Hierax

Re: Help with an Ineffective Ice Mage... add Ablative (simplified, H5er.115-116) to the Magic Ice Armor, it'll feel more ice-like and less like a generic power.

I'm looking at expanding the variety of uses of Charges and was looking at your Heroglyphs #16 article, specifically Conserved Charges. I like it as it provides an option sort of like Activation for Charges. But it doesn't quite make sense as is -- are the values in the table backwards? Or should the text say "conserved" instead of "consumed"? It seems like the baseline should be 18- for -0 since the charge would always be consumed (as it is for regular charges) and the lower the value of the roll the less the Limitation if consumed is meant (14- is ~90% consumed so it's closer to -0, and 8- ~25% consumed so it's farther from -0). So, is the table correct or the text? P.S. great work on all the 6th ed. stuff shown so far! I hope a lot more cool options like you did in Heroglyphs make it into the game or the Advanced book.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield Awesome, again more flexible options H6e looks better and better! Those will be very useful tools -- Thanks!

Re: Energy Weapons with Variable effect... yeah, that's why I offered the options. Glad it was helpful. Hope to hear more about this conversion you're doing in the future.

Re: Energy Weapons with Variable effect... The way I'm looking at it you could put it into a MPP, VPP, EC, or just leave it alone. The point is that it would balance vs. buying a single power that does the average amount of damage vs. all. Also I'd go with -2 not -3 as -3 gives you 1/4 the cost and -2 gives you 1/3 the cost. But looking back at your original post: I seem to have misread it above as: 4d6 against the full DEF of a type A FF 5d6 against the full DEF of a type B FF 3d6 against the full DEF of a type C FF xd6 against any other defence that is not FF types A-C But since that's not what you actually said, I'll change my suggestion to: Because FF type A isn't treated any differently than armor (and presumably non-armor or any other possible defence) it doesn't need a modifier (Advantage or Limitation), and because vs. Type B is +1 DC or +25% Damage and vs. Type C is -1 DC or 75% Damage they cancel out (either as a straight +0 Modifier or as Advantage = Limitation): Energy Weapon Type A 4d6 EB (20 BP) Different Damage Modifier (+1 DC/+25% damage bonus vs. Type B FF plus -1 DC/-25% damage penalty vs. Type C FF; +0) (20 AP; 20 RP); or 4d6 EB (20 BP); Different Damage Advantage (+1 DC/+25% damage bonus vs. Type B FF; +1/4)(25 AP); Different Damage Limitation (-1 DC/-25% damage penalty vs. Type C FF; -1/4) (20 RP). This assumes that Shield Type B and Shield Type C are as common as each other. If they aren't then you'd have to adjust the Modifier numbers. Hopefully I'm understanding this better this time around.

Re: Energy Weapons with Variable effect... With the weapons you'd need a 4th entry for damage without shields. But with the shields you wouldn't need to do this (if these are the only energy weapon types and you apply the Limitation only vs. the rED part of shields, and leave the rPD part, if any, alone).

Re: Energy Weapons with Variable effect... Give each of either the 3 different weapons or 3 different shields a 3 part build with a -2 Limitation on each part so that the total of all 3 parts is the same as buying one part -- I know it breaks the usual Hero Limitation "logic" but it works out better. Weapon n - Damage only vs. Shield Type A (-2) - Damage only vs. Shield Type B (-2) - Damage only vs. Shield Type C (-2) or Shield n - Defence only vs. Weapon Type A (-2) - Defence only vs. Weapon Type B (-2) - Defence only vs. Weapon Type C (-2) This will give you the same cost as Defence or Attack vs all 3 types.

Re: Need help naming ancient group of wizards You could also look at ancient Greek instead and go with something like ανώνυμος (anonymos -> anonymous) or related words. Or check the debased Latin Romance languages like Italian, French, Spanish, etc. to see what they do; or perhaps various earlier English and Germanic languages for words that sound more mysteriously magical.

Re: Need help naming ancient group of wizards Offhand, I don't think that there is a one word Latin for unnamed. you'd probably use a nullo or sine before name -- e.g., sine nomine (without name) or nolo nominare (I don't want to name). But those don't sound like what you're looking for.

Re: Stormbringer universe to HS Yes, do check out the Valdorian Age Fantasy Hero book it has a great magic system that is very Elric-esque. The sorcerers there get a Summon power and have all the rest of their spells based on the power level of the Summon. The Active Points of the spells in their Multi-Power Pool are limited to a maximum of the Active Points of the required Summon. Or adjust this number to whatever proportion works best for you. Then you use the MPP Slots to create enhancements such as Demon Weapons and Demon Armor. If I recall correctly, this is sort of like Chaosium's Elric and Stormbringer games using the POW stat of a creature.

Re: Marvel to HERO Damn, been a while since I'd done that! Never did get around to revising and completing it, but it's a start.

Re: Menton is up Wow! that's utterly craptasticly so not Menton!

Re: Top 5 Favorite 5E Supplements Fantasy Hero (Genre) Valdorian Age / Atlantean Age (Setting) Fantasy Hero Grimoire(s) / Ultimate Super Powers Database(s) (Powers) Hero System Beastiary / Monsters Minions Maurauders (Creatures) Enchanted Items (Equipment)

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc. Crypt, If you want to use Active Points as a balance mechanism (even if others don't) say for designing spells, IMO, you have to use a House Rule to change the the official Metarule about defences being considerably cheaper than attacks. This is a toolkitting alteration to the official system. For many people the system is fine as it is as they agree with this metarule. But if it's not working for your game you need to change it. I hope I understand what you're trying to get at. If your desire is to have defence be balanced with attacks on an "equal" basis based on Active Points where 1 Level of Defence counters 1 Level of Attack. Here's what I'd suggest: Require all spells to 1) take regular nDEF equal to rDEF, and 2) have a "Defensive Metarule Adjustment Advantage" as follows: nDEF (+1) Damage Resistance (+8) Armor (+1) Force Field (+2) Force Wall (+1/4) This will give you: 15 Active Points will get you a 3d6 N attack or a 1d6 K attack. 15 Active Points will get you 3nDEF + 3 rDEF Looking at the Range of Results using a RKA and the new 1/2d6(d3) STUNx, you'll get 1 BODY per 2 attacks (3/6) and 2 STUN (39/18) per attack on average vs. an average (not looking at the range of results) Standard Effect of 0 BODY and 0 STUN per attack. However, realize that by doing this you'll be raising the Real Point opportunity cost of Spell defences to characters. It will let you use Active Points cap for Balance of point parity with attacks without using a separate defence cap. Without any extra Advantages (like Hardened) or Limitations your stoneskin would be: Armor 6/6 or 12/0 or 0/12 (+1) 36 Active Points PD/ED 6/6 or 12/0 or 0/12 (+1) 24 Active Points Total: 60 Active Points This "balances" against a 60 Active Point Attack -- or 2 of these defences balance against 2 60 point attacks (1 vs. PD, 1 vs. ED). If, however, you want defences vs. both PD and ED all in one, then go with 1/2 of the Advantages I mention above (6/6 would be 30 AP balanced vs a 2d6K attack). Depends how you look at that. I think it comes down to either accept the system the way that it is or find a way to change it to be the way that you want it to be. Somewhere in Fantasy Hero it mentions if you want to make certain spell effects rarer you should change the cost of them and in the core Hero System Rules it talks about changing the system. This is just one way to do it that might give you what you're looking for.

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc. Devil's Advocate for a minute: Why bother with points at all if they don't matter?

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc. I guess I look at Limitations as a way to build in flavour and differentiation into spells and characters not just as a way to shave off points. As you pointed out above VPPs are good for Fantasy. I think one of the best features of a VPP is it puts a AP cap for controlling power levels and encourages Limitations with the Real Point limit which encourages a variety of spells. I like a larger variety of spells with different Limitations for different situations instead of a smaller stable of flavourless generic spells.

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc. Removing the Limitations doesn't seem like a good idea, too Championesque, IMO -- Spells should pile on the Limitations, limitations = flavour. The problem of having every point count I think, as a house rule, your suggestion of x10 costs and x10 character points solves the granularity problem for points (heck, if you needed to you could go x100 and it would work well for anyone who isn't scared of big numbers, the math is just as easy, easier because less rounding problems too). In fact, if you change the points to a higher multiple it's easier to tweak the point costs of things as you get the extra detail in other areas. It certainly can seem odd that a point build system like HERO has increments/decrements of abilities where the points don't change. I think that the trick is to use the HERO toolkit to make it your own game. Since the lack of cost changes with the Limitations and character advancement is a problem, then your cost multiplier solution might be just what you need for your game.

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far For those people not changing to the uncoupled non-figured Characterisitics, do you lift the restriction on only buying back 1 of them to allow the same range of design possibilities as the new way while maintaining the default structure of the old? That always seemed like a needless restriction to me.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD There's creative ways to make the vs. OCV make sense even if you push it to extremes, e.g.: Kelanen Quasi-Deity Prince of Swords has an intelligent magical blade imbued with his divine sword skill that only respects the sword skill of his opponents and laughs at inferior defences: Attack ACV OCV vs. the defence of the enemy's OCV with swords! Either that fits into the ladder category of Rare that Steve Long mentioned or extend it to make a very rare, say if you wanted it to only be vs. the OCV from Skill Levels with swords! (thus testing pure training, maybe as a trial for a cult rite of passage, block this blade to prove you're worthy) All uses need not be this extreme but sounds to me with this new rule it could just possibly work!

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? You guys have good points that I'm not arguing against. I was just saying from the point of view of AP limits it doesn't work well (specifically where it bothered me was using Frameworks to balance powers). If not looking at it from that POV then I see that it's not a problem particularly if you're using a separate Def cap. Somehow I came to think of AP caps as official (not sure where I got that from though), knowing that they really aren't does help explain things better.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? What about the point of Active Point caps and Defences being over-powered? 60 AP cap: 4d6 RKA Standard Effect = 12 Body, 24 Stun; Average 14 Body, 28 Stun; Maximum = 24 Body, 72 Stun. vs. 40 points of Armor 60 points of Forcefield 60 points of non-resistant defence or say 20 points of Armor + 30 points of non-resistant PD.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? double to get PD and ED isn't a fair comparison you'd have to compare it to 2 attacks one vs. PD one vs. ED.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? It depends if you look at Maximum or Average Damage. Where the cheap defences are a problem is dealing with AP caps -- e.g, take a 60 Active Point Power (straight up, MPP, VPP, or whatever) what it the biggest Attack and what is the biggest Defence you can put in it and how balanced are they?

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? As a House Rule require a +1 or +2 Advantage on Defence Powers to make them "properly" balance out against offence powers -- great for making them actually fit in MPP/VPP in a fairer and more balanced way. Personally, I think that the cheaper defences metarule is an unnecessary Champions holdover that should be gotten rid of, but superheroics still rule this roost, and YMMV.