TheRealDeal

To clarify, the power is designed to allow the user to grant some damage mitigation AFTER the fact, most Aborts require you to declare before the attack, Roll with the Punch is the one that allows it after the attack. However, this was designed to bail out an ally who could not abort (took an action that segment) and also designed to be a sure thing (Roll with the Punch requires an opposed OCV at -2 roll and imposes a -2 DCV after the move). I do not want the power to negate all damage (which most of them would if applied before damage is done, like barrier or armor or Damage Negation which would reduce the damage enough that it would bounce off the target harmlessly) but just turn a nasty blow into a more manageable ouch! The name may not be the best for it perhaps, but that is just flavor and I leave names to the players to choose for their powers. My idea for it was a bodyguard type effect which allows you to share their pain. Perhaps the Side Effect should be you suffer the same damage the target ends up suffering and it is a NND type damage with the defense being not using the power! Would it be reasonable to say have each Ally buy DR 50% for rPD, rED, and MD and just put a limit on them something like: 1) One Recoverable Charge (-1.25) 2) Charge Does not Last 1 Phase, only for 1 Attack (-1/2) 3) Only Useable When within LOS of Sir Frances (-1/2) 4) Only Useable While Sir Frances is not Stunned or KOed (-1/4) 5) Side Effect: Sir Frances suffers Same Damage You Suffer (no defenses) (-1) It is another way to approach it, taking the burden of protecting off Sir Frances' point totals. Assuming the above Limitations are correct, the AP would be 90 (30 for each of the 3 rDR types) divided by 4.5 = 20 Real Cost per PC who wanted it. Would you suggest keeping the power in the hands of Sir Frances or having the fellow PCs share the point burden? Thanks for your suggestions thus far, I wanted to explore the options and see which way the players want to go.

Thanks in advance for the feedback. I wanted some input on ways to build the following power: Angelic Guardian: One Ally in LOS suffers BODY or STUN damage. You may suffer the same attack against yourself (as if it hit you) and both you and the Ally suffer only half the damage that gets past your defenses (like Roll with Punch). I have some ideas, but wanted to see if anyone could help me make this cost a bit less than a triggered 50% Damage Reduction effect useable on others and self at range with a Side effect of you suffering the same attack.

Just have them give you a full Turn of actions in advance, so if Speed 4, they give you 4 phases of actions per post. Have them include some default triggered actions, such as 1) If my STUN drops below X, I abort to a Dodge (if attacked by 3+) or a Block (if attacked by 1-2) with my next Phase 2) If my BODY drops to 0 or less, I 1/2 Move nearer to the Medic and use the other 1/2 Phase for a Dodge 3) If my target drops, I 1/2 Move to the next Target (they can name it for you or just say closest) and if not able to reach in 1/2 move, I use a ranged attack (if they have one) or do a Move By, etc. This way you can make combat go faster. You can always pause the fight if something usual happens, allowing all involved to update their actions accordingly.

The killing attack multiple issue is not so much the multiple itself, but rather the increased odds for an extreme result. A 3 DC normal attack does 3d6 (3 BODY, 10.5 STUN) while a 3 DC killing does 1d6 K (3.5 BODY, and assuming a x3 multiple, 10.5 STUN). So you can see that the x3 gives the exact same STUN as a normal attack, assuming average rolls. Those hit locations with x4 or x5 STUN also give Normal attacks a x1.5 or x2 STUN on the after armor STUN. So it may be more effective to use normal attacks than killing in some cases for STUN, depends on the armor to damage ratio. Here are a few examples of this: Assume a 6 DC attack: 6d6 N and 2d6 K. Average STUN damage N (21 STUN), K (7 BODY, assume x5 multiplier = 35 STUN) So hitting the head (x5 killing, x2 normal STUN), Here is how much damage each does based on total PD of the target (adds rPD + PD) PD (High): 18 - Normal (21-18=3 x 2 = 6) Damage of 6 STUN, Killing (7 x 5 = 35 - 18 = 17) Damage of 17 STUN PD (Mid): 12 - Normal (21-12=9 x 2 = 18) Damage of 18 STUN, Killing (7 x 5 = 35 - 12 = 23) Damage of 23 STUN PD (Low): 6 - Normal (21-6=15 x 2 = 30) Damage of 30 STUN, Killing (7 x 5 = 35 - 6 = 29) Damage of 29 STUN PD (Zero): 0 - Normal (21-0=21 x 2 = 42) Damage of 42 STUN, Killing (7 x 5 = 35 - 0= 35) Damage of 35 STUN At the low and zero defense range normal attacks come out ahead for STUN, while killing do better against higher defenses. One of the main complaints seems to be the fact that killing attacks use fewer dice to obtain their base damage values, leading to greater chances for extreme results, while normal attacks use 3 times more dice, leading to much more average range values and extremely low chance for extremes. This allows a lucky killing attack to score high STUN. For normal attacks, due to the x3 dice factor, luck plays a much lower part, the statistics do not allow much variation when you have many dice, the bell curve is just too constraining. One house rule I allow is a bonus to Roll with the Punch against killing attacks. I give a bonus to this maneuver equal to +X OCV where X is the Stun multiplier of the location you were hit in. I also allow it to be used against ranged attacks and I allow the use of the maneuver even after the damage and location were rolled (since we roll all of them at the same time, attack, damage and location). This leads to people being more willing to soak up the loss of their next action if it can blunt a nasty killing hit. Also tends to require more tactical play, if facing a foe who has a powerful killing attack, making sure you are able to Abort if they attack you. This gives a slight disadvantage to killing attacks, but also can spice up combat by seeing the use of Roll w/ Punch much more often. Rather than do lots of damage, it tends to make lucky killing attacks cause the loss of the target's next phase (since they Abort) and a -2 DCV (due to the Roll w/ Punch). If this is not enough for your game, you can create a martial maneuver that basically improves Roll w/ Punch from a -2/-2 to a 0/0 so it is much more likely to work against killing attacks and imposes no DCV penalty.

11 DC is the campaign limit, not the average, so it would be more helpful if the OP could give us some idea of the average DC he expects in the game. Perhaps that 55 AP limit also has an additional DC limit (say a DC limit of 8). This would mean you could get the 55 AP with an 8 DC (40 AP) attack by adding Armor Piercing (making an 8 DC cost 50 AP) or other advantages onto it. So can the OP clarify if there is any DC limit as well as the AP limit of 55? The Great Axe is a standard weapon in the game and has 2d6+1 K which is 7 DC and is the highest damage in the weapon list just for some reference point.

The problem I find is the point value associated with Complications. For those that are always on or have an objective trigger, it is fine to assign some point value, but call them Drawbacks or Disadvantages. I would also restrict these to only things that primarily impact the Hero taking them. So Hunted would not fall here IMO, but below as a Complication, as it can impact all Heroes not just (or even primarily all the time) the one who is Hunted. Complications could then be all the other items that are not always on (vulnerable is always on so it would not be here) or do not have an objective trigger (berserk has an objective trigger so it would not be here) or are subject to GM whim (like Hunted, Dependent NPCs, etc). These would give no points, but the GM could require each Hero to take a certain "point" value of them (they have points assigned to them, but do not give these as additional points to spend, just given to rank each Complication against the others) and then have these in his pocket to use as needed. Psychological complications could go here, and they could help the player shape how he plays his Hero. This is just a vague outline. One thing I do and this idea would allow it more readily since Complications give no points, is use Complications as consequences for Hero actions. So you wield the elven artifact? You now have a Psychological Limitation against harming animals, nature and elves. You raided the Dragon's Lair? Now you are Hunted: Greedy Dwarves who considered that hoard theirs! This makes Complications more fun for the GM and allows consequences to be given which are not connected to actual XP. You can also eliminate Complications once you do whatever it takes to be rid of them. This sets up goals and subplots.

I would probably say this replaces the Haymaker maneuver (in other words you cannot use both) and give them a choice of either +1 OCV or +1 DC per x2 with a maximum of x8 (so +3/+0, +2/+1, +1/+2, or +0/+3 at most which is in line with the +3 DC from a Haymaker, but with no -5 DCV penalty) Larry

Hi Steve, I would like some clarification on what was intended to negate Combat Luck in a few example situations below. I would like to know if Combat Luck should apply to the following situations, in your opinion as the game designer. I know the GM has the final say and all that, but I would like some guidance. Sorry if this was the wrong place for this, here goes: Hit by a fireball blast area of effect. Grabbed and squeezed for damage in a bear hug by an Owlbear monster. Hit with an Acid Attack that is a constant damage power, does CL apply to the continuing damage? Crushed by a falling wall or between 2 walls closing in on you (like in a trap). Falling damage. I think those should be enough for me to get the idea, thanks.

Perhaps assume the tree was Entangled in the Ground. This lets you play around with a lesser STR perhaps finally succeeding at ripping it out after several attempts (or taking an ax to the roots to speed up the process), and it would keep track of how much uprooting damage you have done thus far. The DEF of the Entangle would represent how hard the ground was, how deep the roots were, or whatever.

I have the 4th Ed Bestiary but I could not find it in there.

Anyone have any ideas on how to build this? The creature basically makes a Bite Attack and on a hit, Grabs the target. If the Target is still Grabbed when the creature gets its next Phase, it can Swallow Whole. The target vanishes into the creature's innards, and suffers acid damage and is basically suffering the same effects of an Entangle as far as being unable to move and use Foci. No one outside the creature has LOS to the target. If the target can inflict enough damage to the creature or if enough damage is dealt to the creature in the abdomen from outside, it will vomit him out. Thanks.

I think I understand why I was confused. What you are saying in itself I follow, but it seems to be somewhat off topic of what my original post was about. I am guessing you read one of my response posts where I mentioned cooperation between the mage and another PC and this may have been the reason for your mention of Aid. My original post was asking for help on how to build a Glyph of Warding power that instead of using some set power that is always the same and triggers when a certain creature gets too close to the Glyph, it allows the one who sets the Glyph (the mage in this case) to store in it any power he or one of his PC allies has, up to 90 APs. I was not certain if my approach (see the OP) was the best way to handle it. The Palindromedary who uses Lucius as his mouthpiece gave me some good help on this already. If your mention of Aid, Beast, was intended to answer my OP, then I guess I am still not sure how that would help in this case.

Beast, your advice may be great, but I am afraid it went over my head, I do not follow your suggestion. If you would, perhaps explain it like you would to a noob;) Thanks.

OK, thanks, that makes sense. Basically, the mage will grant the power storing PC the ability to create a Glyph rather than cast it himself, but I will just flavor it as the mage still casts the spell, just needs to have cooperation in doing it.

I want to allow a player to create a Glyph of Warding that basically sets a Rune on a surface with a Trigger (+1/4) that sets it off if any creature of small or larger size comes within 10m of the Rune. I want him to be able to use the power of another PCs (or one of his own) as the Glyph, rather then give the Glyph its own power. Basically, its like he set the Rune where he wants it and then the one with the power he wants to store in the Rune must be adjacent to it and this stored power becomes the triggered power when the Rune goes off. Would a naked advantage Useable By Others (+1/4), Trigger (+1/4) on sufficient APs (90 in this case) to cover the powers in his party work? The UBO would allow the mage casting the Glyph to "give" the stored power of the PC both the trigger advantage and then let the Mage use it as his own (UBO), just long enough to set the Glyph. So the Glyph has 45 AP in this case, right? It basically enhanced the PC's power which is to be stored in the Rune, making it UBO and giving it the Trigger advantage. Is there a cheaper way to do this, or a better way? Is this how I should think about it or am I way off? I have no problem with the PC doing this, I am just trying to make sure I score the point cost in a reasonable way. This makes his Glyphs more versatile (can pick any power in the party to store in it) and more fun for the group since they all can eventually have part in this, with their power being the one used.

If it only affects Leaping, then I would say it has to be in place at the time of the Leap. Thus, entering the field while in mid air after a leap would have no effect on the leaper. They already gave themselves the momentum when they left the ground, and even if you drained their leap to 0 while they were in air, they still keep their current momentum. So I would say this CE only works if it catches the Leap when it happens, it has no effect otherwise.

He is trying to use something that simulates Spell Points. Each spell uses up some Spell Points and the Spell Points recover after you rest. What he has works fine, if he just explains it to the group in a way they are familiar with. If they use Spell Points or Mana or whatever, instead of calling it END Reserve and END change the END to Spell Points or Mana and call the Reserve your Mana or Spell Point Pool. Be sure to make all powers that use this Reserve cost some END, as some powers do not cost END, so consider giving them the Limitation (Costs END) so all powers will cost END and thus the Spell Point system will work. For example a spell that gives your Darkvision will use Enhanced Senses and these normally cost no END, so impose on such spells the Limitation Costs END. I would also suggest parsing the REC and make it recover a little over shorter times, unless you want the idea of a threshold event that allows recovery (like Rest for 6 hours, then spend 2 hours reading your spells). If you want the Threshold event idea, keep it as you have it now, at REC 10 each 6 hours. If you do not use a threshold event, and want the points to come back evenly over time, just make it REC 1 each 36 minutes, which comes out to REC 10 each 6 hours, this way they know how long until they get back 1 point.

Could you use Change Environment to Trip at a distance? Define the combat effect as something like -2 to DEX Check (or unmodified Breakfall Roll) or you fall prone?

I am going to run my son (11) and some of his friends through Hero and was tweaking my MapTool set up, when I noticed something odd to me. As I understand it, the v in the formula for calculating the OCV penalty (-v/10 for Move Through) and the DC increase (+v/10 Move By, +v/6 Move Through) is just the amount of movement you get per Phase, not the Velocity per Turn (like is used in the Velocity based DCV formula). It seems to me that v should use the same formula as Velocity based DCV, or something close to it that scales with SPD, which factors in SPD with your Move per Phase to get a better value of how fast you are actually moving. Is there something I am missing? Before I use this I wanted to see if perhaps I am missing something here. My take is that using Move per Phase does not really tell how fast you are actually moving, since a Phase has a variable time value, whereas a Turn is always 12 seconds. Thus Move per Turn is really how fast you move, not Move per Phase. Move per Phase is very nice for knowing how far I get to move in each of my Phases, so it is good to have, but for calculating my true speed, I think Move per Turn should be used, right? My plan is to replace v with v = Move per Phase x SPD /2. I divide by 2 as I assume the game was designed around a SPD of 2 so that way the math will be identical to RAW for a SPD 2 character. Anyone ever done something like this and found there were problems? My game will have SPD ranging from 2-4 for the most part, but eventually I may allow them to get into superheroic mode once they get the hang of the game, which will have higher SPDs.

After bigbywolfe commented, I looked it up as I had not bothered to search for anything specific to this in the rules, just going by memory of the general HERO concept that you should not get something you do not pay points for and I figured that was what applied here. But here is something I found that may indicate the villain does not get to attack. This has nothing to do with should it be this way or is this the best way, this is just what I found in the rules. From HERO 6E, Volume 2, Page 19, the very last paragraph under CONSEQUENCES OF LOSING THE DEX ROLL quote: (I bolded the parts relevant here) "If two characters use DEX Rolls to determine who acts first, the loser of the roll cannot then choose to Abort to a defensive Action — committing to the roll means the chance to Abort is lost. The character has staked his chances on getting to act first, and having failed to do so, has to live with the consequences. In some cases, the GM may even want the characters to specify what Actions they’re attempting, and what powers or attacks they’re using, before letting them make their DEX Rolls. The losing character has already stated, in effect, (a) that he’s attacking, ( what attack he’s using, and © where he’s aiming. He can’t change just because the winner got lucky, saw it coming, and moved away. However, the losing character can, if hit, declare that he’s Rolling With The Punch (if appropriate). Similarly, if a character loses a DEX Roll Contest to determine who acts first, and the target of his attack moves away from the target point, the character cannot “re-target†his attack to “track†the target and still hit him." Seems this may answer the question from a RAW perspective.

I use a house rule that says each point by which you win a DEX roll off allows you to move 1 hex before the other guy can attack. However, by RAI, it would seem the spirit of the rules would say that the villain gets his attack off before the speedster can move away. If you wanted to build your speedster attack so that you can make such attacks and not get attacked by such held actions, you should build it as a Ranged Attack with Teleport to represent you hit them so fast and move so fast they have no chance to counter attack with HTH. If you did not build it as such, then you should probably not get the advantage of that against a held action.

If you want to modify the 1d6/2 multiplier, just use the Body approach to make it still roll 1d6 and quick to resolve. So a roll of 1 = X1, 2-5=X2, 6=X3. I guess as for the rest of the discussion, it comes down to taste. I do not see the need for another type of attack against the physical/energy defenses that just requires you buy a different version of those defenses. This is what the AVAD idea does, and I do not personally like the flavor of it and see it as just redundant. I can see the need for a mind attack (thus vs. Mental Defense) or magic attack (thus vs. Power Defense), but another type of attack vs. the same Physical or Energy defenses but requiring an advantage be put on them (Resistant) just seems redundant and leads to bloat. Why make characters feel obligated to buy now 2 types of PD and ED when the attacks against each one basically have the same feel, since KA using this AVAD approach are no more likely to deal Body than normal attacks are, so there is no flavor difference in them. Furthermore, the lower Body output of the new KA using AVAD means it does less KB and even more already suffers an extra -1d6 of KB since all KAs allow you to roll 1d6 more to resist the KB. It also makes KAs have less range as well, since that is based on Base Points without advantages added, so KAs always have less Base Points in them using this AVAD. If KAs have the flavor that rather than dealing quick to recover from damage only (Stun) like normal attacks deal, with a small chance of doing some lasting Body; they instead deal more lasting Body damage and perhaps less Stun as a result, then it makes sense to me that KAs should have a place in the game as they achieve a different result and thus make a useful addition to your golf bag. If one thinks that it is better for their game to use AVAD, no problem, just be aware of the reduced KB and range that results from this.

The problem I see with this idea is that is sets up a whole new attack form with its own totally separate defense (resistant in this case). This means if you have only enough rDEF to protect from the RAW KA Body (since you used your non-resistant defense for the STUN) then you suddenly take massive amounts of STUN from KAs since your non-res def no longer helps. It means characters now need to take enough rDEF to reasonably protect from all that KA Stun. But what this does, is make KAs just like normal attacks, in that they now do no Body, since most will buy enough rDEF to keep these KAs from stunning them, but that means no KA Body ever gets through. This totally ruins the point of KAs. They way they work now, only the Body of KAs use a special defense (rDEF) and the Stun still uses the universal defense. This means you can have lower rDEF and thus suffer Body from KA (their whole point) but not worry about being stunned out by them since Stun still works off the universal defense of non-resistant. My idea was to keep the feel of KAs as focused on doing Body, but to deal with the Stun they do by disconnecting it from the universal defense and tying it directly to the Body they end up doing (since Body damage is their whole point). My idea allows rDEF to remain as they are in all the RAW builds (no need to recalc them) and just allows KAs to only consider rDEF, for the Body, then the Stun takes whatever Body gets through and multiplies it by 1d3 for the Stun. Simple, makes KAs still focus on Body, and makes the only defense against them truly be rDEF (as they ignore normal defense) which seems to be the flavor intended. But it does all this without unbalancing the rest of the RAW characters out there already made and without requiring rebuilding and recalculating them.

Not too adept myself at actually building things yet, but if I were to model immunity to cold, I would think of a way to have something that allows me to "on the fly" create the exact counter to whatever is trying to affect me with a cold SFX. Aside from the Life Support thing which is the passive immunity to cold against passive effects, Maybe a triggered (when a cold SFX power would affect me), uncontrolled Dispel only against cold SFX powers, so it always triggers (and always resets instantly) even if not conscious, to Dispel any power used on me that is cold SFX. Maybe a VPP with the same trigger and only against cold SFX limit, that allows me to create the exact defense on the fly needed to counter the cold effect. That way as a GM rather than bother with actually trying to figure out what I create to counter it, I can just say "he has a cosmic VPP only against cold SFX and so stops whatever you sent at him" and hand wave it for speed of play. If I need to figure it out for some reason, I could, or have a few prebuilt defenses already designed.

True, but if you are in the camp that thinks an average of x3 STUN for KAs is too much, and like the 1d3 which gives a x2 STUN average, then using Hit Locations gives an average x2.87 for KA (assuming the standard humanoid chart), so to bring that down I was suggesting the -X1 STUN Multiplier. Normal Attacks get a XNSTUN it is true, but this averages out to exactly X1. So it is not biased against not using the chart. But for KAs, not using the Chart gives you an average of x2 (1d3) and using the Chart makes it an average of x2.87. So it means KAs are better when using a location chart in this case. Thus a full -1 to the STUN Multiplier for KAs (and I would give them the -1/4 limitation for it as well, just make it mandatory if the attack uses a hit location chart) would drop this to a x1.93 (not x1.87 since the areas already at X1 (hands and feet) stay at X1 as the -1 cannot drop them below X1). So it is a little worse than X2, but it does allow for head shots to still give a X4 which is not possible with a 1d3 roll.