Chris Goodwin

A mage can also use that sword...

The Discord does have links to here as well as the various subreddits for Hero discussion.

The Discord is:

https://discord.gg/HcUJvJH

1 hour ago, Grailknight said:

This topic made me realize that we don't even have a Discord invite link on these boards or vice versa.

Here's the Discord:

https://discord.gg/HcUJvJH

36 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

 

Hero's best resource is its community, both the Discord and these boards, but that's not how new players are introduced to the game. Without a wider circulation of the printed source material, newbies don't have easy access to those examples to learn from. The source material itself isn't inadequate, it's just not commonly available. There's nothing but word of mouth out there to attract newbies. This topic made me realize that we don't even have a Discord invite link on these boards or vice versa.

You're right in that there's nothing but word of mouth out there, but that word of "mouth" is now spread electronically. 

I feel comfortable saying that there is no person getting into the HERO System who doesn't have access to either an experienced player -- otherwise whose mouth is the "word of" coming from? -- or the Internet in some way.  I'm happy to be proven wrong. 

And any person creating a character intended for actual play in a game is going to have a GM who is going to look their characters over, check their stats for viability and whether they meet the campaign guidelines, and advise them where they don't. 
 

And if they do?  If they happen to create a character that somehow slips through? 

The world dies in nuclear fire --

No, it does not.  Nor does the patient die on the table.  Nor do the Gaming Police show up and haul everyone away to Gaming Prison. 

We admit that we made a mistake, and we fix it. 

My first two Champions characters were made using just the rulebook, without reference to a GM or an existing game.  I'm fairly certain they weren't viable in play, mainly because I didn't have a clue where the stats, including the Figured Characteristics, came in relative to any particular set of campaign guidelines.  In my defense, they weren't intended to be; they were me playing with the character creation mechanics in order to learn them.  (I'm pretty sure Feline came to about 180 total points -- this was third edition).  I showed them to my friend, who by then had been playing Champions for a couple of years, and he told me -- nicely, in case anyone was wondering -- why they wouldn't be viable.  My third character was as viable as a character could be that was created using only the third edition corebook and none of the supplements, which everyone else in the group had...

Figured Characteristics aren't an automatic protection from non viable characters, nor do they allow you to disclaim decision making for each one.  (Unless you've gone full Goodman School of Character Efficiency, and have built your characters with way-out-of-any-coherent-concept levels of STR, DEX, and CON, but if you're that person then nothing in any part of this discussion applies to you.)  You're still looking at them to decide whether the 8 base ED from your 38 CON is enough or whether you need more. 

I'll tell you what eliminating Figured Characteristics did do: it made it so that we don't need 28 DEX or 38 CON to hit the minmax breakpoints on CV's or Figured Characteristics, which means we build to concept rather than arms race, with housewives or grad students gaining energy powers and 25 STR and 23 DEX.  SPD 4 and DEX 15 are viable in play in a 375 point Champions game. 

8 hours ago, Grailknight said:

Many of us older players who've been doing this since First Edition do this as second nature. I've got 40+ years of Hero to draw on and I think you have similar experience. I can do Hero without a book. But it doesn't come naturally to newer players, it has to be learned.

True.  But...

6e2 has a number of pregen characters in the HERO System Genre By Genre section.  6e1 has multiple sets of Characteristics guidelines by power levels on pages 35 and 48.  And then there's us, here at the boards and on the Discord server. 

And there's a ton more information available in the other supporting books. Champions, Fantasy Hero, Star Hero for 6th edition alone.  Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete.

A person new to 5th edition is going to be in exactly the same place as a person new to 6th edition with respect to expectations of where stats should be.  In this regard, reducing the amount of math by eliminating Figured Characteristics is reducing the mental load.  I can't comprehend how the opposite could be true.

There's even more simplicity in just buying the DEX, CON, and SPD you want, and then just buying the OCV, DCV, ED, REC, and END (edit: and STUN) you want. 

For the life of me I can't figure out how this could possibly be an increased mental load. 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

 

We've talked about this pretty extensively, and you'll get quite a few people who don't agree...at least, making a good character.  Yeah, OK, you probably buy DEX to the OCV and DCV you want, but SPD is still separate, and things like defenses, REC, END, and STUN...well, you might just take what figured gave ya, but that didn't mean it was any good.

 

I'll buy that keeping SPDs down, the figured characteristics could well be at least close to solid values.

Most people bought SPD up rather than let the "wasted" decimal value languish.  You were leaving money on the table if you didn't. 

That aside, I would posit that, for instance, the mental load involved in minmaxing your CON alone to the point that the effort needed to figure out the return on saved points in ED, REC, END, and STUN, having been completely eliminated, results in a net reduction in mental load. 

In what possible way does the elimination of Figured Characteristics result in an increased mental load, especially in light of the above?  I'm listening.

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

While I understand some of the advantages of getting rid of Derived Characteristics, it drastically increased the mental load needed to make a simple character.

In what way?  It reduces at least a dozen arithmetical operations. 

Weirdly, the things we consistently have to look up are Grabs and Multiple Attack/Combined Attack.  Those are pretty much the only reasons we crack the books open at the table.

I think that if anything it's gotten less complicated since, say, third edition.  Mainly from capping Disadplications, changing the way END costs were figured and modified, having more powers (so you wouldn't have to go down rabbit holes to create certain effects) and in 6e, eliminating Figured Characteristics. 

YMMV on whether anyone in particular agrees with or likes the changes, but they're less complicated than they used to be.  (And I'll note that back in the 80's we didn't have software for building characters with; we had to scrawl them out on cave walls by lamplight from a lamp made out of a rock and animal fat.)

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

In Star Fleet Battles, there's a trick the Romulan plasma weapons can use, called enveloping.  It does lesser damage, but to ALL shields, so if one's down?  Uh oh.  Some of these are that type...they're searching out weak points and breaching through them.  The attacks you've noted are similar to this.  The insect swarm, the stream of sand...those might be stopped by Impermeable, rather than Impenetrable.

This is good, I think is exactly what I was looking for. 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

I don't really think this is Penetrating, but I will grant, it fits the mechanics we have better.  Slug to the chest can kill you from the shock of impact, even if the armor isn't breached.  

I would postulate that this is an effect of the Real Armor Limitation.  But I'm not sure exactly how you'd represent that.  Most likely a combination of things: a critical hit by the attacker, a Physical Complication: bum ticker on the part of the target, and perhaps some Unluck coming into play. 

And enough damage for the Penetrating being enough to kill the target would have already overwhelmed the armor. 

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Hmm... interesting question.

 

Off the top of my head: Being set on fire. Doused in acid. Bitten by an insect swarm. Blasted with a stream of sand. Crushed by extreme pressure. A volley of armor-piercing flechettes. Yes, there are other ways to build those things mechanically in HERO, but IMHO they can all represent small amounts of damage getting past Defenses not tailored to counter them, especially if they're Constant attacks.

All of these things, though... if a character had enough defenses to bounce all of the damage from those things, then should any of the damage still get through? 

LL, you've given me a lot of good SFX for "damage" but nothing that is specifically "damage that should leak through defenses that are otherwise high enough to bounce all of it".  Or alternatively, some of those could be SFX for Drains, particularly being doused in acid or sandblasted.  All of the things you mention are certainly SFX for attacks that should get damage through to characters without enough DEF to fully resist them -- perhaps that's one of those obvious things that need not be mentioned? 

You've also given me at least one thing to think about, namely that I should have been more specific in my original ask, about characters with high defenses. 

On 10/29/2023 at 3:08 PM, unclevlad said:

I'm leaning to just saying...heck with it.  Throw Penetrating out.  I don't think there's any big loss;  how much do any of us *use* it?  Combine that witht he editing issues...ta-ta!!!

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't best. 

For pretty much every other advantage there's an easy SFX description.  But I can't think of one for Penetrating. 

Can we point at comic book characters with Penetrating attacks?  Fantasy monsters or spells?  Science fiction weapons? 

The mechanical usage for it is spelled out in the advantage description.  "The player wants an attack that always gets some damage through..."  What's the SFX justification for that?  (I'm not asking for a description of an attack that has Penetrating; I'm asking, what it is about that attack that "always gets some damage through"?)

Thank you all.  ❤️

It both was and wasn't sudden.  She was diabetic, and we'd been caring for her on as close to a clockwork schedule as we could manage.  Insulin at 7am and 7pm, always with food.  She had a vet visit on Friday to update her shots and get her blood sugar checked, and it was as good as they'd ever seen it.  On Saturday she was like her old self, happy and all over the house with us, where for most of the past couple of years she acted much like a little old lady shut-in.  Then... behind a spoiler for whoever doesn't want to read the details. 

We were all with her right at the end, loving on her and petting her and talking to her and crying. 

We knew it was coming, but you're never really ready for it, you know?

Thank you.

We had to say goodbye to our cat tonight.  We're all pretty wrecked.

2008 - October 22, 2023.  ❤️

20 hours ago, Gauntlet said:

You might want to think about picking up the original Robot Warriors for 3rd Edition along with the upgrade they put out for Robot Warriors for the 6th edition called Robot Warriors to HERO System Current Editions that is on DriveThruRPG.

As the guy who wrote the update I encourage you to pick up both of these.  🙂

On 10/15/2023 at 1:35 PM, m.mavnn said:

Interesting! I started with 4th and so missed Robot Warriors. How did it deal with multiple sized combatents in the same fight?

I'm sort of the Robot Warriors expert.  🙂

Robot Warriors used two concepts: Size Class, which wasn't quite the same as a vehicle's Size stat, and Ground Scale.  Ground Scale was used for setting the size of one hex on the map, and the Ground Scale of a map was suggested to be set to be equal to the Size Class of the majority of the combatants. 

For reference, a standard human is considered to be Size Class 1, and Ground Scale 1 uses 2 meter hexes.  Every three doublings of mass (or three levels of vehicle Size) is +1 Size Class, while every +1 Ground Scale doubles the size of one hex. 

To use it in play, set the initial Range Modifier increment in meters based on the target's Size Class, and convert it to hexes at the Ground Scale you're using.  If you're in the same hex (regardless of Ground Scale) as your target, you're at -0 to RMod regardless of size difference. 

As an example, if you're using "standard" Robot Warriors mecha (25 to 199.9 ton), Size Class would be 4, with a first range increment of 64 meters.  At Ground Scale 4 hexes (16 meters), the initial range increment becomes 4 hexes.  If the mecha is shooting at a human (Size Class 1, initial range increment 8m) on the Ground Scale 4 battlefield, the mecha has to be in the same 16m hex in order to not be at a range penalty at all.  If the human is shooting back at the mecha (Size Class 4, initial range increment 64m), they're shooting with a -0 RMod out to four Ground Scale 4 16m hexes. 

I hope my explanation makes sense.  Here is a document I've written setting out all of the above with nicely formatted tables.  I hope it's helpful!

Without using any Movement Skill Levels, the standard acceleration for Movement Powers is +5 meters per Phase for every meter the character has available to move through (6e2 p. 25). 

Applying Movement Skill Levels increases the amount of acceleration per meter.  One skill level would increase acceleration to +6 meters per meter moved through, two skill levels would increase it to +7 meters per meter, and so on.

There was an additional Adjustment Power introduced in the Champions III supplement (not third edition Champions!) for first-gen, namely Power Destruction.  It was essentially Power Drain with a longer recovery, specifically that points were recovered at the same rate as BODY, and explicitly specifying that Regeneration helped recover Destroyed (Destructed?) points. 

(Champions III also included the rule that Adjustment Powers used against defensive abilities had their effectiveness halved.  It didn't call them Adjustment Powers, but it specified all of them, so.)

Edit to add:  I forgot to mention that Healing existed in Champions III as well, though neither it nor Power Destruction specified that Healing worked on it.  And also, Fantasy Hero 1e had the Restore spell effect, which was almost-but-not-quite the Can Heal Impaired/Disabling/Limbs adder, and it specified that it also worked against Destroyed Characteristics.  Same deal as with Healing, in that it was non-cumulative, so you'd need a bigger Restore for subsequent uses.  It didn't specify per wound, though I'd have used it like that, and the per-day reset time for Healing wasn't a thing then either, but I'd have included it with Restore if it were.  And!  Interesting bit of trivia that I think went unnoticed, by me at least, for almost 40 years.  Restore mentions the Time Chart!  I'm not sure where it was included in FH 1E, I'd guess probably in the section under Impairing and Disabling Wounds given that Restore mentions it.  (A quick look confirms this; FH 1E p. 83 has a d6 time chart for how long an Impairment lasts.)

You would have to specify which Blast you're targeting.  See 6e1 p. 135 for more information.

On 10/4/2023 at 4:34 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

I remember Blazing Away! The description noted that, while it was not effective at hitting targets, it counted as an extremely violent action for, IIRC, +4d6 to a PRE attack.

I didn't remember this thread, though

I think I came up with the Blazing Away plus 1 Billion Charges on an AoE attack, so you get to take advantage of the scatter. 

20 hours ago, Cloppy Clip said:

Thank you LoneWolf, and I'm reassured you agree that this way of rolling is more limiting, if anything, than the usual way to use a VPP. While we're throwing ideas around, would forcing Trigger to be bought on every power work as a slightly-cheaper alternative to buying the VPP as a zero-phase action? I'm trying to get a sense of the different options, and want to make sense of what generally works (Zero-phase Advantage) and what doesn't (Linked Limitation).

I think Delayed Effect would probably suit your needs better than Trigger. 

41 minutes ago, Doc Democracy said:

 

Well, if that entity is living and breathing and essentially a mortal extension of a supernatural manifestation of evil, and work to bring evil to the world, then I am comfortable that I am slaying an evil creature.

 

This is not a simulation of any reality, it is a fantastical representation of mythic archetypes.  Usually the protagonists are indeed teams, working towards their own individual destinies for the world.  Usually one of those teams is good as that destiny aims at more happiness and kindness in the world.  The other team is evil as it aims at pain and suffering.  Those labels of good and evil are a bleed over from our own existence, we know what we like and the things we like are good.

 

While the hackneyed high fantasy long-since wore thin, I also weary of the multi-hued or shades of grey grimdark ambiguity.  I like heroic fantasy.  I like to see principled people fighting for common good and if that requires dark evil antagonists as a stark contrast, I am quite comfortable with that.

 

What I am really against is any suggestion that a paticular style of gaming, literature or myth-making is BadWrongFun and should be deprecated.  As long as everyone involved is bought in and enjoying themselves then it is fine and good.  I think that if someone's game relies on evil bad guys that are guaranteed bad and guaranteed to do the wrong thing, and the players are on the same page, then being able to attack, oppose and kill those evil opponents without shedding too many tears is fine.

Fortunately for you, there are thousands upon thousands of games, settings for games, and stories that cater to your tastes in them. 

4 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah but that presumes a certain system.  Other ethical systems would disagree.  Some would argue that evil is an innate character, and that evil consists of more than destruction or threat to life, for example.  Back years ago (when D&D was first written down, for example) the west had a basic shared ethic on morality, from the Judeo-Christian heritage.  That made it easier to define good and evil based on people's presuppositions and cultural understanding.

I haven't called myself a Christian in almost 40 years, and I'm certainly no expert on the Bible, but it's my understanding that the idea of free will and choice to perform evil acts or not is pretty central to Christianity?  I have a vague memory of a garden and a fruit that popular culture seems to think is an apple...

I don't subscribe to "I know it when I see it," but there are certain acts that as far as I'm aware, every known culture on Earth throughout history has universally decided are evil, and I mentioned those in my early post on the thread.  Coincidentally or not, the Bible seems to agree with the ones I mentioned (though as I said I'm no expert). 

If a... person, entity, whatever we're talking about, doesn't have a choice, then how can it be evil?  A virus is not evil, despite how much death and destruction it causes.  It's a thing that needs to be stopped, but it has no motivation, no morality.  That doesn't mean we leave it alone to do its thing!  It just means it's not part of a crusade against evil to stop it. 

If an entity is constructed to be destructive or harmful, and itself has no capacity to choose otherwise, how can it be evil?  It can be an extension of an evil creator, and it might need to be stopped -- and can certainly be an acceptable "wholesale slaughter" target -- but evil, in and of itself?

And I don't really care for "crusade against evil" stories.  Don't have a history of it in the fantasy works I started with and enjoy.  I invariably fail to finish them when I attempt to read them.