Warp9

Re: A Thread for Random Videos Some Lovecraft themed stuff (some of it also Christmas themed as well).

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression

Re: PRE and EGO

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression But I'm not sure that is an answer I want to see implemented.

Re: PRE and EGO When did this happen? DC Heroes always had Physical Mental and Spiritual with the following stats. . . . Strength Dexterity Body Will Power Intelligence Mind Aura Influence Spirit But I was not aware that HERO ever had any explicitly spiritual stats.

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression I disagree with the above statement, in that I prefer the more generic approach of the modern editions to the old editions where the game was actually "Champions." And I think it would be backward to come out with Champions:HERO, and then create (and re-release all the rules) for Generic:HERO.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e)

Re: PRE and EGO In Shadowrun (at least pre-4th edition SR), they did that kind of thing for Astral Combat: Intelligence was Astral Dexterity, Will Power was Astral Resistance, and Charisma was Astral Strength.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) But how much do you pay for the knb on each DC? That is included in the five points you pay for each DC of your attack. And if we are talking about defense being cheaper, then that should refer to the whole of the attack, including knb. For me, that random variation is actually the issue. For what we are doing here, you could almost look at this process as the reverse of putting standard effect on your own power. Instead you are putting standard effect on your opponent's power. When you put standard effect on your own power, you get the trade off of not worrying about low rolls vs the price of not being able to get the high rolls. Here you are getting the reverse, you may not get the benefit of having your opponent roll low, but you don't have to worry about those high rolls either. To defend against each standard effect DC you'd want: 3 PD 3 points 1 PD resistant 1/2 points 2 meters kbr 2 points Here you'd get the full negation of a DC of a normal attack for 5 points, and for 5.5 you could cover 1 DC of killing attack. And, if you wanted to dump the knb defense (which doesn't really fit most of the uses I'd have anyway), you could go for 3 and 3.5 pts per DC. Armor Piercing would cut this type of negation in half; although, I don't really have a problem with that either, for many of the uses I have for DN, that result makes sense too.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I still don't have 6th edition yet, so it is easier for me to think in 5th ed terms. However, since some relevant rules have changed, I agree with you. That is the basic model incorporated into Champions, and it makes sense for a comic book based game. But Hero, being a universal system, needs tools that allow for the simulation of other types of combat. And personally, I don't run traditional comic book style games, that is why this DN option is very important to me.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) I notice that we are at a place where it costs 5 points per each DC, but according to your reasoning above, it should really cost 8 points to negate that DC. That sounds like a decent advantage given to offense. Although we could fit this in with the philosophy that defenses should cost more than attacks. . . .

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) That 90 defense level assumes 5th ed rules on a 3d6 RKA. I do agree that the new rules make things a bit better, in that it you can get total coverage with less insane levels of defense (although I still think that the necessary defense levels to cover all the STUN from an attack are too high). If you did not make it "Stun only" you'd end up with a character who'd generally take no BODY from a 36d6 EB.

Re: Another view of Damage Negation (6e) It is about more than affordability. A character with 90 defense has a lot more than simple immunity to a .50 BMG. IMO those kind of MEGA defenses represent the sort of characters who would take no BODY from world breaking attacks.

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e) I haven't got 6th Ed yet, but I definitely approve of this Damage Negation concept. In the comics, it seems that it is much easier to knock somebody out than kill them. However, a universal system shouldn't be forcing that kind of Stan Lee "paradigm" on my games. And the beauty of it is that it doesn't have to, that is what this mechanic does for us. This mechanic allows for each character to be designed differently according to concept. If you want a character who is easy to KO, but nigh impossible to kill, you can do that. But you can also build a character who bounces pistol bullets off like pop-corn, but who can be killed by heavy artillery.

Re: A Complete Overhaul of the Hero System Combat and Skill System I thought I should probably add that, while I'm not sure I agree with all your ideas, it is cool to hear about new concepts. I appreciate the fact that you think about these things then post them here.

Re: A Complete Overhaul of the Hero System Combat and Skill System Of course, in DC they did a lot to minimize the differences between power levels. What I've suggested goes in the opposite direction. I've suggested setting things up so that every stat point gives you +1. In this situation there are basically 15 points difference in CVs between DEX 11 and DEX 26. That is a big difference. Yet this major difference is some what balanced out by the dramatic results possible with the open ended dice.

Re: A Complete Overhaul of the Hero System Combat and Skill System I'm not personally greatly concerned about the backwards compatibility. But I do agree that it is important to many gamers, and my concepts would create problems with backwards compatibility. However, if we pretend that backwards compatibility is not important. . . . What I'd like to see is something where each point of DEX gives +1 to your to hit, but rather than going with 3d6, I'd like to see a DC Heroes (open ended) 2d10 approach. In DC Heroes system, you roll 2d10 and add them together, with the added bonus that if you roll doubles, you roll again and add that. You can keep going as long as you roll doubles. (note, in order to do this, you'd probably want to change over from "roll-under" to a "roll-high" vs TN) roll:7 + roll:2 = 9 roll:6 + roll:6 (doubles!, roll again) + roll:8 + roll:3 = 23 This makes things so that the target numbers would be able to go higher and higher, and the results would be wilder than the results of a 3d6 curve. A DEX 11 character trying to hit a DEX 18 character, would need to throw a 17 on the dice. This could be done by rolling 9+10, or 10+9, or 8+9, or 9+8, or by rolling doubles. Yeah, it is not easy. As you mention, there are issues of backwards compatibility, and questions about how much of a game difference adding +1 to a characteristic should make. And I think it varies by the type of contest. Arm wrestling should IMO pretty much go to the strongest character, combat situations are more messy and probably more random.

Re: A Complete Overhaul of the Hero System Combat and Skill System All good points/ideas. Only way I can argue with that is to change the goal posts. Which I'm about to do. I do actually kind of like to see a greater in-play difference between DEX 9 and DEX 12, even than the DEX/3 would provide. I personally don't mind the GURPS method of using the straight stats. DEX 9 roll = 9- DEX 12 roll is 12- but I could see how some might think that was a bit much on a 3d6 curve.

Re: A Complete Overhaul of the Hero System Combat and Skill System Ideally what I'd like to see here is a more spread out bell curve, where every single point makes a difference. I'd like there to be a difference between 11 and 12 DEX. It might not be a +1 OCV on 3d6, but perhaps it could be a +1 on some larger curve. I actually liked GURPS (at least GURPS 3rd edition, I don't know about 4th ed), because every single point was relevant. Although they used a 3d6 curve, so your second point about each +1 being a big deal would still be a problem.

Re: Rifts HERO? I like that approach.

Re: Rifts HERO? That is not a situation which is unique to Rifts. I've seen D&D games where the GM has tried to make it so that nobody could afford to buy magic items. This concept works fine until a PC gets ready to sell such an item.

Re: Starwars Vehicles: Any ideas? Near future???? No. StarWars = Long, long, ago.

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty? You can get a bit more detail if you want. In fact, for any number of points you might want to plug in, you can figure out how fast you go. The basic formula would be as follows: 1 meter per segment X 2^(points / 10) OR 6" per turn X 2^(points / 10) Although you might need a calculator to figure those fractional exponents. However, instead of dealing with fractional exponents, you could just assume a linear progression between each of the 10 point marks (which is what I've done below). I've also gone with "inches per turn" rather that "inches per segment," that way I don't have to use fractional hexes at the lower levels. Anyway, here is the same concept from my other chart described in a point by point basis. . . . Pts | Velocity 00 = 6" per turn (or 1/2" per segment) 01 = 7" per turn 02 = 7" per turn 03 = 8" per turn 04 = 8" per turn 05 = 9" per turn 06 = 10" per turn 07 = 10" per turn 08 = 11" per turn 09 = 11" per turn 10 = 12" per turn (or 1" per segment) 11 = 13" per turn 12 = 14" per turn 13 = 15" per turn 14 = 16" per turn 15 = 18" per turn 16 = 19" per turn 17 = 20" per turn 18 = 21" per turn 19 = 22" per turn 20 = 24" per turn (or 2" per segment) 21 = 26" per turn 22 = 29" per turn 23 = 31" per turn 24 = 34" per turn 25 = 36" per turn (or 3" per segment) 26 = 38" per turn 27 = 41" per turn 28 = 43" per turn 29 = 46" per turn 30 = 48" per turn (or 4" per segment)

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty? The problem is that you are still trying to combine linear motion with exponential motion. All linear is fine. All exponential is fine. Trying to combine the 2 leads to problems. My way, there would be no more 1" per 2 points. (that is a linear formula) The new movement power table would look like this: Points Velocity per Seg Damage 0 1/2" 0d6 10 1" 2d6 (10 points running is default) 20 2" 4d6 30 4" 6d6 40 8" 8d6 50 16" 10d6 60 32" 12d6 70 64" 14d6 80 128" 16d6 90 256" 18d6 The character with the 60 point multipower could go 32" per segment and do STR + 12d6 if he fully slammed into his opponent (move through). Move By could either be half damage. . . . Or You could combine the move-through / move-by rules. As I'd do it, I'd modify things so that you can attack and use your STR + some (or all) of the velocity damage listed above. However, any velocity damage which you use, you also take. Thus a person with 60 points of flight (32" per seg) and 25 points of STR could do 5d6 (STR) + up to 12d6 (velocity). The 5d6 is damage free, but any of that 12d6 he uses, he'll also take. Assuming that this person in the above example chooses to fly by and do a glancing blow (4d6 from velocity), his target takes STR + 4d6 (or 9d6), and he takes 4d6. On the other hand, if he'd used all 12d6 from velocity (more like straight out slamming into the opponent), he'd do STR + 12d6 (or 17d6), and he takes 12d6.