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

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) That could very well be. Bye Thanee

If you buy Nightvision and Enhanced Perception for Normal Sight (One Sense), do the two work together? Or is Nightvision considered its own Sense for that purpose? Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) I would have to check, but I don't think it raises the base damage in 6th edition. The only mentioning of such, I have seen, is Extra DCs for Martial Maneuvers, which add to the base damage for unarmed attacks only. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) The problem area is moved upwards, so to say. You are still able to outdo weapons with unarmed strikes in pure DCs, but those will rarely do much in terms of BODY damage, so the killing weapons have their place there, and with 2d6K for a dagger, it is damage that does hurt (as it should), at least against low amounts of armor (someone wearing platemail still all but ignores that kind of damage, most of the time). You need a good amount of training to get there, too. To break it, it requires A LOT of dedication (i.e. lots of Skill Levels, etc). So much, that it isn't really relevant anymore. Right now, a (to me) reasonable amount of training (like the example provided) already brings it out of bounds. That is, why I believe it is better. And make unarmed attacks as useless as daggers... moreso, because low HTH damage really does nothing against PD/rPD/REC. Killing damage at least has the chance to do the occasional BODY. I think this would only worsen the perceived (by me at least ) problem not better it. True enough. As said above, I think it is a good idea to move the point where this happens up and not down. Because, if the problem appears in a region that is not relevant, it is not really a problem. Of course. This might differ heavily between games. I'm going mostly by Heroic, and by the equipment listed in the book as a guideline for what is doable. That plus the average stats (BODY 10 is normal, BODY 15 is tough, etc). I agree with the High Fantasy. Normal daggers are simply obsolete (only used for cutting bread) in such a setting, and that is alright. But even with no resistant defenses at all, I don't see how 1d6+1K is enough to simulate the damage, a dagger can do. It takes a really lucky shot (Head of Vitals AND a high damage roll) to really do a good amount of damage. Even a 2d6K attack will not be lethal in a single attack, but closer to what I think is appropriate. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Yep, we also use those. Otherwise, it would be even worse. I havn't said anything about penetrating armor, AFAIK. Ok, let's look at the example I posted above. You are a skilled fighter (not outrageous, but good); you have STR 15, Martial Strike, +3 DCs with Martial Strike, and Weapon Elements Unarmed, and Swords & Daggers. Why should you ever use a Dagger over a simple Punch? Or change Martial Strike for Killing Strike. You do the same type of damage, just more of it, as long as you use your hands instead of the weapon. Obviously, the most simple solution would be to remove the x2 DC cap for real weapons, but having some limit there isn't a bad thing. It is just too low (for small weapons) in my opinion. Hence the idea of a flat modifier (Base +4 or maybe even Base +6 instead of Base x2), so you can use the "skill portion" of your damage in the same way, regardless of the weapon size, while the weapon size will still push the overall DC limit up or down. A Dagger (in the hands of a skilled fighter) would be able to do 2d6K then (with the +4 DC limit), which is about the level, where weapons start to really become lethal. The +4 DC is about the average of the available weapons (thereby reducing max damage a bit, overall; small weapons to a bit more, while the largest weapons do a bit less damage), while the +6 DC would be at the high end (keeping max damage about the same, with smaller weapons getting closer to it). Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Hugh, the problem with the knife or dagger is, that it is impossible to do more than 1d6+1K with it. 2 DC x2, that's it. This makes it completely redundant as a fighting weapon. Sure, swords are better than daggers, and they should be. But I think the difference is a bit too much. Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR)

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) I'm talking about skilled combatants, not random Joes from the local tavern brawl team. Knife 1d6+1K (maxed out) Fist 8d6 or more (i.e. STR 15, Martial Strike, +3 DC) Bye Thanee

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Thank you for your input! So, the best way to negate the DCV penalty for using a bow would be to learn a "Talent" (Naked Advantage or Naked Non-Disadvantage), that negates that penalty. I guess that would work. Bye Thanee P.S. The House Rule idea is not so much about capping excessive damage (though that's an added bonus as it removes the need for making campaign rules about how much damage one may deal with weapons), but to make smaller weapons more effective (as it stands, a knife or dagger is simply too ineffective as a weapon, and that is regardless of your skill; a punch with the fist is more dangerous) and to lower the spread between weapon types (while not negating it altogether... a greatsword still deals +4 DCs over a dagger, which is a significant difference; and you still need to invest into damage, to get to the maximum, because of the Str Min of weapons you do not end up there automatically).

Re: Two questions (DCV Penalty Skill Levels and ½ DCV // Killing Strike and high STR) Thank you! Well, it is under the assumption, of course, that the 2x Base DC rule for weapons is in effect, anyways. So a normal sword, which has 4 DCs won't get more than +4 DCs, anyways. A big sword, with 6 DCs would only get +4 DCs max instead of another +6 DCs, but a dagger with just 2 DCs would also get +4 DCs instead of just +2 DCs. Bye Thanee