Jump to content

Duke Bushido

HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Duke Bushido

  1. Well great. Another thing I want to squeeze out some time to contribute to. Excellent idea.
  2. Okay, Adventurers Club (Man, it really _bugs_ me that there is no apostrophe in there) scanning proceeds slowly; it's a time problem. Completed are 1-5 and 26. Many, many more to go. Have found a #27, meaning I will shortly have a complete set. Stumbling block, though, in sending vials through the net as both Jason and I live in the "e-sticks," resulting in spotty connectivity and low data flow. I've tried sending them through an intermediary (thanks, Chris!), but Jason is talking now about having them scanned locally. I had offered to put them all on a drive and just send it, but have heard nothing back from that. In other news, our colleague Spence has offered up an already-debound BBB for that particular project. I've lined up an artist to help me with the cover restoration (that cover seems to mean a lot to the fans, so I don't trust myself to handle it), and work will proceed (very slowly) on that project as time allows. I just can't make promises on that one, but if you remember Western HERO, remember that this book is a roughly three times as large, and I have less time. On the plus side, most of the interior art was essentially "comic style" line drawings as opposed to the etchings, stampings, lithographs, and old photos that were in Western HERO, so there should be considerably less problems with that aspect of things. And now I'm going to bed-- like I should have done instead of scanning AC #5. I keep hoping Jason will take me up on the flash drive, just so we know he has high-rez scans from the get-go. I wish I had time to do the actual clean-up and restoration, but I don't think I'll live that long.
  3. Hedging against complaints, I would assume. It's a bit like "usable by nearby.". What is that if it's not an AoE, centered on whatever it is (or whoever it is) that you should be near to use it? Hedging. One of those cases where playing it safe leads to redundancy and complication.
  4. I got that edited, but evidently you were quoting while I was editing. At any rate, it reads correctly now.
  5. It's worked for me for forty years. I can't find any reason to change it. I will have to double-check (still at work), but I think there is one on the 5e GM screen, and there were dozens when the Web Ring of Heroes was still a thing... Jfg17: Doc explained it perfectly: It's just like any other 11 or less skill roll. To simply further: It is possible to see this as 2 skill rolls: The attacker makes an attack roll; the Defender makes a defend roll. Both rolls have a base value of 11 of less. Whoever succeeds by the most wins. If the attacker rolls a 9 and the Defender rolls a 7, then the Defender has succeeded by 5, while the attacker has succeeded by only 2. The Defender wins, and the attack misses. Like any other skill roll, there are modifiers. Start with how good you are at the skill. Suppose you have a skill with a base of 11 or less, but you've invested a few extra points to demonstrate a deeper study or better understanding that a lot of folks might have. Your roll might be 14 or less instead of 11 or less. Another way to look at that is to consider that you have an 11 less and a +3 bonus to you ability with that skill. In combat, that bonus is your CV. So in the above example, let's say the atttacker has an OCV of 8 while the Defender has a DCV of 5. The attacker needs to roll his base 11 or less, but he gets his 8 OCV bonus. He know has to roll a 19 or less to succeed. The Defender, with his DCV bonus of 5, has to roll a 16 or less to successfully defend. So the attacker rolls a 9, as before, which means he succeeded by 10. The Defender rolls a 7, as before, and succeeds by 9. The attacker wins, as he has won by the greatest margin. And just like any other skill roll, there are other modifiers where appropriate: range, weather, bad footing--whatever might be appropriate. If you've ever played a game (including HERO, in some cases) where skills are directly opposed like this, you are familiar with the problems, not the least of which is we are now rolling dice twice to resolve one thing. Another problem is the arguments like "how did he hit me if I successfully defended? What do you mean, 'succeeded more?'. That makes no sense!" and things like that. So how do we resolve that? Make one roll. They both have a base chance of 11. We understand that OCV is a positive modifier to that. We understand that DCV can be considered a negative modifier (from the attacker's point of view) to that same roll. So we know how to reduce the time wasted rolling dice: make one roll that includes both sets of modifiers. (11 + OCV) - (Defender's DCV) = target number. Roll that number or less. (I don't want to confuse things, but I handle all my opposed roll situations, like Concealment VS Concealment, this exact same way. It's fast and it's clean). Best of all, it eliminates the problem with ties (in terms of how much you succeeded. If your wondering, though, ties go to the attacker) and "but I successfully defended!" by not having separate rolls for these two aspects of combat. There is no _real_ downside, but for some reason, some people are really bothered by the fact that telling a player "you need an eight or less" tells the player something he shouldn't know. Here's why that's not really true: the play has no idea what his oppenents skill levels are, how many are allocated, where they are allocated, or what other situational bonuses are in play. You might need an eight this time, even the next five times, but then you might need a thirteen, followed by a six! You're not giving away what they claim you are giving away. Unless, of course, the groups in question use no situational modifiers at all, ever, in which case, yea: your player might figure out his opponent's DCV. To which I say "so what?" I say that, because the "solution" to this "problem" is the roll-high option. Ultimately, this is touted as hiding all the stuff that you are allegedly giving away with roll low. The problem is that you are _still_ giving it away. It's not calculus. It's math like you picked up in first and second grade: I rolled an eleven. You hit! I rolled a twelve. I'm sorry, you missed. Egad! If only there was some way I could use this information to determine what his DCV is! Obviously, in this case, his total DCV (that would be his DCV, plus and skill levels he has allocated to defense plus any Maneuver or situational DCV bonuses he has) exactly equals your total OCV- which is, as I said, the _total_ of everything in play that's working toward increasing your OCV. You still don't really know what his precise DCV is any more than he knows your precise OCV. The best part is that you have that same conundrum with roll-under to hit: you know the total, that one time, after resolution, and have no way of knowing exactly _why_ that is the total, or if it is always that total. Roll-over is a non-solution to a not problem. However, it is just as valid as roll-under. Pick the one you like and stick with it, as changing up or using both is the only _real_ problem you are going to have teaching the attack mechanic.
  6. I've gone sixty years without being able to afford a trip out of the country. I don't see that changing in time for me to give a damn.
  7. Thanks, Bolo. I was checking out their Twitter feed a bit ago. They are claiming they did not use gas; did not use pepper spray/mace... I particularly enjoyed the people responding with pictures of them doing all those things.
  8. Fine. Don't grow up; don't move on. It's your life to do with as you will.
  9. I failed to snag the link (phone copied a link to an add on the site instead), but you can probably find it with a quick Google. Anyway, I just finished an article about a "violin vigil" being held for a young man killed by police. The police arrived with their sprays and gasses and body armor and government-issued skull bats to break it up. Violently, of course.
  10. Can we get a little bit of clarification? Because as it's presented, it seems like writing a book is part one of a very grisly ritual pact.... I don't even understand this. Ni; forgive me-- I understand quite clearly what you wrote. The behavior you describe is something I have never been able to understand. So you really liked a book, but then you decided you don't like the guy who wrote it, so now you hate the book! (the exemplary "you," of course, and not you or anyone else in particular. I should have been more clear on that). Not only does it come off a bit asinine and self-deceptive, I have always viewed it as demonstrating a character weakness and an inability to accept who you are, as well as an intellectual inability to separate things properly. But that's just me, I suppose: last of the curmudgeons in a world where activism has gone from righteous ideals to the bully stick with which all who don't conform are beaten about the brows. Let's just pick an author who I don't believe has ever managed to offend anyone. I'm going to assume that youre familiar with John DeChancie. I am only assuming that because of the range of his writings: he has dabbled in several genres. Personally, I find most of his stuff falls in the range of "okay" to "not bad.". He is by no means my favorite author, and a small portion of his work has disappointed me. Most of it, though, I can read and enjoy well enough. He wrote a sci-fi trilogy, though, that I absolutely adored. It has been called both the Skyway Trilogy and the Starrigger Trilogy. I enjoy those books so much that I make it a point to reread the first two at least every five years since they were first published. I try to reread the last one every twenty ("try" being the operative word: it want very good, and actually reads exact like what it is: a long slow plod through all the loose ends that need wrapping up.) Now suppose I learned that DeChancie was wife-beating crackhead who routinely tortured stray children and brutalized dogs. Well, obviously I would be very disappointed in the man. I don't think I would go so far as to do the trendy thing and go online and yell "me too!" on every "I hate DeChancie" thread that popped up, no matter how much people today seem to think that's the only acceptable response to something you don't like. I'm not saying I wouldn't, but its not really "me." At any rate, I would certainly not start hating the books. They were already written. I have already enjoyed them-- repeatedly, at this point. As this new knowledge in absolutely no way changes anything about the books in any way whatsoever, I expect I would continue to enjoy them (for the record, they aren't great treatises on the world that may someday be; they are not rife with cutting edge understanding of various fields of science-- they are nothing but pure, unbridled fun, and I love them for it. Well, except the last one. That one's just a slog under the best of circumstances.) But I know so many people who would do just that: "oh my God! I can't read that again! It was written by a horrible person!" The fact of the matter is that we are _all_ horrible people. No matter what we do, there is going to be a percentage--alaeger-than-you-think percentage--of people who are going to be absolutely disgusted with you. Grow up and move on. Being unable to distinguish one from the other is baffling to me. I completely agree. But don't get me started on canon.
  11. Talent. You can understand every nuance of the voice or sound you hear. You can know precisely what must be done to your vocal chords to recreate those sounds. Being physically able to do it, however, is beyond your control at any level of training. It's like wiggling your ears, of shifting your scalp, or twitching your nose. Either you have the base mechanisms to do this, which you can then experiment and play with, or you don't. If you don't have an elongated frontalis muscle, you aren't going to wiggle your scalp. With rare exceptions, every human being can use their vocal chords. Most of us will find our voices vary considerably under various stressors, but they will remain our voices. Some of us can do character voices of a sort-- not all of us. Some folks, no amount of training will let us create a sounds that isn't our voice. Even those that can do character voices can't necessarily do _someone else's_ voice. Or birdsongs. Or animal grunts and growls. The fact is that the largest chunk of mimicry is a direct result of something that _can't_ be trained for: the ability to alter the length, thickness, and tension of the vocal chords far in excess of what most people can. How much enervation and how much musculature is devoted to the larynx is not something you can change through study or practice. Like flexing your Eustachian tubes: either you have the voluntary muscles in place, or you don't. You can't just grow them because you studied really hard. Even people with the ability to produce an unusually wide range of sounds may not be able to produce a wide enough range to genuinely mimic-- to perfectly recreate a sound or voice done by someone else. Billy West, for example, does one of the worst Nixons I've ever heard, but he's one of the best voice guys in the business. Rich Little did far fewer unique voices that West is known to do, but he did an astounding range of other people's voices, which is something that West really can't achieve. I won't deny that there is lots and lots and lots of endless practice and understanding of nuance-- all those things that could class this as an INT Skill-- present in the act of mimicry. I won't deny that PRE plays a factor in really selling the impersonation you're putting forward, whether it's the voice of a general, or a world leader, or the creaking of a rusty furnace. But if you were not born with the proper mechanisms to make this all possible through voluntary control-- that is, if you weren't born with the rudiments of the talent-- there isn't enough brains or charisma on earth to make it happen anyway.
  12. I am not the OP, and can't answer for him, but based off of his questions in the HD forum, I believe him to be using 6e.
  13. The necessity of it is up to you. I'm going on thirty-nine years of pencil-and-paper character design. I think twice I've considered HERO Designer, but it only takes a stroll through a few pages of the HD-centric portion of this board to convince me that I have no business even attempting to use it.
  14. Can't be _that_ weird. It's how the one in my truck works.
  15. It's not, really. And here's why: HERO isn't a game anymore. It's a kit for building your game. Suppose your game requires a caster who takes damage to make an EGO roll to remain focused on the spell if he takes a point of damage. Or ten points of damage. Or whatever you decide to allow in your game. So it goes back to how your system works, and what crucial bits you have pre-determined will throw off the casting.
  16. Yes. My phone doesn't speak english, given a choice, and I have more than once run afoul of the auto cat rectal built into it.
  17. This one comes down to world building. What do you require to successfully cast in your magic system? What outside influences would prevent that? If you mandate gestures, then restraining or even I terdwrring with them will be enough. If you mandate concentraction, then a good slap to the face might be enough. I could go on, but I think you can see what I mean: it's a matter of how your magic system works, and interrupting a necessary step.
  18. It works either way. If they are actively impeding you in some way, it's a physical limitation, too.
  19. If you're going to do it non-violently, then there's just no point in contacting ewoks at all.....
  20. yeah; I've seen that, too. I've _done_ it a couple of times. But once "Ambidextrous" saw print, a light bulb kind of went off in my head. It seemed so much more appropriate to build based on that, instead (remembering that I still do the 2e "extra limbs are pricey" thing. )
  21. I don't disagree with your sentiment, but Wizards didn't create the problem. Gygax and Tactical Systems Research ("Research!" HA! ) created the problem. For what it's worth, I don't care if they leave the alignment system in or not, because _screw_ D&D. However, I've never been really big on accepting "this whole race is evil; deal with it." I am _totally_ cool with "this particular dickhead right here, _he_ is totally evil." I'm _way_ fine with that. I just can't figure how a race of mortals with any sort of society can all just "be evil" and a society is still maintained. I'm willing to be that even Mayans weren't chucking people onto the altar every stinking day.....
  22. If you want to run with "Extra Limb: prehensile skin," I'm totally on board with that. But just like declaring it to be a straight-up Grab, you've got to look at the ramifications. Going with extra limbs, he could back up against a ladder and scale it with his "extra limbs" and leave his hands and feet free; extremely effectively of he has extra STR for his extra limbs. He could work a doorknob with a bit of eighties side boob. With his hands and feet bound, he could still run away (rate will vary by terrain, I expect). And of course, it still makes it a grab Maneuver, which is an attack action, meaning that any opponent could end our Hero's rurn by simply opting to stick something to him. I suppose we could put a trigger or a damage shield on the extra limbs, but... Well, the further we get away from Clinging, the clunker it gets, which I tend to think is a pretty good sign that clinging might be the right direction after all.
  23. Well yes; but I'm used to being on the unpopular side of these discussions. If you want to model it as STR, then you have to also rule that you are willing to allow a character to use his STR without having to tie up one or more of his appendages. That is. You have to say "Sure thing; Mr. Mucus can grab with his shoulder blade or his abdomen, and use his STR to hold fast without having to use his hands or prehensile feet." This opens it up to anyone doing it, though, as he doesn't have a power or even a Maneuver to make this a unique-to-him ability. If MM can do it with just a Grab, then anyone could do it with just a Grab, and now Superman has grabbed Lex Luthor by the head and is squeezing him between his mighty space pecs. This, more than anything, is why I'm I clibed to go with the Clinging build: it is something the character must buy to differentiate clearly as not a thing anyone can do with just a grab. Additionally, there is an attack roll with Grab. If you are modeling someone who just _is_ sticky, every time someone hits him, or otherwise makes contact, they may not stick. If they have a higher SPD, they are guaranteed a kick or two without fear of sticking simply because Booger Boy doesn't have an attack on that Phase. And if someone does come up behind BB and attack, and stick to him- we'll, that's an attack roll: BB's turn is over because he has attacked. It gets wierder: if you sneak up on him, he is less sticky because of the CV penalties and bonuses involved. Like I said, I don't particularly like the relatively inexpensive Clinging as the base, but I can't thi k of anything more appropriate. I can see requiring some modifiers, like an endurance cost and probably the damage shield to represent the unconscious attack roll. Not my favorite, but it does require buying a particular game effect without risking everyone just deciding they can have it because one guy does.
  • Create New...