TranquiloUno

Something I have thought since they started popping up:
 
The habit of rebuilding old powers with new powers needs to _stop_ if you want me folks to catch on.   Instant change is a great example. 
 
If you want to re-price it the same as such a thing, fine; go for it.  But don't throw AL that technobable goopedy-gyuk at a new player.  Treat it like any other power: this power does X.  For more points, it can also do y. 
 
It leads to some consuion for a new player as to what is a power and what isn't and what has to be built as some other power, and on and on and on.
 
If you want to host a separate discussion about it elsewhere in the book, great.  But don't do it right there in the same secrion the powers are in: everything in that section should be presented as simply and concisely as possible.  Give details about use and effects, if you want, but don't start tearing it apart into terms of some other thing the new player doesn't understand. 
 
If you want me to learn Latin, defining all the words into Greek is _not_ going to help. 

Well IMO 5th and 6th set increasingly higher levels of complexity.  Yes, secret ID can be replaced by a social complication.  But really, what was achieved besides added hoops to jump through.  5th and especially 6th was riddled with low or no value changes that catered to rule accountants rather than rpg fun. 
Also all just my opinion. 
 
But "cool! I'll buy Instant Change" is way more funner than "so I want to Instantly change into my costume, that is cosmetic what?"  Not intuitive at all.
Still just my opinion.....
 
 
 

It could be helpful if we returned to simpler builds for published characters, like was the norm for published characters up through early 4e.
 

I currently DM for both systems and I feel like you're being excessively kind to D&D 5e here.
 
D&D 5e:
Roll to-hit adding you (STR Bonus or DEX bonus) plus your proficiency bonus plus your weapon enchantment bonus (if any) plus your maneuver bonus (such as precision strike - if any).  If you have advantage roll 2x 20s and take the better number.  If you have disadvantage then 2x 20s and take the worse result.  If you have both advantage and disadvantage then go back to rolling a single d20.
Roll and sum your 2d6 damage dice + your STR/DEX bonus + your weapon enchantment bonus + 2 if you have the Duelist fighting style + any spell effect damage from allied buffs + maneuver damage potentially if you're a battle master.
 
I agree with the perception that HERO math is nastier than D&D math and yet I play at tables that have been running 3+ years and players are still stumbling over their stack of various things to add & subtract and the particulars of their various class features, feats, spells and items to determine what they're doing.  Sorry Monk - you can't bonus action disengage because you took a bonus action unarmed attack during your attack sequence.  Sorry sorceror you can't cast fireball because you used your bonus action to cast shield of faith and the action rules say if you cast a bonus action spell you're restricted to cantrips for your action and on and on and on.
 
HERO feels more front-loaded (more to learn to get rolling), but you can apply the general approach while D&D is an exercise in memorization.

I've gone down this road with two groups now.
 
 
This is highly variable, but once everyone knows their maneuvers and numbers (OCV, DCV, Damage, etc.) then it is just slightly longer than a D&D round.  Primarily because hit locations introduce an extra roll and a little math.
Although, I've found that D&D 5e fights tend to take much longer in T3-T4 due to ever increasing hit point totals.  In HERO the fights take about the same amount of time at all levels as long as offense & defense are scaling with villain offense & defense.
 
 
Short answer:  Yes.   HERO system characters (super & heroic) do not generally scale their BODY scores much.  In D&D you can start with 10 hp and be well over 100 later in your career.
A D&D 5e fighter can leap from a 300 foot cliff, take 70 HP of damage and walk off in relatively good health at higher levels.  A Fantasy HERO character that takes that drop is probably unconscious and somewhere between dead instantly and severely injured.
 
My players quite enjoyed that at the end of their careers they could blow through a troup of bandits like golden gods and still get hurt enough by a lucky long bow shot that they couldn't ignore the threat any armed opponent represented.
 
Also, congrats on bringing another group to HERO.  D&D 5e public play is a great place to meet players and bring them to the D6 Side. 

It took me long enough to find this, and I overlooked it more than once.  
 

 
Champions III, p 24.  
 
Edit to add:  While it might have thrown additional gasoline on the Great Linked Debate fire back in the day, it also assumes that the Powers are designed to go off together.  Essentially, what Hero Designer refers to as a "compound Power".  X, plus Y, plus Z. 
 

The moons in my world act as kinda...transformative magical dynamos. Pulling in raw solar energy\magic and transforming it in to more abstract forms\colors. 
 
Gods are creatures that have acquired various lunar artifacts that allow them to directly tap that lunar power.
The catch being that the more of these artifacts you can find and bond to the more your personality becomes warped by them. 
The primary way they warp personalities is to drive them to acquire more power and lunar artifacts and control and to project their lunar influence on the world. And to make them more than a little paranoid (reasonably expecting that all other gods are in fact plotting against them).  
 
I'd specifically wanted fairly weak gods in contrast to typical (ie, D&D) fantasy RPGs. I think of the tougher ones as being kinda on the level of JLA members (Bryne era Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, etc). Or maybe like The Dominator from The Black Company novels.
 
So they are driven to gain power and influence the world. But while\if they are on the planet they are vulnerable. Super tough, but vulnerable. 
But while they on on their moons they are unable to directly effect events. 
 
Priests can then channel through their connection to a lunar deity. In return for doing the gods will and abiding by the psycho-spiritual nature of the moon in question. 
 
So the end result is gods that are both "weak" and active. They tend to have specific kingdoms\realms they have a patron relationship with and can directly channel lunar power to their chosen priests (provided their moon is in LOS to said priest) if they choose. Potentially burning the priests out in an excitingly literal way.
 
They then drive these kingdoms\heroes\etc to do their will. And also secretly hunt down more lunar artifacts. Both to bond them (if of their own moon) or to hide them from the other gods of the other moons. 
 
The Great Northern Church of Hexor is fighting Ostermark for control of The Labyrinth because both Hexor (the god) and Illisius (patron god of Ostermark) know there are lunar artifacts (and other nasty magics their mortal followers can use on each other) there. 
The Grey Elves had Boccob (god of the purple moon) as their patron and were able to create the Sathen Empire because of that patronage (and to serve his purposes). 
 
That kinda thing.
 
But they can die, is the point. And be replaced. And are magically warped to crave power and influence.
And while they've got loads of resources and mortal orgs and immortal secret knowledge of the world secrets and hidden treasures and magical caches on the planet they are personally only 350-500pt supers (5th) in a world of 225pt (max-ish) mortal types. 
 
I'd kinda modeled them off of aspects of The Star Rider from The Dread Empire books, the JLA, the aforementioned The Dominator, and the idea that gods could be statted out...and killed. There's nothing special or extra-rules-y about them. 
 
 

All excellent points, and I agree with most of them. 
 
The problem doesn't come from the. GM, though: every now and then, it's just something that the players _will_ make happen.  If you take all the weapons away, they will pack an escape pod full of molotovs; I swear! 
 
"what?  There are no ship-mounted weapons in this campaign?!  That's _great_!  That means they'll _never_ expect _this_..... (proceeds to catapult a a briefcase full of brass bookends into the near-lumina flight path of the target ship....) 
 
The bastards are sneaky, they are. 

Mostly, I avoid ship to ship battles. And if I can get away with a narrative based resolution, I'll take it. Starship battles look cool in movies but I've never seen one that really brought that kind of energy to a tabletop.
I ask myself, what's the point of the battle? Will it bring anything important to the story? Can I make the hotshot pilot not have wasted all those points in stunt flying without making the rest of the table pull out cell phones or take a nap? Usually, the answer is that I can accomplish the same goal without resorting to an actual combat.
 

4th Edition is my preference, but I still see why someone would want 3rd despite the rules have becoming better defined over time.
 
The advantage of 3rd was that the game was what was in the book(s) of that one game, not what you selected from the available options in a book-of-all-games.
 
It's the difference between a house system and a universal RPG. Products made with a house system can be cobbled together by GMs to make a universal RPG if they want, but each game can be played as-is by anyone. A universal RPG can't be played as-is. It needs the GM to understand it first, and to make decisions about which optional rules to include and so on.
 
Universal RPGs require more work up-front from the GM, and there's always more potential for mismatches between player expectations and GM plans regarding which bits to use, etc.
 
 

Starmada Compendium hits my sweet spot for starship combat. I ran most of the battles in my hard science fiction campaign with these rules.

modified movement rules and Car Wars arena combats.
 
There.
 
I've said it, and no: that's enough damage already without clarification.
 
 
In all honesty, easily 80 percent of our ship-to-ship combats (don't take that as meaning there are a lot of them, because there really aren't; at least, there aren't many extra-orbital ones) is handled abstractly or narratively.  It really takes a pitched battle for us to "go to the map" with one.
 
Though if you've got an old copy of StarFleet Battles kicking around....

Ditto
I've never liked the "ship as a character" in any system. 

I never cared for the way the Hero System did space combat. Plus, I found building a starship in Hero rather painful without a spreadsheet. 
 
When I want to do space combat, I use a system made for that purpose. There are a few free games available online. 

I'm not sure that's true....
 
Certainly people don't buy an RPG *just* for the art but I have also certainly bought any number of RPGs over the years sheerly based on cover and interior art. 
 
I think any pile of words can be a functional game system. I don't think people buy RPGs because of the words.
 
I think the book has to spark something in the person. Blue and yellow don't spark nuthin' for me.
 
Dr. D vs Seeker made me want to play that game without ever reading it.
 
I remember loads of Classic Enemies based on their art.
I remember buying Champions in 3d based almost solely on the cover art.
 
Since we're a bunch of Hero nerds here I know we all love our system of choice but I don't really think a system has ever sold a game.
I think art sells games.
 
Art invokes creativity.
Art informs potential buyers\players about all kinds of things about the game without them having to read a proverbial thousand words.
Art actually gets potential players to read those thousand or more words of the rules to actually play the game.
 
Shadowrun? Battletech? Bought 'em for the art.
Warhammer\40k? Art. In fact Warhammer and it's family are probably the best case for art being the only thing that really matters. IMO.
All those terrible Palladium games I used to play? It was the art that did it for sure.
Talislanta? Barely remember the system. Loooooove the art and the world and still wanna play that game solely based on the art.
 
Rules are bullshit (to an extent)\no plan survives contact with the enemy.
 
But pretty pictures are always pretty.
 
Art sells product.
 
IMO at least.
 
Gets pricey tho!
 
 

Gnome asked
 
 
You cropped off all of the context, quoted a fraction of his question, and asked if he was joking.  You continue to proceed on the basis that the only relevant comparison is two virtually identical characters, with the sole exception being that one can use his campaign max attack twice a phase and the other cannot.  However, the only way that can happen is if the first has enough extra points over the second to purchase a second campaign max attack outside any framework.  Those characters are not comparable.  They are not a reasonable comparison to assess whether Combined Attack is, or is not, overpowered.
 
 
It seems obvious that you have not actually read my post above. 
 
I did read all of yours.  Reading them again will not cause me to agree with your misconceptions any more than it did the first several times.  In fact, parsing through the autofire and multiple attack mechanics have reinforced my view that your belief that Combined Attack requires drawbacks to be balanced is 100% wrong.
 
Rather than barfing back your presumption Combined Attack is a problem because Christopher R Taylor ("CRT") perceives it as a problem one more time, I will ask, again, that you "please show us the two campaign-appropriate characters with equal points, one of whom has three campaign-maximum attacks he can use as a combined attack at his discretion, and the other who spent his points somewhere else, and can only use one campaign-maximum attack at a time".
 
I provided a few comparables above.  I believe they adequately support my view that Combined Attack is not in need of any modification.  Please provide me with your examples not just your rhetoric - demonstrating that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
 
To be blunt, the only view I have expressed on this thread that you have given me any cause to question is my personal dislike of downvoting.
 
 
We are?  If I include anyone who does believe Combined Attack is unbalanced as is and mandates further restrictions, whether those CRT proposes or otherwise, or I have otherwise misrepresented you, please note below and I will delete any reference to your prior posts that follow:
 
Clipped from a much longer discussion of his own analysis of the change from 5e onwards:
Duke later commends Gnome on his very well laid-out comment supporting the status quo at the second post on Page 3, which opens quoting you (CRT) saying " With this information in mind, let's think this through carefully and rationally. "
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Seems supportive of the status quo:
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Genre-specific disallowance of both Combined and Multiple Attacks (note that the last point also attracted the question of whether the spells had Gestures, Incantations, etc. which would presumably limit the ability to cast several at the same time).
But is clearly not sold on either view:
 
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
General disallowance of both Combined and Multiple Attacks
**************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Seeking examples that demonstrate this is a problem:
 
Those were the ones I spotted on a quick pass through.  Others have not expressed an opinion (whether "OK as is", "desperately needs fixing" or "not really sure", but have provided significant contributions clarifying the rules, and their history.  Thanks for those comments as well.
 
Clearly, Gnome and I do not see the status quo as unbalanced.  You, CRT, are the only poster I saw who has stated that there is a crying need to limit Combined Attack, especially in comparison to Multiple Attack, by adding new drawbacks.  Do you see someone I do not who has clearly expressed that view?
 

It made sense to me the first time I saw it, but I came to roleplaying from a wargaming background.  It made perfect sense to me that combat is broken up into sections and you might sometimes get an unrealistic result, because it's not somebody's turn to go yet.  Combat usually takes up the largest part of most rulebooks, so more complexity isn't always better.
 
In my mind, we get around this with held actions, everyone starting on segment 12, and the chance for surprise.  During the course of a fight, you aren't always ready to react at every instant.  Also, if you've got 30" of movement, you kind of are like the Flash.  Yeah, you're at the other end of a football field, but you can cover that distance in the time it takes me to get out of my chair.  One of your superpowers is moving fast.  In a comic book, you covering the distance to hit the other guy would be shown in one panel, and there would either be a streak of color behind you, or whoosh lines, or if you were a Batman type there'd be little afterimages showing you doing flips and bouncing off cars acrobatically to cover the distance.  To interrupt somebody in the middle of their panel, you need a held action.

Well I had to invest in a Questionite coffee table after my No Conscious Control +30 Str buy with XP and unfortunately somebody built it as a Penetrating Damage Shield so....

Not definitive and not even strongly held but...no, for Stunned, I would not have them fall off the horse. I wouldn't even have them roll Riding or Dex or anything.
 
They're just Stunned and not unconscious and a phase\round\segment is only a couple seconds. You get hit, you hunch over in pain (half DCV), you recover. All in a couple seconds.
 
Stunned (5e) specifies that characters "typically" (why is this only one sentence?! Surely the rules should be MUCH more explicit! ;D) don't drop anything they are holding (eg, reins) and while they are stunned they don't go limp, drop prone, or anything else along those lines. They just (IMO) spend a couple moments in the pain cave thinking about what they've done. Just like if I crack my shin on the coffee table in the dark. Am I at full CV? No! I'm in pain! But did I go limp, fall to the ground, and totally lose awareness of my surroundings? Also no.
 
I think even Knocked Out specifies that at -1 through -10 Stun the character isn't fully unconscious Knocked Out, just...uh...mostly KO'd?
 
In any case, to me, Stunned is (very) momentary pain effecting combat\other performance. Not a total loss of all ability to do anything (still have half DCV suggests to me they are at least a bit capable of duckin' and dodgin').
 
 
 
 
 
 

I'm not sure that's true....
 
Certainly people don't buy an RPG *just* for the art but I have also certainly bought any number of RPGs over the years sheerly based on cover and interior art. 
 
I think any pile of words can be a functional game system. I don't think people buy RPGs because of the words.
 
I think the book has to spark something in the person. Blue and yellow don't spark nuthin' for me.
 
Dr. D vs Seeker made me want to play that game without ever reading it.
 
I remember loads of Classic Enemies based on their art.
I remember buying Champions in 3d based almost solely on the cover art.
 
Since we're a bunch of Hero nerds here I know we all love our system of choice but I don't really think a system has ever sold a game.
I think art sells games.
 
Art invokes creativity.
Art informs potential buyers\players about all kinds of things about the game without them having to read a proverbial thousand words.
Art actually gets potential players to read those thousand or more words of the rules to actually play the game.
 
Shadowrun? Battletech? Bought 'em for the art.
Warhammer\40k? Art. In fact Warhammer and it's family are probably the best case for art being the only thing that really matters. IMO.
All those terrible Palladium games I used to play? It was the art that did it for sure.
Talislanta? Barely remember the system. Loooooove the art and the world and still wanna play that game solely based on the art.
 
Rules are bullshit (to an extent)\no plan survives contact with the enemy.
 
But pretty pictures are always pretty.
 
Art sells product.
 
IMO at least.
 
Gets pricey tho!
 
 

Well I had to invest in a Questionite coffee table after my No Conscious Control +30 Str buy with XP and unfortunately somebody built it as a Penetrating Damage Shield so....

I think you and your Herculean strength need to find a lower PD/BODY coffee table if stubbing your toe is causing you to be stunned.  That, or invest in Nightvision, it's dirt cheap when bought through a focus.  Maybe buy up your CON too while you're at it.

Not definitive and not even strongly held but...no, for Stunned, I would not have them fall off the horse. I wouldn't even have them roll Riding or Dex or anything.
 
They're just Stunned and not unconscious and a phase\round\segment is only a couple seconds. You get hit, you hunch over in pain (half DCV), you recover. All in a couple seconds.
 
Stunned (5e) specifies that characters "typically" (why is this only one sentence?! Surely the rules should be MUCH more explicit! ;D) don't drop anything they are holding (eg, reins) and while they are stunned they don't go limp, drop prone, or anything else along those lines. They just (IMO) spend a couple moments in the pain cave thinking about what they've done. Just like if I crack my shin on the coffee table in the dark. Am I at full CV? No! I'm in pain! But did I go limp, fall to the ground, and totally lose awareness of my surroundings? Also no.
 
I think even Knocked Out specifies that at -1 through -10 Stun the character isn't fully unconscious Knocked Out, just...uh...mostly KO'd?
 
In any case, to me, Stunned is (very) momentary pain effecting combat\other performance. Not a total loss of all ability to do anything (still have half DCV suggests to me they are at least a bit capable of duckin' and dodgin').
 
 
 
 
 
 

To whom do I need to justify it?  My players?  If I'm the GM and tell them that for this fantasy game I'm running, all spells use Mystical Combat Value, while all weapons, hand-to-hand, and special abilities use Combat Value... they'll say "Okay," and write their characters accordingly.  
 
I mean, all the justification I need is "I'm the GM and this is the game I want to run."  

I recently wrapped up War for the Crown with my Fantasy HERO group.
 
They started off as 150 pt characters and wrapped up as 350 pt characters with a LOT of magic items.  They were easily on par with 450-500 point Champions characters by the end - at least in terms of offense / defense.
In the beginning they were all around 5 OCV/DCV and doing about 2d6K or 6d6N at SPD 3.  Most characters ended at SPD 4, but a couple ended at SPD 5.
My wife's Fire Witch was hitting 14-15 OCV and doing 4d6 RKA AP or 3d6 RKA AoE AP with her most common attacks.
The Witcher based character was around 15 OCV when maxed out (levels, martial arts, magic weapon bonuses) and doing 4d6 HKA while simultaneously only 5 DCV due to armor penalties (end-game magic plate 15 rPD/rED - hardened).
The Dwarven Sapper had an array of explosives and ammo-consuming gauntlets that allowed him to boomstick punch enemies for more than 10d6N.
 
When I compared them to my last Champions campaign they overall had puny defenses (7-15 rPD armor plus 5-7 PD) but much higher CVs (14-15 OCV/DCV depending on level allocation).
 
Your concern is well justified.  A character in 8 rPD/rED field plate cannot soak repeated hits of 5d6 KA from an ancient dragon.  They're mangled after 2 hits and dead or dying after the 3rd.
The way my group dealt with dragons and major demons and other end-game threats was to avoid damage as much as possible by way of blocking, dodging and diving for cover.  Action economy is how a Fantasy HERO group typically defeats a big bad.
 
Also, end game threats are great for thematic side quests to build anticipation.  "No living creature can survive the dragon fire.  You must bring me 3 fire orchids to brew you potions that will let you live long enough to fell this beast.".
Completing a couple such quests and then facing attacks that would have been certain death without the additional preparation work will make the characters feel like their extra work is paying off and that their opponent is truly deadly.
 
I'm at work, but when I get home I'll see if I can upload my combat calculator sheet for the end of that campaign.  I basically set a starting value and then intermittently bumped it 5 points to simulate D&D tiers.