BeZurKur

Re: The Hero System is bland and over complicated It's understandable why he'd think the system is bland. The books don't do much for setting design, although they do a lot for specific examples. There is a thread currently active that takes the guidelines for DCs and damage as dogma. The text in the books don't distinguish enough the guidelines part or how to make your own. Hero seems to be written more for it's fans rather than attracting new ones. Alright... that was funny!

Re: DC Guidelines versus DEF Guidelines QFT Those tables are exactly what they claim to be: guidelines. You clearly have a grasp of the logic and the expectation for your game. Modify the chart to suit your game.

Re: "We don't need gas money" I'd be reluctant to give it a focus limitation because the UOO already has a -1/2 that can only grant the power. While there are obvious limitations to having to touch an object, there are also advantages, especially because he controls the flight. It is sorta like an unlimited strength, providing he always has contact with it. Also, other people can benefit from hitching a ride. As for flight versus running, if he can gain altitude to overcome the obstacle, it is flight, or at least running with clinging. My impression is he could ride the object vertically up a wall. If not, then running. EDIT: Strike the unlimited strength comment because UOO has a mass consideration. Still, I think there are advantages to conveying flight to something else and controlling it.

Re: "We don't need gas money" I'd use Flight, Usable on Others. +1/4 One Recipient +1 Usable as Attack (I'm speculating based on your description) +1/2 Grantor Controls the power totally +1 3/4 -1/4 Grantor pays the END -1/2 Grantor can only grant to others -3/4 Based on my calculations, the Usable on Others is a +1 Advantage. You may want to increase the mass (p. 355 v1). I'd also add only over surfaces (-1/4) to the flight. To figure out the increased mass = increased speed, I'd need more details. Anyhow, that's how I'd do it. EDIT: For the extra strength, I'd link it to a telekinesis, no range and similar UOO. For more specifics, I'd need more details.

Re: 6E Hexmap? Depends on the game. If I'm looking for a tactical game, yeah I use them. Sometimes I just map it out and set the scale; that's for general position. Some of my games don't put a high priority to tactical movement at all; for those I go completely theater of the mind.

Re: Scale of Detail in HERO gaming There is a lot here to unpack and can go in a lot of different directions. The distinction of detail versus realism is valid, just as you can make an argument for detail versus fiction (or campaign's physics/realism being separate from our reality). Consider Torchwolf's comparison of 5ed and 6ed, but take it all the way back to the original Champions. That game is an example of detail versus fiction. At the time, it was only a supers game and not a generic system. It gave up detail (a small fraction of skills/powers) to convey a particular type of fiction: comicbook. It only attributed a cost to certain skills, while defaulting to a char roll for the others. I'd much rather do a write-up for Batman in that edition than in anything that followed. The lack of detail helped convey the tone for the fiction or campaign's reality. As the game became more generic, it offered more details that the general community felt obligated to use. 6ed is not only contrary to 5ed, but it also harkens back to a 1ed philosophy: some skills are free because they don't impact the fiction in a consistently reliable way. That is detail versus fiction. However, you can run Hero with just the basic book and a truncated skill list for a lighter version with all the flavor. Depending on the campaign's focus, it may be better.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero I'm not a fan of attributing more limitations to the existing Real Weapon/Armor. Those already carry a value to them. Adjusting it further strikes me as more arbitrary (and less Hero) than the Kills system. At least with Kills, you establish a new paradigm for damage that everything follows.

Re: Modular Heroic Design Oh, I agree: specific packages are less useful than generic ones. You should pursue your PDF idea soley as a generic genre product. It is either that or come up with your own setting idea. Those are the only viable options for marketing. I bring it up only because people use products outside of the core items as guidance for play. While generic products for Hero help with the mechanical side of things, they don't do anything for the "generic games are bland" perspective. Perhaps an alternative is a setting sampler book with modules that are unique to that setting. That would really show off how Hero could flex it's muscles while being not so generic/bland. So instead of the strong template, it may be Barbarian of Cimmeria. That is a lot more telling. However, I'm not looking to thread jack. Excuse my intrusion. I really do mean when I say I like modular design.

Re: Modular Heroic Design I think it is a great idea. The only part I don't agree with is the generic approach. Generic games, such as Hero and GURPS, receive a lot of flack for not being more connected to setting, thus bland. Say what you will of class systems, the mechanics are directly tied to the setting. Consider RIFTS. Virtually the whole setting is told through the class system. HERO has the flexibility to do the same through your modular design. I'm going to attempt a similar structure for an alien invasion game I'm working on, although I'm calling it Lifepath. So yeah, modular design sounds fantastic; generic modules, however, don't grab me. Just my 2 cents.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero Thanks for the feedback, guys. Yeah, I'm not crazy about the multi either. I really like the Damage Negation power of 6e and think it reflects the nature of armor better, but most defenses are still built with Resistant Protection. I'd rather not redo existing write-ups, such as the tank. Building the weapons with Reduced Negation doesn't have it do anything against the more common (and earth tech) of Resistant Protection. I prefer for these weapons to rip through tanks and other earthly defenses without doing buckets of dice worth of damage. That's why I opted for not increasing the DCs. I agree going purely 6ed would have been more elegant. Unfortunately, it seems only Piercing grants the effect I need. I'm willing to consider more options, although increasing damage doesn't feel right to me. I don't have difficulty imagining the weapon to cut through armor better, but I have trouble rationalizing more dice only against certain defenses. I recognize it is purely aesthetics. Also, I'm probably going to add a -1/4 limitation: Not versus natural defenses (or attacks). While it doesn't make "real world" sense, I like the idea of something like a bear not falling easily to some of the advanced weapons while still mauling an alien! It's like the natural world is still effective against the invading aliens.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero I think the kills system can still play a role, especially in a Supers Hero game. However, that's not what I'm making. To that end, I decided to go with Xavier's Tech Level idea, although I felt obligated to stat out the perk with exact effects. I used many of the suggestions in constructing it. Like everything Hero, this is only one way of building it, but I'd appreciate feedback. The powers have a common Limitation, Only with appropriate tech (-1 1/2), which can be broken into three parts. OIF focus (-1/2). Most items will be OAF and OIF so I defaulted to the lesser value. They'd probably be the occasional IIF, but they're rare. Access (-1/2). These items are rare enough to be a little troublesome locating. Players will have a mix of tech. The powers have limited effects versus different tech (-1/2). The bonuses don't work against tech of equal or higher level. They have reduced effects if the levels are close. Here is the write-up: 12 Advanced Tech: Multipower, 30-point reserve; all slots Only w/ appropriate tech (-1 1/2) 1 +3 with all Non-Combat Skills; Only to cancel penalties (-1) 1 Damage Negation (-3 DCs to Physical and Energy) 1 Piercing (5 rPD/rED), Reduced End (0 End), Variable Special Effect (Any SFX) For a final cost of 15 per level. The campaign will support 3 levels of Advanced Tech. The difference of ATL will grant those bonuses, so an ATL 3 weapon against regular armor will subtract 15 from its defenses! However, against an ATL 2 armor, it will only subtract five. I purchased Variable SFX for the piercing because the description says it must be attached to a weapon. I figure the advantage can cover for some leeway. Darn, as I was writing this, it occurred to me that as a multi, someone with weapons and armor cannot use them at the same time. I'm considering hand-waving that part for now.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero Lots of good ideas here. I'm going to crunch the numbers and return with some write-ups later this week in an effort to begin moving some of them to application -- although it won't be full application till the game is underway. Thanks everyone. If you have any more write-ups or thoughts, please post them.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero NuSoardGraphite, you make a good argument for building the alien suits with the system as is. What keeps me from being convinced is you are accounting for the damage to inflict max damage. The Fuzion kill system does not depend on that improbability, while still allowing other powerful heroes to do the same. Would you write up Thor, Silver Surfer, or even the Human Torch as having that same shtick? I like the collateral damage write-up, but I'm not sure I'd give it to the others. In your argument, I don't think you are suggesting to, although the others named could probably take out a tank as well. Even if we did assign it to them, they'd still require over 30 DCs to reliably take out the tank. The Fuzion kill system seems like the easier path and emulates the genre better. Perhaps we're tackling this the wrong way. What is the reason for not using kill system?

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero Tech levels is a valid method for addressing the varied armors. However, it still goes against one of the basic premises of Hero: that everything is paid for and balanced with points. How much is it to have a +5 Tech device? I'm not opposed to doing some hand waving and disregarding balance a little, but then the Kills approach is just as valid. What the Kills system does is -- like Jhamin pointed out -- change the logarithmic. It still remains consistent along that shift. (BTW: Thanks Megaplayboy for getting the exact figures.)

Re: Impact of Multiple Attacks In our game, we sorta rediscovered it. I'm surprised how much it has come up since then. Unlike Autofire, it is maneuver and doesn't affect cost, so it can be a little misleading. A couple of levels negates the penalty to OCV and a character pushing the the campaign DCs has effectively doubled his attacks. Consider that the villain Pulsar could reduce the Champion Defender into negatives within one segment with a successful one-two. Let's say he does a 2 attack versus Defender: Base OCV 7 + Levels 3 - Multiple Attack 2 = 8 OCV. He hits on an 11- inflicting an average of 22 stun each taking Defender into -12 stun in one phase. Of course, he better hit with both, because if he doesn't, he's now 1/2 DCV and Defender can do multiple attacks too. In my games, this has dramatically changed how we play. Personally, I like what it has done to combat, but I certainly agree that trying it out first is best.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero If you lower the Def of tanks, you then make them vulnerable to weapons they shouldn't be. I understand the logic behind tanks being as tough as they are, and it is sound. The progression of damage works with those numbers. However, while it may work for the vanilla Champions way, it does not mirror the vanilla comic book way. I reached for the Hero System because of it's tactical choices in game and ultimate toolbox mechanics for designing setting, but my needs may be too specific in this case.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero The tech level system could work. However, I'm thinking either I try to make it work with the system as is (with perhaps minimal tweaking) or going with the Fuzion kill mechanic. The latter seems to fix the problem, although it adds a layer of complexity I'm not sure about. The former seems like a lot of work, such as rewriting many modern vehicles and weapons. I think the problem may stem from the difficulty of inflicting Body in Hero. Tank weapons inflict an outrageous 9d6K to get around it, but then that causes problems of it's own -- such as designing alien suits that can take that damage. Rewriting the vehicles to include Damage Negation and weapons with Reduced Negation may be the way to go. But as far as I know, there isn't a way to counter Reduced Negation -- which the alien suits would need.

Re: FUZION Kill Damage in Hero After Ternaugh's post I began thinking about alternate ways within 6e to vary the damage types. I hit on the same Damage Negation for big vehicles and Reduced Negation for heavy weaponry that Prestidigitator came up with. Cool, with their help I'm not too far off the mark. However, how about the big guns not immediately taking out the alien battlesuits while still making them vulnerable to smaller weaponry. The only thing I can think of is Damage Reduction, but that doesn't feel right. Still, it may be the only answer.

I'm thinking of doing a small campaign arc where aliens invade. I'd like it to be very military and tactical. Human military tech is outgunned but not entirely out of the fight. However, to truly be competitive, the humans will need to gain access to the alien tech. Think X-Com, the old PC game. Where I'm having difficulty is scaling the damage. According to the 5th edition Vehicle Sourcebook, a light tank has 17 Def and 23 Body. Ironically, even anti-tank missiles have difficulty piercing those numbers. The T-80 Main Battle Tank is even more difficult (19 Def / 25 Body). I'd like alien battlesuits to effectively take out human tanks, but I'm reluctant to make the alien weaponry too tough because I don't want to make them invulnerable. The old FUZION rules had an interesting mechanic where after a certain break point, damage was converted into Kills; I think it was around 15 DCs. However, every DC there after converted to one kill. So a 15 DC attack was also a 1 kill attack; at 16 DCs, it was two kills; 17 DCs is three kills and so on. The same happened to Def -- it became Kill Defense -- although I forget the break point. Maybe it was 50 then every five. This helped level the field between individuals and tanks. For example, the 5th ed Champions heavies (Grond, Mechanon, Firewing, etc) are still no match for the T-80, but if we could port the Fuzion mechanic, they would be. I'm thinking of making the alien battlesuits equivalent to them. Multiple human tanks can then take out one alien suit, but would be hopelessly outclassed versus alien tanks. However, once the players get hold of that tech, the player party will be able to take out an alien tank with battlesuits. I'm thinking of porting the rules over with little change and making it a campaign guideline. My rough conversion is: 17 DCs = 1 kill; +1 Kill per DC thereafter 50 PD/ED = 1 Kill Defense; 1 KD per 3 thereafter 10 Body = 1 Kill Body (the ratios remains constant) There are basically three scales: Personnel, Battlesuit, and Tank. Personnel Scale always deals in regular DCs. It is uncommon for Personnel damage to exceed 17 DCs, but it happens in the case of anti-tank weapons. Kill Damage against Personnel is converted to DCs at the listed ratio. Tank Scale always deals in Kills as above. Regular DC damage versus Tanks is converted to kills. Battlesuit Scale is unique in that it usually deals in DCs, but it is not uncommon for its weapons to exceed 17 DC thus convert to kills against tanks. However, its defenses are at the Personnel level thus attacks versus Battlesuits always convert to DCs. This makes them versatile, but they'll be capped to rarely (if ever) be as durable as tanks. I don't think it will break anything, but I thought I'd pass it by the Hero community to make sure I'm not missing something.

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics (Emphasis added) You're right: there is no reason to buy two separate components. The player has the option for fine tuning to one component, but under that model, not two. Still it is more than what the current system offers, so I'm okay with that. Right now, we have some false choices. At least with fine tuning to one component, we have a legitimate choice under that circumstance, but you're totally right: not to two. Personally, I don't need that kind of control; I just need the choices I have to be meaningful. They want to decouple CV from Dex, then completely eliminate CSLs. If they want to get rid of Figureds, decouple skill rolls from characteristics. I bet regular skill levels will get a whole lot more use then. In other words, separate everything to the individual components. Until they do that, there will most likely be a discrepancy at some point. I do, however, get your argument of the "whole being greater than the sum of the parts," but this takes up deep into design philosophy, and no answer will always be right for everyone.

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics Here is where we differ. I don't have a problem with the package deal offering more point for point than the separate parts. I agree that if they were equal, it would be a very elegant system, but I wonder how feasible it is to design. The problem is when what the package offers is too sweet a deal and the individual components become superfluous. Identifying those boundaries, which probably shift per player group, is another obstacle. For me, the benefit of the isolated char roll and rare mental breakouts, fit into the perk for buying the characteristic. However, CSLs being largely ignored, makes buying CVs directly too tempting. YMMV. I'd rule that anything not covered in essentially the purchase of buying a Hand-to-Hand Attack is covered by the other half. Yeah, it is a one use stat, and it is a shame too.

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics Very true. I'm okay with that. We can add them as talents, priced as you suggest: 3 pts. for +1d6 and 3 pts. for +5 Presence Def. I feel much more comfortable with these approches and will be incorporating them into my games. I'll see how they hold up to actual play. Thanks.

Re: Whirlwind attack? Would these need Hole in the Middle or Personal Immunity?

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics