Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cantriped last won the day on April 15 2017

Cantriped had the most liked content!


About Cantriped

  • Rank
    Heroic Magicat
  • Birthday 12/11/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ahh yes... a niche optional rule from a genre book that isn't used in any of that book's builds, and cannot be used in most vehicles because it explicitly only works in the vacuum of space... No, this is so very incorrect. "A character [or vehicle] can accelerate at a rate of 5m per meter, up to his maximum normal Combat Movement in meters per Phase." (CC 131) Your Noncombat Multiplier has no effect on your ability to accelerate (unless you take Noncombat Acceleration). It only affects your maximum velocity and the number of phases taken to reach it. Or in the case of Leaping... the total distance of the leap. Functionally both methods limit the Character to an amount of acceleration per phase equal to their Combat Velocity, and a multiplier of that as their maximum velocity.
  2. Cumulative isn't applicable to movement powers, as they do not apply a dice roll against a defense to determine whether or not a threshold of effect is met (Dispel and Mind Control for example)... The legal way to manipulate a vehicle's acceleration per turn versus maximum velocity is to use Increased Noncombat Movement (which is an Adder instead of a Modifier) and the modifiers related specifically to accelleration and decelleration. You can give the vehicle Movement Skill Levels to fine-tune its performance further. Almost all vehicles are assumed to be traveling at Noncombat Velocities at all times. Ships that accelerate faster would genrally have a higher ratio of Combat Movement to Noncombat Movement, or MSLs.
  3. I should clarify that when I said PDF of the rulesbook I meant a PDF of CC/FHC (which are very nicely organized and bookmarked)... It takes me forever to find anything in 6e V1&2 so I rarely use them. For in-session reference I vastly prefer to have hard-copies of the rules handy. During play I only use PDFs to reference seldom-used NPCs.
  4. I feel like using HD in 6th (and particularly with CC/FHC) is actually harder than just using a word-processing program and a PDF rulesbook to create content. To be fair though... filling out paper sheets for HERO is a nightmare, so HD does still have potential value to my CC/FHC players.
  5. This is a genre simulation problem, and such problems are often more easily fixed with design conceit than by changing the rules (in other words... just change how you use the mechanics, not the mechanics themselves. Remember that you have final say on anything players might want to build, and a responsibility to audit such material to ensure it is appropriate to your campaign. No amount of rules-text can prevent abuse and user error. Sure... 15m of Flight has the same cost regardless of user size... except that a vehicle has already paid for its Size as a characteristic, making it pay an added fee based on size for movement powers is double-dipping and contrary to system principles. Given two otherwise identical vehicles the larger (or faster) one should be the more expensive one, and amongst two "equal vehicles" one migut be larger and slower than the other (as points spent on Size don't improve Flight). As for the reason why one ship may buy more less movement than another, there is only one reason that actually matters. Because you said so (and/or because that is what is appropriate to the campaign). If you need your Carriers to be slower than your Fighters, simply don't let the Carrier buy more flight than you let Fighters have.
  6. I use CC remember? Its only 240 pages and describes almost exactly the same system... the fact the 6e 1&2 were poorly written isn't relevent to a point made regarding how the material is typically used. My point had to do with how the example material is written and presented. For example, even though both modifiers are described in 6e2, neither Real Fire, nor Real Electricity pop up in examples (such as in Champions Powers, or the Hero System Grimoire) of Fire or Electricity powers very often. Likewise, the system uses a fairly simplified, arbitrary template for Equipment (and ignores even that in superheroic campaigns) that purposfully cuts corners just to reduce the amount of line-space used on any given example. You are also putting words in my mouth. I never said that 1 Charge (a -2 Limitation even with Zero END included) was insignificant, however I would agree they are related as both pertain to the power's resource expenditure schema. What I said was that Cannot Be Pushed is typically considered too insignificant to be worth a whole -1/4 by itself. Ergo why it typically bundles with Beam, Charges and Zero END... just like needing to be maintained is too insignificant to be a limitarion by itself, which is why both Real Weapon and Armor include other restrictions.
  7. 1) Because only powers that cost END can be pushed... the Charged equivalent is Boostable-Charges. It is just the nature of the mechanics for Pushing that they only apply to END costing powers. Trying to apply pushing to charges will only create confusion and the need for even more, and more convoluted rules. Mostly because there is no set conversion rate for how much END 1 Charge is worth... it could have almost any value. However note that it isn't because of Charges that the power cannot be pushed... it is the included Zero END... so if you place Costs END on a charged power, you can spend additional END to push the power, but doing so will still only use up 1 Charge. It isn't like Novaman is impossible to build under the current rules. Throw Costs END and Increased END (or Costs LTE) on his Nova and boom-done; you've got a power usable once per day that also exhausts you. 2) Technically, you can if the weapon doesn't have Beam, but it still uses up the whole charge instead of a portion of a charge. 3) Again, you can, but Cannot Be Pushed/Reduced has generally not been considered worth even -1/4 by itself... and the pricing model gets skewed if you apply to many limitations co powers (even ones they might deserve like Cannot Be Pushed). Bundling insignificant or related modifiers is just one of the many methods that have been employed to keepbthe number of game elements used to a minimum. As a point of user experience... in almost 20 years of working with the HERO System on a daily basis: I have built exactly one powersuite that might have benefited from the proposed rule change (a Novaman-like character; at the time I used Lockout to prevent his other powers from working while his Nova recharged). Meanwhile the default rule has saved me from having to include Zero END in hundreds (perhaps even thousands by now) of power suites... Because I prefer to show my work, especially with regard to how I build Equipment.
  8. The compelling cases have already been made, you are just choosing to ignore them in favor of pressing your argument. The most compelling reason is that it actually is consistent. The philosophy at play is ease of use (for both player and GM), the rules are written to encourage you to use as few game elements as possible in its examples*, and with the exception of heroic campaigns using lots of projectile weapons, characters don't generally have to track two resources to perform an action. *This is also partially why we don't get full write-ups for heroic equipment and talents, that and a combination of laziness and frugality (they had to save page-space for all those example callouts). Frankly, the small benefits of changing the rule are far outweighed by the much more common array situations where it just adds more work (and modifiers) to achieve the same results.
  9. It is true that the original source has been warped quite a bit. The Vorpal Sword as described by C.S. Lewis could easily have just been an Armor Piercing HKA (or even Penetrating).
  10. First off, the only time a power currently costs both END and Charges in an official build is for Heroic Projectile Weapons, and even then it is as a result of the STR Minimum rules and not because the weapon itself costs END to use. I don't know of any official build for anything that actually exists that uses both Charges and Costs END (either Personal or Reserve). Building a default rule around a non-existant condition seems counter-productive. As for book-keeping: It is really very simple, using a non-charged power requires tracking one resource; using a charged power is the same but requires knowing one modifier. Meanwhile, using a charged, END-costing power requires the tracking of two resources and also requires knowing three modifiers (beause now you have to know to check for Zero END and Increased END Cost). For a GM in a superheroic campaign such a rule would significantly increase the amount of paperwork required to run the game. Either during play having to track the END and Charges expended by half a dozen mooks using two or three different kinds of firearms. Then there is also the added clusterfuck of how confusing heroic weapons would look on paper (which admittedly is true of the inverse as well, but Charged, END-Costing Powers are not so common). Irrelevent, as this is still true under the actual rules. Any Charged power can potentially be made even cheaper by adding Costs END (-1/2) and Increased END Cost. Changing the default won't make those powers any cheaper if the modifiers are recalculated. No it doesn't. It does change the APs of some of those constructs though, making melee weapons easier to Drain/Dispel, and ranged weapons harder (as a result of the shift in advantage placement) for example.
  11. Because the alternative means additional, largely unnecessary book-keeping. However the default is largely irrelevent as you can still just as easily build powers that cost both Charges and END. All that would change with the default is the pricing model... the costs will likely be much the same (since the value of charges currently accounts for the fact that it also grants the Zero END advantage). I bet your NovaBurst would be cheaper as a power that cost x10 or more END from an excessively large reserve that powered all your abilities... but then you might be screwed if you pop your NovaBurst and it fails to win the day... The advantage of NovaBurst using a Charge to represent all of "Novaman's excess Nova Energy" and his other abilities using his normal END is that he is not being hamstrung if his best ability is countered... yet he is still appropriately prevented from using it over and over. The problem with using END to represent the expenditure of massive amounts of power is that END is designed to recover quickly (and hurt you if too much is spent too fast), making it a poor system for preventing a given power from being used repeatedly.
  12. It is noteworthy as well that the Vorpal Sword was written for a system that lacked the ability to make called shots. Which HERO is not. Even just a sword that deals a few extra DCs of damage to hit locations 3-5 is going to be a lot more unbalancing than it first appears. In D&D there is pretty much nothing you can do to raise the chance of Vorpal triggering above 5% (because of the nature of Critical confirmation rules). In HERO Called Shot PSLs are cheap enough that you could easily build a warrior that can trigger a Vorpal weapon at-will, and decapitate any opponent with less than a given amount of DEF+BODY. Add to that the fact that warriors in fiction rarely wear helms (and thus have no DEF vs. a vorpal sword in HERO) and you've got the recipe for lots of dead mooks.
  13. You can build a Vorpal Sword in Hero... but it won't have the Absolute Effect that it has in D&D. A durable enough enemy might resist or survive attempted beheadment (even by a Vorpal Sword). Massey's suggestion of Limited bonus HKA is gonna be the easiest and fairest to implement.
  14. IIRC, a partially limited, compound construct where each step uses a greater increment of Extra Time is the official model for "Charging Powers" (powers that get stronger the longer you hold them). So I second Eepjr24's suggestion. IIRC this method is also noted as a specific exception to the rules which indicate you are actually supposed to choose to Activate (and pay END for) all of the components of the compound power you want to potentially benefit from at the very beginning, and that the END spent on increments you wind up not waiting long enough to finish activating is simply wasted.
  15. The uncontrolled Summon would be a side effect in most cases. If Blood is simply a material component, and if the character is only using the knife as a means to draw blood; the side effect would go on any powers of hers that have a chance of triggering the Summon. The trigger condition for the side effect is going to have to be arbitrary, as the system's only real advise is that it must be reasonably common (comperable to a fairly easy activation roll). If we are talking about a cursed dagger that might summon something when used... I would treat the Foci as an encounter. The Summon would simply be Linked to the dagger's HKA, and would likely take No Consious Control and perhaps an Activation Roll. The fact that such a dagger paid CP to be cursed is irrelevent, just like the point values of any other form of encounter. Making a player pay CP for a worse than normal dagger would be a giant dick move though, so I generally wouldn't charge players CP for the curse in a campaign that pays for magic items with points. Alternatively if, despite being initially uncontrolled/antagonistic, there are easy methods of manipulating the Summoned Being (such as Mind Control)... I would make the player pay for the Summon as a fairly Limited Power (Linked to the dagger as appropriate).
  • Create New...