TranquiloUno

And this is how I'm pretty much always able to sell folks on playing. THEIR characters. And the potential ability to rearrange the rules to support different play styles.

My experience over the last few years running Hero for folks has been: They won't read the rules. Like...at all. Or at least not enough to actually seem to grok them. Experienced gamers too for the most part. There does seem to be a kind of effect where after a point the WALLOFTEXT seems to turn off new folks brains. Like they just can't even. Not sure why that is. It might be the character creation prior to mechanics organization of the books. I don't tend to get the impression new folks look at a D&D players guide and just can't even. You don't have to learn all the spells and effects up front. In fact that stuff is all listed in the back of the book. I think the delicious point-based freedom of Hero tends to melt brains because of a generalized lack of specific guidance (like D&D or other class\level or archetype or what have you based games) once you hit the powers section. Like in 5e D&D you can pick from a pretty small list of options, all of which have nice clear evocative names. And start with easy, simple, level-matched pre-built abilities that give you a general sense of the class and the system. In Hero we just keep repeating, "Whatever you can imagine!", which is true, but not helpful for new folks because they'll need guidance on how "whatever I can imagine" integrates to "actually playing an RPG". I think this causes problems even for experienced gamers. And I think the separation of rules from world\game info causes problems as well. At least conceptually, for folks new to Hero, by comparison to other RPG products. I can see how my 1st level Fighter stats compare to a 1st level Wizard. And I only have to remember by 1-2 1st level abilities in order to play. AND I can get a sense of how the game and the world and the mechanics are kinda interact from that. My starting Chain mail is "ok" and I can clearly see in the book that there is better stuff. I can see how much damage I can do and also see what it's likely to grow to over time. For Hero, "It could be anything! Depends on the campaign!". Which again, is true, and I like that very much, personally, but in terms of teaching new folks the rules isn't super helpful. There's at least a perception of a large upfront cost to having to learn ALL of Hero before you can really play or even start building characters and having them fight monsters\smash evil\save the galaxy. And I think a lot of folks, even experienced gamers, would rather make a cool lil dude to play in the game and then go fight monsters than they would read an entire set of rules, end to end, before being able to even start doing that and then have to spend a good chunk of time making their lil dude and still not really have solid guidelines for if the characters they are making or good or "right". So, IME recently, it's more what I said in the first line, me running Hero for other people. Not so much all of us playing Hero. Which is mostly fine. I've had players in D&D games that wouldn't really read the books and still didn't quite understand which dice to roll when and so forth after several sessions of play.

Well, sure, that's why I was curious for character concepts that are enabled by 6e (neater and cleaner). You've given me a couple. Thanks again for that. 6e does seem the logical endpoint of things. Divorcing CV from Dex and so on. So it's certainly more mechanically detailed by default in character creation. I'm just not sure that's "best" "mechanically". It's certainly more fiddly. Like you I'd like to know what Killer Shrike means by that. Then I can try to change his mind. ;D I mean if the character doesn't pay for the skill (lockpicking, let's say) then they might not even be able to attempt it, depending on the GM. And...who says he has to have a high Dex to be good at fighting? Buy him some combat levels to represent his skill in fighting. Ben Grimm is a terrible example for exactly that reason. Football star, veteran, test pilot. He's got excellent reflexes and he's highly trained in various ways. But him aside, my point isn't that 6e doesn't allow finer granularity by default for these edge cases, it's that I think I can do all that in 4th or 5th. Accomplish the same effect. So I can get to playing. If Shrike feels having more granularity by default is mechanically better (and I think that's a very reasonable position) then 6e is probably superior. But if "best"\"better" means generally being able to easily replicate any weird corner case a PC can throw at you then...4th is fine too. As far as historical norms in published products and average games that I haven't played in regarding Speed scores....I guess I'm in favor of limiting them? It's no problem for me if Thing, Wolverine, Cyclops, Punisher, and Tony Stark are all Dex 12. And speed 3. And are some of the greatest fighters in the world because they have spent XP on tons of levels. Disad for Rogues to keep their CV down? 5pts for every -1 OCV penalty when they aren't in favorable conditions. "Gun shy" or "Prefers to attack from the rear" or "Not a Fighter". Anyway. Yah, sure, if better balanced point spends, for some kinda arbitrary meta-rules-based character concepts, is "better", then I'd say that's a strong case for 6e being best. For sure. That kinda of super detailed edge case stuff does seem better suited to 6e. I'm more about: I don't know if any of that really benefits playing the game. So "best" seems uncertain. I'm more interested in a rules system that I can fairly quickly create highly customized characters with and then get to gaming. While gaming it's nice to have a solid framework for skills, combats, and such in addition to the skeleton of the system that drives XP based progressions. 4th worked for me for that, 5th does now (and I'd be strongly inclined to switch back to 4e Shapeshift if it ever comes up from a player in a game), it all seems good. 6th seems more detailed. But I'm not sure that's better. Neater and cleaner to create some of the stat relations you're talking about. Point breaks re: Figured look good too. But "best"? For what value of "best" and "mechanically"?

Thanks! Good examples! I don't play 6e so...thus my asking. It's not MY model, it's...5e's. For the +1 OCV. Either overall combat levels with a -1 (half effectiveness) to put them at 4pts or 3pts of Dex with a -1.5 (1/3rd as effective) at 4pts. Call it 5pts to include "always on"\"always allocated". Easy. For the gymnast, for sure, definitional issue with 4th\5th having Dex be both CV and Speed. Under a model of Dex being both of those things having a person defined as having high dex, but not having (almost) any of the benefits of that dex...doesn't really compute. Under that model. Same for the low DCV\high OCV. How is a clumsy, low Dex guy, with poor hand-eye actually really good at hitting stuff (ALL stuff! Ranged, HtH, all of it! Trained or untrained!) but not doing it with skills. He's a bit clumsy but...not when hitting folks? But at all times he's a solid defensive combatant? And he's "slow, pokey" but...actually faster than the fastest human beings (Spd 5) in fighting? But really...again, if you've got an actual player that has the concept "Elite gymnast that sucks at fighting", then...you can do that in 4th\5th\6th. I suppose I could run in to a player who will just HATE that their super-coordinated, highly trained, elite athlete can't suck at combat but kick ass at handstands. I'd make a Disad for that player. Easy. Definitely fair points for the cost efficiencies!

So...first: Thanks for the examples. Second: I'll take issue with them but...I mean...it's all pretty minor. The main thing being: I think you can totes emulate all of those in 4th if you wanted. You buy combat levels to create a skilled (*skill* levels, in *combat*, even) combatant who doesn't have insane Dex. Also campaign limits factor in. So "skilled combatant who doesn't have maxed campaign Dex" = buy some combat SKILL levels and there you go. High OCV v Low DCV...kinda the same as above? (Also...is this really a character concept?) Buy more OCV (overall combat levels- only for OCV and\or Dex - only for OCV) and leave Dex and default DCV low. Maybe it's a sniper\hunter. Maybe it's a dwarven berzerk who doesn't care about his own safety. Easy to simulate. In 4th\5th. Olympic Gymnast that isn't a skilled combatant? Super easy again. Either buy up Acrobatics to the "Olympic" level while leaving Dex reasonable, then do not buy any WF or combat levels. Or if the actual concept is "my character is an Olympic gymnast that sucks at combat" then take a Disad "sucks at combat" and workout a CV penalty with your GM. The last one...I..guess? I didn't know that was a thing! But can't you just take PD with the special effect ("My character rapidly recovers Stun")? To create a functionally similar effect in our special effect based system? I'll totally grant you those are some things you can do by default in 6e that you'd have to do the Hero System way in 4th. But...is that really so troublesome?

And to double post: Complexity. I also think...it might add "trap options" (I think this is the term from D&D family stuff). Again, for new folks, mostly. For instance maybe I (as a new player) want to play Phoenix (Rachel Summers) so I mostly boost my OECV and end up getting spanked in mind-to-mind combats with other mentalists because DECV didn't seem as relevant to my character concept during char gen. This seems reasonable because in my conception she's a more aggressive attacking psionic than a defensive one. But if I just buy up Ego (in 4e\etc), and get balanced OECV\DECV then I'm (kinda sorta) prevented from self-gimping by spending my points in ways that *seem* reasonable at character creation but won't be reasonable in game. And of course I can still buy a +1 (O)ECV skill level to reflect being better at offense than defense. Conversely, as an experienced player, I honestly can't think of a large number of cases where I'd be buying significantly mismatched OCD\DCV\STun\Bod. Not saying it doesn't happen, obvs, just...it doesn't seem like a huge issue. So...what's gained? What improves in playing the game? Are there character builds that are possible in 6e that can't be done as neatly and cleanly in 5e? Honest question. 6e seems logical to me, but, in games, what does it actually add?

First: I really admire your dedication to themed sigs! Next: In that Figured will assume non-default values relative to the primary characteristics I find them simpler. In that a player now has additional choices that they MUST make I find that more complex. But, again, mostly for new people. An experienced player might not really notice or care that they have to buy non-default DECV separate from OECV (or whatever). I can't really...I don't really see the point in getting too in to the weeds on theoreticals but if I'm a new player and want to play a Mentalist then I just have to see Ego, realize that's "the mindpower stat" and dump points there (in 4th\5th). In 6e they'd need to know how both the stat value and the DECV and OECV are likely to figure in to combat calculations\power effects and figure out where to buy them at. I don't think it's a HUGE OBSTACLE to....you know, anything, differences between versions are so small as to be nearly ignorable or disappear in to house rules and such, I just think it's somewhat more complex for a theoretical new person. I realize that part of the charm of Hero is doing your own thing your way. I don't think that super needs to be restated a lot for experienced players (ie, everybody on these forums). So to make D&D comparisons seems...tenuous. That said: In D&D if I want to be a warrior I put my points in Str and I'm (basically) done. In 5e I put my points in Str and Con and I'm basically done. Sure, sure, combat levels, non-default Dex values, etc. It's Hero after all. But if I have to figure out, as a new player, both where to put my points in stats and then also where to put my other points in other stats, the relationship of which might not be clear (like in 4th Dex 15 = pretty good in a fight, in 6e...what is a good OCV\DCV? What's my scale of comparison? (as a new player)). Like I said, I dunno if it is worth getting to deep in to how a theoretical new player might find things, but at the same time I think looking at how it effects experienced players isn't AS big an issue (I know OCV\DCV 5 is a middling value and decent for Fantasy Hero, or whatever). I think that for new players it's good to have some guides for things in the system. To use White Wolf as an example the stats are from one to five "dots". So I can know my Dex of 3 dots is pretty good and my Dex + Gun is 6 dots and that's good too. I think Hero can be...problematic for new folks, even experienced gamers (not experienced *Hero System* gamersm but well rounded experienced in other systems gamers) because of it's free form nature. "What do you want to play? It can be ANYTHING!?!??!?!!?!?!!", leads to, "Ok, but, like...what should\can I play?". Decoupling figured char, to me, seems to make that kind of guideline less clear, potentially, to new folks. While at the same time not providing real benefits to experienced folks. But it's pretty minor. It just seems to add complexity (additional things to track and spent points on, instead of having those things effectively auto-scale with the stats) over 4e. Ultimately, of course, you are correct. My opinion is probably not universal. But then it comes back to what I'm asking Killer Shrike: What makes 6e "the best" mechanically for....? New folks? Old heads? Perfect abstracted char-gen? Actually playing the danged game? As I said before: 6e seems like a very logical end point of the Hero System based on 4e ideas. To me as a Hero player\GM...that's fine, but also...it doesn't add anything to my player\GM toolbox. I get nothing functional from 6e as a player (maybe I'm not just making insanely complex enough builds and fiddling my DEVC\OEVC bits enough or something). And I get detriments, when trying to get new folks to dig on the rules, as a GM, while, again, not really gaining anything. To me, personally. So for Killer Shrike to make his case for how\why 6e is mechanically "best" I'd be interested in hearing what is gained, in games, in actual play, in 6e over 4e\5e\r.

I seems easier to just explain it to new folks. I'm not sure that changing a core mechanical difference in the game because new folks have to spent a little time figuring out how it works is beneficial. Many systems have two tiers of damage that work roughly the same (given they are different systems) and I never hear folks complaining that new people are confused by Stun vs Lethal, or MDC vs SDC, or Normal and Aggravated, or regular damage and damage that doesn't heal until you take a Long Rest, or Slashing and Impaling and so on. Are folks confused by PD\ED or Body\Stun? Like...the benefit to this is that instead of confusing the very small group of folks that have never played Hero and just can't wrap their heads around different damage types you'll confuse all the experienced Hero folks. So on the one hand if you are planning on selling Jolrhos to new folks\non-gamers then maybe avoiding the confusion (is this REALLY an issue?) of new folks will be beneficial. On the other hand if you figure the market for Hero settings\products is...you know, basically us old jerks that are set in our ways and enjoying posting about rules minutiae on the internet then maybe changing the way the rules have worked for many many years would not be beneficial. Certainly if somebody were to publish a Hero setting I was supes interested in (Draegera, Wild Cards, I dunno, pick your fave)...but then also changing the stats in weird ways (from the standard rules) I would be much less likely to buy it. Same as I don't buy Heroes Unlimited supplements to get NPC ideas. Not that I can't. Or that the other system sucks so bad I can't get any benefit. Just that...why would I?

I guess I'd be wondering "Mechanically" "Best" for....what? Resolved: Any version of (almost) any RPG has rules that you can run a game with. (the actual important thing, playing the game) Resolved: Any version of (almost) any RPGs rules will not survive contact with the enemy\players. (the less important thing, because rules will always be adjusted) Resolved: The actual in-game stuff, specific to the group\characters\genre\setting\play-style, will be much more impactful than the actual rules. Resolved: Running games is the actual thing that really matters. So then, for 6e, what is it best at? And "best" compared to...? What can I do with 6e that I can't do with 4e (or 5e\5er) that will improve or effect most\some\the "average" game? What's "best" about it? I'd say 6e makes character creation slightly more complex for us Hero System veterans and somewhat more complex for new folks. Resolved: Old-heads don't really matter to be honest. We'll modify things as we see fit. We're comfortable with the rules already. So in this sense then 6e introduces complexity that...was anybody asking for this? Did old-timers find Figured Char and un-decoupled Dex\Ego CV so constrictive we couldn't run the games we needed to run? Introducing complexity to a rules system and providing no real benefit to either new folks, or old folks, doesn't seem "best". The 6e stuff in general makes sense as a logical end point of the 4e beginnings. IMHO at least. But I don't think it really does much of anything to enhance average\general game play. IMHO again. I also think, I mean, you know, essentially only us weird folks that give a funk about the rules actually read, post, care about the rules. So it's mostly going to be idiosyncrasy in terms of "best" rules version. To me the advantages (+2?) of Hero are: I can build stuff I want instead of picking stuff from lists that other people thought up. A fairly clean and universal game engine (not char gen) that you only learn once. 6e added more fiddly bits to the "building stuff you want" but didn't really allow me to build stuff I couldn't already build. The game engine doesn't seem to have changed significantly. So...I can put time in to learning the differences in rules versions so I can...run the games I'm already running? Is that the best use of my time? But...change your mind? Well, sure, how about: What kind of games are you running now in 6e that you couldn't ever do before? How has 6e changed the actual games you are actually running for the better? I will speculate baselessly that: A) You run fun games that your players enjoy and B ) You ran fun games in 4e and 5e as well. So...for any additional work that would go in to learning the updated system, re-stating anything that needs re-stated, what's the IRL fun or ease of use that you're getting with 6e that you don't with 4e? Like...just cost\benefit if I spend X hours learning rules and stuff which doesn't make actual game play better then couldn't I have spent those same hours running games, prepping for games, writing up stats and NPCs (I realize you, Killer Shrike, have stated up a bazillion NPCs and PCs and every other gawddamn thing under the sun, but you know what I mean) then...is it best? Or maybe you meant specifically 6e is the best *Mechanically* of all Hero versions. IN which case...can you MAKE *your* case for that? What are the mechanics in 6e that improve over 5e in terms of game play?

90 seconds!? But that's like over 7 turns!? Of course they're tired. ;D ;D ;D

How do you build a paralyzing venom, per this question: https://www.facebook.com/groups/herofangroup/permalink/2032491176809966 Mostly: How can you build a Based on CON, Entangle I guess. Making it BOEVC\Alternate Combat Value doesn't make it a mental power and Based on CON is only for Mental Powers, right? What's the way to build a paralyzing venom that can be "broken" by CON rather than Ego\Str?

What version of the rules? How many points? How many active points\rule of X? Ultimately Lion-O is a pretty standard martial artist\brick type. Buy up your Dex, Str, Con, Speed. Get some feline enhanced senses. Buy some martial arts with the Sword of Omens. The Sword of Omens itself is fairly tied to the Thundercats world lore. IE, will you be Thundercats HOOOOOOOOO! with it? Will it be a short sword\dagger most of the time and a real sword only sometimes? "Sight Beyond Sight" is probably just Clairvoyance with some limits (OAF, for one). Figuring out how to build him will depend on rules version, total points, active points, what others are playing, and all that kind of thing. But it's a pretty straight forward build I think.

Thanks, everybody! I think Selective Targeting will work fine in this case. Odds of a power-reflector showing up are low. Although I am the GM, so.... ;D

5e specifies you can take Selective Targeting on Darkness without taking AoE. p250 It's in Hero Designer that way as well as Selective Target..

PC has a Darkness, No Range. Do they need Personal Immunity AND Selective Targeting to exempt themselves from the effect? Or would Selective Targeting by itself be enough?

Yah, I was torn on that. Paying to Mind Control the Follower you already paid points for that already does your bidding (for the most part) seems like a heavy tax. Mind Link to control an animal you already paid points for seems more reasonable, but then it also seems like...wouldn't Mink Link alone work and be cheaper?

Ooh, Side Effects for "leaves body behind", that's an interesting one. I like it! VPP would seem easier than MF but I should probs reread MF too.

Si, the GRRM\ASOIAF version. Good question. How would you do that? I'm thinking he'll likely have 1-3 stable animal buddies that more or less travel with him AND (ideally, see how the points go) also the opportunistic ability to warg to other animals that are present in the area. Mind Control does seem right and I like the mind control not working Int\Ego above 8, that's nice.

Oh, I see! Well that's an interesting mechanic too I suppose! But, yah, DS that only blows up weapons what attack it, and a linked FF that only works when the weapon shatters. The DS only against weapons seems like a -1/4 to me since it's most likely a non-melee character spell. Meaning they wouldn't be seeing much defensive damage from the DS on the reg. But I could see it being -1/2 too. For the FF limitation...trickier since it'll depend on the average weapon durability and the DS damage. But assuming a 1 1/2d KA and using the Fantasy Hero weapon stats it looks like about 2-3 strikes until a weapon breaks. So probably -3/4 or -1/2 given it gives no protection until then, and doesn't work against ranged weapons.

I've got a player interested in, "like, maybe, warging?", and so I ask: How would you build that in Hero? Buying your special animal friends as followers and then buy limited mind control? Multiform with "leaves human body behind when assuming other forms"? I did a quick search of the forums and warg\warging\skinchanging didn't seem to come up besides in reference to large wolves. How would you write up an ability to mentally possess animals while leaving your physical body behind?

A 2d DS hits 75 AP pretty quickly. Outside the AP guides for the game. So not much worry there. PCs won't have it unless I want them too. I was more interested in how folks would price the Limitations for "only to shatter weapons" and "only protects against weapons that shatter" or if there was another more clever way to build it besides I like your point about there being no secondary attack if the shatter works, but...is that true? Does the Foci produce the effect then take damage? Or take damage first before it can take effect and so potentially get destroyed prior to doing damage?

The Foci breaking rules produce different values than the charts in Fantasy Hero 5th. But I think either version should be workable. Thanks!

Non-expert replies are fine. I'm not one either. The only against Foci would prevent damaging the folks that attack you however. Which does seem to limit the DS. If the sword breaks and they can grab another one because they are still unharmed (just unarmed), or run, or switch to spells, or something else (punches even). But...yes, not much of a limitation. I had considered writing it up as a Transform (weapons in to broken weapons) to increase the cost a bit. Well...unless the pants, belt, and trousers are doing the attacking I think they'd be safe from the DS for the most part, but, yes, it's a standard optional rule that doesn't generally get applied. BUT, in this case, that's what I'm wanting to apply, so it not normally being applied isn't an issue to me. Plus this is at least partly a "How would you build it?" question and not so much a "Should I build this and give it to PCs or will that create issues at some point?" thread. I do think it would create an interesting potential encounter for the PCs tho if it was an NPC who had the ShatterShield up. So there's that. Like a Rust Monster kinda... Excellent point about the applicability of the limitation being dependent on what they'll probs be attacked with and how effective the DS itself is!

Oh, sure, I'm less concerned about how it might effect the game and more interested in how to build it. Specifically how folks would price the limitions, "Only against Foci" and "Only works against weapons that are shattered by the damage shield". Damage Shield itself (in 5r) says it can do damage to Foci that strike it, at the GMs option. So that implies to me that nothing special needs to be done to the DS itself (nothing additional needs to be bought to make it work against foci). But "only works against" foci does seem like a Limitation? And if a DS is intended to damage folks then...is that half it's effectiveness? More? Oh, sure, they'd pay END and all that. Normal spell stuff. If I was giving it to a PC I'd probably pile on Concentration throughout and a few others, maybe up the END cost. Yes, non-magical\special only (I'd probably let non-magical supermetals (Orchalcum, Adamantine, Questionite, etc) resist it as well).

What pages is that on? I don't see it under AoE, Damage Shield, or the range\targeting section. How does it work and how would you use it to build the effect?