PhilFleischmann

Re: What's the Benefit of Having Same Power Twice? Well, 5 points is nearly free. 6d6 RKA OIF for 40 points, or 12d6 RKA OIF for 45 points, or 24d6 RKA OIF for 50 points. Sure, the target gets to apply his defenses additional times, but the end result is you can get a power that is almost 4 times as powerful for only 25% more points. So what? Any power can be defined as "equipment" if you want. You don't even have to take a focus limitation if you don't want to, and it can still be equipment. So what? That isn't hard to do. I could have finger-mounted guns on each of the fingers (except the thumb) of my right hand. Or I could have sixteen identical guns mounted on the shoulder of my power suit. I wouldn't even be subject to an off-hand penalty. And even if I was, big deal. I just buy Ambidextrous for a few points more. The beauty of the HERO System, expressed on Page 5 of FREd (I used to use it as my signature), is YGWYPF and YPFWYG.

Re: What's the Benefit of Having Same Power Twice? I would NEVER EVER allow a player to make a Multi-Attack for +5 points! The idea is patently absurd! If I have a 6d6 RKA OIF for 60 points, you can't possibly think it's fair to allow me to make two 6d6 KA's per phase for only 65! Or four such attacks for 70, or eight for 75! If I buy my 60 point "big gun" above, and then I want a 40 point "little gun" (4d6 RKA OIF), I have to pay full price because it's a different piece of equipment. But a second "big gun" only costs me 5? NO FREAKIN' WAY! If you want a MPA, you have to pay full price for each power, whether they are the same or different. The +5 for double the pieces of equipment is for the purpose of backup, in case one is broken or stolen, etc., or occasionally for minor tricks or miscellaneous uses.

Re: VPP Limit: Reduced Real Point Pool The method I use, and some other's I've seen on these boards (such as austenandrews). Is to use the pool cost as the total real points and base the control cost on the maximum active points. Thus: 100 Pool Cost 5 Control Cost 105 total - Up to 100 real points worth of small powers with no more than 10 AP each. 50 Pool Cost 50 Control Cost 100 total - Up to 50 Real point worth of powers, each of which could have up to 100 Active Points. Of course in order to have a 100 AP power, you'll need at least -1 of limitations. 70 Pool Cost 35 Control Cost 105 total - Standard Pool, up to 70 Real points of powers, each with up to 70 Active points.

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles... I have to disagree with the use of BODY at all in determining bonus damage. I don't think that a 40 BOD 0 DEF giant sack of feathers should do any bonus damage at all. IMO, the hardness of an object is best represented by it's DEF alone. It seems to me that your formula maxes out too quickly. I'd start the bonus damage a little higher. Items made of leather, rubber, rope, or other "tough but flexible" materials (2-3 DEF) shouldn't do any bonus damage. Only rigid items like wood, metal, stone, (4+ DEF) should start to do bonus damage. So my formula would be (DEF-2)/2, either round down or use half dice, as you prefer. Here is an even more radical idea I had (I only call it more radical because it gets farther away from the printed rules, but IMO gets closer to reality): 1) An object used as a weapon has a STR minimum = the STR needed to lift it. 2) Real Physics: the force (STR) needed to lift an object up is the same as the force (weight) that the object exerts down. 3) Therefore, if you let the object weapon simply "fall" on your target, letting the weight of the object do all the work, it will do the same amount of damage as the STR you used to lift it. 4) If you have additional STR, you may use it to increase the amount of force/damage done with the object. 5) The object will do additional damage based on how hard it is. 6) How hard it is is based on it's DEF. 7) Therefore the amount of damage done will be (up to) your STR/5 + the objects DEF in d6. You need not use any additional STR beyond that needed to lift the object. 8) The object will take damage on every swing, subject to its own DEF and BODY. Thus if the STR used greatly exceeds the minimum needed, the object will likely not last long. 9) The maximum STR damage is equal to the BODY (which reflects the mass or substance) of the object. 10) You pay END for the entire amount of STR used (STR to lift + additional force applied with any STR over the minimum). Examples: 10 STR guy swings a 3 BODY, 3 DEF wooden barstool. He can do up to 5d6, which will likely break the barstool apart after two hits. Each swing would cost him 1 END, assuming he uses his full STR. Let's assume the barstool requires a 0 STR to lift (which seems reasonable). If he doesn't use any additional STR, he can do 3d6 on each hit, spending no END, and doing minimal damage to the barstool. If he pushes his STR to 15, he can do 6d6 in one hit, likely shattering the barstool immediately. Pushing his STR beyond 15 will not do any additional damage, since that exceeds the BODY of the stool. He could still push to 20, but that would only increase the damage to the stool itself, not to an opponent. Useful if your goal is to break the barstool, but not if you want to take someone out. 30 STR guy swings a 10 BODY, 6 DEF steel girder. He can do up to 12d6 with it, which will also likely break it after two hits. This costs 3 END. If it takes 15 STR just to lift the thing, he can do 9d6 for 1 END without using additional STR beyond that needed to lift it, letting the beam's own weight do most of the work. He only has to do the work to lift it into position before each swing, plus a little to aim. If he pushes his STR to 40, he can do 14d6. 50 STR guy swings a 8 BODY, 5 DEF small car. He can do 13d6 with it, using 40 of his STR. Using more STR than this will only break the car faster. If it takes 25 STR to lift the car, he can do 10d6 using only the 25 STR to lift it and the car's own weight and hardness. I just throw this idea out there because I think it's realistic, but I don't necessarily think it's balanced for game play (especially at superheroic levels of play). I think the ideal is to first determine the most realistic system, and then make exceptions/restrictions based on various genres. Oh, and then there's: 11) Sharp, pointy objects do the equivalent DC of killing damage. 11a) Extremely sharp, and very strong objects may even do Armor Piercing damage. 11b) Soft objects may have Reduced Penetration. 11c) Very large, solid, rigid objects may do Penetrating damage. Even Iron Man will feel it if he's hit by a train, simply do to the instantaneous acceleration. 11d) Sharp, pointy objects that aren't particularly strong (thin glass, jagged plastic, sharpened pencil, perhaps an icicle) will do killing damage with reduced penetration.

Re: Knot Another Magic System! I don't think you need the Uncontrolled at all. Concealment, REC, and Luck don't require END to use and are in a sense, already constant. Just a limitation -1/4 or -1/2 "Spell ends when you do X" or "Spell lasts only as long as you do X." As written, I might rule that the Luck one should only work once, since you didn't buy continuous. You might also take a look at the Lingering Advantage from FH. Perhaps these magical knots have a tendency to unravel after a minute or so... A few ideas that occur to me (but you'll have to work out the mechanics yourself): Knot of Freshness: Tie this knot in a piece of string around some food, and it will never spoil. Knots of Communication: Two strings must first be attuned to each other. You tie a knot in one, and the same knot appears in the other, miles away. This signals to your buddy that you need him. Different knots could signal different kinds of messages. (Mind Link, limited types of messages available). Knot of Contemplation: Tie this knot and display it to your enemy. He will stare at it trying to figure out how to untie it, giving you a chance to run away. (Mind Control, one command "stare intently at the knot", spell ends if you attack the target or directly endanger him.) Knot of Bolstering: This knot will temporarily strengthen inanimate objects that might otherwise break under strain of use. The rickety rope bridge won't hold your party's weight, but if you tie this knot, it can "borrow" the strength of the knot for as long as it holds. When the pursuing orcs reach the bridge, untie the knot. (Aid/Succor to BODY, objects only [perhaps only on objects made of rope, string, or similar materials])

Re: Magic Skills and Spell Penalties

Re: Knot Another Magic System! Great idea! I really like magic that is more subtle and creative than the deendee fireballs etc. I do stuff like this all the time in my FH campaign (though not with knots, yet - I'll probably borrow this idea soon). And don't forget the Law of Double Nodulation: Tie the exact mirror image of a knot to Suppress/Dispel the original knot. Can anyone identify where I got that idea from?

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles... It occurs to me that when we think about this stuff, we should assume Heroic by default, and let Superheroic be the exception. We should start with rules that reflect the real world as much as possible (as much as practical), and then drop some of those rules as necessary for particular genres. In the real world, I don't have great strength or any fighting skills to speak of. Even if we assume I have a 10 STR, that means I do 2d6 HTH. And I gaurantee I'll do more damage if I'm weilding a baseball bat or a crowbar. I am probably more likely to connect as well, because the swing of a bat simply covers more space than my fist, even though it's not an Area Effect attack. Off the top of my head, I'd say that an object adds damage based on its DEF, since DEF generally represents the objects hardness. A big cardboard box may have the same total DEF+BODY as the baseball bat, but I'd much rather be hit by the cardboard. The objects mass is represented (at least sort-of) by its BODY. Perhaps therefore, the BODY should count *against* the attack - that is the additional damage from the character's STR. If it takes all of my strength just to pick the thing up, I'm not going to be able to swing it very hard. Another issue that's always bugged me is Knockback. As the rules stand, KB is solely based on damage done, and the nature of the attack has no bearing on it. But if I swing a king-size mattress at you, you'll probably be knocked back (or at least knocked down), even though it will probably do very little damage, no matter how strong I am (assuming there aren't any metal springs sticking out). I love the HERO System, and I think the character creation part is nearly perfect, with all its powers/skills/modifiers/etc. The part that needs the most work is the interaction between people and things rules: doing damage to objects and with objects, being knocked into obects, objects falling on you, you falling on objects. IMHO, this is the area to work on for the eventual 6th edition. Probably no point in wishing that it could be done in FREdRIC. The good news is, we can make modifications in this area without having to throw out all the other rules and redesign all the characters!

Re: Instead of END, Focus uses STUN? Depending on how much hand-waving you want to do, you could keep it really simple and just apply a custom limitation: "Costs STUN to use instead of END." The question then becomes, "How much is this limitation worth?" At first, I'd say -0, because you recover STUN just as fast as you recover END. Every Post-12, and every recovery taken. In fact, Healing of STUN, or STUN & BODY, is far more common than Healing of END, therefore, you might recover STUN faster than END in some cases. OTOH, STUN costs 1:1, while END costs 1:2, which suggests that the limitation should be higher, -1/4, or maybe even -1/2. How do typical STUN and END scores compare in the campaign? If STUN is usually lower than END, the limitation should be bigger. If END is lower for most characters, the limitation should be smaller. In extreme cases, like if the typical stats are 100 STUN and 40 END, then it might even be an Advantage to use STUN rather than END. Based on these ideas, you (or anyone) could come up with a whole list of limitations, "Costs _ instead of END." Here are my WAGs for the values: Costs _ instead of END Value STR -1 DEX -2 CON -1.5 BODY -2 (Ouch!) INT -1 (The more you use it, the dumber you get.) EGO -1.5 (this one might have some tricky implications if mental powers are involved. "I Mind Control you to use this device, which drains your EGO as you use it, pushing you further under my control." PRE -1 (I can't even think of a SFX that would justify this. ) COM -0 PD -2 ED -2 SPD -5 REC -2 END -0 (Duh! ) STUN -0 or maybe -1/4 This assumes that the character doesn't have a built-in way to recover any lost stats other than the usual STUN, END, and BODY/month.

Re: Mind controll Vs Mind Controll I think SAW was being a little harsh with the first tactic, but not technically incorrect. However, I must agree with Hugh that the second tactic would do nothing immediately, but it would help on the brick's next breakout roll. Simply increasing the target's EGO doesn't change the situation. Try a Mental Illusion that makes you appear to be the target's mother. That would change the situation. But back to the first tactic: If The Bad Guy gets 42 points of MC effect on the 10 EGO brick to do an EGO+20 control, he's exceded the necessary level by 12. If you want to undo that, you should have to overcome that level. He now wants to attack you - that's what the mind control does. Not attacking you is not a EGO+0 level any more. It really isn't fair to let 42 points of effect be negated by 32 points of effect, although it might help a little. What if you had 20d6 MC and rolled EGO+60 against someone, and someone's buddy then broke him out with a mere 3d6 MC and the command "Act like you normally do" achieving flat EGO? Cumulative could also help in this situation, so that your lower points of effect could gradually add up to be enough to negate the mind control. I love Mentalists and deal with these kinds of situations all the time. I try to be very careful not to make them either too powerful or too weak.

Re: Possible New Persistant House Rule I believe the point of Persistant is for defense powers, so that when you get KO'd, your enemy can't easily coup-de-grace you. In the case of other powers, there usually has to be some additional decision made. For Flight, going on autopilot means that there should be some modicum of intelligence applied to the direction, speed, and duration of the flight. The advantage is that if you get KO'd while flying, you don't just drop like a stone. When the power is bought, you should define what your persistant flight does. Some possibilities: - Fly me X distance away from the battle, and set me down gently. - Fly me to the nearest hospital, after all, I am unconscious (may require CK bought into the power armor or whatever the flight mechanism is). - Fly me back to my base. - Fly me around in the general vicinity, trying to avoid further attacks (probably requires an on-board computer with the appropriate skills). - Fly me to X location taking evasive actions to avoid attacks and prevent being followed (probably requires an on-board computer). - Fly me along XYZ route, while I take a nap. (The private jet option, assumes you'll wake up in time to land or make further decisions) If the guy has persistant flight and is in a coma for a month, that doesn't mean he must keep flying for a month. A little common sense is called for. Some rather dumb possibilities: - Fly me in a strait line continuation of my last tragectory. This could but you through buildings, into the ground, or into space. - Fly me in random directions. This is the setting Idiot-Man uses. - Fly me toward the bad guy and follow him home. This way you arrive on his doorstep unconscious, and if you're lucky, you wake up in a death trap. Theoretically, you could even buy Persistant for attack powers, but then you have to figure out how the attack power is targetted.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID IIRC, the twelve-second rule doesn't mean you have to completely remove or disassemble the armor. It just means you can negate the power it provides in 12 seconds. This may involve something simple like removing the battery pack or taking off the helmet. If the power source or command module is removed, the armor becomes useless. (I don't know if this actually applies to Iron Man's armor specifically, but it's a reasonable justification in game terms.)

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit Interesting. And this is the second argument in favor of the current cost of STR (at least slightly more in favor). Namely that: "Some of the figured characteristics gained from STR wouldn't be bought up otherwise and aren't really as valuable to count against its cost." This is a valid argument. I don't agree with the exact numbers you give, but it is a true and important consideration. You make an interesting point about DEX, but I don't think I agree.

Re: Ncm:15 It seems to me that lowering NCM to 15 would produce more variety. If the PCs have enough points to buy up all their stats to 20 when NCM is 20. They's have to pick and choose which ones they want over 15 when NCM is 15. While many characters will max out several stats at 15, there will still be individual variation based on the character type. Dexie the Dextrous Dexling will buy her DEX higher than NCM, Stronk the Strong Strongman will have a higher STR, and General Broad the Well-Rounded will have mostly 15's.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation? In general, the value of the Focus limitation should be based more on how often it's a problem, rather than the specific mechanics of the focus object. For example, I would allow a character to take Focus at -1/2 for a simple gun, even though it's Obvious and Accessable. You might call this a "Lucky Focus" in that even though it's an OAF, it doesn't get taken, lost, broken, etc., as often as a -1 OAF would be. Give it as much limitation as was paid for. As Dust Raven pointed out, Focus needs some GM work to make it the correct value, unlike many other limitations that don't require any special decisions or actions on the GM's part to make them limiting, such as Activation or Increased END, whose limiting mechanics are built into the actual play. IDHMBIFOM, but if it doesn't already, Focus should be considered to have the ! warning icon on it.

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit And just because I didn't explicitly spell out all the advantages which I assumed everyone already knows doesn't mean I am not comparing. None of those other things you mention gives you what STR gives you. There's only one Characteristic that comes anywhere near, and that's CON, which gives you 21 points worth of figureds for 20 points, plus being less likely to be Stunned, and +2 on CON rolls. Compare this to STR which gives you 19.667 points worth of figures and powers for 10 points, plus increased throwing, x4 lifting, and +2 STR rolls. How do these compare? 21+ for 20 vs. 19.667+ for 10 (39.333+ for 20). If you think that +2 CON rolls and Stunning prevention worth more than 18.333 points more than the extra throwing, x16 lifting, and +4 STR rolls, you're welcome to try and convince me. No other primary characteristic gives savings similar to STR. BODY gives you 1 point of STUN for the 2 points, DEX gives you 10 points worth of SPD for each 30 points. And no framework gives you back points. Even if you build a framework that has a potential 1000 AP of power in it but only cost you 100 points, you're still spending positive points. You don't get back any. And any point saving constructs that can apply to frameworks can usually also be applied to STR. In short, you can save points with a framework, but you get back points with STR.

Re: Cost of strength vs. benefit I usually run/play in 250 or 350 pt games with about 10-12 DCs, and IME, bricks are still quite viable and competitive at 2:1 STR. Those figured characteristics are very useful, especially the PD. How many other powers include their own defense? Only one: PRE. True, with STR more expensive, bricks have to think a little more about tactics, but that makes the game more fun, IMO. A brick (or any character) who uses no battle strategy other than, "Hulk smash!" isn't going to win the fight (and shouldn't). And the lack of range isn't that big a deal when you can throw things. And you also have the option of movement powers to get close to your foe. Since you've got better defenses, you can afford to be hit more. IME, an energy projector can't take a move thru from a brick as well as a brick can take an EB from an energy projector. In addition to the throwing things, you also get other maneuvers with your STR: move-thru, move-by, haymaker, grab, etc. that you don't get with EB. Oh, and you also get the first 10 points of STR for free. Rich people will be just fine if the price of yachts goes up, and bricks will be just fine if the price of STR goes up.

Re: I've Gone Totaly Mental! Yes. I understand that. As an experienced GM I can handle it. I just wish it were made clearer in the book. I would have liked to see a few examples of the difference between "Inclined to do anyway" and "Wouldn't mind doing" in FREd.

Re: Once more in English, please? Shouldn't the cotise be on both sides of the chevron? Both above and below? That was always my understanding of the term "cotised."

Re: I've Gone Totaly Mental! I agree that there are some problems with the mental powers. One is the Mind Control chart that remains unchanged (and unclear) since 1st edition. The idea of spending points, making a successful attack, rolling sufficiently to exceed the target's EGO, and then only being able to make the target do what he was going to do anyway seems like a complete non-power to me. "Aha! I've successfully forced Grond to continue pounding people into the ground! Those were points well spent! You can imagine how proud I am of my awesome power!" I would like to see something more like this: >=EGO - Target changes actions slightly >=EGO+10 - Target changes actions significantly, but won't do anything contrary to his nature/personality/circumstance >=EGO+20 - Target will do something he normally wouldn't do in the circumstance >=EGO+30 - Target will do something completely against his nature/personality/circumstance It would be nice if the current table included some guidelines for what exactly constitutes something "the target would be inclined to do anyway" and what constitutes something "the target wouldn't mind doing." I suppose this might have to wait until 5e Ultimate Mentalist, but I've always loved mentalists. My very first Champions character was a mentalist. Here are some things I do in my campaigns re: mental powers: 1. Mind Control is automatically telepathic by default. 2. Mind Scan is automatically undetectable to the target, unless the target is mentally aware, or until you actually do something to the target through the scan. These are because that's how I've always seen mental powers depicted in comics and other literature/film/etc. 3. I allow a +1/4 advantage "Invisible to non-mentally aware targets." With this advantage, another mentalist will still be able to easily detect when you are using (or trying to use) a mental power on him, but normals won't be able to tell. This cannot be applied to Ego Attack. 4. I allow another advantage which I've taken to calling "Lock Sensing." It allows the mentallist to roll his effect dice and see what level was achieved before declaring the specific effect he wants. As the GM, I roll the effect dice behind the screen in order to keep the targets EGO/MD/etc. a secret and just announce, "You achieved EGO+20" e.g. For a +1/2 advantage, the mentallist declares a type of effect he wants and can then modify it based on the level. For a +1 advantage, the mentallist can select eny effect he wants after learning the level achieved. In other words, the mentallist gets a sense of how good a "lock" he got on the target's psyche. 5. I usually ignore the first breakout roll. If you hit and roll the needed amount of effect, the target should do what you want for at least one phase. 6. I allow, and sometimes encourage, use of the Cumulative advantage on mental powers. However, the target's EGO is subtracted from each subsequent effect roll. 7. For certain plot- or character-breaking effects, I impose severe penalties, such as to force someone to reveal their secret ID, or to kill their DNPC. IDHMBIFOM, but #6 might be standard practice.

Re: Sci-Fi Game or Porno Flick? They could always give it one of those "or" titles such as were popular in pulp fiction of a bygone era: "Pulp HERO, or Justice, Inc." And for the list of non-usable X Hero titles: Non-Fiction HERO - we've got so many genres of fiction to choose from, but what we really need is a genre book to help us play characters from works of non-fiction: documentaries, textbooks, instructional videos, "Complete Idiot's Guide to _", "_ for Dummies", etc. And we really shouldn't be saying "X HERO." Marvel Comics owns the copyright on the letter 'X'. We don't want to get sued.

Re: Ultimate Hibernation How do they know? Did someone start the experiment 120 years ago?

Re: Enhanced Power Yes! If only to be consistant with Limited Power. LP essentially is there to acknowledge "There may be other ways to limit a power that we haven't thought of, or haven't bothered to list individually because they go into too minute detail, or would vary in value depending on the genre and setting; but you can still have these limitations on your powers." I have long wanted HERO to acknowledge the same thing for advantages, i.e., "There may be other possible advantages that we haven't thought of, but you can still have them under the general heading of 'Enhanced Power.'" Granted, it doesn't come up too often, and many "EP" advantages can be built using existing rules such as buying additional points for the power with a limitation. For example, if you wanted the advantage, "Power works Twice as well in an Intense Magnetic Field," you would simply buy twice the power, but limit half the points with "Only Works in an Intense Magnetic Field." However, occasionally ideas for advantages come up that aren't buildable with existing rules. One example I posted on the old boards some time ago was "Lock Sensing" for Mental Powers. With this advantage, you roll the dice and see what level you achieved first, and then decide what effect you're going for. There were a few different variations on this idea which IMO, ranged from +1/2 to +1 in advantage. As you correctly point out, such guidelines are very difficult to pin down, except in the most vague way, as you've done above. It's fairly obvious that an advantage that makes a power twice as effective should be a +1 advantage, but it's a lot harder to guage exactly how much more effective the power becomes. My "lock sensing" advantage was a perfect example. People differed widely on the value of such an advantage. This difficulty is probably one reason why "Enhanced Power" wasn't included. Another reason is that HERO does do a very good job of including ways to construct just about everything you can think of, as evidenced by the fact that there are so few new advantages that people have though of. Hmmm... How many are there actually? Lingering, STR Adds Damage, Lock Sensing, what else? Is three enough to warrent inclusion? Especially since one was published already as an advantage in FH, and one can be bought in a different way.

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised. As long as we're on the subject, I'll repeat my usual mantra: In the enviroment section, get rid of the ludicrous sentence: "No temperature level zero exists." I'm not sure if you want to call this a rules change. It doesn't really change any rules and it doesn't cause any character compatibility problems. Nothing else needs to be rewritten as a result. Just to be absolutely clear, you might replace it with: "Temperature level zero is commonly known as 'just right' - not too hot and not too cold - and is the level where characters suffer no loss of STUN or END." This makes the temperature rules consistant with the ideas that 2-2=0 and 2-3=-1, and the system of numeration that human beings have been using for thousands of years. The only reason I've been able to think of for including that bizarre and silly sentence, is that someone thought that the concept of a "level 0" was too advanced and difficult to understand for HERO gamers, which is also a rather bizarre and silly notion.

Re: Speed in FH There's nothing wrong with the system you've proposed, Sir William. It is functionally equivalent to simply saying that they only get post-12 recoveries every other turn instead of every turn. It affects everyone equally, PCs, NPCs, monsters. Everyone just gets tired faster. It's a quite simple change to give your campaign the feel you want. You want combat to be tiring; this is a fine way to go. I've noticed many people get a little paranoid about any house rule modification, especially when they touch on "sacred cows" like the SPD chart. And yes, some modifications would definitely alter the balance of the game significantly, but the change you suggest does not. BTW, it is standard practice in heroic-level games such as FH, to have STR cost 1 END/5 pts used, while other powers cost 1/10. I've found this works well to keep mages and fighters in line with each other. Fighters just use raw STR, while mages may have powers with high AP but low RP due to limitations, and limitations don't reduce the END cost.