rravenwood

This is great stuff, Duke!

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.

Although Chris has already provided the answer here, I wanted to share further evidence that this was an old-school literal cut-and-paste layout error: if you look on page 76, the last three lines of text at the bottom of the second column (under "General Movement") are the missing fragment of text ("tions; individual circumstances can modify the chance to perform a Skill tremendously. Providing modifiers will act as an incentive for the players to be").  The actual General Movement text continues from where it left off on page 77 (so the uninterrupted text should read, "All movement costs END at the rate of 1 END per 5 inches of base movement distance used. Noncombat movement at multiple distances increases the END cost of a movement action; [...]").

6 hours ago, Chris Goodwin said:

In the BoH PDFs (and the DrivethruRPG ones) I think 1e and 2e are reversed.  The one they have as being 1e has the black and white cover, but is called "Revised Edition" and is copyright 1982.  It's fairly similar to 3e.  The one they list as 2e is quite a bit different; it has no edition marking of any kind and lists its copyright date as 1981.

The 1981 book with the wraparound color cover (Gargoyle, Flare on the back) is definitely 1st edition, and the 1982 Revised book with the grayscale cover (and speed chart on the back) is 2nd edition.  My .zip files from the BoH identify them correctly, but maybe something was corrected early on? <insert wild speculation here> ?

Just to toss in my nickel: Collecting all the known typos together into an errata file which is then made available in conjunction with the final PDF would be entirely acceptable.  Sure, it would be nice in theory for the scans to be revised to eliminate them, but for reasons of resulting workload as well as historical "this is how it was published" authenticity, an errata file would probably be best.  (IMO, etc.)

The original (pre-4th ed) Fantasy Hero cover was by Brian K. Hamilton.

4th-ed FH (and both Companion books) were by Larry Elmore.

Fantasy Hero Complete was by Sam Flegal.

Couldn't say for the others between 4th ed. and FHC.

I feel your pain!  My original office was right next to the employee break room, and the ventilation system was apparently configured in such a way as to pipe the break room odors right over to me.  Fish soup was pretty common fare.  I don't want to yuck someone else's yum, but unfortunately that smell just doesn't work for me...  I'm in a different office now, and while I no longer have to deal with that, we get janitorial service right in the middle of the day so we get treated to the strong smells of restroom cleaning chemicals right around lunch time.

I think this just veered over to the territory of the "unpleasant day" thread - sorry!

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Microwave thirty-seven pounds of fish.

5 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Burn a bag of microwave popcorn in the microwave.

Isn't that just everyday life with kids? ?

Aw, shucks.  't weren't nuthin'...

The 8 Active Points are the difference between the power as purchased with x3 END (50 / 3 = 17 points) and without it (50 / 2 = 25 points).  A "Naked Limitation" if you will...

Package Deals with Package Bonuses go all the way back to Espionage! (2E era) and were present at least all the way up through Hero System's 4th edition.

The biggest difference between the 1st and 2nd edition covers is that the rear cover of 1st edition is a continuation of the scene on the front, with Gargoyle, Flare, and armor-suit-guy (sorry, don't know his name...), whereas the rear cover of 2nd edition has the Speed Chart and the Combat Modifier table.  Of course, 1st edition was in color, while many 2nd edition covers were gray scale - although I believe that some color versions of 2nd were also printed.  A more subtle tell-tale is that, since the 1st edition rear cover art was removed with 2nd edition, the fingers of armor-suit-guy which can be seen wrapping around from the left side of the 1st edition front cover are missing on the 2nd edition cover.

There are also (that I've seen) two different 1st edition cover versions.  What I presume is the older, original version lacks the authors' names, and in the lower right corner simply shows "A HERO GAME" instead of the "HERO GAMES" logo with the Mark Williams, uh... Hero Games Dude between those two words (which is the same company logo found on the later 1st edition as well as the 2nd edition covers).

Of the two copies I have of 1st edition, one has no character sheets, and the other has only 4 out of the original 8... so if anyone scans 300-dpi versions of the original 8 character silhouettes, I'd join my voice to the choir of welcoming, appreciative cries ;-)

20 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

As one who sat at the tables with the original Heroes, in the pre- 5th edition days, the RKA stun multiple was 1d6.

Interesting!  I'm certainly not challenging your personal experience, but just out of curiosity and wanting to make sure I'm understanding correctly, are you saying that the original Heroes didn't follow the RAW 1d6-1 stun multiplier?

21 hours ago, Jeffrywith1e said:

 

It is perfect-bound. First Printing November 1985

 

Great, thank you for clearing that up!  (I had heard some suggestions that the rulebook in the box set may have been saddle-stitched...)

On 5/7/2018 at 9:36 PM, Jeffrywith1e said:

 

Sure thing.

 

Here are images from the boxset https://imgur.com/a/u1qGRfS

Thanks for sharing those - it's pretty neat to see such a relatively rare edition.  If you wouldn't mind, I have two questions about the actual Danger International book within the box:

• Is it perfect-bound or saddle-stitched?
• What printing number and date are shown on the title page?

Thanks in advance ?

On 3/8/2018 at 12:54 PM, Spence said:

For 5th ed and earlier a KA's stun was calculated by multiplying the Body damage rolled by a multiplier from 1d6-1 min 1, or 1 to 5.  I had always played straight 1d6-1 for 0 to 5, but that was probably an early mistake that just stayed in our games.  I don't know if 1st/2nd ed had the min 1.

A quick check shows that 1st edition is mum on whether the minimum STUN multiplier is 0 or 1, while 2nd ed. specifies that the minimum is 1.

On 3/4/2018 at 9:58 AM, Hugh Neilson said:

I think it goes back to 1e, and so does ignoring the rule.

My historical interest was piqued enough to go back and check 1e, 2e & 3e, and they appear to all be essentially identical: END is expended when using a Power, STR, or moving; Movement is 1 END per base 5" moved (noncombat doesn't increase END expended); Powers and STR cost 1 END per 5 points of Power/STR used.  Nothing is said about maneuvers costing 1 END regardless of STR used.  Martial Arts are a gray area, since on the one hand it is stated that "All Skills and some Powers do not cost END to use" but it could be understood as the Skill itself - granting access to use the Martial maneuvers - costing no END, while use of the underlying STR used still does.

Just in case anyone else was curious... :-)

Perfect-bound DI, second edition -- November 1985

 

I can't say for sure (without doing a bit more research) that FH was the first perfect-bound Hero Games product, but it predates the second edition of DI (the first being saddle-bound and in a boxed set) by several months.

When was the DI boxed set released?  My perfect-bound copy of DI shows "First Printing November 1985" on the title page, so I assume the boxed set shows a different printing date?

Thanks in advance!

The fastest bullet in the world won't hit the target if the gun is pointed somewhere else. That's what DCV represents - moving to throw off the attacker's aim. It's active, not reactive.

 

My point is not about the shooter: obviously he needs to be able to hit me if he's going to hit me. My point is about the DCV modifiers. Am I required to move to get full DCV? The RAW say nothing about this. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is assumed that HtH combat will have movement and interaction, etc. But at range it's more problematic and not explicit at all. If I just stand there, do I get my full DCV? If not, why? And if I do, then why don't I also get it while being prone (the equivalent of just standing there, but in a much more advantageous position)?  How about if I squat, and combine the best of both: I get a smaller silhouette and I also don't have to take the 1/2 DCV for being prone. Am I required, as I said above, to run around like crazy to throw off the shooter in order to get full DCV? If not, then what's the difference between standing there like normal and being prone? Now we've come full circle: it seems like being prone would be an advantage at range, not a disadvantage.

 

Obviously there are a lot of moving parts here, as everyone has rightly pointed out. I'm just plumbing the depths of the rules to see how they best fit together in these kind of judgments. 

DCV is ultimately an abstraction, but there are some things that can be said about it by looking at other aspects of the system. As IndianaJoe points out, DCV represents the ability of a character to actively avoid incoming attacks; this doesn't mean that the character specifically Dodges (as in the Combat Maneuver) an attack, just that they are at least making an attempt to be aware of and avoid any attacks being made against them.  Even if a character - in game mechanical terms - is not performing a movement action, they are still assumed to be actively trying to avoid harm, unless the player states otherwise.  So in your example of a character "just standing there" it depends on how that is meant: if it just means that the character doesn't perform a half- or full-move, that doesn't mean that the character is pretending to be a statue in the middle of the field; however, if the player states that their character is "freezing" or otherwise making an effort to remain perfectly still, then the GM may well be justified in assessing a DCV penalty against them while doing so.  (I don't think this is given in RAW, but seems like a logical ruling to me.)  If we consider some of the many DCV penalties possible, we see penalties for restricted movement abilities: half DCV for being prone or Stunned, 0 DCV for being Entangled or Knocked Out, various penalties for being in a cramped space, on slippery surfaces, etc.  These all support the notion that at least part of DCV depends on the character being able to move around a little (again, not talking about a movement action) - one aspect of the abstraction of combat where characters don't actually freeze in space when their Phase ends.

DCV also depends on the character's ability to be aware of actual or potential threats, as illustrated by the DCV penalties suffered for being Flashed, or in Darkness, or when being attacked by surprise, etc.

Lastly, DCV can also represent various other factors that make a character harder to hit, things that would apply to pretty much all attackers, such as the DCV bonus from the Shrinking Power, or other factors that could be ascribed to the character's "special effects" such as just being darned elusive.  (Sometimes these factors end up being applied as OCV penalties, such as the Target Size modifiers, but I don't think that confuses the situation all that much.)

Shifting over to the whole question of the effectiveness of being prone - in game mechanical terms, at least, it depends on the typical CV levels in your game.  If you're looking at typical (non-Dodging) DCVs of 5 or 6, going prone equates to a -2 or -3 DCV penalty, which doesn't completely offset the -4 OCV penalty suffered by an attacker who can only target someone's head and shoulders (assuming they're facing head-on, etc.), so it's still a benefit.  Once you're dealing with characters of 8 DCV or higher, then that half-DCV modification definitely starts becoming a liability when compared to the potential benefit.  You could always house-rule something if you didn't like the "feel" of that result - say, a flat -4 penalty when prone.

As far as more of a real-world idea of when being prone really starts to mask the rest of the body and make a smaller target, you could always take a friend to a level field or parking lot, have them lay flat, and then just start walking away from them slowly, stopping once you can only see their head and shoulders.  Measure or estimate the distance and you're done ;-)  Taking a quick stab at doing just that in the long clear space between my back wall and front door, I think that the -4 OCV of having only head and shoulders visible should start when regular Range Modifier penalties do, at 9m (about 30 feet).  This penalty could be decreased at closer distances - maybe -3 OCV at 7m, -2 OCV at 5m, and just -1 OCV at 3m.  (For gameability and ease of recall, these could probably be decreased by 1m each to make it 2m/4m/6m/8m.)

This is probably old hat to everyone else, but it was new to me: there are at least two versions of Adventure 2: Escape from Stronghold. You can easily tell which is which because the later printing is slightly smaller, causing the front cover image to have a "zoomed in" appearance if you compare the right-hand sides:

 

[snip]

 

But more importantly, the newer one's booklet is stapled into the cover, and the inside of the cover is blank -- no map!

Good to know, GM Joe!  According to http://towerofzenopus.blogspot.com/2012/08/old-school-champions-1st-edition-2nd.html, a similar situation exists for Adventure 1: The Island of Dr. Destroyer.  There also seem to have been multiple versions of 1e Champions itself (see this older thread that I started: http://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/88322-different-printings-of-champions-1st-edition/).

Thanks to GM Joe's work on comparing my original file to his copies of the books (most particularly Champions Deluxe), I've prepared a revised version of the 4th edition errata compilation which is now applicable to all versions of the core 4e rules.  This time I uploaded it into the file section:

Thanks to GM Joe's work on comparing my original file to his copies of the books (most particularly Champions Deluxe), I've prepared a revised version of the 4th edition errata compilation which is now applicable to all versions of the core 4e rules.  This time I uploaded it into the file section:

Thanks Joe!  I can see the highlighting and comments just fine, so once I have some time to work on it I'll drop you a line if I have any specific questions about your additions.

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... )

I've always interpreted it as Stealth is hiding in motion (i.e. move silently) and Concealment applies if hiding while still (i.e. hide in shadows)

 

I could swear that's in accordance with some version of the rules, but I just checked 6th edition and it seems to imply otherwise. So I may be either out of date or just plain wrong on this.

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.