Jump to content

Chris Goodwin

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    5,070
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Chris Goodwin

  1. Just to get terminology settled: Combined Attack is what in 5th edition was called Multiple Power Attack, where you can "stack" multiple Powers into a single attack, based on the idea that you can activate any number of Powers at once, even if those are attack powers, and throw them with one attack roll. Multiple Attack is now the umbrella term for what in previous editions was Multiple Move-By, Sweep, Rapid Fire, and so on, plus Combined Attack. In 6th edition, they're both under the Multiple Attack umbrella. Notable features about this are: It has a yellow warning symbol The GM can feel free to limit it to 2-3 attacks "The GM can forbid any use of Multiple Attack if he feels the proposed attack defies common or dramatic sense, would cause game balance problems, involves incompatible Power Modifiers or special effects, or the like." (6e2 p. 73) "The GM may rule that characters cannot use Multiple Attack with some powers or weapons — such as slings, crossbows, and some spells." (6e2 p. 75) Combined Attack stacks multiple Powers into a single attack against a single target with single Attack Roll. It specifies that a Multiple Attack can be made with a Combined Attack at the usual penalties for doing so. It's 6e2 pages 73-78, for the full section.
  2. In that case, why do we bother with Mental Combat Value at all? We could just have everyone buy OCV and DCV, with "only vs." or "not vs." Mental Powers, as appropriate. OCV and DCV represent nothing more than a character's ability to fight in the physical realm: weapons, fists, non-Mental Powers. MCV represents a character's ability to fight with and against Mental Powers. Arcane Combat Value should therefore represent a character's ability to fight with and against magic. We don't tie OCV and DCV to DEX in 6th edition, and we don't tie MCV to EGO. We can now apply whatever special effects to those that we want, and the GM will accept. My fighter type can have high DEX and high OCV, or high STR, moderate to low DEX, and high OCV. We can likewise have characters with high EGO and unmodified or reduced OMCV and DMCV, or low EGO and high MCV. What does ACV represent? A character's ability to fight with and against magic, nothing more and nothing less.
  3. You don't need to take RSR for Power Skill to be useful. Even though it's innate, training probably helps elves learn new things they can do with it. So I'd use Power Skill there as well.
  4. To whom do I need to justify it? My players? If I'm the GM and tell them that for this fantasy game I'm running, all spells use Mystical Combat Value, while all weapons, hand-to-hand, and special abilities use Combat Value... they'll say "Okay," and write their characters accordingly. I mean, all the justification I need is "I'm the GM and this is the game I want to run."
  5. All right. What if, instead of physically aiming a fireball, I use the Law of Contagion, using a hair from the victim's head to target it?
  6. The very one! It's written up as if it were a GM and two players at the table, in the format that we all know and love. "GM: There are bank robbers here and here, and Ogre is right here. Where are you guys at? Player 1: I'm over here, while..." et cetera. 3e doesn't include that bit; the programmed bank robbery scenario has Pulsar and VIPER as the antagonists rather than Ogre. Ah! The 3e perfect bound non-boxed book also didn't include the Rose's map. In fact, I've seen physical paper copies of it but have no idea where it first appeared.
  7. I'd probably assume the rider stayed on the mount unless the mount chose that time to actively try to remove the rider, or unless the attack that hit the rider did Knockback or was part of an attack specifically to "unhorse" them.
  8. There were a few minor rules changes, which I think were even called out in 3e. Growth, Shrinking, and Density Increase were tweaked some. Elemental Controls changed as well, and I had to double check that one. Nothing really substantive though, and I don't think anyone in my circles used ECs enough that that difference was particularly bothersome. And Duke, you're not going to believe this, but I actually did double check for this one as well. 2e shows the sample bank robbery scenario in a "let's play" format, while 3e includes a similar but not identical bank robbery scenario in a "programmed adventure" format. The 3e corebook I have includes the Viper's Nest scenario as part of it, but I'm given to understand that the 3e boxed set included them as separate books? That's a slight gap in my otherwise encyclopedic "differences between editions" knowledge.
  9. I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "Please accept my apologies for writing such a long letter; I did not have time to write a short one."
  10. I'm not a wizard, so I don't know... In 6th edition, we've divorced CV and MCV from their former parent Characteristics, so we can kind of use special effects to represent them. For instance, we could translate D&D fighter types by giving them bonus OCV, Melee Only (-1), representing using their Strength to power through their target's defenses. Shouldn't a highly skilled and powerful wizard be reliant not on their frail, rickety, low-DEX body, but on their INT, EGO, and great knowledge of and connection to the mystical sphere? That's what Arcane Combat Value represents. So, the answer to your question is "That's up to the player's SFX or the GM's magic system."
  11. Amorcka, are you planning to write a large wall of text, or are you basing that on experience reading Duke's and my postings about the pre-4th edition period?
  12. In one magic system I've renamed MCV to "Mystical Combat Value". It doesn't change anything about the mechanics or which powers use it to target, just the name and special effect. It represents the caster's ability to target spells that aren't based on physical dexterity, but on their mystical abilities. If I were to use it in a pre-6th edition game, I'd probably replace ECV with it, or base it on another stat (maybe OMCV is INT/3 and DMCV is EGO/3). Edit: I typed the above before rereading the previous posts on the thread. Wheel, reinvented. You could also do it as Combat Skill Levels with magic, that represent the caster's mystical offensive abilities, and add to their OCV or OMCV regardless of what the "M" represents. Edit edit: It looks like this thread was bumped by a spammer. It was a pretty worthy thread to have bumped, though.
  13. Cart before the horse, but yes. Multiple move-by, sweep, rapid fire, mecha gangfire, then 4th edition. Edit: Dang it, I keep seeing this thread pop up and thinking it's for me.
  14. The graphic at the bottom of the first post on this thread is the logo. You should be able to save it from here.
  15. Here is a version that another person on the SJ Games boards made (link goes to the BoardGameGeek page for the file). Pretty similar to mine, and it gives you the gist. Here is a pic of a card from my set. My son is on my computer at the moment so I can't get to the full file.
  16. Hi Steve, got a question. If I have a number of Skill Levels (Combat, Overall, or otherwise) that may apply to both OCV and DCV, and... ...for example in Segment 3, during my Phase I attack, with those levels allocated to OCV... ...and then in Segment 4 I am attacked, and decide to Abort to a defensive action (let's say Dodge for the sake of argument)... The question is, may I take those levels that were allocated to OCV during my Phase in Segment 3, and during my Abort to Dodge in Segment 4, allocate them to DCV as part of my defensive action (assuming they're applicable)? (I'm looking at the list of actions on 6e2 p. 23, and it doesn't explicitly say there that levels that were previously allocated to OCV may be reallocated to DCV, which is about the only reason I'm asking.)
  17. There are a few settings you need to make in your DTRPG account that give you access to the community content program, and those might be prerequisites to downloading the logo from there. But if you ask Jason he'll most likely both give you access to the material outside of DTRPG, and tell you what settings to set in your account.
  18. I don't know if I ever shared it publicly. I'll poke around and see if I can find it.
  19. I made up a play aid to make old school Car Wars run a lot faster. In a six player game, with four noobs and two rusty old farts, we got through a complete arena duel in about two and a half hours. It shocked me how well that made it go.
  20. The whole section it's in (Multiple Attack, 6e2 p. 73) has a yellow warning sign by it. So it's at the very least up to the GM whether to allow or not.
  21. :: thinking about rules debates on the Hero boards... ::
  22. Combined Attack is what used to be "partially Limited Power" like the paragraph in Champions III about Flare combining her 10d6 Blast with a 4d6 Blast at 2x END and 4d6 Flash. And it's meant to be used against one target. Multiple Attack is the Sweep (from FH1), Double Shot (from DI) and Gangfire (from RW), all rolled into one, and can be used against multiple targets. (Edit: Champions III p. 25, and it wasn't Flare; I was misremembering something else. But the idea is sound, and that's pretty much the origin. FH1 and DI had those as optional maneuvers a character could buy, and in RW that was part of being a robot pilot.)
  23. Combined Attack is piling a bunch of powers together into one attack. Multiple Attack is when Jackie Chan wades through a horde of mooks and hits each one three or four times.
  24. I'm out of reactions for the day. Someone tag Duke for me!
  25. It seemed to me that you were saying that GM fiat was a bad thing; it's hard to get tone sometimes in written communication. Sure, a GM judgement call is GM fiat, and that's not a bad thing. It seemed to me that you were looking for something other than GM fiat as a resolution to the problem. I want that too! I also don't like insults and edition wars! To be honest, I don't really believe in editions anymore. First edition and sixth edition are compatible enough and similar enough that I see them as one big ruleset with a whole lot of options; one "edition" is a rules snapshot and a set of options in use. I'm also not generally one to recommend an edition change; if people are happy with the edition they're playing, why change? I love 3rd myself, but have been playing 6th a lot lately. I'm further hesitant to recommend a different edition because I don't know what materials people have or are willing and able to get.
×
×
  • Create New...