rravenwood

GM Joe, that errata file came from me - the thread it was originally posted it to is over here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/95220-bundle-of-holding-champions-4th-edition-pdfs/?do=findComment&comment=2581222 I'd be happy to revise it further based off your findings (although no promises as to how quickly said revision might get accomplished - that ol' chestnut about life being what happens when you make other plans... )

4th edition includes the following under the description of Concealment Skill: "The character may hide himself from a search using Concealment ("Andarra wedges herself behind a console"). Stealth Skill should be used for any active concealment, as when the character is trying to move silently; only use Concealment Skill for nonmoving objects." Stealth Skill says: "This DEX-based Skill is the ability to hide in shadows, move silently or avoid detection in combat conditions. [...] If the character wants to hide, he should use his Concealment Skill." Danger International, to pick one earlier book, includes similar verbiage. ...and now back to your regularly scheduled, on-topic discussion of the Transmit Sense Modifier.

Having had some spare time this weekend to look through the Bundle of Holding PDFs, I now see that the Champions "BBB" PDF - despite the "First Printing" shown on the title page - was not scanned from an original print run copy, but rather a book from a subsequent print run where the official errata was already incorporated. My own dead tree version of the BBB is from the original print run, so I made an effort to review the two errata text files from Red October and compare them with my physical BBB, the BoH PDF, and my physical Hero System Rulesbook. There were some cases where the errata needed errata, and I noticed a few more errors in the revised texts as well (although I need to say that I haven't done - and probably won't ever do! - a complete survey of the books, having only reviewed the pages mentioned in the original errata lists). Long story short, I've gone ahead and compiled both errata lists into a single document, along with my aforementioned corrections and additions. As explained in the document itself, any errata entries which are specific to either the original printing or the later revised texts are indicated as such. I don't have the "Deluxe" version of the BBB, however, so I can't say if this compiled list has any relevance to that book. If I've made mistakes of my own, or if errors in the source text(s) are spotted which should be added, feel free to let me know. I hope this is of interest or use to the community. Hero System Rules 4th ed Errata.pdf

Yeah, I had forgotten about the web version of Red October - thanks for the reminder! As a shortcut for anyone looking for the 4E BBB errata, it's right here: http://www.mactyre.net/archives/october/HEROGEN/ERRATA.ZIP

Waaaay back in the days of the old Red October BBS a couple of official errata files for Champions 4th edition were uploaded there. I'm not sure if they were also published in Adventurers Club (I don't have time to dig through my old issues right now), but I have the text-format errata files which were released. If someone did a smidge of layout work to make them more presentable, maybe they could be added to the 4E BBB PDF?

I like the idea, but I'd be inclined to go with the cost of 2 pts. per pip of Armor Reduction. This seems to better follow the design principle of "defenses should be cheaper". (1 pt. of Resistant Protection essentially costs 1.5 pts., so allowing that to be negated by a 1-point adder seems too effective for the cost.)

Reduced Penetration was introduced in Justice Inc. (the essential game-mechanical effect was described in "Wild Animals", but no Limitation value was given for it), and subsequently appeared in the original Fantasy Hero (in the "Monsters" section, with the effect being factored into the "Monster Attack Limitation Table"), although it didn't have that name. The name was probably introduced with 4th edition. I should also point out that the rules about shotguns in Espionage! and JI include some Reduced Penetration-like aspects (the STUN damage is combined at very close range), but I have no idea if this informed the design of animal attacks in JI and FH.

Right, END for STR must be paid separately for each attack action made in a Phase (as opposed to non-attack uses of STR, which are covered by a single END expenditure for all such uses within a Phase). That provides some kind of a counterbalance, although at the end of the day it will of course still depend on the specifics of a character build as to whether a GM feels it might be overpowered for their own game.

Doesn't Alterable Origin Point just mean that on one Phase, a character can shoot his Blast (for example) from his nose, and on another Phase launch it from his pinky, etc.? It doesn't allow the nose and pinky to emanate beams simultaneously and allow two attacks on the same Phase. It would be a way to model a creature who could potentially attack with multiple body parts but isn't able to use those different parts together on the same Phase, however.

That's what I'm coming away from this with. Of course, it really just depends on what a GM wants to achieve with their creature builds - if the end result of a Combined Attack using multiple KAs is more accurate to the conception of the beast, then it doesn't really matter if the build isn't cost-effective. If I don't want a target to be KO'd by fangs and claws if little to no BODY is inflicted past defenses, then I really shouldn't use Reduced Penetration. Interesting point - I have no idea if the rules say anything about applying STR to multiple attack Powers in one attack action, but my first reaction is that I probably wouldn't allow that in my own game. (Of course, that would just make the use of Reduced Penetration all that more appealing, since the split damage dice would all benefit from STR added to an HKA...) If a GM wants to build a creature that suffers little or no penalty for a set number of Multiple Attacks, but not be that much better with an attack against a single target, then I don't see why buying standard CSLs with a Limited Power Limitation would be a problem. Leaving specific rules aside for a moment, I'm curious how would you ideally like multiple natural attacks to work? The 5-point doubling rule is one that I think GMs really need to consider deeply when reviewing potential applications of it. Like you, for the Iron Man example I wouldn't be inclined to allow the player to purchase multiple instances of hand replusors, etc., and limit it to backup instances of the whole suit of armor. Hugh and massey's comments about the "Hundred Handed Mandarin" seem to be enough of a cautionary example

Actually it was given to me by an old acquaintance a few years ago when I was first starting to get interested in RPGs again - I had mentioned to him that I wished I still had my old Hero Games books (I never got rid of my characters and notes, thankfully!), and he ended up giving me a small stack of discs which he was going to toss out anyway. Most of it was old character writeups and the like, but it did include this PDF. I subsequently bought a used copy of the BBB (as part of the small mountain of books I picked up over time to restock my Hero library), but have been using the PDF as my main 4th edition reference - although now, after the Speed Chart debacle, I'm suspicious of its veracity. If I find a used copy of the HSR that doesn't cost an extraordinary amount, I'll probably pick it up and ditch the PDF. I owned it back in the day, and it was a handier reference than the beloved-but-still-bulkier BBB. Memory is shaky, but I'm fairly sure that I wasn't aware of AC from the first issue but rather a few issues into the run - I was lucky enough to be able to pick up copies of the ones I'd missed, though (which wasn't too difficult way back in the 80s, at least in my neck of the woods). Silly me got rid of the magazines along with the books, however, so I had to re-acquire them - I'm glad my wife is so understanding Yeah, I really thought that my old group had always started combat on Segment 12 all along too, and was mildly surprised when I re-read 2e Champions a few years ago. Maybe for the first few games we had begun on Segment 1, but it was too long ago to recall clearly - I can't recall if I started with Hero in '82 or '83, but I suspect it was probably '83, by which time both Espionage! and AC were out there, so our GM may have already incorporated the rule into those first games. Memories

It's occurred to me that a third approach is possible too by using Autofire. Buying a 2d6 HKA Autofire (2 shots) - to maintain the comparison with the examples in my initial post - costs 37 points, but doesn't guarantee that both shots will hit, and even if they do the STUN isn't combined like it is with Reduced Penetration. At any rate, since nobody is telling me that my understanding of the pertinent rules is all messed up, it seems that while modeling multiple creature attacks via Combined Attack is certainly possible under 6e, it's really not the ideal way to go about it (assuming multiple instances of the same base Hero System Power, such as multiple KAs for teeth & claws).

If I may try to redeem myself, I can say with certainty that combat starting on Phase 12 was first introduced in Espionage! and issue #1 of Adventurers Club magazine. The example of combat in Champions 2e - once the GM decides to start going by the Speed Chart - begins with Segment 1. Regardless, we're still talking about long enough ago to feel like "always"

Well heck, you're right. Mea culpa! I had referenced a PDF of the 4th edition Hero System Rulesbook where the Segment and Speed labels apparently got switched. Cracking open my hardcopy BBB just now, however, shows the vertical label as Segment and the horizontal label as Speed. (As do other 3rd/2nd/1st edition books...) Sorry for the confusion! Does anyone have a hardcopy of the 4th ed. HSR handy to see if the inversion is present there too, or if it's just a mistake in the PDF?

At least up through 4th edition Hero System rules, this is how it used to be: SPD 1 characters acted on Segment 12. I don't know if it changed in 5e or was new to 6e.

Thanks for replying. The line of thought behind buying two (or more) similar Powers to use as a Combined Attack in this case is to model the ability of a creature to attack at the same time with different natural weapons - again, the "claw-claw-bite" of my given example. Sure, we can always just buy a 3d6 HKA (for instance) and say that the special effect is the animal striking with both forepaws and simultaneously biting the target, but what if we really don't want the creature to be able to plow through walls or plate armor? That's where - regardless of whether it is achieved through use of Reduced Penetration* or via separate attack powers - having multiple separate attacks of lower DC seems to model things more appropriately (at least for my tastes) since three* individual 1d6 HKAs won't penetrate plate armor, but can still cause grievous harm to an unarmored opponent. So, the other alternative to buying separate discreet attacks - which can then be used in a Combined Attack - is the application of Reduced Penetration to a single attack Power, which - leading back to my puzzlement - seems more effective for fewer points. *I don't know how to make Reduced Penetration divide the base attack Power into three, other than by GM approval for probably the same -1/4 Limitation, but that's beside the point here. By RAW I don't think this is allowed - and even if a GM decided to allow it, it would feel strange to me to double innate powers or abilities in this way.

I've been thinking about the design of animal/monster/etc. attacks (such as the classic "claw-claw-bite" routine). In the old days, barring special Skills brought into the mix such as Sweep from the original Fantasy Hero, it seemed (at least to my gaming group) that characters were limited to using one attack power per Phase ("power" as opposed to game -element "Power", since power constructions could be devised incorporating two or more Linked Powers), so Reduced Penetration was the way that creature multi-attacks needed to be modeled. Under 6e and its provision for Combined Attack, it seems like beasts could be written up with each separate attack source as its own power (so the aforementioned "claw-claw-bite" could be purchased as three separate attack powers rather than one larger attack split up with Reduced Penetration). In pondering this, it struck me that the Reduced Penetration route is superior to Combined Attack in a couple ways. Consider a creature built with a 2d6 HKA for its claws (I'll just leave them as a single attack power here for simplicity's sake) and a separate 2d6 HKA for its bite - neither restricted from simultaneous use (not mutually exclusive slots in a Multipower, etc.). Presuming no other Limitations (again, for the sake of simplicity), the claw and bite would together cost 60 points. On an average Combined Attack against a single opponent, the damage would be two separate instances of 7 BODY and 14 STUN, each having the target's defenses applied against them individually. If the same creature is instead built using Reduced Penetration, we'd buy a 4d6 HKA with that Limitation, which would cost 48 points: a 12 point savings over the other approach, which is benefit number one. The average damage done to its target would be two separate instances of 7 BODY - just the same as the equivalent Combined Attack - but a single instance of 28 STUN, so more STUN would potentially get through the target's defenses: benefit number two. Am I missing something? Maybe my understanding of Combined Attack is flawed? It seems that for less points, the creature gains a more effective attack by going the Reduced Penetration route. I can see that the creature built with separate claw and bite attacks could apply them to separate targets (as a Multiple Attack), whereas the beast built using Reduced Penetration always has to inflict both bite and claw damage dice on the same target, but I don't know if that's enough of an advantage in flexibility to offset the points saved via Reduced Penetration and the better results of that against a single target. Thanks in advance for any insight on this!

Yep, Independent first appeared in the original Fantasy Hero, later being included in the 4th edition ruleset.

There is a small difference, in that the RAW present HA as a limited form of STR which can only be used in conjunction with a character's regular STR (at least 1/2d6 of STR damage), where the idea that Christopher Taylor presented was to make HA a Normal Damage equivalent to HKA in that STR can be used to add to the HA. In other words, by RAW, HA adds to STR damage, but in this proposed alternative, STR adds to HA. I also like how it works from a costing perspective, where 1d6 of Normal Damage (whether Blast or HA) would simply cost a straight 5 points without a mandatory Limitation on the HTH version only. It would mirror the parity between RKA & HKA: both just cost 15 pts. per die. I think it's cleaner. On STR, the 6e decoupling certainly greatly improved the situation, but I'm still left thinking that the remaining abilities to do damage, lift, throw, make STR rolls, resist Grabs, and other things not coming to mind, have the potential to make quite an impact on how effective a character can be (although obviously the specific types of adventures featured in a particular campaign may render some of these benefits to be of lesser worth). Of course, this is all just IMHO, and I'm not going to stress out if no one else agrees with me.

The more I think about this, the more I like this approach. Make the Power "Normal Attack" with two versions, just like KAs: Ranged Normal Attack and HTH Normal Attack, with STR being able to add to the HTH version. Both versions still cost 5 points per die. Maybe even mention that a RNA is also commonly called a "Blast" This allows HNAs to work even if no STR is added to it (and if a particular power conception calls for a no-range Normal Attack to which STR can't be added, then that's an RNA bought with No Range), cleanly maintains the 5 AP per Damage Class paradigm, and doesn't complicate things with a mandatory Limitation. As to the statement about characteristics being very cost-efficient, I think that at least STR is probably too cheap given all that it can do, and should be 2 pts. per +1 STR (even in 6th edition with the removal of figured characteristics). I'm not proposing that anyone be forced to play with these rules, but they're house rules that I'd most probably use if I were to start running a game. ******* On a different tangent, is it explicitly mentioned anywhere in the rules that Blast can't be added to STR damage? I understand that the principle is at least strongly implied by the existence of the HA Power, but given that both STR and Blast are Normal Damage attacks, I wonder where the distinction was first made. I recall back in the pre-4th edition days that Energy Blasts vs. PD - usually with the No Range Limitation - were used to add to STR damage for certain conceptions, being listed as additional dice (e.g. "+4d6"), which implied that the EB damage couldn't be used alone. One concrete example I can offer would be the villain Vibron in the revised version of Enemies (1982 vintage, revised to be in compliance with 2nd edition Champions); he's listed with "+6D6 HTH Damage (adds to STR Damage) at 1/4 END" which costs 45 points (5 pts x 6D6 = 30 x 1.5 for Reduced END = 45). I notice that the build doesn't include "No Range" as a Limitation, but it clearly only functions as a HTH add-on.

Long Term Endurance dates back to 1985 and the first edition of Fantasy Hero.

I don't see this. I see where it discusses 1/2 dice as related to the STR bonus, but not for the power itself. To double-check, I re-read the Killing Attack entry under the Powers section (starts on p21, bottom left) and don't see any options or examples of buying the power itself in partial dice. Same with Ranged Killing Attack (p22, first entry). Same with Energy Blast and Ego Attack. [snip] Thus far, though, it seems that by 2e, 1/2 dice are exclusive to STR bonuses. The copy of 2e that I have, at least, says on page 56 (first column, third paragraph), "Killing Attacks can also be bought in other than multiples of 15 pts. If the character has one third (5-9 pts.) more than a multiple of 15 he may add +1 to his damage roll. If a character has more than two thirds (10-14 pts.) more than a multiple of 15 may add +½D6 to his damage roll." (If the grammar seems funny, that is the exact wording.) I'd be very interested to know if your copy doesn't include that paragraph - I know there were multiple printings of 2e with at least one (the fourth printing) possibly incorporating some textual corrections. (My copy is an earlier printing.) And no worries about misremembering anything - some days I'd be hard pressed to remember my own address and phone number if I didn't have a written reference to double check

Actually I don't believe any house rule is required here. On pages 55 & 56 in the 2e rulebook, under "Determining Damage", it says that "STR or a Power can be bought in other than multiples of 5 pts." and a couple paragraphs later follows that by saying "Killing Attacks can also be bought in other than multiples of 15 pts." Sure, it says nothing explicitly about Powers that cost 10 pts. per die or some other cost, but IMHO the intent is clear that half-dice or single pips of effect were allowable. (Why this was buried in a combat-related section rather than discussed back in the character creation section, I could not say...)

How about Clout? The two usual meanings of "heavy blow" and "political or business influence or power" seem to coincide nicely for this...

"Beam, where were you?" "Being sneaky." (Paraphrasing only...)