Ki-rin

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack?

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack? I've got another example but I could not figure out how to post the details on a msg board minors might read. So I'll just note that when our Significant Others =really= want our attention for certain activitities, they =routinely= Haymaker their PRE attacks...

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack? Another one by a considerably more verbal villain. *Our Hero has been captured and bound naked in a position that emphasizes his helplessness* *completely deadpan and utterly devoid of any emotion except curiosity* "I have waited long for this. Understand that I control everything you experience from here on. Understand that you =will= die if I want you to. You will be a hopeless helpless cripple in constant pain for as long as I want if that is my wish. The =only= choice left to you is how clean or messy your fate will be. If you say something of interest to me I =may= make this cleaner and quicker." *holds up cage of rats* "Do you know that rats will chew through =anything= to escape a fire?" *holds up bucket* "Ever wonder how many of them will fit in a bucket this size?" *Fills bucket with rats. Puts it upside down covering Our Hero's stomach and lower regions*. "I wonder how much heat they can stand before they try to escape?" "I wonder where they will start chewing first when they do?" *brings fire over to bucket...*

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack? Villain to hostages "You will give me what I want." *hostages cower but say/do nothing* *Villain then casually Haymakers a hostage in such a manner as to literally rip the skeleton out of said victim. Or rip them apart. Or explode them into little bloody chucks. Or etc. ...and does it in such a way the remaining hostages see every detail and are splattered by gore and viscera from the victim as the Haymaker lands* "You will give me what I want NOW." *The hostages that do not faint or lose bladder/bowel control start babbling and tripping over themselves to satisfy villain ASAP.*

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong It is not logically consistent for Normal Attacks to scale based on STR but not STR based NND or KA. Therefore IMC people do STR based DC. So a 20 STR NND or Killing Attack does 2x the DC of a 10 STR one. Just as a 20 STR Normal Attack does 2x what a 10 STR one does. Good aikido teaches both and the knowledge/wisdom to help you decide which is more appropriate to a given situation. What's appropriate for a Civilian being attacked, a Bouncer, a Police Officer, and a Soldier is different; and even those base differences are modified by context. Some =considerably= more so than others. Many of the more "yang" arts are very much about applying overwhelming force in 1-vs-1 combat. Even gracie jiujitsu is almost exclusively about 1-vs-1combat. In contrast, the more "ying" arts are much more focused on using an opponents power and violence against them via Blending etc. Also much more emphasis is placed on 1-vs-many combat. Particularly situations where the one starts off at a serious disadvantage (They're armed. You're not. Or you're restrained and facing multiple opponents. Or ...)

Re: Normal Human I completely disagree with those that think NCM is a useless concept or game mechanic. I've routinely used it and enforced all the implications of it in every HERO campaign I've ever run. It helps me keep game balance and a logically consistent campaign world. TBF, I base it on stats 1.25x higher than the book version of NCM. I also use every other mechanic HERO gives me to make my game universe and combat within that universe as realistic or logically consistent as possible. In my 4ed or 5ed Champions campaigns, I figure non-super agents will have Dex of 11-25 (base CV of 4-8, average of 5-6) and the supers will have Dex of 17-31 (base CV of 6-10, average 7-8). Usually the average agent will be at -3 vs the average super. As individuals, this means they'll hit almost 26% of the time. When working as trained fire teams of 2-4 per team, agents have a decent chance of being a threat to just about any individual PC super. (NPC demi-gods or the like are a different matter, but that's why the PC heros exist.) SPD is usually 3-7 (average 4-5), with the slowest supers being allowed to have the largest defenses and DC attacks, while the fastest supers have the lowest defenses and DC attacks. I've had everything from SPD 2 to SPD 8 characters and been able to keep things game balanced. It'll be interesting to see what 6ed lack of figured stats does to all of this. EDIT: I also tend to make combat more deadly than what is standard. It is fairly common for me to balance things so the average defense is 1.5x -1.75x the average attack. Players tend to respect combat in my games.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong As I noted in my OP, this is fairly strictly based on some real humans I have excellent documented evidence on. While there are MAs like those you are describing who peform (realistic but incredible) feats of STR, none of them were the basis of this write-up. =Those= guys are obviously high STR in every way.

Re: Thats one nimble little bull Actually, he doesn't have to have a particularly high DEX. Just an outrageously high skill roll for this obviously DEX based skill. OTOH, if he can do equally impressive stuff with a large enough set of otherwise unrelated DEX based skills, =then= we have evidence that he has a high DEX. ...Either way, 1= he never gets to shuffle or deal at any card game I'm in. 2= every gambling casino in the world watches him like a hawk and he's =never= allowed to play cards at any of them.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong So the STUN Lottery has merely been made pf lower variance, rather than removed. Unfortunate.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong That's great. Is the awful STUN lottery dead as well?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong So the STR and CON "pumps" no longer exist in 6ed? IIUC, then this char would have 10 STR vs 25 STR Lift and 10 STR vs 25 STR STR rolls. You think a -1/4 Limitation is fair for this effect?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Is there a difference?

Due to the classic STR and CON "pumps", designing a character whose premise is that they are very good at HTH combat is almost inevitably cheaper to do with high STR and CON values than via any other method. IOW, build the classic brick. If one attempts to build a highly effective HTH combat character w/o high STR, it ends up being more expensive points-wise. Sometime much more. Example. The character in question is THE master of a martial art like Aikijitsu or Aikido. Background So we all are talking about the same MA, here's a 2 sentence description of the difference between jujitsu/judo vs aikijitsu/aikido: If you find yourself on the ground or flying through the air after feeling a joint twisted or your body lifted, that's "ju". If you find yourself on the ground or flying through the air and don't know how it happened, that's "aiki". Note that the above is independent of the common knowledge both styles have of joint locks/breaks and pressure points (for both "atemi", AKA strikes, as well as controls or submission holds) Another difference that needs to be noted is that the aiki arts have a strong weapons component in them. Including Bow and arrow. /Background Said character has been practicing and refining their understanding of the art for more than 50 years. This is the classic "unassuming little old man". Until he reveals himself. Staves vibrate with the force of his snap strikes. Thrusts can shatter staves. Students 2-3x or more his mass go flying the length of the practice matt. He can gently put his hands on you and suddenly inflict _excruciating_ pain, or remove such, because of his knowledge of accupressure. He can lock up multiple attackers simultaneously to the point where they must submit or risk having their joints torn from their ligaments if they insist on trying to fight the hold. On the rare occasions where he gives demos with deady weapons, he does things with them that are awe inspiring. Sword demos are so fast and accurate you can't see the blade or its results until after the damage is done. Bow demos involve both accuracy and rate of fire that match feats described in legends (Splitting arrows with others. Firing 6-12 shots per minute with outrageous accuracy. Often through armor as part of the demo. etc) This guy can't lift more than the average guy on the street can. But he can run herd animals into exhaustion, move so fast that you find it hard to believe, hit so hard that he routinely breaks the force measuring devices at circuses or fairs (both the swing something at them and the hit them directly types), and if you put a bathroom scale into his hands and ask him to squeeze, it reads 250+ Lbs. And none of the above speaks to his teaching skills, EGO, PRE, or the skills based on those stats which are every bit as impressive as the physical stuff. (yes, folks I've known more than one RW martial artist of this type.) In every way except how much he can lift or carry, this sensei deserves a 25 STR in game terms. (I'm assuming a world where 25 is the NCM limit.) But he probably can't lift much more than the average guy (STR 10 in game terms). So how much of a Limitation is "STR in every way except in how much you can carry or lift."?

Re: Freedom Force vs. The Third Reich Review Thanks Ben!

Re: Creation philosophy *shakes out sore hands and gets back to the proper mindset* My apologies for the delay in following up on my last post regarding Creation Philosophy. Work got in the way, and I had a hard time figuring out a decent approach to the next step. Let's see if this works. At it's most fundamental, combat is basically a race. Whoever does more _sustained_ damage (more damage than can be REC per Turn) per unit time wins. Therefore one way of defining two characters as balanced in combat with regards to each other is that they each have an equal chance of Stunning or KOing the other. When your PC first evaluates a potential opponent, your strategy will fall into one of these: A- You can do damage >= their Con. You can win by Stunning the opponent. B- You can do damage < their Con and >= their STUN/your SPD. You can win by KO in one Turn. C- You can do damage < their Con, < their STUN/your SPD, and > than their REC. You can win by a multi Turn KO. Call it a TKO. D- You can't do damage > their REC. You can't Fight and must Flee to survive. Bricks tend to use (A) since they usually only need one hit to connect to take out most opponents. This also means they don't need to be very fast or skillful to offer at least a fair fight for most. This also means they need large Def in order to be able to survive getting hit while they are waiting to use that big attack. As the character's attack DC decreases, obviously their SPD and skill must increase to make up for it if they are to do the same amount of damage in a Turn. This starts by being the region of strategy (. Since their SPD and skill has increased, the character's Def must decrease in order to keep them combat balanced. As we decrease the attack DC even further to that of strategy ©, we must increase SPD and skill even more to make sure our character's expected damage over the entirety of the combat stays the same. This also means we must decrease our Def even further if we are to give our opponent an equal chance. In the spirit of using extremes to make a point, I'm going to post 3 characters that are very different form each other yet still provably combat balanced with regards to each other: BBrick has SPD 3, a huge DC attack, large Defenses, and is relatively unskillful. AverageHero has SPD 6, a moderate DC attack, moderate Defenses, and is moderately skillful. Au'o has SPD 12, a small DC attack, small Defenses, and is very skillful and nigh unto impossible to hit. I'll post the work with the exact numbers after I give my hands a rest.

Re: Creation philosophy *gets back from work and sees AgentX Troll has been busy trying to be as destructive as possible again* I'll respond only to the "high" points. Then I'm going to get back to trying to make useful posts. *might as well have fun doing it* You persist in these attempts to twist my words and actions into a hatefully distorted parody of their intent and meaning. Regain your maturity. If you have anything other than treacherous social manipulation and craven innuendo to contribute, please speak these and all will attend. Otherwise, please be silent. You are not nearly as cunning as you appear to think yourself, and these infantile tactics should be transparent to any who even casually examine and reflect on them. This Discourse was evolving peacefully and satifactorily before your first uninvited disruption and again after it recovered from it. Yet you return to tedious attempts to throw all into turmoil and chaos once again. My research (yes, the Careful Man does research both potential foes and potential vermin) shows that this behavior is unworthy of you, but then it would be unworthy of any adult of good breeding. I pray you reconsider this present course and correct your path, for no good can come of this one for you. Nonetheless, "actions make the man" and if for some reason you can not climb back from your Fall from the ranks of Gentlefolk and rejoin our Good Company, then you will be treated as your words and deeds warrant and demand. You insinuate that I am Craven... While trying to instigate a conflict you know can not have real consequences to your person as you are "safe" and not F2F... While disrupting a conversation that was doing just fine without you (perhaps that's why you decided you needed to try and inflame things? WTF did I do to you?)... In the process of a being a firestarter who has added NOTHING substantive to the discussion except to destabilize it every time you post... While deporting yourself as if you are The Ultimate Authority on these matters. (The rest of us have engaged in give and take, but not you... No, your Word is God's. Sorry, not buying.) And you have the EFFRONTARY to call ?ME? arrogant and condescending?? ...AND I OWE ?YOU? AN APOLOGY?? That will happen about the time Lucifer rules on both Earth and Heaven and not a moment before. You sir, are an unmannerly churl, and your behavior is that of the Craven Instigator and Coward as well as that of the Bully. Were this another time and place I would challenge you to face me Man to Man with pistols or fisticuffs, your choice, until one of us asks pardon or unconsciousness or death. Don't get confused about the neo-Victorian prose, I'm dead serious. I strongly suggest we just add each other to our respective Ignore lists and move on. You want more than that then I want an address for a f2f meet and we'll settle this like Men. Regardless of how much younger than I you are. *...and to think I usually +respect+ Teachers. I feel sorry for this jack@ss's students*

Re: Rep Points?

Re: Creation philosophy I'll do better than that. I'll give you guidelines that I know work for an +infinite+ number of characters, and at the same time allows you to taylor things to the style of your campaign. Read pS22 "Playing The Numbers" in 4ed. Then add to it the concept that combat balanced characters do close to the same amount of Expected Damage per Turn. Then add to that the idea that combat balanced characters have close to the same Expected Character Survivability. This results in two 3D graphs based on SPD + Skill + (AP in Attack - campaign Average defense), both of which are modified by movement ability. Any character within the 3D "blob" defined by the extremes of allowable SPD + Skill + (AP in Attack - campaign average defense) + movement modifiers is a "fair" character. Any outside are "unfair". Any on an edge may need further testing. When in doubt, additionally use a combat simulator to run experiments. Now for some practical advice on _using_ this stuff. Treb has said that Zl'f could not have been built under the sort of restrictions that the original "Playing The Numbers" 4ed blurb gave. That's sort of true and sort of not. My POV is that given enough CP and using an INTELLIGENT version of guidelines like those in "Playing The Numbers", a campaign balanced version of any of the "combat monsters" posted in this thread could be made. The first design issue with characters like Zl'f is that Dex and SPD are expensive. Granted they are valuable for the expense, but their CP cost is high enough that one needs a big CP budget just to consider concepts like Zl'f in a playable manner. Str and Con remain by far the most CP efficient buys in HERO and concepts that rely on other stats for efficacy are going to require a larger minimum CP budget to be viable. This may be one reason why DOJ raised the standard CP budget for supers in 5ed. I've got to go play with some numbers and create some examples. I'll edit this post as I get results. We're going to define a design space and then explore guidelines for 3 characters: A= Average Hero- who lies as close to the exact center of the design space as possible. B= BBrick- guess C= Ao'u, Zl'f's son and an even more extreme version of the same idea she is.

Re: Creation philosophy *reads second post by AgentX that tells me to FOAD with consternation* OK, enough is enough. Utter Bull Sh*t. You evidently like instigating flame wars. If you notice where I've been spending my time, you'll see I haven't >gotten< to making any further responses to Mike or Trebuchet. I've been kind of busy trying to add real value to the main topic of this thread, and I do have a real life that I'm juggling while participating around here. I had already apologized to Trebuchet for the mistakes I had made in analyzing Zl'f (I also apologize for the persistent miss-spelling on my part of "Zl'f" Treb. Thanks Sean.) and had made it quite clear that Lariat was considerably worse. I have not analyzed Black Lotus, so I have made no comments as to that character. If I could have, I would have responded as reasonably as possible to their posts that I had not yet. You've pretty much made that impossible. You've also removed any incentive I may have had to go back and politely respond to your points or examples in detail. As to the worth or not of my experience: Like some others around here, I've been gaming for ~3 decades and have done so across almost every RP system or group of gamers with any unique idea or two that I could find. I've been fortunate enough to know >some< of the very talented folks that have created this hobby for the rest of us to pursue well enough to seriously pick their brains on game design and related topics. ...I'm also HEAVY duty comics, fantasy, and sci fi weenie. My library literally fills my basement and a serious chunk of my house with auxiliary off-site storage. My references to the scope of my experience are no less important or more trivial than anyone else around here who has such credentials. Until you started posting here we were all trying to be reasonably civilized and logical about whatever disagreements existed between us. Both Treb and I had done our parts to nip the (+considerably+ more subtle and sophisticated) only other attempt at causing trouble than yours in the bud. EDIT: oh, and Treb and I are both Grown Ups. We were dealing with our disagreements reasonably well without your "help". Given the change in the tone of his posts since your first salvo, that may be all over, and that's truely unfortunate. IME, Treb, Fox1, Oddhat and many others around here with strong opinions are worth any discussion and know how to defend their POV without indulging in bear-baiting or flame wars even when they are involved in a disagreement. That's a valuable skill you have not shown in this thread thus far. The flames had cooled and died down around here until you decided to add petrol and vitrol to them. That's what "the rest of us have moved on" meant. I was being polite in responding to a post that was ENTIRELY an Ad Hominem attack (gee some of the rest of us recognize both Latin and violations of the rules of formal debate... ...BTW this isn't a formal debate. It's supposedly a friendly discussion.), so don't even pretend you have some sort of moral high ground to stand on. Any sh*t storm that results should be accepted by you as justly being at least 50% your responsibility. Contrary to your misuse of the term, I have not yet made any Ad Hominem attacks in this thread. (*anger indulged*) So here's my first Ad Hominem attack of this thread: You clearly are so intellectually or psychologically Broken that you get your jollys by tossing gasoline and dynamite around. Go find some vasoline + some sand + a pointy stick for your nether regions. (*end anger indulged*)

Re: Creation philosophy Is there an alternative source, for those of us not fortunate enough to stumble across Hero until after Fifth had come out? *sigh* 4ed is Out of Print, and Steve Long has verified that this is not in print anywhere. So I did some legal checking regarding "Fair Use"... I present pS22 of Champions 4ed... It's possible, of course, to play a Champions campaign without any limits on the power level of the characters. However such a campaign will likely sport grossly unbalanced characters: some will put all of their points in a single omnipotent attack, or an impregnable defense. It will be impossible for the players designing their PC's to know what is considered a "good defense" or "a great Strength." Hence it is usually a good idea to set limits on the amount of damage each character can do, and the defenses each character can have. You will also limit each character's Dex and SPD. When determining the actual limits, there are several things to remember. Each 1d6 of normal damage does an average of 3.5 STUN; this costs 5 Active Points. If the GM sets the campaigns's average defenses at 3x the maximum number of (normal) attack dice, then such an attack will only do .5 STUN per die, on the average. Thus in a campaign with limits of 10d6 attacks (50 Active Points) and 30 defenses, an attacker could only expect to inflict .5 STUN per attack. At this rate combat would last forever. The PCs would abandon normal attacks for Armor Piercing Attacks, Killing Attacks, and No Normal Defense Attacks-all in an attempt to do effective damage. On the opposite extreme, the GM could set the average defenses at 1x the maximum attack dice. Thus, in a campaign with maximum attacks of 10d6 and average defenses of 10, the average attacker would inflict 25 STUN per attack. At this rate, there is an overwhelming advantage for attacking first, because any attack that hits will do tremendous damage to the target. An average roll will Stun many characters, and most will go down after only 2 hits. Character will try to get a high DCV, because the only good defense is not getting hit. A good rule of thumb: The average defense should run about 2 times the maximum attack (in normal dice), and have a maximum of 2.5 times the maximum attack. Thus a 10d6 campaign might have an average defense of 20 and a maximum defense of 25. Similarly, a 12d6 campaign might have an average defense of 24 and a maximum of 30. Characters with low DCVs can be allowed to have the highest defenses, while the characters with high DCVs should have defenses near the bottom. The character's maximum SPD helps define the character's relationship with the world around him. Heroes who are much slower than their counterparts have fewer chances to act, and will be able to do less in combat. As a general rule, SPDs should be kept within 3 points of each other; they could range from 3-6, 4-7, etc. When setting limits on Dex and CV, you are deciding how easily the character will hit others and be hit himself. Of course, there are several things to consider. A defender that has a DCV advantage of 4 or more over the attacker will only be hit one time in six. Thus, the range between the highest Dex and the lowest Dex should rarely be greater than 4 points of CV. In a low-Dex campaign, the Dex could range from 15-27 (base CV 5-9), averaging 20; in a high DEX campaign Dex could range from 20-34 (base CV 7-11), averaging 26. Notice however, what happens to the heroes in each type of campaign. Assume that a well-trained agent has a Dex of 15. In a low Dex campaign, the agent has a -2 chance to the hit the average hero; he will hit one time out of 3. That same agent attacking the average hero in a high-Dex campaign will be -4, and will only have a one in six chance of hitting. In the low-Dex campaign agents can be effective while in the high-Dex one they are probably just an exercise in dice rolling. The GM should carefully consider each of these values when setting limits for the campaign. The lower the limits, the closer the heroes will be to "normal" people; higher limits will raise the capabilities of the character. This will have a tremendous impact on the way the character affects the world and the flavor of the campaign. Average Champions campaign According to survey data, the average Champions character has the following stats: Average Main Attack: 11d6 Average total PD or ED: 25 Average DEX 23 Average SPD 5.5 -----End of pS22, _Champions_ 4ed----- LEGALESE: This is an excerpt from an out of print book that represents ~1/340 of that book's contents. Research has not found any in print source of this material. By the terms of Fair Use, this material is provided for Academic and Research use only and can not be used for any commercial gain without first explicitly negotiating commercial Use Rights with the current holder of the copyright on said material. *tired typist with RSI nurses sore hands*

Re: Can Superheroes Be Too Pragmatic? This isn't "pragmatic" behavior. Policemen and Firefighters are "pragmatic". Look what they did on 9/11 in NYC and what they do every day everywhere as they follow the motto "To Protect and Serve". Heroes are pragmatic WHILE THEY TAKE RISKS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC GOOD. Your PC's are not superheroic nor even heroic. At best they are a para-military group of cold-blooded super-soldiers who care more about attaining mission objectives than they do about Protecting The Innocent or Serving The Public Good. If they have Police Powers, that stunt of leaving innocents in Harm's Way while "focusing on the bad guy" just got them taken away. Time for your PC's to learn that they are either Police/Fire/Rescue or Soldiers. The first Protect and Serve The Public above ALL else. The second are Military. With all that implies. The only active soldiers of any kind usually allowed within a country's borders either work FOR the government, and thus are -not- their own masters, or are intensely hunted fugitives. Renegade para-military groups make governmental agencies nervous. Renegade super-powered para-military groups make folks like Congress and The Joint Chiefs nervous and would probably be considered a Clear and Present Danger and an issue of National Security. Start giving them carrots and using sticks to get them to clean up their act.

Re: Aaargh, I can't believe I'm posting this. Nice to meet you too. Please reread my posts, I made NO such claim or assumption in what I said, and I never do. In fact my STATED big beef with using characters like Lariat and Z'lf in a discussion about general "Creation Philosophy" is that they are NOT typical 350-400 CP characters. They are basically hyper focused Combat Monsters and very efficient ones for their CP at that. That represents a very distinct style of HERO gaming that is not representative of the norm in my experience. I may compare things to other campaigns I've seen or been in but I -NEVER- have or will "argue from the premise that my campaign should be the baseline that all things are measured by." Ummm, No. "Normal Characteristic Maximum" is called that for exactly that reason: it defines what a "Normal Human" is. That's means 21, not 31, is the beginnings of "Super Human". Else NCM would top out at 30... Rest of this snipped because the rest of us have moved on already. As I said, welcome to the discussion.

Re: Creation philosophy Is there an alternative source, for those of us not fortunate enough to stumble across Hero until after Fifth had come out? Can anyone help Alice and me out here? Is the blurb "Playing The Numbers" on pS22 of _Champions_ 4ed in any in-print source that anyone knows of?