionally the same back. There's the approach I mentioned before of getting a replacement - obviously not always feasible. It's also possible the character may spend those points a different way. You can look at independent as a limitation of the points instead of the item. Points spent on an Independent item can be lost. Points spend on a focus that's not Independent won't be lost, but the GM doesn't have to feel obligated to allow the focus to be recovered or replaced by an identical one.

Once again, I understand your approach (and it wouldn't bother me if I were one of your players) but I think you're making it more limiting (from the GM's perspective) than it has to be.

Re: More Difficult Than Average

Buy 5er today and you ALSO get Long term END !

Oh you meant in the rules.