Manic Typist

Actually, it's neither strawman nor nonsense. It's reductio ad absurdum and refutes you ridiculous assertion that because something is more expensive, people want to spend points on it. It doesn't follow and is easily refuted. DEX costs 2 points because, in games in which DEX is a relevant stat (all of the ones I've played in, certainly), it is a highly useful/powerful stat. However, that doesn't mean in all games players will want to invest in it- such as games where there is very little in the way of combat or Action! events but instead focus on pure social interaction. In that scenario, DEX is an overpriced investment.

That reasoning doesn't necessarily follow. If DEX costed 10 points per pip, then I'd sell back 1-2 from base, and let everyone else bankrupt themselves for an additional 2-3 pips. They were already going to be go before me, so my relative loss from selling back is severely curtailed. Meanwhile, I have 40-50 more points relative to those who wanted to "go first" that I can spend on surviving a first strike and then winning the fight. Price does suggest certain things; however it can make certain strategies cost-prohibitive rather than cost-effective. The context, as always, is key.

My favorite way of making a map: Go to a bar where there are well-worn, painted tables. Take a picture of the patches of worn away paint on a table. Print the picture, and trace the outlines from that worn away patch onto a clean piece of paper. Boom, you have random and fairly realistic continents/islands/countries.

Well, first, magic is a substitute for advanced technology in fantasy settings. So the problem isn't fantasy- if you're running a low fantasy game that would be the same as a low tech non-fantasy game (historical, post-apoc, whatever). Those games would face the same issue- they don't have radiation/laser/sonic weapons either. Of course, there's more situations that allow for ED in a low-magic fantasy game than you're giving it credit for- boiling/burning oil was the bane of many a besieger. Acid was also another weapon utilized by man and nature. Steam was also weaponized by both man and beast.

To be fair- I offered up the analogy of the OS, not Tasha. I think it captures the feel of HERO well, but that's me. To respond to it, I'd say you're significantly misrepresenting the reality. First, there are many OS's out there that are primarily driven by "fans"/users- Linux leaps to mind. Heck, if I have a question about how to do something in MS Word, there's a good chance I'm going to find an answer through Google searches that lead me to non-MS affiliated message boards where experienced users talk about similar problems (using the same or different edition of the software) and what the official word is on how to do what I'm trying to do (if it's even possible)- AND what users find is a really helpful workaround way to achieve that or similar goals. Often, that's far more useful than what I went out looking for. Second, there's nothing about HERO that says there is an "intended" way to use the system. There's no hint or suggestion of it, and that position is explicitly stated in the rules- play however works for you. It's Rules As Written, not Rules As Intended. So while I think it's better to have a vigorous support system from system designers, it's not required.

His point is valid- it does represent a real barrier to "new players" who have the Complete rules (which are Complete- for the genres they intend to emulate) who want guidance. Ideally, Steve would answer questions either using the Complete rules ("What you're looking for is on p.73 of your book) or, should the question deal with something that is beyond the scope of the particular genre the player purchased, then a reference to the core books would be appropriate.

Been lurking this thread, and I feel like I can crystalize a lot of what has been said into a hopefully useful analogy. HERO is like a really powerful game engine/OS, capable of being used to create lots of great games that span all kinds of genres/verisimilitude styles (everything from Superhot to Thief to the Witcher to... you get the point). However, what many consumers want are games- the want HALO and Rainbow 6 and Thief and DoTA and Quantum Break and etc. And HERO can do those games, but the consumers don't want to build them themselves (at least at first). They want to buy, choose their difficulty setting, pick a few mods maybe from the internet, and go. After they used it and see how easy it is to slot in different fan made mods (made by players like us on the boards), maybe they'd be more interested in paying for the full game engine (HERO core rules) and building their own game from scratch, modding the core games they already own on their own, playing with code, etc. So, in the ideal world, HERO would find writers to work with popular IPs to release small "Complete" games (and they are Complete- they have all the rules necessary to run THAT game, just like a video game has enough software to run what it's supposed to run but it doesn't have everything that it could have if you gave the players a full developer's suite) that are fun to play and widely known. Of course that takes money. I'd love to see an official Dresden Files HERO, HALO HERO, Thief HERO, Into the Borderlands HERO, etc. But HERO would have to find a way to persuade these IPs to license them the IP at a really low rate, perhaps by promising the lion's share of proceeds to the IP owner- which leaves very little incentive left over for Hero Games (Steve) and whoever is writing the actual splat books. Does this sound like a fair encapsulation of the problem, the kinds of solutions we would like to see, and the chokepoint? Because this is what I keep thinking of.

I'd suggest a Full Phase for Mesmerizing Gaze, and then the PC is free to try to break out. It's more expensive in terms of "Action Economy" but feasibly allows the snake to use it to disable and then feed on prey.

Tasha's right- I treat what she describes as a "Surprise Maneuver" with appropriate OCV bonuses, as opposed to a "Sneak Attack." However, those are specific interpretations of meaning that should have been noted.

Perhaps some amount of Desolid or Images to facilitate it's movement/disorient enemies? A mesmerizing gaze?

If it's a sneak attack, then Hit Location modifiers are halved. So it'd only be -4 to target the head.

So in your case, you would buy insurance/sell back OMCV/buy Regeneration for zero points. No harm, no gain, just an official description of the character. If it ever came up in play, then points would matter.

You're comparing different populations, and arguing extremes that no one is discussing. Who are these super tough, super fit, paragons of martial skill fighters we are discussing? In a fantasy setting, they will almost always be military/part of the warrior segment of society (or outlaws, but those are really just the same kind of person operating on the other side of the law). People whose profession is violence. Therefore, you should include adventurers. There's simply no reason that an adventuring/military mage should be unfit simply by virtue of being a mage. In the US armed forces, you have a wide spectrum of physical ability and intelligence, as well as fields of speciality. Nevertheless, your nuclear engineers, chemists, and biologists, engage in the exact same core physical training as their infantry counterparts. They have to pass the same physical fitness standards (even ones that don't make sense, like BMI tests which would flunk people like Dwayne Johnson) as a military police officer or water sanitation troop. Of course each group has additional tests and requirements on top- but in general they all march and do pushups. Of course, in reality, many people who are in the profession of violence are also unfit. No one's arguing that a dedicated magic user can be/should be as good as a dedicated fighter at melee combat (absent spells used to boost melee abilities)- just that the requirement that the magic user be "frail" is a false start. If anyone's interested, there's a fairly good fantasy series (Schooled in Magic) that makes the argument better than I. The kingdoms in the setting are in a war against a bunch of insanely powerful, mad necromancers. All students at their version of Hogwarts must take at least a certain level of defensive magic yes, but on top there is a program called Martial Magic. It consists of grizzled sergeants making the students run with full ruck, camp, engage in search and destroy (or escape and evade) exercises, and the trainers employ every dirty combat trick they can think of to prepare these students to someday become combat sorcerers.

Perhaps Air Mages are also dangerous in their recharging. If they are "destroying" 100 hexes of air, that could potentially lead to some interesting affects upon personnel/structures that are in that area. At the very least it might create a localized Flash to Hearing from the ensuing thunderclap (no idea how loud it would be compared to a lighting bolt). It would also lead to some interesting moments, where you could hear the enemy army's Air Mages powering up before they continued the next day of a siege, for instance. Like artillery, almost.

...where did you go to magic school, and is there an age limit? Also, I suspect there's a strong correlation between higher income status (of which academics tend to be compared to the national average, exceptions abound) and fitness. From the combination of education increasing awareness of the value of fitness, knowledge of the importance of quality food, income to access said food and spending money to invest in fitness instead of just keeping the lights on, PLUS the professional benefits of fitness (people who are physically active are more likely to advance higher in a corporate hierarchy even if the job has nothing to do with physical activity)... it seems highly likely.

Well, I'd hope the weapons' default setting was "Off/Safety"...

And this is where you are actually agreeing with us, because we are talking about slightly different things. If this is a campaign where the situation will NEVER naturally (or even artificially) arise, then it never limits the character and it should therefore (by your logic and ours) be worth zero points. That sounds similar to something... But to my recollection you've never suggested this sellback in a setting where you believe OMCV is a non-entity, so we're talking grapes and raisins. Punishing a player, whatever the reason, is poor GMing. Challenging them in a way that is contributes to the story and their enjoyment is not. And while you may use the "M" word to describe this behavior, you are using it in a way that no one else uses it. Your definition applies only to you. It's also just wrong in the spirit of things. If you bring me a PC who wears heavy armor and has sold back all his swimming, there's a good chance I'll encourage the plot to move you over a body of water at some point so you have to roleplay that aspect of your character. That's me adapting the story to work around your PC. It's not the same thing as me being out to get you. When it's a PC vs. GM environment, everybody loses.

Selling back a stat that you believe to be a non-factor in a particular setting is textbook munchkin, open and shut. No one said that sellbacks are Complications except the person building a strawman argument. Saying that one is, in a manner, like another is both valid and valuable and in no way saying that they are equivalent. GM's cannot engage in "munchkinism" and it is a poor rhetorical technique that attempts to smear the opponent rather than address his or her arguments. GM's have unlimited points, they literally cannot be munchkins since they can fiat whatever they want to happen in the setting. Use this power unwisely and you run a poor game or no game at all, of course. Designing encounters to challenge players, to specifically give their particular builds a chance to shine and overcome adversity, is not munchkin. It's good GMing. So a good GM would either eliminate the stat of OMCV entirely, or, if it were not too out of bounds with the tone of the campaign, find a situation in which PCs could use OMCV to achieve victory.

So, is it valid to sell back a Characteristic that has no use in the campaign? I've gone round on this a couple of times myself.

Slap on the Real Weapon Limitation and boom- no slapping arrows aside with your bare hands. Or katanas.

In a game of make believe where a dude muttering in faux Latin can bend the rules of (un)reality and there are anthropomorphic animals running around? As far as that can be taken seriously...why not?

The problem is that you're approaching this backwards. An Excel spreadsheet with a list of changes (good or bad) is not a persuasive argument- for anything. Arguments, supported with relevant evidence (data, rules changes that speak to the issue being argued) are persuasive. Arguments must be tailored to the audience, however. So if you want to persuade your players to consider switching, AND you want the help of this board to identify what evidence (changes) will be useful in this cause, tell us the KINDS of arguments that you think the players would be interested in. Player 1 ( Mr. Indifferent)- I'm perfectly content with my current play experience; in fact I would find learning more rules a bit of a burden given that so far I'm having a great time. However I'll go along with what the group wants.No rules changes will persuade this player, so save your breath. Player 2 (Ms. Verisimilitude)- I'm a bit frustrated by how different character concepts have to have the same stats, such as DEX, to achieve different visions and they end up with similar capabilities. I want to be able to build a highly skilled fighter who isn't amazingly agile or fast (High OCV without high DEX or SPD) or a really amazing, agile person who isn't automatically a precision fighter (high DEX without high OCV)This person would be interested in the elimination of figured characteristics. Player 3 (The Wizard)- I haven't been able to build a VPP that reflects what I'm looking for due to real point and active point ratios.This person would be interested in changes to how VPPs work, etc. So, what sorts of things have the players said that they like about HERO (and thus we could tell you how 6E does those things BETTER [or worse]), or what have they complained about (and we could tell you how that issue was resolved, or not)? Hope this helps.

Hm, I kind of like this idea. Especially if you give it the Visible Limitation (at the -0 level, since it's a Limitation meant to fulfill the purpose of the power) since Visible already has rules for PER modifiers. Thoughts?

Pure O2 gas, of course. Because that's what the designers of the ship decided the ship needed in between its walls.

If you remember the author or title, I'd be pleased to know it.