Jump to content

Cantriped

HERO Member
  • Posts

    1,737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Cantriped

  1. Of the two, FHC is slightly better than CC, each is essentially described as being a short version of the full 6th edition rules. I treat them like an independant ruleset due to the scope and nature of the changes... but that is a personal opinion. I also think FHC is physically much easier to read. The main differences are that FHC omits many of the technological skills, while CC doesn't include ranged martial arts... CC also omits the vital paragraph from the Required Hands modifier that explains how it actually works. Sadly bith omit the Wind Levels Table... Functionally, you can use any of the three to answer any given rules question and find the correct answer. 6e1&2 are harder to search, and have this tendancy to present optional rules in the same breath they describe the default rule... however it also contains articles on nearly all the odd little corner cases (the rest being in the APGs). CC/FHC are much shorter and easier to search, but sometimes oversimplify or inadaquetly explain a topic in their attempt to be brief. The ommision of common optional rules make them less useful players using those rules, and finally what changes were made in CC/FHC rules were sufficient to throw off the costs of the vast majority of prewritten NPCs (who now need to spend far fewer points to be good at a skill like Animal Handler.
  2. 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.
  3. By date, we should be in the Iron Age (or whatever comes after that)... however the system was designed around the tropes of the Bronze Age, and it is the so-called "default sort of Champions game" (Champions 40).
  4. 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.
  5. I agree that increasing the baseline END Costs (compared to 6th) is beneficial... but removing (or rather not including) Reduced END won't change much... System savvy players will just apply modern concepts to their builds to acomplish the same result, creating partially advantaged powers which are both more complicated looking, and have this odd quality of not costing any END at all below a certain point, than ramping up quickly thereafter. Considering the cost of REC and END, and the assumptions regarding expenditures, 10 points per -1 END/Phase is totally worth it for a Force Field, Continuous Attack, or Movement Power.
  6. "Mouth" isn't a defined concept in HERO, it is just an undefined part of the Head limb. So if the extra mouth doesn't do anything beneficial, it is only a Distinctive Feature. It may not even be distinctive in a D&D-like world. If the mouth can Beathe, Speak or Bite while the Head is Grabbed, it is an Extra Limb (and perhaps HKA for the Bite). If the mouth can Incant, it might be the Alternate Origin Point for those powers. If the mouth can speak, bite, or incant seperately from the Character, it might be Computer controlled (note the Computer has to buy its own Voice because they don't start with any Senses and I wouldn't let it use your Voice).
  7. Note: For 5th edition, HD was invaluable, and I swore by it. I hated calculating figured characteristics by hand, especially on a work in progress. You might find useful the fact that HD can export characters into some pretty decent HTML templates.
  8. I wouldn't know, I bought my copy of HD years and years ago... and I hardly ever use it. In part because it is a crutch, and net even a good one.... but mostly because its author refuses to support CC/FHC or make any other meaningful improvements to the code*. *This I don't blame him for in the slightest, it would be a lot of work and would generate neigh zero additional sales.
  9. It is a formatting option in HD, notable because you can have the List apply Common Modifiers (or a cost multiplier) to everything inside it. Great for representing non-framework suites of powers, compound powers (including partially limited/advantaged), martial arts, and even actual lists of game elements (like skills related to a given profession or template).
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. "List" is a formating option; It doesn't actually exist as a game concept Compound Powers can be presented in the form of a list, and remain Compound Powers. For example: Skills affected by Enhancers like Linguist and Traveler, as well as Martial Arts, and most power frameworks also get formatted into lists. That being said, lists make complex game elements much easier to read, and actually save line--space by allowing you to consolidate common modifiers.
  13. You don't actually recover from an Adjustment Power in 6th edition, the effects of the power Fade over time. What the target is (automaton, character, vehicle, focus) doesn't matter in the slightest. The Radio can't turn itself back on after being dispelled for the same reason as any other persistent power... somebody still has to spend the Zero-Phase action activating it (even if that someone is just the Bases's Computer).
  14. You can also Dispel semi-active powers (those prepared via Delayed Effect, Physical Manifestation, or Trigger, but not yet active), and the lingering effects of previously active powers (summoned beings, entangles, barriers, etc). However you are right that Dispel normally only works on a sword while it is being swung. That is why I suggested the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules (that I wish had a shorter name), because they allow you to define the "Power" used to create any item so that it can be Dispelled as the lingering effect of a power (like a summoned being). Using that rule (even if only for this artifact), simplifies trying to conceptualize it. Why wouldn't it? There is no way to build a Drain which Never Recovers*, just those so excessively powerful that the affected element won't recover before the end of the campaign. *The obvious exception being the use of Drain BODY to destroy the something, once destroyed it won't recover even if the Damage itself would have... but that isn't quite the same thing. Besides using Drain BODY isn't much different than using an AVAD RKA to destroy the Foci/Object (or just it's magical powers if so Limites).
  15. If an "Annulled" wand of fireballs can no longer be used to cast fireballs; it was effectively destroyed... even if the annullment leaves behind a stick that looks like a wand. It will be a little odd for a Dispel (or an RKA) used on a Magic Sword to leave behind a Nonmagic Sword... but that could be considered a Limitation because the power is technically slightly worse this way. The alternative is trying to use Transform to remove the magical abilities, which is a huge corner-case as Foci don't have BODY scores.
  16. Also... don't be afraid to make up new skills if you want. HERO has numerous examples of custom skills created under the umbrella of either Analyze or Power (not to mention all the Background Skills). If you want Insight to be a skill in your campaign, it can simply be an INT based Power Skill that you make an Everyman Skill or include in the Templates available to PCs.
  17. Persuasion could be called seperately in the second example (and resisted appropriately by EGO) if one of the PCs actually makes their INT roll to notice the bluff, and the NPC now has to persuade the PC to take the job despite misgivings... However take note that players hate being told that a single die roll "persuaded" their character to accept the "easy job" (that is probably actually very dangerous).
  18. You are correct that the skills are written mostly for the player's use. That is because some skills just don't work properly when used on PC's... because the players can't or won't refrain from metagaming, and may even blank refuse to comply with the result of the check or be offended that you "took control of their character". Its generally advisible to work around not using those skills and avoid the fights with your players. I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction between the system you propose and what we already have. For example in the second situation you posit the NPC is using Acting to bluff. Acting is opposed by an INT Roll: Because it involves noticing inconsistancies like that the NPC is sweating while talking about an "easy job" or "harmless pests", being more about critical thinking than perceptiveness you use your INT roll instead of PER (Even though it is also an INT roll). I would also allow a player to oppose Acting with Deduction. You might have been thinking it was an example of Persuasion, but persuasion is for when you aren't just being deceptive, but actively trying to persuade someone of an untruth; like that a dragon's wings are vestigal and that they can't really fly... which would elicit an EGO Roll to disbelieve him if you had previously heard tales of flying dragons. They wouldn't even be allowed a roll, or it would automatically fail if you had recently seen a drafon flying. Regarding the first example... why make it harder for yourself? The default rule is that if you fail a conversation roll badly, the target realizes they are being pumped for information. In otherwords it is normally something that you can adjudicate without having a target PC roll anything... if your NPC fails badly enough only then do you reveal that they were pumping the PC. If you call for an Insight roll the player is encouraged to act differently around the NPC no matter what the result was. If the player catches on, despite successful Conversation rolls by the NPCs, I would allow the PC a Deduction roll to peice it all together.
  19. A Constant, Linked, AVAD (Power Defense) RKA that Does BODY (and is Limited to Only Affect Magic Items) is a legal method of literally disintegrating any magic item that isn't Unbreakable (because Unbreakable Foci have Power Defense). Use that if the GM isn't using the Alternate Item Creation Rules.
  20. Okay, so despite being described as a magic item that summons a flying ghostly dragon to go around doing this or that... what I think we actually have is an Automaton in the form of the figurine (or a suite of powers controlled by a Computer integrated into the Focus, as per the 4th ED Dancing Sword example in the other thread). Most of the things it is described as doing can be acomplished by applying an Uncontrolled, Obvious, Area Of Effect Mobile (large enough to represent its size, and fast enough its speed) Attack to the area and moving it appropriately. Being an automaton (or computer) gives the figurine its own SPD and Initiative to control whichever power however it needs to too follow your commands. Slots 1&2 should be a massive Dispel built as described above (uncontrolled, mobile AoE, etc), the only real difference is which of the Automaton/Computer's Programs you call. However, Dispel doesn't destroy magical items on their own. The items must have been created as a result of the activation of a power. The common, legal examples being any Physical Manifestation, potions created by Delayed Effect, mines created by Trigger, walls created by Barrier, ropes/chains created by Entangle, and Summoned object-like beings (which includes summoned vehicles and automata). If the GM uses the "Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules"* from Fantasy Hero, any item can be assigned a threshold of effect for being destroyed by Dispel. *(which are basically a variation on Summon that is slow and tiring, uses the real cost of the item to determine its active point cost, and lasts until the object is dispelled or destroyed.) Slot 3 could be described as a Limited Dispel (if you hold an action you can use Dispel against any incoming attack, like a D&D Counterspell). Except that such a power would also work on AoE attacks just fine. Alternatively, as a combo of Deflection (which the figurine holds or aborts an action to activate) and Usable By Nearby 75% Damage Reduction that only applies to AoE attacks. Slot 4 actually is a Summon (Demi-Dragon), one whose conditions for activation are largely arbitrary (dispelling enough magic, however you choose to measure that) and that Locks Out all the other slots for as long as the summoned being exists
  21. That is a doozy. The description is definitely consistent with summoning, but the mechanics you wish to impose are going to be fiddly, and very complicated. Also note that a lot of these effects are being described in absolute terms, and that varies from obscenely expensive to outright impossible. I will try to give some suggestions in the posts that follow... however this sounds like a high-end, campaign-capstone level artifact... does it even need a build if nobody's paying for it and its effects are largely arbitrary?
  22. Also upon reflection, not so sure the wand even needs Trigger at all, the description implies the "Wand" is just an Indirect Power that can be activated from wherever the Foci is (usually your hand, but useful if you are disarmed, or need to plan a distraction). Bixby Wand: RKA 1d6, Indirect (Origin is Wand; +1/4) (19 APs); Incantations (-1/4), OIF (-1/2) 50 Charges Which Never Recover (-1 1/2).
  23. Not really munchkin because... With Incantations you have to speak clearly (making it Obvious to Hearing), and an enemy can hold to action to hit you with any attack to interrupt activation. Without Incantations you could whisper it, and as long as the wand hears you it will Trigger (your wand uses your Hearing from its position, modified by range) (making it Inobvious to Hearing), and the enemy has to use a Voice Flash or Darkness to Hearing to prevent the wand from triggering (or Dispel the activation). I think it deserves the discount because you are still accepting an additional restriction, and one that reinforces the SFX of the power no less. I can see reasons to build it either way, but the D&D model of wands would use Incantations I am certain...
  24. Equipment doesn't "vanish" when you change to a form that didn't pay for it... Which is an obvious opportunity for abuse. The common solution is that The Hulk can't or "won't" use Bruce Banner's equipment... even if it is a weapon or vehicle that might only cost 1-point to learn to use. Otherwise, if your GM is blind, you can build a Character that spends about 1/4 of his points on an Inherent Multiform (into an alternate form that is awesome with equipment), and the remainder on awesome equipment (like giant mecha). Then you just throw away the effectively 0-point True Form that is never going to be seen again, and play a character with more than half again as many points as everyone else for no legitimate reason. Be wary of the Multiforming Super-Pilot whose True-Form's Vehicle can Summon Automaton "Drones" controlled by the True-Form A.I. Computer Follower...
  25. Coming from me, it is a rumor. While I do recall talk about it being worked on, I can't verify that.
×
×
  • Create New...