Arthur

Re: Re: Re: Help Create the Instant Sword Spell Please That's only an issue the first phase. After that, the sword is a Special Effect.

This looks really good. I can offer only a few suggestions: CON is probably too high. Typically, CON is considerably lower than STR for the high-STR types. I'd change that to 20 or 25. Change INT to 3. Exact same game effect. INT should always end in 3 or 8. Don't know that I'd make EGO that low. I'd probably go with 8. I'd also add some Mental Defense, at least vs. Mind Control. Otherwise, any "puppet-master" character has a cake-easy way to get a very strong slave. I see you changed the extra PRE to "straight-up". That was going to be my main suggestion from the first draft. I liked it better when ED was lower than PD. I don't see them being that resistant to fire and such. I might also make the DR 3/2 or 3/1. I would consider bumping SPD to 3. These are Hill Giant warriors, after all. The defenses plus Damage Reduction might be too high. I understand that Giants of any kind should be really hard to take down, but this might be overshooting the mark. This is a big maybe, though. I might go with PD 10/3 and ED 8/1 and 25% Damage Reduction - no lower than that. The weapons and equipment shouldn't cost points. FH is primarily supposed to be a Heroic-level game, right? The CSLs seem a bit high. I'd probably go with +2 with All Combat and +2 with Club, at the most. Just my suggestions.

Re: Help Create the Instant Sword Spell Please Wow. All these complex approaches. This is a pretty straightforward HKA. The "magic sword" is just a SPECIAL EFFECT. The original writeup looks pretty good.

Anybody remember Autoduel Champions? It came out just about 20 years ago and was a two-part supplement. Part one was the Car Wars world in Hero System terms. Sort of the precursor to GURPS Autoduel. Part two was supers within the Car Wars rules. Come to think of it, there was a third part: it was the first writeup of helicopters in Car Wars. Anyway, it was done once, so it's not beyond the realm of possibility to see a new "Autoduel Hero" supplement. I'd love to write it or at least contribute. However, the odds are long against it, I'd bet.

This part really sparked my imagination. What if there were some low-level (or not!) supers that just wanted to live in peace? They would have to be convinced to join the battle. "But you may be our last hope, Dr. Steele! The android body you transferred your mind into could easily be refitted for combat with your skills in robotics!" "No, I'm not a warrior. I'm just a scientist" "Couldn't you just add a few weapons systems? For your own defense?" "Hmmm. Why, yes, I could fit a combat laser in, just in case. I would, of course, design it fire right out of my optical sensors. Pointing an arm is so... unnecessary. And I could easily upgrade my dermal armor..." Etc.

Right. If the PCs are turning into Combat Monsters, it's probably because the game is too combat-heavy. I've made that mistake in the past. If every game is mostly a fight scene, then of course the characters are going to adapt to it and go for more combat effectiveness. It's almost an evolution effect. If a PC is too one-dimensional in any way, it should be a drawback in some way, just as it would be in most literature. However, that's easier said than done. Matches my experience. For many years, most of the time *I* was playing the "flying howitzer" wizard in Fantasy Hero (or GURPS Fantasy). Then I had an eye-opening game. I started in a FH game with a hankering to play something different. So I made up a pacifist (would fight in self-defense) ki-based martial artist. Reasonably effective in combat, but more into stealth and ninja-type skills. Another player made up the flying wizard with the campaign max attack (4d RKA). First big fight, my character stood back and mostly watched while the opposition focussed their heavy firepower on the wizard. It was an interesting change in perspective, to say the least. It was a totally realistic consequence within the setting.

This is one of the coolest story arcs I have ever read about. My hat's off to you.

Nicely put. That has also been my philosophy for decades. It's not my job as GM to kill characters. However, it's also not my job to prevent them from killing themselves. However, I find it distasteful to kill a PC, and will ask for confirmation of really stupid actions ("Are you SURE you want to insult Doctor Doom's mother to his face?"). However, if the player insists, I will sigh and roll the dice.

+1/4 on what? Each strike maneuver? STR? That was my first thought as well, but the individual nature of MA maneuvers makes that approach roblematical. In practice, it means each Maneuver with the Strike Basis will cost one extra point. If a PC has a few Maneuvers, then he gets a lot of bang for the buck. Extra DC is a flat +4 points, regardless of how many Maneuvers you have. Therefore, Improved MA KB should also have a flat cost. I'd be OK with making it a +4, just like a +1 DC. Easier to remember.

Personally, I'm a fan of the Hit Location chart. Of course, I go for a very "realistic" gaming approach. If I were to propose a fix for a more casual style, I'd do this: Roll one die. Figure up the BODY damage as for a Normal attack. Add 2. There's the STNx. Die Result - STNx 1 - 2 2 - 3 3 - 3 4 - 3 5 - 3 6 - 4 GIves a little more variation than the straight x3. Another way would be 1/2d+1, like this: 1 - 2 2 - 2 3 - 3 4 - 3 4 - 4 6 - 4

Let's see: Every 20 min is a -2, right? And "Once a Turn" is a -1 1/4? Don't remember and don't feel like looking them up. The exact values aren't important. The thing to do is just pick a value in between based on overall utility. In this case (if I got the Lims right), just call it a -1 1/2 and press on with the game. Remember that often looking for a complex solution that may be more "technically correct" won't really make any difference. As long as the AP and RP are about right, it should be OK. Don't overcomplicate things for no good reason.

Steel Shark. Manta Ray Barracuda However, those long Superheroic names are far too stilted and unwieldy for daily use. Very few folks really go by a name of more than two syllables. If they do, it gets a shortened version quick ("Spidey", "Shellhead", etc.). So how about just "Shark"?

Re: Handing out Disadvantages My first thought was "Why"? I mean, why bother with this much complexity? You can get the same effect by simply increasing the number of dice of attack by 1.5. Hate to be cynical, but one reason would be a sneaky way to exceed campaign damage limits. If the game has a 12 DC cap, then you could get an effect 18 DC this way. This is why I really don't know if I like things like AP caps and such. It's a point-based system - that should be sufficient. If the characters are too powerful, reduce the points. Nothing wrong with 100+150 or even 125+75. If someone makes a one-dimensional character, that should carry its own drawbacks somehow due to the lack of points spent elsewhere.

Sounds like an unnecessarily complex way to dish out more damage. Just buy up the attack. Or buy it AP and/or Penetrating, with the special effect of induced Vulnerability.

Haymaker works out nicely as a zero-point maneuver using UMA: Haymaker: -5 DCV (-5); +4 Damage Classes (+6); Extra Time (-1). You just have to stretch the maximum negative DCV modifier. It also works out better if the extra DC from a Haymaker add to Killing Attacks at half value.

The main problem is that ST:TOS never even really tried to be internally consistent. It's strictly amusing watching all this; it's like the Biblical Fundamentalist inerrantists defending biblical contradictions. I have been a hardcore Trekkie since Sep 8, 1966. I was ten years old, already a SciFi fanatic, and Star Trek just sucked me into its world like a Hoover. I spent far too much time and effort memorizing Star Trek trivia when I should've been studying something useful. However, during its 1966-1969 run, it was a FLOP. It stayed on an extra season only because of a million letters of protest. Also, they were working fifteen hours a day just to make the show. Nobody had time to be a "future historian". The new show Enterprise doesn't grab me (a lot of the reason is that I spent the last year or so with no access to UPN). However, its first-season storyline about the "temporal war" was an inspired way of reconciling the changes over the years. However, it saddens me in a peculiar way: does that mean that the original voyages of the Starship Enterprise are no longer part of that universe?

Re: Alternate Earth Characters #14 "Alternate"? Sounds like I just need to look out the window. Seriously, this isn't much of a change. Is the tech level considerably higher? That seems to be implied, but you didn't mention it.

Make magic a VPP, and each different use of the points in said VPP a KS. Apply a penalty to each KS based on the Active Points. Don't have the books handy, so some of the Modifiers may have to be changed. Something like this: 30 VPP. 15 Control Cost. Base cost 15 points. +1/2: Change in 1 Phase. -1/2: Each use requires a separate KS. Season to taste, and crack the books for all the details I missed. This is just for the general idea.

What he said. Squared. Haymaker as a +4 DC was a House Rule of mine ten years before FRED. It makes Haymaker into a zero-point Martial Arts Maneuver. In fact, the whole notion of "zero-point" Maneuvers built using UMA is coming up soon in an issue of Digital Hero. It was written by an, ummm, close friend of mine. He looks just like me but without glasses. We've never been seen together, but that's just a coincidence!!

I think EC should have gone the way of the passenger pigeon. A point break for having a character concept? EVERY character should be built around a concept. Furthermore, it is probably the hardest part of the system to figure out, and the one of the easiest to abuse. The END rule is a tacit admission that there is something wrong. I can come up with lots of character concepts that include plenty of zero END powers. Why are those concepts less worthy than some others?

Not weird at all. Generic Universal (ahem) systems are great, but they do run into the problem that certain effects are NOT the same utility in every setting. DEF 3 is a heck of lot more valuable in a sword-swinging Fantasy world than it is in a blaster-using SF setting. Changing the base values of DEF works, but it makes most character-creation software difficult to use. Also, doubling costs seems a little too far in the other direction. My solution is to define a custom Advantage for certain Powers. For instance, in a Fantasy world,. Force Field and Armor are required to take a +1/2 "Utility" Advantage. The Orcs should be able to overwhelm PlateMailBoy. If not, then there is a flaw in the system. Why not a spell? They can't be extra-accurate? Your idea is a good one. RPGs (that I know of) have either a "hit" or "not hit" binary discrete combat result state. Damage rolled is not linked to the accuracy of the hit. It would be nice if there were a way to do that, but I have yet to see a playable way. Perhaps a flat -3 DC, then +1 DC per +1 the hit is made by. Or your method, although it is another "all-or-nothing" effect. Good ideas here. They just need some polishing.

No such thing. It's like comparing English to Math (both are languages) and asking where the verbs and nouns are in an equation. You could sort of finagle a rough equivalent, but there is no real correlation per se. Having said that, Tim's approach is about as close as you're gonna get.

When I first read the title of this thread, I thought you meant 1-point characters. Typically, characters are referred to as '150-point characters' or whatever. I assumed this meant 1 point and perhaps 1 point in Disadvantages (1 Quirk). "I'm playing the team brick! His STR is 20!*" * He's also clumsy, ugly, and as dumb as a bag of hammers. 20 STR 10 8 DEX -6 13 CON 6 9 BOD -2 3 INT -7 8 EGO -4 10 PRE 0 4 COM -3 6 PD 2 3 ED 0 2 SPD 2 7 REC 0 26 END 0 26 STN 0 Total CHA cost = -2 Power: Armor 2/1 for 4 points. Quirk: Thinks wearing glasses constitutes a secret identity (1 point). Ta da!! This was done while posting in about five minutes. Oh FINODH, I need to get a LIFE.

That just means that the falling rules should be modified as well. A quick horseback estimate: Terminal velocity is rougly around 180 MPH, IIRC. That's about 80 m/s, or about 1000 m/Turn = 500" per Turn. Applying a "standard effect" rule (that's what I use, anyway) of SPD 4 for translating RW effects, that's about 125" per phase. Divide by 3 for a Move-Through, and you get about 40d N. Hmmm. A little analysis shows the problem: Move-Through damage is proportional to the square root of KE, since KE is proportional to the square of velocity. It is therefore on a curve that is not linear, but goes up faster than the geometric expansion of other types of KE damage. Man, once you open a can of worms, you need a bigger can to re-can them. Even if you go with SPD 6 as a standard effect, you still wind up with 30d N. I was rather hoping that this calculation would yield something along the lines of 20d. Silly me. Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

HERO should not have any "absolute invulnerability" at all. The core of the system is that attacks do points of damage and defenses stop points of damage. The only way to have a defense that would stop any number of points would be if the defense cost an infinite number of points. IOW, it can't be done inside thet set of integers. HERO mechanics exist inside the set of integers.