Thanee

Re: Changes at Hero Sad news, indeed. My best wishes for the future of the HERO crew and those who have been working so hard for so many years now to provide us with endless hours of fun. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) I still don't know where you got that Plate Mail part from. And, as already stated above, I do not plan to build a Dagger-wielding character. I also don't think I have mentioned High Fantasy anywhere. You are making a lot of (false) assumptions here... Bye Thanee

Re: Nightvision and Enhanced Perception (Normal Sight) Almost... I meant: - +2 Enhanced Perception (with Normal Sight; one sense only) - Nightvision So, assuming the penalties are "just" -4. I would then have a net +2 PER, right? Ok. @torchwolf: So Nightvision isn't quite what it says (the text says you can see in total darkness, but apparantly, that is not the case?). Anyways, ignoring anything above the -4 penalty that Nightvision can cancel, then my example works as written? i.e. Nightvision and +4 PER with Nightvision (one sense only; not the whole sense group) gives +4 PER during the day and also during dusk/near darkness (anything up to -4 penalty, which is cancelled by Nightvision). Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) There wouldn't be any, we do not make changes that we do not all agree to. Yep. No big difference to how it works without that house rule, though. Only when you use, say, a greatsword, you have 2 more DCs before hitting the cap (assuming the flat +4). +6 is exactly what is doable right now, without any house rules, when you use a greatsword. With high STR, and/or some Extra DCs or CLs used to increase damage plus Offensive Strike / Haymaker, you could easily exceed that; wouldn't even require an outrageously specialized character to do so. How is that not an effective cap? The only difference is, that you are not forced to use the greatsword (or equivalent weapon) to get there. You are saying, that +4 is so low, that you hit the cap all the time, and it would feel overly restrictive, if I get you right. +6 is only 2 DCs difference from +4. Is that what is needed to go from "overly restrictive" to "could as well just use no cap"? Yes, it does. It is, basically, the whole idea. Just not in the way, that all weapons are the same (they are not), but that all weapons are viable choices (not only in highly specialized situations). 3 DCs is "little difference" in heroic games? That is a full d6 of killing damage. Might be just me, but I really don't see how "everyone uses greatswords" adds much to the flavor of the game. Yep, though I doubt a session will be enough to really see how it works out. Probably will have to play the whole next campaign that way, or something like that. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Sorry, Tasha, but that is just wrong. Does everyone in your campaigns only use greatswords? There is no "penalty" (as compared to not using that house rule) *at all*, unless you use a bastard sword (or equivalent weapon) or higher. And even then, Offensive Strike isn't enough to break that cap, you will need more damage adders beyond that. The maxed-out bastard sword, for example, loses 1 pip of damage in comparison to the official rules, that is all. On the contrary, it can be used with *any* weapon that way. It actually enables the effective use of this maneuver with a lot more weapons (anything smaller than a longsword, which is like one-half of the weapons table). The only penalty would be for the big, two-handed weapons, like the greatsword, which loses 2 DCs from its maximum damage, which definitely does lower its effectiveness a bit. That does not render it ineffective, though. It's still one of the most dangerous weapons out there. It will still defeat armor just fine. Besides, if +4 is seen as too low, as said above, one could easily just use +6 (which would "penalize" pretty much none of the weapons; only the greataxe comes to mind, which has 7 DCs, and maybe some weird stuff from HSMA). Bye Thanee

Re: Nightvision and Enhanced Perception (Normal Sight) Hmm? I don't see what is wrong there... Nightvision cancels the penalties for darkness, so wouldn't that mean, I do not have any penalties? And with +2 Enhanced Perception (for Normal Sight), the end result would be +2 PER during night & day. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) That is certainly true. However, I know enough people who would want to play such a character. They do not need to be the best, they are totally cool with being behind in combat, knowing that their concept is not an optimum choice. However, they do want to be significant still, and not neglectible, of course. And, weapons should have at least somewhat realistic results in a heroic campaign. Now this is obviously something that can be argued into any direction (i.e. what is a realistic result here), but I do think that the damage for daggers should be more than it is right now (assuming max 2x DC rule in effect), because even light armor makes them almost irrelevant. Heavy armor should do that, but the guy in leather armor should not be able to more or less ignore the threat of a dagger (wielded by a skilled opponent). I definitely agree with you here. I wrote something about that in one of my last posts, too. Ok. Yep. Agreed. This is actually how we play it (limited to +3 DCs, though). Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Is it really optional? Just looked at the STR Min description in 6E2, and it really does not sound very optional there, starting off with "Typically ...". It does include a GM option to allow higher damage, though, but then the weapon should suffer damage. That is a good idea and would have a similar effect to what I am proposing (except also allowing someone with high STR and high Skill to use both effectively with an appropriate weapon). It might be a bit much, though, as it gives you a lot more damage potential, than my house rule idea (which still keeps it limited). Just as an example, you could use a dagger with STR 16 to max out the 1d6+1, then add Haymaker to effectively double it, and that is even without any Maneuvers or Extra DCs bought (which could be even more effective, like Offensive Strike plus some Extra DCs). Bye Thanee

Re: [APGI] Temporarily Removing Limitations - "Naked Disadvantages" The specific power would be RKA in this case. The OIF is limiting it further (to work only with bows, not other RKAs). It would be like what 6E1 describes as "Group Naked Advantages" (just for a Disadvantage or Limitation, of course). Bye Thanee

Re: Nightvision and Enhanced Perception (Normal Sight) Ok, I think I understand it now... So, I have Normal Sight at +2 PER and Nightvision; during the day, I am at +2 PER, and during night, I am also at +2 PER (Nightvision cancelling out the penalties to my Normal Sight). If I have Normal Sight at normal (no Enhanced Perception) and Nightvision at +4 PER, I am at +4 PER all the time (because Nightvision is not restricted to only work during night/in darkness). Correct? Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) That's perfectly alright. I do not want to convert you. I just want to see, if there are some problems with the house rule idea, that I might not have seen so far. And for that I definitely do appreciate your input! I don't see any penalty for using a larger weapon, really. Even if using the lower +4 DC flat modifier, which DOES lower the largest weapons' damage a bit, there is still no penalty, because that would only happen if you compared the two options (flat vs. multipler) with the same weapon. But you only ever have one of those options, so that comparison is not possible. And comparing smaller weapons with larger weapons, the larger weapons still win out in damage output and armor pentration ability all the time. They are still superior, just not quite as much as in the official weapons writeup. On the contrary, if you want to play a knife-fighter (for example; I do not plan to do so, it is just an example) you won't feel left behind as much as you would do right now. You will still do less damage (as it should be), but not so much less, that your attacks feel like bee-stings compared to the sword-wielders. Absolutely, and I do not think this changes that reason in any way. That wouldn't happen, as the Greatsword would always win out in pure damage output. Assuming the +4 DC flat modifier: Dagger with STR 17 -> 1d6+1 Greatsword with STR 17 -> +1 OCV, 2d6 Dagger with STR 50 -> 2d6 Greatsword with STR 50 -> +1 OCV, 3d6+1 With +6 DC flat modifier: Dagger with STR 17 -> 1d6+1 Greatsword with STR 17 -> +1 OCV, 2d6 Dagger with STR 50 -> 2½d6 Greatsword with STR 50 -> +1 OCV, 4d6 Bye Thanee

Re: [APGI] Temporarily Removing Limitations - "Naked Disadvantages" That OIF is taken pretty much directly from how Fantasy HERO presents such talents (with Naked Advantages, like Rapid Archery -> Autofire for using bows). Bye Thanee

In another thread here I asked about ways to remove the ½ DCV from missile weapons (i.e. bows). After looking at the APGI option of Temporarily Removing Limitations (pg. 142), which has been mentioned in the other thread, this does seem close, though it seems to be rather specific (at least the way it is used there). Would the following be fine in your opinion (closer to a "Naked Disadvantage")? Talent: Nimble Archer Remove Concentration (½ DCV) from up to 2d6 RKA (10 Active Points); OIF (Bow and Arrows of Opportunity) -½; Real Cost: 7. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) I'm not saying that, no. I'm saying, that I think they do too little damage in general. Concealability is fine, of course, but when a fist strike is more dangerous, then why even carry a dagger, when not carrying one does not make you any less armed AND even less suspicious (though there might be situations, where not carrying a dagger is actually more suspicious ). I'm saying that (unless you use Deadly Blow / Weapon Master as base damage; but that does seem to be a house rule; not that I have a problem with house rules per se, my idea for one is what actually spawned this discussion ), it is basically not possible to even be better skilled with a dagger than a common thug. Though, I do not really have a problem with the 2 DCs the dagger gets. I don't like the implications of the x2 DC cap, because it depends on the weapon's size (pretty much) how much of your weapon skill you can bring to bear. When using a dagger (2 DCs), I can only add 2 DCs. When using a longsword (4 DCs), I can add 4 DCs. Isn't it enough, that the weapon itself is already doing less damage, does it also need to cap what your maneuvers, etc. can add to it? That is why I came up with the flat modifier instead of multiplier idea. Bye Thanee

Re: Nightvision and Enhanced Perception (Normal Sight) Ok, forget it... stupid question! It actually lists Nightvision under the Sense Group, so it certainly would count as its own Sense, obviously. Bye Thanee