tesuji

Just FYI... the below is not a NEED i have ever seen in play in a game of HERo. HERo us at its core utterly dependent on the GM to make the rules work FOR HIM. HERO is not really a game but rather a game design system. It is intrinsically the job of the GM to pick and choose from among the myriad implementations of the rules, the inumerable "nuances" (a term utterly weak when considering the impact of these "nuances") involved with the campaign itself. How tight a grouping is required for ECs? IS magical fire appropriate or is "helpful witcheries"? How broad a VPP should be allowed? Are "normals" allowed to have stats above 30? Above 20? Above 40? How are foci broken? How long does it take to replace them? How long does it take to replace charges? is "i run by the base for more ammo" valid? How long ar the combats? When can i use naked advantages? Do i really have to buy "fighting arrays" using the officially preferred method which charges more for them than just buying the dex straight up would? These all come into play well before we start talking about campaign limits and ocvs and speed and so on. The rules we play by are the rules set by the Gm for his game. The rules rely so heavily on the GM to "enforce" the balance aspects that they are practically meaningless without the perspective of "the GM". Whether a new player comes into my group with HERo experience or not, the first lesson to be learned is" you are playing my hero, not Steve Long's. not monolith's, not your last GM." If thats not acceptable to them, thats cool. I will show them out and suggest other GMs in the area they can try and find.

Lucius... Once you get into characters with differing abilities, such as wizard and fighter, and away from the case of the extreme where both characters have unique abilities, then you are INDEED into the realm of "balance by challenge"... a 20th level fighter who needs to decipher a script to release the djinni is not going to be able to accomplish that task and is for all intents and purposes "over-powered" by the low level thief who can. That is an EXTREME example, but then you are the one chosing to use 20th vs 1st as core to your points. Ecept for the "total subset" case, which will happen much easier in point systems than class systems (because class systems give unique abilities to each class...typically) balance is defined by the intersection of challnges and abilities... not by any objective measure. ************************ The fighter on fighter comparison was an example in simplest terms regarding the difference in the total subset balance issue between classed systems ala dnd and point systems ala hero... and was directed directly at your notion it seems of an objective balance. I hope that clears up its relevence. if not, i doubt i can keep propping up your end of this discussion. you will just have to try and keep up on your own.

Re: Re: Mechanon's Self Destruct Actually, this is the premise where you and i for instance really part the ways. For a villain, much less a master villain, in a comic to "go out with a bang" and to "somehow appear again in a later issue" is not something potent and costly. It is a story element, a plot device, not a mechanical application that mus be detailed out to the half character point. What does the self-destruction device do? Does it affect the outcome of the fight in any "did we win or lose" way? Nope, all it does is add a little dramatic kick to the victory. What does him returning later do? Does it affect how the fight goes for it to be mechanon as opposed to some new threat? yes... by making it more dramatic and personaly,,, but not in any sort of "points balance" way. Neither of these need to be hashed down to more than, frankly, Steve's own favorite... "dramatic sense"... Now, as a power for a HERO, thats a whole different story, but thats not what we are discussing here. Then again, if the player wanted the hero to have mechanon's "recurring villain" power, understanding that it meant coming back at some future date, not a nigh on immediate ressurection... he would probably still not be inclined to abuse it, since "no character " sux during those "ressurection in progress" periods. CSCV... not just for targetting.

For those experienced in using a "roll per segment to see if you get an action or not"... how much time does this add to a typical super-team on super-team combat? What about if you have a half-dozen agents added to the mix? The first blush that came to my mind was rolling for actions for everybody every phase would add quite a bit of time.

Spped 5... 1d12 chance of going on any given phase 42% 2d6 chance of goinf in any given phase 28% Speed 6 1d12 chance of going on any given phase 50% 2d6 chance of going on any given phase 42% Unless your speeds tend to run higher than this, 2d6 is actually increasing the likelihood of inactivity, and also the likelihood of spans of inactivity, not reducing it. Sure you are sacking the probabilities in at around 7, but that will normally be out of range. The biggest thing 2d6 does is skew the bebefits. paying 10 points for a 4 speed vs a 3 speed gains you 3 more chances in 36 of going on any given action. Spending the same 10 points for going from a 6 speed to a 7 speed earns you 6 more chances in 36. If you want "bang fer buck" to remain consistent, then speed 7 should cost 20 points more than speed 6 IF speed 4 costs 10 more points than speed 3.

Look 75+75 is practically meaningless. There is so wide a range of potential characters and merits and flaws that all you can rely on is experience. One crucial rule of thumb to use until you get a handle on what they can and cannot bear... use reserves. By this i mean set most of the encounters up so that the PCs and especially the players do not know the total battle. Doors leading to other rooms may be closets or they may be guard rooms or they may be hallways down to guard rooms. They see three men-at-arms but do not know how many more are around the corner. With this fluid design, you can add more enemies, or not, as you fit, unsing this time to gain experience with the limits. Try to have some small-medium-large bad guys available, quick sheets at the ready, to toss in at a moments notice. I would have some as normal human/elf etc types but some as monstrous... a goblin, an ogre, a troll, etc... and one or two oddities. Throw in an "unrecognizable, large track... definitely not human" early in the run to add that sense of "something not normal is around here" so that the troll or ogre or boogeyman-de-jour is even freshadowed. (heck, even if it never appears, the occasional unexplained noise or howl will add to the drama.) Keep your options open... start each fight with VISIBLE enemies a little under what you think they can handle, and raise the ante a bit at the time. After a while, experience will help you gauge more closely.

Since i started this thread as a serious praise for Steve and his sense of humor and perspective towards "his own game" so to speak, i will make my will save and avoid responding directly to the obviously incorrect and simply inflamatory gratutious slam at other games systems. I will now slip away quietly and return you to your "how to work the rules better for more bang fer buck" thread which seems to have lost the original sentiment entirely. Although, I must confess, that doesn't surprise me. The only question i still have hanging myself is... What stat is the Combat sense combat vale CSCV derived from? Is it based on the player's INT/3, EGO/3, or DEX/3?

I would prefer two things... 1. change it to meters or feet. Simply put, every time i say inches or hexes i push my players out of "in character" towards "in players." this is FINEand DANDY for a wargame... its lousy for a role playing game, even one that is a wargame in sheep's clothing. 2. change radius to diameter. On any hex map, you can draw out a diameter. In game after game expressing things as a radius lkeads to diameters one too short or one too long depending on how the game system treats the central hex. (hero is one too short with 2" radius being officially 3 hexes wide.)

In a recent post on the QnA board, Steve said... "It's targeted by Common Sense Combat Value (CSCV), which states that, "It's a frickin' self-destruct device, just let it make him go boom." " i really have to prise you for this. i nearly fell out of my chair and did spray coke. i haven't seen a rules response this good or this humorous in a long time. Answers like these keep the "its a game people!" spirit alive and well. Thanks Steve!

In "typical" supers games... which is simply a short way of saying "most of them i have participated in or seen, magical and mental would cover the gamut of common. Of course, IIRC, mental is already a "desolid doesn't help" so it really does not count against the limit. In addition to those types of attacks that fall under magic and the freebie mental, flashes also work (though it is likely he will buy cheap levels of flash defense.) Simply put, if the Gm allows magic as common, he IS committing to make magic common. i would not worry all that much about ARW attacks... they will be so low in damage as to be so slow as to be mostly ineffective. For 60 AP the guy can probably afford 3d6 of NND ARW... doing 10 stun per shot average. At "typical" heroing levels the characters expect to take 15-25 stun per hit. The Gm should be able to handle this rate of offense, and as long as someone in the gangs have a potential to affect him, flashes are easy from grenades when magic is not available, it should not be a problem.

Interesting i thought that was one of the worst sins of the Fh presentation. I had hoped for the spell colege SFX thing to actually provide meaningful differences, rather than just cosmetic flavor wrapped around the same game mechanics necessities... 'everyone needs a force field/armor so regarldess of FX we will give everyone one..." See, instead of a fire force field, i would rather see fire mages using a fireshield... when those approaching to hit you get burned and where arrows and the like get burned upo on approach. Instead we get yet another "wall of defense" force field. The most egregious to me was the one you mention... the "animal lover" college whose basic defensive spells causes local animals to throw themselves in, taking the shots for the mage... again represented by the oh so points efficient force field. to each his own of course.

I ran three different Fh campaigns and played in two. None had the same magic system. in each the "balances" between "classes" varied a great deal. Given the relative absence of a formal system for creating wizards and warriors, with even the new FH not going to include an official magic system, this seems hard to justify. I would agree completely that a GM can create a magic system and limit his players choices to achieve different balance results between "classes." in FH. Then again, they can do the same thing in "certain other systems" where even with classes modifying classes is not only endorsed but encouraged, albeit recommend in moderation. Regardless, balance is only relevent when gauged against the challenges presented by the GM. its the needs and necessities of the scenario, adventure and campaign that determines the "power" of any individual character and the "weakness" of any other, barring the grossest of abberations. The grossest of abberations wont appear in a classed system as often as they will in a pointed one, particular a pointed one with a high learning curve.

with that high a DCv my guess is your dive for cover is ptretty good. That combined wih the half size AOE attacks normally are should be Ok for the most part. I would strongly advise looking at a very simple way to reflect that you slip most of the brunt of an attack... buy stun. your high stun is an easy indicator of how much an attack hurts you. Damage recution 50% requires an acrobatic skill roll for both PD and ED is going yo run you 40 points. Compare this to the benefits of +10 CON and +20 stun or maybe +10 CON (-1/2 not vs figureds) and +27 stun or even the benefit of +40 stun. How many successive hits in a combat will be required before you save as much stun from DR as you could have bought stun for the same points? Would you still be conscious? By the time 50% DR has saved you 40 stun, you have lost 40 stun... are you still awake? When you are high DCv the frequency of hits is low, so the WALL OF DEFENSE or even DR is less effective than just being tough... ie taking a lot of damage.

While I am not a fan of luck having a major role, which is why i love that modern DND has chargen systems officially available which have no luck involved (point buy) and i use them, I think luck would be preferable in moderation to a heavy swing towards skill. In my ideal whimsical myth of a game, neither would play a significant role. A newbie player would have every bit as much a chance to generate a character just as efficiently as a veteran would. The "system" would not get in the way. The "system" would not favor 14 over 13 oir vice versa and would make either worth what you paid and nothing more. Unfortunately, that system does not exist yet. One of the things i use in judging the merits of s system is its learning curve and i gauges it in terms of both... ready for this... frequency and severity. FREQUENCY: How long is it going to be that a newbie player needs to ask advice when creating characters? How long before they will feel comfortable? How long before they are veterans? HERO has a high frequency, it will last for a long time, maybe forever, to get the hang of it. DND has a much lower frequency. After 1-2 characters or even 1 character for a while, the hang of the system is grasped. One of the reasons this is true is the classed system gives you delineated examples. SEVERITY: How gross a difference will there be between a veteran built character and a rank newbie? How severe will the power level or efficiency difference be Iseen in play? HERO has again a high severity. THe differences will be drastic, evidenced in play and just very difficult to ignore. DND with core classes, is not too bad. DND with all the various and sundried PRCs and splatbook feats and splatbook spells... is more like HERO. I dont see it as quite there, but it may well be close to as severe as hero.

Re: Winter in Maine [/b] Actually, a bias based on your own subjective definition of what entails "balance" and what causes it. Well, I am perhaps unbaised enough to know the difference between a subjective definition such as "what is game balance" and an objective observation such as "what temperature does the thermometer read?" Until you can recognize even the slightest difference between the two things you are trying to compare, we probably have little hope in meaningful communication. Aside from the various units issues (degrees f, degrees C or in wierd situations degres K) a temperature reading is an objective thing. Game balance is not. Now, there would be the argument that what constitutes "cold" weather for some might not be considered "cold" weather for others, However i doubt anyone would classify Maine as anything but cold in the wintertime. Ok, then I may be confused. Did you say balance in DND "is" a joke or "was" a joke? If someone wrote a post complaining about balance issues and rules conflicts in HERO system or Champions and left out that they were talking about 3rd edition would you consider it a reasonable complaint or criticism? Should we populate these threads with discussions of 20 year old rules that have long since been changed? So, lets talk about ECs in second edition and how they worked? Again, if you consider game balance to be as objective a thing as a temperature measurement, then I doubt there is much more going to come of this. As i stated earlier, game balance is derived IMO from the choices made by the Gmas to what challenges he presents his players and their characters. Barring the grossest of mismatches (character A has exactly everything B has and also has these extra things) there wont be any objective imbalances. I will also point out that those grossest of imbalances (A has exactly everything B has and then some) are MORE likely to appear in a points system (Player A and B build silimar characters but B is far more experienced than a at milking the system) and typically wont occur in a classed system where the gaining of abilities is scheduled and is irregardless of "minmaxing aptitude." Or in other words... If two players sit down in DND to generate "10th level fighters" then even when one is far more skilled than the other and more knowledgable about using the system, they will end up with trade offs that compensate to some degree at least. If two players sit down to generate two FH fighters and when one is far more skilled and experienced at milking the system it is entirely possible for one to end up clearly superior with no relevent compensations. Heck, finessing the rounding rules alone could produce it.

Yamo... I think part of the issues arising here stem from trying to decide how the world works based on how the system works, making the "reality" fit the system than vice versa. So, in NON-HERO speak, what are the three most significant difference you want to see palpable and evidenced in game session play between a mage character and a cleric character? What are the important difference you want to show in your world between the two? *************************** Also, what are the gods like in your world? Their aspects will greatly determine some of the answers you are looking for here. Are there a few, maybe less than 6, or are there many of myriad different levels and perhaps even different pantheons? Do they typically remain aloof from direct contact or is this a Greek mythos where bastard offspring make up the typical world of the hero and where it is even likely that some of your adventuring party is of divine lineage? (I had some divine ancestor package deals in the kit for my Grecian HERO game a while back.) ************************** A different question, to try and set a context, is this already presuming that mages are using your unrestricted VPP system for spells, where it can be assumed that a mage has access to practically any spell?

for a game world i was generating i decided to take the differentiation a step further. Dieties gave blessings to their devout followers in reward for service. now you did not have to be a priest to get a blessing but it sure helped. So i would not have "spells" at all for religious types. instead they would get blessings which were simply supernatural abilities bought as powers without the typical worry of massive limitations.

In last weeks DND game... The party barbarian, after being offered team leadership... "I will not be leader." pause pause pause then she continued "So, this is what we will do..." and she proceeded to tell them all what to do. As the others listened intently, i about fell out of my chair.

putting into HERO-speak some of the options i have used in games as well as variants on what are mentioned above.... ask yourself do we typically see in comics super-hero devices just breaking in routine combats? I think the answer is "no." Superhero gadgets tend to break for dramatic reasons. There is something more than normal heroing involved or its an integral part of the story. So consider the following notions... All foci get the extra durability for free as mentioned in the rules now. All foci ignore specific damage from NND, penetrating, lots of Ap etc, in that kind of like a beam, those pinpoint penetrations and effects do get thru but don't break things. In addition all foci tend to have a FX of attack that is particularly effective against them. When in the presence of these FX, the items will often malfunction or maybe even shut down. This may occur if the item is not directly stuck, maybe only requiring the character to be affected or in some cases even just being nearby. If Crimson Cavalier is hit with an EB electric attack, he will likely find thatv one or more of his suits powers have been shut down due to circuitry burnouts. A little shop time is probably all that is needed to replace the burned out circuits. Warlock's Amulet of Healing is a talisman of the sun god Pelor. When affected by supernatural darkness it has a tendency to shut down and no longer function. Diaphonos Amethyst psionic crystal is very delicately attuned and the presence of sonic effects such as flashes and blasts or even so very potent ultrasonics like perhaps sonat will cause it to become unstable until it has had time to "settle down" and restore its harmonious rhythms Basically by using the foci weakness as much more akin to a combo of susceptability, vulnerability or limited power you get away from 'it just breaks" and into a flavor and FX derived implementation of the flaw. Just like they do in the comics. :-)

the big downside to unbreakable foci, btb, is the tougher to replace. With any focus, you KNOW it will be lost. Regardless of your actions, you will lose the power and more than once or twice, frequently enough to be a problem. With breakable foci, one of the methods at the Gms disposal is damage and that damage can be enough to break it entirely or it can just knock off one or teo effects. These are typically fairly quick to repair, maybe a session or two. So, you have basically a lot of slight interruptions in power for relatively short periods. Think of it as paying off your foci loan in small monthly installments. An unbreakable focus ignores most of that. it will be taken from you. (No, i did not say people will TRY to take it from you. It WILL be taken from you.) however, since a duplicate cannot be just whipped up in a lab, it will be a long, complex and trying process to have a shot at getting it back. You might well be without it for months at a time. (and remember, this will not be a one time event!) You will be acting for a significant period of time, multiple sessions and perhaps an entire story arc without the gadget. Think of this as paying off your foci with a few large baloon payments. I too tended to require unbreakable foci be unique items, special items, that could not be readily replaced without lengthy effort and time. I rarely saw unbreakable foci used as they really do not fit most concepts. most super hero objects that are unbreakable never seem to get taken away, which means they are pretty much not foci. OIHID at best (if there is a problem associated with starting the power) or just FX. Either way, IMO, especially for foci breakage and play, i would express to the player that the value of the lim reflects the frequency and severity of the problems which will be encountered and they will be encountered because of the lim and irregardless of the machinations done to try and skirt them. The cost savings were a loan and the payments are the trouble caused.

i think the foci breakage rules are seriously broken as it comes to reflecting the comic genre. The fact that durability where you radically change the def value of the item is a "no point" change goes a long way to showing you the issues. The fact that the option of just ignoring the foci breaking rules or some of them is suggested again points to mehcanical issues. As such, specifically tweaked to break foci powers that exploit these porrly designed breakage rules seems to me to be a very bad way to go. you are in effect glorifying the problems with the rules and not representing the genre or story in the game. So, rather than direct my players attentions to the rules flaws for foci, i would tell them that there are many and myriad ways the foci limitation will come into play and few of them will be as direct as "just blasting it." You may find your battlesuit's computer systems taken over and you effectively losing control of your character as a former employee who worked on the systems software decides to exact revenge. You may find your SMG is magnetized and seizes up after you took that magnetic blast from Magnum. You may find that a botched summoning ritual released a wave of chaotic energy across the city and your Amulet of Power is, like most every other magic item in the city, now corrupted and until you spend a day or two with cleansing rituals it will be highly unstable and unpredictable in use. Thats just for starters.

if you claim "aiming at the planet" to get the huge DCV penalty, then you hit somewhere on the planet. A hit location chart perhaps broken down by continent would be appropriate to determine where the shot landed. If you then wanted to use a "called shot rule" to try and hit a specific HEX on the planet so that your shots will hit there, you should expect a to hit penalty to represent the difficulty in hitting the single hex. Call me silly but after the DCV penalty and the called shot penalty, i bet most GMs would agree the net result ends up being DCV3 to hit a hex. Amazing thing that.

Re: Re: HEEEEEEEELPPPPPPP! is not a useful title.... Your bias is duly noted. Its good to get that established right up front. :-) Some would disagree with your relative characterizations, noting that game balance when characters have a defined progression of abilities linked by a thematic development (classes) and defined norms for off-the-books equipment as well as availability of said equipment is a lot easier than when a character has free reign to purchase anything he wants (limited by points) and where there are no standards for off-the-books equipment. "Points" are no more "inherently" balanced than classed. ******************* Now, of course, on top of both are the GM and his campaign guidelines and the approval process. Both systems seem to have some semblance of balance once that level of intercession is included and BOTH systems rely on that level of oversight implicitly for balance. Matter of fact, some would say that, and this is my opinion as noted in my sig, this level of oversight is the only significant contributor to this strange and dubious thing we all like to call "game balance." Of course, as heretical as this may sound, its conclusion is even more inescapable, if the GM is the sole significant contributor to game balance, why do all that math that HERo requires and mandates? ************************** Of course, the good herophile will turn it around and ask, "why have classes if all the balance comes from the GM?" The answer is... balance isn't everything. The classes provide useful information to the player as to the nature and types of characters and traits existent in the world. They make wonderful "world-at-a-glance" snapshots of understanding of his character's world and experiences. heck, the DND classes are probably the single most significant element in "world underatanding" in that system. If i say "build characters using the PHb classes 'cause thats what i am using and BTW i will not be using PrCs at all tho NPC classes from the DMG will be used." the players just got a significant info dump of "what the world is like." Saying "build on 150, 75+75" does not do this at all.

Yamo... A followup on my earlier post... In my experience, unlimited VPPs (the choose any spell) are grossly potent when it comes to overall game impact (as opposed to tactical impact.) At 40 ap. in a fantasy game, such a pool would enable the mage to be the wonder-tool-kit deisgning a spell of the moment (or of the half-hour or whatever the time frame is) to solve most any physical or strategic problem with summoning horses, creating food, fly spells for everyone, ghost form spells and things like clairvoys and mind scans again on the fly (a cumulative mind scan is potent even at lower levels.) Now, if you are envisioning your game in an Ars MAgica or MAGE style, where it is intended for mages to be head-n-shoulders above the rest in terms of their influence and capabilities in solving the myriad problems the PCs will encounter, then this VPP thing wont be a problem, after all, you would expect most PCs to actually be mages and the fighter/rogue types to be more minion-esque. However, if you are wanting a more traditional fantasy novel/movie approach where when there are PC mages they are on par with the other character types such as fighter and rouge in terms of capabilities, then the unrestricted VPP approach is in my experience a less than optimal approach. just my thoughts. enjoy your games.

[/b] Me neither, which is why i was glad when they dropped it from DND in favor of the prepared rituals (what is it in hero again? Delayed effect?) where the bulk of the spell is cast in prep time out of combat and only a few releasing or triggering components are used at "casting" time. Still, i personally prefer the "until you run out of magic juice" throw any spell you know sort like you get from slow recovering mana reserves and multipowers. Call me a traditionalist but i much prefer to have spells be a commodity and not just an assumption. (Not to mention having gotten seriously tired of unrestricted VPPs as a cure all... we need a scout...mage turn billy invisible...we need a steed... mage turn billy into a horse.... we need to get thru this wall ... mage dial up a transform... we need an X... mage dial-an-answer... why are the rest of us here?... to cover the mage while he dials the answer...) The danger from an unrestricted (all spells known) VPP is not its tactical use but its strategic use and with just a few VPPs able to be arranged on a moments notice most any challenge other than direct immediate combat has a dial-a-spell answer. Heck, the potential for aid abuse is worrisome enough. or with variations on delayed effect. Thats closest to the current DND model. I think HERO recommends actually a char/5 or some sort.