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

The funny thing is.. this is a defining characteristic of most greatswords in real life, especially the later ones like the Zweihander and the Flamberge. They are really mostly geared towards defensive fighting, and use the long arc to allow the cutting foreward 1/3rd of the blade to reach the velcities needed to inflict harm. The ONLY time I've ever seen this addressed was in an optional set of combat rules for Runequest was back in the day, from an issue of Wyrms Footnotes. Even back then, he mentioned that the genre convention of "greatswords do more damage" was too ingrained to easily break.

And we still need a good write up of some off the 16th century weapon based martial arts, like the German and Italian masters were teaching in the age just before fencing took off.

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

As for 20lbs it belongs with those legends of knights needing cranes for mounting a horse (did anyone ever think of the poor horse when they thought that one up?!?)

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)

Interesting debate.

The one and only time I played 3rd ed D&D I broke the campaign "standard" and played a plain vanilla human fighter. By 10th level, he could mop the floor with all the various gnome/werewolf ranger/sorccerers and the like, if I had wanted to. And it was all because of the Attacks of Opportunity from his plethora of feats. So I tend to agree that game is broken...It DEFINITELY rewards minmaxing. Alas I moved before I could get the reciprocal HERO game going...

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)

 

Big differences between D&D's AofOs and Hero's Aborts: The AofO gives you a full attack for free. Completely for free. Hero's Abort usually gives you defensive capabilities. I just think that Blocking with an edged weapon (and possibly some others) should incidentally do some damage (just think of them as providing a bit of a limited Damage Shield). That's me.

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.

Quite so fluid, you think? Actually, there is a lot of backing off, considering your opponent, waiting for their next move or the right moment to press your own attack. It isn't like in the action movies where everyone acts completely without hesitation. On the other hand, you don't have to think of Phases as pulses of activity followed by periods of inaction. It is merely an abstraction, and you can consider the exact actions you take in your Phase as taking the amount of time you have between Phases, more or less. It serves closely enough for representing an action-for-action scene to me, at least to an order of magnitude.

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.

I think you are way off there. If AofOs suddenly become a part of the system, it is easy to start thinking of ways to take significant advantage of them. It would unbalance things as we know them now. Completely. Just like D&Ds AofOs have completely turned their system upside-down. I'm not saying that's all in a bad way, but it has gone way, way overboard.

 

If you truly want AofOs, pay for them: buy extra Speed that is only for taking advantage of "suitable openings," and have the GM decide what kind of Limitation that warrents based on your agreement over, "suitable openings." Then you can always be holding a Phase for that, "right moment."

 

I'm not saying a GM shouldn't allow some kind of AofO occasionally, in the extreme case, but I seriously don't think it should be an everyday part of the system.

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)

Yes' date=' they are fairly rare once people get the rules down and start worrying about AofOs. Of course, at this point players spend just about [i']all of their time[/i] worrying about how they can take just about any action without provoking AofOs. I play D&D 3.5 with a very experienced group of players (because, for the most part, they refuse to do anything else ). Just about all the arguments and delays in combat are over AofOs. It is ridiculous.

If played correctly in D&D, monsters with reach can take almost complete advantage of characters who aren't using reach weapons or ranged attacks. Likewise, I have seen so many characters whose complete concept is built around tripping enemies, and so many whole combats where combatants stay on the ground in order to avoid the AofOs that I am entirely sick of it!

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.

I wasn't saying you provoke an AofO just by attacking. I was using it to illustrate the ridiculous extreme toward which D&D is heading. And yes, I will quibble with the AofOs against unarmed attackers. If you attack someone while they are attacking you, you may certainly be able to take advantage of proximity and openings, you may be able to catch them off guard, but the exact same thing goes toward opponents who are armed or unarmed. If they are unarmed, you just may have the advantage of a little extra reach (handled very well the way Hero suggests CV penalties), and you just may not care as much about their also hitting you. Such things are best handled with held actions, blocks, etc. In fact, I might myself allow a character--say with an edged weapon--to Abort to a Block, and if the Block succeeds, cause some damage to the attacker (though I probably wouldn't allow them to add Str to the damage). This represents well the fact that an unarmed attacker is presenting a viable target to the defender.

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).

Allowing AofOs is ridiculous unless you still go for the whole, "an attack isn't actually a single attack; it is the final likely attempt after a lot of ducking, dodging, feinting, etc." philosophy, which Hero certainly doesn't need and D&D has moved away from in so many other respects that AofOs are silly. If an attack action is an actual attack or sequence of attacks, then AofOs are a way for characters to suddenly somehow move much faster than they would normally be able to; they no longer represent just the ability to take advantage of an opening.

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)

BTW' date=' I liked some attacks of opportunity when used judiciously by the GM in very appropriate situations back in, say, barebones 2nd Edition D&D. Ever since (stupid) Combat and Tactics and the core 3rd Edition rules incorporated them into everything under the Sun, I have felt sickened (which, by the way, must grant [i']someone[/i] an Attack of Opportunity against me, right?)! I can't even approach an enemy without their getting a free attack on me? I can't drink potions or cast spells anymore? What the f**k?!??! The next step will be when all enemies get Attacks of Opportunity against you for attacking (EDIT: and then, if it isn't obvious, you get an Attack of Opportunity against each of them for taking Attacks of Opportunity, and then they each get...)!!!!

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)

I would agree that the Interposing rules are probably the best option in the system for dealing with this. I disagree' date=' though, that the default situation in HERO is actually nonsensical. Have you ever tried to stop a determined person from getting past you by interposing yourself? It's not as simple as blocking the line of sight of someone using a weapon at range. It's a very dynamic process that requires you to match that person's moves. If your opponent is quicker and more agile than you (in HERO terms, has a DEX and SPD advantage) he likely will get by you, short of you actually succeeding in grabbing and holding on to that person (requiring a successful Grab Maneuver). Anyone who's played football or basketball can attest to this.[/quote']

However, if in the original situation the two characters are fighting, this is different.

 

I'm standing in front of my girlfriend, fighting the kidnapper. I think most people will attest that if you take your attention off the guy you're fighting for a moment, you're going to get hit. It's not a case of stopping him by interposing - interposing is merely the only way to do it in HERO. In real life, you'll be stopping him by the threat of your meaty fists (or whatever else you have available).

 

But in HERO (and, indeed, most other game systems), the guy I'm fighting can not only stop paying attention to me, he can walk three hexes around me, and Grab my girlfriend, then use her as human shield cover. Meanwhile, I can't do a thing about it other than desperately try to interpose myself (exposing myself to an attack).

 

The rationale behind Attacks of Opportunity (AoO) is that combat is fluid, and while the miniatures are standing still, the characters are not. So if you lower your guard, you give your opponent a chance to hit you outside of the normal sequence. This attack can be any of the standard options, including Grab (as would probably be appropriate in this case).

 

There are certain rules in Hero which just strike me as manipulating the game, rather than actually working with the 'reality' of the setting. The ability to run around and around and around an opponent without any possible is one of the things that sticks in my throat.

 

Now, you CAN create situations where you can get things like AoO. You can buy a trigger on your attack as a naked advantage (trigger=when bad guy runs past me). You can hold an action, as was mentioned earlier in this thread.

 

But all of those things SHOULD be unnecessary! They're kludges. Why SHOULD I have to hold my punch, just in case the other guy is gonna try to get around behind me? I mean, if I do that, he just might be tempted. If I keep assailing him with blows, wouldn't he be more tempted to stay where he is?

 

But this all boils down to various holes in most RPGs - primarily, the turn-based nature. I shoot at bad guy X. Bad guy X now has a whole turn to run towards me. Unless you use segmented movement, he can do it; but we suspend our disbelief here, because it's just how game systems work, and doing anything else is problematic. (Some situations are worse than others, of course. I was running a WW2 game using the Torg system, and was struck by the possibility of someone running 250 metres towards an entrenched machinegun nest in a SINGLE round and taking it out with a grenade or something, all without any possible retalliation. So I changed the rules there.)

 

Anyway, this post has largely been long and rambly, rather than having any real point... as for the original poster's problem, no, I have no idea how to deal with it other than building kludges into your character. Unless you're willing to say that any maneuver can be Aborted, if the bad guy's obviously not trying hard enough to defend himself against you.

 

It's a problem inherent in any game system. Some deal with it, some don't.