slaughterj

Exactly. The Hero system does not have a setup akin to Attacks of Opportunity, and you have to play it with that understanding. The move-by and the attack then move away are basically the same thing in the sense that both allow movement after the attack, but the move-by doesn't trigger an attack by an opponent, so attack then move shouldn't either. Instead, I tend to have certain mooks hold actions based on character s approaching them, and react accordingly, unless they are already in an appropriate position for combat - then the held action can wait to hit the character if they try to run by the mook, but if not, then the mook will take his action (e.g., move up and attack).

Interesting, I'll think about that one, thanks.

Haha, whatever. The point is, the system allows you to move then attack IN THE SAME PHASE, but doesn't allow for attack then move IN THE SAME PHASE. You tell me why one takes any different amount of time, and then you might get somewhere. I understand what you mean about the tag and run off situation, but I don't see it as an issue for a myriad of reasons: 1. What else is move-by but a run by and tag the target en route, without a return strike except with a held action? Under your line of thinking, this shouldn't be allowed. 2. Attack then move means you would have had to have started out adjacent to your target, so there likely would have been a window for the target to attack you somewhere in there. E.g., SPD 4 character runs up on Phase 3 to attack SPD 3 villain. After movement, then attack on Phase 3, SPD 4 character is next to SPD 3 villain. SPD 3 villain then attacks SPD 4 character on Phase 4. On Phase 6, SPD 4 character attacks SPD 4 villain again, and moves away. Villain still got an attack in, and likely on Phase 8 can half-move and still attack SPD 4 character wherever they ran off to. 3. There are a ton of Heroic situations where attack then move makes sense, e.g., my hero is holding onto the vine with one hand, swings his sword at the adjacent cannibal, then swings across the ravine to escape his fellows. Why should that not be allowed in 1 phase, when alternatively my hero could swing on the vine to the other side of the ravine and attack a cannibal there? IT MAKES NO SENSE. It's merely a game mechanic simplifier that is outdated and unnecessary.

I guess you haven't been paying attention, I stated in this thread that I changed it many years ago, without adverse effect A move-by is a lot less flexible because of the -2 OCV and -2 DCV (damage may be down slightly on average, but maybe not). Those are some significant penalties, changing your chance to hit or avoid being hit by 25% when dealing with equivalent range CV opponents. Move-by is better when you need to move up, attack, and keep moving, of course, or to attack more than 1 target.

I eyeball it after setting an AP/DC maximum. You can't just look at AP, because you get the HKA plus STR, etc. situations. You also can't just look at DC, because you get Find Weakness, etc. situations.

Yeah, but they are not nearly as flexible as simply moving, nor is there a compelling reason not to allow movement afterward but for the fact that the system arbitrarily set up the "attack action" as a phase ender, rather than simply say "once you've activated/deactivated a power, set CSLs, etc. for a phase, you can't change them". Not allowing movement after attack is a very outdated construct with no real usefulness, just a mechanical rules simplification.

Hmm, I like the idea of the explosive entangle such that breaking out doesn't harm the creature, but...that doesn't allow for strangling of the (helpless) victims...hmm...

Hmm, been a while for D&D for me, but can't you attack, then move back from your opponent (as long as you aren't running past enemies) and not trigger an attack of opportunity? -=-=- The D&D/d20 feats seem like a good comparison to a point raised above regarding 0 phase actions and CSL allocations. In D&D/d20, you could use feats which reduce your defense and increase your offense, but there doesn't seem to be a problem with people doing this, attacking, and then switching them back. Same goes for Hero, simply say once allocated in the phase, then they stay allocated, so you don't have issues like setting all CSLs on OCV, attacking, moving them to DCV, then moving from your opponent, all in 1 phase.

Interesting idea on the Suppress, I'll have to check that out in comparison to the Change Environment. The Change Environment is pretty good, but has a few little issues, like the way you buy up all movement (though not teleport, in this particular case).

I understand where you are coming from, and that is the problem with house rules in general. People play with a lot of house rules in various rpgs, and in Hero, many do things like change the cost of STR, Damage Shield, etc. Generally I do not make those sorts of changes to my games so that people's characters stay comparable with book products and others that people might make with the system. However, I do make the occasional rules change that doesn't affect anything outside my game, and let the players know that it is a rule change, for instance, allowing attack then move. Then they know it is a house rule, but at least their characters aren't hosed by moving to another GM's game where changes like the cost of fundamental mechanics have been done. As a side note, for FH, the way I have run it is if you are in face-to-face combat, and want to attack, but then move (e.g., a fighting retreat, which SHOULD be allowed), I allow the character to take their half move backward, but only at half speed if they want to continue to face their enemy. Thus, someone with a Running of 8" has a half move of 4" but wants to back away from their opponent after a half-phase attack, they can move backward 2" (half their half move) and still be facing their opponent. Alternatively, they could simply turn their back and run, but then their opponent could do a nasty move-thru from behind with appropriate DCV penalties for not facing them.

Fire withdraw, close then fire, would seem to bring them potentially in reach. Characters can be played with a whit of sense to take cover rather than the dumb plodding brick acting like a horse after the carrot strung before him. I used GM discretion on these. If something had been "used", it couldn't be used again, e.g., if skill levels had been applied at the start of a phase, then attack, then they were set and couldn't be switched after the attack because they had been used. Same logic could be used for desolid (turning solid, attacking, then turning desolid) if it's a concern, and that's not horribly powerful as you noted, given holding phases. I think that the idea of "it's been used, you can't use it again" pretty much takes care of most things, as well as the old adage "if you can do it, so can your opponents", when deciding whether something should be able to be done in play. Obviously the rule book needs to flesh things out more if the rule were changed, but it could start by stating these basic principles, then getting into the thick of it from there.

Hear hear! Generally I agree, but if something isn't problematic, I'm fine with a given 0 phase action being taken, e.g., if someone wants to attack from hiding, then activate their bright FF, and then move out into the open, I don't see any issue. There are probably a few issues, some might have a problem with people attacking, then turning desolid, but that's not too much of an issue for me either.

Not really. This is an archaic rule with no real purpose to it now, or possibly ever. I've run Hero since the late 80s allowing movement after attack, without ever a problem. This subject (and my perspective on it) has been discussed repeatedly here actually. Further, many modern rpg systems don't have this constraint, because it is clearly not an issue. If one is worried about a high movement brick striking someone and then moving away. Well, they are only going to do it that phase. Then what happens? If the struck target can't move to the distant brick, the brick won't start next to them to the next phase to be able to do it again. They'll have to move to them, strike them, and then be standing next to them. Further, even if the high movement brick moves away, many have ranged attacks who can still hit the brick. Even if you take the situation of a speedster, it doesn't matter. Let's have some stats to work with, a Running 30", SPD 8 speedster versus a Running 6" Leaping 12" SPD 4 brick. Let's say the battle starts with the speedster away from the target, and moves up to attack on phase 12. Then the brick gets to hit. Then the speedster attacks again, and moves away on phase 2 (or stays there and hits again on phase 3, then moves away before the brick's action). The speedster has 2 phases of actions between each of the brick's, regardless, but now the speedster is out of reach. The brick now merely needs to hold a half phase to hit the speedster when he comes back, and can still use a half phase on each of his actions to move or whatever. If the situation where a Flying energy projector instead of a speedster, the brick can throw things at the energy projector, or if he is so outclassed, he should be smart enough to leave the situation, e.g., change the environment so he is in a building which curtails his opponent's movement. I've yet to see any scenario presented where attack then move was an issue, and expect if there was one, that it would be fairly contrived (both people are outside with no cover on a featureless plain) as to be of little concern in regular, typical play.

Thanks for the suggestions, keep 'em coming. The entangle seems like a good mechanic to try out, maybe with an "explosive" like effect (the creature is much more spread out than the 1 hex step-down works for though). I included desolid similar to as described above, and figure I'd do by fiat what the Bestiary did with that regarding "affects" real world on the entangle.

(I've got the Bestiary and am awaiting MMM by way of background.) I'm trying to build a mist "creature" like that in Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser story Ill Met in Lankhmar, and am encountering some difficulties. Namely, the "creature" has a mist body, whose tendrils grapple and slow up those with its grasp, strangling its targets, and seems to have more "slowing" capacity as you get closer to its center. The body's mist-like tendrils can be cut but would seem unable to be grabbed. A few paths I have explored have included: 1. the hydra model, with duplication, to enable multiple tendrils grabbing multiple targets, but this is problematic since it really doesn't try to be able to grab a specific target more or less, based on other targets present (compared with a hydra which could attack 1 person with all its heads) 2. the amorphous horror model, since many of the powers are basically applicable, but doesn't have a multiple attack method 3. change environment over an area limited by where it is at (maybe with an "explosion" limitation), to reduce movement rates, but that doesn't do the grappling itself 4. handle the grappling by various methods including "accurate" on STR, or some other area effect or explosion advantage 5. trying to have it unhurt except at its centerpoint by silver, thus the tendrils can be cut to free one from the grapple, but that doesn't harm the creature or stop further grapple attempts - not sure how to handle that... I'm really looking to "stat" this thing out, so as to both be able to battle characters, but also to have the points worked out for summoning purposes.

Thanks for the clarification. That makes for characters that are more powerful than I'm interested in at the 150pt level personally, especially since the 20 STR only counts as "4" in your calculation, yet provides 6 DC, plus the "15" compared with my "13" provides more... But you seem to list just "skill" where my way is implicitly "CSL/2", so that might provide for some balance, but it might downplay the value of CSLs vs simply buying up STR for your calculation, which I'd rather not promote. Or if you mean the same thing as me, then it allows for well more powerful characters. My 150pt examples were: Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with room for some combination of 4 CSLs and/or MA Your 150pt examples would seem to be: Nimble Rogue, STR 13 ("3"), DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: the same CSLs as me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e. 6 more than me Strong Warrior, STR 18 ("4"), DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (-), with room for some combination of 6 CSLs and/or MA: 2 more CSLs than me, unless you mean for CSLs to be divided by 2 (to be equal to CV or MA in the calculation), then it'd be 12 CSLs, i.e., 8 more than me Please let me know if I misread/misinterpreted your calculation, else either it's better to buy MA than CSLs under your system, and CSLs are of less value than buying DEX to increase your CV (and the Hero system itself already incentives this). Also, using STR rather than DC allows for a bigger spread by the warrior over the rogue, as shown above.

I get your drift re STR to weapon damage, but I find it to be a cleaner equation when using DC and the weapons come to mind readily for me. I could expand mine a bit to say: base CV (i.e., DEX/3) + base DC + CSL/2 (but this I just include in the previous 2) + 2 for MA (since the typical MA is Martial Strike, with +2DCV and +1DC, thus equal to +1 CV and +1 DC) < 13 What do you mean by "points/20 + 7"?

Well, it works for me (Oh, and it's not just base CV/DC, it includes CSLs and Martial Mods, just not an extra +1 from a weapon, a PSL, shields generally, or bother to worry with an extra +1 from a Martial Art.) Others might find a desire to "tune" it, even adding in SPD as a third factor, e.g. CV+DC+SPD<16, or simply raising or lowering the # for their campaign and/or starting character points.

I don't include things like basic combat maneuvers, else you could get into things like move-thrus and get to some high silliness Also, as far as the elf goes, I use "CV", not "OCV", so 2 "plusses" have to mean something to me (like how I mention earlier about disregarding a weapon's innate +1), so the elf would probably be fine (also I think I said something about it being a rough guideline). I haven't examined the characters in FH, but am not too concerned as to whether they'd be in - especially because I haven't decided how to handle talents like "deadly blow" (?) (not sure the name of the one that increases base damage), since I've only most recently run FH under 5e before the FH book came out.

In addition to the combat effectiveness metric I mentioned above (CV+DC<13), I also "curb" players' excessiveness by suggesting a lot of skills for the player to consider for the character before they even get to the point of CSLs, which tends to limit how many can be purchased because they see lots of skills they can't live without.

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me And you use my name in vain! Good point, and I like Talon's list of ranges so that characters can know where they stack up. I've done up the stats for the city guardsman, lieutenant, and captain of the guard range before, to know how characters should stack up.

I use a rough guideline metric to see if characters are reasonably in line from the start. My equation for this is CV+DC<13, including the typical bonuses from the usual martial art used, but probably would just eyeball PSLs and shields, and don't worry with the +1OCV a given weapon might give. This provides a balance, enabling a high skill but less damaging sort vs. a wild warrior sort. Further, since 2 CSLs can be combined for 1 DC or spread to +1 to OCV & DCV, the equation is balanced with regard to them. I'm not REALLY strict about it, nor do I want it to be viewed as a ceiling that all need to start at. Also, DEF isn't really an issue, since that's controlled more in the game (tend to play in low armor campaign settings), but usually runs about 2 DEF leather. Plus DEF is somewhat countered by penalties to DCV. It allows for quite a bit, but not excessively so IMNSHO, for starting characters. Here's some examples which "fit": Nimble Rogue, STR 13, DEX 18 (6CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA Strong Warrior, STR 18, DEX 14 (5CV), 2D6K sword (6DC), with plenty of room for CSLs/MA Also, I try to have characters adjusted to be "balanced" with one another, so if someone makes a "mighty barbarian warrior" (with STR 15, DEX 11 (4CV) , 1 1/2D6K sword (5DC), and 2 CSLs), that he isn't unbalanced against "lean street waif pickpocket" (with STR 13, DEX 20 (7CV), 1D6+1K sword (4DC), and 5 CSLs), by either boosting the warrior (seems a good idea in this case) or trimming the pickpocket (also seems a good idea in this case). Finally, a good way to get characters built "properly" according to your game world might be to provide the stats for a typical city guardsman, so the players know how the characters stack up and are made appropriately. E.g., if your city guard has STR 13, DEX 11, 1D6+1K sword, and 1 CSL, then the warrior character might be very happen to be at STR 15, DEX 14, 1 1/2D6K sword, and 3 CSLs (knowing he'll best 1-2 guards fairly readily), and the pickpocket might be happy with STR 10, DEX 18, 1D6K sword, and 2 CSLs (knowing that he can do okay against a city guard, being heroic, but not needing to be able to beat a whole unit).

Though not one of the recent inquirers, thanks for the update, and I look forward to seeing the revised site.

Interesting idea in #2...

Well, those limitations were one of the things I mentioned in the original post to this thread, so yes, I consider it an issue for discussion on this subject The advantage in avoiding munchkinism is that by using the bestiary creatures pretty much as is, it avoids players making majorly disadvantaged creatures that are abusive for a reduced summoning cost, since the beastiary creatures should be balanced from an objective standpoint. That's why I don't have much of a concern regarding bringing in the disadvantages.