GAZZA

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Re: Background Skill in Combat

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs It's a fair question; there's probably a board somewhere here that you can pose that directly to the publishers. I would have imagined that with the size of France and French-Canada alone, there'd be a reasonable market at least for a pdf translation.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs That's not an insult. An insult would be if I called you stupid. Your tone is arrogant; you are, essentially, a beginner coming into a discussion with several experienced players and insisting that your position is correct despite enormous patience in explaining to you what is wrong. And you started it by calling me a joker mate, so don't play the victim here. However, I'm happy to pull back to a more respectful tone. That's basically fine then. That's correct. If only the rest of your reply didn't suggest you don't, in fact, subscribe to that position. Ah, thank you for clarifying. The list of complications I gave is 75 points, which is standard for a 400 point superhero. I flat out do not believe that the basic rules say the limit for total complications points for a 400 point superhero is 50 points. The example character may not be using all his possible points, but that doesn't mean that you can't. In the highly unlikely case that the basic rules do say that, then they are in error. That certainly isn't the case in the full rules. You have misinterpreted this. There is a maximum number of complication points you can take and receive points for - but it is 75, not 50, for a 400 point superhero. If a 400 point superhero takes 100 points of Complications, he nonetheless only gets 400 points to play with (and not 425). But if he takes only 50 points, he's still allowed to take another 25 points of Complications to bring him up to a 400 point character. Note that these limits change depending on genre; heroes (as opposed to superheroes) have different limits. Note that I was careful to specify HSR6e1 pp46. That is, I'm not referring to a page number in the basic rules. I have said, many times, that I neither own the basic rules nor have any need to do so; I own the full rules. I do not believe the basic rules contradict the full rules, but if they do clearly the full rules are the definitive source. I am unable to assist you in tracking down page number equivalents for the basic rules, however. If the basic rules don't say that you can spend STUN to power abilities if you've run out of END, then they have omitted it in the interests of conciseness. The full rules certainly permit this, as page 46 of Volume 1 illustrates. Right, because you missed the part where I said I was quoting from HSR6e1, not the basic rules. I don't even know how many pages the basic rules have, I'm certainly not able to give you page numbers for it. In the full rules, it gives this information under the description of the END characteristic. It may or may not also do this in the basic rules. It is largely irrelevant anyway, for two reasons: 1. The basic rules are a simplified subset of the full rules; the full rules take precedence. 2. Even if you dismiss that, it is 100% legal to buy a power that you cannot actually use. It's silly, but it's not illegal. You could, for example, spend 400 points on Blast 240d6, only on your 18th birthday (-2). This is a 1200 active point power, that costs 400 real points. If you start your character off at 20 years of age, you will never be able to use this ability in the campaign. But it is technically still a legal character. Note that this power would require 120 END to use as well; that doesn't make it any less legal even though this character has only 20 END. You're confusing two different things here. Getting stunned or knocked out before using the power is dependent on situation. It is true that most situations calling for use of this power will be combat, and that the foes such a character would face will likely go before such a character and knock him out or even kill him before he gets a chance to act. But they might miss. And he might just decide to use this power while he's shopping for cat food, where there are no foes around. However, even if there are no foes around, or they all miss, or whatever, he will still almost certainly knock himself out by using the power - but it won't be before using it in this case. You pay the END cost (including burning STUN, if required) after resolving the activation of the power. He'll still get to do (on average) 80 BODY and 280 STUN to someone, assuming he hits (which is unlikely for a supervillain opponent, but fairly probable against an adjacent wall to the aisle where he's selecting tins of food for his cat). As well you might, but that's not why I find you amazingly arrogant. I find you amazingly arrogant in your insistence that you know better than everyone else even though they are much more experienced than you are, and even though apparently you do not even own the full rules. Note that I think telling a player that he can't change his mind about a character to be a bit of a jerk move, but that's a completely separate issue. If you don't want players being munchkins, you're better off rejecting their character concepts and giving them some more reasonable guidelines rather than letting them play and then screwing them over. Setting up an adversarial relationship with your players is rarely a recipe for a harmonious game, unless perhaps you're playing Paranoia or some other comedy game. So we come full circle, and now you acknowledge that the character is legal? That's fine. It was a throwaway example of mine, not something I seriously expected to still be trying to explain 50 odd posts later. I disagree that it's better to let the player try and fail rather than tell them in advance that "It's a dumb idea, here's why, and this idea would be better..." as apart from any moral considerations you're just wasting play time by letting him play that and then killing it off before he ends up making a more reasonable character. However, if your own style preference falls towards this, that's up to you of course.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Which power isn't free? I have no idea what you're talking about. Again, I don't claim this character has 40 END. He has 20 END. I said that, explicitly. 20. Not 40. He can, nonetheless, still fire off an 80d6 Blast. Having done so, he will have 0 END remaining and have taken (on average) 35 STUN damage, leaving him with -15, so he'll knock himself out. So tactically, it's a bad choice especially if he's facing multiple foes. But it is legal. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. Vondy said that there was nowhere in the rules that said you can't spend 400 points on a single power. You replied "BR p14, the example". Now, I interpret that reply of yours to mean "It says on page 14 of the basic rules, under the example, that you can't spend 400 points on a single power." Is this not what you meant? Assuming that is indeed what you meant, my reply was that despite the fact I don't own the basic rules, I am 100% sure that there's no way it says that. You have now said that you you quoted page 4 somewhere - did you mean page 14, or did you get the page number wrong? As I said, I don't have the basic rules and there's no reason for me to (as I have the Hero System 6th edition volumes 1 and 2, which are a more comprehensive version of the rules). So I'm unable to tell you what page 14 of the basic rules says, and why it doesn't say what you apparently think it says. Someone else may be able to help there. However, I don't think you even believe that. You are cycling between claiming that: - You can't spend 400 points on a single power - You can, but you won't be able to use it because you don't have enough END - You can, and you can fire it off (knocking yourself out), and you won't let the poor player that didn't know that change his mind Which of these three is your actual belief? Here's how it looks to me. It looks to me as if you were initially of the first opinion, that subsequent to the proof you were wrong you slipped into the second, and that now after further proof you have retreated to the last position. That's fine if it's true - there is no shame in admitting you were wrong, Hero is a moderately complex system, but you must realise by now that you are being amazingly arrogant in your presumption that the rest of us (including people that helped write the book you're quoting from) are wrong, and you are right.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs I gave you a list of complications. Go read that or make your own up. I'm not going to repeat myself every reply. It is difficult to make out what you're saying, but it sounds as if you think that you think the ability to spend STUN when you don't have END is a power that costs points. That isn't true; anyone can do that, it's part of the system. But I haven't put any points into any other powers. All I'm saying is that characters are allowed to burn STUN when they have insufficient END. It's under the description of the characteristic in the Hero System Rulebook 1, page 46. It is possible the basic rules omit this, which means you'll be unable to confirm it, but if you have access to the full books by all means look it up. Huh? I'm not saying that I expect to not be knocked out. I even pointed out that would happen! And of course I wouldn't actually create this character. I just said it was legal. For goodness sake man, I realise that English may not be your first language, and I'm trying to be patient, but you aren't listening! I don't have the basic rules. But I am 100% certain that page 14 doesn't say "By the way, you can't spend all 400 points on a single power." You are misinterpreting it.

Re: Background Skill in Combat Indeed, I was basically just giving the writeup as an example for characters that want to be able to use any weapon. The everyman skill bit was just a throw-it-in there.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs My hair isn't green, and I'm not wearing make up, and frankly more of a Marvel fan. I didn't forget them, Hugh didn't mention them, so I assumed you weren't referring to those when you said his quoted base values were wrong. I don't have the cliff notes, but they're both 20 right? Which I not only acknowledged, I told you two different ways that didn't matter (both of which have been independently suggested by Hugh and ghost angel, two of the most knowledgeable frequent posters here). Which again, is not in dispute, and in fact is worse than you imagine (he'll be knocked out, not just stunned). If you're going to disagree with the parts that I'm not disputing this could take a long time. Here, let's make it simple. At what point has anybody ever suggested the following: - That the 80d6 Blast was a good character concept - That it would take less than 40 END to use (unless it has charges) - That it would be wielded with better than OCV 3, at a DEX higher than 10, or with a SPD higher than 2 - That the character would have no complications to make up the extra 75 points I'm saying that nobody has said any of these, and yet you seem to be arguing as if we were. The sole claim we're making is that the character is legal - not that it's a good character, not that it will dominate play, not that it is remotely playable. Just legal. The same way my other examples of bad characters are legal but equally unplayable.

Re: Background Skill in Combat What about +3 Combat Levels (all combat), only to offset weapon unfamiliarity (-1)? 15 points to never have to ever care again. And make it an Everyman skill for campaigns where you don't want to care for anybody.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs In a standard campaign, he'll probably be knocked out by an average 10d6 attack (he only has PD and ED of 2, and STUN of 20), and he'll go after anyone with a DEX higher than 10 even in the first phase 12 of the combat. So yes, he's not likely to be conscious long enough to use his power. Nobody said it was a good character, only a legal one. Not over. You do understand that starting superheroes, by default, are going to be built on exactly 400 points, of which 325 will be "free" and 75 will come from complications? Or do you think, for some reason, that complications are horribly debilitating things that nobody ever takes and so most characters are built on just the 325? Because that is a very incorrect impression. As far as being able to hit the target... well, he can spread his Blast if he wants to, getting up to a +79 to his OCV. But that's really neither here nor there - nobody is saying you should play this character, or even that most GMs would permit you to do so; we're just saying that by the book it is a legal character. It is, if you like, an extreme case. By arguing specifically against this you miss the point. Hugh gave an excellent example earlier of someone with "only" a 60d6 Blast, and enough OCV and Lightning Reflexes to make effective use of it. That character doesn't have the "can't hit" or "too much END" problems you seem to be obsessed with, and it cleverly doesn't even have the "won't get to use it before getting knocked out" issue you've just noticed. The point is not that one specific character (with an 80d6 Blast) is abusive, and coming up with incorrect statements about its legality or dubious evaluations of its playability is to miss this; the point is that the points alone are not enough to create balanced characters - that is why campaign guidelines are used in many games.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs I have read and reread the corresponding section in HSR6e1 (I don't have the basic rules, those are a subset, as has been pointed out) and I cannot understand where anyone would get the impression that purple justice is coming up with. I'm not trying to be rude, but purple justice: you need to read it again mate. That isn't what it says, and if you think it is, you haven't understood it. I could tell you how long I've been playing the Hero System and 6th edition specifically, but I'm not going to use an "Appeal To Authority" fallacy when it's not even necessary to do so - my experience with the system is not a factor in reading comprehension. The Hero System is, perhaps, not the clearest it could be for new players, so a misinterpretation is understandable, but believe me - it is a misinterpretation. Note that nobody is saying you should let a dude that rocks up with an 80d6 Blast into the game. We're just saying that it is a legal character. It's not a playable one, but it's legal. You could also have any of the following examples, just to make it perfectly clear: - A character with 410 Strength, and all other characteristics at their base levels with no powers or skills. - A character with Inventor 209-, a 25 STUN, and all other characteristics at their base levels with no powers and no other skills. - A character with a Contact 409-, all characteristics at base levels, and no skills or powers. - You get the idea. None of these are good characters either, but they are legal. A choice quote: HSR6e1pp32: "The HERO System doesn't establish any restrictions you can spend Character Points on. If you want to spend most of them on Characteristics and just a few on Skills, you can; if you want to buy a lot of Powers for your character but leave him with more or less ordinary Characteristics, you can." As far as the 40 END required to fire the 80d6 Blast, there are two answers here. Firstly, you buy the blast with 16 charges (a -0 limitation). Secondly, you could accept that it will knock you out - you'll have 20 END, so you have to power up the other 20 via STUN loss. That will inflict 10d6 STUN on you, averaging 35, so you'll knock yourself out for a while. But it's legal. Note that insisting on the basic rules is like complaining to people that have read Hamlet that they haven't read the cliff notes.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Wow, that's kind of an extreme "Universe was created last Tuesday" thing.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Splitting a mighty fine hair I think. Depends on what you mean by "arbitrary". It's not arbitrary in the dictionary sense - it has a justifiable reason, the reason is "we don't want situations where we are comparing massively disparate chances to hit, damage, etc". It's arbitrary in another sense - there's no obvious real world reason for it - but I'm not really sure that's something where we would necessarily say that arbitrary was bad. Yes, obviously, it was a correction rather than a dismissal. For what it's worth, I think total CV limits should be more elastic. It's not really fair that OCV 10 man should be allowed while not letting OCV 4 man with 7 combat levels in Karate shouldn't be, in my opinion. But most GMs publish campaign guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Eh... I disagree. Reason from effect. If I have an effective OCV of 15, it doesn't matter whether I bought that as: - +12 CSLs with rifles (36 points) - +12 OCV (60 points) - Some mix of the two. In fact if you want to be specific, the CSLs are less problematic, since there will be cases where they don't apply. (Incidentally OCV is, of course, a characteristic, so saying that a CSL cap is less arbitrary than "... a skill roll cap or a characteristic cap ..." is technically self refuting).

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs Well, see, that's a bait and switch. If you are allowed to buy 20pts worth of 2pt CSLs and use them as written, it isn't fair that you'd force limitations to my 80d6 Blast. My point is that no system, not even Hero, can possibly balance "a point is a point". 5 points worth of Power A can never be exactly the same as 5 points worth of Skill B or Characteristic C. That's why campaign guidelines for maximum CV, SPD, Active Points, defenses, and so on usually exist. Granted some GMs find those too restrictive, and loosen them accordingly, but a total free-for-all is the sort of thing that can only work when the players impose such restrictions on themselves.

Re: Background Skill in Combat Err, there's no WF for unarmed combat, if that's what you're asking. Everyone can do that. (And as Tasha reminds me above, you can even use clubs and so forth without any weapon familiarities).

Re: Background Skill in Combat Lost his weapon to another character, or lost his weapon and grabbed a similar one? Strictly speaking, if you didn't pay points for the weapon, and you don't have WF, then you're at -3 OCV. I can't think of too many cases where I've actually remembered that in the heat of the moment, nor do I generally apply it if a brick throws a car at someone (it is, after all, technically a thrown weapon). That's not to say that I wouldn't apply it if I did remember, it just doesn't come up that often in my superhero games.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs No, that isn't the way it works. The 8 point level is broader than (say) a 5 point level, but you are allowed to have 2 5 point levels and no 8 point levels. This isn't uncommon in fact. That is legal, although it will break the maximum OCV limits in many games. Just like you can't usually have an 80d6 Blast for a 400 point character, even though you can technically afford it.

Re: Self Resurrection So far so good. However, Regeneration is a persistent power, and doesn't turn off when you aren't injured (it just doesn't happen to do anything useful - much like Life Support breathe underwater doesn't do anything while you're in air, but it isn't switched off). That would seem to imply that by this reasoning, if you have ever died, your "resurrection only" Regeneration will be active (there isn't any reason to switch it off - I suppose it could be Dispelled, but that's a corner case at best). If Dispelling really bothered you can you take Inherent on it? There isn't any clear reason why not. I grant you that "resurrection only Regeneration kicks in as soon as you are 'dead' and deactivates once you are at full BODY" is a reasonable way to rule it though. Perhaps we just assume that "deactivates once you are at full BODY" is part of the "resurrection only" limitation.

Re: Self Resurrection Apart from anything else that's worth way more than -1. For Mechanon style resurrection, I think Summon is probably the best way to do it (with "summoner is incapacitated and helpless until summoned creature dies" as a limitation) - Summoned creatures don't penalise you if they die, whereas Duplicates can't be replaced on death. Granted you can just spend 5 more points and double the number of duplicates, but I think Summon is "cleaner" - you can whack on limitations like "Extra Time (to construct creature)" and "Only in laboratory" and so on to bring the cost down (you will of course require Slavishly Loyal).

Re: Self Resurrection

Re: Cybernetics In Shadowrun or Cyberpunk there are no reasons not to cyber yourself to the gills without some sort of artificial "humanity" or "essence" mechanic (at least Shadowrun has the "makes you bad at magic" semi-excuse; Cyberpunk it always felt like pure metagaming). Hero shouldn't have this problem, since you're paying points for it (assuming it is actually better than your meat arm was). If cyberpsychosis was real, I wonder how the plague of serial killers from contact lense wearers and cochlear implants has been so successfully covered up by the Illuminati. By a strict definition of the word "cybernetic" even someone like me that wears glasses is a cyborg. And I rarely kill people.

Re: Rescue/Kidnap Teleport That isn't what I said. I said the main 6e rulebook is generic, which is a very different statement from saying that Hero is historically a generic system (the latter is not even a defensible statement, since Champions predates Hero). I don't use the system much outside of superheroes myself, but the main rulebook gives power examples that are not only superheroic in nature - which is as it should be. I'm not sure I agree, but for a completely different reason. I've never been happy with using UAA for anything. In my opinion it's basically a hack - the cost of being able to Teleport others (or extradimensionally move them, inflict Flight on them - whatever) isn't particularly highly correlated to the cost of being able to do that yourself, so applying an advantage to allow it to do that has never really struck me as a "correct" way to do it. (UBO is different; it is specifically UAA - what used to be called UAO - that I'm complaining about here). For very few active points you get can a Flight power UAA that will eventually put a non-flier into orbit, or some other similarly fatal occurrence (perhaps just turning it off when they're high enough to impose terminal velocity on the resulting fall). Which is not to say I have any better ideas. Transform would work as a substitute, but Transform suffers from the same pricing problems (many permanent effects cost the same, even though some are worse than others, and Transform doesn't have any real way to limit how far you can teleport someone, or whatever). I suppose you could work something up that involved a sort of Grab-By-And-Throw to simulate teleporting someone, but it isn't clear how you would simulate that "being really strong" isn't always the proper defence to resist it. (You can often use Telekinesis instead of Flight UAA though).