Tech

A fear attack is one of the most vague of special effects. I had one person with a fear attack & dislike using Mind Control. Instead, I decided to ask, "What does the fear do?" Do the person stand still in fear (Mental Paralysis); does the fear make it more difficult for the hero to attack? (Drain vs OCV, Dex or SPD) and so on. Decide what the fear does first. If you want to use Mind Control or PRE attks and it works for you, go ahead.

What I did when I started totally fresh (many many years ago) is everyone made their characters. Then I told them - in advance - that the next 2 episodes will be ZERO experience. The Heroes will stop a simple bank robbery. We will do combat slowly and help everyone get used to the game. The rest comes with time. After those two ZERO xp games, they were itching for a real episode and it worked well.

Just throwing a quick guess out: a 1d6, 1 Def NND Entangle (Def: Life Support vs breathing or Poison), Area Effect, 1 charge lasting 1 minute, doesn't hinder if only a 1/2 phase is taken, easily dispersed by strong wind

fv, I ultimately decided on Constant/Continuous (forget which one is needed) because anyone entering that area regardless of PHA will be hit while it's being swung around. Not having it constant/cont means a hero on the villains off-phase can attack him without being affected, as I see it.
 
ex. Vilain has a 5 Spd, hero has a 6 Spd. Villain swings chain around on phase 5. On phase 6, hero moves up & punches him since the attack on phase 5 is now over.

What I did when I started totally fresh (many many years ago) is everyone made their characters. Then I told them - in advance - that the next 2 episodes will be ZERO experience. The Heroes will stop a simple bank robbery. We will do combat slowly and help everyone get used to the game. The rest comes with time. After those two ZERO xp games, they were itching for a real episode and it worked well.

Yes; indeed, OP!  My apologies as well.  Honestly, I hadn't expected that commentary to receive the attention it did.
 
 
 
Of course.  I am not saying "the rules are rubbish and should be thrown away" or trying to imply that they have no value.  It's the automatic reaction that published rule trumps house rule, period, or that house rules are inherently inferior because they are not published rules-- and all the while without really appreciating just what, at their core, the published rules _are_.  And it's not just HERO, mind you: any game that has gone through a revamping (or five) is essentially the same thing:  the original game, modified by a long run of house rules that have been found to work, for lack of a more specific word, "better" than did the previous published rule that this one has replaced.
 
For example:  LL mentioned that the original author _hated_ Limited SPD (which we can agree has it's potential for abuse, but is it really at higher risk than anything else?).   How many of us did it anyway, long before the official rules said it was okay?   So were those of use using this or a similar house rule doing something inferior to the published rules, and if so, why are the published rules now _different_, so different as to become the house rule we've been puttering along with for forty years or so?
 
_that's_ the thing that gets under my saddle.  As I said, there are some really creative, really insightful people here, some of whom have even done "official" things for the brand.  (And of course, there are a few lunatic hacks like me.     .)  When someone asks for an official rule, then by all means, give him one.  When he just wants to know "how can I make this work," condemning offered ideas simply because book 5 of the published rules addresses it specifically....  Sure, tell him "Hey, book 5, page 9 says the official method is your-offered-assistance-here."  That's excellent.  But it's not _more_ excellent because it's official.   You can handle this two ways:
 
"Hey, book 5, page 9 says whatever-it-is-that-it-says-that-you-believe-will-be-helpful-to-the-person-asking."
 
Wonderful stuff right there; that's people looking out for each other, and I support it completely.
 
Then there's this:
 
"That's a questionable construct, there; it's clearly just someone's house rule.  The correct way to handle this is on-and-on-and-on, per the rules.  You shouldn't use the house rule because there is an official one."
 
 
HERO has been around a long time.  Not a lot of other games have six editions.  And even if you don't read them, the simple page count of the various editions would instantly suggest that those official rules change _a lot_.  Heck:  the last two editions have changes from one to the other, and they were written by the same guy!   The first three editions?  Same thing!
 
As someone noted above, HERO, perhaps more than any other game system, _requires_ judgement calls and case-by-case decisions.  I just don't get how shooting down someone for doing just that is right.
 
Final example?   How many people point to Shrike's page as examples of great ways to do this or that or the other?  How many of them are spelled out just that way in the rules?
 
Okay, that's a bit unfair, because the rules state "uhm, you should probably design your own magic system, tailor-fitted to your campaign or group."    But the rules-- every edition so far-- say "change what doesn't work for you (paraphrased, both times)."  I find it goes against the nature of what "helping" is to denigrate suggestions _specifically_ because they haven't been printed on paper for mass consumption.
 
 
That is all.
 
 
 
 
 
Agreed, but that also drives home the point:  if you have multiple "official" rules for the same thing, how can we accept that _all_ of them are superior than a house rule designed specifically for how your group wants that "thing" resolved?
 
 
 
So much that, right there.....  
 
When I first heard there was going to be a Player's Guide, my first thought was "perhaps the primary rule books could have been streamlined by simply picking _one_ rule for each of the situations, and compiling all the optional rules into a separate "GM's Guide" or something like that-- not only would that have made the core rules _slightly_ less intimidating (and perhaps potentially more attractive to new players), but it would have had all the optionals right in one place, easy to search, easy to peruse, and probably just a lot more fun to read through now and again when searching for inspiration.
 
Oh well.  maybe the seventh edition....   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Yes, indeed.
 
For what it's worth, I think most of the long-time members of this board started with either 3e or 4e, what with those two editions having been printed in much larger quantity and give much further distribution than any other edition.  It doesn't hurt that they were both printed during the heyday of the RPG hobby, either.
 
4e remains popular, and from a personal opinion standpoint, I personally think it is the easiest edition from which to convert both forwards or backwards.  So much so, in fact, that as a general rule, when I do conversions of characters or adventures from other systems, I usually write them up in 4e if I plan to spread them around to fellow GMs who play at my tables.  The funny part is that I don't play 4e myself (specifically, I don't play _any_ "edition":  my games are 2e-based, but feature stuff from everything from 1st to 6th).  As someone noted above, learn _any_ edition.  The only really strong differences are in character generation and few of the more toward-the-edge combat situations.  In terms of game play, the only differences you're likely going to notice is how to determine range, END expenditure, and how pretty you are (or aren't).  These are so minor as to not be worthy of mention. 
 
 
 
Agreed, and for more reasons than just those you stated. 
(Sorry, Z; I'm all out of rep, but I've added you to the list )
 
 
 
I would love to address this a bit more fully, but I am already quite regretful of how much of the OP's thread I've derailed. 
 
 
(Sorry, OP.  Short version:  Any edition, _in play_, feels like any other.  At worst, you might think "why are my END costs wonky?," but that's about it.  Outside of that, it's a matter of how complicated you want character generation to be)
 
 

Agreeing with you there. Quite frankly, house ruling should be the 'norm' to fit a campaign in the way the players want & like, as has been mentioned throughout the various editions: (paraphrased) "If you don't like something in the rules, change it."  If a group likes it completely by the book, good, it fits their campaign. If people want to change things, that's also good.

I would put a limitation on it. Not everyone is going to be striking his hair, such as a Leg Sweep.

Really agree with you on this point. Have had that happen more than once. Some people like to go strictly by the 'rules' and that's fine. However, it's your game; do whatever you want with those rules including don't use them. It does bother me when people puts someone down or snub their nose because  an opinion was given they don't agree with.
 
 

I want a villain who "absorbs" video game charactos and transforms himself into them; he will be a powerful boss recurring villain i think; he also has his gang members, cosplayers, that he has the power to give them the power of the charactor they dress as.

what is the best way to represent this villain in this game?

Thanks

I agree with Chris to an extent. I always felt that the best edition was 4e with a few of 5e's new ideas sprinkled in. But using 5e or 6e as the foundation is not my preference.
 
One huge advantage of 4e, in my view, is that it doesn't lure you into thinking you have to search the rulebook for the "official" answer to every tiny piece of minutiae that comes up in play (or during character creation). Quite a bit is left up to you and your players to reasonably extrapolate from what's given. Once you get the hang of that, you'll be using the system as a general framework for playing anything you can think of, and you won't find yourself consulting the rulebook very often. The same can't really be said, IMO, of 5e or 6e, as those editions attempt to encode every little possible contingency into the main rulebook, filling every margin with stuff you will feel compelled to use and adhere to.

There is a tribe of Hero gamers who are worried that somebody might get something in the game without paying for it.  These poor lost souls will try to require every possible point expenditure that they can think of.  If they can think of a power that might possibly be related to the one you already have, they will want to see it on the character sheet as well.  This mentality seemed to hit its peak in the Steve Long 5th edition character books.  Unfortunately, all it does is limit the characters that people actually choose to play, by making cooler concepts too expensive to be competitive.
 
The purpose of the Shapeshift power is to let you assume a variety of different forms.  A character with Shapeshift and appropriate levels of Growth can look like a regular guy, a small asian woman, a big dog, a motorcycle, a leather recliner, an elephant, a big monster, etc.  Is your Growth power this versatile?  Probably not.  Do you always change into the same big monster every time you use your power?  Probably so.  If that's the case, in my opinion, you don't need Shapeshift.

By RAW, RAW is nothing but guidelines. Do what works best for your game.

I'd use a Multipower with two slots, one for Flight and the other for TP.

I could easily see the power having been written with duplicates dying off and not losing those points. If this has been a Champions game, in this case a player wanting to change the power and concept of the hero so it went from 3 heroes to 2.

If you don't like Duplication, I vaguely recall someone writing their Duplication in an entirely different way. It's only vague so I'll take my best guesses:

a) are your duplicates all attacking one person? Buy it as bonus OCV or autofire
b) are your duplicates attacking different people? Buy it as selective area effect
c) etc

Of course, this won't work if one duplicate is flying away to check on a crime scene while another sneaks into a suspicious warehouse, and yet another is piloting the team airplane. Still, it was an interesting take on a hero with 'duplication'.

Hey All,
 
I just recently came across Champions again after almost 40 years. 
brings back so many memories and now i need to find character sheets so I can share my excitement with my now 10 year old daughter ( same age as when I first played Champions) .
 
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'd use a Multipower with two slots, one for Flight and the other for TP.

I'd use a Multipower with two slots, one for Flight and the other for TP.

Burn down the too-big threats.  No unusable "can wipe 4-6 PCs with half his AP tied behind his back" Mary Sues like Destroyer.  No globe-spanning too-large-to-defeat organizations like VIPER.  Set the world up so the PCs have the opportunity to pick a thing they don't like and let the campaign be how they get rid of it.  Anything outside that scope has no business being in a superhero TTRPG setting. 
Do the same to the good guys.  Nobody wants to play a game where the GMPCs are just around the corner being better than the PCs.  Gut PRIMUS, UNTIL, all the other hero groups so the PCs can be important. 

Lee, totally agree. The base 10 STR still has to have END used but since END cost is 1 pt/10 pts, the END cost for the base 10 STR would be 1.

My understanding is charges don't cost END to use or activate, even if continuing charges. Since charges do not cost END, you don't need to buy reduced END on it.

Unfortunately from what I've heard on these boards, people who want to play 'a tool kit', they want a game already made. There's Champions Complete but I found it difficult to figure out what is part of what; everything seems to flow into the next without a clear separation of one power from another. Hence, I never use that book, it just gathers dust.

Limitation: Looks like a dork while using it (-1/4 to -1/2, depending on how mean your fellow PCs are).

This was a question of how I manage complications (as a GM):
 
I run complications naturally, not forcing them. Having long, long since left DnD, I'll say I have disliked killer DMs or DMs who are out to mess with the players for anything they might do. I do not hold to the idea or concept that complications or limitations on powers means (paraphrased) 'I want the GM to get me for this'.
 
Complications are often used by the players themselves in the campaign I'm in, of which I am one of four GMs. As such, I don't need to concern myself with them. Hunteds are rare nowadays but vulnerabilities that make sense are still part of new characters. If someone picks a hunted, it is almost always one that already exists.  If a hunted does show up, often it's behind the scene and might be the reason behind a particular episode. Psych Limitations flow easily and are part of the character, not feeling forced or necessary to use them. For fun or to make things interesting, I may pick a Complication or limitation on a power and make a point of it during an episode but I don't jam it down a character's throat. I use Unluck or Hunteds more a tool, not a roll. Of course, with Unluck, sometimes I don't ever have to use it - the players can have some pretty bad streaks of missing a villain and there's no need to add to it.

Nowadays, I always write up my episodes in advance and it's worked well.

Yes. I prefer 4th edition (BBB), but may go back to 3rd (Danger International specifically), to run an “The Expanse”’like Hero campaign for new players. Thinner rules, but still handling skills and hit locations. I ran FH for decades on the original FH book (I was one of “Doug’s Thugs”). 6th edition decoupling just seemed “wrong” to me, as well as the deletion of comeliness. I’ll play it,’l but Inprobably won’t GM 6th edition.