slaughterj

Originally posted by Mike Basinger

The Hero Resource Kit has a couple maps like this, including the classic Main & Vine map (a treasure for members of the OFCL).

 

Mike

You mean the street map?

I've got the Resources Kit, I'm looking for outdoor sorts of maps...

A LONG time ago, I had some hex maps that folded up to an 8 1/2 x 11 stack, but when folded out, were at least 8 such sheets effectively in size, and had a path, preset boulders, trees, etc. on them, and were properly sized for miniatures. I'm unable to find such, but they're great scenery for "random" encounters. Anybody know what I'm talking about and where to get something like this?

I haven't read LOSH in probably 10 years, though it was my favorite DC title - any suggestions on catching up? Any novels, summaries, etc.?

A catalog of stuff would be cool...

All of you - chuck off!

And if you're offended, then chuck you!

Originally posted by Gary

Nope, 0 Str requires 0 end.

Ah, but physical actions take at least 1 END (i.e., blocking, chucking, etc.)

Thanks for the Leave Trace info.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: HEEEEEEEELPPPPPPP!

Originally posted by John Desmarais

Apparently he wants all magic to leave behind a residue (pixie dust?) detectable by other mages.

 

John Desmarais

Sure, but how's that a lim? You leave tracks when you walk somewhere, etc., how's this different? Perhaps a matter of assuming spell use, once completed leaves no sign of magic having occurred (other than the whole in the corpse )? Seems like it could be cool, but as a -1/2 lim (assuming), I wanted to see what all it encompassed, i.e., fade rate, range of detection, etc., to see justification for its value. I could also see GMs saying magic leaves a trace as a matter of sfx, no points given...

Re: Re: Re: Re: HEEEEEEEELPPPPPPP!

Originally posted by Thirdbase

Well each spell has at least the Gestures, Incantations and Leaves Trace Lims, that totals a -1, plus all spells have to Cost End, and the spells end up having multiple power levels. Plus the VPP is usually higher than 20, I used 20 pts because that is the example that was given, so generally you can have a attack at full power plus several other spells at lower levels loaded. The real trick is that all the spells are predefined by the GM, but that is the pain in the @$$.

Leaves Trace Lim?

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite

My suggestion is to use the Multipower method but exert control over how/when a mage gets to add additional spells to his list. Come up with some sort of rules for "spell research" using the Inventor skill (renamed for Fantasy Hero of course). If a character can only add 1 spell per month (game time) thats going to limit the number of spells he/she can add to their Multipower during gameplay...and the low cost of Multipower slots allows the mage to grow in other areas besides magic.

Seems a good way to do it might be to say "learning" takes X amount of time, based on the AP of the spell or the increase of the AP to the spell, thus making it harder to get but so many higher AP spells.

I've had the same issues, and in the past used the spell colleges system (i.e., separate buy, lots o' limitations). One solution to "increasing" the cost of a MP, other than requiring the slots to be multi, is to require that each spell have to be learned before bought, i.e., a 2pt KS (or 1pt with Scholar?), in addition to buying the slot. This is not just an artificial cost increaser though, the skill would be useful in a several ways:

1. To research and develop related spells (use as a complementary skill)

2. To identify the same or similar spell being cast (lots of uses for this, like Spellcraft in D&D, know what the effect is going to be, know whether to "counter" it with a held action, etc.).

3. It represents "learned" magic, rather than Sorceror-style (think D&D) magic.

Originally posted by tesuji

buy a naked advantage "area of effect cone of **** powers" as a separate power and buy your Eb normally as one of those types of powers.

 

The advantage to this method is two fold...

 

1. if you buy more "type of *** powers in the future you can apply this naked advantage to it. The new *** would be in a multipower of course, iirc.

 

2. You do not end up having to pay additional points for "slot costs"... which would save you 18 cp assuming 12d6 EB.

 

there are plenty of examples of naked advantages being used when multipowers would have been just as viable in the various book examples to support this. One of the best is putting megascale as a naked advantage so you can use the power normal or megascale at whim.

Heh, just saw your post after I finished typing my treatise.

Originally posted by SuperBlue

Put it into a Multipower, and buy 2 Ultra Slots: One with the AoE and one without.

That's the standard solution, though I don't find it to be truly adequate, because the typical AE attack is half the damage of the regular EB (due to the +1 advantage), and at half damage, is marginally effective even against goons. Because of the way that MPs work, additional limitations to cut cost are marginally effective (only cutting 1-2pts on the slot cost), while you may be trying to design a power with a greater AP than the rest in the MP, but with a limitation (e.g., Extra Time, Extra END, etc.). However, a rough fix can be done as follows:

60pt MP: (Cost 60pts)

Ultra-Slot 1: 12D6 EB (Cost 6pts)

Ultra-Slot 2: 6D6 EB AE (Cost 6pts)

and separate from the MP, buy:

+3D6 EB AE, with Extra END or other lim (-1/2 Lim) (Cost 20pts)

IIRC, you can't apply a "Linked" lim to the above AE "adder", else it would go off as a separate attack (i.e., you'd hit with a 6D6 and 3D6 AE attack), each with smaller radii. Note, it typically isn't worth buying but 1 of these MP "adders", usually it's better to just increase the MP.

Alternatively to all of the above, your GM might simply let you buy the AE advantage as a naked advantage (much like the Explosion Advantage on STR example in the 5e book), though he might not let you buy the base EB up but so high due to AP considerations. Note also that the use of naked advantages such as are in the book seem contradictory to other Hero gospel, in that as a rule, you are unable to use a power without its advantages - the concept of a "naked" advantage basically flies in the face of this rule, not to mention the ramifications of being able to use the base power without the naked advantage, thus costing less END, etc., making "naked advantages" clearly superior to the normal advantages setup. Since Hero games has clearly allowed the concept of naked advantages, it should recognize this contradiction, and address it, for instance by saying that one can use a power without its advantages, depending on the sfx, and not have to pay the END for it. But enough of that soapbox

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

I just opined one time that you could buy any power with Uncontrolled, Continuous, and No Range (if applicable), and define the effect as a "Damage Shield." You wouldn't even need a separate Advantage.

Similarly I have thought that the basic Damage Shield (no range, when attacking with it, it only damages with a grab) should simply be a +0 Advantage, based on breaking down its effect and balancing it against other effects in the system (namely EB or HA). (As a side note, I agree with the others than it doesn't work to the full extent of Continuous, thus isn't of that level of advantage.)

Let's break down the effects of DS, EB, & HA and compare:

Effect: Damages opponents - all 3

Effect: Requires hit roll - all 3* (DS on defense requires opponent hit roll)

Effect: Attack somehow limited - all 3 (DS - particular type of HtH attack; HA - HtH attack; EB - no STR added)

Effect: END cost - all 3 (DS - each phase if wanted to defend (thus some might be useless but for deterrence) and otherwise each phase like regular attack; EB/HA - each phase when want to attack)

There's probably more.

Given the effects, you get the following (assuming DS as a +0 Advantage, thus equivalent damage, and that the DS is a HA, thus gets STR added):

- HA can be used with more types of attacks than DS - this favors HA

- DS (HA) gets STR added vs. EB gets range - balanced

- DS (HA) costs END to maintain for defensive purposes, DS does not stop the attacker's damage, and DS does not work if the attacker misses - thus compared to HA/EB, you pay END regardless whether you hit, but for DS (defensively), you pay END regardless whether your opponent attacks, and whether he hits - favors EB/HA (i.e., an opponent can stay in your vicinity, "forcing" you to keep up your DS, but meanwhile pounds on your buds, costing you END for no effect, vs. an EB/HA you'd use and at least attack with)

- DS (defensively) can affect multiple attackers (without additional costs, like Sweep penalties for HA or Spread penalties for EB) - favors DS

Overall, it seems to me that the benefit of possibly damaging melee attackers is balanced by the continued END cost (i.e., must spend to deter, but that doesn't mean they have to attack you) and its limited offensive HtH use (e.g., HA can be used in Move-Bys, regular Strikes, etc.). Thus I don't see the need for the basic DS to be anything more than a +0 Advantage.

Re: The indispensable team member

Originally posted by Hermit

What niche in the super team do you find indispensable?

Who do you most regret not having?

 

The guy strong enough to hold up the crumbling building...

The detective type who can actually tell you what all the clues mean...

The Science wiz who knows how to shut off the Mastermind's "Doomsday Device"

The "man with the van" , whoever owns the vehicle or other method of group transport

Mr. Moneybags- Because even heroes need cash

The intrepid Leader

Heck, the intrepid Follower (Someone has to take orders)

 

Every find yourself short one of these in a campaign?

The first 3 are big - transportation isn't much of an issue so far as I've seen, since players like supermovement.

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

There's a fix in 5E already if you want one. On page 110, while describing how to build a Mental Paralysis-type power, it says that you can apply a -1/2 Limitation if you want the target's Mental Defense to add to their EGO for purposes of breaking free.

Cool, thanks!

I want to see:

1. DAMAGE SHIELD FIXED! - It should only be a +0 Advantage on EB, and not require Continuous as part of its definition (an advantage would be required for it to work for the character's typical melee attacks). We can start yet another separate thread if an explanation is desired for my proposed cost structure.

2. Fix limited capacity Extra Limbs - if a limb is weaker, apply the lim to the Limb (pun intended), not to STR, else all the previously-discussed issues arise.

3. I like the idea of breaking down all the powers to their most fundamental parts, but think that might get a bit far afield from recognizable Hero (i.e., 2.5-3 pts for every 1D6 normal damage attack, without range, without STR added, etc.). Smaller fixes can be done that would be good though, like commingly Attack powers and Defense powers, so that if I want to buy a Drain vs. ED, I don't have to have it work vs. natural ED, Armor, and FF, or a Drain vs. an attack, but don't have to have it cover both EB and RKA.

4. Address the "mutually drained" aspects of EC powers and designing Drains, so that stupid shit doesn't arise - If you have an EC (TK powers) with FF and Flight, and Gravity boy wants to pin you to the ground, should his Drain Flight affect your FF?! Even more importantly, was Drain Flight the right power to have for that effect! Instead, what should happen is that if someone with a Drain 1 TK power comes along, then they hit all of them in the EC instead.

5. ECs were set up to deal with common source powers, yet often an MP is used at the same time - set up a smooth mechanic for tying them together and subjecting them to the Mutually Drained aspect (but see #4 above). I.e., Fire Dude with EC: FF & Flight, with a MP with 4 attack powers - if his FF is drained, so is his Flight (hopefully not stupidly, see #4), but so should his MP, though that's not the current setup (per a 5e question I asked Steve, he suggested a -1/4 lim get slapped everywhere).

Originally posted by mudpyr8

I think adding Power Defense makes more sense than MD, but it depends on the campaign. I don't require Pow DEF but *highly* recommend it.

Good idea!

Originally posted by mattingly

It's not quite so bad if the campaign house rule is that Force Fields don't stack with other forms of PD/ED. That way, a character with 4 normal PD/ED, 3 DEF Leather Armor, and a 8 PD/ED Force Field would have... 8 PD/ED.

 

Another rule that helps out a bit is a -1/4 Limitation (or a campaign rule) that all attacks against Force Fields are treated as if they were Penetrating. That is, for every BODY rolled, at least one STUN gets through the Force Field (or one BODY for Killing Attacks).

I didn't ever allow it to stack, and it never became an issue anyway (never did have anyone try a Plate-mailed Dwarven warrior-mage with the earth/stone FF spell ).

I like the idea of Difficult to Dispel, since it does make the AP more in line with other effects for purposes of Dispelling. Something else I've seen done is that some games will have the FF with an attached MD (Mental Defense) as well, which also adds a few more points into the mix (e.g., FF 5PD/5ED, MD 5pts - now you're up to 15pts over 10pts).

Entangle as described by various people here is what we've used, but unlike Derek, I've always been annoyed that Mental Defense didn't somehow factor into defending against this, though I haven't put any effort into trying to create a "fix" for this.

Originally posted by Old Man

Is it really necessary to implement class-based restrictions on powers in the first place? It's your campaign, of course, but I personally see no reason why the wizard's healing should be more expensive than the priest's. It all has the same in-game effect.

 

To go off on a tangent, it is my opinion that healing is too cheap in the first place.

I don't see it as necessarily class-based, so much so as background-based, in this case. If there are two sources of magic in a world, that obtained through divine grant and that which is not, and the former happens to tap into magic in an easier way to provide healing, there's no evident mechanic for handling this, so I was looking for suggestions (other than GM fiat).

To match your tangent, I think Force Field is too cheap (for FH).

Given that powers cost the same for everyone, how do you control, limit, increase the cost of, etc. powers that are in the province of one magical type from those of another?

E.g., if Healing is available to practitioners of Divine Magic and Wizardry, but the Divine practitioner's Healing is twice as effective (or half the cost of) the Wizard's, how do you handle this, when Healing has a set cost?

If you say "Wizards can't have more than 5D6 Healing", then what other than explicit GM disapproval keeps the balance in play for starting Wizards vs. Priests, if a starter Priest only has 3D6 Healing?

Originally posted by Klytus

As most GM's agree that a Limitation of -1 is in line for Fire Only (for example)

Actually there was some extensive discussion on this before (perhaps on the previous boards). My position was that, for a typical campaign (i.e., fairly broad distribution of attack powers), there are attacks that include fire/heat, cold/ice, water, sonics, electricity, light, darkness, radiation, "force" (e.g., TK), etc., etc. Because of the #s of different attacks, the frequency of a particular attack form being encountered in a given encounter is fairly low, and so the limitations on defensive powers for use against particular powers should be valued accordingly. One method is to review the Activation Roll chart, for lim values based on % of occurrences, and use that value for the "Only vs. X attack form" limitation on defensive powers. Typically the result is that most attack forms are fairly rare, based on %s, meaning that most should get a -2 lim value, but some which may have some environmental frequency (e.g., heat/fire from volcanoes/lava, burning buildings, etc.) might be a bit more frequent and merit a -1 1/2 lim value. The lesser lim values, like -1/4 or -1/2 should be used for defensive power limitations for limitations that exclude a certain type of attack, to represent a defensive weakness (e.g., Ice Dude has some defenses bought as x ED, Lim "Not vs. Fire/Heat" (-1/2), given the greater frequency of those attacks, vs. say Crystal Dude with some defenses bought as x DEF, Lim "Not vs. Sonics" (-1/4), given their typical lesser frequency). Obviously it is up to the GM to determine the frequency of attacks in the campaign, and assign an appropriate value - or if the player selects a particular value, for the GM to provide an appropriate frequency of attacks against the character to merit the limitation.

Transform?

1 - scrolls to book

2 - paper to tough paper

3 - tattered paper to whole paper

Originally posted by mudpyr8

One of the reasons I built the system the way I did was I wanted to be able to create a 50 pt mage. Using the normal Hero, no power framework system and maybe -2 ot -3 lims, this was very difficult.

 

At the same time I feel Multipowers result in spells that are just too cheap, so I wanted some balance. At 115 points the mage in the group is powerful, but no more so than any of the other characters.

I understand exactly what you mean - MPs seem to make each spell bought too cheap, plus they make adding limitations not very worthwhile - but spells tend to be a bit expensive on the point-buy as well.