slaughterj

This PDF provides some basic info about the Hero system, which may help: http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/FreeStuff/freedocs/HRO_int.pdf What it comes down to is, what do you want from your RPG system? Do you want it to be easy but not as flexible, then go with d20/D&D. If you are willing to put in extra effort for greater flexibility, then Hero might be for you.

Full armor suits (whether leather, chain, etc.) are listed in the Price Listing Area and in the Armor Area in the 5E FH book, but the weight on one of the lists is 2x the weight on the other list - what's up with this? (No book handy for page references.)

Nope! Which is why it's all about the points, and the DS advantage should say it makes the power continuous. Thanks! I wouldn't do it with the +1/2 / -1/2 method because of the problems that creates with including it in power frameworks, that it results in the power costing more END for no good reason, etc.

Re: slaughterj Nope, not ticked off at all, no negative tone was intended My response was purely directed to the point that the system should charge appropriately for things, thus (1) you mention Continuous and from a theoretical standpoint, it makes sense to include, but from a points sense, it does not, and the points sense is what has to win out, and (2) regarding abusive advantages used with DS, only then should an extra cost be assessed, because only then is it abusive - to require an extra cost on DS itself which effectively nerfs its value does no good whatsoever.

I understand what you mean, it's hard to "grasp" (pun intended) many damage shields that aren't offensive and defensive (see Phil's example of the rocky body though). Regardless, there are instances of such, and by parsing out the various aspects of the power, it makes it easier to analyze what value should be assessed for such, and for various add-ons.

Were you responding to me or in general? My examples and discussion were oriented toward a purely defensive DS. To the extent that it has offensive capabilities, that *might* warrant an advantage, but first I have to be convinced a defensive DS is on par with a regular attack, e.g., EB. Right now, I don't see a defensive DS as being worth an EB, and no more than a +0 advantage. IIRC, a basic DS in the book includes the grab offensive damage effect in addition to being defensive, but not other HtH uses? With that alone, it *may* be equivalent to an EB, and require a +1/2 for full HtH use, but I think it's important to look at the smallest use first, weigh it against knowns such as EB, and gradually add effects to it and compare, to properly weigh out what each stage of effects should cost.

I posted a range of typical defenses seen in typical Champions campaigns, thus "average defenses." Doing 3-4 STUN with an average attack versus an average defense is fairly irrelevant, and doesn't merit buying a separate attack (because you'd still need an EB, etc. for use at the same time (i.e., not in an MP with the DS) if you were going to do *something* effective). Who is going to be doing a melee attack against a character? Bricks and Martial Artists. 3-4 STUN is meaningless against the brick, and against the Martial Artist, they aren't affected much, but often will have a ranged attack available to fall back on, or simply can attack another target, or just take a couple of hits on this target if they must and sustain minimal damage. Especially where a PC knows that DSs are overcosted, they know that they can either suffer the minimal consequences from a DS or know that if they take a big hit from one, that the GM "massaged" things in ways unavailable to the PC, neither of which is a pleasant alternative. Okay then, if that's where the problem is, that's where the problem needs to be addressed. Just like AF has the extra +1 when used with potentially abused advantages, just do the same thing with DS, but the system shouldn't simply nerf DS entirely. And the idea of requiring Continuous is fine from a theoretical perspective, but when you run the numbers, it's nonsensical - things should be worth what you have to pay for them, and a functional DS is not so under 5e, and wouldn't be even if Continuous wasn't required (i.e., even a +1/2 advantage for a defensive DS is overcosted, per my above example and analysis).

My post above was more theoretical, now this one is more concrete. Compare the following 60AP attacks, 12D6 EB, 8D6 EB-DS (assuming no need for +1 for Continuous), and 8D6 EB-AP, for effectiveness: 12D6 EB, average damage result: 42 STUN - To use it successfully requires an attack roll, an attack action, and expenditure of END, but it can hit at range. - Against 20 DEF: does 22 STUN - Against 25 DEF: does 17 STUN - Against 30 DEF: does 12 STUN 8D6 EB-DS, average damage result: 28 STUN - To use it successfully requires an opponent's attack roll to be successful and to be a melee attack, and expenditure of END (regardless whether attacked), but doesn't require an attack action. - Against 20 DEF: does 8 STUN - Against 25 DEF: does 3 STUN - Against 30 DEF: does 0 STUN 8D6 EB-AP, average damage result: 28 STUN - To use it successfully requires an attack roll, an attack action, and expenditure of END, but it can hit at range. - Against 20 DEF: halves DEF to 10, does 18 STUN - Against 25 DEF: halves DEF to 12, does 16 STUN - Against 30 DEF: halves DEF to 15, does 13 STUN Comparatively speaking, even at +1/2 advantage value, a DS is largely ineffective for a typical range of defenses, and does not nearly equate to the AP advantage (which itself is fairly equivalent to simply buying up the base power). This is why I don't think even +1/2 should be charged for DS, rather it should be a +0 option, and have offensive aspects of DS involve either an advantage or some sort of construct to link it to one's STR / HtH attacks (the latter might not be necessary if the DS, as it should be, is defined as including Continuous, and thus would be "Triggered" to affect an opponent when struck with STR / HtH attack).

Can someone post some of these allegedly concrete examples of DS abusiveness under the +1/2 valuation, or the present valuation requiring the +1 for Continuous (if any)? Separate from the consideration of abusiveness of stacked advantages on DS, which presumably can be ameliorated similarly as to how AF has been fixed with those advantages, I think DS should be a +0 advantage as a baseline, perhaps with a +1/2 advantage for use in HtH combat. A basic comparison of EB and EB-DS (without HtH use): EB characteristics: - can hit at range (or in melee) - requires a 'to-hit' roll - hits only 1 target - uses END only when used - takes an attack action EB-DS characteristics: - can't hit at range (thus no use versus ranged-attack characters) - no hit roll by DS user, but hit roll required for attacker of DS user - can hit more than 1 target (if attacked more than once), but might hit none (not just because of a failed to hit roll, but because the attacker might choose to attack a different target or use a ranged attack instead) - uses END every phase, regardless whether attacked - doesn't take an attack action Balancing it all out, a defensive DS does not appear to be of more value than an EB, and *might* not be worth as much, but certainly does not merit a cost that is +1 1/2 (including continuous) over an EB (and likely not even +1/2 over an EB).

Try a wooden stake

Haha, I call it as I see it. A troll is a troll, regardless of whether he spouts profanity or simply acts like an ass-in-sheep's clothing. You're not engaging in an adult debate, so you don't merit a mature response anyway. You're all about swinging zingers whenever someone posts something you disagree with, rather than debating the merits of the response. Now someone gets on your case about it, and you try and pull the weak "immature" card, niiiice. You are on permanent ignorance.

Ever hear anyone say you're an ass. I'm guessing so. Psychology is still an inherently lacking discipline compared to any hard science, but I'm guessing you don't know that.

Defining perception is probably better addressed by philosophy than psychology, though of course psychology has only come into its own from philosophy in the last 100 years or so anyway. But if you want to move from more theoretical to more concrete, maybe neurobiology would be yet another better place than psychology.

Haha, you don't need an AMA guideline to tell you common sense, i.e., "don't ride a horse when you've recently suffered grievous wounds that, while somewhat healed, could reopen and kill you or get infected".

I prefer low fantasy / swords & sorcery, e.g. , Conan, Lankhmar, etc., where magical healing isn't ever-present and transportation magics don't make trade and travel in a medieval period seem stupid.

Pretty good idea. I understand the earlier poster's issue about granularity, but you can come across that issue with spells in multipowers (individual limitations are often valueless) or even in spells under a regular point-buy method. This idea brings things more in line with regular point-buy methods than multipowers though, reducing granularity issues.

I just posted an order today, but it includes preorders for other products as well (i.e. the FH Monsters book) - does my paid-for copy get set aside in anticipation of other ordered goods, or do you just wait for an additional shipment if you run out?

Yeah, I'm no luddite (obviously since I'm typing this! ), but technology has its uses and its limitations for sure, and I'll not have it limit my imagination!

Hey, I understand that

Great, just what everyone wants, to have to use a computer just to generate a character

It's a great rule in theory, but in practice, it'd be a major PITA. I like to have as much of a game, including character creation, able to done out of my head, and not have to refer to charts for such fundamental info, nor would I want to memorize such charts. Often I'll make characters when traveling, with no books available, and this would make it much harder than just using the current formulas for figureds, etc.

Re: Re: Re: Languages I wasn't disagreeing, I was simply noting that it's mostly the GM that dictates the particular value of skills in a campaign - a Japan based campaign would probably find the language significantly more useful than say a Victorian Age in England campaign (going with your High Society comparison above).

Re: Languages Yep, utility is the issue, but the extent of utility is dictated by the GM. Because it is easy to fall back on combat situations and PCs often like them, that's why combat-related expenditures seem to be of more value (i.e., have more utility) than native Japanese.

Re: DCV only to offset sweep I'd go with the -1 for the reasons others have stated. Regarding the above, if it is only with sweep, it won't be when he's out of combat, stunned, (the first two might not apply anyway?), merely moving, using ranged attacks, entangled, etc., plus he's committed to attack penalties. I'd consider making it have to include the -0 lim "only to cancel out DCV penalties for sweep" as well though, so nobody tried to get tricky

What do you mean by 23 exceptions?