Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DreadDomain

  1. Thanks for the nod! I would love to set my sheet as an export format but alas, I do not have the skills to do so. Which I would include if I knew how to create export formats Fortunately, you have other, better options!
  2. No worries mate. Still, you make a good point. PHB has a higher number of creatures in the book but they are mainly animals (and skeletons and zombies). FHC has a smaller selection but they are more interesting, more fantastical. There are also 6 examples characters that can be used as antagonists. I supposed they could also be used as pregens as well but they are not really balanced against one another. Because "pick a pregen" makes jumping into the game much quicker. I went back through character creation of FHC again and tried to have the mindset of someone who buys a game and wants to play a fantasy character (as opposed to "I've been playing HERO for 30 years) and man, it's bad. Character creation starts at page 17, racial, cultural and profession templates are an afterthought at page 202. During character creation you plough through the powers system (p.51) with little guidance on how to use it within the context of what it means in fantasy but then you have typical advantages and limitations packages for various types of magic at page 212 and then sample spells at page 241. Everytime I look at this book, I like it a bit less (which sadden me really). I cannot access Fantasy HERO 1E at the moment but if my recollection serves, it was a better book for fantasy (and I am a 6E supporter).
  3. At this stage, I believe we have an orthogonal conversion as we do not seem to be debating the same things. I even had to go back and reread what prompted this exchange . You seem to have understood that my position was that the PHB was playable out of the box and FHC was not. This is not quite what I said (or at least meant) and my statement was that "...it makes FHC less play-ready than say, The Dark Eye, RuneQuest or Dungeons & Dragons even considering only their core/players books". My statement is not about which game is playable out of the box nor is it about which game is complete, it is about how quickly you can play a game after you bought the book. Bill, Bob and Boris walk into a game store. They want to try a new fantasy roleplaying. Bill, will be the GM, Bob, wants to play a magician and Boris will be a burly fighter. The plan is to read and understand the rules and while Bob and Boris are creating their characters (they want to create their own), Bill will put a few critters and enemies together (he might create them of pick from a list if available) in a generic dungeon/prison/castle/maze/whatever and they will let their imagination flow. There are only 4 books in the game store and they are all games they have never heard of; PHB 5E, FHC, TDE and RQG. Which book will enable them to do it the quickest? Which option would be the slowest? As explained above, my position is that FHC would be the slowest to lift and could also be the most difficult for Bob to get into. That's all I am saying. No problem if you disagree (I believe you do) as you seem to imply that you cannot play a game with just the PHB. I'd like to understand what you believe is missing in the PHB tat would prevent Bill, Bob and Boris to whip a quick game?
  4. Am I? Maybe I am since I am comparing the "Complete" FH game with only a "Players Handbook". If you buy one of these two books to create characters right away, drop the party in a generic dungeons or locale populated by a few critters, you can do it more easily and rapidly with the PHB than with FHC. Chances are with FHC your evening will be spent creating characters, even worse if a player wants to create a spell caster. Assuming the same level of familiarity with the systems, I would also say that the jump is easier and quicker with only the core book of RuneQuest or The Dark Eye (or Dungeon Fantasy but the basic game is a full boxset so it might be a bit unfair). In FHC, character creation is looser, there are more decisions to be made and it is less pick and play than the others (mind you RQG and TDE have quite a few steps in character creation but it's much more directed). Bottom line, it will take more time and effort. For the other games, you can easily select a priest/spell-user and choose from a selection of spells. Your options to do so in FHC is very limited with only a few spells given as a example, or unlimited with the ability to build anything. Bottom line, you will be limited or it will take more time and effort. It may come down with what we believe we need to buy a book, read it and jump straight in. It may also depends how much prep time you expect to put it before you play. Personally, I believe the PHB has everything you need to play from day one. And there I believe the DMG is not needed to jump right in. Will you need it down the road? Maybe. Will you need it on day one? No. The same could be said for the Monster Manual. You want to play right away? You have 30 odd critters to play with. Sure, you will want more later. At first I thought you where conveniently moving the goalpost but actually I believe we are now confusing how quickly you can play after you bought a book, with how complete a game is. When I compare their playability out of the box, I talk about the former. It implies an ability to use the book quickly and enough material provided. FHC is not as quick to jump in (character creation) and not as complete (not enough spells). You mention "a lot of ways" but do not give any example of the many ways FHC is better suited than PHB when it comes to jumping into the game quickly. Would you mind giving a few?
  5. To be fair FHC is not the equivalent of the Starter Kit (even if they are in the same price bracket) but of the Players Handbook (which is more than twice the price but with a much better production value). The PH has more monsters than FHC (30ish vs 12ish) and way more spells (over a 100 vs 14ish). I am not in the business of selling or defending D&D but reading both books makes it painfully clear it's a lot easier to jump in D&D.
  6. I actually never though of it that way: how playable is it out of the box and what does it need to be playable out of the box? What you list here seems to be the crux of it but I would add that "playable out of the box" games have a somewhat implied play style. FHC is quite loose in that regard (may be a bug, may be a feature). Coupled with a very small selection of spells, it makes FHC less play-ready than say, The Dark Eye, RuneQuest or Dungeons & Dragons even considering only their core/players books.
  7. Ah, I see. Fantasy specific elements then. Thanks, seems obvious in retrospect
  8. It does? Never realised if. What does it have CC doesn't?
  9. Other. A super-villain team that develops a rivalry with the group.
  10. The current product is Champions Complete and if you loved Champions 4E and 5E, this is your best option when it comes to current edition. Of course, you could still play 4E or 5E and I suspect you could find players for them. Champions Complete is more or less the repackaging of HERO 6E (the 2 big blue books) in a format that is not unlike Champions 4E. It's more easily digestible than the 2 tomes (even if I personally like them). Champions Now is an oddity. It's the vanity project of Ron Edwards who started from Champions 3E and modified it with his own design preferences
  11. Yes, Champions 4E was great! I never used the software mentioned in that thread but apparently, there were 2!
  12. Yea, the sideburns in that pictures are terrible There is also a picture of Vanguard corpse being raised in the Champions Universe book I have the feeling that Canada is a bit underdone in the CU as it seems like their best heroes are either dead or unstable. I remember the Red Ensign costume as a mountie but I am sure their was also a more modern costume. Any idea where that could be? Actually, looking at Captain Australia, he feels heavily inspired by Superman. The origins are totally different but the powers and even identity (a journalist named Kent!) cannot be mistaken. I totally need to reread them. It feels like you make me rediscover the CU. I remembered Brimstone more like John Constantine. Or am I confused with the Drifter? Sure... but Defender is totally Iron Man! Yes, my thoughts exactly. Good points. Kinetik is not necessarily Flash. What about Streak and the Fabolous Five, where can we find him?
  13. Yes, sorry about that, I wanted to challenge you on some classics that do not seem to have direct contemporary analogues. That is why I did not ask about Iron Man, Green Lantern or Flash (too obvious). And yes, Grond is Hulk. I forgot about Hornet, I will go have a look. I believe there are pictures of both Vanguard and him in CU, correct? I also agree Batman has not been directly ripped off. You prompted me to go back and read Black Mask X. And good one regarding Queen Mara. I did not think about her. I was expecting you would mention rhe Red Ensign but I did not remember about the Canada staff or the Mighty Canadians. More stuff to read! I'd be curious to hear about your Ghost Rider/Son of Satan analogues. For Australia, there was a write up for... was it Captain Australia... in one of the almanach in 4e but I don't believe he/she were ever official. Thanks for playing!!
  14. Thank you for this LL, it's great. And I hear you, the Champions Universe is allegedly the richest outside of DC and Marvel. Speaking of which, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the closest analogues for the following characters. Special rules: the characters need to still be alive in current Champions continuity! Superman Batman (is Nighthawk really the closest analogue?) Wonder Woman Captain America Spider-Man (even if the motif isn't spiders) Hulk (it has to be a hero that changes to a human form! No Grond allowed.) Captain Canuck Spawn Bonus questions: The greatest Russian hero The greatest Canadian hero (no guns allowed, it's not Canadian enough 😄) The greatest Australian hero (I don't believe Seeker is in present continuity - I preferred C:TNM Seeker anyway...)
  15. Might redundant but Snow Storm, Thunder Storm, Sand Storm, Sh!t Storm come to mind.
  16. These are pretty nice scans and I like the colorized pictures!
  17. Thanks for the heads-up. I was considering buying the POD but I will give it a pass for now.
  18. I'd say pretty much this. The contract that bounds players and gm around invulnerability should hold regarless if it is built with Desolid, Resistant Protection, Damage Negation or something else. While I have no issues with using Desolid as the base for invulnerability, that part bothers me. It becomes a (slightly more) cumbersome built and these days, I prefer simpler constructs.
  19. Have you considered just using Multiple-Attacks? Multiple-Attacks: take a full phase. You can reduce that to half a phase if you buy Rapid Attack at 5 points (or 10 points for both melee and ranged attack) impose a -2 OCV penalty per extra target. Based on Offensive Penalty Skill Level you could buy this off at 2 points per +1 OCV puts you at ½ DCV but you can also improve that by buying Defensive Penalty Skill Level at 2 points per +1 The multiple attacks sequence stop if you miss your roll. What you suggest is even more constraining so it could be worth an extra limitation So for no points at all, you could use Multiple Attacks, or if you want to be better at it, yoy could pay to improve your abilities. Say this is only for melee attacks. Clear the Room (½ phase HTH multiple attacks sequence , +6 vs OCV and DCV penalties); Rapid Attack-HTH (5AP), OPSL +6 (12AP), DPSL +6 (12AP) Total 29 points Using any of your HTH attack, you can attack 3 agents at no penalty as long as you don't miss and at extra -2 OCV per target if you try to go for more target. If you insist on having the sequence stopped if you do not incapacitate a target, I would call that an extra -½ limitation for a final cost of 19 points. The drawback is that it would cost you more END to complete than your proposed build unless your attack(s) are not too onerous on END.
  20. Yup, totally understood your intention for how it worked in play (you explained well in the previous post) and I was only talking about the edge case where he guessed wrong. As long as the gm and characters are cool with this (and will also use it as a story element like you have done!), it's totally cool. For Speed, have you thought about buying +2 with a limitation on ii instead of talking a Physical Limitation? You could even unify it with your MP so when his Invulnerability is drained/weaken, he even lose these extra defensive move. Anyway, I like the write-up. Simple, effective and supports the in-game feel of the character.
  21. I do not disagree at all. One of the strength of the system is to use powers, distill them down to it's basic effect and build something different with it. As long as the mechanics support the in game feel and intent, why not? I am simply saying that since 5E, complex, clever builds have taken too much of a center stage and became almost the default approach. Invulnerability-as-Desolid is an example of that. Take Desolid, apply modifications to strip it out of its primary effect (being desolid) and then buy a side construct with naked modifiers to enable you to attack while Desolid (because you're not) and make sure you point enough point into it to cover your offensive powers (if you level up your offensive powers later, don't forget to put more points into this).... or buy enough levels of Damage Negation. If it's only to build straight Invulnerability, I know which build I prefer. And this is a good example where I believe the mechanics are supporting the game play intent and effects. Captain Invulnerable would have a fairly different feel in play then a classic flying brick and it is enabled by the way he is built. The only caveat that I would have is the agreed special effect behind an "affect desolid" attack. Why would a gun designed to blast off ghosts would affect Captain Invulnerable? It's probably easily managed with a good understanding between to GM ad player.
  22. Exactly this. Over the years, I believed HERO tried too hard to come up with clever builds and use other powers to mimic the effect of other powers. HERO, is not a true effect based power system (EABA would be much closer to an effect based system) and powers generally come with a degree of implied special effect. Desolid is a good example of this. The base effect of Desolid is not "resist damage", it's "be intangible". By trying to use it to resist damage one has to build the power in a way that eliminates the primary effect. It is absolutely doable, it's just a build that I don't like (only my opinion and preference). HERO has already various ways to resist damage. Damage Reduction, Resistant Protection and Damage Negation are really the powers to simulate the desired primary effect of "resist damage". APG offers a way to do it with (at 240 cost for both Physical and Energy). The other way to look at it is to build invulnerability with Resistant Protection or Damage Negation to a level that is "over limit" for a specific campaign and call it invulnerability. In a 12d6 limit campaign, it could mean buying enough to resist 18d6 (to cover Haymaker and/or pushing). It's 180 points of Damage Negation or 189 point of Resistant Protection. GM and players couls settle on Invulnerability, cost 180, 150 or even 120 to suit their tastes and needs.
  23. Yes, this. A full colour, remastered Champions 4E would be glorious.
  24. So there was a Champions 4e softcover rule book and a Champions 4e softcover genre book? [Mind blown]😵
  • Create New...