Inu

Re: Design a ME Team I like the idea of an Arab mystic. The old stories are full of evil sorcerers... but why can't there be a good one? Specifically, something of an alchemist and astrologer. These two practices were very big in pre-Islamic Arab/Persian societies. I'd look at transformational powers, possibly control over elements, and predictions via stars and other methods. If you really want to go into history, make him a Zoroastrian. For a more traditional superhero, well, regional flavour often takes care of itself. I cringe at most Australian superheroes, because while American authors are capable of making American heroes who don't necessarily scream 'American', those from other cultures, for some reason, have to be VERY much from those cultures. I mean, take Cyclops. Give him a different name, different background, different look, he could be from any country on earth with minimal change. But for some reason, when it comes to Australian heroes, they all have to be 'The Jackaroo', or 'Captain Colonial', or 'Dreamtime Man'. Same with Middle-East, I guess. The Captain Americas of comics are all well and good. But there's no reason that EVERY super-character from other countries MUST be innately tied to that country. I think that's what you're getting at by the comment about corniness? It's something that's definitely annoyed me about most super-characters. The key is subtlety, people! (This mini-rant brought to you by the sighting of yet another Crocodile Hunter ripoff character in webcomics.)

Re: When to use larger than normal weapons Hmm. What I'd heard from non-gaming sources was that the greatsword gained in popularity as armour got thicker - thick enough to withstand most weapons, so shields became less useful. So they started using two-handed weapons, because they needed them to be able to penetrate the armour on the other side. Not true?

Re: When to use larger than normal weapons From what I understand here, the confusion comes because there WAS some armour that needed the crane, but not due to weight. It was jousting armour that had very few joints, because joints were weak spots. Instead, the person strapped it all together and then really could hardly move. The armour was near impenetrable, but yeah, they needed a crane. That's as I understand it. I have no real sources for it, but it makes sense to me. And sounds like a reasonable place for the legend of the 'armour so heavy it needs a crane' to start.

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity) And Hero never rewards min-maxing? If not, why do we have threads on re-costing strength, putting attribute limits into place, and related topics such as that? I mean, really.

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity) Yup, at game standard, Hero aborts only give defensive action. What was proposed earlier in the thread is allowing an abort to offensive action, in the case that the opponent gives you a mighty good opening - such as walking right past you. I can't really see anything inherently wrong with this, particularly if mostly what you're doing between phases is waiting for an opening - well, the guy just gave you one. And that's exactly what I'm saying. I agree totally. Action in combats should be fluid. What we see is merely an abstraction. That's just what I'm saying. There are tentative presses, testing, evaluation. This leaves a lot of room open, in my opinion, for things happening between phases, such as aborting to Strike. Certainly, buying an ability is a solution. But it's only so much of a solution. Before the old Dark Champions, I'm quite sure people said: "Hey. I have two guns, one in each hand. Why can't I fire them both at once?" Which was probably met by: "Buy extra SPD or buy up damage (with Reduced Penetration)." Dark Champions introduced rules methods to cope with firing two weapons - including both rules modifications (using a variant of sweep, in rapid fire), and things to buy (to improve the ability). Now, introducing some kind of AoO is more of a modification than adding in rapid fire/two gun action. But I do believe that this is a legitimate concern, and adding in some kind of rules modification may make more sense than simply saying 'buy it with points.' I don't care whether they're in the standard system or not - they would certainly complicate an already complicated system. However, my major problem with Hero is that it has some very detailed rules in some areas, which make sense... and their rules in others are simply gamey (DfC to avoid ranged attack, even if you just dive prone, is the prime offender here, in my opinion). I feel the impact of AoOs, or equivalent, in Hero sysem would be minimal. It would cut down on things like people running past others - but if you kept the circumstances that provoke AoOs simple (such as only movement provoking them), then how much of any particular game session would really be altered? And how much frustration would it resolve? If a bad guy simply ran around me, grabbed Aunt May and started using her as a human shield, I'd be frustrated for sure. It doesn't make SENSE to me. Rules sense, yes, common sense, no. It violates my suspension of disbelief. (Unless, of course, a superpower were used to distract me, or to let the guy run real fast - but that's something bought with points. We're talking base rules here.) My blessing on anyone who decides to introduce AoOs into their game. I feel the impact will not be large, but will be largely good. My experience is that, in D&D, they've done very well for resolving gameyness and only VERY rarely feel gamey themselves. By and large, they feel natural, rational and intuitive. And that's all I have to say on that.

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity) Which is opposite to my experience. It probably helps that we've had a fairly static group, but we all know the rules, we all run things by the rules (even have a couple to make things MORE complex, like follow-up movement), and we haven't had an argument for years now. The rules are clear, really. The only place they aren't clear is if an AoO provokes another AoO, and that's easily solved by a single house rule (my house rule: no). That's really a problem with trip. IT's too powerful, particularly when combined with reach. The real killer problem is trip+spiked chain. In future, I plan to either make the spiked chain disappear, or make it a damage-only weapon rather than a tripping/disarming weapon. And yes, large enemies are hard to close with. If you want to avoid the AoO entirely, you close at 5' per round, or you tumble. If you're in heavy armour, you might just want to suck down the attack. If you get grappled, sucks to be you. But that's what you get for charging big monsters. In D&D, if you're good enough to attack someone who's armed without giving them an opening, then you have Improved Unarmed Strike and you are treated as being armed even when not carrying a weapon. IE, you no longer provoke AoOs simply by attacking. Simple, neh? I have friends who are bouncers. They ALL say, without exception, that if someone's got a knife, they don't dare go near them, because they expect that, unless they catch them off-guard, they're gonna get cut. And y'know, that catching someone off-guard thing happens in D&D, too. If you're flat-footed, no attacks of opportunity (unless you have combat reflexes, but then you are exceptional). D&D still works that way plenty fine. With melee attacks, anyway. Even if you don't go for that philosophy... do you really think it takes someone with SPD 3 four seconds to stab with a knife? They stab (swish) and then wait for another opening. The notion that it takes them four seconds to recover and swing again is non-sensical. So, the AoO (or, Hero-wise, the abort) gives them another opening sooner. Bang! They take that opportunity instead of waiting for another one. It makes sense unless you actually believe that, in a combat, the combatants stay still for four seconds, then suddenly hit each other, then go back to standing still. Combat is FLUID, the game mechanics we use are just so that we can simulate it using dice and sheets. They aren't an exact representation of what happens, and there's a LOT of room for interpretation. I'm not saying people HAVE TO work this into the game, or even that they SHOULD. But it won't require any radical re-think of the system philosophy to allow it.

Re: Math as a language *nods to PaigeOliver* Even if you can agree on what symbols mean, number-wise, actual MEANING in a non-mathematical sense is different. StarGate (a series I love) had an episode which revolved around an ancient meeting place for four extremely old species. In it was a display which the characters made the deduction was something like a translator. Using the elemental atoms to form the basis of language, it created a true universal language due to the fact that everyone could agree on what the symbols meant. I never bought it. Even if we can agree that this particular atom is hydrogen and this is helium, how do I relate the concept of 'tree?' (Of course, I could relate the chemical formula of 'wood', but that won't necessarily work well if the species I'm talking to has never seen wood, and wood of course is not a tree. Then you get ephemeral concepts such as emotions.) No-one's ever been able to explain that to me, even fervent defenders of the notion. A concept like mathematics might work for initiating communication. I've seen it used, if only to show 'look! We're an intelligent species too!' by breaking down symbols and things into pulses and the like. Multiplication tables by morse. Actually communicating concepts by maths... that would take longer. I could certainly see a possibility somewhere, though. Translating languages becomes MUCH easier (in fact, it becomes possible, as opposed to impossible) once you have common meaning associated with particular words or phrases. So you could use mathematics to figure out certain portions of the other guy's language, and then use that to get a kind of rosetta stone effect. 'Oh, their language works this way, so "flerf" must mean "Hi."' So I can see it working that way. But not really as a language in and of itself. Rules-wise, I'd call it something which allows you to use 'SS: linguist' or the like to translate, or perhaps SS: Mathematics as a complimentary skill to SS: linguist.

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity) Attacks of Opportunity don't happen ALL the time. They happen in specific situations when your opponent lowers his defences. The primary way for this to happen is when they're moving within your threatened area. Having played 3e and 3.5 a lot, I can tell you that AoO are fairly rare once people get the rules down, and that's because people don't want to provoke them. Just about the only time I see them is when monsters or players charge targets who have reach (PCs with long weapons, big monsters), or they've somehow been knocked prone and have to stand up (standing up provokes an AoO). There are other situations, of course. Unless you're trained (IE, have the correct feat) you provoke an AoO by trying to disarm an opponent. This makes sense to me. No, you do not provoke an AoO simply by attacking (unless you're untrained in unarmed combat, and you're attacking an armed opponent - does anyone want to quibble with this?). The number of things that provokes an AoO has hardly gone up since the original release of 3e, and so I don't believe there is in fact that risk of an ever-expanding list of things that provokes an AoO.

Re: Walking Past Combatants (Attacks of Opportunity)