JamesG

Reduced Stun Multiple: This -1/2 limitation (same cost as increased Stun Multiple) ...

Increased Stun Multiple is +1/4 not +1/2.

Totally agree KS. My post was only so that someone didn't think they could extend their Dodge bonus by Holding. Apologies if my wording made it sound like I was disagreeing with your main point.

Also' date=' don't forget that higher DEX gives you the _option_ to go first. You don't HAVE to go first. You can hold and attempt a DEX off to interrupt something.[/quote']

 

 

But keep in mind any maneuver bonuses (or penalties) from the prior phase end when your phase comes up, even if you decide to hold your action.

 

For instance in the original example, Bob's Dodge bonus ends at Dex 13 in segment 6 whether or not he takes his action then or decides to hold his action.

Bob's Dodge bonus is in effect until Segment 6, when he next gets his phase. He does not lose in on Segment 12 when he would have had his phase, since he aborted his segment 12 phase.

Re: How to build a duel wield attack

I have a player that is wants to use 2 weapons in a flurry of attacks ... ( he wants to be able to attack with both weapons and/or chose to attack with one or the other )

If all he wants to do is attack with the two weapons, then the various methods outlined by others on the thread accomplish that well. Which one to choose depends on what you and he feel best matches the flavor of his two weapon style.

But if he wants to do different things, like attack with one and block with the other, or attack with one and hold the other to attack/block in a future segment, then I think limited SPD is the way to go. The simplest way is probably to have him buy additional, Limited, SPD equal to his base SPD. A limitation of "only to take additional attack/defense actions with a second weapon" is probably worth about -1. He can't move with this SPD, he can't use it do double attacks with a single weapon, etc.

So if his character is SPD 3, he buys +3 SPD with that Limitation for 15 points.

To keep things simple at the table, I'd say he only acts on the Speed Chart at his base SPD, but whenever he acts he gets both actions. I'd probably also say if he does not use both actions at the same time, he has to use the held action in a future segment. For instance, when his phase comes up in segment 12, he could attack with both weapons right then. But if he chooses to only attack with one weapon and hold the other, the second weapon can not act until segment 1 of the next turn.

When a character applies an All Combat or Overall skill level to DCV, it improves his DCV vs. all attacks made against him; he does not have to specify just one of the attacks.

Does the same apply to OCV? The question is often moot as usually a character only performs one action per phase that uses OCV. There is at least one exception though; Blocking a Ranged attack and then Reflecting it.

If a character with the Reflection power places, for instance, an Overall Level into OCV is his OCV increased by one for both the Block roll to block the incoming ranged attack AND increased by one for the Reflection roll to hit a target with the reflected attack?

Or does the character have to specify they are using the Overall Level to improve Block or Reflection, and it only helps that action and not the other? (Of course in this case they can switch to improving the other on future phases; in other words it is a phase by phase decision).

Thanks.

Re: 5E (not 6, 5): adding damage and armed martial arts, the uselessness thereof

I'm guessing that published characters assume the "optional" rule pointed out by griffinman01 are in effect. Namely that extra damage from martial arts maneuvers are counted as adding to base damage.

Otherwise, as you say, some of the write ups make no sense.

Re: 5E (not 6, 5): adding damage and armed martial arts, the uselessness thereof

Hmmm. So Pushing does not count as added DCs?

If you pushed your STR, that would be adding DCs. But if you push the base attack, you are not adding DCs, you are changing the base attack.

But per page 527 of 5ER you "generally" can't push a power with the 0 END advantage. And I believe you said Black Mask's sword is bought that way. So

NuSoardGraphite's solution won't help Black Mask.

Re: [LoH] Run Info

we typically play them on Elite difficulty for the better drops

I could be wrong, but I don't think difficulty rating improves the drops since On Alert went live.

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

It's all about the Benjamins. Colour artwork costs money. It increases the cost-per-unit which reduces the profit-per-unit. Given that the industry isn't in the best shape right now' date=' colour might not be a good idea.[/quote']

 

Depends on if color would sell enough additional units to make up for the lower profit per unit. It could go either way, I really have no way of knowing. I do think that a new gamer looking for a super hero game to buy would be more likely to purchase Mutants and Masterminds with its color artwork than Champions Complete with B&W artwork.

 

Then again the "new gamer" market might not be large. If the the company figures most buyers for Champions Complete are the Hero diehards who would buy it B&W or color then yeah, color does not make a lot of sense.

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

...my only reservation is about interior B&W. All the current super games are in color so reclaiming the crown would most likely require a similar treatment. Even more so if Champions Complete is the new core book.

The horse has probably already left the barn, but I have to second this. I think softcover with color interior art would be the way to go. A book with black and white art just does not appear as polished as the competition, especially when dealing with the superhero genre which cries out for dynamic color artwork.

Re: [New Product] Champions Complete

And here I just received my copies of Hero System Volumes 1 (damaged cover) and 2 in the mail.

 

Not that I'm unhappy to hear about this or anything*.

It's funny, but this announcement is what finally prompted me to order 6E v1 (damaged) and v2. Now that I know that they won't be reprinted I figured I better get them now before they are out of stock. My group has no desire to switch from 5E to 6E but I decided I wanted the 6E books in my collection. Maybe I can port some of the ideas over - I already plan to push for the new way the Attack Versus Alternate Defense Advantage is handled.

Re: Facing and Passing

I think this is another situation where our long experience with D&D encourages us to model D&D' date=' rather than reality (real or cinematic).[/quote']

 

I don't play DnD so that does not apply at least in my case. Sorry I don't have time right now to address some of your other points, hopefully I will later.

Re: Facing and Passing

I think that depends on what you consider an "obstacle". The RAW give a character 3 options upon reaching an "obstacle": stop' date=' Move Through or use Casual Strength to shrug it aside (6E2 27 / 5ER 366). I assume that is the rule to which you are referring and my reading of the rule does not require the obstacle to fill the hex. Obviously, as SL has said many a time, common and dramatic sense must apply. For example, for a normal human, I would consider a chair, a mailbox or a person to be an "obstacle" even though none of them fill an entire hex. A small chair might just be considered "rough terrain".[/quote']

 

Since the only options given in that rule passage to deal with an "obstacle" are to move it aside or blow through it in some fashion I think it is explicitly talking about obstacles that do take up the entire hex. If it included obstacles that only took up part of a hex it should have said something about making a Dex or Acrobatics roll to avoid the obstacle. And I certainly would not make a character moving through a hex containing a mailbox to have to push it aside.

Re: Facing and Passing

It seems less like house rules than what you proposed. Not that there is anything wrong with house rules to clarify an issue.

Yes, what I wrote was more of an attempt to codify how to handle passing in general terms that could be applied to a broad variety of situations. What Netzilla proposed sounded more like ad hoc rulings for specific situations. Not that I am knocking those rulings, they sounded very reasonable and workable to me.

Re: Facing and Passing

Just to clarify' date=' when I mention a narrow hallway, I mean one that would require the orc to move though the knight's "hex" in order to get past him. Likewise, with the line of blockers, I'm assuming roughly 2m or less between each blocker (i.e. each is standing in the center of adjacent hexes), so the character trying to break through needs to move through an occupied "hex".[/quote']

 

Do the RAW disallow moving through an occupied hex? I took a quick look in 5ER and could not find anything, but freely admit I could have missed it. I did find rules for barging through a completely blocked hex (like through a closed door) but that is a different situation.

Re: Facing and Passing

I really feel we don't need it' date=' in a situation where there is ONE Knight and open space. There is plenty of freedom of movement, even sticking relatively near the Knight, for me to be able to move around without any sort of significant interference from one single guy in an open place.[/quote']

 

In an open space the orc should be able to try and maneuver around the knight, I agree. But if the orc chooses to pass close enough to the knight to be within hand weapon range I feel there should be a consequence, whether or not the knight has a held action. Especially if the knight wishes to prevent the orc from passing him.

 

Also' date=' like Manic Typist, I consider this different if you've got a confined space (like a narrow corridor) or group of opponents (a line of scrimmage if you will). In those situations, you cannot "slip past" because you don't have the room to maneuver. In my campaign, doing so would require either an Acrobatics Roll (at penalties if the opponents haven't yet acted) or a STR vs. STR contest (at penalties for multiple blockers) in order to succeed. Which gets used depends on how you describe your attempt to get past the line.[/quote']

 

Those sound like good house rules, but I think that is what they are because I don't think the RAW require the passing party to take any unusual measures such as you describe. Which really is the core issue here. So I guess our disagreement lies in determining what situations warrant house rules to make passing more difficult.

 

Though if I read Christopher's arguments correctly, he does not feel any house rules are needed at all in these situations.

Re: Facing and Passing

"Walk past"' date=' no. "Slip passed", yes. There are plenty of examples in real life and fiction of one person slipping passed another due to a failed attack. That's a pretty common description of how people escape superior foes.[/quote']

 

"Slip passed", to me, implies a chance of failure. I think that is what is missing here. Since there is no chance that the character can fail to "slip past" someone, it seems more like walking past them.

 

And maybe that is what we need, a chance that the character can fail to slip by, more than we need rules for attacks of opportunity. Here is an idea: "If a character wants to move past an enemy within that enemy's melee range , he must win an opposed DEX roll. The moving character can add his base DCV as bonus to his DEX roll, the enemy can add his base OCV. Both characters can add any applicable Combat Skill Levels currently allocated to CV to improve their DEX roll. Failure to win the DEX opposed roll means the enemy has impeded your movement and you must stop. In order to do this, the enemy must have freedom of action (ie not Grabbed, Entangled, Stunned, etc.) but it does not require an Action by the enemy."

 

The wording probably needs to cleaned up, but I think you get what I mean. We also probably need to add something so that low STR characters can not easily impede high STR ones. Maybe if the mover can win a contest of STR using his casual STR vs. the full STR of the enemy he is not impeded.

 

The in game impact of this will be agile characters will have a much greater chance of "slipping past" an opponent than those not so agile, which mimics the source material well. Those who are not so agile would be better off going around the range of enemy's weapons rather than walking into the teeth of them.

Re: Facing and Passing

 

Fourth, I’m not aware of any rule that prohibits the Orc aborting to a defensive action when someone uses a held action to attack him. Would you care to cite same?

 

Aside from the fact that he already in the middle of making an action (half move), was aware that he would not be able to and that it would make "holding till X occurs" almost worthless: nothing.

But just to be certain I asked Steve Long:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php/89754-Aborting-against-a-held-action

Umm, so based on Steve's answer you were wrong, the Orc can abort. Personally I think I would only have the aborter only lose his remaining half action, and not the remaining half action plus next full action as Steve rules. But the fact remains the orc can abort to a defensive action.

Re: Facing and Passing

Great, GREAT post Hugh. You've said everything I could possibly say on this, only better.

Re: Facing and Passing

Having to protect someone is one of the easiest ways in hero to make an encounter against weaker foes interesting and challenging.

Except with the RAW*, if there are two orcs it does not just become challenging for the knight to protect Princess PITA, it basically becomes impossible even if he greatly outclasses the orcs.

All the orcs have to do is hold until they have a phase together (and in most cases they will have the same Speed so they don't even need to hold). Orc #1 moves towards the Princess. If the knight ignores him he Covers the princess and now the Knight can't do anything or the princess gets it. If he attacks the Orc #1 before the orc Covers the princess, the orc dodges or dives for cover. Then Orc #2 moves to Cover the princess and the knight can do nothing about it since he has already attacked that segment. So no matter what the knight does he can not protect the princess when faced with 2+ opponents. This does not model the source material at all.

I'm all for making things interesting and challenging for the knight. I'm not in favor of making it impossible.

Actually I just thought of an out for the knight, he can Block the Cover attack of Orc #1, and then the can Block (at -2) Orc #2's attack as well. Though I'm still not wholly satisfied with how the rules handle this situation.

* I'm speaking from a 5ER perspective as my group has never converted to 6E. If 6E has expanded the Interpose rules to better cover this situation then never mind.

Re: Facing and Passing

If the orc wants to grab and cover the princess' date=' then this needs two phases/a multiple attack - one to grab, one to cover. So he has all the penalties for that as well.[/quote']

 

Who says the orc needs to grab her first? I don't think Cover requires that. But lets make it even simpler. Princess PITA has already fainted from the stress, so is completely helpless and unable to take any action to defend herself.

 

If the Orc just holds his phase until the knight attack him - then the knight stopped protecting the princess to make an attack and it's his own fault.

 

No, that just ends in a tedious Mexican standoff if your solution depends on the Knight holding his action whenever the Orc does. I agree with Sean. While the existing Interpose rules are good, there is a hole in them in the situation Sean laid out.

Re: Help Me Convert from Silver ATs to Gold Freeform Goodness

FYI - I don't know if you watch the CO PTS forums, but major changes are coming down the pike for Enrage. It is getting turned into a Toggled Form as part of a pass on Forms and Auras, among other changes. So that wiki page I linked to will be at least somewhat out of date when these changes hit Live.

Re: Champions Villains Volume Three: Solo Villains when will it be on the shelf?

It looks like it will go right down to the wire. Just under $2300 to go with only 6 days left at the time I'm posting this. Go to the Kickstarter page for a more up to date accounting:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/herogames/champions-villains-3-solo-villains

If more people don't get on board soon, the answer to this thread's title question will probably be "Never."

I hope everyone who clamored for the hardcover on this thread has already pledged. (Scratch that - I hope they have not but that they see this post and pledge now).

Re: Champions Villains 3: Solo Villains Kickstarter is LIVE

Yeah, I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if a forum owner could get in trouble for sending an email to the forum members. I agree Jason should look into the legality before trying it (if he even wants to try it).

Even if it is "legal" it might not be worth the trouble since some people are very pissy about anything that might possibly be considered spam. I still think it might be a great way to reach former Hero gamers who may have drifted a away from the game but might be willing to throw a few bucks at the Kickstarter due to fond memories. But yeah, maybe it is more trouble than it is worth.