Jump to content

TheDarkness

HERO Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,362

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

 Content Type 

Everything posted by TheDarkness

  1. TheDarkness
    And since a skill framework would require tedious amounts of GM permission, if there were a reasonable framework for doing so, it would maintain balance and lighten the load. This is part of the reason I am leaning toward the framework only working with stats and skills, as soon as we add powers in, I think it will be exceedingly difficult NOT to suddenly give a lot of munchkin options. And there being a hard upper limit on stat additions.
  2. TheDarkness
    NND is an advantage, not a power, so it likely could fit in without difficulty. If flash is the only exception that comes to mind, then it might be best, instead of trying to design a framework that allows for it, simply buy it as is outside of the framework. I'm a bit dubious about the idea that anyone should get flash with range of touch for less points than anyone else, just because it is martial arts. I understand that the discount is from the implied framework.
  3. TheDarkness
    I think it would almost have to apply to stats, but with a cap. Too many martial maneuvers depend on a STR bonus. But that bonus seems to cap out at +15.
  4. TheDarkness
    Thanks! So the cost of some maneuvers would definitely be higher than figured. I couldn't remember for the life of me how that worked.
  5. TheDarkness
    I would say that we might want to avoid the first and third. The first, because it rules out the eclectic fighter(like Daredevil) who routinely schools people who ARE from established styles. The third, because it rules out new styles unnecessarily, and prevents a player from making a martial artist who practices something other than a known style. Plus, they would be very difficult for a GM who wasn't also a martial artist to judge and enforce. I strongly favor not allowing ANY powers in the pool, but I'm not sure anyone else agrees on that one. Since powers already work quite well in the existing frameworks, and a pool that would, almost by definition, allow naked advantages(NND to STR, for example) might open the road to abuse.
  6. TheDarkness
    Putting down some current thoughts on this. I want to make clear, I don't expect anyone else to agree, I'm just putting this down in case it's useful to others. Among the free maneuvers, dodge is the problem child. Most of the free maneuvers seem, at a brief glance, to impose penalties that might balance out their costs to zero. Dodge is the exception, involving three CSLs. Martial maneuvers, as listed, might be a good test run for any framework designed. They involve more CSLs, and thus, more cost. IF they(as listed, not their listed cost, their listed effect) were used as a test run for any framework, and a general guideline, this might be good. Assuming we were to design a framework for skills and stats, using the example of martial maneuvers, the maximum stat gain is +15(at least, based on the 6th ed. Champions Complete). For such a framework, this might be a good baseline for a maximum stat gain that can be used in the framework. The maximum CSLs required I'm a bit confused on, due to damage additions. I'll have to look it up later(it's late here, and I'm tired). If I'm remembering right, each 1D6 normal additional damage is 3 CSLs, but I don't have my book handy. I'm thinking out loud here, there's likely to be some mistakes, forgive me.
  7. TheDarkness
    I think that does cover the major things. The thing that I think is important to keep in mind, is the cost of the basic maneuvers is a remnant of a patch, as far as I can tell. If we are proposing something beyond that patch, we MAY need to view the basic maneuver's costs to come with rational builds for the other maneuvers. For example, dodge. Dodge does not cost what it represents, because it is a remnant of the martial arts system(I mean, its cost is). For our purposes, it needs to, otherwise we're going to run into some strange problems with modified dodge builds. Yes, this will be more expensive. But it gives us a baseline that is not skewed by dropping the martial arts setup for those who wish to in their builds. Either they use that system, and get the discount, or they use the granular system, and have to use the super duper framework that does everything advertised without breaking the system. This way, both options are on the table.
  8. TheDarkness
    I did not make myself clear, my fault. I still think that certain maneuvers should be free. Largely the same ones that are free now. My point was, those maneuvers, since MOST other maneuvers will be built off of them, should have a cost that makes sense, that is systematic and thus, can be replicated with modifications. This is why I am loathe to grandfather in points values as they stand. They are based on an assumed, but undefined framework, one that will not work well for our purposes, imo, because as they become modified, problems will manifest. They are based off of what we feel they should cost, not what they are. As such, sweep, for example, is naturally most likely to be built off of trip, though we certainly could debate this. Knowing a basis for the cost of trip that is rational, even though the maneuver is free(so the cost is not paid, merely defined for build purposes), we can find a value for the cost of trip. Knowing those values, then, if we build a type of framework, we can quickly ascertain the goals and pitfalls of that framework. So a good number of free maneuvers whose costs, though no one needs pay them, can then be used as a basis for more specialized maneuvers. Now, since those maneuvers are free, it does not matter if, when building them, they are expensive if we build them. It only matters for more specialized maneuvers. And thus, the usefulness of a type of framework that would benefit a character who has a strong basis in skills based things, where they can reasonably build the character they want, while making it harder for a character who is, for example, really just a brick, to add one maneuver just to have extra damage classes, since they will not be as willing to pay for and build the framework that makes it more affordable.
  9. TheDarkness
    I think one thing that gets missed is that, in two weapons fighting, feinting is presenting an attack that is viable, and, if the feint doesn't draw a defense, completing it, and if it does, striking at the expected opening. It is a bad habit to train a feint to not be carried out as a real attack if the person doesn't defend against the feigned attack. As for two weapons doing something together, I cannot speak as much for Western styles, but in eastern ones, this is often a last ditch to defend against a heavy blow from a heavier, longer weapon.
  10. TheDarkness
    One thought on a pool that largely references skills and stats is that, given my assumption that any use will default to referencing things any character can do based on the rules(cause knockdown, strike, etc), there is somewhat of a natural limit to how powerful this could make someone. Stat increases will be the easiest part to game, imo. Since the martial arts system is, itself, a pool that is invisible, with somewhat arbitrary rules, I think there is a use in designing one whose rules are clear, and can be applied to more that martial arts.
  11. TheDarkness
    I think, in response to this, we could continue to play with the ideas, with the knowledge that, at points where we may have fleshed out, to some degree, a system, we can then try to break it with builds. So, what traits do we picture the kind of pool having that would serve our needs fairly?
  12. TheDarkness
    My answer to this is similar to one part of my comment to Christopher. Yes, you can grab. That grab has a cost. The problem is, if we are, just to torture ourselves, designing an approach to martial arts that utilizes the system's granularity, then we cannot grandfather in cost structures from the existing patch, if the costs are fair in relation to the system we are talking about, then we can carry it over, but we cannot assume that a cost from the current approach should reflect what would be fair in a system more similar to the rest of Hero. As such, I really think, though not all here might agree, that the 'maneuvers' approach is a bit of a dead end, and builds are the way to go, just like almost everything else in the game. The build for a common strike would be a default that everyone has, things like that, but there would still be a build underlying it. The maneuver approach is good for ease of design, imo, but not at all for granularity. Now rules, as in, KB and KD, being able to abort to defensive actions, these must be the basis, imo.
  13. TheDarkness
    Christopher, I guess where I'm vacillating on my own iteration of this(at least in my overthinking head) is on cost structure. The basic cost of basic maneuvers, does it give a good baseline, or is it, itself, referencing a patch, and so will referencing that cause a problem? As for making a system only for use in Heroic campaigns, I am not so keen on it, simply because I want to have the option for Hero's granularity in relation to martial arts(and, now that I think of it, skills) in any campaign I might run, or at least the option.
  14. TheDarkness
    Just curious, what has been your opinion when the court is the other way around?
  15. TheDarkness
    On another thread, I pointed out that the martial manuevers are entirely a pre-build, not a build your own, yet you could build a martial arts system with granularity without using the pre-build. It seems to me a good model for building a simple approach, prebuilds for teleporters, blasters, bricks, etc., while keeping a granularity that players using the prebuilds could totally play with as they go along and customize.
  16. TheDarkness
    I think the more compelling argument would be that each could be a skill on its own, woodcraft being 'stealth in the woods'. But then, what would be the simplest way to determine the cost of a stealth skill that does the same thing as stealth, but in fewer circumstances? It should NOT cost the same. So skills as powers are the only established way I'm aware of. This does not literally make them powers, just as a speedster is not literally flying, even though they have flying with a limitation on it. The game effect, imo, determines what the thing is, not the build. Only where a build is being done to munchkin out where there is a more appropriate form designed specifically to get that effect should it matter. In this case, there simply is no more appropriate way to build the skill of woodcraft.
  17. TheDarkness
    I also expect that it will have the granularity of Hero, which the maneuver system is meant to be a simplification and end-run around so that people who do not want to have to build a martial artist can do so with ease. There is use in both, imo. I also would say that the martial arts system has some things that drive me to develop a way to, for those who choose to, not default to is. In game effect, the counterstrike is literally not a counterstrike, but a 'slip a strike and drive in'. I see no reason not to have both. Commenting in general now. A character with a stat as a power, +10 INT for engineering only, is a savant, not a super, even though the stat is bought as a power and has a limitation. I will say that triggers should have limits in many cases. In the other thread, I proposed a simple limit on counterstrike, in which it adds to DCV(slipping the strike), but in which the counterstrike can only occur if the opponent's attack fails, which is both realistic and limiting to the trigger.
  18. TheDarkness
    And, to make clear, I am not saying get rid of the martial arts system. I think it is fine for its purposes, and allows a fun entry. However, if one wants the granularity of Hero in their martial arts, it is not really designed for that. In fact, for entry level Hero, I would totally not oppose a "blaster" "teleporter" "speedster" version of the current martial arts maneuvers system, though I admit, I will not be the one designing it.
  19. TheDarkness
    So, I think there is merit in building maneuvers on their own, AND playing with the idea of a type of framework that could work with martial arts, skills, and, from what I gather, magic systems(I haven't played fantasy hero, so I'm totally out of my depth on that one). On the framework issue, I have a thought. So, in Hero, there is a tendency to choose the most appropriate method for building the ability, eschewing end runs that may be cheaper, but are not considered appropriate for the goals. With this in mind, what about a framework that solely allows additions to stats(she's intelligent, but she's a savant at engineering), and skills, plus any limitations, etc., that apply? Effects would all have to be based on rules in play for everyone, not special abilities allowable only with the purchase of certain powers. This would change builds, I know. So, in such a framework, counterstrike would have to be a trigger, and not a damage shield, because the latter is a power. Throws would need to be built on concepts of knockdown. This would also allow nerve strikes(NND). To be useful for our purposes, naked advantages would have to be allowed at some level, or it just leads to "+1 STR for blah blah blah" on things that we don't really want the added STR on. The reason I bring up Hero's tendency to require choosing a power or trait specifically intended to do a specific action over one intended for other purposes is that it seems to me that counterstrike is a strike triggered by another specific strike(hth, throws for counterthrows, etc.) Whereas damage shield has other intentions. Now, I know this is all a bit fluid, so I can understand the counterargument as well, I'm just saying, this kind of framework would work with those intentions in mind, and not limit the ability, outside of that framework, to make a power based build that did a similar thing, if one so chooses.
  20. TheDarkness
    Wait, I think I see the issue with frameworks. Am I correct that frameworks are restrictive on naked advantages? And since martial arts moves are frequently using STR, this would pose a problem?
  21. TheDarkness
    Actually, the cost on +2 with trip, is that referencing the existing maneuvers? Won't the cost of trip change if we are building out each maneuver?
  22. TheDarkness
    Is this a counter-throw? I'm not understanding the trigger, unless it is one, then I understand.
  23. TheDarkness
    Another honest question(saving the dishonest ones for later), what is the problem with the existing frameworks that they could not be used for this?
  24. TheDarkness
    Would this(the damage shield with the success roll, not the framework) be more cost effective than a triggered version simply using Strength(or a modest amount of added Strength)? Honest question. Another thought on a limitation that counterstrike SHOULD have, for a couple reasons, the main one being balance. This comes from a realistic perspective, but it aids the game, I think. A counterstrike should increase DCV, not as much as a dodge(as one is trying to stay close to counter, whereas a dodge does not have that limitation), but still increase it, but the counter itself should have the limitation that it can only happen if the attack it is countering fails. From a realistic perspective, if I slip around a jab and do a rear hand strike to my opponent under their attacking arm, if their jab hits me, it also fouls my counter. From a game perspective, it limits the "I automatically have a strike every time you attack me" AND does not penalize the opponent for successfully attacking me.
  25. TheDarkness
    I'll admit, it does have a hold on me.
×
×
  • Create New...