Jump to content

Tholomyes

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. That's pretty much how I like to do it too. 1 XP a session, usually, 2XP if it seemed like a particularly momentous occasion, either in character or just an especially fun session. One thing I'd add is that I tend to do a mix of episodic sessions and plot arcs, so for the end of a plot arc, I'd up that to 3-5 XP, depending on the length and importance of the arc (and maybe for mid-arc climaxes I'd throw in an extra XP point or two, if it's a longer or especially pivital arc). The important thing I've found is that it seems fair and proportionate to the impact of the session. For the first bit,
  2. This doesn't seem too dissimilar to the running build earlier, which as eepjr mentioned, doesn't really do what you want it to: In HERO, while it's not true that the simple answer is always the best, more often than not, it's the right jumping off point. If the effect you want is, effectively, invisibility, then modeling it as invisibility seems to be the right way to go, likely with no fringe. Depending on how you want the power to work, the Psionic limitation in APG II might be right for the build, if you want to only not be noticed by other people, but be detectable by computers or
  3. While I don't dislike the way HERO handles initiative (I'd consider myself neutral) having an initiative roll, something as simple as make a DEX roll and go in order of how much you succeed/fail by (with tiebreaks being done by dex score, or possibly INT or EGO, or something), does not change the concept of Tempo, as the order of the characters in the initiative list, barring things like blocked attacks, or the like, doesn't really change from round to round. The addition of a Roll only changes the variability of the turn order from fight to fight; it is no more about "choices" if there is a d
  4. As for general books, your list generally covers what I think are the important ones. Depending on your genre interests, or what you want out of the books, there are some other ones I might pick up, but as far as a "jack of all Genres" checklist, that's a pretty good list. I've found for Superheroes that the Champions sourcebook is fairly useful, even if you have Champions Complete. I don't own Fantasy Hero Complete, but the Fantasy Hero sourcebook may very well be similar in that aspect (but If I'm wrong, other posters, correct me on this), and the Grimoire can be even more useful than Champi
  5. For me, it's about Dramatic Realism, and the flexibility that Hero's point buy provides. GURPS, while similar, in many ways, to HERO, cleaves too much towards it's own vision of "realism" for my tastes (for example, Neuroscience is priced highly, not because it's an important skill, but because "in real life" it's a hard skill to learn). HERO, however, recognizes that it's probably not even as useful to your average adventurer as standard First Aid. So Neuroscience would be a Science skill, with the pricing of 2/1, while Paramedics is priced 3/2. If someone wants to do a "realistic" people gam
  6. Increasing damage on rolling well is an idea that is highly flawed, but has the potential for merit, if the "i"s are crossed and "t"s are dotted, as far as the cost structure and interactions with other rules, such as CSLs and spreading an attack, and taken care of. Increasing damage by adding more dice, but capping it, is functionally identical to just adding more dice. Technically, there is nothing wrong with the concept of adding more dice and capping it, but it throws up a lot of red flags, because a) the way it's described implies that it is (for the 10d6+2d6 capped at 60 STUN example) tr
  7. I don't see how any of those criticisms follow from a Rule of "X". A rule of X has absolutely nothing to do with a class-based system, to the point where I can't even fathom where that sentence is coming from. All a rule of X does is set a limit on certain aspects of the character (CVs, DC, DEF, SPD, ect). It is actually less restrictive than most campaign limits, which involve Active point caps, or the like, because it is more lenient about each individual aspect, so long as the total of the aspects (after certain weighting) come out to the "X" or under. Or to put it more concretely, a charac
  8. That's why I'm against it. (Not the fact that it doesn't increase max damage, but the fact that it increases the average). Max damage doesn't matter. The fact that you can theoretically roll 10 6s on a 10d6 doesn't really change the phase-to-phase damage that a character can do. But if you have characters based around the idea that 10d6 is the average damage that a character can do, and you have a character who, because of your rule, can do (effectively) 12d6 damage, without some sort of trade off elsewhere (such as via a Rule of X), that exceeds those expectations. Any situation where a 12d6
  9. If Joe the Barbarian gets the 1-in-2 Billion Dice roll, then I don't care if I look silly, that was a 1-in-2 Billion shot. I'm taking Joe's player to Vegas. Seriously, though, if I wanted to worry about things that happen a minute fraction of the percent of the time, "the barbarian one-shotting the dragon" isn't high on my list of concerns. I'm more likely to get struck by lightning within the year than anyone at the table rolling max damage on 12d6. Which is why I recommended the "realistic Maximums" someone at the table may roll really well and get a 56, or so. It's unlikely, but within
  10. The problem with this is that is (assuming 12d6), the Maximum Roll occurs about 1 in 2 billion rolls (even assuming 10d6, it's still 1 out of 60 million). If you're concerned about realistic maximum damage, I'd just tend to set a cut off percentage. For example on a 12d6 you're only ever going to see a 50 or higher about 10% of the time, a 52 or higher about 5% of the time, and 56 or higher 1% of the time.
  11. While I agree in general, there are some "single-origin" universes (the Wild Cards example springs to mind, and also, I believe Gestalt, but I'm not too familiar with that), but even then you can have gadgeteers or magic users who, on the surface appear to be gadgeteers or magic users (albeit with certain aesthetic shifts to match the universe), but whose true power source is based in the setting's single-origin. Though I do agree in general: The problem that I have with a question such as the OP's is that it's not really a mechanical choice, so much as an aesthetic or flavor one. True, th
  12. I'm comparing it to 12d6, because my point is, if a 12d6 attack isn't allowed in the game, a 10d6 attack, with 2d6 extra (capped at 60 STUN and 20 BODY) shouldn't be either, as they're nearly identical (they differ by a fraction of a percent). In either event, the "limitation" that caps max damage at 60 STUN and 20 BODY should be worth no points, due to the "If a limitation doesn't really limit anything, it's not worth any points". Furthermore, I don't know if our definitions of average are getting misunderstood: In referring to average damage, I'm referring to the mean, which is probably
  13. It doesn't change much. For the stun, as you might expect it reduces the damage by about 1 (so it's 1.000072 STUN lower and .0000007 BODY lower than 12d6, on average, but that's still about 6 STUN and 2 BODY higher than 10d6), which means it would still only be acceptable to me, and I suspect most GMs, if the campaign limits were set such that 12d6 were acceptable. Capping maximum damage just doesn't work in HERO, due to the approximately normal distribution of dice rolls. Even with 3d6, you can note that the tail ends of the bell curve are very small probabilities: 0.46% for 3 and 18, 1.4% fo
  14. This would be identical to just having 12d6 in 99.95% of cases (and that number only goes up as the base damage value increases, to the point that with 12d6, it's identical in 99.995% of cases). The average damage differs by only .001 point of STUN and .0000078 point of BODY . At best it would be a -0 limitation, and even then I probably wouldn't allow it unless the 12d6 (or whatever number of base dice+Extra dice) fit within campaign limits. It's too bad +1/8 advantages don't exist, because mathematically. that would be almost perfect for this type of advantage.
  15. Mechanically, magic in my games are no different than any other source of powers. No "Suggested Limitations" or anything like that. It's more to do with special effect than anything. However Narratively, my setting has different magical dimensions, where the rules of physics work differently, and casting magic essentially involves tapping into those dimensions and making localized rifts where the rules of those dimensions overlap with the "normal" world. Most characters only tap into a single dimension, though Doctor Strange/Doctor Fate types exist who can tap into more or all of them. While n
×
×
  • Create New...