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

I clearly remember getting the Big Blue book with the Doctor Destroyer fighting the Champions cover' date=' and feeling I really had something here.[/quote']

 

Yeah, art (especially cover art) can be very important. That was one thing about the Rifts books, the system sucked, but the cover art really got my attention.

Re: PRE and EGO

So...just to throw this one out there - would people like to see a 'spirit' characteristic block' date=' separate from PRE/INT/EGO? It would probably also entail having OSCV and DSCV characteristics, and would be used for more 'mystical/spiritual' types of combat, stuff, like magic and miracles.[/quote']

I'm not sure that is the sort of thing which needs to be directly encoded into the generic HERO rules. Actually, I've always thought that games like DC Heroes got these matters confused anyway.

 

Yes, I can see their logic of saying :

Mental = psionics

Spiritual = magic

 

But I'm not sure how well that holds up.

 

In some games, such as AD&D (with it's spell formula's and memorization), magic was very much in the realm of intelligence. It would seem that somebody with a high-power computer brain might make a great magician in that kind of system. Of course that is just one take on these matters. . . .

 

My take is a bit different. I'd say that you can have a brain/mind without getting into metaphysics. And, to me, "mental" stuff would be best represented by characters like Reed Richards, or Sherlock Holmes, or Star-Trek's Mr Data. Whereas abilities such as Astral Projection, or Telekinesis, imply that the character, at core essence, is more than a biological computer. To me, those kind of abilities imply that the character transcends the physical brain.

 

Thus I'd equate psychic abilities with the spiritual side of the character.

 

I like the idea that the psychic character gets by on raw talent, whereas the mage uses the same types of abilities, but often has less raw personal power and instead deals with things in a more sophisticated-structured manner (often drawing on external mystic-power sources).

 

However that is only one way to see things, and I'm not sure that HERO needs to have an official take on the matter of spiritual vs mental.

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression

I think the answer would be just to drop the Hero brand, more or less. Champions, Fantasy Champions (not a full rulebook, but a tweak), etc.

But I'm not sure that is an answer I want to see implemented.

Re: PRE and EGO

But unless things have changed in this edition, all characters have three aspects - Physical Mental and Spiritual.

 

What would be Spiritual stats?

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

Why isn't Champions your flagship, your focus, with the generic Hero rules coming out later? The era where gamers are looking for a generic system is no longer here; that is a definate niche market.

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)

...having said that' date=' DN could also model a hard shell over a soft centre: if anything does get through it can do serious damage to the creamy filling (ie the character).[/quote']

It can model the exponential nature of damage too.

 

According to the exponential concept of damage, a 20d6 EB is 1000 times as powerful as a 10d6 EB.

 

I want to see characters who laugh at the 10d6 attack, but who can be quickly killed with the 20d6 attack.

Re: PRE and EGO

Walking the dog...you know the form...

 

So, I was thinking about the parallels between mental and physical characteristics.

 

Then I got to thinking: Strength is how much force we can apply to the world. The closest mental parallel is Presence.

 

Dexterity is how we can move around and react to the world. The closest parallel is Intelligence.

 

Constitution is how well we can cope with the traumas the world throws at us. The closest parallel is Ego.

 

Looked at that way, we should generally not be using PRE defensively - that would be the role of Ego, and we should not be using Ego offensively - to break out of mental entangles and such - that would be the role of PRE.

 

Also we should probably use INT for working out combat order for mental actions.

 

So, not a particularly profound insight, but an interesting slant on the use of characteristics nonetheless.

 

Any thoughts?

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)

I'm still of the opinion that the BASIC defense does generally cost less than the attack damage. However, DN in effect offers quite a bit: basically the equivalent of the Advantages I threw on and the KBR.

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.

Also, DN stops any amount rolled for a particular DC, not an average, which is normally where we get the, "...costs less than..." (i.e. straight +6 PD costs more than +1 DC already, and has for some time, but +3.5 PD costs less, even if we add Resistant to one of those points of PD).

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)

Well, it's not really fair to use 5th Edition rules to compare against a 6E power, don't you think?

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.

After some thought, I've come to realize why this power concept rubs me wrong. I actually like the idea that you generally can't ignore attacks in Hero. For me, it's a feature, not a bug.

 

For example, my ideal view of Superman is the one from the Animated Series. He doesn't get hurt, but he does get knocked down, stunned, and even knocked out if hit hard enough.

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)

So a level of DN is sorta like:

 

+6 PD; Hardened (+1/4); Impenetrable (+1/4) [9 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [4 Real]

plus

Resistant

on 2 PD from above (+1/2 on 3 Active Points) [1 Active, 1 Real]

plus

+4m Knockback Resistance [4 Active]; Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice (-1) [2 Real]

[7 Total]

 

I placed "Limited to Amount Rolled with One DC Worth of Dice" at -1 because on average about half the full amount of potential damage is rolled (if there aren't Advantages that make 1 DC less than one die Normal or one level of KA). It definitely shouldn't be any larger a Limitation than that, though I could probably imagine arguments for it being smaller.

 

If we averaged the amounts for a large number of levels (in other words, don't round), it should really be more like 4.5+1.5+2=8 points per level.

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)

90 Defense? OK, guys, I realize I'm not a rules-lawyer, but that doesn't sound right to me.

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).

Are you saying you want your defense to completely and totally negate a specific attack? Buy rPD up to the max BODY of the attack and PD to cover the Stun. Heck, if you feel particularly munchkin-y, you can buy the extra PD as "Stun only".

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)

Nothing. It's just that 9 DC's damage reduction is cheaper than 90 rPD (or 54 in 6E), which makes the effect more affordable.

 

Whether that is good or bad depends on your point of view.

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.

I will mention that while some folks may consider the Champions paradigm that it's usually easier to knock out an opponent than kill them a bug, I actually consider it a feature. And one that attracted me to the system in the first place.

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

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

It wasn't DC Heroes but it was a cyberpunk game I played had a similar mechanic. The first time I had to make a roll was for perception. I was basically normally sighted, but other members of the team had enhanced sight. I rolled a 52....

 

I'm not sure what I think about open ended rolls. On the one hand they allow for dramatic results, on th eother hand, well, they allow for dramatic results: a kid with a slingshot could take down Superman.

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

There were goal posts?

 

I think the biggest problem with that approach is backwards compatibility: none of the existing material would work. At present the difference between DEX 11 and DEX 18 is 2 CV. If it were 7 CV, you'd have no real chance at all...unless you got rid of the 3d6 and went over to a d20 system - and even then you only have a 15% chance of hitting.

 

Another potential criticism is that the difference between 11 DEX and 12 DEX is 1 OCV, 1 DCV and one point of lightning reflexes - in other words making it THAT granular actually reduces the detail by making OCV, DCV and lightning reflexes 'cost' the same.

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.

I agree that greater granularity in characteristics is desireable, but how to go about achieving it. Vive la difference

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

First off it is worth pointing out that almost all Hero characteristics have point by point granularity:

 

STR you can lift more with each point

DEX you go faster in combat with each point

CON you are better able to resst being stunned with each point

BODY you are better able to stay alive with each point

INT...er...that's one that doesn't, unless it is in resisting INT drains

PRE you are better able to resist PRE attacks

COM you get to actually look better

 

Secondary characteristics all have obvious point by point granularity

 

However, it would be nice if skill and combat rolls had point granularity too. There are a number of solutions to that. Here's one I quite like:

 

1. Base everything on CHA/5, including combat. Always round down. Note your contribution from skill as CHA/5 followed by a remainder. For instance, 13 DEX would be 2(3) i.e. DEX/5 rounded down is 2, remainder 3. Subject to any modifiers you are usually aiming at acheiving a target number of 11 (or less) on the roll.

 

2. Combat works using 11-OpposingDEX/5 as a base target number.

 

3. You add your characteristic modifier to the target number.

 

4. When you roll 3d6, make sure one of the dice is a different colour. Make the roll as normal. If the odd die total is equal to or less than your remainder value, you can add one to the target number.

 

Example:

 

You have a 17 INT, so you have 3(2) to INT skills and PER.

 

You try to make a PER roll. The target number is 11, but it is slightly foggy, so the GM rules you have a -2 penalty: target number now (11-2)=9. Your INT/5 is 3, so the target number is 12.

 

You roll 3d6, achieving a total of 13, which would normally fail. However, the odd die shows a 1, which is less than your INT remainder, so you add 1 to the target number (or subtract 1 from the roll total - same difference), and - just - succeed.

 

It should add almost no time to resolution.

 

If you don't want to base combat on DEX/5, use DEX/3 and if the remainder is 1, you get a +1 on an odd dice 2 or less and on a remainder of 2, you get +1 on an odd dice of 4 or less.

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

1) It’s not granular enough. There isn’t enough differentiation and precision built into the system, especially at the heroic level.

 

2) Every +1 to a roll has an extremely high effect. Adding +1 OCV to an equal OCV/DCV situation results in a 11.6% increase in to hit. Adding +1 DCV to the same situation decreases the to hit probabilities by 12.5%. That’s a heck of a lot for a single CSL.

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 made tapping Ley Lines a Perk, 10 points for the Line Walker to get to do all their Ley Line tricks like phasing, drifting, healing, transmission, and observation balls. 5 points for the True Atlantean to just be able to phase and take advantage of the usual Ley Line properties any psychic or sorceror can manage. Building them as powers just seemed too complicated, and I pretty much have total control over where they are and can always invoke a ley line storm if I don't want them using one.

I like that approach.

Re: Rifts HERO?

The arbitrary pricing creates some strange dynamics: Say I'm a warlord who gets ahold of one of the mighty Rune Weapons, one that I can sell for 70 million credits. Sure, it's handy and all that, but I can get dozens of suits of top-end power armor for that kind of money or pay for all kinds of augmentations for my soldiers. It seems like only someone obsessed with magic or already filthy rich would want to keep one instead of sell it and use those resources for something else. Obviously the price is so high so that no PC will EVER be able to buy one, but it's also so high that few PCs would KEEP one, and which is more unbalancing to a game, a PC with a Rune Weapon or a PC with 70 million credits?

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?

I'm fixing a Starwars campaign in the near future and I have pretty much all my bases covered save for one.

Near future????

No.

StarWars = Long, long, ago.

Re: New Power: Invulnerability

I think that is my problem with the idea. You mention in the original post that Superman is virtually the poster child for invulnerability' date=' and yet we had a story line where he was beaten to death by physical force. That is the problem with absolutes of any stripe - I'm not sure they really exist even in the source material.[/quote']

Agreed. I just don't see the need for Invulnerability.

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty?

Nice one. It conveniently also gets rid of the SPD (reaction time) being proportional to inches of movement per turn. (Now two people who pay for the same movement power move the same rate per phase.)

 

Though I'd look at some way of pro-rating it so you can get more granularity.

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?

Using that approach a character with a 60 point movement multipower could add a 20" with a x4 combat multiple for a total of 80".

 

Think about all the new Move By specialists (it's only a -2 OCV maneuver) that would create (doing 16 DC's BEFORE figuring in STR/2).

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.