Jump to content

rravenwood

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    120
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rravenwood

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Here you go: 1st edition 2nd edition 3rd edition
  2. Caveat: I'm not trying to "win" any debates or "prove" myself right or anyone else wrong. I'm genuinely curious, in case I've forgotten or just plain overlooked something. My recollection is that essentially nothing in Champs II was incorporated into 3rd edition. Is my memory that bad? 3rd did incorporate a couple clarifications first presented in Champs III, but otherwise largely ignored the material in that book too. My own take on 3rd (and I'm quite happy to agree that other views may be equally valid) is that it was an opportunity to a) make the core game look better - in line with the steady evolution in graphic design and layout demonstrated with each new release from at least Justice Inc. up to that point - b) make the core rules more "user-friendly" (as Aaron Allston described it in an issue of Adventurers Club), and c) polish some rough edges off the core rules, as opposed to a major reworking a la what happened with 4th edition. I don't believe it was ever intended to substantially incorporate any of the "optional" material presented in Champs II or III.
  3. Indulging my casual interest in game history minutiae, my belief is that Champions III is a 2e book for two reasons: 1) in the Character Generator, both Growth and Shrinking are presented using 2e rules and not the revised 3e versions; 2) in the text for the new Teleportation Against Others advantage, it mentions that "Teleportation, like all movement powers, uses 1 END for every 5" the character moves. Moving extra characters, multiples of distance, or using Teleport against others does not cost extra END", which puts it clearly on the 2e side of the divide; under 3e Teleport is stated to cost "1 END for every 5 Power Points in Teleport (unlike other movement powers)." Now back to your regularly scheduled house rules.
  4. I don't think that counts as an official nomination for either album, so I will go ahead and nominate "Hemispheres" (although it's REALLY hard not to also nominate "A Farewell to Kings").
  5. Rush was a huge part of my musical life starting from when I first heard them as a young teenager... This is just devastating news. RIP Neil. "The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect"
  6. A lot of good suggestions in this thread - to me, it comes down to the question of: In your game, since elves don't need a skill roll for regular spells, should they require a Skill in order to perform cantrips? If your answer is no, then just consider it a kind of custom Talent or Perk with a cost that seems appropriate to the level of actual utility you anticipate allowing it to have (3 pts, 5 pts, etc.). If your answer is yes, elven cantrips should require a Skill, then just go with Power Skill - Chris Goodwin in particular pointed out some other possible applications of it beyond "power stunt" cantrips.
  7. I'm pretty sure Piercing was first introduced back in Champions III in the 2e/3e days. I don't believe it made the cut into the core 4e rules.
  8. I think Gnome has brought up a point that hasn't been emphasized enough in this particular discussion (not saying it hasn't previously been brought up, I'm just not going back through all the older posts to find examples to quote...): As always, GMs have to consider whether or not any particular character build fits within the guidelines/parameters of their campaign, which in this case includes spotting builds that could make abusive use of Combined Attacks. I'm not arguing for or against caps in this thread, but just for the sake of example, if I have a 60 AP cap on attacks for beginning characters in my game, I would need to carefully review a character capable of using both a 12d6 Blast and a 5d6 Flash as a Combined Attack - to even consider allowing it, there would have to be some kind of mitigating Limitation(s) that would disincent casual usage of such a Combined Attack (for a couple random examples, the Flash could have 1 charge/day, or x5 END, etc.). Secondly, the Multiple Attack section of the rules (which contains the separate Combined Attack rules - I agree that this placement was unfortunate) is flagged with a big yellow warning symbol, which I suppose lends even greater weight to any particular GM's decision not to use some or all of the rules within that section. As I mentioned in my previous post, the Combined Attack rules was a bit of a shock when coming to 6E from the older editions, where we had to take approaches such as Reduced Penetration to represent two tiger claws simultaneously raking a victim (or Speed limited to certain attack actions only [if the absolute simultaneity of the attacks wasn't necessary], or even just a bigger attack than would seem to be called for - with an SFX such as "claw-claw-bite" justifying the quantity of dice purchased), so I can certainly see that might be too great a bridge to cross for some - and absolutely no disparagement intended in that statement! Everyone has their own preferences, is all. Can we all sing "Kumbaya" now?
  9. Reading the 6th edition rules with prior experience only from 2nd through 4th editions, the Multiple Attack rules were one of the major bogglement moments for me too. The key distinction between "Combined Attacks" and "Multiple Attacks" - as far as I understand it, which might be mistaken - is that a Combined Attack requires the following: Character has multiple powers which are not otherwise precluded from being used simultaneously (e.g., Linked limitation, separate slots in a Multipower where the reserve isn't large enough to "fire" them at the same time, a single power requires multiple hands [so two guns/swords/whatever couldn't be used together], etc.) Combined attack is made once in the attacker's phase against a single target The Two Weapon Fighting skill applies to Multiple Attacks, eliminating the first -2 OCV penalty, not Combined Attacks. So for the book example of the robot with a blaster in one hand and a laser in the other, Two Weapon Fighting is inapplicable if the robot makes a Combined Attack with both weapons against a single target. If the robot decides to attack multiple surrounding foes (to choose just one possible example), then it becomes subject to the Multiple Attack modifiers and could then benefit from having Two Weapon Fighting (assuming, for the sake of this example, the GM ruled that it was applicable [1]). Two Weapon Fighting allows a character to be more successful at Multiple Attacks, and so is useful when doing things (as I believe Chris Goodwin mentioned above) like old-edition Sweep and Double-Fire maneuvers. Again, AFAIK it has no bearing on or use with Combined Attacks. To me, this is specifically referring to the modifiers/requirements for performing Multiple Attacks. It doesn't preclude characters being penalized with an off-hand penalty, for example, if the game is using that rule. In such a game, if a character with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other attacks a single opponent with both, the single Combined Attack attack roll would (in my opinion) suffer from any off-hand penalty incurred by the weapon wielded in the attacker's off hand. In this specific case, the increased chance of missing with both sword & dagger (the Combined Attack) would have to be weighed by the attacker against the potential benefit of both attacks being inflicted upon the target in a single attack action. As far as characters with Ambidexterity, either that resolves any perceived "problem" with dual-wielding characters making constant Combined Attacks (because they've paid points to offset the off-hand penalty, and should therefore be able to enjoy some benefit from that), or the GM can - if they really want to discourage it - set a campaign rule that characters still need something like Two Weapon Fighting in order to make a dual-wielding Combined Attack. [1] Two Weapon Fighting does state that "Unless the GM permits it, characters cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed HTH Combat attacks, innate powers like Blast, and so on. As the Skill’s name indicates, it’s generally intended for use with weapons, not personal powers or abilities." (6e1 93) - weapons built into its hands could be seen as "personal powers" for such a robot.
  10. Just for the purpose of setting the historical record straight - absolutely no disrespect intended! - the negative BODY rule has been around since 1st edition (p.34, "Effects of Damage"): "A character whose Body Pip total has been reduced to 0 or below will die. Death is not immediate, and the character may survive if he can get medical aid. Every turn at the post segment 12 Recovery, all characters with 0 or negative BODY totals lose and additional BODY. If a character has ever lost twice his total BODY then he is considered dead." The paragraph that follows gives an example explaining that a 10 BODY character will be dead upon reaching -10 BODY. Was "dead at 0 BODY" a house rule, maybe?
  11. Hi Duke, I very well may have owned this once, but that was long ago and my memory just isn't THAT good. Having said that, take a look at https://www.rpggeek.com/rpgitem/67115/gamemasters-screen-champions-2nd-edition - it has a picture of the "cover" of the screen showing the same "2nd Edition" splash and the "HER005" stock number. It also references that it was made up of two 2-panel sections. I also have a couple other info sources: one is an old web page from the Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/web/20120413095739/http://www.sysabend.org/champions/HERO_System_Products_List.html) where if you scroll down a ways to the section for the original Hero Games stuff, it lists both 1st & 2nd edition versions of the GM screen as stock # 005. The entry for the 2nd edition screen does mention "Revised Edition" rather than "2nd Edition" which both yours and the image at the link above show, but that may very well be a mistake. The other info source isn't something I can give a link for, but there's a capsule review of the product in issue #51 of Space Gamer magazine (written by Aaron Allston) that mentions that the screen is 'two 17" x 11" screens folded in half'. (For the curious, Aaron's conclusion of this 4-paragraph review is "GMs who really want a good-looking cardstock screen should pick this up; misers (like me) will improvise.") That certainly doesn't address any of your observations about the print job, but it DOES seem like the form factor and details are right, at least. If it is a knockoff, then it at least seems to be a well-made one...?
  12. Tying these two thoughts together, what about a laminated card divided into halves by a line down the middle, with one half labeled "OCV" and the other half "DCV", and then each player could write down their current modifiers in the appropriate section? When they reach their next phase and their modifiers change, they can erase and rewrite. Eventually the players would (hopefully) get better at keeping this information in their heads and no longer need the card, but it might help out in the beginning. That said, I have to ask: what sort of laminated playing aids have you put into use? (Inquiring minds want to know )
  13. Only speaking for myself, of course, but the relative lack of response may mostly just be due the volume of what you're posting - I just hadn't had the time to give it even a portion of the attention it deserved until yesterday. As far as constructive criticism goes, well - honestly nothing has jumped out at me that screams for attention. Certainly - if it were to be submitted for publication - it would need some formatting/layout work and the correction of a few minor typos here and there, but in terms of actual content and/or story structure I would really need to read through it all against a second or even third time before I felt like I might be able to offer valid editorial feedback. It's a hell of a lot better than I could do, that's for sure! 🙂
  14. Just a quick thought re: combat maneuvers. There's certainly no reason why you couldn't prune down the list of maneuvers that you introduce your players to. You could just limit it to the standard list and exclude the optional maneuvers, or you could be even more selective and remove standard maneuvers that strike you (no pun intended) as having a lower probability of being needed for your first few sessions (for a random example: Shove). This will allow you to focus on a shorter list to study up on ahead of the first game. Of course, it would be good to make sure that your players know in advance that other maneuvers will be introduced later on, once everyone gets up to speed with the basics. One other idea is that - if you have the time to do so - you can try to make yourself a bullet-point summation of the essential rules that govern each maneuver, to make it easier to refer back to quickly in the middle of a game as opposed to skimming through the full text and hoping you don't miss a key phrase in the heat of the moment.
×
×
  • Create New...