Fox1

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

But wouldn't the resist VS Seduction roll be better based on INT or EGO?

If you want to make a opposed roll, go ahead. Either stat can work depending.

My only point is that PRE based skills roll results should only be a suggestion, (a measure of how good the attempt was, not it's result) in games like HERO where you have more expensive ways of forcing the issue like Mind Control.

Otherwise you're getting a heck of deal for 3 points. Unless of course you're doing a straight 'normals' campaign. Even then, I'd never force the issue just because of a skill roll. Others here may.

Re: Is seduction all wrong?

Glancing through the rules I fond it odd that seduction is based on presence. If that were so the Hulk would be the most suave guy in town. LOL

 

I would think seduction woud be closer to (INT+COM)/2. Beauty with the brains to know how to use it, or better COM + Streetwise modifier.

 

What is considered a resistants to seduction? There are many books where a hero might know not to get close to the sexy villeness but her charms are too great.

PRE works as a baseline to indicate how well one does with what one has.

I've always ran the result as character's choice, same with all the PRE based skills. A good roll means a good attempt- it doesn't really mean that I should toss out years of character history if we're dealing someone who's committed to their wife or an oath. So I look at the rolling character what it brings to the table and what the 'defender' brings to the table. Sometimes the roll is just icing, other times it won't work not matter what- but it will get you noticed.

If one whats to overide that and say I must succeed at this no matter how faithful that guy is... well that's what Mind Control is for now isn't it?

Re: Modifed Ego

I may be misrecalling' date=' but I believe it is 3 aspects or a tight group of effects. No books in front of me at the moment, so I can't confirm.[/quote']

 

I wouldn't call them tight, but others may.

Re: Modifed Ego

If all Ego rolls are a 5 point skill level' date=' a lesser subset (all Ego rolls not related to mental combat) could reasonably be a 3 point skill level. No disadvantage needed..[/quote']

 

Three point levels are suppose to work for three different aspects of the same thing. There are more than three non-mental combat aspects for Ego Rolls.

 

Best to go with either a -1/4 limit on the 5 point skill, or with a 0-point disad.

 

GMs love people who take zero-point disads. Shows they are gaming the system but making the character. Until they do something else odd that is...

Re: Modifed Ego

@Fox1: I can't buy any more disadvantages' date=' so it has to be a modifier.[/quote']

 

Stuck on the disad points cap and need to keep what you have huh? Pity, that's the best way to deal with the issue.

 

You know you can still take the disad, you just don't get any points for it.

 

Beyond that, sounds like skill levels for Ego Rolls to me. Combined with a zero point vul. disad vs. Mind control- you can avoid those levels from helping there while staying alway from the sometimes questionable idea of a limit on skill levels.

Re: Modifed Ego

I want my character to have a good strength of will but be susceptible to ego attacks.

 

I can't add any more disadvantages, so should I buy ego with a 1/2 limitation to mind control and damaging ego attacks?

 

Since the mind control and damaging ego attacks will come into play much more is the 1/2 a good modifier?

Why not a take a vulnerability disadvantage?

Get the points need to boost your EGo and get the affect you're looking for a the same time.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

...or you use the full optional damage rules' date=' such as bleeding, and they are a normal who realizes they're probably going to die if they don't get medical attention.[/quote']

 

The bleeding rules as given in the book do not provide that result. Wound rules with optional saving throw enforced on everyone do at the cost of what are in effect D&D style saves vs. incap.

 

 

 

Note the following requirement I gave above:

 

.

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

 

 

So...

 

Why am I getting flak on this? Just what are we debating now?

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

So you want them to drop dead when shot (because that's what happens in the movies) but you don't want them to curl up in a corner because they've been shot (because that's not what happens in the movies).

No...

Specific to HERO:

- I want a small percentage of normal (stat 10) people shot to die.

- I want a better than 50% percentage of normal people shot with a 9mm class weapon to drop from lack of stun (i.e. to be incapacitated in HERO terms).

- I don't want to use Mook rules

- I don't want to use Saving Throw rules/GM overides, i.e. I want HERO combat to remain HERO combat. This is an important requirement- I don't want to replace or overule the existing standard combat methods if possible.

- I want the weapons to scale relative to each other.

- I want to be able to use the same constructions in any of my HERO system campaign settings.

In general, of the following 7 item list of "concepts important to realistic rpg firearm combat" found on my website, here is my selection of wants/don't want:

Want: 1. Most people when shot are incapacitated (down and useless)

Want: 2. Most people are not killed when shot if medical attention is prompt

Want: 3. Those who are not incapacitated by a injury often don't notice the wound, let alone suffer additional negative effects beyond the those one would expect from the local area of the wound itself (limping, inability to stand on a broken leg, etc.).

Want: 4. Multiple gunshot wounds seem to have no cumulative effect on performance beyond bleeding

Want: 5. Besides the location of the injury, bullet diameter is the most important factor in damage followed by bullet fragmentation. If penetration is too low, damage is reduced (over penetration has little effect).

Want: 6. Hydrostatic Shock (the big gun of the discredited RII) has no impact on damage except for brain and liver hits.

Want: 7. Most combatants have a very difficult time hitting their target. The typical police officer hits with only one out of six shots at ranges under 20 feet!

Point 7 isn't very fun in HERO (although it's actually not far off for normals given the actual types of modifiers faced in the real world).

Point 3 & 4 are in reference to Death Spirals something that HERO System nicely doesn't have anyway (but games like Shadowrun do). The cumulative effect of stun in HERO was accepted as it's a core element of the game system, but it doesn't provide negative modifiers.

The above 7 points by the way don't all come from the same article, but from years of research (some small part of it backed up by personal experience). Sadly as I've noted, not all of it is online. It can however be found by the determine researcher in other ways.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

Has absolutely everyone forgotten that in a Heroic game (which is I presume what we are talking about) you can increase the damage done by a gun with CSLs? Hellooooo. 6 points and I've probably increased the amount of damage my little pistol does by quite a bit....

Not an acceptable solution to the problem.

First, firearms should be useful and dangerous even in untrained hands- or even by accident. Using CSLs to resolve the problem does nothing for this.

Second, I've disallowed the use of CSLs to increase damage by house rule. Something I need to note on the website now that you've reminded me.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

That's how the game is played by you. Not by everyone..

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

That's doesn't match what I've read or the article you referred to.

The article I linked to sadly doesn't provide the whole story although it is useful for a number of important elements.

There are other articles I've used in the past that reflect what I constructed the rules around, the simple concept that in general most people when shot fall down and can no longer function. In HERO, that's what happens when people run out of stun.

Sadly the online articles I used for that are no longer available, the website for the IWBA is down and before that much of their work was taken offline. You'll have to take my word for it or contact the IWBA (International Wound Ballistics Association) directly for the needed back issues of their journals.

But you need to be a little clearer about your actual goal.

I believe I was rather upfront about my goals on the theory page and the real world conversion page. I continue to hold to those statements.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

I guess main main thrust of what I'm saying (fueled by the document you linked to' date=' and reflective of the way I've always run things) is that "taking someone out of the fight" (or incapacitating them) does not have to equal taking them to zero stun.[/quote']

 

It should in HERO, that's how the games played.

 

HERO is genre gaming, people in the movies and fiction I watch don't curl up in corners when shot, they fall down. It just so happens that reality also indicates that they fall down. Happy is I.

 

 

 

Ego rolls have been a part of the game since the beginning.

 

Bad ideas and construction have been in HERO from the beginning too, I see no need to honor them either.

 

I tend to think of a vitals hit as a hit to the heart. I'd lump spinal hits in with headshots.

 

Sadly, the hit location chart doesn't let it quite work out that way.

 

 

 

 

 

The article seemed to imply that high caliber rifle wounds are a lot nastier than handgun wounds, giving some justification for this.

 

However a flat x3 or x4 body check needed to bring Handguns into line would make nearly any rifle hit immediately life-threatening. That's not good either for the game or for reality.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

After reading through the FBI dics linked to in Fox1's website' date=' I don't really understand all the criticism of Hero's depiction of handgun injury..[/quote']

 

The one shot instant kills was just the subject of someone's post in the thread that touched off the debate.

 

While having that was important to me, the actual factor that caused me to re-write the firearm damage was the need to have a single hit have a significant chance of taking someone out of the fight (i.e. reduce them to zero stun). That's the result of most shooting events and the result of the genres I typically game, but was impossible in in the standard HERO list.

 

There was also the desire to have the weapons scale correctly. Something they don't in the standard list.

 

 

- It sounds to me like making a Headshot a x3 body injury might be valid.

 

It would also require changing the vitials hits to x3 body (one would have to assume vitials is any spinal area hit).

 

However this doesn't work for me, it overpowers rifles (I don't want that many people dying). Also does nothing about proper scaling of the weapons. And also does nothing about one-shot incaps.

 

 

 

- Use bleeding, disabling and impairing rules.

 

Already do that.

 

 

- The article discusses incapicitation of victims due to psychological factors. The Hero "wounding" rules (having to make an ego roll of you get hit) seem to already address this.

 

 

Oh no, I'm not turning HERO into D&D save vs. whatever.

 

Nor is such a thing consist with the design philosophy of HERO. Stun is there as the method of removing a character from a fight from damage, not saving throws vs. removing from a fight.

 

As HERO grew and more hands got involved, concepts from other games leaked in. Mook Rules, Save vs. wounding, etc.

 

All unnecessary.

 

You want Mooks? Build your characters/weapons such that normal level NPC are effectively Mooks in comparsion.

 

You want wounding to slow down characters? Build your weapons so that they slow down the characters.

 

I'm a purest.

 

And, on another issue - I've been using mook rules since I first started playing the original Justice Inc. I don't think it was something I came up with by myself either. I suspect they were covered somewhere quite a while ago. I don't use these rules for realism - I use them to depict cinematic reality.

 

I've already given my reasons for not wanting to use Mook rules.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

So what would be the problem with leaving damage where it is, and using the impairing/disabling wounds? O_o

 

 

Sure, an impairing wound to the chest won't FORCE someone out of the fight, but most NPCs can be assumed to make that choice of 'I'm going to sit down and be quiet for a while.'

Isn't that the entire point of the Stun stat?

Beyond that, we enter back into the concept of Mook rules under HERO, where I (the GM) decide what NPCs and/or players should in effect have half their normal body levels (for impairing hits) and no Stun again.

This has a number of problems for me from a game philosophy point of view:

1. HERO wasn't intended to use Mook rules, those are very new to the system. The original idea was that uncommon abilities that make up heroic characters are brought and paid for using points. Need something that makes it less likely for handguns to kill a character- buy Combat Luck, that's 5 points of armor vs. the 9mm, you'll end up with a 2 body stratch on an average hit- no chance of instant death. That's the whole point of the new Armor Effect Limit I use- it's cheap to protect a character when it's genre to do so (i.e. most superheroic games).

Depending upon invisible disadvantages (buying down Body, psy lim- gives up fight if wounded, etc) that is applied wholesale to an entire class of NPC is in effect saying the exact same thing as "Sorry, the design philosophy of HERO doesn't really work in this area, we need GM fiat instead".

2. I'm really not big into treating NPCs and PCs as if they are mechanically different creatures. Be it zero level commoners in D&D, Mooks in HERO, or any other example one cares to think of. I feel it detaches people from the reality of the game.

You can almost get away with this for Superheroic settings, however I insist on using the same HERO construction concepts for all my games with that system. If a weapon exists in my Shadowrun game is moved to my Marvel game- the stats must remain the same.

3. Providing a reduced level of danger for PCs results in non-genre (for some of the games I play) and unrealistic tactics. Players make tactical decisions based upon their perception of the risk/reward ratio.

By altering that ratio, I given them reason to select better tactics while also giving them reason to react to threats in a way closer to how they should be perceived in the genre I'm using.

You're the one, after all, who pointed out the FBI documents. There is only, it seems, a very SMALL chance of physiological incapacitation after a single hit from a mid-size pistol round, and that's more to do with hit location than anything else (say, Vitals or Head hit).

Yes, but there is a large chance of incapacitation due to unknown reasons. It was that chance that I was after.

And of course a risk of actually being killed outright by a handgun. It's small, but there.

The Tactical Briefs site also mentions that the 'real-world' data for fatalities/stops by bullets are weighted towards those used by police officers and military, due the level of skill possessed by them. Perhaps, then, another solution would be to allow people to buy some variant of 'Deadly Blow' (or, perhaps, a ranged martial art.

Given the skill of your typical police officer, that would be a VERY common ability. Real life stats show that such officers tend to hit their target only (to use 1997 numbers) once in ten shots. I have no indication that your typical military results are any better.

Having been on the gun range with a number of officers over the years, I can understand why the hit rate is so low.

Basically, the damage levels for HERO firearms looks fine to me (with the exception of the .45, which appears to be based on cinematics alone).

The FBI docs I linked indicate that it should do more damage than the 9mm, by the methods HERO used to determine weapon damage it would be the same 1d6+1K (although it does get a +1 stun mod).

The change in the .45 (also done for the .45 LC and 50 AE it seems) was a 'conversion system overide' intended to keep up with real world perception of the weapon. HERO seems to have based it numbers upon simple KE, but it was made in the years where the FBI thought that was the most important factor so it's understandable.

In short, I fear that raising the damage of pistol weapons significantly... well, it doesn't strike me as 'realistic', just 'deadly.' I'd much rather use disabling/impairing wounds and up the penalties involved with them.

It's not as deadly as it looks. The 9mm for example only has a 4% chance of a kill against a Stat 10 normal. Less against characters of typical PC or combatant NPC level.

What it does vastly increase is one shot stops- up to 61% for the stat 10 Normal. That means fewer hits are required to remove an NPC from a fight, thus there is a good chance that they end up taking less overall damage from a battle.

Add in the fact that I don't add up body damage cumulatively as happens in Standard HERO or do the 1 point dying damage (I handle it all through bleeding), the chance of living through a gun battle in my system may actually be higher.

Re: House Rules for Hit Location

If you check' date=' though, there are some rules around the high/low question - the rules as I received them and use them say "a "high" or "low" shot is considered a miss when the modified hit location roll is off the chart. [/quote']

 

Ah, I see. Not bad.

 

I see a problem with center of mass shots (i.e. the default in reality). I don't see how you could possible miss with something that would hit so to speak. However the -3 modifier could result in just that.

 

Low chance, one could perhaps claim that the default unmodified shot is aimed at the best target aspect instead of center of mass (i.e. chest) and just call it good...

 

I may steal it.

Re: How Much Of A Tinkerer Are You?

Hard to say.

I don't make up new powers as a rule. I've only added one limit that I can think of. I'm not recosting STR. Heck, the points don't matter to me.

However my construction methods are vastly different from standard HERO. I've changed the STR lift progression and thus the growth progression as well. I've completely re-done firearms and made a number of house rule changes to process mechanics. However these are changes of long standing (back to original blue box) or take backs of 5E changes.

I give no thought to how Steve Long thinks the game should run. What thought I do give him in that respect is hardly positive.

So I guess I'd come in at an 8.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

I also agree with the idea that Hero is a tool kit and is well balanced. Guns are well balanced especially in superhero games.

The interesting thing is that for Superhero games (where most characters have at least some resistent defense from their heroic spandex if nothing else), I haven't really altered the game balance much.

Rifles for example do almost the same damage that they do in standard HERO, while the armor effect limits on SMGs and Pistols cause them serious problems.

Re: House Rules for Hit Location

HOWEVER' date=' I was rechecking and realized that this is a deliberate rule regarding not hitting at all if you don't hit a specified location. Upon retrospect, I suppose some people really like that. I just forgot that in my enthusiasm.[/quote']

 

Yes.

 

I was thinking of how upset someone running the Lone Ranger would be when he attempted the classic shoot the gun out of the guy's hand without hitting him.

 

Then again, how often did you miss such an attempt? I'm not a faithful watcher...

 

It's a better rule when aiming for center of mass. Consider, if you aim for the head what happens to all those high shots (or left/right shots for that matter)? What about low shots at the feet?

 

Didn't mean to ruin the thought. It IS sort of cool. The stock, you miss does leave open the question of where the bullet went.

 

I thinking about using it as the baseline for center of mass shots in any case....

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

The 9mm NATO round does not have a sterling record in combat' date=' which is why every US special operations unit has reverted back to the battle-proven .45 ACP. Even with my 1911A1 I'm going to empty the entire magazine into his center mass, not pray I get a single lucky hit.[/quote']

 

Oh I agree with you. In spades.

 

Even with my changes, the 9mm FMJ round only has a 61% chance of stopping a stat 10 Normal with a single shot. It drops noticeably as the target's stats increase into normal dangerous NPC level.

 

Most of my players as a result grab a .45 or .40 S&W for their characters unless the need for a more concealable weapon is primary.

 

 

I should also point out that in reality most people who get shot in the chest immediately cease whatever aggressive behavior they were displaying to instigate being shot and seek medical attention.

 

Yep.

 

Rather than show that with morale or other 'take control of the character' rules that would be completely new to HERO, I sought to bring the stun level up to where a single hit is more noticeable.

 

To be honest, I think I'm still undershooting reality. But that's ok by me. I may be gritter than most here, but my campaigns are still about Heroic adventure.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

Seriously' date=' though, I must say for the record that the "admission" on page 186 doesn't remotely come close to an admission of "sucking", and such an accusation is a bit over the top.[/quote']

 

Perhaps you would see my point if you had one shot and were being charged by a mad bull of a man (CON 15, Body 11) with a large knife intent on killing you.

 

Would you rather have a weapon with the effectiveness of the the standard rules HERO 9mm (only a 1/3 chance of stunning the guy for a round on a chest hit, no chance of killing him outright) or one with the effectiveness of a real world weapon that will most likely stop him in his tracks, or even kill him.

 

Looking at that knife gives suckage a whole new perspective doesn't it?

 

More seriously I don't want to debate the issue. The 'suck' term was meant only in comparsion to the way the weapons function in my game and reality. It wasn't meant to be applied to it's use in anyone else's specific campaign. My bad.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

I am just here to tell your that the posters to the Hero boards' date=' including a number with whom you have butted heads, are not bad guys and generally have a great sense of humor. We can be as oversensitive and tempermental as the next guys, but are not into abuse, be it giving or receiving. Take from that what you will.[/quote']

 

I'm willing to start from ground zero again. We'll see.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

I also think there needs to be greater differentiation between the .22 and the 7.62. Penetration also applies to flesh, just as it applies to any other material. If something has poor penetration, it should also cause less trauma to flesh. Conversley, if something has high penetration, it can also cause less trauma as it simply blows through.

If you look at the real world conversion page, you'll see the chart that provides that exact effect.

The actual weapon values are as follows:

.22 LR: 2d6K, Armor is x2 effect, -1 Stun modifier.

7.62 NATO: 2d6+1K, Negates 1 point of armor, +1 stun modifier.

That means the .22 LR on average will only produce 7 body and 14 stun on a chest hit. Any armor will serious degrade the weapon.

The 7.62 NATO meanwhile will force you to drop a point of armor, doing 8 body and 32 stun on a average chest hit.

That's a significant difference in the weapons. There's more to look at then the base kill attack.

It may seem counter intuitive that the 7.62 only does an extra point of body damage, but it's not far off from actual death stats.

Plus I do have that problem of a very narrow range given me by HERO.

This doesn't matter at this point (only the stuff on the web counts), but the .22 LR given on the chart assumes a FMJ bullet, that really isn't the case for actual .22 LR loads (the jackets are too thin if they even exist). Thus the Armor Effect should go to x3 and the damage would drop to 2d6-1 at that point.

I do need to put up the ammo chart.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

One minor quibble I'd have is that I think only fully jacketed rifle rounds should be AP;

A note on the weapon conversion page states that the round used for the conversion math should be a FMJ common to the weapon.

Other bullet types modify much like they do in HERO, although the values are different and I don't worry about as many types as DC does. I haven't put that chart up yet.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

WRONG: Statting out the jaffa staff weapon to be more effective (more accurate and more damaging) than the P90 when in the show we have an actual "fire test" between the two weapons where the advantages in both damage and accuracy at the given range of the P90 was a pivotal part of the story, not only for that episode but also cited as the reason the team had beaten jaffa time and time again throughout the series.

Sort of off topic...

I've seen all the SG-1 shows. Big fan of the series.

The staff weapons were claimed in the show to be more powerful in the earlier seasons. Just watched a re-run of one of them in fact where the team was constantly saying their weapons were outmatched. During this period of the show, Teal'c carried the staff weapon and it would often affect foes that their small arms were marginal against at best.

Later they switched to the P90 and other weapons. Teal'c drops the staff and is seen with other earth weapons, often a shotgun. Earth weapons start to be more effective than the staff weapons.

Such was the change in the show. The writers of the game likely screwed up, they should have just said it was first season (and left the P90 off the equipment list for now).

TV is seldom consistent, even a good show like this one.

Personally I would have gone with the later shows. But that's because I like earth weapons and don't think anyone could hit the side of a barn with the staff at range.

Re: Fox1's Hero Debate

1. I'm still curious to see where Hero says that its firearm rules suck.

Quoted in the original thread now.

Calling people stupid

The one case where I did that was out of line. However the claim being made was...

I cannot think of a term that isn't rude, so I best leave it.

and being pompous enough to state that not criticising your rules modifications would be a wise decision is a bit high on the rudeness meter.

From what I read, the claim was made that my rules did not in fact increase the chance of 'normals' being instant-killed by handguns, rather they decreased it.

Given what the rules are, yes it was wise not to continue that line.

Seems the poster was actually attempting to say something else completely (i.e. he didn't like the idea of more dangerous handgus) and he was unclear in how he made the statement. Pity that.

So, fine, you disagree with how Hero handles firearms. On some level, so do I, but I think for cinematic play, which is Hero's strong suit, they actually work nicely.

Depend rather on what Cinema now doesn't it? And one's willingness to envoke Mook rules, something that isn't in favor with all gamers.

You've made a lot of tweaks to the system, but somehow you feel that you shouldn't have to do that. You feel the system should be "right" and it sounds like you resent having to "fix" it.

That is not my opinion.

It is my opinion that an untweaked HERO isn't a perfect system for my use. As it is not a perfect system for my use I feel that I can with perfect justification do the following:

1. List my dislikes when asked. Notice I didn't start the thread, I responded to it. I didn't come here to whine about things I've already fixed.

2. Present my solution to others who are having the same problem.

and

3. Respond when others or myself are attacked for finding problems (i.e. told they don't exist) or offered solutions that don't work (i.e. x2 body results for killing attacks).

Re: House Rules for Hit Location

This is one of the few tweaks I really do think MUST be incorporated into HERO. It is a far better solution yet leaves the system virtually unchanged in process/mechanism.

Why "MUST"?