TranquiloUno

Just now, mallet said:

How about this:

 

Good Looking:  +1 with all Interaction Skills (4 Active Points); Only vs characters that would find Players appearance attractive (-1 1/2) Real cost: 2

 

Gives more granularity then Striking Appearance, and has an ingame effect that COM doesn't. The -1 1/2 Limitation is because theoretically over half the population wouldn't be sexually attracted to the character.  

 

 

That's a good build. But...

 

I don't think COM needs to be sexually specific. "Good looking" folks tend to be treated better. Tall ones too.

I might not get an awkward boner talking to a hot dude but I might be more friendly and polite than I would with a disgusting trash person with a horrible skin condition.

I might not even do it deliberately. I might just have an unconscious biased reaction against "gross" people and towards good looking ones.

 

I like your solution though. Easy way to recreate COM again, giving it a minor mechanical effect, and the point cost continues to workout basically the same.

 

The question would be: Would this improve your game? Do your players want this kinda of thing in 6th edition?

 

Because that's kinda the thing, right? For those of us playing older editions COM is there and works like it always has. And if we wanted it to do more then...we add those rules.

 

So it's only going to be 6th edition players and GMs who do not find Striking Appearance to be a good replacement for COM and who want something to represent appearance that isn't SA, or Disads\Complications, or Powers constructs who are going to have issues.

 

For those potential folks that are playing 6th and want something like COM....uh....just use COM again, right? I guess if you only played 6th that wouldn't be obvious but for most of us it will be and as folks have shown in the thread constructions like yours tend to cost out about the same so if somebody wanted to roll their own "Appearance" stat that didn't really do much but represent looks...it would basically work out the same as COM used to.

 

 

But since most folks don't really care about COM, and since pre-6th players already have it (and can not use it if they don't like it), and since 6th edition players can just add it back in, or make their own constructs for it, or just use SA instead....

 

And if you're playing in a setting with loads and loads of aliens and SA and\or COM are species dependent then happily Hero has all the tools to adjust for that usage. As you've shown in your build.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

My answers are pretty much covered above as well.

 

And they are good ones!

 

Quote

 

Why does anyone see a need to pay points for role playing?

 

Well...who said anyone "needed" to? You CAN. COM is *A* way to do that.

 

To me it's like Fringe Benefits. I could play a super whose secret ID is an FBI agent and pay the points for federal law enforcement powers.

Or we could just hand-wave it as part of his background.

 

I could just say my PC is a medical doctor, take PS: Medical Doctor and not take surgery or even paramedics and not buy the fringe benefit.

Or I could get real gritty and buy a nice suite of skills and perks\bennies, including military rank (former Army trauma surgeon) and a license to practice medicine.

 

Either could be used to support roleplaying. Or either could just strictly be mechanics effects. Or they could be free for various reasons.

 

Heck, why have Psych Lims and stuff, right? We can roleplay those too.

I mean if I'm voluntarily roleplaying stuff then is it really disadvantaging me? Should I get points for it?

 

I think of Hero as being used to describe things.

COM is a way to describe things. SA is another. Roleplaying too. Body models (what we called it when you pick an actor\model\person that your character looks like). Perks\Fringe Benefits. Disads.

 

 

 

Quote

  My character can be an all-around boy scout guy, but turn it off as need be if he did not receive points by taking a complication for that.  I will still role play my character with the personality I consider him to have, even if I did not get free points for some aspect of that personality.

 

But by the same token if you want to describe your character as being a boy scout and feeling this will sometimes disadvantage him then you could also take points for it. And then not really roleplay it all and only grudgingly abide by the code when the GM gets frustrated with your murderhobo ways.

 

So you CAN, if you want, if it fits your game, playstyle, group, and character, get points for that.

Or just roleplay it if that works better.

 

I could say my PC is Zooland good-looking and...do nothing mechanically. I could take a Disad that he's recognized and chased around in public like Austin Powers. Or I could just buy up my COM. All good options!

Or take SA. Or SA and COM. Or just roleplay it.

 

You know, like Hero does.

 

 

 

Quote

  Your character may not like redheads, and be strongly attracted to blondes, but mine does not get points back for having red hair, nor spend points to be blonde.  I can describe my character as thin (which our society values) or fat (which our society denigrates), and people can role play their reactions accordingly, with no points spent by anyone.

 

Sure and neither COM nor SA really prevent that. I'm still going to be roleplaying. If the GM says, "Oh, SuperHottie sure is hot, SA Presence Attack + Seduction roll says you are totes smitten!"

I can say, "Oh, she's really hot for a redhead even though I'm not usually in to that", or you could just roleplay it and say, "Oh, she's really hot for a readhead (because of her COM 20) even tho I'm not usually in to that".

 

 

Quote

 

Points are paid for mechanical effects.  You role play outside the points.

 

Points are paid for all kinds of stuff to represent and describe game constructs.

You roleplay with those game constructs.

 

My PC doesn't have to roleplay anything when a 16d attack comes at him in a 8d game.

Or he can roleplay being terrified based on what that mean in-game.

 

That's roleplaying directly from mechanical effects.

 

When I build dudes in Hero I pay points to make their mechanics match my desires for them.

I pay points to try to describe them mechanically as I think they should be in a roleplaying sense.

 

If you'd prefer to strictly segregate Roleplaying from Mechanics then...that's totally cool and you should do that.

 

Personally I don't mind things going from mechanics\points to roleplaying and vice versa.

 

If a PC takes, "Prince" as a Fringe Benefit I have no problem with that translating in to better roleplaying (not social skill role mechanics) interactions with peasants.

 

If a PC wants to play a medical doctor and wants to roleplay that as having in-game effects he can buy the Fringe Benefit...and then we'll just roleplay it.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Mechanics and role playing are not mutually exclusive.  My character can get hit hard, mechanically, by an opponent's Blast.  I mark off the STUN (BOD?  am I Stunned?  KOd?  Killed?).  Maybe he also makes a PRE attack, forcing me to hesitate.  Those are the mechanical effects. 

 

 

Agreed! They are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Quote

 

Now I role play my character's reaction.  Is he afraid of this powerhouse?  Does he surrender?  Does he seek another target?  Flee the scene?  Focus on that powerhouse because he's the most dangerous opponent on the field?  Make a rousing speech to his teammates that we have to hold the line?  Ask to join his team because he respects power?  Fall to his knees and beg for his miserable life?  Mechanics do not prevent me from role playing.  They set the scene within which I role play.

 

Sure, and if he makes a rousing speech we can roleplay that. Or he can make a Pre Attack to actually create mechanical effects. And if his roleplaying is good I might give him a bonus on the Pre attack. And if his roleplaying is bad, like Toxxus says above, I wouldn't penalize him mechanically for that.

 

And if the powerhouse in question has a COM of 35 and is of an desired gender\sexual configuration for my PC then I might roleplay the "ask to join his team because he respects power" instead of fleeing based on the mechanics.

 

Or I might roleplay my character fleeing because he's got a roleplaying only bad history with NPCs with 30+ COM scores and he ain't fallin' for that no more.

 

 

IF COM is a useful too, for you, for your game, for your players, then use it. And if it is not useful, even if you are playing 4th edition and it's clearly right there in the rules, then don't use it.

 

 

What's useful is....what is useful to you and your players about it?

 

How does it effect or not effect your games?

 

What problems does COM create? What problems does SA create?

 

 

 

 

On 5/10/2019 at 7:20 PM, Surrealone said:

How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent? And as a follow-up, how (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent? Moreover, how, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM?

I look forward to your responses on all three questions. (This should be good...)

Surreal

The sort of one-upmanship massey mentioned is, by the way, achievable with … (wait for it) … Striking Appearance.

 

 

I'm not him, but I'll try.

 

COM is more of an aesthetic device because it has less\no mechanical impact on the game. A character with high SA can say, "No, you must pay attention to me because Game Mechanics". A high COM character is all roleplay.

COM enabled improved interaction because it has no mechanical effects and so it must be roleplayed. That roleplaying then enabled improved interaction and, uh, roleplaying. Things that produce mechanical effects tend to be used mechanically. Things that do not produce mechanical effects tend to be used for roleplaying.

SA is deficient compared to COM because it produces mechanical effects and will thus become defined by those mechanical effects. Because COM does not do that (produce mechanical effects) it doesn't get defined by, "Well...how much is your presence attack? And what did you actually roll?".

 

I'm not super convinced on any of those but they are the obvious answers from his initial posts.

 

I'd just make COM rolls useful for complimentary social skills that are appearance based. Personally. Maybe even racially specific if I was feeling...like somebody that super cared about COM and mechanizing it's effects.

 

 

 

 

 

Yah the using COM as a complimentary roll for (some, appearance-based) social skills seems pretty solid to me.

 

Now COM no longer "does nothing".  (<- the horror!!!!)

 

I'm not going to go full Palindromedary on it but I feel like if you bought  a skill or skill levels for a skill that can only be used in a complimentary fashion, based on appearance, you'd probably end up paying about, oh, I don't know, maybe 1/2pt per point of COM or something.

 

Also: I think these threads are effin' hilarious. And not in an, "I'm laughing with you", way either. ;D

 

The point of Hero is to run the game you want with the mechanics you want.

Turn COM on, turn it off, make it free, make it a complimentary roll for appearance influenced social interactions, use SA, use SA *and* COM, make a lil conversion that tells you how much equivalent COM an SA talent is worth, make a lil conversion that tell you how hot\attractive\etc a person with SA is on a per-level basis.

Whatever supports the game you want to play. It's is TRIVIAL to add COM to 6th and it is UTTERLY TRIVIAL to remove it from 5th.

 

But attempting to convince folks that some aspect of the system MUST be some way seems antithetical to the whole Hero deal.

And not useful for convincing folks of things they already know they like\don't like.

 

The main thing is these threads seem utterly disconnected from the real thing: Playing the game.

 

Question: Has anyone in this thread ever had any issues with COM as a stat (when it was a stat)?

Did the COM 40 PC try to convince the GM that they should be able to "Presence Attack" using COM? And did that just destroy the game and the story?

Did the COM 30 NPC utterly derail a game because PCs just had to have him\her? And that just utterly derail the entire game?

 

 

Because it seems like all the discussion is around the basis of COM as a game or design element. Which is a stupid discussion for Hero.

 

Does the thing work? "Work" meaning support your game style. "Work" meaning is this fun? "Work" meaning..."yah, that works for me".

 

Well then use it.

 

Does it not work for you\your game\your players? Does it distract and cause arguments? Does it just seem stupid?

 

Well then...stop using it.

 

ANYway....

 

Case for COM: It's cheap, it's easy, players like their characters to look good, it's intuitive outside of edge cases, it's doesn't have a big effect on the game.

Case against COM: It doesn't do much but sit there and look good (or bad) as written. SA can actually produce game effects. RAW doesn't have COM producing effects (good thing we're all playing Hero so we cannot under any circumstances adjust the rules to taste!).

 

Now there's really no conflict there which seems to be recurrent in the thread.

You can totes have Striking Appearance and COM without any issues whatsoever.

They can do different things even! You can use one for "just" pretty folks and another for Really, Really, Really, Ridiculously Good-looking male models (Question: what level of SA\Presence Attack do you need to stop a throwing star?).

 

But, honestly, decide what you like (or what works best for the actual game you are actually playing\running), and go with that, and for threads like these just express you opinion of how the stat\rule\thingie is fun and useful to you or how you feel it detracts from the fun and causes issues.

The trying to "convince" others thing is just sillypants\clownshoes!

 

"Sorry, bro, but I just use body models in my games so you have to take COM out of your 6th edition game even though you and your party like the stat."

"Sorry, dawg, but I just can't play a game if I can't quantify my characters appearance, I'm just not going to be able to play 6th edition so we MUST switch back to 5th because COM isn't a stat in 6th and can't ever be."

 

There is no underlying reality to the Hero rules.

COM doesn't need to reflect the real world any more than...anything else in the rules.

 

Your Captain America can just look like Chris Evans and not have SA or high COM (or not even have COM at all!).

Mine can have both SA and a high COM.

 

OP's case for COM seems to be: Sometimes it can be useful in some games in ways that Striking Appearance  doesn't emulate well. And sometimes it can make for some fun.

 

That's a pretty cogent case to me.

But, you know, I guess since beauty can be subjective that he's objectively wrong and because you can emulate some facets of COM with SA then objectively COM can't ever be used for anything. Ever. Even if you wanted to make it useful for occasional complimentary appearance-based social interactions you couldn't do that.

It's not in the 6th edition rules you see. So it's impossible to have both. Or have neither. Or switch 'em around to do what you actually want (whatever that is).

 

So we gotta get to the objective bottom of this you guys. We really can't keep playing Hero when the rules are so up in the air like this. 

What do you MEAN you don't use hit locations!??!??! But muh realism!!!!

What do you MEAN "hit locations" aren't realistic!!??!?!? But muh crunch!!!!

 

And so on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Tjack said:

    What does the group think of the idea of buying Comeliness as a physical skill like acrobatics or as a perk like ambidextrous?

 

Seems almost as good as buying it as a Talent or Stat.

 

I think the big question would be what you want to use it for (in your\a\the game).

 

If it's just a roleplaying thing, "My character is pretty\hot\handsome!", then it should be very cheap and provide minimal game effects. Basically like it was in 5th and prior, or like Chris Goodwin priced it.

If you can be a Cop or an FBI agent or a Doctor for 1-3pts as Perks which generally don't have an effect on play then surely, "I'm really, really, ridiculously good looking.", shouldn't cost a lot more.

 

If it's going to provide a game effect then buying it as Striking Appearance (Talent) or a Perk or Skill makes more sense.

And the cost\price should be standard Hero style stuff where the cost is proportional to the benefit.

 

Is it just a potential complimentary stat roll to supplement (compliment?) Seduction or Persuasion? Probably shouldn't cost any more than a skill with the Limitation "Only for making complimentary skill rolls where appearance is a factor" and then...it's back to the same costs at 5e, or like Chris Goodwin priced it above.

 

If it's going to provide bigger and most consistent benefits (or drawbacks) then it should cost more. Like, oh, say, Striking Appearance or something.

 

Of course I play 5th so Comeliness works just the way I want it to and costs what I think it should cost and if a player really wanted to be really, really, ridiculously good looking, to the point it was providing consistent mechanically relevant benefits\detriments then they could buy Striking Appearance.

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

 

My favorite example of this was when the heroes were fighting Dot, formerly of CLOWN but I moved him to the Foxbat Five and semi-heavily rewrote him.  Among his powers, Dot opens portals, similar to Spider-man's foe Spot, to attack through, grab things through, and (in this particular instance) spy through.

 

One of the heroes noticed one of Dot's spy-holes, so he grabbed a fire extinguisher, stuck the nozzle at the spy-hole, and started spraying Dot in the eye.  I ruled it an impromptu Flash attack, NND (defense is goggles / solid eye covering).  And then when Dot opened a larger hole to attack through, the hero bashed him in the head with the extinguisher.

 

Nice! That's what I'm talkin' about!

On 5/1/2019 at 12:59 PM, akrippler said:

Anyone have any ideas how to model a misericorde (long thin dagger used to deliver killing blows to wounded knights or during a grapple, small enough to fit in the chinks of armor, or visors) 

Should it be a special weapon? Or a naked advantage to mimic a fighters skill with a dagger? 

 

It's just a stiletto IMO. Game stats-wise at least.

Slap some AP on that HKA and good to go.

 

I have a player in my game using them and just used the stiletto stats.

 

Nothing really very fancy about them.

2 hours ago, Mr. R said:

 

One way to get players to use tactics is to use an enemy team who are weaker than yours, but use tactics.  And have them trounce our players.  

 

 

How have you done this in your games? Or how has your GM done this to you as a player?

 

Any specific examples from actual play?

That was glorious!

 

One thing I didn't get though...how did Tony get the stones off of Thanos's gauntlet at the end?

I felt like I missed something there.

25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Right, its the classic "area of silence shuts off incantations" ruling which never has made sense to me.  The only way that makes sense is if someone must hear the incantations in order for an effect to go off (like a prayer to a lesser god). Otherwise, you're still incanting, its just not audible.

 

Hmm, so they just have to be *able* to "speak" freely and clearly? They don't actually need to speak?

Otherwise wouldn't silent incantations (I said them, just...silently) work by default?

 

Darkness versus Sound is explicitly intended to trigger the Incantations limitations. The Incantations limitation specifies: "...only if he speaks *loud phrases that are audible at a distance*.." (emphasis added)

In addition to the "must be able to speak freely and clearly" part.

 

If you're in a Darkness versus Sound field then in addition to the specific RAW guidance I don't see how a player can speak loud phrases audible at a distance if they can't make sound. Doesn't seem like you can "speak freely" when you can't actually make noise either.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

I personally build my mooks as OCV ~4, one or two Firearms CSLs, and then build their gun as a multipower with an attack slot and an Aid Firearms CSL 1d6 (standard effect) slot.  This both speeds up combat, since I only have to make one attack roll per mook-group, and makes them threatening only in groups. 

One mook shooting at you?  OCV 5, he'll miss, ignore him.  Six mooks shooting at you?  One attack at OCV 10, you're likely to get hit. 

 

Too bad that doesn't work without Figured Char...er...sorry, nevermind.

 

That's a real nice solution to the mook problem you got there.

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Toxxus said:

 

 

One of the more popular items so far:  Hounds Foil Boots  (Invisible to smell, always on, persistent) + Flight (always on, persistent, only in contact with a surface, only to avoid leaving a trail).

 

Like the Affects Desolid sword this is another of those things that Hero can do, mechanically, which I think is super cool.

 

In another system you'd just get: Pass without Trace and it would work like it says it does in the spell block. In Hero it works like Invisibility, and the sense interactions are all right there for you.

 

You might be a serious nerd if: harmonious rules interactions are deeply statisfying. ;D

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Because most gamers use the published materials, including the core rules’ suggested stat levels, benchmark for normal humans and sample characters, as well as characters published in other books. 

 

But your example was a Highly Trained Normal who, for some reason, needs CVs of 12 to compete with 35 Dex supers.

IF that character can only have 20s in their stats, but also need to hit CV12 for general use, THEN I'd think they'd need to use CSLs. Or buy their stats higher, even tho that might make them, "Legendary".

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The gamers least likely to seek and rely on this published guidance of “author/designer intent” are also those most likely to be familiar with the rules, and thus best able to set appropriate stats without the need for figured characteristics.

 

So you're saying that experienced folks won't need to use it and that inexperienced folks should just use the reference ranges provided? And that either way it should generally work out? Figured or Non-Figured, 4th or 6th, always true, right?

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I don’t see Ben get hit by Hydra agents in OHATMU. I see it in the comics.  In my view, effective game mechanics deliver a feel like the source material they are intended to simulate.  That may be those four colour comics I read, which I want to simulate in a game, or the MCU where soldiers and mook aliens shoot and hit the Hulk.

 

And if the GM has designed their mooks poorly, and so they can't hit campaign standard CVs, then I guess YOU'll need to adjust things to emulate YOUR vision of four-color comics, right?

Considering the number of builds I've seen where +DCV is a special effect of, "You hit me but it didn't hurt", and considering the number of times in the MCU that somebody unloads on somebody else and nothing that seems like a fair emulation of the genre conventions to me.

 

I could do that in 4th or 6th though. Not really..version related that I can tell.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And "21-30 is legendary" is a range which is also a benchmark, by the way.

 

Right. A benchmark that includes the majority of the suggested general PC superhero stats and thus tells us nothing about them. Ben Grimm (ace test pilot), Wolverine (ace martial artist), Cap, and Spidey (unless Spidey needs that 36 for game purposes) would all be the same under that benchmark. That's not much of a benchmark.

Most comics include a wide range of folks but the ranges are not consistently quantified in either effect or description or relative to each other. So they aren't really benchmarks except maybe in the FASERIP sense.

IMO.

But if it's helpful to you when statting folks up: That's cool!

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Newsflash – the games set fictional scenarios for fictional characters and play out made up stories.  Again, if the mechanics do not facilitate gameplay aligned with the source material, they are not “superior”.

 

 

Right. So, in Hero System, what you do is you adjust the mechanics to resemble the kind of game play you are wanting to play.

 

If your version of four-color supers is heavily dependent on Hydra agents and teenage hooligans being able to consistently hit certain PCs then you should adjust the rules or the stats to provide that experience.

 

That's the fun of Hero! Don't like hit locations? Don't use 'em.

Don't want to follow suggested stat ranges that match 30+ years of published material? Don't use those ranges.

Disabling wounds seem out of place in four-color comics? Don't use Disabling Wounds rules.

 

My point is just that the comics don't adhere to a structured system (ie, Hero System) so to claim there is a single underlying agreed upon basis for them is doing it backwards. Of course we can create a model to emulate what we feel is happening in those comics (I prefer Hero System for this myself) but that's a model we've built, not some objective representation of the comic book reality (because...there isn't one).

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Why have any stats if the GM will just fudge them away and VIPER agents hit Ben, but miss Spidey and Cap, because that is most consistent with their abilities, and best for dramatic effect?  Just let the players say “I try to do this” and the GM can narrate their success or failure.

 

Depends on what you're doing doesn't it? Do you, like, game, bro?

If you want rules lite, or diceless, or narrative-first, or whatever they call that stuff now...play that.

If you never ever want to fudge even a single point of Stun for dramatic effect\story purposes\other reasons...don't.

 

My point was that IF YOU wanted to create a case where Ben gets hit by the VIPER guys and Cap doesn't then YOU can set that up quite trivially.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

All RPG rules really do is set out a model to adjudicate a game of “let’s pretend” so we don’t sit around a table saying “I shoot you”  “no you missed”  “no I hit”.  Instead, we apply the game stats, roll the dice and determine whether the shot was successful.  [And maybe argue about modifiers that should have means I hit, or I missed J]

 

No kidding?

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

As compared to sitting around a table to throw dice and see whether Dr. Doom conquers the world or the heroes save the day?  The point of any game session is entertainment.  The games are made up of fictional episodes. 

 

So you think the Marvel and DC guys have a secret RPG system they use to consistently adjudicate all superhero comic fights in an objective manner and they don't, like, write stories and have things happen for dramatic purposes?

It's the underlying coherent systems of actual rules versus "I just made all this stuff up because it's a cool story" part I'm talking about.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

And once Ben starts chasing those Yancy Streeters, he is no longer surprised, so should have his full DCV.  Yet the rotten fruits and vegetables keep hitting him.

 

Oh, no! Hero System is ruined! We can't just give those YSG guys more levels to hit!!! It would undermine everything!

 

Again: If YOU the GM want to have a fun scenario involving one of your players then you, the GM, should probably consider designing it work the way you want to. If you, the GM, use a low OCV and the scene doesn't play out exactly as it does in the comics\your mind then...like adjust your simulation to produce results you like.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

How is that different with or without Figureds?  With Figured, we have Spidey 2 CV better than Cap, Cap 2 CV better than the Thing, and Hydra 3 CV below the Thing.  So they rarely hit the Thing (unless they have OCV augmenting blasters which means they never miss those SHIELD agents, even the elite ones, working side by side with Spidey, Cap and Ben…unless we give them Magic Blaster Deflecting Underoos).

 

...I don't know? How is it? Doesn't seem related to Figureds to me. Seems to be related to how you could\should scale stat ranges to produce the world\gameplay you desire.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Without Figureds, we have a lot more freedom to look to the comics, and see Ben effortlessly Grabbing Hydra goons – great OCV, so we’ll give him a 10 – not enough to reliably hit Spidey, but Spidey’s taking a pretty big risk if he does not dodge (which, in the comics, he tends to do).  But those VIPER agents tag him all the time, so we will put his DCV at, say, a 5.  Now those 4 OCV VIPER agents hit half the time.  That feels more like the comics.  And the points Ben saved from having a lower DCV can be used for other abilities (like whatever he uses to Grab dozens of Hydra agents at a time), rather than being Large to lose DCV through the Disadvantages system and therefore being able to take a lower Hunted roll.

 

Or you just adjust the Figureds!!!!

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Meanwhile, it is much easier for Cap to have a higher OCV than DCV, while Spidey’s DCV is better than his OCV.  Cap does not have to boost OCV with 8 point combat skill levels while Spidey spends 6 points (net of Speed Rebate) for +1 OCV and DCV that work at the same time, all the time.  I find that a significant mechanical superiority of 6e over 5e all by itself.

 

Sure. Again: Figureds or non-Figureds seems incredibly minor to me. I prefer them. I also think decoupling everything is the logical end point of Hero System. I just don't think it's particularly valuable because I can do all that stuff already.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

Or we simply have a standard stat range for thugs which includes DEX, OCV, DCV, STUN, REC, END, etc. with no need for mathing out figureds at all.  We can have slap-together NPCs without Figured pretty easily.

 

Well...you'll be mathing it out to the extent that they have values, right?

Same in all versions?

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Default ranges are just as easily provided in a chart like we have for defenses, CVs, etc. and have throughout many editions.

 

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Default ranges are just default ranges. Provided in a chart. We can adjust them if we want to and as we want to. Same in all versions.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

O

h, and maybe the bigger, stronger guy has a glass jaw.

 

Maybe! Maybe we could emulate that in, like, a ton of different ways!

 

Glass Jaw could be: Low Stun, Low Con (easy to Stun), Accidental Change when punched (changes to an unconscious form ) or a bunch of other ways (Vulnerability to being punched in the jaw). As suited to the game you're actually playing\wanting to play.

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

It’s not figured because we didn’t make it figured.  Back in 1e, Ego enhanced mental defense just like STR enhanced PD and CON enhanced ED (except Ego only enhanced mental defense if you also bought some mental defense, although some groups waived that rule and made mental defense a standard figured characteristic).  We could make power Defense and flash Defense figured, mental defense has been both over the years.  BOD could be derived from, say, STR and CON (basic roll playing averages SIZE and CON for hit points, doesn’t it)?  PD and ED can be decoupled from STR and CON, and SPD is easy to decouple from DEX.

 

Right, so, IF Ego did boost\provide Mental Def THEN increasing your Ego would increase your Mental Def. And then it would scale. If MD was figured from Ego.

We COULD Figure a bunch of stats if we wanted! AND it might even be a great idea to do that...you know, IF that seems useful for YOUR game.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

The argument that "ego is not figured so it is not derived from something else" is no different than pointing at 6e and saying "you don't get STUN from STR and CON because STUN is not a figured characteristic", or "you don't get SPD, OCV and DCV from DEX because they are not Figured", or "you don't get Life Support from CON" [you did in at least one old Marvel Supers game, and D&D 1e gave Regen to CON above 18]. 

 

Because there are no figured characteristics, no characteristics are figured.  IOW, anything we want can be Figured, or not, so “because it is, or is not figured” is not a reason for why any given ability is, or is not, Figured.

 

What's your point here? We could do that, and yes, no figured char mean...no char are figured.

 

Sorry I think I'm missing something. YOUR point seemed to be that "only SOME things scale" and I was just saying that of course a non-figured stat doesn't scale a figured stat, due to there being no figured stat from it.

If Ego did add to Ego Defense then it would scale with it.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Ultimately, I think the combination of better point balance and better character customizability makes removal of Figured as good step.  Now, I recall discussing in the lead-up to 6e, why we don’t, having set the price of CVs, and fixed the price of REC, STUN and END, keep Figured, maybe tweaking the formuli a bit, ensure the primaries are priced appropriately, set “no figured” separate for each stat to remove the embedded cost of the Figured’s and delete the “only one sellback” restriction.  Then those who like figureds still have them, and there is one less major change between 5e and 6e.

 

Indeed. No conflicts between having Figureds and also individually adjusting game stats (even O\DECV if you want). That's what I'm saying. Minor stuff.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

If I remember right, this was a SETAC discussion.  We knew where Steve was leaning, but not the exact new pricing of the characteristics. His answer was pretty simple, and I agree with it.  If the pricing is appropriate, why do we need to differentiate primary and figured characteristics at all? 

 

Need? No need.

Preference for scaling baselines that relate to primary stats? I do in fact prefer that.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I agree that the answer was “we don’t”.  We can buy the stats we want. 

 

Sure. And if there are Figureds then....you can buy the stats you want.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

CON only does one thing?  So what?  BOD and STUN only do one thing, and there are plenty of others.  Pretty much every stat that does more than one thing has a construct to buy each of those things independently.  Often, their pricing is messed up – which was the core problem with pre-6e Figureds.

 

Pricing does seem to be an issue for some folks.

6e is certainly mechanically more explicit than prior versions.

But even KS said in this thread that 4th seemed more\most fun. But then loads of us run 5th and 6th and they are fun too. Probably mostly because they are 90%+ identical and all differences are quite minor.

 

Given we can adjust Figureds as we want, leave COM out of the game if we want, create Talents\Powers\Disads that provide real in-game mechanical effects from being good looking\ugly, and so on, in any edition...

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

 

 

COM didn't even do ONE thing, and look at the furore over its replacement with Striking Appearance - that actually DOES do something.  [oh please don't let this reopen the COM Wars...]

 

It was the BEST stat and the underlying foundation of the Hero System!!!! To remove COM is to spit in the face of George MacDonald!!!   ;D

 

 

 

Srsly tho: Having or not having Figureds seems like a fine optional rule. I prefer them. But I think most of them get adjusted regardless of what the base is or if they are Figured or not.

For character creation, while not explicitly spelled out in 4th or 5th, there are loads of ways to adjust any...anything, right?

 

Figureds or non-Figureds won't change Ben Grimm's Dex value in your game. And if his Dex is 24 and that's too high then...why does he have it?

If he has 23 Dex because that's where the campaign ended up and then he can't have tomato\snowball fights with the kids? Well then...somebody should adjust something, right?

 

That's what I'm getting at.

 

There is no Dex. Cops and Trained soldiers differ in their capabilities. But for our purposes of modeling reality for game reasons...we've got Dex and we can use it to model stuff.

We can use CV too. We can directly modify CV, indirectly modify it, or just set it to the values we want to use.

 

 

I understand your point, and the points of several others, is that having CV as it's own stat allows you to create effects like a guy that's easier to hit but also better at hitting and a mentalist who is great on attack but sucks on defense and so on. All the potential (endless) examples of concepts that might need to have those values differ.

I don't see this as a big issue personally. I would just adjust them as a GM, or talk to my GM about adjusting them as a player (and is there a GM out there that's going to tell you "No! It's against the rules!!!" if you want your Ben Grimmalike to have a lower DCV than their Dex would normally give them?).

So, to me, again, the individually adjustable CVs\other are very minor things, easily done if desired. So then Figured\non-Figured is very minor.

 

But...you know, if you have strong feelings about emulating tomato fights with kids in your game, and using the standard reference ranges for PCs causes issues with that....do something about it. In your game.

Have Ben sell down his DCV, or say that part of his DCV is he got hit but it just didn't do much , or whatever you gotta do to run the game you want to run.

 

Hero is point based so increasing a PCs general points will generally produce increases across the whole range. Unless you limit it with campaign specific guidelines or general purpose GM fiat.

If Ben is 250pts under 4th or 400pt under 4th he'll have different stats.

 

If you want to play early FF where Ben randomly reverts to human form and he's only got a 15 Dex because you're running 200pt supers in 6th then...fine? Even if that's not realistic for a top test pilot. Even if we reduce his extensive test pilot history to PS: Test Pilot and a single Transport Familiarity and don't even give him Combat Piloting.

 

I know you know all that so this is why I find your posts confusing.

 

On the one hand you have very specific forms of four-color emulation you desire. YSG and Hyrda agents. On the other hand you're talking about stat guidelines from published Hero stats that have been more or less unchanged for a long time.

On the one hand you can now officially adjust Ben's DCV to match your specific desires. On the other hand you could already do that. Even with Figured Char.

 

Figured\Non-Figured seems pretty minor. Easily optional. And I prefer having them. Minor stuff.

Individually adjusting game elements seems like a good idea. And I think it was easy to do already if desired. Minor stuff.

 

 

But if you think that a 23 Dex Ben Grimm is a problem...wooooo, I'll just type a lotta words about how you're doing Hero wrong.

 

Do you see what I'm coming from on this?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd probably call it an extra -1/4 or -1/2 Limitation on the power and call it good.

Depending, like Toxxus says, on how much sneaking around at night is likely to occur in the game.

 

Gnome BODY (important!)'s solution is pretty elegant.

The only, very minor, fairly meta issue I would have with it is that strictly speaking the power isn't more limited\harder to use at night, they are just less good with it.

But that's something that I'm only a Champs nerd would twitch at and nothing to do with the simplicity of the solution.

 

How much harder? 

Like a scaling number relative to sunset/sunrise?

Or just a consistent penalty?

7 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

 

It's a sword. It's meant for killing.

 

With you so far...

 

7 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

 

Autofire means if it rolls and hits by more than 2, it hits twice.

 

 

Being insubstantial is no defense

 

 

Neither is being astral or ethereal.

 

Astral or Ethereal. 

 

7 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

 

It's a bastard sword, requiring STR 9 if used two handed, STR 12 if used one handed. Designed to be lethal, it has a reduced STUN multiplier. To employ its arcane properties, certain words and phrases must be spoken in the Ulronai tongue. If not so addressed, the blade's spirit will not cooperate with the wielder.

 

Does this effect their ability to communicate in combat? Or starting and stopping is no bigs; they just have to chanting and whispering to their weapon while they're actually attacking with it? 

 

7 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

 

 

Between the sword's own length and a competent swordsman's ability to lunge, the weapon has 2 meters of Reach.

 

 

The sword has a +1 OCV

 

 

If the attack roll is made by 4, not only do you roll damage twice (autofire), the first damage is rolled with another 1d6 of Killing damage added in.

 

 

If using two hands, gain a +1 for either OCV or DCV due to better control.

 

 

Lucius Alexander

 

 

 

 

Thx!

2 hours ago, Lucius said:

Grace Paxton

<actual_stats_n_stuff>

 

Top notch as always!   

Great implementation!

16 minutes ago, Lucius said:

 

Ulro Zandar, the Phantom Sword or the Sword of Ghosts

 

Ulro Zandar, the Sword of Ghosts:  (Total: 115 Active Cost, 31 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 2d6-1, Autofire (2 shots; +1/4), Affects Desolidified Any form of Desolidification (+1/2), Transdimensional (Related Group of Dimensions; +3/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1) (87 Active Points); OAF (-1), STR Minimum 9 with 2 hands, 12 with 1 hand (-1/2), -2 Decreased STUN Multiplier (-1/2), Incantations (Requires Incantations throughout; -1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4), Unified Power (-1/4) (Real Cost: 22) <b>plus</b> Reach 2m, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (3 Active Points); OAF (-1), Linked (Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand; -1/2), Always Direct (-1/4), Limited Body Parts (-1/4), Unified Power (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1) <b>plus</b> +1 With OCV (2 Active Points); Linked (Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand; -1/2), Unified Power (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1) <b>plus</b> Weapon Master:  +1d6 ([limited group]) (20 Active Points); Requires A Roll (Attack roll, -1 per 5 Active Points modifier; Must be made each Phase/use; -1 1/2), Linked (Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand; -1/2), Unified Power (-1/4) (Real Cost: 6) <b>plus</b> +1 with OCV or DCV (3 Active Points); Required Hands Two-Handed (-1/2), Linked (Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand; -1/2), Unified Power (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1)

 

 

Uh.

 

I think I got most of that.

Can you go over it a bit? I'm curious...

Particularly the Incantations throughout part and maybe the Transdimensional bit?

 

The Effects Desolid sword\item is one I've wanted to use in Hero for years just because I think that mechanic is cool. 
 

41 minutes ago, Lucius said:

Quill of Penmanship:  (Total: 4 Active Cost, 2 Real Cost) +2/+2d6 Striking Appearance (vs. Anyone reading what the character writes) (4 Active Points); IAF Fragile (-3/4), Conditional Power Only effects literate people reading the message (-1/2) (Real Cost: 2)

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Happened to be in the palindromedary's saddlebags

 

That's cute! I like it!

Just what the title sez: For those of you running or playing in Fantasy Hero games...how are you doing magic items?

 

Got any cool examples of items from your games?

 

Here's one I handed out a few sessions back: https://sites.google.com/view/aetherya/home/aetheyrian-hero/iiiiitems-so-that-i-may-roleplay/the-doomblade

 

How about the rest of you?

 

Classic D&D item clones? Weird stuff? Normal stuff? Genre stuff? Hero-ey stuff?

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

A lot of the tricks you can use depend on the group's composition.  If nobody flies you can't use any cool flying stunts.  If you don't have a brick, there's nobody to soak up damage or exert a lot of strength.  If nobody has coordination as a skill then you're gonna be challenged to pull combined stunts.  But each group can figure out its own interesting moves.  The trick is to give players a reason to do this.  If they can beat every foe by just going toe to toe and hammering them, they won't bother with any maneuvers.

 

Personally I like the kind of fights where the team has to use their surroundings or tools to defeat an enemy rather than always just a straight up fight (although those are good, too).

 

Totally. Do you have any examples from games you've played in or run along these lines?

 

Reasons for players to do interesting stuff?

Interesting stuff that you or your players have done in those situations?

 

Have you run (or played!) fights where the team has to use their surroundings\tools?

What were the scenarios for them?

What sort of surroundings\environmental\tools tactics did you (or your players) come up with in them?

 

 

I think you're both right!  

1 hour ago, Toxxus said:

 

This encounter can be really fun when done right and give the characters a reminder of how powerful they are between battles with incredibly dangerous opponents.

 

The Dwarven Sapper from my Saturday game hit the streets at night to get some information on the big bad they're stalking and missed his streetwise roll by a large amount.  So to spice that up I had the two street toughs he was chatting up pull knives on him and tell him to "hand over the gold, little man.".  I had them set as DEX 11, OCV 4, Speed 3 and the Dwarven Sapper is north of 250 pts and Speed 4 with a modest number of magical items to boot.

 

In a single turn he has both goons down, one badly unconscious and damaged, the other out-on-his-feet without even going for his real weapons.  One guy at the table remarked it was like the punks and decided to mug the Punisher and they all had a good laugh.

 

 

 

That's cool!

 

And I think you could def do something for The Thing when the other players don't show up to the session (or whatever).

Friendly combat encounter versus a bunch of high DCV\high AK:Yancy Street, high mobility types with sight Flash (tomatoes) and nothing else.

How does he nab those rascally teens without actually hurting them, destroying anything, or looking like a chump?

 

Could be a very fun fight. And thrown together on an ad-hoc, rather than planned, basis.

 

But I don't think I'd make it routine. Nor, as in your example, would I expect minor opponents to be a serious threat.

 

Of course The Thing has a higher OCV\DCV than the YSG. Since DCV can represent blocking and not just not getting hit (right?) then if they fail to "hit" with their tomatoes then Ben has just blocked it from hitting him in the face\eyes.

 

Anyway...that's a fun example for sure. But not really what I was talking about.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

CSLs are the obvious go-to.  So let's assume we want a Highly Trained Normal Human build where we accept the character will have 20s in all physical stats - peak human normal, but not legendary.  Well, we need CVs of 12 to compete with those 35 DEX Supers in the game, so we'll need +5 skill levels with DCV (25 points) and +5 skill levels with OCV, which do not exist in any edition.  Let's call those 25 points as well, so we spend 50 points.  But the 35 DEX character spent 45, recovered 15 from Speed for a net cost of 30, and has the same CVs, acts faster and has better DEX rolls.

 

Why are there 35 Dex supers in this game again? Just because there must always be Dex 35 supers in all games?

 

 

Quote

 

OK, my character is NOT a highly trained normal after all - he took a SuperSoldierSerum that made his agility superhuman, because I want to play a competitive character, not Captain Sidekick.

 

Orrrrr his Dex of 23 (or 30!) is "peak human" or "nearly superhuman" or "maximum human potential" and we just go on our way to get to the actual gaming parts.

 

 

Quote

 

Most comics feature a range of normal humans and scale up through trained people to other Supers.  Those are benchmarks. 

 

 

I would suggest that they are in fact not benchmarks. A benchmark should be specific and measurable. And as Assault (seems weird to not capitalize it) was saying in another post none of the comic book benchmarks are really meanginful.

 

I LOVE the OHATMU. Love it. I still remember way too many characters specific "lift\press" tonnages. But....

 

None of that correlates to the actual comic books except in very general ways. Ranges, not benchmarks. 

 

Quote

 

Hydra agents hit the Hulk and the Thing easily, and miss Spider-Man and Captain America.

 

 

Again though, these are fictional books with made up stories. Not games or reality simulators. 

If Cap is DCV 12 all the time and Spidey is DCV 12 all the time and Ben is DCV 6 all the time (Dex 23 and Large -2 DCV as a penalty) then the OCV 4 thugs with their +2 built-in levels in their Hydra Blaster can hit Ben and not hit Spidey and Cap.

 

Generally, averages, random numbers, situational modifiers, GM fudging for dramatic effect, and so on.

 

Quote

  So shouldn't VIPER agents perform similarly? 

 

 

I have no idea. I've never used any VIPER stats for anything. Again: Do YOU want them to perform that way? In YOUR games? 

Because 4th, 5th, 6th, or roll-your-own you're going to have to do that kind of work in a Hero game. 

 

Quote

The Yancy Street Gang throws tomatoes at Ben Grimm and hits him pretty routinely.  If he has a DEX of 23 and a DCV of 8, what does that make the average OCV of a street tough in the game?  Is that better or worse than a cop?  A soldier?  A Hydra agent?

 

Yah, see? This. The Yancy Street Gang throwing tomatoes at Ben is a fictional episode. I don't see any reason, at all, that it needs to in any way adhere to game rules. Nor do I see a reason that the rules must be able to coherently account for random panels in random comic books. 

 

But, let's just Hero it up for funsies, eh?

 

Ben is in non-combat mode while chillin' on Yancy Street. His DCV is a 4. The YSG are all cinematic reality youths and have a Dex of 12 (as high as trained cops?!? HOW!?!?). They throw things a lot as a neighborhood sport so they're +1 or +2 with throwing stuff. 

YSG is now OCV 5 versus Ben's DCV 4 and they can hit him with tomatoes when they surprise him.

 

See? Easy. And kinda pointless. 

 

Unless you set up the battle mat and go to the Speed chart to resolve street youths throwing tomatoes at your 500+pt PCs. 

That seems like an RP interstitial scene and not something that needs to be modeled in Hero combat system reality.

But it's trivial to do so if I want to.

 

But in the comics I'd just have the tomatoes hit Ben and I wouldn't roll anything or stat it up. I'd do it 'cause it fit the story I was telling and I wouldn't worry about the potential inconsistency of these street toughs potentially having the same stat range as Hydra Agents\Olympic Gymnasts.

 

You know what I'm sayin'?

 

Quote

 

Comparisons are what differentiate the characters.  I doubt any of us would disagree that the ranking of agility is Spidey at the top, then Cap, then the Thing.  So how far above a Hydra agent, a Yancy Street tough or a normal human is the Thing?  We know Cap is further up, and Spidey even higher.

 

Right.

Spidey at 36, Cap at 30, Ben at 23, regular Hydra goons at 15, special Hydra goons at 18, Yancy Street Gang youths at 12 (15 for "the wirey one" or "the twitchy one"). 

 

ORRRR, if my GM wants a more lower powered option....Spidey at 30, Cap at 23, The Thing at 18, Hydra goons at 12, Special Hydra goons at 15, and YSG youths...still at 12. 

 

ORRRR if my GM wants a more high powered option....Spidey at 37, Cap at 32, Ben at 27, and Hydra goons at 18.

 

Whatever works for the campaign you're playing or wanting to run. Just like all editions of the rules. 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

 

When the defaults are not useful character builds, it doesn't really help.  And only SOME things scale.  I've seen a few Hero novices discover just how bad an idea it was to take a 10 PRE, or even a 10 EGO. 

 

So in 5th we have defaults that more or less WILL be adjusted to make them work and in 6th we have defaults that MUST be adjusted to make them work. But in 5th you can just slap together an NPC (because we have to stat all our NPCs, right? And we can't just eyeball stuff and go on the fly) and know that his CV will track with his general physical coordination and such.

 

The bigger, stronger, tougher guy automatically gets more Stun than the skinny, weak, feeble guy.

 

I'd say...functionally it doesn't matter at all. All PCs will adhere to points, and fully statted NPCs will adhere to points, and all on-the-fly creations probably won't and don't matter.

 

Very minor. But...scaling Figureds do provide default ranges. No scaling doesn't. 

Scaling is better. IMO, obvs.

 

As for Ego not scaling...I mean...it's not a Figured Stat, so...that's not what I'm talking about? 

But then also Ego scales your Ego rolls and your resistance to mental attacks, you just have to buy it up, like all stats.

 

Why not buy up Manual\Fine Motor Dex and also split out Pedal\Gross Motor Dex? Does it "make sense" that a gymnast can pick locks well? 

Why not buy up HtH damage separate from Strength? I've certainly encountered folks that hit harder than they lift. 

For that matter how does it make any logical sense that my martial arts abilities let me dodge bullets?

Why not split out OCV and DCV in to Ranged and Melee OCV and DCV. So we can *finally* stat out that Rocky-like boxer who won't also be a crack shot (some might say, "Rambo like").

In fact dodging bullets doesn't really make sense anyway, so we should slap a default -3 (Ranged) DCV penalty on folks against guns.

 

And so on.

I don't think those would be good changes. 

Lack of Figureds seems the same way to me.

 

On the one hand it makes sense (to me) as a logical extension of the Hero philosophy.

On the other hand I don't think it improves anything and has certain (fairly small) negatives. 

 

Reducing the default Stun mod and such are also small, progressive, changes that I think are both good\reasonable and also essentially irrelevant (GMs could always change that stuff for their game).

 

 

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

Sure, and I basically agree with you.

 

Exactly.

 

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

...frame their positions on 6e (no figured) and pre-6e (figureds)...

 

 

I think Figureds, as a default, are a better solution. Things scale automatically.

No Figureds removes the default scaling. 

 

Players and GMs are going to adjust the Figureds from defaults. Almost always. To taste\game limits.

 

In sub-6e they'll adjust from scaling defaults that relate to in-game and mechanical capability. 

This seems sensical to me. Base attributes have follow on effects.

 

Nothing prevents direct adjustment of any of the Figureds pre-6e and many effects explicitly do just that (thinking of Large (-2 DCV) and the like from the Beastiary).

 

I think No Figureds could be an APG deal. Alternate\non-default.

 

 

2 hours ago, Killer Shrike said:

then what's the harm?

 

I don't recall saying it was harmful. 

You're doubting my commitment to Sparkle Motion here? 😕