CTaylor

I'm reasonably certain that Raimi's script and idea for the third Spider-Man movie was the Sandman story, and the studios forced Venom on him for extra moichendizing.

I post em as they come in the book, unless it says otherwise in the post - he has no personal immunity on his explosion punch in the book, so I didn't give him one in the writeup. The only consistent change I make is a lot of the time I'll skip 1/2 END on 3rd edition or earlier because everything costs half as much endurance from 4th edition on anyway. But hey, don't use them if you don't want to, this is just for fun and to help increase interest in old Hero products. Its not like its costing you anything. If you want to change something, download the attached hero designer file and tweak it. Now for Fusion, Dr Megaton's lackey Fusion Val Char Cost 10 STR 0 20 DEX 20 18 CON 8 18 INT 8 18 EGO 8 15 PRE 5 7 OCV 20 7 DCV 20 6 OMCV 9 6 DMCV 9 30 PD 18 rPD 10 (With Gauntlets PD 36; rPD 16) 30 ED 18 rPD 10 (With Gauntlets PD 50; rPD 30) 5 SPD 30 10 REC 6 35 END 3 10 BOD 0 24 STN 2 12m RUN 0 4m SWIM 0 4m LEAP 0 Characteristics Cost: 184 Cost Power 20 Armored Costume: Resistant Protection (10 PD/10 ED) (30 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 12 Reinforced Gauntlets: Resistant Protection (6 PD/20 ED) (39 Active Points); Requires A Roll (8- roll; Must be made each Phase/use; -1 3/4), OIF (-1/2) 10 Visor: Sight Group Flash Defense (10 points), Hardened (+1/4), Impenetrable (+1/4) (15 Active Points); OIF (-1/2) 34 Fly: Flight 60m (60 Active Points); OIF (Gauntlets; -1/2), Double turn mode penalties (-1/4) 100 Fusion Blasts: Multipower, 150-point reserve, (150 Active Points); all slots Requires a roll 14- (must roll every use/phase) (-1/2) 5f 1) Fusion Blast: Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (52m Cone; +1) (120 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), 8 Charges (-1/2), Requires a roll 14- (must roll every use/phase) (-1/2) 7f 2) Fusion Lance: Blast 12d6, Area Of Effect (96m Radius; +1 1/2) (150 Active Points); 8 Charges (-1/2), Requires a roll 14- (must roll every use/phase) (-1/2) Powers Cost: 188 Cost Skill 3 PS 12- Skills Cost: 3 Total Character Cost: 375 Pts. Complication 10 Hunted: Hero Group Infrequently (Mo Pow; Mildly Punish) 10 Hunted: US Government (NRC) Infrequently (Less Pow; NCI; Harshly Punish) 15 Psychological Complication: Over eager, clumsy in his haste (Common; Strong) 20 Psychological Complication: Anxious to please and impress Dr Megaton (Very Common; Strong) 15 Psychological Complication: Thrill Seeker (Common; Strong) 15 Psychological Complication: Will not harm innocent bystanders (Common; Strong) 10 Social Complication: Secret Identity Infrequently, Major 10 Susceptibility: Each use of powers without gauntlets 2d6 Stun damage Instant (Uncommon) 10 Susceptibility: Each use of powers without gauntlets 2d6 Body damage Instant (Uncommon) 20 Susceptibility: Intense Magnetic Fields 2d6 damage per Phase (Uncommon) 10 Unluck: 2d6 Complication Points: 145 Fusion.hdc

Having some problems logging into Hero Games, I did a password reset and the password that is sent to me... doesn't work. I tried it twice So here's tomorrow's post, assuming I can log in Maelstrom

Re: Fantasy Codex If anyone wants to order a copy I have the full Codex in various forms (hardcover, color, soft cover, black and white, etc) along with other products at Lulu.com

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far RJCurrie Steve Long is a big boy, he doesn't need you leaping in to his defense constantly, does he?

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I liked the concept behind TORG better - the world setting and why it worked that way - than Rifts, which was sort of generic. Almost everything in my opinion works better with Hero, but I'm always finding new and interesting concepts in other games that I import to my game, like the career path and goal ideas from Aces & Eights.

Re: Starting Point Totals Well when I saw the icon in the choices it didn't look like that, it looked like a guy with big wide eyes :/ I can't change that now.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Sure, but the presentation was different; we got hints of really neat stuff but no super controversial stuff until after the book came out. I don't think Mr Long's agenda is to keep things fresh, just for the sake of freshness. Gamma World got left behind for lack of support and crappy game mechanics. It was a pretty sucky game with a neat world concept. Hero doesn't suffer from terrible game mechanics or age (its pretty fresh still). I think the "agenda" if any is something like this: 1) Capitalize on the MMOG release to freshen and expand sales of Hero Games 2) Touch on some things he's always wanted to do (e.g. de-figure figured characteristics) 3) Update the rules with things that have come up in questions and discussion on here and with friends.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I think some of the opposition or dismay again comes from how this preview was handled. If before 5th edition came out, someone posted from a chat these tidbits: -Aid costs twice as much -Damage Shield requires continuous to stay on -Regeneration is no longer a power -Instant Change is gone as a power -Both are now folded into complex rule-bending constructs under Transform and Healing People would have been pretty dismayed too... because its out of context to all the other stuff 5th edition brought us that made people go oh cool! Some might have been happy, some might have even said "wow" but would most? The reactions, I suspect, would have been often quite negative, with some even just deciding they'd pass. So far, what we've been given isn't a very tasty preview, for many players. For some its so frustrating or annoying they've vowed not to even buy the new edition.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far See I can't understand that. I dislike a few of the announced changes, but at the same time I haven't seen them implemented or how they'll be done. If it is true that the alternate framework can be used to re connect figured characteristics and that can be done easily with the same results, effectively that change will have been negated for me. And I can always use Comeliness anyway, just because the book ignores it doesn't mean it can't be put in any games. Its too soon to make any sort of declarations about the system or its changes. I'll be getting the book and then we'll see. Nothing about this smacks of the absurd deconstruction and MMOG-ification of D&D, for example.

Re: Starting Point Totals See that's just it. I sounded preachy to you, but was I really? I'm sorry if asking the question the way I did set you on edge, I didn't mean to, as I said. There just seems a presumption of Calumny here that isn't justified.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I think that sometimes a lot of strongly conceived disads on characters can become intimidating because a good GM will want to play and involve all of those and if there's a lot, it becomes difficult to give any or all of them the justice and attention you might think they deserve.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far It depends a whole lot on your character conception. Some builds just don't lend themselves to a lot of disads, some do. Sometimes the requirements of GMs tend to make people get a lot of filler just to have the points, sometimes people are really good at building a very flawed character and have more points in disads than they are required to have. It's pretty variable, in my experience.

Re: Starting Point Totals I'm sorry you took my post to be saying that, it wasn't meant to be. Try reading it as if your best friend was saying something you agreed with and see how it sounds. Is it just me or is everyone super touchy these days on the boards?

Re: Starting Point Totals You know, Pattern Ghost, if I was referring to you, I'd have said so. I was simply responding to the multiple posts as I said above, where people were commenting about how they had to change everything now.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Ambidexterity costs far too much for what it gives you, so I'm hoping that will be addressed in the coming new addition. Shrinking costs too much and gives too much of a bonus (half the bonuses and the cost and we've got a reasonable power). There's a lot that's not been said or touched on that could be really cool and I hope Mr Long gives us a bit more information about those changes to help sooth the concerns of some people who are unhappy with some of what's been announced so far.

Reading through the 6th edition revelations thread I've been struck by people posting over and over again about the proposed increase in suggested point totals for character builds. Do people think that little chart in the front of the book is mandatory or something? Do people start a campaign by cross referencing their genre: The section plainly says these are optional, they are suggested guidelines. Just because 4th edition said 250 total points doesn't mean every game has to be that; just because 5th edition increased that to 350 doesn't mean you're compelled to use that point total. Maybe your characters are long time experienced cosmic characters who start at 400 points +50 points of disads, because they are not flawed any more. Maybe you want a really messed up bunch of misfits so you say 100 points +200 in disads. Maybe they're kids just starting out, so you have 75+75. These suggestions are just that: suggestions. Some of the language in the forums makes it seem like just because the 6th edition might suggest more points, well its time to break out the calculator and build bigger! Some people are complaining about finding 150 points in disads for their characters: so don't require that many.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far The change in point level thing is really meaningless; you can make your campaign anything you want it to be, the point values are completely optional suggestions. See above on point values. The game you design is what determines points people need, not the rule book. There's nothing even remotely implied that these point levels are mandatory.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Well Steve started the threads saying "give me your thoughts on the 6th edition rules" and made it clear he was inclined to eliminate the stat entirely, I should think the conclusion is pretty obvious. What you infer is out of my control, but I simply feel bad for someone who thought comeliness served no purpose and did nothing whatsoever. In the rules the use of Comeliness was written up in several places and in the discussion there were dozens of examples how to use the stat in a game. Someone saying that it did nothing seems plainly to be the victim of poor GMing and/or role playing. I'm not trying to argue for the return of Comeliness, I just honestly do feel bad for people who were in games that seemed to miss the point of the stat so totally and miss out on all the gaming they could have done but apparently never were exposed to.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I think we can guess who some are based on comments on this board. Regarding hit locations: many creatures in my fantasy Hero game have no locations, such as blobs of goo, demons, etc. Hit them anywhere, its the same. No hit location chart for them even though its used in most other places in the game. Really Chris? You honestly aren't able to figure out the purpose of a compromise? Sure, and that's my point: they won't hurt as much now because you get your PD against the stun. They're less problematic than they used to be in many genres, using this new rule change. I feel sorry for people who played in games like that with such an uncreative GM and poor role playing by the players.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I agree, I think normal games will notice a significant change from most of these rules listed so far, while Superheroic will experience a much less significant impact. I know a lot of people are convinced that everyone is packing body armor or buying combat luck, but there aren't many guys in the Old West or WW2 games like that. A lot of genre possibilities simply don't have armor by default and the automatic protection from stun will change the flavor of these games significantly, if the GM uses that rule change.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Regarding the size-changing powers, it always seemed odd to me that the very book which introduced "inherent" as a modifier then strongly suggested (and in all source material avoided using) it for its most obvious application. The only reason growth and shrinking causes any cost problems is because of how they are built and cost - especially shrinking which is absurdly expensive and beneficial. Change that and the problems are at least reduced to a tolerable level for those who find them intolerable.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far Whether it is or not is not what I was referring to. I'll try one last time. I'm talking about PR, about how this "leak" was presented. Not the process he came to the conclusions, not the way the forums work, not the discussions about 6th edition, but only how the presentation was done and how it works in terms of stirring up interest in the product. To use your example, if he'd taken one of those "that blew me away" ideas and put it out (or several), then we'd have not just a few wow factors to take away (and while a few might consider the things listed as amazing or "wow" most don't, and some are outright hostile - which I can't imagine comes as a surprise to Mr Long) and get a better feel that our discussion impacted what he decided. Because he didn't we don't get that feeling and the effort wasn't as effective as it might have been. I'm not attacking anyone personally here, I'm not kicking your dog, there's no reason for you or anyone else to get defensive. We're talking about rules for a game we play for fun, not personal issues or some deep weighty philosophical reality. This isn't religion or politics. It's a game. And to take it further, I'm talking about how that was presented and how it didn't work as well as it might have, had it been done differently. Why must people take thing so seriously and seem to be so emotionally involved on a message board about a game I cannot understand. It makes people say things they'd never say in person... and some things they'd ignore or even agree with in person instead they react negatively to. It's just odd to me.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far One of the big selling points for 5th edition was the questionnaire that was put out. List 5 things you want to see changed in Hero rules. Not only did you get a feel that they really cared what the fans had to say, but you wanted to see if they listened to you or if your idea made it into the final cut. That was a good move. The discussion forum idea was pretty good but from the changes being announced I get the feeling it was more symbol than substance. That may be completely unfair, we've not seen the actual product to know... its just that of the things announced, they all were things Steve wanted to do already so there's no indication of customer input here yet. That's what I mean by "oh cool" factor. Maybe you like figured characteristics being peeled off of the main stats, maybe you didn't. But that's not anything that takes people by surprise, particularly: he said he was inclined to do so unless convinced otherwise.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I think Steve Long has made a PR mistake by not including a wow factor in the sneak preview: something that makes people go oh cool, now that's worth getting it for! What he's given us so far has been pretty much controversial or meaningless, which has resulted in controversy and people prematurely saying "this sucks I'm not buying it!!!" I'm not saying I'd do any better, I'm terrible with marketing. I'm just pretty good with analysis.