slaughterj

Re: END and Equipment?

could one take PSLs to counteract the penalties to CV of not meeting the Strength Minimum?

Might as well just spend the points on STR instead.

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

Well, only if the GM is a fool. Because if the GM is no fool, then they might limit the damage of a weapon to twice the weapon's damage. ;-)

 

6E2, page 99.

I've seen that in the book, but I think it is really overstating the situation. According to the system, 60 STR does 12D6 Normal damage, which is equivalent to 4D6 Killing damage. Converting from Normal to Killing damage should be a wash since the system considers 12 DCs of damage to be equivalent regardless whether Normal or Killing, so really all that is going on here is adding 1 DC of damage, not exactly game-breaking and certainly overstating things to call the GM a fool over it.

Further, if the PC actually paid points for 1 DC of killing and also for the 60 STR damage, then the PC paid the points for 13 DCs of damage, and in that case, it would arguably be penalizing the PC if they couldn't use it together since they paid for it (sure, it would be a cheap way for a PC to use their Normal damage for Killing, but they could have bought another 5 STR instead and done even more Normal damage than they would otherwise do). Part of the problem is the idiosyncracy of DCs of Normal and Killing damage don't "exactly" cost the same (5 STR is better than just 1D6 Normal damage).

Re: END and Equipment?

Just to clarify what other people are saying' date=' guns themselves cost no End, but the Strength you use to meet the gun's Strength Minimum still costs End. And you need to meet the Strength Minimum or you start taking penalties to CV and such.[/quote']

 

That's good to know, thanks.

So Guns have charges, and therefore no END costs to use, right? It seems therefore that in modern campaigns, versus fantasy where you use muscle-powered weapons, that END is not particularly useful, any thoughts on that? (Most of my Hero has been supers and fantasy.)

So I was thinking that for modern campaigns where one doesn't buy guns with points but rather just gets equipment that is available, to require END costs for guns, good idea or no?

It seems that could be tied to the "real" limitation (though arguably would be an additional limitation), and is at least somewhat sensical, as it takes effort to hold up the gun, take the recoil, lug it around, etc.

One issue I have though is if you move from modern up to scifi-type weapons, e.g., blaster pistols, it is even harder to justify that they cost END, so maybe for modern, it isn't the best idea?

But in a relatively modern game, END would seem to be relatively pointless to track, anyone with experiences on that care to comment?

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

Regardless' date=' since such attacks typically bypass normal defenses, they don't suffer that much even if you don't use the Hit Loc chart for them in my experience.[/quote']

 

But my point was they are relatively weaker in comparison to damaging attacks when you move from no hit locations to using hit locations. E.g., Killing attacks go from 2x stun on average to 3x stun on average, a 50% increase in effectiveness, which means that other attacks are effectively relatively weaker. This creates an inappropriate incentive to use the damaging attacks instead, when there should be no incentive for why type of attack over another in a balanced point-buy system.

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

One possible problem I see with the hit location chart not conforming to the default damage rules is that in games that use hit locations, most attacks will get the benefit of hit locations, but area effects generally won't, so effectively they are relatively weakened versus other attacks in games which use hit locations.

Similarly, it seems that non-damaging attacks (Drain Stun, etc. etc.) are also relatively weakened versus regular damaging attacks.

Double post

So now that people have had an opportunity to try out 6e Killing damage (with the lower Stun multplier) versus 5e Killing damage, what are people's thoughts on it? Like it? Feel it's better balanced? Thoughts on frequency of foes being stunned? Feelings on it vary by genre?

Also, since Killing damage Stun multiple is 1-3x, why is the hit location chart still as set in 5e, i.e., with a 1-5x Stun multiple? Is that an error? Something forgotten to be updated? Been discussed at all?

Re: HERO System Bestiary

Essentially' date=' the 6E [i']Bestiary[/i] compiles, reorganizes, and "Sixifies" what was in the 5E version, plus most of Monsters, Minions, And Marauders and the Celtic bestiary from Tuala Morn, some sections from the two Asian Bestiary(s), a few items taken from other books, and whatever else Steve thought was appropriate and cool.

It seems to me that creatures should be statted about the same under 5th and 6th (i.e., if a creature was to have X STR, X combat skill, etc., then there is no reason it should change between editions)? It seems I should be able to get by with the 5th Bestiary fine enough (I have MM&M also)?

Understandably, the desire is for there to be sales of the book, and I'm sure I would get it sometime, but is there any real reason to rush out and do so, given that I have the prior books?

Re: Building a Wall of Fire spell

One question - why is the Time Limit advantage being applied to an attack that already has Constant, Uncontrolled, and OCETA? Such an attack could already last forever, or at least as long as the GM felt was reasonable.

Not that it makes a big difference to the cost of the power.

Good question! Without Time Limit, then instead, maybe a disadvantage would be appropriate for a short duration, e.g., 1 Turn? This makes me have to look back and see what the point of Time Limit is again?!

Re: Building a Wall of Fire spell

Offhand, I think that AE(Line) is only +1/2 in 6e, and Constant is +1/2, so that may help.

Re: Building a Wall of Fire spell

So' date=' you want the Wall of Fire to do more damage, for no more than 60 Active Points.[/quote']

 

Thanks, the AVAD plus Does Body route is something I can explore. I'm not too interested in the charges route though, since (a) I want it to be usable a bit more frequently (charges seem a bit wonky to me for magic, too much like DnD; sure, I could up the # of charges, but...), and ( I want it to cost END on the start (maybe there's a solution for this, perhaps it is another limitation?).

 

It seems like Uncontrolled with Time Limit is the exact representation of how I want it to work, but if I want it to work effectively (i.e., enough damage), then maybe the only choice is to go the Continuing Charges route, even if it isn't exactly how I want it to work...it seems maybe Uncontrolled with Time Limit should somehow work out a little cheaper instead so people can practically build things...

Re: Building a Wall of Fire spell

Thanks for the response. I'm just trying to stat it out based on the main book for 6e, and am more concerned about AP than RP, e.g., for fitting into a MP, as well as what is reasonable overall for a build. With massive disads and/or fantasy campaign specific cost reductions, I can certainly bring down the RC to a decent level, but that still leaves it as a purchase of undereffective power, and pretty expensive to raise even marginally.

Note that changing it from 1D6 RKA to 1D6+1 RKA, while a significant increase in AP cost, is not a significant increase in actual effectiveness. It goes from 3.5 Body and 7 Stun on average to 4.5 Body and 9 Stun, i.e., it does hardly anything to even a mook in leather armor. Further, 1D6+1 RKA does nothing more on the Penetrating than 1D6 RKA, just 2 Body on average for either. So even with a significant cost increase for a negligible power bump, it is still quite underwhelming in effect unfortunately.

And stepping away from fantasy level, trying to make it for a superhero still won't make it effective given the low dice of effect versus the excessive cost for the advantages, the AP making it hard to fit in MPs, the lack of disadvantages or cost reductions for fantasy, etc. I just wonder if there is some sort of solution to making this sort of thing effective and work as intended, but at a reasonable cost.

In tooling around 6e some, I decided to try to build a Wall of Fire spell where the mage casts it and it stays up and running for a short while independently (i.e., mage can run away, get ko'd, switch Multipower, etc.), and just damages (i.e. not an actual barrier). After some effort, this seems to be what I need to include:

Area of Effect (Line), 4m tall & 16m long +1/2

Constant +1/2

Uncontrolled +1/2

Costs END to Activate +1/4

Time Limit, 1 Turn +1/4

This leads to some questions:

1. Is there anything I am missing? Other advantages/limitations to include?) Something I am not understanding about the foregoing to make my construct work as intended?

2. These are a lot of advantages, meaning the base attack power has to be pretty low in order to not bust AP caps (or ability to even buy it). To keep within 60 AP (a stretch for standard heroes in Fantasy Hero under the guidelines), basically this means either a 4D6 blast or a 1D6 RKA with Penetrating (AVAD/NND is possible too, but don't seem particularly appropriate). However, either of those options are not particularly compelling, as even against mooks, the blast is maybe 8 stun after defenses and the penetrating RKA is 2 body - that's just not enough to deter someone from going through it (sure, people don't *know* how strong it is, but PCs facing an evil wizard with this kind of effect could guess it to be very weak given the inordinate cost of advantages to make it happen). While the advantages do add up, they are not *that* powerful in the grand scheme of things without some decent base damage. What can be done to make this work as desired, yet actually be meaningful in terms of game effect?

I like the detail Hero can provide, but the inordinate cost of things like this seems a bit troubling.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

The character paid for the power' date=' and should be assumed capable of using it. He should not have to buy other prerequisite powers to be able to benefit from Megascale, any more than he should be required to buy prerequisite powers to be allowed to use his Blast, Force Field or Damage Shield.[/quote']

 

I generally agree, but could see some exceptions such as if you buy space flight, then you still need to buy life support.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

I believe that the Move After Attack is now an official optional rule for H6e -- maybe in the APG or as a Toolkit option in H6e2.

Thanks! I'll check that out, sounds like some incremental progress on this.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

Yeah' date=' I have been wondering myself if/when the "attack action ends Phase" sacred cow would be eliminated. It would clean up a bunch of stuff and make some combat much more fluid than it currently is.[/quote']

 

Exactly, which is why I dropped it 20+ years ago with no ill effect.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

Average speed for a road bike (non-professional racing bike) is 17-25 mph. So good job' date='you must have a nice bike and be in pretty good physical condition.[/quote']

 

Riding downhill of course

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

1. Hero System isn't a Superhero game' date=' it's a Generic rule set for running any genre.[/quote']

 

I guess you missed my first post where I said I played (and ran) Hero since the mid/late 80s? I pretty much got that point, thanks.

 

5. If movement was even cheaper' date=' and we adopted your "move after attacking" house rule, many characters could simply hit a mook then move so far away there would be minimal chance of retaliation due to range modifiers and "normal" NPCs lack of insane amounts of movement. Boy, that sounds superheroic.[/quote']

 

Really? Really? I'm pretty sure if they wanted to attack in the first place or to attack again, they would need to move into range of being attacked, so this is really not a problem. I think maybe the original designers 30+ years ago might have designed the game with that worry back in the early days of RPGs, but it really isn't a problem as shown by extensive actual play since then. I've run plenty of Hero with move after attack over 20+ years, and the MnM game system is extensively played, allows move after attack, has been out for nearly 10 years, and doesn't seem to be a problem, so I really don't think Hero needs to cling to this legacy, unnecessary rule.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

26 mph isn't a "decent [amount of] movement"?

That's one hell of a slow car. I can probably ride a 10-speed that fast, so that doesn't seem too superheroic.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

2. I've never heard anyone complain that movement is too expensive. In fact, it's often considered too cheap in fantasy games. In 5E 30 points of movement would get you 15-30" of combat movement (depending on the type). That's 30-60 meters in a second non combat. For a SPD 5 character that means the can move 750-1500 meters a minute. That's 45-90 kilometers per hour. If 28-56 miles per hour is too slow for you, you can double the non-com distance for a mere 5 points and keep doubling it at 5 points per doubling to as fast as you want. This really seems like a non-issue.

Check out MnM, movement was handled much better there. In Hero in the past, one usually spent as much on your defense and other powers, since they would go into an EC together, but because the EC cut the cost in half, the high cost for movement was somewhat controlled, but without ECs (though there seems to be the same power source limitation), the unduly high cost for movement really stands out, as one should be able to buy a decent movement without spending the equivalent amount as they did for their defenses, etc. as the need for attacks and defenses are much more significant than is movement.

Re: 6e questions - still no move after attack, expensive movement, defense favored, e

Thanks for the responses.

1. As for your first point' date=' most of the games I've ever played have taking an action, especially if it's an attack, end your turn. That is not some weird anomaly only found in Hero, it's fairly standard.[/quote']

 

DnD 3e/4e didn't end an action by attacking (except on a charge), nor did the other d20 games to my knowledge, which has been a lot of the RPG scene for some time, and of course DnD is the big gorilla. Going back a long ways, D6 Star Wars didn't end actions on a turn. I'm sure you can cite to some games that do it, but none come to mind to me other than Hero, and in Hero, it never seemed necessary.

Played Hero since the mid/late 80s, just now looking into 6e, and had some questions:

1. Did I see correctly that an attack still ends the action, i.e., can move before but not after? If so, was it ever explained as part of the big system review why this was still the case? I changed this rule to allow movement afterward about 20 years ago and it never was a problem.

2. Movement powers for combat use are generally still bought on a linear scale, right? (Setting aside MegaScale for NCM.) In the big system review, was it discussed why this is the case? It seems like movement powers are unduly expensive, e.g., compared with the scaling movement in MnM. (And it seems like one should not need to spend nearly as much for a decent movement than they do for a decent attack, as the latter is doing a whole lot more).

3. Hero had in the past slightly favored defenses versus offenses by making equivalent defenses a bit cheaper, is that still built into the system or is it now evened out?

4. Has the adjustment to the characteristics finally dispatched the imbalances of DEX, CON, STR, and otherwise, or are there still some legitimate discussions of balance issues with the new characteristics setup? Though I liked the backward-compatible ways of past editions, I generally favor the concept of this change for purposes of balance and look forward to exploring it further, but was wondering if there are still previous issues or perhaps new issues due to the recosting and decoupling of figured stats.

Re: Heat Vision

I am entirely in favor of this being a Power Stunt as long as it doesn't get overused. I also like the "Or Else" Maneuver. However (with Heat Vision I being the normal attack):

 

Heat Vision II: RKA 1d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Ranged (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Usable As Attack (+1) (67 Active Points)

 

Power can be turned off by dunking the item in water or similar things. I imagine that you could also get a Limitation for Only Affects Non-Flammable Objects With Good Heat Conductivity (metal objects work well, for example).

 

I'd generally allow the holder of the weapon to choose to drop it as a zero phase action, since that's usually the point of the attack.

Ugh, that may generate the desired effect, but is so cumbersome to develop in the system. Not to mention, all those advantages cranking up the cost on something that isn't often as good as just using a regular RKA on someone.

Re: Do characteristics break the Hero way of doing things?

And that's the key. If average DEX is 18, having a 5 makes one very uncompetetive. If average DEX is 28, a 15 DEX is just as uncompetetive.

 

So if average DEX rises by 5, everyone gets to spend an extra 15 points (10 after "speed rebate") on DEX without actually changing their effectiveness.

There's more to it though. DEX is undercosted (as well as other stats), and therefore it will be bought up. That creates inflation. This is a fault of the system itself, and even if you try to "behave," the boundaries will be pushed and people will make "dextrous" character designs to justify the higher DEX. Even when I've doubled the cost in a group of non-power-gamers, it was still bought up.

Also, to the extent that the range of scores significantly affects one's chances of success also affects things. I.e., with the 3D6 system, DEX 5 gives you OCV 2, versus DEX 18 getting DCV 6, you have a 7- chance of hitting, which is a very low %. If the spread were 4D6 for instance, the gradations would be finer and a spread would be more acceptable.