TranquiloUno

Having wrapped up our Pathfinder campaign I convinced the players to try a Pen and Paper play through of Pillars of Eternity I using HERO system and the Pillars of Eternity 2 class advancement schemes.
 
In our last campaign I hadn't restricted spells to per/day or per/long-rest casting and as a result - over time - the characters felt very much like Fantasy super-heroes instead of classic D&D characters.
 
This time we're using a House Rule of all spells and class special abilities being restricted with per-fight charges.  We've tossed Multipower to the wind as it was universally agreed (at our table of 5) that the discounting was too good and lead to characters having a host of spells since they could add new ones for just 2-3 points.
 
Each ability is bought separately, but we used the Hero Designer customer cost multiplier of 0.4.  Each major ability is now 5-6 points and everyone is pretty happy with that.
Spell caster abilities are build on 2 recoverable charges - per spell level - per combat and cast times from the game.  A spell that takes 3 seconds to cast leaves the caster immobile and vulnerable until 3 segments (on their DEX) after they started casting.
Martial types use class resources (Fury, Discipline, etc.) that are also recoverable charges - per combat - but have slightly larger numbers since they are not broken into ranks / levels.
 
Session 1 was largely character creation and then the Prologue Encampment.
 
Dropping from 350 point end-game heroes back to 125 point beginners took a few minutes to get used to.  No magic weapons, no invincible golden plate armor, no Staff of the Element Lords, etc.  Back to good old settlers looking for a free land deal in Gilded Vale to help repopulate the area after a recent civil war had decimated the population.
 
So far - so good!

While running a Pathfinder - to - HERO converted module I wanted to incorporate the rock-paper-scissors that various spells have against various enemy types (mental spells vs. Fighters, Dex spells vs. Mages, CON spells vs. Rogues, etc.).
 
Eventually I came up with a simple formula for representing DCV vs. Spells.  Spells target an attribute (Usually DEX, EGO or CON) and the target gets a DCV  of STAT/3.  EGO 15 = DCV 5 vs. Mind Spells, CON 18 = DCV 6 vs. spells affecting health, etc.
 
It's worked out pretty well.

One way is to just require arcane casters to buy combat levels for magic combat separately.
 
The thing is, especially for Fantasy Hero where the combat values are fairly low, there's basically no chance that an alternate CV will be worth an Advantage on the spell.  Even if it's just +1/4, it'll be too expensive compared to just buying +3 OCV with spell for 6 points.

I believe it was Abraham Lincoln who said, "Please accept my apologies for writing such a long letter; I did not have time to write a short one."

Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think I have that kind of time tonight!  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Not at all; go right ahead.  
 
Okay, assuming that you did:
 
First off: 4e isn't too terribly different from three and pre-three: it's essentially all the supplemental and additional rules from all the related non-Champions games published by HERO games up to that point.  It's a neat idea, but in the end, required a lot of shaving and cobbling to push it all together.  It worked, at least as a game system, but in rendering them all "part of a single universal system," it took a lot of the genre or setting-specific "feel" away from these rules, as well as crowding them into places that we had never really needed them before.  It's a bit long-winded, and--  well, let's move on for a bit.
 
First and apparently most-importantly, at least in terms of brevity, is that they weren't written by lawyers.
 
Yeah....   that's going to get some hate, so let me add more (in my opinion, totally unnecessary save for the touchiness of people these days) to that sentiment:
 
I have _never_ met any of the Holy Legions of Champions authors.  (and to be fair, the one I regret not meeting the most is probably Aaron Alston; his writings and the mythos around him suggest to me that I would have _loved_ hanging out and discussing things with him, rolling dice, etc).  Never.  Not once.  Why?  Well, there was no Champions when I was growing up in Alaska, and when there _was_ Champions, I lived in Georgia.  Not a lot of those folks from this area. Until Steve, none of them lived within two days of me, and the only Con around here is Dragon Con, which I think we have _all_ boycotted since "The Revelation."  (Proudly, I might add)
 
I have not met people who have met these people.
 
However, I _have_ spoken repeatedly with people who have met a lot of these folks, and I have had my suspicions confirmed:  these are great guys.  These are (as I always suspected) _real human beings_ who do real things, one of which is "enjoy playing (or at least playing with) games."  So when I condemn the "written by lawyers," it is not the people who are lawyers I am condemning.  It is the writing of lawyers I am condemning.
 
Look up the Constitution of the United States and _read_ it.  I _dare_ you!  Not that part we all had to memorize in grade school; the hand-written stuff is _easy_!  Get to the stuff added in later years.  Keep going.  I'll come back in a couple of years and check on you.
 
Which part was easy?  Which part was unnecessarily over-verbose, ponderously painful to read, required breaking down and diagraming sentences to make sure you followed and understood what was what and which was where and about who?  Oddly, all of this deeply-detailed over-specificity is done in the name of clarity.
 
Fine.  So Power descriptions go from one or two paragraphs to a full column, to one or two pages for each subsequent edition.  Does that add anything?
 
Nope.
 
Each new edition gets better and better indexing, sections, sub-sub-subtitles, etc.  Does that add anything?
 
Nope.
 
 
How can I say these horrible things?!
 
For one, it's been my experience that people who enjoy role-playing games tend to be readers, and it's been my experience that readers aren't really stupid.  We can be curmudgeons, disagreeable, opinionated, and bastardly, but not generally stupid.  When given an outline, we can fill in enough details to make it all work.  Best part of that?  We tend to bias those filled in blanks with things that we like.  When something _seems_ to conflict, we will either read and reread until we get what we missed, or we will re-interpret it in such a way that it doesn't conflict anymore.  
 
So let's publish new, more intricate, more complex rules:  We will fill in the blanks for you.  Now each power seems to have a long list of how every other power _must_ interact with this power, and how each advantage works with every power-- literally broken down by power!
 
There are a lot of reasons I disagree with that, the two foremost being this goes against the grain of advantages being fixed mechanics and pushes more toward the "typical" RPG model of telling you precisely how your power works, period.  We are moving away from "Blast" and toward "Ice Blast," "Laser Vision," "Heat Ray, Normal," and "Heat Ray, Gun."  Yes, a bit hyperbolic, but still:  this level of specificity _denies_ "the generic, do-anything system!" mantra we use to support it.
 
The additional verbiage doesn't help:  Define each Advantage-- go into great detail there, if you want-- even list out powers that you shouldn't apply it to if you're obsessed about making sure everyone is playing it your way,  but leave it to the groups or the GMs to determine how they affect the Powers.  Personally, I've always felt that if an Advantage can't be applied to every Power, then it should be an adder for the powers to which they can be applied, but you don't see me trying to force that on people, do you?
 
Where does all this stuff fit?  Where is it written?  Okay, I wish to alter my Skill Levels mid-combat: a situation that I missed but was told to me yesterday: can skill levels be altered when you abort?  Well, let's check under Combat.  Nope.  Aborting?  Nope.  Here it is, under Skill Levels!  
 
Why?!
 
Sure, it's a good thing we have an index, but an eighty-page rulebook was even better: check this three-page section.  Nope.  Check this half-column.  Nope.  Check this column on Skill levels.  
 
But why?  Why would you put the combat particulars for a skill under the skill description when all other skills simply have "what this does and how it works," and all other "here's your combat options" are under "combat?"   Why put this one thing in an entirely _separate book_?  We have an index now, so I suppose searching through 800 pages must now be easier than searching through 80 (or fifty-six).
 
Reading non-lawyer text is easier.  I totally grant that whoever wrote 4e (the name escapes me; Bell, wasn't it?) was unusually "not dry" for a lawyer, and even Steve tends to be less dry with the setting books and genre books (more "not dry" with the settings than the genre), but rules?  Straight to the lawyer speak (with jarringly "not dry" examples, because I assume he gets tired of lawyer speak, too).
 
 
Each new addition adds new Powers / Skills / Whozi-Whatsits!
 
Does it?
 
I have no idea how many, but I know that there are members still active on this board (besides me) who have been playing since 1e, or 2e or 3e (which seemed to have the largest number of "my first Champions," presumably because it was more successful and wide-spread by then)-- well, let's just say who have been playing since the early to mid eighties.  4e pulled stuff from all the 3e sources, and it added "Multi-Form" and EDM and T-form (though I swear, I _think_ T-form was a fall-out from Fantasy Hero.  My daughter has my FH books right now, so I can't check).  It also added "Talents" and changed some pricing for this or that.   Oh, and Desolid officially lost its granularity, resulting in it ending up being used pretty regularly as "immune to damage."
 
Or, as I have always been privately amused to notice:  it added the things we argued about the most!    That's not better, in my own opinion, but your mileage etc.  Math fanatics seem to have been the happiest by the costing changes; I was disappointed by the loss of 1/4 END cost the loss of the extreme cost of 0 END on high-dollar powers.  Damn balancing the friggin' _math_; I'm trying to balance characters against each other in actual _play_.
 
Put another way: it became less expensive to become way more "effective" if you were mathy enough, and not all my players are that mathy.  Further, I do math all damned day for money; I don't want to come home and do it again for "fun!"  It's not my bag, but suddenly I'm having to do all sorts of it for my less math-inclinded players who are desperately trying to keep up with the point-shaving pros.  Yeah, that's not a new thing, but with eight-dozen new options, it became much more prominent.  Today, it is the most _famously renowned part of the system" to outsiders, totally killing any other attraction the game may have to the majority of people who just want to pick up and play something.
 
But I questioned if the new stuff added anything; I should address that.
 
(Hey!  You were right, Amorcka!  Seems there _is_ a wall of text coming!)
 
1) There were no Hulk Clones before 4e.
 
2) There were no Doctor Strange Clones before 4e.
 
3) There were no Shape Shifters before 5e.
 
4) There are new things like "MegaScale"
 
5) All of the above are bull snuckles.
 
 
Why Multiform when we already had "Only in Hero ID?"  It was pretty easy to extrapolate that into "only in Hulk ID."  And we did.  I mean, it made a lot of sense for "Accidental Change."  Certainly that limitation couldn't apply only to people who had bought "Instant Change?" If that was the case, Instant Change could be more-than-free if you were willing to take a chance on the dice; effectively free if you stuck with 8 or less.
 
I am willing to bet most inter dimensional travel was handled by tweaking Teleport.  Most of the groups (man, I miss the 80s with their "game stores and game groups _everywhere_" golden good times!  Yeah, I'm not Australian enough to be able to fully commit to that joke) I encountered were doing it as a -0 Limitation: only for interdimensional travel, but again: mileage varied, and people tended to do _what they liked_.
 
Shape Shifters?  Hell, I _still_ ignore the disaster that 5e gave us: the biggest reason you shape shift is to gain some sort of advantage:  certain powers, disguise, whatever--  the fact that you changed shapes is just a special effect.  You don't even need multiform for this; do it the original way:  A list of powers with "only in appropriate ID / form."  Decide with your players which forms are appropriate and cost it accordingly.  Certain forms won't have +15 STR; certain forms won't have 3 levels of Shrinking, either.  
 
Was one better than the other?
 
Well, go through the history of the board.  Use the Wayback Machine to find as much of the old Red October as you can.  Which one generated the most disagreement?  Spurred the most complaints, confusion, and discussion?
 
 
Mega Scale, while never really written up as an advantage, has floated around many game groups-- those who were interested enough of had a strong enough need to build it-- since the very first edition, when the maps presented in The Island of Doctor Destoyer were spelled out as being displayed in Tactical Hexes, and the movement of the helicopters was given in Tactical Hexes.  No; no stats for that, but it's not hard to take the inspiration and extrapolate, or come up with it on your own, if you have a need.  (We called ours "UpScale," because in the eighties, "Tactical" was pretty much a buzzword used to sell absolute garbage on TV.  Come to think of it, that came around again in the mid oughts, with the new LED "Tactical Flashlights" and-- well, utter crap painted black.  Even today, calling something "tactical" makes me feel all Skeevy McFastbuck).
 

 Which one --
 
well, let's skip that.  The shorter approach to the discussion-- rather than rattling off example after example of differences-- is that the newer editions focus on minutiae; minutiae that wasn't really a problem for most people.  Yes: if you didn't have a group already, you didn't have anyone to bounce ideas off of to get an idea how something might or might not work, and I agree: that kind of sucked.  Still, it wasn't insurmountable.  You could still get an interpretation that worked for you, and if you finally found a group, that's how you played.  Once upon a time, we accepted with _any_ game that some people were going to play it differently, and you let it ride.  As a result of the steady push of "must play the same," when we offer up "house rules" or rules variants, there is endless discussion about the pros and cons (which I enjoy), and invariably there is at least one person taking major issue on the grounds that it is _not_ "The Rules as Written"  (there is more complaint here about drifting away from the letter of the rules than there is in church, for Pete's sake), and is therefore wrong.  Yeah; it's easy enough to ignore that, but still- what's the driving force?  Tighter and tighter bindings of the "must do this way" phrasings of the rules.
 
Today, the big control-freak push to make sure that everyone is playing the _exact_ _same_ _way_ is even more ridiculous: rather than make a call or an interpretation that works for everyone in your group, we can send a letter to the author (which, I do not deny, is _extremely_ gracious of him, and re-enforces all I've heard about him being a wonderful human being) to make sure we are playing a game correctly.
 
While there is a small resurgence for certain old classics, this isn't one of them.  As others have noticed, HERO is pretty much dead, at least for now and for the foreseeable future.  It was dead before 5e stopped pumping out books; it was dead before 6e came to exist.  Google it up, and you find us few diehards, and lots and lots of nostalgia about "this game that used to exist."  With the fan base at an all-time low and dwindling, sweet merciful Jesus on a stick, why does it matter that we are all playing the exact same way?!  The only single partially-justifiable reason for making calls that may counter your group's enjoyment of the game is the laughable idea of importing a character from one table to another.  Yes; I said it: laughable.  Allow me to recant that and rephrase as "Damned laughable."
 
Where does it happen?  Let's see...   Now I'm not playing favorites, here, but in my time on this board, I have had interest in playing with _many_ of the forum members, as I enjoy their takes on certain things.  In no particular order, if I were to select five at random, let's make a quick run-down:
 
Chris Goodwin:  lives, based on his posts, somewhere near Seattle.  Maybe some hours from it, but a damned sight closer to Seattle than Vidalia, Georgia.
 
Lord Liaden.  Trapped in the frozen wastes of Cannuckistan.  Same for Hugh-- though he's never stated it as such, he gives off a powerful vibe of having also been born and raised in the mystic lands of Canadia.
 
Doc Democracy:  Again, I'm not entirely certain, but I think Scotland or thereabouts.  If that's the case, I couldn't play there anyway, because while Scottish reads and writes enough like English to allow easy communication, it certainly doesn't translate as easily for spoken conversation.
 
Sean (Shawn?) who's last name fell from my mind even as I went to type it....   From England.  I think he's only popped up one time since I came back, though he used to be extremely active in rules and variants discussions.  Not only is it no less time and money-i-don't-actually-have consuming to visit--- WATERS!  Sean Waters!  -- him than it would be to game with Doc Democracy, but by Sean's own admissions, he doesn't actually _play_ the game.  Still, lots of neat ideas about tweaking rules.
 
Christopher Taylor:  he is extremely invested in his personal fantasy setting, which makes me believe that as a GM, he could really sell it, and even though it's Fantasy, I would probably have a great time.  I think he's in the US, but _where_?  And even if it were only a two-day drive, well-- that's a hell of a trip.
 
We are diverse and spread out enough (certainly there are lots and lots of players who aren't on this forum.  Or I'd like to believe so.  It's been my own experience that there are lots and lots of _former_ players who aren't on this forum because they're pretty sure HERO and Iron Crown both died some time in the 90s) that the odds of actually being able to _present_ a character to another group is in itself laughable.
 
Then there's the absolute fact that the GM has guidelines for his campaigns (well, most of them do.  Mine are pretty damned lax, and I'm not changing that, which just reinforces where I'm going), particularly non-supers games where "no; my magic works _this_ way,"  or "no; I'm not willing to let your 35 STR adventurer in this game because that's above the level of realism I'm going for" or "no; you have to take 'real weapon' because that's how I want all equipment built' and on and on and on and on and on and on and on----
 
There is a _perceived_ need, at least among some people, that making sure we are playing lock-step with identical rules is a good thing.  Personally, I think it stifles creativity and results in characters-- and sometimes adventures-- that all have a certain sameness.  I don't view that as a good thing.  You know what?  Let's just stop.  Let's stop with the examples and the discussions and the complaints and even all the stuff I've just said.  It's stupid.
 
The point is, as many well-practiced individuals point out above, that the editions all play the same.  Granted, that's because you can pick and chose the rules you want to use from _any_ edition, and I expect that most of us are going to select only the "new stuff" that we like and are using only the rules that let us more or less play the way that we always have.  Granted, this is another point on the side of "why all the verbiage, then?", but remember that different people are going to like different new stuff, so there's that.  But still----
 
 
 
I can sum _all_ the differences between "old" and "new" with one word (and probably should have, about four thousand words ago  ):
 
"No."
 
There is a Hell of lot more "NO" in the newer editions than there were in the old ones.  The old ones are short, easy to read, learn, and teach, and extremely open to creativity and novel suggestions.  The new ones tell you precisely how you must use individual Advantages and Limitation and how that varies from Power to Power to Power to Power....
 
Each time you expressly say "this is how it's done," you are also saying "it cannot be done any other way," and I find that unconscionable next to the idea of "build anything you imagine."
 
So there you have it:  
 
The differences between the new editions and the old editions?  They are all personal problems. 
 
 
 
Enjoy.  
 
 
Duke
 
 
 

You're stating a conclusion (Combined Attacks should take a Full Phase) as a fundamental assumption and reasoning from there instead of supporting it. 
 
And I feel it's a heavily flawed assumption. 
It relies on another assumption, that using more than one power at once is an advantage.  If the GM is keeping things sane, using a Combined Attack is different, not better.  If the GM is allowing 3x14d6 in a 14 DC game then of course it's broken, but arguing based on that is as intellectually dishonest as arguing that Hand Attack is OP because technically STR 60 and Hand Attack +12d6 are two 60 AP powers not one 120 AP power so you can have 24d6 in a 60 AP game. 
 
So I'm going to take a little digression here to talk under the assumption that the GM allows whatever as long as sum AP fits in the cap. 
What happens with combining two damaging powers?  That's a rhetorical question, we all know that 2x6d6 is going to be nearly useless in a 12 DC game.  In fact, you have to go to 2x9d6+1 to break even with a basic 12d6 (assuming 25 DEF).  At 2x9d6+1, then a Combined attack is more expensive, better on soft targets but worse on hard targets, never inflicts Stunned, deals less Knockback, and costs half again as much. 
Combining a damaging attack and a non-damaging attack trades damage for utility, and means you bounce harmlessly off anyone with the appropriate exotic defense.  Blast 8d6 + Flash 2d6 + Drain 1d6 means basically nothing if the target has FD and PowD 5. Ego Attack 3d6 + Mind Control 6d6 means you deal half damage and generally don't mind control meaningfully unless you're going for really low hanging fruit. 
In fact, the only time splitting your AP into two attacks is even a wash is 3d6NND + 3d6NND, and all you've done there is split your risk of losing damage and open yourself up to doubling the defender's Damage Negation. 
So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses and threshold based effects, a Combined Attack of powers that sum to a given AP is outright less effective than just using singular powers of the given AP. 
 
So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be as effective? 
I touched on this above, but you have to add enough additional DCs to overcome the target's defenses again.  And this still doesn't help with Stunning and Knockback, a Combined Attack just won't do those well. 
Let's look at Damage Negation based defenses since they make things easy here.  Defending Dan has 6DCs of DN.  Attacking Anne has 12d6.  She deals 6d6.  If she were Combined Attacking with two attacks, she'd have to have a sum of 18d6 to get that same result, since Dan's DN would apply twice.  Three attacks would need 24d6 sum to get 6d6 though.  So on and so forth. 
So if for a single attack RAWDAM - DEF = DAM, then for a Combined Attack sum(RAWDAM) - DEF*Attacks = DAM.  Plug in values for DEF and DAM and you can solve for RAWDAM.  This gets a bit more complicated when exotic defenses enter the equation (you have to use sum(effectiveness*(RAWDAM-ThatDEF)) instead) but it holds. 
Except, whoops, what's happening to the cost per damage as the number of attacks goes up?  Cost goes up too! 
So in conclusion, because of HERO's subtraction based defenses, a Combined Attack as effective as a singular attack costs more. 
 
So what has to happen for Combined Attack to be advantageous?  You have to blow a giant pile of points and the GM has to check off on a construct that looks more powerful because there's more raw dice.  There's some pretty efficient cases, (NND+NND for example) but they're also the most obviously powerful. 
 
And our counter-argument is simply one of logic: That thing is not this thing. 
Want "supporting evidence"?  FRED puts the Multiple-Power Attack rules around forty pages away from the Rapid Fire and Sweep rules.  Very clearly very different things!  6e just moved them together because they're similar, not because they're the same. 

WARNING WARNING!!!
 
Large wall of text incoming!!!
 
WARNING WARNING!!

My own theory -- which anyone could legitimately dispute -- is that movies and television shows are a more passive activity than role-playing games. People don't watch them to create stories and characters, but to be told stories and shown characters. There's no automatic mental connection for them to a medium that lets them take on the roles of their heroes and craft their own adventures. OTOH D&D has always been marketed as a role-playing game, and is what most people aware of the concept think of when they think RPG. And since D&D is of the fantasy genre, other genres don't occur to them as alternatives for role-playing. Obviously there are exceptions, but those exceptions are relatively small in number. Like us.

An interesting fact is that while D&D5e is perhaps the most successful edition of D&D ever, it hasn't brought popularity to a long tail of secondary RPG systems  in its wake. Leaving Hero aside, there has been NO superhero game in the last decade which has capitalised on the popularity of superhero movies. (The Marvel RPG of a few years ago was not all that successful).
 
I find that quite remarkable - in a world where comic book movies and characters are mainstream, and where I can buy Dungeons and Dragons again in toystores in my mid-size town for the first time since the 80s, I can't reach out to the shelf next to D&D and find any superhero RPG. Since that is the case, it's hard to argue it's an anomaly the Hero isn't being played in force these days. Even Mutants and Masterminds has had its day - it was much more popular 10 years ago. Weird, but there it is.

Okay. Folks. 
Your friendly neighborhood moderator here.
I've had a request to lock this thread down. And I can see why. There's no rule against down voting someone, but we do have a stance against insulting or 'attacking' individuals (As opposed to disagreeing or debating what they say) and we're definitely crossing dangerously close to that. I'm not pointing fingers. But it does look at this point that we're getting into some circular arguments at best, and at worse, about to have some needless build up of personal hostility that can dim fun on all sides.
 
I'm not going to pretend I'm above that myself. We've all gone down that rabbit hole. But my advice, trite as it is, is if you're getting riled, back off from the thread. It doesn't mean you've conceded defeat or any such thing.  If it's gotten to a point where side X is in this camp, and Side Y is in that camp, and they're never going to agree, then you're no longer really sharing opposing views, you're trying to collect points from those that already agree with you  (And maybe 'show up' the other side) and that's a waste of our time too.
 
Apologies for the scattershot speech, sometimes  innocents get caught in the 'lecture fire', and I certainly don't intend that. But right now, this thread seems almost the opposite of productive given how negative it has twisted into. 
 
However, seeing posts that admit this has become something of a flame war, or questions from folk wondering what we're even talking about after four pages, makes me realize more than one of you agrees this thread has become circular and hostile... though the reasons WHY or 'who is to blame' may vary. Instead of assigning blame. I'm going to take put this thread out of its misery.
 
You're free to start a new again, fresh and clean if you like, and please bear my concerns in mind if you do. I can't claim to 'know' all of you but most on this thread I've seen for years on these boards and I've a respect for a lot of you but we all have our bad days, or 'well that escalated quickly' situations. I hope that's all this whole thing is, collectively speaking
 
 
If anybody disagrees with the locking of the thread, feel free to PM Simon, I am but a lowly mod.
 
 

I ran a short one. Went fine.
 
Had a method to keep the party together and at least semi-friendly (all their powers were from the same source and were only 'stable' when all of them were in fairly close proximity).
Didn't get deep enough in to it to get to the sandbox type stage.
Still in the "on the run" and dealing with various other factors (hunted due to escape from prison, other 'villain' group, FedGov stuff).
 
I liked running it and would run one again.

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. 
 
 

Thanks!
 
Another fun aspect of things is that while the priests of the various gods believe that they are tapping the power of the moon via the god. Or think they are tapping the power of the god directly they are in fact...not.
 
They ARE tapping the moon directly. It's just that the Gods can effect that tapping. And can commune with their followers to misdirect them.
 
The end result here though is that if you have a god of the amber moon, Drome, who is killed, and his lunar artifacts lost or taken by other amber gods.
However the priests of Drome can still call on (what they believe to be) his power. They can still work magic.
It's just that for whatever reason (dead, captured, etc) their god no longer directly communes with them.
 
So you can have "dead" gods both literally and figuratively (imprisoned, bound, sleeping, just on walkabout for a while) and you can have churches that still exist though their gods are dead (probably a bit of a theological crisis there) though of course they usually dwindle in size and influence since they no longer have an actively deity actively supporting them.
 
 
 

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. 
 
 

I looked at getting custom killing attack stun multiplier dice made with the following pattern:  1,2,2,3,3,4.  Ultimately, I decided not to get them made as the cost was fairly prohibitive.
 
Initially I found the 1d3 (avg 2) multiplier to be too low in Fantasy HERO where hit locations generate an average closer to 2.8.  Over time the prevalence of AoE killing damage which is much harder to deal with in HERO system (automatically eat the hit or abandon your turn for a chance to avoid damage while you lay prone and vulnerable until your next phase).  The 1d3 works very well for the AoE killing attacks in our Fantasy HERO campaign because it makes soaking the occasional larger area, but relatively weaker attack a viable tactical option.
 
That being said - I like the original dice methods - and I wonder - How would you apply the penetrating advantage to killing attacks using proposed idea of treating them like unresistable normal damage?

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. 
 
 

THIS is seriously cool!

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. 
 
 

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. 
 
 

But in 6e you can just buy DCV directly, right? And limited forms of it? So no CSLs involved in 6e. I think.
 
 
 
Yah, that was what I was wondering, how much is "only vs rear attack\multiple attack" worth. -2 seems reasonable. I'd go -1/2 for the Extra Time though I agree -1/4 does fit the pattern. Either which way though about the same 1-2pts per level of DCV compensation.
 
 
Sure, totally.
 
 
 
It seems neater too. "+3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time" tells me what it does in a way Defense Maneuver III does not. Unless I'm a serious Hero dork and have it memorized. ;D ;D
 
 
 
Dropping a half-phase to (kinda) apply combat levels, particularly defensive combat levels, seems worth more to me than just the -1/4 the chart implies.

This would require the GM to permit using Combat Skill Levels with modifiers to be DCV only, of course.  But to build an effect, sometimes you have to break the rules.
 
Here are the levels of Defense Maneuver:
 
 
So if we built this as a set of limited DCV levels, they'd instead have varying costs rather than levels with set costs.
Level I seems like its simply "DCV vs surprise or rear attacks" which is pretty specific so maybe -2 (plus the extra time for -¼?? Half Phase isn't actually in the chart, for some reason so you have to guesstimate) for a total of 1.5 (1) point per DCV.  If you want to get technical you could charge 3 points per 2 DCV.
Level II is a lesser limitation, since it covers multiple attacker bonuses as well, but that's still pretty specific, maybe -1¾.  After all this doesn't come up a lot and you still have every other attack in the game that this added DCV doesn't help with.  That works out to 1.6 or 2 points per DCV.  Again, I guess you could charge 5 points per 3 DCV, but it probably should just cost +1 point per DCV added to the Level I ones you bought.
Level III is again a slightly lesser limitation, perhaps -1½, so that works out to 1.8 points per DCV or 2.  Again an additional +1 per DCV added to the previous
Level IV doesn't work out to a clean and easy cost, since each level is a different price, but its roughly 1 point at most (.8, in fact).
 
So it would look like this: buying +1 DCV at Level I would cost 1 point
Adding Level II effect would cost 2 points total, +1 each
Adding Level III effect would cost 3 points total, +1 each to the previous cost
Adding no time would cost 1 point each DCV level.
 
So +3 to DCV, only to negate attacks from the rear or from multiple attackers, which requires no extra time, would cost 12 points.  And 3 is enough for most characters to effectively negate "half DCV" since that's as low these maneuvers and attacks can reduce you.  That's roughly the same as the present Defense Maneuver, but low DCV characters need not spend so much.  If your DCV is 5, you only need 2 levels (8 points).
 
*as a house rule I always have treated IV as an adder: that is you can pay those +2 points at ANY level of the skill and just not have to take the extra time.

The PIllars of Eternity series had an interesting idea for their gods.
 
They were all created by an ancient and powerful society of animancers (soul magic) along with huge machines to improve the transition of souls from the world to the Beyond and In-Between.  These machines eliminated the Hollow Born problem they had in their reincarnation cycles (people born without souls) and the god's fed on the left-over energy of souls passing through the cycle (The Wheel).
 
It's interesting because they are man-made, but the scope of their powers, awareness and immortality definitely makes them Gods.
 
The plots of both installments are heavily tied to the true origin of the Gods and the relationship between mortals and the Gods created by their ancient ancestors.

I have played a LOT in Glorantha, so I am pretty comfortable with the Gods being a daily part of life with a heavy influence on layer actions.
 
I hanker to develop a game that would feature actual god's stomping about the world, marking their territory and getting involved with PCs. 
 
I think the trick would be to have a system, open but not necessarily transparent, to the players about how close their actions take them to one or more God's getting involved.  It should be possible to exist without involving yourself in the business of the gods but adventurers should probably be skirting that possibility on a constant basis.
 
Obviously one God getting involved would increase the chances of other Gods.  Involvement might mean anything from visions at one end to being pulled into the God's spiritual domain for a quick 1to1.
 
I think it could be a lot of fun.
 
Doc

The gods in my campaign are the remnants of the AIs that ran the ships and terraforming devices used in the initial waves of colonization, and later, the various utilities that allowed the ancient cities to function (think of magic as a form of broadcast power). Most have faded away over the eons, but a few remain, if you know where to look.
 
The hidden background of the setting assumed that the various fantasy races are actually genetically-modified humans. Dwarves were meant to be heavy-worlder miners, elves were originally modified for a lower gravity, and so on.

Maybe gods don't intervene directly in the mortal world because they're too powerful; or from their perspective, the mortal plane and all that lives there is just too delicate.
 
What would happen if Godzilla tried to fight crime or help at a soup kitchen in downtown Tokyo? Godzilla's mere presence in your city causes massive damage, tens of millions of dollars worth of loss, and probably some injury and death. Even when he's on your side, you don't want him showing up in your home city unless things are VERY dire.
 
How much more powerful is a god than a Godzilla?