macster

Re: Breakpoint house rule It's just that it doesn't make sense to me that (for example) someone with above average INT (12) has no mechanical advantage over someone with below average INT (8). I understand your point - it might be so rare it's a waste of time to fix. I admit I'm new to Hero so my concerns are theoretical. A good GM could make INT 12 have advantages over INT 8 even if they're not objective advantages. Also if you're concerned about mechanical effects you can always just make sure to buy enough INT to make it count so to speak.

Re: Breakpoint house rule Hmm I like that. My original attempt was in fact a 1d6 vs the mod 5 of your characteristic but it hadn't occurred to me to only do it if you're off by one. I was considering applyinig it every roll but thought that a 1/6 chance of +1 was too high for a character just over the breakpoint. Your way is better in the sense that it involves fewer rolls (i.e. only on close calls) and also isn't too much of an advantage for low characteristics.

Re: Breakpoint house rule Oops. You're absolutely right. My rookie mistake - yes the breakpoints are at 3, 8 etc. I also liked gojira and Derek's suggestions. The problem with rolling every scene is that the rolls could prove unncessary if that attribute isn't called on. I like the idea of getting a fixed # of bonuses that you can spend when you want.

Re: Breakpoint house rule Actually I wasn't thinking of it as a separate roll. You would only roll once but if your roll happened to be within the bonus range you'd get an additional +1. I specifically didn't want any additional rolling. I guess the downside is that if your main roll is low enough to get the bonus, then you might not need the bonus anyways! Mac

I'm thinking of ways around the problem of breakpoints for things like INT rolls. Here's one idea I had if anyone wants to criticize it (I'm new to Hero so sorry if this topic has been beaten bloody already): Base roll is 9+(CHAR/5), as usual. The player makes their roll. An additional bonus may be granted depending on what they rolled and their attribute: If (CHAR+2) is evenly divisible by 5, no bonus - the roll stands as is. Otherwise, take the remainder of (CHAR+2)/5 and multiply by 3 i.e. [(CHAR + 2) MOD 5] x 3, if your roll is less than or equal to that number you get an additional +1 bonus. Example: Blackwing has an INT of 12 and needs to make a perception roll. His roll would be 9+(INT/5) = 11- and his bonus chance would be [14 MOD 5 ] x 3 = 12 He rolls 6 for perception. This roll also grants him +1 since it's <= his bonus chance of 12. So for the purposes of this roll his perception roll would be 12- (i.e. instead of making it by 5 he makes it by 6). (Note this doesn't involve an extra roll - the same roll is used to determine success or failure and also to determine if there's a bonus.) Mac

I haven't seen this in the errata so I thought I'd point out that the Firebrand sample character from 5ER and Sidekick is listed as having Total PD of 23 and, under Defenses, a Physical Defense of 23. I believe it should be 26. Mac

Not that this is important, but in Sidekick on p.20, "Skilled" is ranked lower than "Competent" for characteristic benchmarks, whereas on p. 22 under the descriptions in the skill roll table, "Competent" is ranked lower than "Skilled". Aside from the inconsistency, don't you think that the term "skilled" implies something better than "competent"? "He is a competent pianist" "He is a skilled pianist" To me, it's not clear which is better, but if anything "Competent" suggests mere adequacy. Perhaps "Expert", "Gifted" or "Highly Skilled" would be a better descriptor than "Competent" for characteristics? Mac