Duke Bushido

Re: New Power: Invulnerability Crud; I thought I was going to actually get that final version here in the quote. Oh well; we all know what it was, or at least where to find it,right? Earlier in the thread, you commented that you felt perhaps no one had utility for this power. Well I happen to agree with you that in rare cases, this power is perfect. In fact, when I first read your suggestion, I wish I had heard back in the early years when we were using a mimeographed copy of 1E! Back when I was a player my GM asked me to design and play a brick (I was new to this particular group, having moved) as his current group of players didn't have one, nor did they need another Batman. So I set about, with his permission (and some extra points to bring me up 'on par' with established characters, of course) to design an unusual brick-- I like to go away from stereotype. Partly from concept, partly from the personality I assigned him during play, he quickly became the favorite of my characters amongst the other players. But niether I nor my GM were ever completely satisfied with this character, because part of the concept from the get-go was that he was invulnerable to PD and nigh-invulnerable to ED (model THAT!), while still quite stunnable and with a perfectly normal human sensation of pain (as in 1d6? Man, that hurts like Hell!) We tried a lot of things over the years, as we discovered them, but we never really got what we wanted: Lots of really high defenses. Tried holding up a falling building while the other players cleared civilians. Eventually the building collapsed (ran out of END for pushing). Damage was high enough to kill the character. Saved by GM fiat. Even more defenses, with more BODY. Block-buster bomb at a summit meeting took him out again. Saved by GM fiat. Damage reduction. During an earthquake scenario, he used himself as a structural support for a suspension bridge until traffic could be cleared from it. Repeated struggle against aftershocks etc wore him down. Killed again; saved by GM fiat. (though DR did perfectly for the 'nigh-invulnerable' ED angle, and remained in use until the character was retired) One day Dragon magazine published a list of fairly forgettable powers for Champions, including one odd Luck-based construct called Extra Life. It cost 4pts, which were lost forever. We tried that as well. It worked great _once_. "Okay, that blast of thrust from the rocket booster should have killed you, but the Extra Life kicked in; you're in agony, but you're alive. Next phase! Okay, you're still trapped, and that thruster's still blasting.....") And over and over. I guess that this is the long-winded way of saying that regardless of the simulation or construct, when you need Invulnerability, _not_Invulnerability won't do. We used GM fiat until the day the character was retired, but it was never 'right,' and we were never happy with it. Frankly, I like your construct, I like your pricing, and if you don't mind, I think I'm going to wedge it into our House Rules. Now I do have one thing I'd like to ask you. You said that you don't like fluctuating point costs (and Black Rose, that's a great idea on pricing potentially unbalancing powers! If I can have your blessing, I think I'll borrow that one, too!). How do you handle power Advantages and Limitations? As written in the book, or do you vary them by campaign? For example, if you have a character whose powers don't work in the water and you assign a -1 to his powers, does it matter if the entire campaign takes place in the desert? Or the ocean? I ask this because that in itself is indicitive of the need for fluid pricing. If someone has an EB that only works in sunlight but he operates only on a floating platform in orbit around the sun, why should his EB be less costly than someone in the same environment who opted to not take that limitation? Depending on the answer, you might get handed character sheets with constructs like "swimming; only in the water"...... The books have always suggested that limitations and advantages be priced relative to the campaign; why do you feel that the powers should not?

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them?

Re: Curious of Other Opins Everyone above me has made far better cases than I could have, both for and against the construct. And as mentioned, it's ultimately up to you to allow it. Personally, I'd go with the suggestions to break it up into multiple powers, justified simply by the rule that says you can't use power A to simulate power B; that's what power B is for. Of course, I also have to wiegh in heavily in favor of the 'smack him with the rule book' suggestion as well. Not because the construct itself is horrifying (though I'd prefer it done with existing abilities where such are relevant) but because of what I think the intentions are (cheesiness rarely seen outside of pressurized cans). Or you could teach him an object lesson about trying to munchkin around your rules: "Okay, I try to Detect Abilities." -Roll Perception- "Okay, I made it by five." -Yes, he has abilities.- "Wha--? Oh, yeah. Discriminatory" -okay, he has several abilities- "Hunh? Fine. Analyze." -He has several _good_ abilities- and on in that vien. But wait till he spends the points. The lesson sticks better that way . Seriously, if you think he's trying to short-shift he way to a cheesy construct, nip it now. It's harder to bring them back to sway once they know you can be convinced to cave in. This message has the official Evil GM seal of approval. Duke

Re: How much attention do you give to powers' Senses visibility rules? Oh yes; this one's important to us! It makes all the difference in the world as to how you might attempt to grapple or restrain an opponent, sometimes even how you might choose to approach him. Duke

Re: New Power: Desolidification I started to mention this in the DR thread, but this seems more appropriate. We don't use the Affects Desolid advantage in our campaigns. Granted, it's a leveler, to ensure equality for those who have Desolidification,but it has always had a 'metagame' feel to it. We have found that we get the same level field out of going with the basic premise of the system, and that is SFX. Any character with Desolidification _must_ define at least one common set of SFX that can affect his Desolid form, and at least two uncommon ones. We also allow price breaks for three or more common sets of SFX that can affect him, and smaller price breaks for three or more uncommon sets of SFX. And on the other end of the spectrum, we don't use the 'Affects Solid' advantage either (though a character can opt to take a limitation that his power won't work on solids when he is desolid). Again, the SFX (and that previous Limitation, if taken) decide if his attack should still work. For example, a character whose Desolidification is defined as converting his body to pure electricity might define that he is affected normally by water-based attacks (uncommon in our campaign) and that he takes damage normally from any electical attack (common in our campaign) or attack using grounded condutors (uncommon). But simply because he has become pure electricity shouldn't prevent his Lightning Blast from still affecting solid targets. And the way we play, it doesn't. On a further note, a Desolid character cannot automatically interact physically with another Desolid character. That is entirely a matter of their SFX. Two characters who 'become the wind' could both interact, etc. Sorry. I wasn't trying to interrupt; it is simply that as one of the people who thinks 5E desolid (and 4E, to a lesser extent) is broken, I was very excited about what you've done here. Kudos! Duke

Re: Half Phases for Fractional Speeds We use fractional SPD in our games. In our non-supers stuff, we use fractional everything. It's not the book-keeping you'd think at first, really. In our supers stuff, we use SPD fractions to determine initiative before going to DEX. It gives one more reason to by that odd point of DEX, and keeps the minimax players on their toes. But I've got to admit, that +1 on Activation seems pretty sweet! Duke

Re: Damage Reduction

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them? Heh heh heh heh---- I mentioned this thread during a game last night, and one of my players had a humorous solution. I thought you might enjoy it, so I'm sharing it. In light of all the concern about the inordinate amount of Stun done by a 'killing' attack, and the concern about good guys using a 'killing' attack, he suggests simply re-naming it! 8D Duke

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6? I've heard someone else make the d100 suggestion a long time back; I don't remember where-- a Con or something, I believe. It's interesting, but I still come back to the Bell Curve, and what I have always thought it represented. Without re-hashing the entire thing, let's just concede for a moment that the middle of the curve represents the mean skill level found in the campaign world for those who are competent or even 'pretty good' at what they do. Each increment above that represents a smaller gain, percentage-wise, but it still represents a gain, an ability increased above the 'normally seen' level of that skill. In the example above, it makes sense to me that they 17- guy -- the guy on world-class end of the skill, would be far less affected by an obstacle that proved a considerable impediment to the 11- guy-- the guy who's just gotten into the groove of the curve; the guy who is 'pretty good.' Now if you went to a percentile system, you are accepting that the world-class guy would have just as much trouble (say 15% reduction) as the guy who knows just enough to make a living at it. I just can't accept that such a thing is accurate. There are too many real-world examples from every field of endeavor. That's why novices ask professionals when they get stuck: it's not such a big deal for the pro; he's learned a few tricks and can more easily cope/work around it. Again, it's just the way I've always thought it was _supposed_ to work, and I've always felt that it was an accurate representation of how such things really _do_ work. If you feel that something else is going to work better for your group, then by all means, at least give it a try. I know good and well I've got my own set of House Rules, and I'd be willing to be that the bulk of the folks on this board do, too! :wink: Duke

Re: If you hate Killing Attacks, how would you replace them? Wow! There're a lot of great ideas on how to 'fix' the KA issues. Nice work, folks! I'm almost ashamed of how we did it after reading all this...... I just changed the Stun Multiplier rules: KAs have a Stun Multiplier of 2, period. No extra levels, no nothing. 2. This keeps it under control for 'good guys,' as it makes KA much more fatal. How? Well, simply put, if you are buying it for the Stun, you have to do a whole lot of Body to get that Stun. Proportionally speaking, you're going to most likely get more Stun per Body pip with a regular attack. "Killing Attack" now focuses on "killing." Seemed practical. So now killers buy it, and non-killers don't. I was never really happy with the idea of 'heroes'-- the good guys-- buying a massively lethal attack in the hopes of winning the Stun lotto to get a quick subdual. That, and our method has completely eliminated a lot of cheezy constructs like "5d6 KA, Stun damage Only." You want subdual damage, don't buy a lethal attack. I was always pretty happy with it, as was the bulk of my group, but judging from the amount of thought that went into some of your fixes, it seems almost juvenile.....

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6? Almost forgot-- the d20 would allow skill levels an inordinate amount of power, wouldn't they? Have you crunched any numbers on this yet, or is it still in the tinkering stage?

Re: Thoughts on using 1d20 instead of 3d6? Until I started reading HERO boards, I had thought that the choice of 3d6 was intentional. Having started role-playing with D&D (as in pre AD&D), I was well aware of the bell curve generated by 3d6. It results in greater chances of getting rolls somewhere in the 'middle', which just seemed right to me. I was under the impression that this was done intentionally: it simulates that there is a mean level of ability that can be expected from the bulk of the people with that skill / ability. It also does a nice job of both allowing and controlling advancement. While you can spend that extra point or two to bump up your score by one, it's not a huge advance. It shows that you have more ability than someone with a lower score, but not so much that you can really overshadow someone with only one point less. Restated, it allows you to advance a character-- evolve him-- through play. You spend points as you earn them and improve that character, but he doesn't become unbalancing in a hurry. He's not going to go from passingly familiar to world-class physicist in a year or two of game time (unless he applies himself exclusively to this, which makes sense). If every number had an equal chance of coming up, two more pips of a skill would make him drastically superior to someone else, and he could buy those pips with the experience from a single game session. And it is for that reason that I had always thought that 3d6 was an intentional choice. Whether it was or not, it is certainly my preference, and for all the reasons I've stated.

Re: Damage Reduction Working on it as hard as I can. But I've got two strikes against me: I'm techno-illiterate (I'm a gearhead by nature: cogs and chains: good. invisible atomic particles: bad juju!) and a firewall I installed (and removed) some time back has left my computer in a rather user-surly state..... I'm not sure I follow you here; I assume you don't mean litterally, as in x is in 1st ed, y is in 3rd ed, etc, but you have piqued my curiosity . And I agree with him. Not only do I agree with him, but considering the cost/effectiveness of any level of DR vs traditional defenses, I have to look at DR as more of a conception thing than a valid defense. As presented, it is simply outperformed by traditional defenses at any level acceptable in my campaigns. Granted, your own campaigns will differ from ours, so YMMV. As it is, my own campaigns have very little DR, and even then it's merely in support of character conception. Right now, we have one player with 75% DR from electrical attacks and one with 25% DR from fire attacks. Niether of them are Resistant (if you're keeping track) and frankly, it has yet to be unbalancing in the slightest. It even allowed the electricity projector to heroically wade through an onslaught of electrical attacks from a villain in order to rescue a group of stranded civillians. The role-playing and heroics of that scene alone were worth allowing it. I also have a villain with 100% damage reduction from sonic attacks Only when Desolid (he converts to sound). This prevents him from being struck by Sonic attacks with Affects Desolid, but allows other ADO attacks to work as normal. And so far, it's really done nothing more than teach the players that defining their sfx is important. Now in the Fantasy campaign, there are lots of beasties-- particularly demonic types-- with DR vs particular sfx. And again, as long as it is vs an sfx and not a category of attack, it just doesn't cause a problem. The biggest thing that allowing DR has done for our campaigns has been an increase in the tightness of concepts and more concern for the details of the characters. The way we do it-- by sfx instead of category-- has actually lowered the utility of DR even below what the chart would suggest. But nothing else works quite as elegantly to pin a concept, and on that one occasion when it allows the hero to hold the spotlight for a minute or two, it's well worth allowing. Okay, that's a lot of typing. Think I'm done for a while. Yeah, and I like to read it, at least for spells. Have to kind of leap in, read for a few days, and leap back out before all the options and differences weigh you down. I left the Sysabend board that Derrick had pointed me to because sometimes the staggering number of opinions on something would leave my head all swimmy...... That, and I've found that sometimes getting caught up in the technicals can reduce the over-all enjoyment of the simulation. So I've learned to take it in spells, digest it, then come back for more!

Re: power limitations as naked power advantages? My concerns with the Drain builds revolves around the 'max effect' rules. How is this power to affect a group of targets? Is it less effective against a group, or does that not make a difference? Or characters with lots of End / RedEnd powers. If this drain goes on long enough to have drained 'max,' then it will cease to function, correct? Granted, there are work-arounds, such as increasing the drain limit or buying more dice, but the limit, even if difficult to attain, is still there. I suppose it can serve as a built-in 'timer' of sorts to end the spell. I have concerns with the recovery problem as well, but those have been addressed by previous posters, so I'll not go into it again.

Re: Damage Reduction Forgive me for jumping in on this so way late, but I was hunting for something I wanted to include. Uhm, we are back on DR, right? But first let me nod to the posts that prompted me to reply:

Re: Null Characteristics replaced by negative CHAR rules? Hey--- glad I could help!

Re: How much attention do you give to powers' Senses visibility rules? "Ack! Abstract Conception Man is flying around here somewhere! I'd know that taste anywhere......" and the hunt begins........ Yeah, I've always thought that the '3 senses' rule served mostly to justify the IPE advantages and some of the more exotic senses. Like supers and super villains, one sort of needs the other to be practical. And yes, I've always been bugged that the designers failed to 'properly' (go ahead; let 'em loose! :wink: ) separate 'effects' from 'special effects,' particularly with regard to movement and offensive powers. Granted, this has been a long-running issue for me, even before Steve took over. But with all the gallons of ink he used to add more rules and more government and such, I have to admit that I'm pretty disappointed that he left this pretty much alone..... I think that this is really a cruicial issue, and the concepts of 'effect' and 'special effect' are the very heart of how the HERO system works! But I'm not too worried about it; most players can tell the difference, once they get the hang of it. But I've _never_ enforced the 3-sense rule. I'm usually happy with 2 'normal' senses, and those tend to be sight and hearing for most folks. Movement powers especially: I just can't justify the 'smell of swimming' any better than the 'taste' of flight. Now I _do_ require that powers be visible to two _normal_ senses. Partly, this is just for the drama (and it makes a nifty warning to civilians that they may want to not go that way.....) and partly to, much like the rules, encourage players to buy IPE, thus cheering all those players who bought 'detect x'. I also allow a limited IPE, which for half the price will drop one sense requirement. Seemed reasonable for Superman's flying, Batman's gliding, etc. Besides, who wants to taste Batman? heh heh heh... I don't allow players to give me that hogwash "You can feel my blast when I hit you with it." Duh. That's what it's for; that's the 'effect' of that power. Now HOW does it hit me? Bright flash of ionized isotopes? Little lead pellets? Girl Scout Tour Bus falls from heaven? Same with 'feeling the movethrough' or 'seeing the hole in the wall' or 'sufferning the knockback.' In short, if it can be measured in dice, it's an _effect_, not a special effect. And I'm just not inclined to make my players wear strobe lights, play kazoos and spit on pedistrians while they fly. Just doesn't seem 'heroic.'

Re: Adjustment Power vs. Base Points only I haven't even begun to really think this through, but as an effort to jump-start the creative juices, how about simply scaling it? Figure that the character is roughly 100kg (for a nice even number) and his target is 10,000kg, making the character 1/100 the mass of the target. So take his final damage and divy it by 100......... Sure, it's harsh. But figuring that an ice pick might be one pip AP, it'd take several lifetimes (and icepicks) to destroy the moon. Sounds about right.... Again, just tossing ideas..... Or perhaps some kind of scaling as suggested, only broken up into comparative categories rather than straight math?

Re: Null Characteristics replaced by negative CHAR rules? Ah; here it is: Spirits: "Spirits have INT, DEX, EGO, PRE, and SPD; they do not and can not have[emphasis added] STR, CON, BODY, COM, PD, ED, REC, END, or STUN. Spirits are completely intangible; this is similar to being Desolid, but with completely different special effects. Powers bought with Affects Desolid will not affect spirits; Desolid characters cannot perceive or affect spirits and vice-versa. Spirits are completely invisible to all normal senses and detects [sorry-- quick question: exactly what is a "normal" detect? I've always wondered.....]; specific senses and detects that can find spirits are listed later in this section. Spirits can have powers that affect other spirits or they may buy (at extra cost) powers that affect the real world." And there's more, but I think this is already more than you wanted to know about Spirits, considering the nature of your question. None of the text in that section really goes into the details of the 'null stats.' The Disadvantages section also fails to mention it, as do the Character Archetypes, or even Powers sections. Now the section with the Example Beasties is rather interesting; there are a few examples of spirits, and all are built as described above: none of the 'forbidden' stats, not even a zero or a negative. However, points are not sold back to the player or the template. These stats simply do not exist, period. Characteristics cost is based on the total cost of raising the 'allowed' stats from base 10. Also, none of the examples have any Disads that represent their lack of physical prowess. I hope this helps you some. From what I can make of it, however, I don't think I'd build your crystal-with-a-mind as a spirit, however, for he will have no actual way to even be carried without extensive powers constructs. However, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with simply 'nulling' a stat, as long as you 1) do not try to reclaim "lost" points by selling back the stat. 2) buy up any figured Characteristic that you _will_ have from base 0 rather than figuring it from the 'nulled' Characteristic. On the first point, I can understand that. Those base 10 were 'gimmes' anyway, so technically, you have not 'lost' anything; you have simply failed to take advantage of the offer . :wink: And on the second point, well I guess that's a no-brainer, what with not having the base stat to work from..... Personally, I'm glad you asked this! It gave me incentive to dig through the old stuff again with an eye for stuff I haven't used in a bit. In the critter pages, I found an example of a cursed sword, done on a character sheet, essentially as a spirit. Now I have a nifty way to create that 'enchanted with the spirit of my grandfather' sword one of my fantasy players has been after me to write up (so far, it's been fiat). I just need to figure out why the sword in the book needs Dex and SPD and how that would work when the sword was used as a weapon... Though thinking about it, I'm not sure it really would. I assume that those stats are for the swords 'speaking' roles. Of course, my player's sword has some minor Telepathic abilities.... _That's_ probably what that stuff is for...... Thanks again!

Re: Null Characteristics replaced by negative CHAR rules?

Re: Exotic Names and Exotic Locations Bless the Librarian, Keeper of all Knowledge, Bringer of Wisdom and provider of all this neat stuff for my next late-night reading session!

Re: Teen Champion Cover! For what it's worth at this point, I like the cover. I don't like the hat, but that's a character thing, not the cover. But the cover... well, it amuses me, and it really does seem to jump out at me, even though that may be for its simplicity.

Re: The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Wu Thank you thank you thank you for that little list! I have been wanting to get some 'exotic' names for various races in some of our games-- names with some real meaning behind them as opposed to the classic 'scrabble tiles and add vowels' kind of thing--- but so far have had little luck finding online language dictionaries and such (the translator pages such as babelfish don't do quite what I want, as I am looking for the 'real' names of very much _unreal_ things...... But with a dictionary and maybe some grammar/usage guidelines, I think I could make suitable tags for these races and places. When compiling your list, did you stumbe across any such dictionaries online?

Re: Atmosphere In our Sci-Fi campaigns, most airless outposts go underground as someone else mentioned earlier. Fewer worries about puncture, radiation, and irrecoverable heat loss. That, and it just seemed more practical from the POV of atmosphere scarcity. It seemed wastefull to fill with hard-won oxygen an area the bulk of which was totally unusable for inhabitation, whereas with a tunnel town, you only need to air where people are going to be. Of course, if your campaign allows for cheap air or floating buildings or any of a hundred other things, then that 'empty space' may be quite practical. Just tossing out ideas. Your world is your own, and bound to be different from ours, after all. (And scenic skies would most likely make for better flavor text that do grey-walled warrens.....) Duke

Re: What Other Pulp Hero Books Would You Like To See? Okay; I'm late to get in on this thread, but it was dear enough to me that I quit lurking and joined just to post here. Any support at all for Pulp HERO would be great, no doubt, but I have a fear that the 'supers' angle will ultimately drown out Heroic level support. Granted, it made the company-- and I certainly won't mind seeing it dominate the support, but I'd like to see continued support for 'normals' campaigns if the genre is a success. In particular, I am drawn to realistic (in a relative sense, of course) type campaigns, taking place in American cities, with a down-play on the ray-gun stuff (funny, consdering how much I love steampunk). Though I am so in love with the idea of the art deco spaceship that I can't stop thinking about it! I've alread laid out deck plans for the ballroom, dining room, and wheelhouse.... Hmmmm...... I don't care to risk the name _Titanic_, however..... Duke (Oh, and a warm "hello again" to Derrick H, a few years overdue)