Jump to content

Duke Bushido

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    5,462
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    61

Everything posted by Duke Bushido

  1. Thank you for thinking of me, but I'd actually have to look that up myself-- I don't know, either. I don't know that Running ever had a Turn mode, to be honest; at least, we've never played it that way. I mentioned Freight Train's Turn Mode problems because he has "requires a turn mode" as a limitation after the bottom quarter of his movement, and it doubles after the bottom 3/4 of his movement. In cleaner terms: the faster he goes, the harder it is for him to turn (his SFX being that he is a magnet for kinetic energy, and the more he draws in, the more difficult it is for him to control.
  2. Great Fish! I can't _believe_ we forgot about--- Okay, let me introduce you to what is, in my own opinion, the single best book to come out of 6 thus far (and yes; I am including the actual rules manuals themselves in that comparison): Yep. Not only are they "templates" (honestly, they are fully-realized characters in their own right), not only are they all.... What's a good word for "recognizable" that doesn't risk suggesting there may have been a need to talk to other IP owners about doing this before actually doing it? Homage! No
  3. "Rick _Chase_" "Vulnerable to _Flashes_." Either those are the best coincidental bits I've seen a good while, or you found your humor to be subtle and razor edged this morning. Coincidence or conscious incident, don't change a thing. I love it! I actually really like the "counter act time penalties," too. I've never specifically done that, which is odd, because I _have_ done some really goofy things in attempts to create a similar thing (most of which were _disastrous_ ). I think the most hilariously bad one was buying f
  4. I understand what you're saying, but that complexity is already there: The advantage "Reduced Endurance Cost" ups the AP but does not increase the Endurance.
  5. I almost do, too. Keeping in mind that this was the first movie-- the setup for all the mythos, etc... without that little speech (strike me down / stronger blah blah blah), Kenobi's death is pointless in terms of plot relevance, and a considerable amount of interest and tension in that scene is lost. Maybe it's because I'm more of a reader than a movie-goer, but no matter how fancy your effects are, character interaction is where a story is made, and the success or failure of that story will always depend far more on that than the amount of CGI you pump into the vis
  6. I've got a lot of rep to hand out to you folks on this thread, but unfortunately I've burned it all up; Christopher and a couple other folks had a slew of good input all over the board today! And here I went to work, like a sucker.... Keep posting and bumping this thread! I'll remember!
  7. I don't use it too much. Honestly, the only time I've ever used it is because I screwed up and balanced things too far against the players and had to make adjustments on the fly. Rather than doing a "gimme," which I don't like to do, as it can become habit-forming (for the players, I mean), I might check a die roll and come out with "well, you didn't hit him quite square, but the flat of your sword struck the side of his helm, forcing him to step back and jerk at his visor," or Crap. He totally blew that roll, and they kinda _need_ to find that key. Frankly, I didn't think they come in and
  8. I love that you're asking this! And I love that Z has the perfect answer: the current system _does_ work well as an abstract model, but it's not accurate to the real world. However, again-- Z is dead-on: it works fine to represent what the shield does, at least in game terms, and most importantly, it doesn't really add a lot of complexity to an already kinda slow combat system (don't get me wrong: the combat system appeals to me in a way no other ever has, but that added value is not exactly free). Still, it would be nice to
  9. I appreciate what you're saying, and don't necessarily disagree with it. That said, here's something you're not going to like: I've based END cost on Real Cost instead of Active cost for years now. Advantages, using AP, add to END cost. They do the same thing using real cost. It seems logical that having a bigger, more effective bang takes more magic juice. It seems logical that weaker, crippled bang would take less magic juice. So we base END cost off of real cost. Players are, of course, welcome to take Increased END cost (and it's actuall
  10. You'd think so, and from outside, it's a great and obvious suggestion. Unfortunately, there really isn't as much as you would think. (As luck would have it, I was just re-reading it yesterday). To be honest, the whole book felt a bit rushed an unfinished, as if there was a ton of content that was dropped or skipped over for various reasons (I always assumed page count limitations, but I wasn't there, so what do I know?). There were rumors of an expansion supplement being planned even before release, but the unfortunate death of Mr. Scott stopped that from ever happening. Don't get me wron
  11. Ah. Yes; I can apreciate the problem. Compunding it is the wide range of speedsters, going from low SPD and high movement to full-on martial artist on caffeinated crack. Speedster, I think, suffers more than other categories,,in that it is defined in terms of "compared to everyone else."
  12. Brian! You're still about! Wonderful! I had been worried, but tempered it with concern about bothering you at a bad time. Belated, but Happy Thanksgiving, my friend!
  13. Oh: here's a fun thing to do, if you are just looking for backgeound heroes (and I know it works because I have seen it done by a handful of GMs over the years; it should work even better nowadays, if you and your players started with newer editions) is to pick up a coupl3 of the really early Enemies books and use the forgotten ones as background heroes. Just a thought,
  14. Its equally possible I misunderstood _you_, Sir. I thiught your concern was that the cost reduxrions would allow both the mega power and a dozen or so little powers at the same time.
  15. Well those should have been in reverse order, but there they are. In regard to your question about defenses, in the source materials, so far as I understand it, Speedsters get their clocks cleaned pretty easily, _if_ they get hit. For the most part, their defense is being very, very hard to hit. Problematically, this is a game, played with friends, and you being impossible to hit (super-high DCV) is pricey and it can rob some fun from your friends, too. I like the Desolid-as-a-Defense idea (something that I never thought I would say before! ), at least in r
  16. As you note, the few heroes that are written up are scattered about various books. Write-ups for Heroes have always been a bit short, from the earliest days of this game. There are / were (were, I think being more appropriate in terms of "what has been" and "what is known to be coming") a few books: Champions of the North for 4e and one of the new editions. Allies for 4e. Books like that. Actually, there were a lot more published adventures, etc, that included heroes in 4e than in any other edition. The various organizations books contain a lot of agent info... No;
  17. No. Some use power builds. Still doesn't require martial arts. Defender was a martial artist before Allston ever had his idea to sell Skill levels in fractions for single-use builds. HtH Attack; NND. LImited by STR if you like, but not necessary. Far more options if you don't. See above. Actually, that's pretty much _all_ the moves that use the NND element: HtH: NND. There. One build, and now I have unlimited styles should I so choose. And of course, all the moves that use the NND element.
  18. Personal experience here, and a great deal of it: This idea of Chris's isn't too terribly far from how we play. Summed up, we play "screw active points." We have a total cost limit (250, using the 2e 100 + Disadvantages model). Spend as many or as few as you want, anywhere you want.As I mentioned to Chris in a discussion some time back, I suspect that this is because way back when we were learning to play 1e, we had too many people who just couldn't get wrapped around the division of costs, so we let it slide "until we get more familiar with the rules," but we just never went ba
  19. It's a _great_ idea! Though typically, our speedsters aren't Flash-level speedsters. We tend to do Extra DCV (via Skill Levels) proportionally joined to the speedster's movement speed. (Yes; I have zero quibbles with Limitations on Skill Levels so long as the make as much sense as Limitations on anything else.) Sp what _supplemental_ books do you have that list these or similar maneuvers?
  20. Had numerous phone calls today (we didn't go anywhere, and all my friends and family out of town were made well aware eight weeks ago that traveling in from somewhere and coming up to my door was a great way to get hit with a brick and sent packing: my wife and daughter are both high-risk (asthma), and my age and heart problems aren't helping me too much these days, particularly with the drop in fitness by eight months of "go nowhere; do nothing." Anyway, during the phone calls from old friends, many memories and much celebration came out, including a bit of "group lingo" referrin
  21. Sorry; I haven't time to reply properly, but I had a moment and wanted to make sure I hadn't accidentally started a war. I think you all understand I don't use Martial Arts as introduced by Allston; we'd been playing since 1e and weren't going to change the we'd been doing it simply because it worked far too well compared to what Allston offered. We completely understood that this was fun set dressing for a very specific type of campaign, and we enjoyed the book, but none of us have ever had any interest in that type of campaign. For us, the most "fun" from martial arts
  22. First and foremost: I know Ninja-Bear gets it, because this is fast becoming our "favorite" chestnut (the value of the martial arts rules, I mean) . I want to take just a minute to point out that the following questions and illustrations are _not_ sarcastic, _not_ meant to be barbs, jabs, or pokes, and are _not_ meant to be insulting. Bear with me; I have reasons: 1) the degradation of the way humans-- at least in english-speaking countries; I don't know enough of any other language to evaluate what I see from them-- treat and interact with each other has made a
  23. Be fair: I never suggested getting rid of them. I suggested they were outliers that didn't belong in the main rules set. Supplement? Fine. Main rules? More stuff to confuse the new guys, and that, given the tendency in recent editions to fold everything into some version of a larger idea, sticks out like a dime on a dog's nose as being something that is clearly just a singular use of a larger thing-- in this case, Skill Levels. Grab + Skill levels = Martial Grab. Kick + Skill levels = martial Kick. The big sticker seems to be "tar
  24. Well this is all sounding very familiar.... Not an insult, folks; not a disparagement. I promise. It's what I've advocated for years, and usually get told I'm doing it wrong. It's the Batman martial art: I am a master of fifteen martial arts styles, and am proficient in eight more. Assign your skill levels and yell "Hi-ya!" Martial Arts.
  25. I don't see why that won't work, but I haven't played with Damage Negation, either (no one at my tables has been interested in trying it yet, so I haven't thrown it out there), so there might easily be a drawback or downfall I haven't stumbled across. If worse goes to worst, though, you can always make it speed-dependent. I don't think it would, so long as you are specifying it's "for X reasons," instead of just a handy damage soak. How does Damage Negation interact with Damage Shield? That could be an interesting complication.
×
×
  • Create New...