SableWyvern

Re: Increasing Target Visibility In what essential way does that differ from any other AoE attack?

Re: Perk: Gold Cross Policy? Determine the level of Wealth that would be required for a character to afford the policy. Apply the Limitation -1/2 For Gold Cross Policy Only.

Re: Total Newbie Here; prospective HERO-er The 12 second turn is broken into 12 segments. Characters act on a number of segments equal to their Speed characteristic. If you've ever played Car Wars, the HERO turn sequence is very similar to the phased movement in that game. Characters acting in the same segment take their phases (a phase is a segment in which you act) in order of DEX. On their phase, characters get two partial actions or a full phase action -- these are almost identical to D&Ds partial and full round actions. [Or, what Chris posted while I was typing ]

Re: Total Newbie Here; prospective HERO-er As someone who is relatively new to HERO myself (I've been tinkering for about 12 months now, but haven't run anything yet), let me echo the sentiment that you really only need the core rulebook. If you want a lot of pre-built templates for things like races, professions and magic systems (or the equivalent for non-fantasy genres), then other books will probably be of considerable use. If, on the other hand, you want to build most of your campaign world from the ground up, most of the ancillary material will be superfluous. For myself, while I found a few bits and pieces in Fantasy Hero that I will be incorporating into my game, it was mostly a wasted purchase.

Re: "Behind" in combat Rolemaster had a similar loophole in the rules, and I had one player in particular who liked to exercise his right to flank opponents. My solution then was to required opposed Moving Manoeuvre checks (DEX checks would probably be the equivalent in HERO). In a one-one-one fight, somebody trying to flank got big penalties, while the opposite was true if the opponent was outnumbered. Diamond Spear's solution is much simpler, while mine adds some tactical options at the cost of more complexity.

Re: Attacks OK Defenses No Way? As per the official optional rule? That option has struck me as rather harsh. Go from SPD 4 to 5 on segment 6, and you don't act again until segment 12, giving you a total of only 3 phases for the turn -- worse than either of your speeds. Do it in segment 3 and you lose another phase.

Re: Increasing Target Visibility That's pretty much my initial idea exactly. You seem to be the odd one out suggesting that it's a fair counter to invisibility, however.

Re: Increasing Target Visibility So, if I go with Suppress Invisibility, is -1/4 a fair limitation for "vs sight group invisibility only"?

Re: Uses Multiple Continuing Charges? Bump? Anyone?

Re: Increasing Target Visibility Good point. My mistake. Yep, the power itself will suffer all the usual problems with targeting invisible. I may make it AoE, which will make it a bit easier to use. I like that idea. Unfortunately, in this case, the fact that it circumvents the intial targeting problem makes it an inappropriate solution. Anyway, it looks like Dispel or Supress is the way to go. Thanks.

Re: Hero system complexity While I don't know the original context of that specific conversation, I still stand by my assertion that such a comment most commonly means, "I could learn how to play HERO, but it's too much effort and thus not worth it - it's just too complicated."

Re: Hero system complexity Personally, I found D&D 3E much easier to pick up when I started, than I have HERO. Admitedly, I did have some familiarity with earlier additions of D&D, but 95% of my prior RPing experience had been with Rolemaster. OTOH, if I was planning to run a more limited Heroic HERO game, with an already developed magic system, I'm guessing that I'd place tham about on par.

Re: Increasing Target Visibility Yeah, I'm just concerned that a simple Transform is a very cheap ability if it renders invisible and desolidified targets effectively visible. If the consensus is that this is not the case, then it certainly seems the simplest method of acheiving the desired effect.

Re: Hero system complexity I dare say that a lot of people complaining about HERO's complexity do fall into the unwilling, rather than unable category. The character generation rules in 5ER take up the first 341 pages. Plenty of RPG manuals aren't that long in total. Searching through 340 pages of rules trying to work out "what's the best way to model XXX", constantly flipping back and forth between powers, limitations, advantages, framework rules and other miscellania is simply more work than many people want to be stuck with. Thus, it is too hard/complex, inasmuch as the amount of work exceeds the level of reward. Edit: and that's not factoring in rules outside the strictly character generation parts of the book that also need to be referenced and understood for some powers and abilities.

Re: Hero system complexity I'd suggest you're going to get ever so slightly biased results, given where you're posting... Having said that, I would say that the HERO front-end, taken in it's entirety, can be quite complex if you want to get the most out of it. Taking the rules and just building powers is very easy. However, going in the other direction -- taking a concept and using the rules to simulate it -- sometimes takes a much deeper understanding of the rules, and a lot of research. While I could well be wrong, I doubt very much that your 10 year old is going to be using HERO to anywhere near it's maximum utility.

How to build a power that places an aura around a target (especially an invisible or desolidified one)? My first thought was Images UAA, but I have a feeling that that is a little too potent for the low cost. The most obvious alternative is a dispel or suppress, which should work reasonbly well with Invisibility, but not so much with desol, where only the visual component of desol should be affected. Thoughts?

Have I got this right? Multipower with 32 charges (+1/4 on MP Control Cost) Slot uses 2 charges, Continuing 1 min. Uses two charges of 32 available gives -3/4 Continuing advangtage is based on 32 Continuing Charges, minus the 1/4 already paid on the control cost, giving +3/4 Total adv for charges on the slot is +0

Re: Harpoon Man -- Advice Needed Ok. I've got: Swinging 10" (10 Active) -Maximum line-length 20" -One line at a time Not sure whether either or both of those parameters should count as limitations. At 10 points, probably doesn't make much difference anyway. Stretching 10" (50 Active) Always Direct -1/4 Harpoon Only -1/4 Range Modifier -1/4 (29 Real) To be clear, the Harpoon is effectively an extension of the character's arm. I costed the harpoon only lim the same as arms only because, while there are some things an arm can do that the Harpoon can't, there are things it can do a normal arm can't. HKA 2d6 AP +1/2 Continuous (only while target grabbed) +1/2 (60 Active)

Re: Harpoon Man -- Advice Needed Ok, I'm still a little stuck on point 4, the stick-into-someone trait. Clinging: Useable on Others seems to be the solution, but the actual description of Clinging doesn't really explain how this works. Could anyone give me a run-down, or point me to somewhere in the rules with more detail?

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack? I still see all those examples as things that you could feasibly extricate yourself from (the TK may vary depending on your precise explanation of the SFX), while I see a worn item constricting as something different. For what it's worth, IMO, a TK Grab with a similar SFX to the armour-constrict under discussion would not be well modelled by the existing Grab rules. Obviously, some of you are seeing things from a different perspective, which is fine by me.

Ok, I'm pretty much at a loss as to how to design this power: SFX: Metal dart with trailing cable, fired from character's body. Effects: 1. Winch -- the easy bit, done with Swinging. 2. Basic RKA -- also easy, except when interfacing with #4 3. Establishing a line to a point, which others can crawl along or use as climbing aid. 4. Sticking in an opponent and allowing them to be manipulated to some degree (dragged/restrained/unbalanced). This would need to be tied to a successful use of the RKA element of the ability. Incorporating a grab in some way might nearly do the job, but I'm not sure... Throw in some Stretching, maybe? 5. Piercing suitably robust, inanimate objects and dragging them back to the character. Possibly TK? Any advice greatly appreciated. Oh, and I'm working with a 60AP hard cap. Edit: Actually, rereading the player's concept, and giving it a bit more thought, it looks like Stretching will solve most of my problems. Still, any other opinions appreciated.

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack? I see shrugging off a grab not as flexing against a squeezing pressure, but actually applying force against your opponent's leverage. If you grab my arm, and I pull it away, I'm not so much resisting your actual squeeze, I'm affecting your whole ability to maintain balance and leverage. Similarly if I push the brick (from your example), rotate around and apply a slight trip, I'm not opposing the squeeze, but the bricks basic ability to gain a grip. That is what a grab, and shrugging it, represents to me. Telekinetic grabs represent basically identical applications of force, with the same inherrent difficulties for the grabber -- just applied at distance. OTOH, I don't see the situation in question as the result of a direct application of outside force. Something that shrinks as it cools would be roughly equivalent to what I'm envisaging. You can't shrug or dodge away from something like that, because there's no outside force that, if pushed away, will cause the shrinking to stop. You will be "grabbed" until you cut away or otherwise remove the constricting item. Essentially, I do not think that in this case "your armour is taking the place of some strong dude giving you a bear hug". Instead, I see a fundamentally different interaction ... or perhaps, from a different angle ... To shrug of the strong guy's grab, you need to force him away. Since the armour takes his place, you would need to force it away, ie, rip it off. And I don't think ripping off your armour is a well represented by a STR check vs a TK grab. Which isn't to say your perspective isn't valid, it just doesn't mesh with my own.

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack? I have a big problem with the "grab" part of "grab and squeeze", specifically the idea that the grab can be shrugged off. In a normal grab, you can use casual strength to escape the opponent's grip. That makes no sense when your armour is tightening around you. AVLD: PD Not Originating from Metal Armour seems to deal with the objections raised by the TK advocates (given that all other PD still functions as normal), as well as avoiding the problems with grab and with the armour that's doing the damage also protecting you.

Re: Is this a reasonable NND attack?

Re: Desolidify/Tunnelling Cool. That works for me.