SableWyvern

Re: Penetrating

And you are reading the rules wrong. Penetrating DOES NOT apply to the BODY Damage of a Normal Attack' date=' it applies to the STUN Damage (5ER p266, 2nd paragraph).[/quote']

 

Ah! That makes much more sense. Thankyou.

Re: Resistant Defences

Ok. BOECV does it for Mental Defence. Any examples of where you might want resistant Flash or Power Defence?

Edit: Apart from NND and AVLD, which you've already pointed out.

Defences other than PD and ED can be made resistant. Why would you do this? I can't find any power or advantage, other than a Killing Attack, that cares about resistant defences. Is resistant Mental Defence available simply so that you can spend those 12 pesky points you have left over and don't otherwise need?

Penetrating does BODY equal to Normal Damage BODY, regardless of the target's defences.

If I'm reading the section correctly, that means that a target has no defence against any of the BODY delivered by a Normal Penetrating attack (making then extremely lethal). On the other hand, a KA does minimal Penetrating damage.

Alternately, using the 1 Penetrating BODY per DC, all attacks do a large amount of Penetrating BODY.

Am I missing something here? The default rule seems fairly balanced with respect to Killing Attacks, but ridiculously underpriced for Normal Attacks, or if using the 1 per DC rule.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

Well' date=' with the 2 pools, you now have MPA ability. Beware....[/quote']

 

Fair point.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

IMO' date=' I don't actually like hard AP caps. You either have to maintain the cap forever, or come up with some kind of rate at which the cap goes up ( which is probably arbitrary ). AP limits should be more of guidelines.[/quote']

 

In my case, with a 250+75 game and 60AP cap, I've simply decided to keep the 250:60 ratio. Every 25 character points earned will raise the cap by 6. Seems logical to me.

 

I do agree that inviolable AP caps aren't an ideal solution, but at this point, being able to say "no" straight up to anything over the cap vastly simplifies the process of coming to terms with the system.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

So, the fundamental problem with VPPs is "Yep, I've got the perfect power for this situation ... as usual."? If that's the crux of the issue (aside from the mechanical issues of time taken to create new powers), then I can't see it ever being a problem for me.

About the widest definition I'd be inclined to allow on a VPP would be a gadgeteer who always seems to have something handy on his person -- and in this case, I would expect the VPP to be limited to things that are useful, rather than powerful -- encouraging imaginative uses of lesser powers, rather than overwhelming force.

The more potent stuff that same character had access to would need to be built as seperate power(s), or a more narrowly defined VPP.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

In another game though' date=' their are VPP's with the 'only can use x amount of points on any one power' at a time limit, though we give a limitation for it. If you buy a 90 point power pol, but never can use more than 60 points on one power at a time, we'd give a 1-2 limitation on the control cost. Hasn't upset the balance, the player still pays a fair cost for what is essential an extra reserve to run a few extra minor powers. I can see the arguments for the -0 limitation, but for me, it comes down to fairness; if they pay for something, and cant use it to the full ability, they get a break on it. If you are comfortable enough to let them have VPP's in the first place, the insistance of charging them extra points for reduced effectiveness seems excessively cautious. They are paying through the nose for a VPP anyway.[/quote']

 

Hmm...

 

VPP 120, Control Cost 60, limited to 60AP (-0) = 180 points.

 

2 x VPP 60, Control Cost 30 = 180 points.

 

Basically identical in effect, with the single pool being a tiny bit more versatile, for the same cost. As such, a -0 lim seems appropriate to me (especially since it's effectively just a way of saying "I will abide by campaign AP caps"). Certainly, -1 to -2 seems very generous.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

Hmmm' date=' as a GM I rarely use AP caps at all - prefering a give my players ranges for effects and then attempt to carfully review potential characters.[/quote']

 

Never having GMed HERO before, I'm definitely sticking with firm AP caps, at least at first. Which still leaves me with more than enough stuff that I have to carefully examine looking for unexpected ramifications.

 

Since my original query seems to have been answered (thanks, all), I'd be interested in hearing about the things have have led to many of you being leery of VPPs in general.

Re: VPPs and Active Point Limits

First up, I should clarify that I am the GM.

Secondly, to those who are leery of putting VPPs in the hands of the inexperienced (which would include both myself and my players), if I do end up with one or more characters with VPPs, they aren't going to be of the wide-open variety -- for example, a while back I was toying with the idea of using a VPP to simulate a herbalist's concoctions, in which case the VPP would be limited to containing a range of pre-designed herbal mixtures.

I am interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this comment:

I would also allow a player in' date=' say, a 60 AP cap game to have a 90 point (for example) VPP so long as he accepted the restriction that no single power in the VPP could exceed 60 AP, set as a -0 limitation.[/quote']

 

If I do end up with a VPP using character (which remains to be seen), it looks like I will either go with a 60 point pool limit, or possibly a control cost limit of 60, closer in line with Hugh's stance.

How is the Active Point value of a VPP calculated?

Specifically, say a game has a 60AP limit. Does this allow for a VPP with a 60 point pool and a 30 point control cost (theoretically, up to 60 points for the control cost once advantages are applied) OR a combined maximum of 60 points between the pool and the control cost (meaning a 40 - 20 split if the control cost is not advantaged)?

Thanks in advance for lending me your wisdom.

Re: VPP and Advantages

Ok.

Let's throw a real situation into the mix, instead of talking in hypotheticals. Before this thread sprang up, I had already used the rule under debate here (the original can be found here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42803 )

Combat Enhancement VPP 30

Useable on Others (+1/4)

Very Limited Class (-1)

Control Cost: 9

 

VPP provides access to Skills as Powers: Martial Manoeuvres, 3pt CSLs, Quickdraw, Defensive Manoeuvre, Weapon Familiarity etc... If it's not obvious, these are for powering up the sword's wielder.

These powers belong to a sentient magical sword, and are bestowed on it's wielder.

I'm not going to try and argue that this particular VPP is either balanced or not. In fact, I'm not entirely positive that the skills it is providing are technically allowed to be in a VPP in the first place.

It may, however, provide a focus for one side or the other (or both) to argue their point.

Interestingly, no one commented on the advantaged control pool in the original thread.

(Edit: my original post listed Limted Class as a -1/4 lim)

Re: VPP and Advantages

I'm not sure that it's consistent to say that a point break is inherrently a bad thing.

My very first HERO build was a dragon with a breath weapon limited to being full phase action, and a few melee attacks. With each of these attacks built as seperate powers, it was quite expensive.

It was suggested to me on this very board that I should put those powers into a multipower. Given the nature of the multipower rules, this meant the dragon could use both melee attacks, or a a single breath weapon at any one time -- which, due to the extended time lim on the breath, was already the case.

The only difference placing the attacks into the multipower made? The melee attacks became close to free.

Is this an abuse of the system, getting the same effect much cheaper? The prevailing wisdom on the board seemed to be that using the Multipower was simple common sense.

I agree that advantages on control pools should be monitored closely, but I think it is simplistic and closed-minded to begin and end the discussion at "Cheaper is wrong".

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

If you want to give a penalty to magic skill rolls' date=' why not use Negative Skill Levels or Change Environment?[/quote']

 

'Cause I'm a noob?

 

I'll look into that.

 

Now I know it is a bit of a whack idea, but have you considered the sword being a vehicle for the character's consciousness?

 

I'm not quite sure what your suggesting here that I'm not already doing. Care to explain a bit more?

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Ok.

I've swapped out Telepathy for Mindlink, and turned the Mind Control into a Major Transform (Worships Sword as a God).

Looking at some of the things I've heard strong objections to, I have decided the Transform will not count towards the Follower. Since a normal Follower would not be as subserviant as the sword's wielder, it does make sense to have to pay for the degree of control that will be required.

I have also clarified that Takes No Stun is physical only, and then bought up CON (vs mental attacks only) and a bit of Recovery.

And a 30 point character's CV is going to suck anyway

30 points of Follower makes for a 150 + Disads character.

A psychological attachment (Psychological Disadvantage or maybe DNPC) might also be helpful.

If the player takes up my theory that he is a device for justice, then we'll probably apply a Psych Disad "Dedicated to Meting Out His Justice" or somesuch, which will cover this aspect nicely.

Plus, a few things I missed replying to earlier:

Limited Group, One at a Time (Characteristics linked to magical skill rolls, +1/4)

 

Does this mean supressing INT/EGO? Not sure i'd be keen to allow that if it does.

Yeah. The player was after an anti-magic effect, but I was leery of giving him anything that covered magic completely, given that this is to be a high magic world with a wide variety of magical styles.

It clicked that I could cover a wide variety of bases by making a drain/suppress that affected characteristics tied to casting. This then covers all RSR magical styles. It's also intended that it not be useable on any target who doesn't have a magical RSR characteristic.

What is your problem with the power? It seems perfectly legitimate under the rules, to me. Have I missed something?

One other point in passing: senses.

 

Now Klash does not have any 360 degree senses, or anything that can see through, for instance, a scabbard. Might be worth shelling out for spacial awareness, danger sense or something like that.

I've given that some consideration, and decided to just stick with regular senses for the moment. I will point out exactly what you have, to the player, however, and let him make his own decision on the matter.

Finally for the moment, if this is a FH campaign, that's one expensive character....

Yup. It's a high powered game. A grittier version of what Shrike terms Super Fantasy. The PCs are starting the game as great heroes already, in a high magic setting, so lotsa points are in order.

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Ok, that's a lot to take in all at once, although the general sentiment is clearly that I need to seriously reassess this situation. Perhaps I am indeed being too generous.

As a general question to quite a few of you, say I build the wielder as the PC, and give him the sword as an item. In that instance, the sword will have things like life support automatically (as all swords do). Since the SFX of the situation will still have the sword as the controlling intellect in the pairing, won't that give me much the same results as in my original build?

Some other specific replies:

I would require the character to have STUN and would limit the takes no stun power to physical attacks - then I might allow the defences handwave but probably not.

Good call. I hadn't really considered non-physical damage, a foolish oversight on my behalf.

So there is no benefit from being able to survive without food, in hostile environments or when exposed to acids and toxins?

I should have taken a closer look at Life Support. I was mainly thinking of eating, sleeping and breathing. Still, I refer you to my earlier (and sincere) question in this post -- how does free life-support in this instance differ from the implied free life-support that this sword would have if bought as an attack power for the wielder?

Note the CV of 0. The killing attacks that you have bought are not usable by others and so it would be the sword doing the attacks - thus having to use its own CV.

Do normal weapons have useable by other? I might have missed that. I am pretty sure I left out some advantage or other that most weapons have, I'll look into that.

What I would do, is consider letting the sword be wielded by a player character. Now THERE's an interesting roleplaying situation.

While a perfectly valid idea, the player is interested in playing the sword, and the rest of the group really likes the idea as well. I'd be quite happy for the situation to be reversed, but I'm not going to apply any pressure on the player to do so.

The palindromedary contemplates a vulnerability to rust.....

No real weapon lim.

But those disadvantages don't obviate the advantage the sword has that it won't be killed by that gas, or infected by that plague.

This is at least partially offset by the fact that I have decided to make ressurection readily available for the PCs in this campaign (although I plan to implement some kind of drawback, of currently undetermined nature). Hence, all the PCs are effectively immortal. And I'm still not convinced that an immobile sword with a dead wielder, in the middle of nowhere, is nearly as badly off as a dead sword. Certainly, he'll have to avoid toxic gasses and vacuums just as much as something not resistant to them. I'll still give the matter plenty of thought, in any case. The number of responses along this line preclude me just ignoring them out of hand.

Allow the sword to talk normally or just give it mind link (any one mind, limited range): that way at least the player can not assume that they can make the wielder do anything they like.

Well, a possessing sword was the concept, and I've made it clear to the players in this game that it's an anything-magical-goes campaign, so I'm going to be working with the players preferences in mind as much as is possible. The player in question has indicated he'd like less than perfect control however, which we planned to implement as psych disad of some kind.

The earlier suggestion of swapping out mind control for a transform goes some way towards modelling this more easily, as well.

Did you in fact intend to have Mr. Condemned Prisoner carrying a sword almost as big and probably a bit heavier than he is?

As far as size goes, probably. Regarding weight, I'm perfectly happy to ascribe any arbitrary weight and gleefully ignore any system mechanics that might claim I should do otherwise.

Thanks for everybody's input so far. I have much to think about.

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Well, thats no fun!!

 

I would suggest you stay with simple things for a new game, it doesn't take much for a party to turn a simple item into a GM nightmare.

Heh. Actually, the reason I chose HERO for this specific campaign is because it will let me model a whole host of really, really bizarre options and combinations.

Fortunately, I have no fear of complexity, and enjoy tinkering with systems. The actual game is also more than 12 months away (I've got a Conan campaign to finish up and then an a|state campaign before I get to HERO). So, I've got a lot of time to come to terms with everything I'm going to need to get a handle on.

But what do I know? I have rock in the head!

Please keep your rock-headed ideas coming, Sir Boulder.

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Ok, I see that Mind Link is definitely a better option than Telepathy.

That Transform is an interesting option as well, and might make for a much simpler alternative to Mind Control. I'll look into that as well.

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

If you really want the sword to work get rid of the telephathy and take mind link..... Then slowly start to take over the chacter because his mind is totally accessed threw the mind link.

No idea what mind link does, I'll look into that as an option. The sword does need to be able to communicate generally, though, so if mind link doesn't do that, I'll need to keep telepathy.

Your best bet is to give this sword to A NPC who the party has to rescue because he has gone mad, than just wait droolking when a new person picks it up and the "sword" tries to talk it's way into getting a better host.

 

"Thank the Gods, you saved me from that maniac!! He killed my poor owner and I was forced in the hands of that monster, oh woe is me! and my poor master! So are you my new owner? Oh, I think the big guy over there can use me much more effective!!

I may not have been clear, but the sword is going to actually be a PC, not a plot device or a piece of equipment.

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Thanks for your thoughts, KA.

It sounds like you are planning to GM, and you are building things just to learn the rules.

Pretty much. At the moment, I'm focusing on building the concepts the players are looking to build, both for my general benefit and so I can help them with the process (we're all completely new to HERO).

I have considered building the sword as ancillary to the wielder, rather than "accurately" modelling the sword as the PC. Certainly, I will leave that as an option for the player in question, if he would rather go down that route.

For some reason though, modelling the PC as the sword feels ... more right ... to me, despite the rule bending it has required so far.

As to issues of the sword "powering-up" in play by finding more skilled wielders, that's something I plan to avoid by working through the concept with the player and setting some RPing limits on his decisions.

The group as a whole, and thus the sword PC as well, will be essentially "good" guys, so possessing people willy-nilly won't be an option.

My favourite limiting idea so far is that the sword is actually some kind of justice device -- from time to time throughout the ages, particularly vile criminals are sentenced to possession by the sword. Dedication to this cause would preclude seeking wielders of opportunity.

At the least, your comments have made me realise I need to discuss the matter quite specifically with the player in question and make sure we're both on the same page.

First up, I'd like to thank everyone who's helped me out in the past with my earlier issues coming to grips with HERO.

In that case, I was working on a fairly straightforward dragon character. Now, I'm building an intelligent sword (the PC) being wielded by a possessed NPC.

As with the dragon, this is just my attempt at a build who's final implementation will actually be put together by the PC's player.

Here's the sword part of the build (300 points + 50 disads).

Primary Characteristics

Strength: 0

Dexterity: 0

Constitution: 0

Body: 30

Intelligence: 18

Ego: 18

Presence: 23

Comeliness: 0

Cost: 23

Derived Characteristics

PD: 10/r10

ED: 10r10

Speed: 1

Recovery: 0

Endurance: 0

Stun: 0

Cost: 30

Movement

Running: 0

Swimming: 0

Leap: 0

Cost: -14

Perks

Takes No Stun: 60

- This should also triple the cost of defences. However, due to the fact that the sword itself is unlikely to be the target of many attacks, I decided that the 60 point cost is already sufficient penalty for this ability (see also comments on Life Support, below).

No Hit Locations: 10

Wielder (Follower): 30 (But see comments on Mind Control)

Skills

Scholar

5 x KS (13-)

3 x Fluent Languages (including starting language)

2 x Basic Languages

Cost: 19

Powers

Flash Defence (Sight): 10

Mental Defence 14 (20 total): 14

Telepathy 4d6

- 0 End (+1/2)

- Constant (+1)

- Communication Only (-1/4)

Active Points 50, Real Cost 40

Detect Magic, Sense, Discriminatory: 13

Anti-Magic Suppress 5d6

- BOECV (+1)

- Limited Group, One at a Time (Characteristics linked to magical skill rolls, +1/4)

- Limited Range (20", -1/4)

- Charges (8, -1/2)

Active Points 56, Real Cost 37

Mind Control 3d6

- Cumulative (Up to 8x, +1 1/4)

- Difficult to Dispel (+1/4)

- Constant (+1)

- 0 End (+1/2)

- No Range (-1/4)

- Gradual (1 week, -2)

Active Points 60, Real Cost 18

The No Range lim limits the power to the sword's wielder and a range of a few feet. In conjunction with the Gradual Lim, this makes the power practically useless beyond making the basic concept actually viable. As such, I'm counting it's cost towards the Follower perk (meaning the 30CP follower only actually costs 12).

Life Support (Full)

I'm not going to charge for any of the Life Support options. Since the sword is almost entirely dependant on his wielder, who will not have Life Support, there is virtually no actual benefit to any Life Support option.

I'm a Sword Multipower

Multipower Reserve: 60

-Strength Min 18 (-1)

- 2 Hands (-1/2)

Real Cost: 24

2u HKA 2 1/2d6, AP

2u HKA 4d6

Combat Enhancement VPP 30

Useable on Others (+1/4)

Very Limited Class (-1/4)

Control Cost: 9

VPP provides access to Skills as Powers: Martial Manoeuvres, 3pt CSLs, Quickdraw, Defensive Manoeuvre, Weapon Familiarity etc... If it's not obvious, these are for powering up the sword's wielder.

Total Cost 350

50pts Disads required

I've ignored a few official rules to make it work, but I think I've done so for sensisble reasons, and without creating a character that is unfairly powerful.

So, thoughts, feedback, criticism?

I'd say there's a fair chance that this is the most complex and out-there PC I'll have to deal with in the campaign, and if I can make this workable, I think it bodes well for my future as a HERO GM.

Re: Herbalism

I could be wrong' date=' but I'm guessing that FH Herb list came from the FH conversions from one of the Shadow World books, which used a modified (mostly detolkienised) version of the usual RM Herb list.[/quote']

 

Ah, yes, that would make sense.

Re: Herbalism

Midhir, that's ICE's herb list for RM/MERP (converted to HERO, obviously). It looks fairly comprehensive, so I'd guess it comes originally from Hands of the Healer (which is the book referenced by Badger3k upthread), although the shorter lists in various RM corebooks over the years were also pretty large.

It looks like there have been a few significant changes - ICE's Swuth is a marijuana-like drug, for instance, not a healing herb.

Edit: actually, there are quite a few items missing from that list that are in my copy of Gamemaster Law for RM. Conversely, there are quite a few items on the list that aren't in my copy of GM Law.

Re: Please Critique My First Ever Build

Ok, it's time for Mr Dragon Mk II.

Strength 40

Dexterity 13

Constitution 23

Body 20

Intelligence 18

Ego 18

Presence 23

Comeliness 0

Primary Characteristics Cost: 117

PD 20/20r Hardened x1

ED 20/20r

Speed 4

Recovery 13

Endurance 46

Stun 52

Derived Characteristics Cost: 74

Running 12"

Flight (Useable as Gliding) 14"

Movement Costs: 47

MULTIPOWER

Pool: 56

2u Firebreath

4u Tooth and Claw

1u Tail

1u Legsweep

1u Wing-Buffet

Firebreath Unchanged from the original version. 56 Active Points, Real Cost 22.

Tooth and Claw HKA 3d6 (Active/Real 45)

Tail HA 2d6 (Active/Real 10)

Legsweep (Active 4/Real 4 or 3)*

Wing-Buffet Telekinesis 16

- Advantage: AoE (6" Cone +1)

- Lim: No Range (-1/4)

- Lim: Extra Time (Full Phase -1/2)

- Lim: Affects Whole Object, Grab and Throw Only (-1/2)

- (Active 48/Real 14)

Multipower Cost: 65

Other Abilities

Discriminatory Scent

Combat Sense as Sense, Out of Combat

Stretching 2"

Nightvision

Telescopic Sight +2

Track by Scent

Tracking (+1) 14-

Aerial Navigation 13-

Dragon Tongue, Native

Local Tongue, Fluent

Local Tongue, Fluent

Alfarin Tongue, Fluent

Foreign Tongue, Fluent

2 Point CSL, Tooth and Claw

KS: Mountains 11-

KS: Regional History 11-

Deduction 13-

Other Stuff Cost: 73

Oh, and this version is 300 points, which means another 25 points of limitations will need to be found.

*Yes, I'm aware Martial Manoeuvres are meant to be taken to a minimum of 10 points, and I'm disregarding that in this instance. Additionally, the Legsweep won't be useable simultaneously with a tail bash, so it possibly deserves a -1/4 limitation, but that would make no actual difference to anything else in either case.

Thanks for the feedback that has got me this far. Any further thoughts?

Re: Please Critique My First Ever Build

I started a seperate thread for the wings (Dragon Wing-Buffet), and have probably settled on AoE Telkinesis. I didn't consider stretching for the tail, but that would make sense.