slaughterj

A lot of the maneuver penalties are excessive in general, given the % drop in chance of success. Funny how Move-Thru in Hero has an OCV penalty while the same maneuver Charge/Ram in Mutants and Masterminds has a bonus to hit?!

HAHAHAHA, TFF! All these years of me actually playing and running the game that way, and it works fine, but all the naysayers with only their theories and hypotheticals to back them up come out of the woodwork Try my method, you'll like it If you don't, all you're working with is conjecture. Tons of games allow move and attack to be interchangeable, without needing AOO, and they work just fine, and so does Hero. But just to entertain me, why don't all the naysayers out there post all the terrible examples they can come up with as to why this is a problem?

Yeah, that's scary! First he has to know where I'm at to know where to tunnel up at, then once he gets the first two attacks (based on the scenario presented above, which he would regardless of whether attacks/mvmt were interchangable) and has gone back under, I'd move where he can't tunnel back up again to get me. The only difference is whether he'd still be present after the second attack, he'd still get both of them. If he k.o.'d you, there's no difference. If he didn't, now instead of getting to attack him immediately, you get to move (making it hard for him to do the trick again, which as noted, was hard to do in the first place), and hold a half phase readying to attack when he appears. And if you knew he could do this in the first place and was around, you could move to safe location and hold a half phase attack anyway. All of you that present hypotheticals but haven't tried it extensively really should try it to see that it really isn't a problem, just like it isn't in Mutants and Masterminds and other games. Sure, many games allow more mutual exchanges of actions than Hero with its Speed-based turn system, but most people are within 1 speed of others, so that infrequently creates advantages, and intelligent play (pull phase to dodge, hold phases, etc.) deals with any problem that arises. For the situations where Speeds are grossly disproportionate, that's going to be a problem in and of itself for the slow character, and isn't particularly worse in a move/attack interchangeable system.

For comparison, try out Mutants and Masterminds, while a d20 variant, it still works the same way, but without the AOO, and works just fine. I understand your point about the gratuitously high speed situation, but I don't think it's a problem, nor have I found it to be a problem after having run it that way for many years. The defender can pull phase and dodge (which would apply to each attack by the attacker, pretty effective), or have held a phase. Try it out and you'll see, just don't stack the deck against it with 1 extreme example - pick virtually any two 350pt published characters and run them against one another intelligently, and I think you'll find that things work out just fine.

As with my games, I would officially change Hero so that one could attack and then move in their phase (i.e., not just move then attack). I've run it this way since ~1990, and it is not a problem whatsoever - see for instance d20, where the same option is available and works fine.

Not necessarily. As the new FH presents, the cost for spells can be divided by some factor for a given setting if so desired by a GM (e.g., divided by 3), based on the commonality/frequency magic appears therein. So one can't simply dismiss alternative methods that have similar results.

Even with the ubiquitous 23 CON, a Stun effect is very rare in my experience. E.g., 12D6 EB = 42 Stun on average, but with 25 DEF & 23 CON, 49 Stun is necessary to get the Stun effect, which is more than a "4" on each die rolled for 12D6.

Playing Palladium FRP, the troll character slew a balrog in the street (duel), and followed with a yelled "Anybody else?!", to which was responded by several other balrogs present

Obviously MnM provides HP, which counterbalance the frequency of the 1-hit ko, but it does happen when they run out... The HP also help smooth out dice excesses, but that's more frequent in d20 vs. 3d6's bell curve. As for buying CON to exceed the 1-hit ko effect, well, Hero system pretty well promotes that anyway. I find it extremely rare that anyone is ever stunned, so any rule about ko'ing that is based on CON likely would be extraordinarily rare. Lots of factors can be considered in developing such a rule, such as trying to base it on a good die roll (3? but then even weak attacks are just as likely as strong attacks to ko), base it on a good damage roll (can't just be the results on the dice themselves as much as how many dice are rolled, e.g., a 1D6 attack would be easy to max out by rolling vs. a 10D6 attack), etc. It's not easy to formulate such a rule for Hero, which is why I was posting to see if anyone had.

NPC healer rolls - I figured the dedicated physicians would take extra time and have at least a 14- anyway, so 90%'s good enough for me Salve - I'd be interested in your particular REC Aid formulation, I just went with something rough and ready, still took overnight and didn't do TOO much (Players hate it when they paid 10 rilks for it, and only got 1 BODY on the 1D3 )

Well, that is a feature I like in MnM, but is lacking in Hero. An average brick in Hero (30 PD/ED, 55 STR, 30 CON, 20 BODY, ~55STUN) cannot be ko'd in a single hit by himself or the average EB (not counting maneuvers, etc.). I do like that Hero takes 2-3 hits at least usually to take someone down, but I think a massive success should provide the opportunity for the 1 hit ko.

I allow movement before or after attack (i.e., attack does not end action automatically). For heroic games, I limit stun recovery to be max - BODY damage, i.e., for every BODY you are down by, you are also down by at least that much STUN - not sure any more why I use that (easier to be ko'd if hurt?)and may just drop it.

Interesting point, seems similar to Rene's specific example of "No Range".

Sure, I had seen it some time ago, IIRC. The reason for a massive STUN = KO rule idea was because it seems that 1-hit ko's should be possible, but often are not. The problem is that even stunning someone is difficult, due to high CON scores (esp. in Champions), so even my suggestion of 2xCON would be pretty rare, but not sure what other approach to take (if one should be taken at all).

I've liked that idea, since it seems the super-brick should probably get back up before the mentalist, and also because the 10pt step seems fine for heroic level games, higher damaging supers games seem to make the steps seem narrower...

Ah yes, there's the kicker, and there's lots of situations like this. Limitations show the flip side of the problem in many cases, making even the base points not a good basis for END. "No Range" is an excellent example of that. Another odd example, compare: 2D6K HKA, Ranged, No STR Added - 45AP, 30RP, 4END or 2D6K RKA - 30AP, 30RP, 3END Both do the same thing, but due to the sfx, HKA Ranged, No STR added may have made more sense, but now uses more END, as well as other AP issues (fitting in frameworks, etc.).

Anybody ever done a massive damage rule for STUN, i.e., where if you take a certain amount, you are ko'd regardless of STUN total? E.g., if you take > 2xCON in STUN from a single attack, you are automatically reduced to 0 STUN?

Exactly, I agree fully with this.

Interesting idea on the AID to REC there, I'll have to run the math to see how I like that. BTW, what sort of similarities/differences do we have exactly?

That's a matter of semantics. When I do the per wound method, here's what needs to be kept up with: Actual BODY - same for you Wounds incurred - you don't do this (not much to do since wounds usually don't happen but on average on 2 different days) When wounds incurred - same for you (deals with REC times) but broken down by wound for me (usually just wing it roughly) BODY healed - few methods of healing for me and usually are pursued immediately, so little for me to keep up with, but you have to handle healing and the natural healing to allow more healing Not sure if I missed anything, but it seems as if our methods in practice vary little in complexity. Further, I prefer the per-wound method for several reasons: 1. I think a person will heal more quickly from 3 3BODY wounds than from 1 9 BODY wound. 2. If wounds are kept track of, but aren't healed on a per-wound basis, things get screwy because there's the issue of how you allocate the healing - obviously this matters only in so far as one keeps track of wounds. Even if the wounds are not tracked separately though, my example in #1 is still applicable. 3. The per-wound method can be useful for rpg purposes ("Hey, I hurt my unknown assailant in the arm, and your arm is bandaged...") - sure, you don't need to maintain the wounds to have this info, but it makes it easier. Obviously everyone should and will use what works best for them This method is what I use for gritty swords & sorcery FH with little healing - I might go with the truly simple for a D&D-ish FH. Ah, and as I mentioned, I use my for gritty games, namely Lankhmar FH, where armor being worn would make one appear up to no good, thus PCs typically have sectional rPD2 leather (cuirass under shirt type of thing) at most, especially due to stealth issues. So, many of the same issues arise, but I likely have less healing than you along with the light armor, so perhaps the per-wound method I use is useful to compensate. Regardless, the wounds are often quite severe (had 2 party members get hit with 7 BODY vitals shots in the same phase, from regular joes with 1D6+1K swords vs. 150pt Heroes, which resulted in immediate surrender and capture...), and take quite some time to heal even under a per-wound method.

I think Tesuji's method is the correct method under the system, however I'm questioning some of the system's methods of handling things themselves. As for Tesuji's method, here's my specific issue with it (separate from my general concern here): 10D6 EB, 50pts - Area Effect (+1), 50pts - Area Effect at 0 END (+1/2), 25pts Making the above, where the advantage is 0 END but not the base power, costs just as much as making the whole power 0 END. Add more 0 END advantages makes the situation even worse...

Perhaps Personal Immunity should be covered by Life Suport rather than as an advantage...

Geez, everybody knows that! First you're mean, now you state the obvious?!

If I were you, I'd take a +12 Advantage on 1d6 EB instead Rene was offering up a possible solution for discussion, but I'm sure the slam is appreciated.

Now that would be really good, especially because it would allow people to buy the Area Effect attack, but elect whether to use the Advantage, rather than buying two separate constructs. This is something good in MnM BTW.