esampson

Well, sounds like some of this may be "style". I thought the example had Req an Int roll, but maybe I typed too fast. I will say this though, if a player needs to scutinise the agents char sheet to ensure "fairness". I'd be happier if he or she went elsewhere.

 

This reminds me of a boring gamer story, I ran a game at a con. The Heros had been bambozled into body guarding a renegade Morbane. (The renegade was planning a ritual that would almost certainly destroy the world, possibly the universe. Demon had deposited 220,000 dollars with Viper to eliminate the danger. Once the heroes got involved, Demon hit the panic button, and made several direct attacks. The renegade needed privacy, to set up the ritual, and wanted the heroes out of the way. Being satanicly proud, he was confident in his own abilitys to survive)

 

To get the heroes out of the way for a while, he used invisible Mind control on a cop, that did not like supers anyway (Telepathy) to "run them in" He figured that would give him an hour or two to himself.

 

One of the players decided to start a huge argument that that was totally out of character. I agreed that was totally weird, what is he doing? More argument, apparently it was us vs you time...???? The other players contined to play their characters, Argue with reality guy? I dunno. But I was done playing a game with him...

 

So I guess what I'm saying is there are no "wrong builds"...? If I want to buy AP, req a roll or no, defined as a "bat-clone" ability to exploit your weaknesses, I can spend my points any way I wish to.

 

Are you saying if I purchased AP without a limit, you'd be all "OK"....but with a limit it becomes "wrong". I'm thinking it comes down to "style".

Quite definitely it is a 'style' issue.

. . .To the reply above, Requiring a KS is a lim, though maybe not a big one, and the counter is classic comic book...switch oponites. If Clock soldier A has KS: Mustle master, then maybe Kid Speedster should be fighting him? I would likely let the Clockwork King have a wide ranging KS; The Team, because he is built as a Super. The concept is no powers, but that has nothing to do with what's on the sheet...

 

I see the build as a way to build a "trained to fight You" style foe. How you build is a matter of personal choice. I think I disagree with Massey, not entirely. Agents Can be speed bumps, that exist so the heroes can feel "super". But they may be the main opposition. And if they are, they should be built and played that way.

Switching opponents would work if the KS was limited to an individual, but in the example being given they were able cram the KS for the entire group. I would also point out that the proposed limitation isn't 'must make a KS roll' but simply 'must possess the KS'.

It's one of those funny edge cases, really. Yes, it is a limitation but the question is how often does the limitation apply? Limitations that apply too rarely don't count (power does not work during vernal equinoxes that coincide with a full moon mean that there is a brief period about once every 30 years where the power won't work, so that's not even a -1/4). If the agents are able to successfully cram the entire group for the vast majority of fights then again, it isn't really a limitation.

On the other hand, yes, if cramming is limited to individuals and the ability can be circumvented just by switching targets then it is a fairly substantial limitation. Likewise the cramming could extend to the entire group but since the GM assumes there's hero groups in the city beyond the PCs maybe the agents are only able to use it in 2 fights out of 3, at which point it is definitely a valid limitation as well.

It's just something that I saw and that set off warning flags. Again, it really doesn't matter anyway since agents don't technically have any point restrictions. The bigger problem is that if the players find out that the agents they are fighting are tough despite being built on a certain point total because they feel that the GM is doing something shady it can sour the relationship between GMs and players.

Ask yourself how you would feel if you were playing and you found out that the agents all had a -2 limitation on their equipment 'Only to affect the PCs'. The GM could argue that this is a substantial limitation since it means that their gear is useless against 99.9999999% of the population but I'll bet you would still feel that the GM was 'cheating', all of which is completely unnecessary since if the GM wants to give the agents gear that is somehow designed to specifically target the PCs he could just have them pay the full cost for it and then handle the 'Only against PCs' limitation through roleplay. I can almost guarantee that the players will be much more accepting of a 45 point '18d6 OAF Gun' that only affects the PCs because it was built using some special process that allows it to better target the PCs than a 15 point version of the same that has been loaded up with 'non-limiting limitations' (It only affects the PCs, it only works on one day out of the week, which is of course the day the agents attack, etc.)

I think a lot of the complaints about 'being captured' tend to stem from the feeling of being railroaded. I have been absolutely guilty of the sin of railroading myself in many forms over the years and it has taken me a long time to understand why it is so dreadful. I even ran a number of sessions in which I wanted to recreate something very similar to the earlier mentioned Island of Dr. Apocalypse Saker from the first half dozen issues of the Elementals and at the time I couldn't understand why my players were being so recalcitrant. I've got this great story idea. Go with it. It will be fun. I honestly did not see what the problem was.

Fast forward thirty years and it finally clicks (it takes me a while, but I'll get there).

What we do when we have a game session is that we collaboratively tell a story.; all of us. The GM, the dice, and the players are all part of that process. When a GM 'railroads' a storyline what they are doing is eliminating (or at least greatly reducing) their player's participation in that storyline. They take the player's ability to influence the actions of their characters and remove that from them in any meaningful way.

I've been captured because the GM has a storyline that requires me to be captured. Even though I trust my GM and know that I will not remain captured the truth of the matter is that with most storylines that start out this way there will be no real chance to escape until the pre-designated 'escape scene' in the story which will most likely involve a specific method that the GM has determined in advance. Some GMs are more flexible and won't have a pre-designated 'escape scene' with an approved escape method, but most GMs who are good enough to do that will also probably not railroad me into being captured in the first place. They will present a more reasonable scene and if I avoid be captured then we go off to do something else.

So in what is suppose to be a cooperative medium I am captured without any real input, I am held prisoner without any real influence on the storyline, and I escape because that's what the script has called for. I might as well just hand my sheet over to the GM and let him write up my exciting adventure so I can read how I was able to find the weakness in the prison and successfully escape. I don't really need to be here for any of this, do I?

Yes, I am overexagerrating a bit, but it is to illustrate the point. In a cooperative storytelling excercise there are probably few sins greater than removing the ability of your players to participate in the process. Unfortunately in the case of most 'Prisoner' scenarios that is done to an extreme degree, and I am not referring to the fact that as a prisoner a player has limited control over their actions. I am referring to the entire process, from being captured to being held to eventual escape.

While I agree that agents shouldn't be built with lots of levels simply to screw over the hero this isn't what I (at least) am referring to.

When you are putting agents onto the field they should be there for a reason, and by that I am not simply referring to them being there for an 'in game' reason. Running a bunch of agents/thugs means that the GM is pushing around an awful lot of 'pieces' in relation to the heroes. At the very least you are usually looking at about 2 1/2 agents for every hero and quite possibly more. When it becomes the agent's phase (and that happens pretty quickly since combats start on phase 12) you're looking at things slowing down a fair chunk for the players while the GM has to decide what to do for each agent, roll to hit, and quite possibly roll damage. Additionally there's all the bookkeeping that needs to be done for each agent to keep track of their stun, endurance, and any ammo they might have used (and I'm assuming you're playing in a campaign where you aren't having to really worry about the body of the agents). Given that a lot of the time agents will have similar but not identical stats and you are really looking at a modest amount of work on the part of the GM to keep track of things.

So why do this if they are simply there to be steamrollered with ease by the players every single time? If I want my players to feel good about themselves I have lots of ways to do this that won't require so much effort or have the negative aspects of 'combat boredom' (that feeling that occurs when you are waiting for your turn to do something but all the action is occuring between other players and NPCs).

For the most part agents exist for the same reason that NPC villains exist; to challenge the heroes. They shouldn't exist for the purpose of kicking in the hero's teeth (and if I gave the impression that's what I was suggesting be done with agents then I apologize) but by the same token they shouldn't just be there to be a barely perceptible speed bump to the heroes. It's just too much work running a group of them for that to happen and I think that most players will grow bored playing a game where they constantly win with ease over their opponents. Try running a game sometime where all the opponents are 40 point talented normals and you never have more than a 1 to 1 ration of opponents to characters and where there are no obstacles to counter the players' overwhelming advantage and see how long people enjoy it.

So with that said, agents need to provide (or increase in the case of agents supporting a villain) the challenge that players deal with. They shouldn't generally be deployed to 'smash the heroes' because that's not the goal (and if that is your goal as a GM you're doing something wrong. You've got all the power so there's no challenge in 'smashing the heroes'. Just throw Dr. Destroyer, Dark Seraph, and Mechanon at them all at once. Won't that be fun?) but to challenge the heroes they still need to be effective.

Even more than that they need to be effective within a certain 'build style'. It's easy to challenge the players by throwing and equal number of 400 point characters at them built with similar defenses, similar CVs, and similar DCs, but those aren't 'agents'. So the question is 'how do you make NPCs who shouldn't be as skillful as a well trained character, who do less damage than most characters, and who have lower defenses than your average PC and make them interesting?'.

For my group that occasionally requires shaking things up. The rare occasion where the Masked Marauder tries to burst in on the Alleged Perpetrators and finds out that not all gangs are equal means that the next time he has to take down a gang he will put a bit more thought into it than 'jump through window and start hitting people until they give up' and that will make the subsequent encounters between him and gang members much more interesting.

One concept I've used is a "Thug Master/ Clock King" style master trainer...

 

Follow the Plan! +2 Combat, UBO, x8+, Teamwork, UBO, x8+....

 

"I've made a study of you"... Cramming (KS: Target), AP for up to 60 active, Req. Int roll, only vs Targets you have a KS of (KS: The Sentinals, etc...)

 

"Trained by the Clock King"  AP for up to 40?, Cramming? Teamwork? Trained operative habitualy display a stylized clock emblem someplace, it helps them coordinate, and advertises the clock king's wares.

 

This could become a real "item" in a campaign..."The biker gang all have pins on their vests...it's looks like a smiley face" "Wait, now that you are closer...it's the face of a clock! (Dun, dun dun!)

 

"Glad to see you here hero...Just as planned!"

Interesting idea, though not quite how I would do it (I've actually used a somewhat similar concept in the past except that rather than being a super-villain training thugs it was an organization).

To be 'fair' the limitation 'only vs Targets you have a KS of (KS: The Sentinals, etc...)' shouldn't be worth very many points since the NPCs have Cramming and I assume that in the majority of cases they will have already 'crammed' for the proper heroes. That's a case of one of those 'non-limiting limitations' (or slightly limiting since you might occasionally have them fail to cram for one character or another for some reason).

Those are also probably some fairly pricey adders onto the agents. Granted in both cases you are talking about NPCs who don't really need to be point balanced, so in the end it doesn't really matter, but giving agents and thugs 'expensive' abilities or allowing them to apply limitations that players wouldn't really be allowed to take (although in the case of a player the limitation is more valid since a lot of the time a player won't know who to 'cram' for) just seems a little off to me.

In my case I just applied some packages to the people who had been trained. Thugs turning out to have teamwork, a few extra levels, and some basic martial arts manuevers would often throw the heroes off their stride, and then there was usually the intangible benefits of the training. Usually when I would GM regular thugs they would fight in a fairly straight-forward 'dumb' style. If they had a range weapon, they used it. If they didn't they would move straight towards the hero and attack. The thugs who had been trained, on the other hand, would take advantage of cover, try and surround the heroes so they could get bonuses for attacking from behind, would be more likely to concentrate their attacks on a hero (especially if the hero was a 'weak link' and there was good reason to believe that attacking said hero would throw the remaining heroes off balance as they protected the other person) and would generally fight much smarter.

Depending on your game even regular thugs can provide concerns for a hero when they 'fight smart'. It's one thing when you smash into the garage of the Alleged Perpetrators street gang and they all rush you. It is another when it turns out that they always keep a couple of guys stationed in the rafters with low-light goggles and hunting rifles (loaded with armor piercing bullets) and you discover that they've covered the window that you just jumped through with a couple of claymores (it can even be downright embarassing when you discover that those grimy windows you planned to jump through were actually bulletproof glass).

Of course your mileage may vary on this. If you are running 'Spider-man' style campaigns then well trained thugs with a plan can be a nightmare (if used sparringly. If thugs are like that all the time then the players will be ready for them). On the other hand if you are running a 'Thor' style of campaign than the best a well trained group of thugs can reasonably hope for is embarassing the hero by making it look like it's his fault when the warehouse explodes. Hidden snipers, bulletproof glass, and claymore mines to that kind of character won't really do anything other than cause him to blink in surprise.

I'm guessing he means he use to do that in earlier editions, before there was Restrainable.

Remember that your agents are there for a job and that job is almost certainly not to fight the hero.

By this I don't mean that they aren't prepared to fight the hero. I just mean that there objective is almost never to engage a hero head on.

Usually agents are either there to steal something (or someone), provide extra firepower for some villain, or delay the hero while the villain does something.

In the first example it only takes a few agents to grab something (or someone) and make off with it. The rest of the agents should be using delaying tactics. When a hero tries to attack them they should block, dodge, or dive for cover as needed. Sure, they lose their next action, but it doesn't matter because they just caused the hero to use theirs (and all their buddies can still shoot). If the block or dodge succeeds thats an entire extra action that the hero has to take and when there's a ticking clock those actions are important. Most agents should probably have some martial arts skills. Not necessarily karate or kung-fu but just commando training style of martial arts. Spend 1 point so they can use it with their gun (not shooting but using the stock of the gun to strike, using the body to block, etc.) You're talking a +2 OCV and DCV bonus when they block. Even better, if they have Martial Strike then against a hero who has closed with them they will probably be attacking for around 8 dice of damage (Figuring 3d6 for Strength, +3d6 for using a rifle as a club, and +2d6 for Martial Strike) with a +2 to their DCV. Coming from an agent that's nothing to sneeze at. (One note; you should build the gun with a +3d6 HA since this isn't just an improvised weapon. Stick it in a multipower and it will probably cost 1 or 2 points).

In the second case have them widely spread out all over the place. This will give them overlapping fields of fire, protect them against AoEs, and cause problems for the hero since they have to spend time moving to each one. Have them set and brace, use scopes (PSL through a focus with a limitation that the user must set and/or brace), and take cover. A normal agent's DCV isn't that great so halving usually takes it from about a 5 to a 3. They lose two points but then can usually gain around 3/4 cover which is a -4 to OCV, so they are 2 points ahead. They should also be causing their opponent to take range penalties (unless the hero has some PSLs themself). With a rifle instead of a pistol (2 PSLs against range), Bracing (+2 OCV to offset range penalties), and a scope (another +2 PSLs only when set and/or braced) they can be shooting at a hero who is 60 meters away and their OCV will actually be a point higher than normal (+1 for set). It's going to take some time for most heroes to close that distance during which they are being attacked by the villain and the other agents.

This brings up one other point. Properly equip your agents. Don't just give them an 8d6 OAF blaster. If it's a rifle give it a few PSLs through the focus because rifles have better accuracy over distance than a pistol. Buy it a scope (more PSLs with additional limitations). On the other hand if the agents are going to need to be in close because their job is to delay give them carbines. 7d6 autofire, OCV bonus when using autofire to represent those extra bullets flying about, replace the scope with a laser scope (another OCV bonus) and give the gun the 'butt-strike' ability. Since their job is to slow down the hero give them flash grenades (and equip them with some flash defense) and smoke grenades (bonus points if they can see through the smoke).

This isn't even really 'super-gear'. This is all more or less what you might expect to see mundane paramilitary type people using. If you want to get fancier you can give them entangle grenades. Sure, the effect of the entangle will be fairly low but it is fairly easy for low OCV agents to hit higher DCV heroes with them and unless they are so weak that the hero breaks out with casual strength they will drop the targets DCV and can quite likely cost them an action as they have to break out.

If you want to be really mean to your heroes have the agents 'juice'. Half damage reduction PD and ED, only verses stun, fragile focus with 1 continuing charge that lasts several turns. Throw in a bit of extra presence with a limitation that it is only for defense. You would be surprised at how cheap that becomes, especially if you add in some side-effects when the drugs wear off. You end up with agents who are feeling no pain or fear. However they still take the same body they would so the heroes won't be free to absolutely unload on them with massive attacks (not as helpful in a campaign where the 'heroes' are unconcerned with how much injury they cause to agents, but in a more four-colored campaign it can definitely have an effect).

That's what editors are for. It's also why I use the path of least resistance rule. If there is any doubt, always use the lesser limitation bonus. If there is any doubt, use the more expensive advantage bonus. The biggest advantage you have here is asking a few simple questions, the most important of which are these:

 

Does the focus grant the character his powers and if so, is it immediately apparent that the powers come from the focus and not the character? If the answer is no, then the focus is inobvious.

 

Can the focus be disarmed, removed with a grab, etc? If so, the focus is accessible, if no, the focus is inaccessible.

 

Does the focus take a full combat turn to remove? If the answer is no, it's not inaccessible.

 

If the answer is no to all of these, this is better represented with other limitations.

 

Example: Thema is a Golden Age Superheroine infused with the power of an alien artifact, the Mace of Ankhnaton. The mace can't be disarmed, can't be removed after a turn, and the character can call it back whenever they want. This is just a multipower. It isn't anything else, unless there are limitations that require a skill roll to use the power, etc.

 

If there is confusion over the focus limitation, the answer is "There may be a better way within the rules to represent this device." Example: Terrax's cosmic axe. This is not a focus. He has total control over it, it always returns to him, it can't be disarmed, and the powers appear to come from the axe and not from Terrax. It's just his multipower of Cosmic Axe effects. He doesn't get a limitation bonus for it of any kind.

This wasn't really meant to be a post about foci but simply about how the amount of information you might want to put into something like Champions Complete will always be insufficient and will need expansion, usually to the point where it is unwieldly for the more 'casual' use.

As for the editors, yes, there job would be to examine a work and compare it to the core rules to make sure the rules are consistent between authors. However if the greater level of detail isn't recorded somewhere then even the editors will not be in full agreement. Is the Pendant of Isis OIF? It appears that it needs to be exposed and obvious for it to work, yet it can be worn underneath clothing and when seen can be easily believed to be a piece of jewelery (if perhaps a bit gaudy). Very easy for one editor to rule one way and another to rule another without a more lengthy explanation of precisely what Obvious means.

And once that information is written down it should probably be made available to authors creating products because while the editors are suppose to catch errors it would still reduce headaches if the authors knew the exact rules they were writing for rather than the general rules they were writing for.

As for me. When I answer rules questions I use Champions Complete as my first rules source. I only reference 6e1&2 IF there is a rule discussion that seems to require the greater depth of the Bigger Rule books (ie the Stretching Discussion). I give Champions Complete Page Numbers because I know that more people are likely to use that as a reference.

The thing is, Tasha, effectively those rules are gone. Champions Complete is all there is.

This is why I think a better setup would be to ensure that all rules are compatible with some core system and then the core system could be published separately, much like the Big Blue Books. The core system wouldn't be necessary at all for play but it would be available for people who need more detail on the finer points of a power.

Does OIF mean that the focus has to be obvious even when it isn't performing its function? Does it mean that it has to be obviously performing the function? These questions could make a big difference in whether an armored costume is OIF or IIF. Is it OIF if I can wear it under street clothes? Does that mean that if it functions (e.g. if I am shot) that it then becomes obvious because of torn clothing? When I am fully garbed in my costume and I am shot is it immediately obvious to everyone that it was my costume protecting me and not my natural toughness? When I am fully garbed is it immediately obvious to people that my costume is armored?

While the answers to these questions might seem to be immediately clear there still is a fair degree of room for people to argue interpretations. An awful lot of Spider-Man's enemies have armored costumes that would be usually construed as OIF yet they are pretty typically able to hide the fact they are wearing such costumes beneath a trench coat and hat. Naturally there are always going to be issues with the translation of comics to rules. Is this one of them? Maybe a trenchcoat is just a focus for a Naked Advantage (or whatever the new term is) that changes the OIF costume to an IIF costume.

While putting all of this detail into the Champions Complete book would be prohibitive (because it's not just this detail, but it is the same level for every power, advantage, limitation, etc.) due both to the cost of printing as well as bloating the book and making it unwieldy for new players (they generally wouldn't be as concerned with all the subtle nuances of whether a focus is Obvious or Inobvious and could get around the trenchcoat problem with general hand waving) I think a lot of us die-hard grognards would love to delve into it. Admittedly, sales for such a thing may not have a huge demand but with PDFs and with Print on Demand coming of age that becomes less of a problem. In fact given that such a system might need semi-constant revision as new questions are raised and answered a PDF subscription service might be a better way to go for such a set of rules (You pay $50 and for the next year you can download the latest revision to the Core Rules any time you want).

Even if the core system is never published it would be very useful for making sure that different authors maintain compatibility. It would prevent issues such as one author making the armored costume of his bad guy IIF since he is able to conceal it beneath a trench coat while another author uses the mechanism of an OIF costume with a separate Trench Coat focus that makes it IIF.

A few thoughts from the management. Some of you will like them, some of you will not. But they're meant to explain things a bit, not offend anyone or be confrontational. They're just the facts on the ground as I know them to be.

 

1) Champions Complete *replaces* Champions: The SuperRoleplaying Game, 6E1, and 6E2 - and for a fraction of the cost. It's sold reasonably well too. Which matters.

 

2) The book Champions: The SuperRoleplaying Game has been out of print for years now, and will never come back into print. Nor will the 6E1 or 6e2 (at least in their pre-existing form). If someone, somehow has found one on a game store shelf and gotten confused, then.... [helpless Gaelic shrug]. What can I say?

 

. . .

 

Jason Walters, CEO Hero Games

That's great, and honestly, I think it is a good direction to go. I personally feel like the 'best' design would be for a core rule system to be developed with each individual genre book built off of those core rules (such as how Champions Complete and Fantasy Hero Complete are being done). The 'core rule system' is referenced by anyone designing a new genre book and compatibility is encouraged (if not mandated). This results in stand alone genre books that are compatible with one another rather than the sort of hodge-podge that existed back with Danger International, Fantasy Hero, and Champions 3e.

A genre book like Champions Complete might not include hit locations, bleeding, incapacitating, and other various optional rules that are usually not appropriate to the setting resulting in a book that is more streamlined for people first getting into the system. The 'core rules' could be published, much like the 6e books are published, to provide greater depth to people who want to dig into the system and tweak their games, although that is hardly a requirement (either for people to purchase or for Hero Games to sell).

The problem is that right now things such as Steve Long's earlier statement makes it unclear as to exactly what the 'official' rules are. I had been thinking that Champions Complete was meant to supercede the big blue books but then when I heard that I was uncertain until your post. Adding in the fact that Hero Designer needs to be upgraded to CC and people coming in might wonder if they've bought the wrong book. That sort of lack of clarity is not a good thing in the long run.

But isn't the whole point of the heroic setting that PCs DON'T pay points for equipment?  I know that if I was a player I'd get really ticked if I paid character points for a Stick of Pointyness and then have some NPC steal it, throw it down a well, and lose if forever.

PCs typically don't pay points for normal equipment. Magical or other unusual gear can still cost points. Also, the whole point of the Independent Limitation was that it could be taken away permanently. If the player doesn't want that then they shouldn't take the Limitation.

I think more to the point, players don't pay for equipment that they aqcuire. Find the Quarterstaff of Wu Pass* and it doesn't cost anything. It was an acquirred item. Pay for it with gold you've obtained through other methods (including Wealth) and it doesn't cost you anything since it is acquirred.

On the other hand if you start off the game with it then you pay some points for it, just like the character who starts off Wealthy does. Why does the guy who starts with an item pay points when the guy who finds the item doesn't? For the same reason that the guy who starts with Wealth pays points while the guy who finds a chest of coins doesn't. You're spending points for the early advantage. TANSTAAFL.

Creating items is a bit trickier because generally you wouldn't charge a character any points to make a normal sword, assuming they have the blacksmith skill. The problem is that if you use the same approach towards magical items you will end up with characters grinding out huge amounts of magical items. Making the creator shell out points is the common solution but there are others (rare ingredients for instance). There are also 'fusion' solutions (rare ingredients may be required on items over a certain cost, rare ingredients might reduce the cost, or lack of rare ingredients might increase the cost).

*Wu Pass was one of four strategic mountain passes along the southern border of the ancient state of Qin. The temple located within the pass would teach the monks the art of Wu Pass.

That all sounds great but 2d6+1 is a bad deal for the person using that small weapon. Most of your hits land on the 7-9 Hands, arms and Shoulder. Only the shoulder does ok damage. It wouldn't be too hard to have charts for high shots, low shots.

 

Heck, the "Head Shot" 1d6+3 clusters also around the Hands and arms.

 

Both of those optional Targeting shots are really a foolish waste of time. A person is much better making a -3 OCV Called shot to the chest. It consistantly feeds x3 Stun Mult and is a X1 Body and X1 NStun location.

 

People use those targeting shots hoping to win the lottery by rolling a head shot that they DO have an increased chance to hit, but it's still a pretty low chance even with the Head Shot -4OCV called shot. on 1d6 +4 they have a 12.5% chance of hitting the head (they can only hit 5).

 

So the Naturalistic Chart seems to work "Good enough" I still think that NStun should be changed to x1for Locations 8 and 15. NStun is normally biased toward doing a very set amount of damage. The hit Location chart should IMHO reflect that better.

 

I am just tossing ideas out there. I wonder how good/bad it would be to Widen the chest location to 10-12 Lets look at this:

3-4 Head

5 Hands

6-7 Arms

8 Vitals (has the chest bracked with "Good Locations", also removes the idea that Vitals is a Genitals shot)

9 Shoulder

10-12 Chest

13 Stomach

14 Thighs

etc...

 

Head shots happen a lot less with this model. You could probably even leave the nStun multipliers alone with this one. Vitals become more clearly about hitting the Heart or Lungs. Stomach shots happen a bit more often and perhaps will seem less like an after thought on the chart. Head then becomes Lower Head, Upper Head(it has to be backward or sectional armor plays weird),

Actually, the killing attack stun modifier is one area that the hit location chart 'breaks down', but it doesn't do it in the way that you think.

When you roll 3d6 your average stun multipler is 2.87 (when you account for the differing probabilities for various locations). This is in contrast to the 2.67 that you would normally get using the older 1d6-1 method or the 2 you would get using the newer 1/2d6 method.. That's about a 7% improvement in stun over the old method and a 44% improvement over the new 1/2d6 method.

On the other hand when you are using a 'high shot' the average damage is 3.53, a 32% improvement over the old method, 77% improvement over the new method, and a 23% improvement over the 3d6 hit location chart.

So yes, you are playing a little bit of a lottery when you make high shots with a short weapon but it is definitely one that pays off. Yes, you will hit hands and arms a lot while you are doing that which wouldn't make sense if the person was simply standing there but in a fight people tend to raise their hands up. Depending on what's being done the hands are usually at a level between the bottoms of the ribs and the face and typically out in front of the body, so I don't think all those hits on the hands are that unexpected. Sure, there are plenty of stances that will not put the hands and arms in those positions but the majority will and unless you want to add to the complication of the system by creating different hit location charts based on stances I think this is about the best we can hope for.

I was talking about the normal attacks part of the chart, NOT the KA Stun multiple part of the chart.

So making the NORMAL Stun of Pos 8 and Pos 15 a x1 and not a x1/2 would make the Hit Location chart far better for Normal attacks.

 

IMHO the KA's are handled very well by the Hit Location Chart.

 

Talking about change. Another Change that would be beneficial to the chart and end the Loc 13 being a common hit issue. It might be better to go to a chart that is based on damage outcome probabilities instead of the head to toe naturalistic model the chart currently has.

 

ie Place the best locations at the 3-6 locations, Decent locations (stomach) at 7, 8-14 being the X3 x2 locations with x1 Body, then pile the undesirable locations like Arms, legs, Hands feet at the bottom of the chart 15-18.

(I pulled the actual locations out of my head, someone would want to actually use some math to make sure that the bad was just as likely to happen as the good and there was a good wide swath of "good enough" in the middle)

 

It takes away from the naturalistic feel of the chart, but it aligns the chart with the bell curve and the feel that to hits give of Very low is great, very high is very bad, Middle works ok.

 

You could do that, but really you would probably lose more than you would gain.

In theory the chart should do three things (at least IMO).

The first is that it should provide somewhat accurate percentages to hit various locations. As the chart currently stands there odds for different body parts are as follows. Head: 4.6%, Hands: 4.6%, Arms: 16.7%, Shoulders: 11.6%, Chest: 25%, Stomach: 11.6%, Vitals: 9.7%, Thigh: 6.9%, Legs: 7.4%, Feet: 1.9%. Are these odds close enough to provide a reasonable simulation? Honestly, I'd probably like to see some adjustments but let's leave that for now. Unfortunately using a 3D6 system you are going to be pretty constrained to how close you can get (although I suspect with a bit of mathematical modeling I could get a lot closer).

The second thing the chart should do is not be a detriment or an advantage over not using the chart, damage wise. A lot of people are complaining that there are too many x1/2 areas that you end up doing less damage using this chart. If you take the odds of hitting each location, multiply it by the stun modifier, and then total them up you will get 99.95%. The missing .05% is actually a rounding error and the truth of the matter is that the total is exactly 100%. I've got no idea how they were able to work that out so precisely. I think it is probably a combination of luck and probably one of the reasons that the odds of hitting a given location are a bit skewed. If I were to rework things into a more 'correct' model for probability I doubt I could hit exactly 100% like they originally did here.

The last thing that the hit location chart needs to do is cluster appropriate body parts together. This way if someone is standing behind a low wall when they get hit you can roll 2d6+1 instead of 3d6 and avoid hit locations that shouldn't happen since they were covered (incidentally, it should be noted that when you roll 2d6+1 for hit location, a free option when you are using a short weapon,  the damage is also 100%). Unfortunately any kind of modification to the chart to put the 'bad locations' at one end and the 'good locations' at the other would destroy this.

Independent need not be applied to a Focus. It was simply a way of "detaching" the ability from the character. Using Area Effect with Independent for example would attach the Power permanently to that area. . .

Indeed in the last campaign, "Independent" was used as a way of handling geases and magical powers for one school of magic.  . .

True, there were other uses of Independent beyond magic items. My real point, though, was that in the past there was an extra point break for a magical item over 'an ability that requires an item' to reflect the greater limitations (it had to be the specific item and those points could be permanently lost).

Yes but Tasha how many people worry about stun in a heroic game-especially fantasy? But if do then you have a valid point.

If they aren't worrying about it they really should be. Fighter types in heavy armor (chainmail or better) will probably suffer from some sort of serious stun based effect (being stunned or being knocked unconcious) long before their body becomes an issue in your average fight. Over time accumulated body could become an issue but it is really not very expensive for someone to have a fairly potent 'out of combat' (incantations, gestures, full concentration, foci, and extra time) healing effect that can be used to heal up the fighters between battles.

if the level of the attack you are immune to is on your character sheet - or detemined by something on your character sheet - i can see why an adavantage can cover it.

 

However if you have no control of the power level of this attack, a fixed cost is more appropriate

Well, in this case you aren't really purchasing your immunity to your power, you are actually purchasing someone else's immunity to your power. However, in the example given (two siblings working together) that is still to your benefit (since you can cut loose without fear of hitting your sibling), which is why it is an advantage and not a limitation.

It is still an instance of something you control to cost on on your own sheet, so it would still be an advantage rather than an adder.

(I should probably add that while your solution gets you to the same place I am proposing I don't think I actually agree with your logic, but I'm not going to argue the merits of it at the moment since this thread is already getting lengthy).

The immunity itself is binary but it is worth more to be immune to a 14d6 attack than it is to be immune to an 8d6 attack, so the cost should scale as well (advantage).

On the other hand, being able to position shift to your feet doesn't really become any more powerful when you can do it at 60m than when you can do it at 10m, so it should be a flat cost (adder).

One of the great things about the Hero System is that you can make (within reason) whatever character you want. Want to be a destitute swordsmaster roaming around? Want to be a frail wizard who knows mighty spells? Want to be a holy warrior who can fight but who also has access to certain divinely granted powers? You can do all those things. It's just a matter of how you spend your points. Starting off with a 'family heirloom' is no different.

That said, one difficulty is that magic item creation is slightly broken in Fantasy Hero. To wit; there is no reason to put points into a foci that could be lost (unless you happen to be creating a magic item for another character so that they are not spending their own points).

If I create a magic sword with the OAF limitation it doesn't save me any points over learning an ability with an OAF limitation, but I now run the risk of 'losing that ability' if my special magical longsword is lost. Now arguments could be made that 'any longsword' isn't worth the OAF limitation since there are others around that could be grabbed, but I could just as easily make the limitation 'OAF - Customized longsword'. Now I can no longer just grab up any old longsword lying about. If I lose my customized longsword I am without my ability until I can get it back or else get a new one made, so I am very safely back in OAF land but with no risk of losing those points.

In earlier editions of Fantasy Hero there was a limitation called 'Independent' and what it meant was that if the focus was lost (it had to be applied to a focus) the points were gone for good. I can only speculate that it was removed because like anything in the game it was subject to abuse. A player could create a starting character with a lot of power placed into Independent foci. They got a huge boost and the GM would be reluctant to take their items away for fear it would 'ruin' the character (which truthfully it could since a player might put nearly half their points in Independent foci). With players who created these kinds of characters the risk was usually worth the reward since it really could buff up their characters and if they did get into a situation where they lost a large chunk of points they could always just chuck the character and make a new one.

Removing that rule, though, was probably a 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' kind of thing. The problem wasn't so much the rule as the fact that GMs were allowing players to abuse it. To paraphrase as is often said about many things 'It wasn't a bad rule, it was just misunderstood'.

All in all it hasn't had an enormous impact on the game because most magical items are found by players rather than being paid for in points, so whether such a limitation is actually applied to the power of magic items is largely an insignificant bookkeeping detail. However, in a case of a character starting out with magic items (or creating their own) you might want to reapply such a limitation as a house rule. If memory serves me correctly it was a -1 limitation (it might have been -2, but I think it was -1). It was also not entirely thought out as it is probably a bigger limitation on certain foci than on others. If I am applying it to a D&D style potion or scroll (1 charge and then it is gone forever, not to mention the fact that it is in a foci that stands a good chance of being accidentally destroyed before I ever use it) it is a bigger drawback than if it is applied to a suit of magic platemail.*

Then what you do is simply keep control over allowing your players to buy stuff like that. It already looks like you are talking about doing that with limitations as to how much they can spend and active point limits, so this isn't even really an issue for you.

*An alternate solution for 'rules purists' is to allow players to purchase starting family heirlooms as 'Perks' (probably a subset of Wealth) with the perk costing less than the 'list cost' of the magic item. This won't fix players enchanting items but at least it will mean that a character with a magic sword that can be lost will be spending fewer points than a character with an indentical ability that simply requires a sword.

I think the question of whether something should be an adder or an advantage is 'does the effect scale?'. In the case of Positions Shift it doesn't really scale. It isn't as though you shift even more when you have high levels of flight.

On the other hand something like Personal Immunity does scale. You are becoming immune to more and more damage.

I'll add that trying to run the rules in a vacuum is a terrible idea, especially when dealing with teammates. If you don't do that then you run into the trap of '-2 Power only works in Kolinksy radiation fields' on one character while the other character takes 'Change Environment: Generate Kolinsky Radiation Fields. Inherent'.

One problem is, the rules operate in a void. Not in any given campaign. A campaign will have an impact on how often certain limitations and advantages come into play. The rules can't account for them all.

No. They don't operate in a void at all. In fact I really wish they would put more stuff in the books to make it clear that they aren't operating in a void and that the proposed values for Advantages, Limitations, and Complications might change.

As an example you will find it clearly stated that the value for certain things such as immunities might change depending upon a campaign. I think most of us will also agree that if you were to run a 'Atlantean Hero' game that the limitation 'Doesn't work under water' would be worth a great deal more than it would be in a 'Return to Dune' campaign.

There are certain advantages that aren't really likely to vary, such as armor piercing, but that is because they have counters which are also advantages. Thus they are somewhat 'self balancing'.

This is one of the problems with taking lots of things that would have originally been grouped under 'Limited Power' and breaking them out as separate limitations. Under 'Limited Power' it is easier to see how there are considerations with how much a limitation affects a power.

Given the example, both Cyclops and Havok are heroes and they don't get along.

True, they don't get along, but for the most part when they fight whether or not they are able to use their powers on one another has very little impact. Neither of them is going to wind up dead or in jail. This means that the most significant impact from such a scene is that they had a fight in the first place, not who won, which in turn means that their inability to bring their powers to bear on one another is not highly significant.

On the other hand while they are both on the same team it is possible for Cyclops to fire a wide optic beam at the two guys holding Havoc without any concern at all about injuring Havoc. This is a significant advantage, though in truth it would only occur under fairly uncommon situations (about as uncommon as someone having their own power reflected back at them), so it seems to me like a +1/4 would be warranted.

Clipped all the talk to the players - it's dead on but I have nothing to add.

 

 

As well, we can set a line between "no penalty" and the penalty as written. Maybe give it some options. Perhaps you can choose to take a -1/5d6 to DCV instead. Maybe we make it a flat -1 OCV. Perhaps you can spend a Full Phase on this and take no other penalties. Or maybe we award the characters "bonus xp" which provides a penalty skill level with their main attack, only to pull their punch.

 

 

This alludes to a key issue - if the result of pulling their punch, or using less than full damage, or any other action, is always, or mostly, "Heroes get trashed and humiliated", the tactic will quickly fall from use. If, instead, they get respect from the media, the law enforcement agencies, etc. for their restraint - ie they actually get some benefits, in addition to not being "punished", you'll see it used a lot more often.

Absolutely agree to this and it brings up something that perhaps I had missed.

One of the complaints was that if players started off with pulled punches or otherwise not using their full attacks then they would get pummeled into the ground. This right here is most likely the problem, not the penalty. Players certainly need to be challeneged, but if it's at the point of 'do everything exactly right or you will fail' then it may have gone a bit too far.

Agreed phoenix240: talking to your players is a good way to let players know what is (and isn't) expected of them. It also prevents bad communication and upset players.

Rule 1: When in doubt talk to your players.

RPGs are a form of cooperative story telling. There can be no cooperation if people aren't even communicating.

Depends on whether or not the siblings get along.

Yes, I did mention in an earlier post that it could be a limitation if one of the siblings was a villain and the other a hero, but in the given example they are both heroes.

Personally I would say that if they are both heroes it doesn't really matter if they 'get along'. In any fight they had the significant event would be the fight itself, not which one wins, so an inability to use a power under those circumstances in not an effective limitation.