GAZZA

Re: New Mechanic: Shield Framework

So, for example:

Shield Framework - 62 point reserve [62 Active/62 Real]

1) 4d6 RKA vs ED [60 Active/60 Real]

2) 12d6 Flash Sight [60 Active/60 Real]

3) 2d6 RKA vs ED, Continuous, Uncontrolled [62 Active/62 Real]

for a flaming guy; the sfx is when you touch him there's a bright flash of heat which hurts a lot and may blind you, and in addition you get set on fire.

244 Active Points; for comparison:

EC, 75 pt reserve "Damage Shield" [75 Active/75 Real]

1) 4d6 RKA vs ED, Damage Shield, Continuous [150 Active/75 Real]

2) 12d6 Flash Sight, Damage Shield, Continuous [150 Active/75 Real]

3) 2 1/2d6 RKA vs ED, Continuous, Uncontrolled, AE: One Hex Accurate, Trigger (when touched; attacks the toucher; resets automatically +1)

[160 Active/85 Real]

310 Active Points.

It's interesting. The base proposal (ie one power as the Damage Shield) is basically similar to a +1 advantage, which sounds about right.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Well, except for the fact that STUN doesn't get divided for Reduced Penetration...

Comic's idea seems functionally identical to buying extra defences "vs BODY only (-1 1/2)". A lot less than a +1 if you want to do it with advantages.

For example: let's say you have 20 PD/20 ED Armour (60 Active Points). To do it "the limitation way" costs an extra 24 points, so anything more than +1/2 looks suspect.

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

Um' date=' I already covered this with the previous build example. The "set people on fire" effect is covered by Uncontrolled and Sticky (added on top of the Continuous and Damage Shield).[/quote']

My understanding is that Sticky applies the entire power to the "stickified dude", which means in turn that anyone who touches you gets their very own Damage Shield - am I wrong about that?

 

Are you arguing costs or just the Advantage-Labels used to display the costs?

Neither; I'm honestly confused about what Continuous is supposed to mean. If the Damage Shield advantage didn't exist, you wouldn't need Continuous Triggers to get the effect, so I'm not really sure what Damage Shield needs it for (if it's just to make it cost +1 1/2, then I don't really understand why they didn't simply go ahead and set that as the cost). I'm also unsure why Continuous can stack with some Constant powers (like Suppress) but not with itself (since it's supposed to make Instant powers Constant).

 

I'm coming to the suspicion that this is a Mental Paralysis/Regeneration situation - that is, using an advantage to change something to do something different that isn't exactly in line with what that advantage normally does.

Re: OK, I don't understand Continuous

Umm,

+1 1/2 IS what the cost of the basic Damage Shield and Continous add up to. So you're basically saying that an Advantage that allows an attack power of a character automatically effect anyone who attacks the character in HTH combat regardless of your character's phases shouldn't include the Continuous Advantage in it's description because that doesn't sound like a Contuous effect? That's rich.

I think that the way Damage Shield works has more in common with Trigger than with Continuous.

For example: I don't see anything wrong with the idea of FlameGuy having a Damage Shield that will set anyone who touches him on fire. But that is quite tricky to build with Damage Shield; the "set people on fire" effect is a Continuous effect itself, but (AFAIK - I'm still not really sure on this) you aren't permitted to "stack" Continuous.

It would be trivial to implement with Trigger, though, were it not for the "Trigger can't duplicate Damage Shield" prohibition.

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

(Btw' date=' do you mean if if you're outmatching in this case? Either way, irrelevant.)[/quote']

I phrased that exceptionally poorly.

 

What I meant was more along the following lines: either I'm a 350 point super going up against Mechanon, or I'm a 350 point super going up against Generic Mook #13. Either way it's a mismatch. Either way the outcome should not be in doubt.

 

That's what I meant by "mismatched".

 

With a KA in the hands of me-vs-Mechanon or Mook-vs-me, then the outcome is in doubt, because the underdog here has a weapon that has an effectiveness out of proportion to its Active Points.

 

The nature of KA's is heightened, non-accidental (therefore intentional or depravedly indifferent) lethality, the way the nature of tunneling is to move through the ground. It's not an option to choose or not choose it as a limitation.

 

KA is a mechanic, not a special effect. Even if the "default" social attitude towards things like guns and swords is antagonistic and for some reason lightning bolts and fire blasts are okey dokey (though I wouldn't want them marrying my sister), one can certainly envisage a special effect that used the KA mechanic but didn't have that social issue. What's wrong with the idea of (say) a STUN-only KA? There really shouldn't be a problem with it. It's just a mechanic. Perhaps you want to simulate something that either hurts a lot or barely hurts at all, but never does any "real" damage? Sure there are lots of ways to do that - this is Hero after all - but a KA fits that model pretty well.

 

However, your point is sound. As Sun Tzu said, "The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy's will to be imposed on him."

That explains why both of us keep arguing, at any rate.

 

So long as you have a choice of who to attack, and you (or I) treat the KA as the superior threat, we ought to remove that threat before any other, if we are able.

I have perhaps not been clear here. "Focus your attacks on the more dangerous foe", sure. No problem. Good idea. (I'll be right behind you... you first... ).

 

But IMHO, if you're using Hero or any other point based system, "more dangerous foe" should mean, all else being equal, "one who has the attack with the highest DC".

 

I don't have a problem with someone having a bigger gun than me, if they've paid more points for it. It's when I've bought the gun that is supposed to do more STUN/less BODY and you've paid the same points to get one that is supposed to do more BODY (against less defences)/less STUN, and then it turns out you're actually doing more STUN than I am, that I begin to take issue.

 

So long as we have a KA, we can make sure the rational enemy will treat that threat as the priority, and thus more efficiently employ the combination of all our maneuvers and attacks against them.

Or as long as we have an AE 20d6 Energy Blast Selective with scads of combat levels we can make the same assumption. But I'm cool with the latter - it's expensive to buy, and it should be more dangerous (otherwise you're getting ripped off). I'm not so cool with the former - it's cheap to buy, and it shouldn't be more dangerous (otherwise I'm getting ripped off).

 

I also don't care if master villains drop in phase 12 Turn 1, or even before, if the overall campaign is well-developed and the play is fun and the GM prepared. Sure, it can be anti-climatic to win unexpectedly. I guess you'll just have to weep all the way to the victory parade.

I guess our experiences vary. If my players turned up for a session where they go up against the big bad, and it was over at DEX 26 Phase 12 Turn 1, they'd be pretty vocally disappointed. So much so that I'd almost certainly fudge things so that it didn't happen. Arguably substituting my house rule for KAs is exactly this type of fudging.

 

Wild results allow the interplay of probabilistic and parametric systems, which gives a superior range of game challenges.

I can't really agree with you there, because taken to the logical extreme that makes Snakes and Ladders a better game than chess.

 

If you're not in the mood for those challenges, or want to focus on a particular set of them, I'm fully behind you and support it. So long as you're doing it on purpose and realize that it is a limiting approach which may lead to unsatisfying results.

I'm not sure it's possible to create a house rule "accidentally". Any rule constitutes a "limiting approach" but it's highly incorrect to imply that limits are bad - limits are absolutely neutral (some are good, some are bad, some are necessary). Following the RAW is a limiting approach in and of itself; following the suggested campaign guidelines is a limiting approach; deciding to use Hero to play your RPG instead of M&M is a limiting approach. None of these are bad decisions; none of them are inferior decisions - the limit is established because in the eyes of whomever establishes the limit the alternative is worse and leads to "unsatisfying results". I consider the STUN lotto to be a very unsatisfying result.

 

I do dislike House Rules as a matter of taste. Takes away from my time spent understanding the campaign world to have to absorb spurious, needless or math-challenged 'improvements' that don't enrich the campaign itself.

Forgive me if I consider it highly unlikely that you never use house rules. If I'm wrong about that you constitute (IME) a unique example in all of roleplaying gamers I've ever met, talked with, or even heard about. Heck, most people that play board games use house rules.

 

And as far as whether or not they are improvements or otherwise - sometimes rules change. This is Hero 5th edition. Most of what changed since 1st edition probably had its origins in somebody's house rules. At least, I fervently hope so - it would be a shame to discover that nobody playtested them.

 

It's also the world of Darkness, Missile Deflection, Invisibility, Shape Shift, taking cover, Movement, Shrinking, Stretching, and the myriad other tactics available for coping with attacks.

Yes, but it makes more sense to compare a bowl of ice cream to a bowl of yoghurt than to a 747. KAs and EBs are both primary attacks that work directly against defences to do STUN and BODY. If you want to open a thread comparing the relative advantages of Darkness and Invisibility or something, I'd be intrigued to see it.

 

While Hulk is perfectly capable of soaking the damage of any number of punches, I've seen him dodge in combat. I've seen him missile deflect.

Which means that sometimes the guy punching you has a 10 STR, and sometimes he has a 250 STR. I've got no issue with "some attacks are better than others". My issue is that "better attacks should cost more".

 

All good things in moderation. Perfect predictability reduces any game to Tic Tac Toe.

Or chess.

 

And here's where the power of paradox comes. Less predictable elements can make an overall more predictable. The outcomes I've seen have made for more stable, rich and exciting games.

Just a case of YMMV.

 

In exactly the same way that I can still have fun with the RAW as they are (by house ruling KAs so they work, IMHO, "properly"), you would not be denied your enjoyment were they to change (you would have the option of treating dangerous attacks as having more AP, or if you wanted to you could house rule things back to the old way).

 

And in any case the KA mechanic isn't even always less predictable. 1 pip RKA, +22 STUN multiplier (+11) is a 60 active point attack that will do exactly 1 BODY and 22-27 STUN per attack - much less unpredictable than a 12d6 Energy Blast. Straw man? OK, dump the STUN multiplier and compare a 1 pip RKA to a 1d6 Energy Blast. Same AP, same level of predictability, and ignoring resistant defences, very near the same attack.

 

Spend 12 times as many points on an Energy Blast and you get an attack that is roughly 12 times as good. Spend 12 times as many points on a KA... well, I submit that that equation no longer holds. YMMV.

 

There's likely something else wrong if your game needs a set of house rules to fix something that by testimonial is no problem for many players. Oh. Wait. I was respecting the opposite view, as an essentially religious difference. Nevermind. Carry on.

I have no issues with "testimonials" by many players, but by no means are they at all convincing to me if all they constitute is testimonials. I don't play with any of those players; I'm sure they're well intentioned and honest, but that doesn't mean that I should treat their opinions as more important than my own any more than they should treat mine with any particular respect. That's all subjective. For all I know - and I've more than a small suspicion this is correct - that is simply because some gamers do not like to tinker as much as I do with their game.

 

Showing the math for one position or another is much more interesting and plausibly able to convince me otherwise, which is why I applaud your efforts in that direction - it is much more refreshing to see some solid objective reasoning for why KAs are not so bad. I'm still in the process of checking your math there.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

There isn't really a lot of point in my case. x0 and x1 would both yield the exact same result: no BODY and no STUN done (I only use Hero for Champions, and barring Penetrating attacks and the like KAs don't do BODY any more than normal attacks do).

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

Can someone explain to me what it is people want, that isn't satisfied by the above?

 

o An attack that scales up so superhumans are affected by it exactly the same way as normals? Why? Superhumans can teleport, read minds, suffer susceptibilities, and are unlike normal humans in so many ways that this is hardly a blip.

And yet Hero prides itself on being a universal system. So yes, I want an attack that scales up so superhumans are treated the same way as normals (proportionally, of course); it works for everything else, why not KAs?

o Spending less time unconscious? Adapt your strategies to cope with this unpleasant factor. It's what the learning process is for.

There is no strategy that can deal with blind luck. It's Phase 12, the start of the fight, between me and MismatchedOpponentMan (either way - either I'm a lot better than him and he should be no threat to me with a single attack, or the other way around). Either I go first, or he goes first. If I'm outmatched, and I go first, then despite all the strategic preparation he may have done, he has a not-insignificant chance of getting pasted if I pull out my "socially acceptable KA variant" (I didn't take the "people hate you" limitation ). If he's outmatched and goes first, same deal. If the guy doing the outmatching goes first (far more likely) then the strategic option is basically "take out the guy with the equal Active Points but mechanically superior attack first", which is frankly not something I recall Napolean or Machiavelli ever mentioning.

Now sure, a 12d6 attack can deliver 72 STUN, and that will almost certainly STUN you and quite possibly knock you out as well. It's not the fact that high numbers are possible that bothers me - it's purely a question of frequency (12d6 will deliver 72 STUN once in 2 176 782 336 rolls - I've been roleplaying since I was 10, and I'm now 34, and I don't think I've made that many rolls yet ).

o Being surer of what will happen in any given situation before the dice are rolled? Consider LARPing as a possibility, since that misses the point of dice.

I'm confused.

On the one hand, you seem to be arguing the following point:

Heroes who use KAs get really bad press. They shouldn't be doing it. So I don't see those Mastermind Villains dropping in phase 12 Turn 1 as often as you guys are claiming. Sure, villains might get lucky on the heroes occasionally, but villains are supposed to cheat.

But then you make a statement like the above, which instead seems to be saying:

Wild results are more fun. Those of you who like the relative predictability of bell curve distributions are babies - suck it up, wimps.

(Exaggerated for Comic effect ).

These two positions seem to be opposed to me. The first seems to agree that KAs are more powerful but social restrictions should keep them in the hands of the villains, where it doesn't really matter because the GM can always give villains 18d6 NND Does BODY attacks if he wants. The second suggests that the mechanic that KAs use is "better" than the normal bell curve, throws some much needed wildness into the fight, and there should be more of it (which would suggest that you wouldn't have as much problem with heroes toting 4d6 RKAs as the first position implies you would).

I think I've made about all the relative points I can make against the first position - at this point you either agree and are about to adopt my house rule (a man can dream ...), agree but don't care because it works fine for you as is (which is a totally cool position from my perspective - it just makes the debate much less interesting), or you still disagree despite my brilliant and thought provoking counter arguments (well, someone had to say it ). I really don't have any new information there.

The second position has a bit more meat to it because it goes into probability and so forth, which is a pet interest of mine. But my main counterargument to that is only tangentially related to probability.

Just to be clear: the position I'm arguing against is this: "the KA 'roll and multiply' mechanic gives more fun results than the boring old predictable bell curve of normal attacks". If you don't hold that position, by all means correct me; I'm not intending that to be a straw man. And note that some of those on "my" side of the KA vs EB debate would actually agree with this position (there has been a proposal that KA becomes the norm and that EBs get a -1/2 "normal attack" limitation but use the same mechanics as KAs - going up against all defences instead of only resistant ones; this removes the argument that KAs have an unfair advantage).

I would counter that if "wild amounts of STUN" become the norm, then the old BBB guidelines on suggested DEF ranges for a supers game go out the window. KAs have two characteristics: they often do very little damage, and they often do a heck of a lot of damage. You don't need much DEF to protect against the former (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED); no reasonable amount of DEF is any good against the latter (so you might as well have a lower PD and ED). Bricks step aside, for this is the world of the speedster, where the only decent defence is not getting hit. Unfortunately there is no way to apply such a defence. If you just crank up your DCV, then everyone will crank up their OCV to compensate. And once everyone is SPD 12, there's no escape that way either.

I maintain that some level of predictability is a good thing, since it allows for more diverse character archetypes to flourish. If you want to be unpredictable in combat, then be unpredictable in combat! Swing from the chandeliers. Blast the floor underneath that tough guy that you can't seem to hurt. Throw a cream pie in his face.

KAs, in my experience, don't lead to more unpredictability. The chance of that mega stun is so appealling that the reverse happens: you predictably go for the KA every time, since there aren't many situations where it's even as low as the 2nd best option.

But of course, as always, YMMV.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

I get caught like that all the time (most recently: just noticed that you can't buy Teleport floating locations in a framework. Blissfully unaware).

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

If you do a s//g on "KA" for "higher AP attack" you get the same argument.

Basically, you're arguing that KAs are better than EBs, but it's all cool, because a dude with a KA will get munched on by everybody sooner. But that's just silly - you can't balance mechanics with social restrictions, because mechanics are universal and social restrictions are not. This is the exact same argument that the WotC boards use when they say, "Hey, Shapechange isn't overpowered - if you go around in the form of a dragon, some bigger dragon will come over and eat you/all the bad guys will focus on you first/people will think you're evil" and so forth - but the reality is that none of this changes the simple fact that Shapechange is overpowered there, nor that KAs are overpowered here. (For those of you unfamiliar with D&D -

lucky you! But hopefully the argument makes sense anyway).

Someone with a nasty reputation with have the Reputation or Casual Killer disadvantage. Heck, if you wanted to you could put some sort of Side Effects "may cause bystanders to hate you" limitation the way Lucius suggests. But even suggesting that these sorts of "social limitations" exist is tantamount to conceding the point, power wise.

I realise that FREd and 5ER say you shouldn't buy a KA "just to try and get a good STUN multiplier". Likewise they probably suggest you shouldn't let someone buy 1024 1500pt different forms with Multiform. And probably most GMs wouldn't let you get away with that. But the fact that it is possible to not abuse a power does not mean that power is not abusive. I can prevent abuse of any power - most trivially, by banning it. But the beauty of balanced powers and mechanics is that they work pretty well even for sloppy GMs (like me sometimes - oh come on, we all have our off days, right? Oh, right. Just me then? Fair enough).

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

no.. you can take body witthout taking stun' date=' IF the body is greater than your rDEF and the stun is less than your DEF. so a guy with a def of 10 and an rDef of 1, gets hit for 3 body, with 9 stun (standard x3 multiplier). 2 body gets past rDEF, and bo stun gets through. [/quote']

5ER pp 410:

 

"Regardless of whether an attack does Normal Damage or Killing Damage, a character automatically takes 1 STUN for every 1 point of BODY that gets through his defences".

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

Reliability. At the 12d6 level' date=' half of all stun damage is within a few pips of 42, and the dozen most extreme possible outcomes in either direction are less than one percent likely.[/quote']

If, in the average combat, a villain will be subjected to 6 or more successful attacks, reliability falls short of "blind luck". Whether or not this is true or not is highly campaign dependent; certainly it is true in my experience, but part of the equation is "what is the average SPD?" (since the more post phase 12 recoveries you get the more "normal attacks" it takes to put you down).

 

Fewer accidental deaths. Since everyone alive has a little non-resistant DEF, those missed shots might not do quite as much damage as the comparable KA to innocent bystanders, the targets of Reflected attacks, etc.

14 BODY vs no resistant defences puts the average 8 BODY bystander into negatives. 12 BODY vs 2 PD will do the same. In fact, since the 12 BODY will probably average about 5" KB and drop another 3 BODY through the defences, you're looking at a comparison of -6 BODY vs -5 BODY - a difference not even great enough to make the Paramedic roll easier for the normal attack.

 

Besides, Hero has no official rules for hitting targets you weren't aiming at. I grant you it is a common house rule, but the point of the discussion is the effects of a RAW KA vs a RAW non-KA.

 

Spread granularity and spread value. For -1 DC of EB, you gain 1 OCV. For -3 DC of KA, you gain the same 1 OCV.

Not according to 5ER pp 380; you lose 1 DC (not 1 die) per spread point from either.

 

People don't know you don't care if they live or die when you hit them - With an EB, you can't always argue you didn't mean to kill them. With a Killing Attack, you may be on much shakier ground if you're trying to persuade, say, Grond, that you didn't mean to cause an owie.

An interesting argument considering your chances of doing BODY to Grond are not exactly significant (even supposing he was intelligent and reasonable enough to care that you hit him with an attack that didn't do as much BODY damage - hardly a slam dunk there).

 

But in the more general case, I've pointed out numerous times that this danger factor for BODY simply isn't there. Normals get pasted by either; supers take BODY from neither. It's a harsh life to be a normal in a world of supers, but that's just the way it is.

 

Duel of honor - if your foe doesn't go with a KA, you're arguably less honorable if you don't also forego the KA.

This is just off the wall, man. Most duels of honor traditionally involve swords or guns, neither of which are particularly known for being simulated in the Hero system with non-KAs. The only examples from fiction that spring to mind are:

• Blackadder the Second. There, they dueled with cannons.
  
• Streetfighter the Movie. And if you really want to use that as a good example of anything...

Traditionally once "honour" has been impugned, the other guy has to snuff it.

 

But letting that slide for the moment - at best, you're suggesting that if the other guy willingly handicaps themselves, so should you (in the interests of fairness). Does that not concede the point that using a KA vs an EB is "unfair"? And even if not, I would suggest that taken a step further this means that if you're a flying energy projector and your foe is a 6" Running brick with all of his extra STR bought as Density Increase (so he can't Leap either), you should forgo your flying and range capabilities and go toe to toe. But most onlookers would see less "honour" and more "stupidity" in that. If your foe can throw 12d6 Energy Blasts, you're not dishonourable for responding with 4d6 RKAs.

 

What your friends think of you - Haven't heard terribly many people say 'Gee, I think your gun is kinda cute.' (Well, sadly, I have heard it, but.. er.. uh.. Nevermind.)

Funny, I don't recall too many people saying, "Gee, your ability to throw lightning bolts is kinda cute" either.

 

Again: the reason people don't like guns is because they can kill you. 12d6 Energy Blasts can also kill you. If you fear the one you will fear the other.

Re: Transform - Do We Need It?

And the other question' date=' of course, is that if an adjustment power can grant a disadvantage, how about granting a power? What would that do to the system?[/quote']

I've often toyed with the idea of creating a character with the bare minimum of every power in the book, and then using some sort of Transfer with a big increase to the maximum as a sort of Rogue style "power stealing" effect - never bothered to check whether or not it could be made efficient to do this.

 

With a friendly GM you could say that you have effectively "0 points in everything not listed on your character sheet" and then allow adjusting from 0 to some positive number - but I doubt that's the intent of the RAW. Power stealing characters have always been traditionally tricky to do efficiently with Hero (the current paradigm seems to have shifted away from a big VPP and now uses a VPP of Multiforms, but that strikes me as taking an already borderline abusive power and then creating a cookbook of "and here's how you'd go about abusing it..." ).

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Well actually it doesn't. One of the big things KA does is allow for a person to be able to take BDY damage and no STN.

I'm sorry? There's no "0" on the STUN multiplier die, so this is an impossible result.

If you mean after defences, well then:

a) My method mimics the STUN multiplier; you still apply defences as normal.

It's still an impossible result; the rules say that you always take at least 1 STUN per BODY you receive.

This is the gritty real world flavored thing that only KA does. There has been many many recorded occurrences where a person takes an extremely damaging wound and doesn't realize they were even hurt.

Invisible Power Effects is what you're after there, because in Hero you always know. Even if you took no STUN or BODY you still know you've been attacked, and who attacked you - unless you take the "x2" IPE.

But none of them address the primary utility of KA, which is to be able to apply a set range of BDY with a very wide range of dependent stun from none to a high max which I consider a key must in Heroic games.

You're simply mistaken that "none" is a possible result. My method above exactly mimics the range of possible STUN and very closely mimics the distribution - it's effectively another way of rolling dice for the same sorts of answers, nothing more or less.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Here's something for interest's sake that seems most appropriate to this thread: can we build a Killing Attack without the KA mechanic? Yes we can!

Let's ignore BODY for the moment. Then we can build the equivalent of a 4d6 RKA as follows:

4d6 Energy Blast, x3 END (-1) [20 Active/10 Real]

A) +4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), Activation 11- (-1) [30 Active/15 Real]

+4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to A (-1/2), Activation 12- (-3/4) [30 Active/13 Real]

C) +4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to B (-1/2), Activation 11- (-1) [30 Active/12 Real]

+4d6 Energy Blast, 0 END (+1/2), linked to C (-1/2), Activation 10- (-1 1/4) [30 Active/11 Real]

Total cost: 61 Real Points (compare to 60 points for 4d6 RKA).

Basically: you always do 4d6 STUN, and you always pay 6 END. You roll to see if slot A activates; if it does, you add 4d6 and roll for B, and so on.

It works out pretty close to the "STUN Lotto" effect - it gives you exactly the same range of STUN (4-120), pretty near the same average, and more or less the same distribution (I'll leave off the math for that because I don't want to turn anyone off, but it's not particularly complex for anyone familiar with probability - drop me a PM if you want to see "behind the scenes").

BODY wise it is completely different to a 4d6 RKA. However, it is worth noting that the "wildly varying STUN" that is sometimes noted as a virtue of the standard mechanic is here for BODY as well - granted, the average BODY is a lot less than 14 (which it would be for a 4d6 RKA), but you can possibly do as much as 40 BODY (more than the 24 possible normally). And coincidentally, cost wise it's basically identical to what a 4d6 RKA costs.

I don't think this supports either the "it's broken" or "it's fine" side, by the way - I just thought that since the thread title is "Do we need Killing Attacks" that a post demonstrating how to mimic the effect without the multiplier die might be of interest.

Re: Musing on D&D spellcasting conversion

What is this path of which thou speakest? Doth it be paved?

The clear route to munchkinny godhood in 5th edition seems to be Succor, Continuous, 0 END...

Re: Implicit Mental Senses

There was an excellent PowerPoint on Senses back in the Haymaker days; a shame that seems to have disappeared now.

Re: Evaluating The Hero System (Or Any Game System)

I'll take a crack with my favourite 4 RPGs, my least favourite, and a "middle of the road" (hopefully I can squeeze this under the message length limit).

Top 4

Amber: Genre-wise, you're either a fan of Zelazny's universe or you aren't. Or possibly you like the Corwin series and not the Merlin books. Regardless, while arguably the whole "diceless" idea is not really necessary to properly simulate the genre, if you buy in to the game's explanations it really does fit the setting remarkably well. It also scores very well on flexibility (since you can find Shadows that do virtually anything, or create items or followers with a large toolkit of powers that is not exhaustive), but unfortunately this very flexibility means it isn't entirely consistent. Despite the tongue-in-cheek "every attribute is the most important attribute", it's not really true in play (Strength and Endurance get short shrift compared to Psyche and Warfare), and the interaction of lots of the Shadow Knight stuff isn't well explained with examples (you are essentially on your own as far as what the advantage of this system is over just buying objects - even different versions of the book characters do it both ways). This is not a strong complaint, though, because Amber is more of a narrative than a simulationist game.

Hero: I only use it for Champions, and I wouldn't use anything else (I've tried M&M, V&V, MSH, DC Heroes, and Superworld). Fits the genre perfectly, virtually infinite flexibility, but that flexibility is well designed mechanically so that it doesn't suffer from inconsistency the way Amber does. I don't think it's perfect, but it's "perfect enough" (and I find the mailing list and message board Hero enthusiasts over the years to be a generally very polite and thought provoking lot, which is something I cannot say for many other game fans).

RuneQuest: I came into the story late with 3rd edition, and this has always been one of my favourite games as well as one that I have played the least. As far as being genre appropriate, Greg Stafford seems not to think so (otherwise HeroQuest would never have been invented), but personally I think the world of Glorantha that RQ represents is a more interesting place than HeroQuest (having said that I've yet to play HQ). The basic BRP system that underlies it has proven to be extremely flexible (Call of Cthulu, Superworld, Stormbringer) though not to the level of Hero. If you ignore certain oddities in the critical hit system it's a pretty consistent system. My biggest beef with RQ is that calculating Special, Critical, and Fumble chances is quite ridiculously over complex to do "on the fly" (we use a system requiring two rolls that dispenses with all the complexity and delivers the same results).

Shadowrun: 1st edition was not well thought out (armour was way too good); 2nd edition was a great improvement, and it took me a while to warm to 3rd edition. I've not yet bothered with 4th because I don't like the sounds of some of the changes (in the same way that Hero would feel different if it started using d20s, I kind of think that target numbers and counting successes are a big part of Shadowrun - but not 4th edition). I prefer Shadowrun to all other Cyberpunk games as well as many fantasy games (you can strip out the cyber and play fantasy, or strip out the magic and play cyberpunk - I prefer the blend, but it's perfectly doable). That flexibility extends to the magic system (a "roll your own spell" system was provided) as well as the numerous books of equipment (including stuff for building rigs and decks - you can spend a lot of time solo making stuff for your SR characters, which is either a bonus or not depending on who you are). 3rd edition was very consistent; the balance between cyberware and magic characters was very well thought out and rarely caused problems in play (I had more issues with Riggers than any other PC).

The Worst

I loathe D&D. Don't get me wrong - I'll play it, and due to the other players in my group I play it often - but I would rather play just about anything else. I dislike levels, I really dislike classes, and while I applaud the efforts to unify the task resolution system that 3rd edition brought about, I dislike the fact that they use a d20 for it (flat curve, as opposed to bell curve - yes, I know what they did it, but that still doesn't mean I like it). D&D doesn't do a particularly good job even of simulating Vancian magic (there's no way to cast the spells "in full"), so it fails the "genre" angle. The numerous classes and prestige classes do make it fairly flexible - I'll give it that, it would be unfair not to considering the 1000s of spells, feats, and so forth that are available - but it's not at all consistent. There are no real rules about spell design, for example (and those that are proposed are violated in the core rules - Fireball, for example, does more damage than a 3rd level spell "should" according to Tome and Blood, and the Epic Level Handbook rules for Epic spells cannot duplicate the effects of most of the 9th level spell list).

The Middle

I have a soft spot for Traveller, the original Black Book game. It was the first game I ever played, and it had some really unique concepts (like the possibility of dying during character creation). The genre was sort of strange (it's hard to see how a large Empire could really hold together considering the travel time problems) and the original rules had starship computers that were inferior even to the latest machines available when the books came out (by today's standards barely useful as paperweights). It scores OK on flexibility (you could port the basic system to other genres, though I'm not aware of any great movement to do so); consistency was largely slap dash in the original version but is considerably improved now (as far as skill resolution and so forth goes). It's not one of my favourite games, but it's a fun system that is absolutely excellent soloing (as a referee you can spend many more hours designing starships and planetary systems than you'll ever play, and to computer programmers like myself it offers an endless variety of pet projects to write generators for).

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

You don't mind if I check your math on that? I'll get back to you on the weekend - it's not that I don't trust you, I just want to make sure I understand your point.

Re: KA Vs Energy Blast

Here's the trade-off, as I see it, of KA's:

o Non-mechanically -- other attacks may be associated with a bad reputation depending mainly on how they are used; KA's will always have a bad reputation with many populations based on their intentional nature.

See, the problem with this approach is that KA is a mechanic, "killing attack" is "an attack that has the potential to kill".

The two really don't have very much to do with each other in Champions (perhaps in other genres; I don't play Hero in other genres, so very much YMMV). KAs are not "attacks that have a potential to kill" against your typical super. And Energy Blasts are "attacks that have a potential to kill" against your average normal person.

In the RAW the difference in average BODY rolled for a 12DC attack is 2 in favour of the 4d6 RKA vs the 12d6 Energy Blast. "Most" supers have resistant defences of 15-20 or higher. Therefore no real risk of BODY damage from either. Why use a 4d6 RKA against a villain instead of a 12d6 Energy Blast? Not because you're trying to kill him, but because you have the chance of exploiting a favourable mechanic that might knock him out in a single blow, and over the course of many fights will do more average STUN damage against typical opponents. If you want to kill people in Champions then a pure RKA isn't going to cut it; you're going to want to look at Armour Piercing or Penetrating.

A case in point: how does one build a fire attack in Champions? How about a laser attack? In 4th edition, at least, Firewing (the archetypical Fire Using Energy Blaster) had a Multipower entirely composed of Fire Attacks, almost all of which were built with Energy Blast. Some GMs would view Fire (or a Laser) as something that screams "RKA"; others will use "Energy Blast". There's nothing that says you even have to build guns or knives with KA - if you felt that Energy Blast fit your needs there, then it's absolutely OK to build them that way. Granted that you'd be going against published examples if you did so, but technically you'd be going against published examples if you built a fire blast as an RKA (and I know at least 2 GMs that rule that way - they've altered Firewing so that most of his attacks are "heat attacks" instead).

To the person on the street, a knife or a gun is dangerous because someone using such a thing can kill you. I submit that someone able to throw a 12d6 Energy Blast (which will average more BODY to Joe Average, even after defences, than anything less than a 10 DC KA - which includes most guns and virtually all bladed weapons - and will do more Knockback than even a 12DC KA, which is not insignificant to a 2 PD normal) is going to be subject to the same prejudice. Indeed, people aren't exactly crazy about guys that walk around with baseball bats or bicycle chains in the real world.

Does this mean that we should only allow heroes to take STUN-only Energy Blasts?

I think most people get used to the idea of armed police in countries that have them. Do you not think they'd get used to the idea of "armed" superheroes? Even if you don't, I bet your concerns are along the lines of concerns about vigilantism rather than the fact that they're "armed" per se.

Re: Skill System House Rules - Comments?

No problem; if you want anything else (say the cumulative table - which is the chance of rolling X or over/Y or under), just give me a hoi; it would take me only moments to spit that out as well.

Re: [Heresy] Do we need Killing Attacks?

Could you repeat your reasoning as to why 2.25 is the "magic STUN multiplier"; the average roll of 1d6-1 is 2.667. I'm not saying you're wrong; quite possibly you are taking into account something I have not considered.

Addition to the "Attack Fixes": different ways to roll the same number of dice as a normal attack of the same DC, but count STUN and BODY differently. A couple of the proposals have been:

• Count 5 as 2 BODY and count every die as 1 less (minimum 1) STUN for a KA. A little lower average STUN, average BODY the same as RAW.
  
• Count 1 as 1 BODY (not 0). Count 6 as 4 STUN (not 6). This is my current house rule; the average BODY and STUN is almost identical as the RAW (STUN is actually slightly higher - a 12DC attack averages 37.33 STUN in the RAW and 38 STUN with my system; BODY is identical).

Re: Skill System House Rules - Comments?

No, but I'll do it now. Here's some waiting music for you...

tum, te tum...

tum, tee tumm...

tum, tee tumm...

tum tum TUM!!!!

OK, here you go:

3d12:

Result NumWays Chance

3 1 0.06%

4 3 0.17%

5 6 0.35%

6 10 0.58%

7 15 0.87%

8 21 1.22%

9 28 1.62%

10 36 2.08%

11 45 2.60%

12 55 3.18%

13 66 3.82%

14 78 4.51%

15 88 5.09%

16 96 5.56%

17 102 5.90%

18 106 6.13%

19 108 6.25%

20 108 6.25%

21 106 6.13%

22 102 5.90%

23 96 5.56%

24 88 5.09%

25 78 4.51%

26 66 3.82%

27 55 3.18%

28 45 2.60%

29 36 2.08%

30 28 1.62%

31 21 1.22%

32 15 0.87%

33 10 0.58%

34 6 0.35%

35 3 0.17%

36 1 0.06%

4d12:

Result NumWays Chance

4 1 0.00%

5 4 0.02%

6 10 0.05%

7 20 0.10%

8 35 0.17%

9 56 0.27%

10 84 0.41%

11 120 0.58%

12 165 0.80%

13 220 1.06%

14 286 1.38%

15 364 1.76%

16 451 2.17%

17 544 2.62%

18 640 3.09%

19 736 3.55%

20 829 4.00%

21 916 4.42%

22 994 4.79%

23 1060 5.11%

24 1111 5.36%

25 1144 5.52%

26 1156 5.57%

27 1144 5.52%

28 1111 5.36%

29 1060 5.11%

30 994 4.79%

31 916 4.42%

32 829 4.00%

33 736 3.55%

34 640 3.09%

35 544 2.62%

36 451 2.17%

37 364 1.76%

38 286 1.38%

39 220 1.06%

40 165 0.80%

41 120 0.58%

42 84 0.41%

43 56 0.27%

44 35 0.17%

45 20 0.10%

46 10 0.05%

47 4 0.02%

48 1 0.00%

Anything else I can help you with? (I have a Perl script I wrote a long time ago to spit out any combination of dice).

Re: Musing on D&D spellcasting conversion

Though as previously noted, it's also perfect for Amber style spellcasting.

Re: Optional Rule: Continous (Breakdown)

Actually I'm not even sure Damage Shield should need Continuous at all; it's more similar to Trigger than a Continuous attack, is it not?

(BTW Chris: thanks for the heads up!)

Re: Skill System House Rules - Comments?

I love the new system for skills. 13 has always been my lucky number, so I'm happy to see it incorporated into Hero.

 

However, the new system for combat has one problem: Anything that halves DCV becomes a kiss of death. Example:

Yes, you're right. For "Add 10 to DCV", read not "DCV = DEX/3 + 10" but rather "Target number for combat hit roll = opponent's DCV + 10". I certainly could have expressed that better.