Roy_The_Ruthles

Re: Is DOT overpriced Dot is a good move, if you think it will last long enough to tick. It's biggest problem is that your attacks are not directly stacking with the attacks of your teammates, but stacking later. It is an investment in the future.

Re: Impact of Multiple Attacks Multiple attack is 90% just 5th editions Sweep + Rapid Fire. It's a good maneuver, but not inherently game breaking (unless you can use it on powers that don't require hit rolls like Aid)

Re: Full Sensory Mind Link? So all I know about Transmit is from 6E1 215 "This Sense Modifer allows a character to transmit information similar to that which he can perceive. It's most often purchased for the Radio Sense Group and the like." Then it goes to talk about range. I think the point of this, is that Transmit lets you "see" information from other people, but doesn't let you use their targeting sense, if you yourself are blind for example.

Re: Chuck Norris Facts as Powers for HERO? Chuck doesn't sleep, he waits 3 Life Support, does not sleep, And also, 100 +10 Speed (for a total of speed 12) Chuck lost his virginity before his dad did. (I'm thinking either EDM, or summon)

Re: power to delete bank accounts This power is highly genre dependant. I guess the big question, is what is the effect of deleting someone's bank account in the genre? In "Burn Notice HERO" it is asking your PCs to not buy wealth, and perhapse take a Complication because of it, in Leverage HERO, Hartisan is making SS: Super Hacking rolls, or possibly a version of transform.

Re: Full Sensory Mind Link? I suppose the cheapest way to do it, would be to buy Transmission on their senses, so they can transmit their perceptions to other PCs. More secure methods would be a form of Clairsentience built to mimic a mental power (I want to say BOECV, but I know that's 5th edition slang and I don't have my books on me).

Re: Communication Gear: HRRP or Radio Perception/Transmission? Usually Mindlink. It makes everything simpler, and more secure. This assumes that the GM will let you buy mindlink for this though. I don't do much dark champions or heroic modern settings, so I haven't used HRRP or RP/T.

Re: Not D&D So, unfortunatly I don't have that much great advice that hasn't been given already. Here's what I do have: 1) Go with what makes you comfortable, this specifically applies to gods, divine power, and characters ideas of theology. If you don't want them to be a big part of the game, don't focus on them and they won't be. 2) D&D simulates a very specific genre: D&D. If you want to tell a story that's not D&D genre, it doesn't matter at all that you don't know anything about it.

Re: Extra SPD only to Dodge You can also use Secondary Speed from the Advanced Players Guide, but I personally would go the +3 DCV route

Re: VPPs in 6th I really like what 6th edition did for VPPs as it allows for even more flexibility in build. The only example I can give, is for a character I recently played who was a speedster mage. He had a magic VPP that had a larger control than its real point cost, but some limitations that had to be on each power he built with it (like incantations and gestures). What this ment, was that he would build one 60 AP power, which fit into 34RP after limitations (and he only could have 34 RP of powers). Thus he could have any one 60AP power, but never more than one, which speed up game play greatly.

Re: CON Only to Resist Stunning As far as the power goes, Remember that a character who has extra CON only to resist being Stunned, will at some point be better off buying "Cannot be stunned" if you buy enough of it. Just a reminder about options.

Re: Questioning the Multi-power Framework I agree with what Fireg0lem said. Lockout is for things that you don't want to be in a multipower, either because they cant be, or because there are wildly different active point totals. It is really easy to make "armored mages" as my group calls them, with an MP consisting of an attack (or 20-3), and 1-2 defenses. If someone attacks you, abort to defense, if you attack, set MP on kill. This is one of the simple uses of MP, and is pretty easy to gage. The effectiveness becomes harder to gage as you have a larger reseve than any one power, and use flexible slots (so that you can mix and match slots on the fly). This of course costs more points.

Re: Nets with hooks? It could also be built with a DOT advantage. It might not make much sense for the hooks to damage you on a regular basis until you get "used to them" but it is another option.

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem? 1) Using transform to give yourself more points, is kind of like using delayed fade rate Aid to give you free points. Both are generally really really broken and I've never seen anyone allow them, so I think that's not a problem. 2) I'm hesitent to say that the VPPs are the problem, because while there is no clear limit on the kinds of powers characters can use, that shouldn't mean there is one overpowering stratagy that is clearly better than straight attacking. I'd like buffing to be as good as attacking, not overpoweringly better (which is currently the case). It also wouldn't be any different than a 60 point reserve MP with 3 slots, aid STR, aid SPD, and Aid OCV (which would be on the order of 78 points before disads). In other responses: We have fought mind control enemies, generally that results in the buffing characters either aborting to stop the mind control (via barrier or darkness generally) or using a counter-mind control attack to either weaken or proc breakout checks for the character. I also like the idea of fighting many small things, as it would give AoEs more use, and it would be different.

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem? Again thank you guys for the responses. More answers: 1) 3 x 12d6 is not as good as 24d6, because once you get "past" armor and damage negation, the 24d6 attack will be doing more damage to the enemy. I.E. Yes, if they have no defenses, 3 x 12d6 is better, but if they do, 24d6 is better, and gains in damage as defenses increase. 2) Indirect to get past barrier is pretty much a must I think. This will reduce barrier to "how much hardened do I need to block your drain" and you only need to buy 10AP or so, then many many x Hardned, which is a losing set up for an indirect drain, but does at least get the first shot through. 3) With cosmic VPPs, you need to expect out of combat things to be easier, since they will nearly always have the right power for a job (and the more permission with powers you give, the better the VPP is). You can still have Out of Combat challanges, they just need to be built with VPPs in mind. The trick here is making challanges in combat, that arn't "I give everything +X DCs, DEF, SPD, etc" because once you inflate the attackers to the point where they can fight a buffed character, the unbuffed character: 1) Can't hurt them, and 2) gets flattened if they are hit. This isn't exactly the tactical combat outcome I want, because it turns buffing from overpowered to a "must or die". 4) For a giant golem, that would be a fun challange. I think it's probably going to be "fly up to the golem's head, stab repeattedly" OTOH if he has no hit locations, then it doesnt' matter that you hit it in the feet. As for a big AoE hammer, again would be an interesting challange. As far as an incorporeal opponet, that would be more of a challange, but would also be "you sit out this comabt, as you don't have "Affects Desolid"" which is rather poor encounter design. Maybe a mix of ghosts/zombies to let the other player fight something. Although then you buff STR, buy a Affects Desolid HKA, and go to town on the ghost, just like I explained in the OP, only with Affects Desolid. Still another interesting fight that we haven't done, so thank you. 5) Against another party of "buff one character, and defend that character, let them kill for you" the winner is probably going to be the side with DEX+1 nearly 100% of the time I expect. Either you buff your melee first, and let him attack the unbuffed team, or you wait for the unbuffed team to buff, then you buff, and use your Dex advantage to force them to commit, then avoid their attack (by having an unbuffed character abort for the buffed character) then have your buffed guy attack when they can't do the same. Not really a fight I want to see, I'd rather figure out how to balance the stratagy against a team of "we all attack, or some attack and some defend, or we have crazy weird powers". To reitterate, I'm sure your stratagy would work, but at least 90% if not 100% of the time, go to the team with higher DEX (and that's a big swing for 2 points). 6) We already use the rule that the maxium you can be adjusted is dice rolled x 6 (or maximum rollable on the dice). So your suggested house rules would just be moving the maxium cap of aid smaller. That might fix the problem, by decreasing the number of damage classes you can do past defenses. 7) Pretty sure I don't want to use NCM on this problem, especially because if it was a superheroic game (it's not but I can see the same team working in a super heroic game), NCM would just be out of place. Thank you all for your replies!

Re: VPPs and Aid, a problem? Thanks for the feedback guys! To answer some questions: 1) Yes the VPPs in question are either cosmic or close enough for debate (0 phase with high rolls, or 1/2 phase actions with no rolls and the rapid attack skill) 2) Yes Aid isn't ranged, but most of the time the PCs start off combat adjacent to each other (usually because they were walking along and a fight broke out, or they knew a fight was coming and wanted to be adjacent to buff each other. 3) It does take a full phase action, but NPCs have to chose between attacking the 1/2 DCV buffing character, or the full DCV buffed kill monster that is coming after them now. 4) We apply fade individually to each aid (5 points from each aid) as per the rules, but usually fights are over in 1-2 turns at most, so fading isn't really an issue. 5) Entangles and Drains are good ideas, but do they go through barrier? The PCs in question have a habit of aborting to barrier against attacks that they don't like. It's not a bad suggestion though, since it does force them to be a little thoughtful of counter attacks. 6) All buffing is done in combat, if sides could buff out of combat, they'd just curbstomp their opponets no questions asked. 7) Some NPCs have larger cosmic VPPs. I like the idea of UAA Power Defense. I'm not so big on UBO defenses to start, but that has a decent chance of making them immune to adjustment powers. Unfortunatly it does tie up the character's VPP (so maybe he needs it as a trigger with a continuing charge?) So far our starting measure are going to be: Aid is now 8 points per die You cannot Multiple Attack Aid You cannot more than double the caps regardless of what you do (although going from 12DC to 24DC is still huge) You cannot positively adjust Speed at all I hope this will reduce the power of buffing in our games, to the point it is not better than attacking, just as good as attacking

Ok, so I'm sure each person here has their own style of playing HERO. One thing I'm noticing in the game that I'm playing in, is that positive adjustment powers are too good, specifically Aid. More information: two characters have 60 active point "Magic" VPPs, which they use to buff either each other or the 3rd non VPP character, using Aid. Basically the first round of combat might be: (all hold to phase 1) Player 1: Multiple Attacked Aid SPD on Player 3 Player 2: Multiple Attacked Aid STR on Player 3 Player 3: Splat something with ~20DC attacks in a game where the average is 12d6 then on the next set of actions, Player 3 is going to get aided in OCV, or the buffers will aid their own speeds. Does anyone else see this happening in their games? I'm pretty sure the problem (for us) isn't Multiple Attack with Aid, since that would just make the buffing take longer to hit maxium effect, I think the problem is that you can now get 10d6 of Aid for 60 AP, rather than 6d6 Aid for 60AP. And sometimes it gets even worse, as the characters just Aided their own STR, then bought Hand-to-Hand Attack with their VPPs and started to crunch things. I may have missed a rule somewhere about adjustment powers, adding damage, or frameworks, and if that is the case please bring it to my attention. Thanks!

Re: Weapons/equipment out of nowhere It sounds like these arn't focus's but if they can be destroyed/taken away/forbidden from using by grabs, you may need to look into entangles, or inobvious foci.

Re: Total NEWB gushing over how amazing this forum is Hero's rapid forum responses are one of the best things about the game. You can actually ask the game designer a rules question, and he will answer it quickly. And if he doesn't he probably shoots it over here because it's about game design theory, where you get lots of people commenting.

Re: Linked in a VPP, Looking for Opinons To start answering questions: 1) If points arn't an issue (remember VPPs can eat up character points), there is no problem with a VPP. I wouldn't allow a VPP of naked power advantages though. I'd have a VPP of Sword/Kick stuff, as well as a mundane sword/kick outside of it. That way if they want a fancy sword or kick, they can buy it in the VPP, or if they want vanillia, they can just attack. Variable Advantage would be another way to change up what advantages an attack could have, if you don't go full VPP route. 2) I'm probably going with the nasty compound powers bought entirely in the framework, but nothing says it couldn't be a Multipower of different kicks /swords. Just have 1-2 multipowers, and pick appropreate slots. 3) This is really game dependant. Where power defense is common, the 1d6 CON drain might be useless, while in a game with little to no power Defense, it is very good. Also, try looking at the Damage Classes of powers when you compare them, rather than Active Points or Real Points. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful

Re: Really, Hero Games? Two Rulebooks? I admit, I was skeptical of going from 1 5th edition revised book to 2 6th edition books, but the increase in production value, plus the fact that I want HERO to exist, made it worth it. Plus those two books are the only two books you will ever need irregardless of how many games you play.

Re: rounding Armor Piercing When I play, the defender is the one calculating the damage taken, so they round normally except in cases of .5 where it rounds in their favor (usually to take less damage). Same idea for defenses, they can determine which is the more favorable direction to round (usually up)

Re: Seeing through invisible At one point, a character of mine had to fight a villain with "Hiesenburg Uncertainty Invisibility", which was Invis to all sense groups, and then a VPP to only buy Invisibility to senses which had just detected him. So you'd see him with say,"Detect Soul" then it would disappear again. The trick was to overload him with a combination of AoEs and all our specialized senses (we had, Souls, Emotions, a Detect Minds not built in the mental group, and Detect Ninjas (defined as having 10 or more CSLs). If you want true invisibility, you basically need to pay a ton of points for it. And you'll still get taken down by a variety of unusual sense and AoEs.

So, I searched the FAQ, and this forum, and have the following question. If you have a trigger in a framework, and this trigger automatically resets, then the character has another slot active, the triggered power still goes off. This is known. What I don't know is if the power will still reset or not. In a previous post you advised reading the lower right portion of 271, and I can't find anything about resetting the power in the framework. It seems implied in page 270 that the character does not need to do anything for the trigger to reset, but does mean that they do not need to reactivate that slot in their framework? (the framework in question is a VPP). Thank you for your help!

Re: New Maneuver, please offer opinions I think you are right that it doesn't need to be hero only, but I'm deadest on the fact that you can't use it to grab-by a hero. While it does devaluate DFC, DFC's greatest strength is the ability to avoid most every attack for self protection. Allow hero's to protect civilians even on a failed roll is what I wanted so that as long as hero commits to saving a civilian, they know that they will at least succeed in that.