PhilFleischmann

Any government program will become corrupted from within and become a massive conspiracy to take over the world. All evil conspiracy groups have actually been around for thousands of years. Someone with only four fingers on each hand will have super strength. Is someone else has the same powers as you, from the same source, they will be your villain, and somehow their powers are just a bit stronger than yours. And you're still expected to defeat them.

Yeah, maybe. Ten 6's is a hell of a lot of luck. I'm not assuming any such thing. Are you assuming that when I said to talk to the GM about how Luck will work, that I was forbidding you from talking to more than one GM? Sure, why not? Nine 6's is a lot of Luck. The exact thing that happens is up to the GM. My guideline would be the rough equivalent of a 270-point power. Would a 270-point power take out three villains? I'm not willing to agree to that, and it's irrelevant anyway. Also irrelevant. You don't pay for what your character "considers himself". Based on your proposed Luck house rule... Luckman and Skillman are fighting their respective enemies. Both have the same OCV and the enemies have the same DCV. Luckman needs a 9 or less to hit his foe. So does Skillman, but because Skillman spent points on some Combat levels, he can effectively bump that up to 12 or less. So he does. Luckman has some dice of luck, so when he rolls too high to hit, he uses his luck dice to improve his roll. So he does. This doesn't really feel like luck to me at all, just an alternate way of doing Combat Skill Levels. The second part of your house rule is sort of like "Hero Points" - used in many game systems, where a character can spend one or more points to have some miscellaneous positive effect happen. This isn't necessarily defined as luck, but it could be. And I guess it's a valid way of handling luck: Pay X points per "Luck Point", and spend them whenever you want to have something lucky happen. The allotment of points would then refill each game day, or perhaps each game session. They can't simply refresh each combat, because they might be spent outside of combat and have nothing to do with combat. Remember that Luck is not just about being more likely to hit a hard-to-hit opponent in combat, or the opponent's BFG missing you in combat. It's also about your Aunt Kay being out shopping when you come home in your Squirrelman outfit with the face mask shredded, which would have revealed your secret identity to her - lucky! It's also about the runaway bus full of innocent civilians sliding off the road into some soft bushes instead of into a fuel tanker truck with a full load of jet fuel - lucky! It's also about when you're almost ready to give up the case, so you go to your favorite bard for a drink and the TV is on, and it shows a news story that is directly related to the case your working on, and gives you that one extra piece of information you needed - lucky!

dsatow, your responses seem to be all non-sequiturs. Luck does not make *you* lucky, it makes your character lucky. If you roll all 6's all the time with your Luck, your *character* will have lucky things happen. *You* will not gain any benefit yourself. Your character receives value for the points spent on luck. If particular GM's don't apply it consistently, that's not the Luck power's fault. Talk to your GM about what you expect from Luck, and how he intends to adjudicate it. 1d6 of Luck does not make "a really lucky character". It only makes a very slightly lucky character. You can't expect something particularly earth-shaking for 5 points. When you roll your Luck dice, you did roll them, even if you didn't get any 6's. Just like you did use your power even when your attack roll misses, or your Activation roll misses. Or you hit, but your opponent bounced all the damage, or was Desolid, or otherwise immune to your power. Or you hit, but you rolled really low (unlucky) on your effect dice. If *you* are unlucky and make bad dice rolls all through the role-playing session, that isn't the fault of any power you bought or could have bought. 1 in 6 chance of something good happening is in fact a positive benefit. It is not not nothing. Granted, it isn't much, but then again, it really shouldn't be much for only 5 points. YGWYPFAYPFWYG. I think we need some concrete examples to discuss this: Our Hero Rockman is in battle with his arch-nemesis Paperman. Paper is Rock's only weakness, so it'll be tough for Our Hero. Fortunately, Rockman has 3d6 of Luck. The GM has him rollhis Luck dice, and he rolls three 6's! Now what does the GM decide happens? "Despite the grueling battle, Rockman's hair remains perfectly coiffed. How lucky for you!" This is no benefit, and you'd have every right to complain. "One of the civilian bystanders in the crowd is a particularly attractive woman, and is very much impressed with Rockman (particularly his well-coiffed hair), and intends to approach him after the battle (assuming he survives) and will offer herself to him. What a lucky guy!" This is maybe a benefit, but in a completely different context, and certainly not three 6's worth. And I would complain to the GM right along with you. "Paperman's entangling attack engulfs Rockman, but with one fewer point of BODY and DEF. There's a bit of lick for you!" Well,that's a benefit, but I'd say that's not even one 6 worth. "A sudden gust of wind deflects Paperman's attack that would have entrapped our hero, but instead, it misses completely. Lucky!" This is maybe one 6 worth of luck, not three, since Paperman can just fire the same attack again on his next phase. "Just as all hope seems lost for Our Hero, and Paperman is about to deliver the killing blow, out of nowhere, Scissorsman shows up and takes Paperman out of the fight." This is probably about the right level of benefit for three 6's. I could come up with more examples, but this should at least give a starting point to work from. I'm not against exploring other ways to have Luck work in the game. I tweak rules all the time. But if it works 100% of the time, then it really doesn't feel like "luck" to me, As I mentioned above, I find a good guideline is that the lucky effect should be the equivalent of about 30 points of power for each 6 rolled on the Luck dice. One possible way to change this and make it more "reliable" is for the Luck to activate more often, say on a 5 or 6 on each die - then the effect should only be about 15 points of power for each 5-6 rolled. Twice as likely to happen, half as big an effect. That's fair, isn't it? Or you could go even farther and say that luck happens on a 4, 5, or 6. And then you'd have roughly a 10-point effect for each 4-6 rolled. And I'm sure there are other ways to do Luck that will keep it "lucky".

But if you spend points on Luck, you expect it to apply all the time? Applying appropriately doesn't mean applying all the time - for any power. For Luck it only applies - appropriately enough - when you're lucky. That's why it's called "Luck". And if you pay for Luck, you'll get some value for the points you paid. If you your defense doesn't apply to the attack directed at you, are you truly defended? Right. That's what makes it Luck. If you want a power that has nothing to do with Luck, then don't buy Luck. Retort, eh? Well, I must say this I've never had a character use a Blast on an opponent with the "intended effect" being hitting the wall behind him. Let's say the power was Mind Control, and you miss your attack roll. Or maybe you make the attack roll but your effect dice roll is insufficient to achieve the effect. Now what does it hit? Is it still doing its "intended effect"? Powers fail sometimes. All of them. Why should Luck be an exception? So if you miss your target with your Blast and knock down a tree instead, that's an "improvement of some kind'? You do realize that 17% is not 0%, right? It's significantly more. ​ Then don't buy 1d6 of Luck. You get what you pay for, and you pay for what you get. If you spend 60 points, like you would for a normal power that you rely on, you'll get 12d6 of Luck, which will have a positive effect almost 89% of the time, and very likely, you'll roll more than one 6, so it'll be a quite significant positive effect.

If you spend points for an Attack power, should the character be guaranteed to hit his opponent every time he uses it? Because if it misses, he gets NO benefit from the use of the power. If you spend points for Invisibility, should the character be guaranteed that his opponent won't be able to detect him? Because if the opponent has another Targeting sense that the character is not Invisible to, then the power is giving him NO benefit. If you spend points for a Defensive power, should the character be guaranteed to get at least some protection from any attack? Because if the opponent uses an NND or AVAD against a defense that the character doesn't have, he gets NO benefit from the defense he paid for. It has nothing to do with the player's at-the-table luck, any more than any other power that requires him to roll dice - which is most of them, this is HERO after all. A character with 1d6 of luck has a 1 in 6 chance of something lucky happening in certain circumstances - regardless of how lucky the player is. About one-sixth of the time, when it matters, the character will get a benefit. What do you want for only 5 points? If five points gives a benefit 1/6 of the time, that's like buying a 30-point power and only getting 1/6 of the benefit. That's fair for 5 points, isn't it? So the benefit of one pip of luck should be about the value of a 30-point power. If a character has more than one die of luck, and rolls multiple 6's, then the benefit gained should be about the value of a 60-point power for two 6's, a 90-point power for three 6's, etc. Luck most definitely gives a benefit. It just doesn't give a benefit all the time. And the same is true of every power in this game. Nothing is guaranteed in this game. This isn't chess.

I don't know if that's the case, but it's a good idea. Of course, those DCs should only help when they aren't being used for something else - like damage, or extra Grab/Grab Weapon/Disarm/etc. STR.

I don't care for it. This doesn't feel like luck to me. It's just improving normal dice rolls. We already have ways to do that - skill levels. IMO, Luck is for truly lucky things to happen. Things beyond the characters' direct actions. Things like this: An unforeseen traffic accident blocks off the bad guy's escape route. A sudden change in weather dilutes or disperses the poison gas cloud. A bird or other small animal trips the trap before Our Lucky Hero happens to step into it. Henchman suddenly has to go to the bathroom and leaves his post. etc. Luck that manipulates game-mechanical dice feels more like roll-playing than role-playing, and reminds me of that other game system. What do the characters, in character, say within the game world about the lucky thing that happened? "I sure was lucky that that big truck came by, or I would've been hit by that Death Ray!" or "I sure was lucky that I could force Harmful Man to reroll his attack dice, thus turning the 6 into an 12!"

If they both apply to the same attack, then I'd say you should go by active points, rather than the % of the individual reductions. IDHMBIFOM, but if 50% Reduction costs 60 points and 75% Reduction costs 120 points, then 60 points + 60 points = 120 points. So you only get 75% Reduction, even though you're adding two 50% together. And I have said for a long time to be flexible and allow for greater granularity in Damage Reduction. If someone adds 25% Reduction to the 50% Reduction you already have, that's 60 + 30 = 90 points. I'd call it 66.67% Reduction or 2/3. So divide the damage by 3, instead of 2 (50%) or 4 (75%).

And then the problem is, if a guy buys a power with -1 OAF and then the GM *doesn't* take it away fairly often, that character may be getting significantly more than he paid for. I'm reminded of an old cartoon, which maybe a few of you will remember: Fearless Fly - a fly superhero who gains his super powers with a special pair of glasses. In every single episode, his glasses get knocked off at some point. And he always says, "My glasses! Without them, I'm helpless!"

How to build Cap's shield and what exactly a Focus is are two different questions. In the game, the Focus limitation basically means that the power won't be available to be used some of the time. But that's true for many of the limitations. What distinguishes Focus from other limitations that prevent the power from being used? Focus, unlike other limitations, involves one or more of the following limiting situations: 1. Sometimes, the character is caught without it. 2. Sometimes, an opponent may yank it out of his hands. 3. Sometimes, an opponent may remove it from him when he can't stop it. 4. Sometimes, it may break. 4a. If broken, it may need to be replaced, rather than repaired. 5. Sometimes, it may be stolen. 5a. If stolen, it may need to be replaced, rather than recovered. 6. Sometimes, perhaps on a critical miss, the character might drop it, or it could be knocked out of his hands, intentionally or accidentally. 7. If someone else has it, that person may be able to use it himself, without the consent of the character. 8. It might be expendable, in which case it definitely will need to be replaced. 8a. It might be easy, difficult, or extremely difficult to replace. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list, but it's all I can think of right now. OIHID basically means that only #1 applies. Accessible means that #2 applies. Obvious only means that an opponent might think to try #2-5, but that really depends on the intelligence/strategy/abilities of the opponent. I've always thought Restrainable was a bit of a problem. All powers have a "POO" - a point of origin - which means that all powers are restrainable in some sense, by default. If I have wings, I can fly, but my Flight is restrainable if you grab my wings. But my Running is also restrainable if you grab my legs. Does that mean everyone gets to take the Restrainable limitation on their legs? My vision is restrainable if you cover my eyes. Does that mean everyone's vision gets to take the Restrainable limitation? A -1 limitation is supposed to reflect a power that is about half as useful as it would otherwise have been. If I have an OAF, I'm probably not going to be in situation #2 half the time. Chances are, it'll be a lot less than that, which means some of these other things have to happen some of the time. And #7 at least doubles the limitingness of #2, 3, and 5, and maybe 6. And depending on how difficult it is to replace, that may greatly increase the limitingness of #4 and 5. Of Opportunity is a bit tricky as well. You can't just tell your opponent to wait patiently while you make a quick run to the hardware store. A rock or a stick on the ground is an "opportunity", but most campaign worlds don't have specialized hardware lying around or growing on trees. Going to the hardware store to replace a focus is not sufficient to be "of opportunity" - unless a very large portion of your battles take place in or near hardware stores. Going to some store to buy a new focus is mot that much different from going back to your base to get a replacement focus. Either way, you have to leave the active combat going on. Big Strong Guy in a fight in the middle of Campaign City can probably easily find a parked car or other large object to pick up and throw at his enemy, just for a simple bashing attack. But if Scarred Wizard Boy loses his magic wand, he won't necessarily have the "opportunity" to pick up another wand to use - assuming it takes more to make a wand than just breaking a twig off of a tree. Somewhere in between, is Sir Robin the Brave whose sword broke in the midst of a battle. There may in fact be other swords lying around among the slain bodies on the battlefield which he has the "opportunity" to pick up and use. But if he's not in a large-scale battle (such as if he's fighting a monster one-on-one, or if he and a few of his loyal friends on on a quest), and he needs a "sword of opportunity", there won't likely be one available.

I would assume after vigintillion comes univigintillion, then duovigintillion, etc.

My profile page doesn't show anything that's archived. If I go to Advanced Search (the gear-shaped button next to the search box), put my name in the "Find Author" box, and leave everything else blank, it gives one result. Shouldn't it return all my posts? If I restrict it to just the "Hero System Discussion" forum or "Champions" or "Fantasy Hero", the results are as I said above. How do I find all the rest of the stuff I had posted here, way back when? I've tried going through the archived pages "manually", one page at a time, one thread at a time, and I can see various posts I made and even threads I started, but for some reason, these don't come up in the search. Why not?

Yeah, so? The taxonomy system we use in the real world was created without any knowledge of evolution. Right. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm looking for.

Is there some additional trick to it I should know? When I search on my own name, as author of a post, in the Archives, I get exactly 1 (one) post in Hero System Discussion, and exactly 1 (one) post in Champions, and exactly 1 (one) post in Fantasy Hero. I used to be rather vocal on these boards, and I know I've posted a lot more than that.

Thanks! For some reason, the archived threads don't seem to show up in searches. (What's the point of an archive if you can't search it?) I've tried searching for some of my old posts from years ago, which I can't find now, even though I know they must be here somewhere.

Not if the game is balanced. That's the whole point of HERO. Nothing is supposed to be best. Granted, it might never be perfect, but that doesn't mean we have to put up with an obvious imbalance.

This might be another change in 6e, but in 5e and before, the extra DCs could only apply to one basis of the maneuver - decided when you buy the maneuver. You can't add the DC to both the damage and the grabbing strength. It still makes the point pretty well though. +1 OCV and either 6d6 NND, or 55 STR for holding and 1d6 NND - all for 45 points. Also, in 5e, you aren't allowed to take both STR+ and STR- on the same maneuver. And STR- applies to all uses of STR, not just damaging ones. So this maneuver doesn't give you 55 + STR for holding on, it's just a flat 55. Maybe this has changed in 6e (I hope not), or maybe you've misapplied the rules here. Since a 5 STR grab is not likely to be useful at all (most opponents will be able to break out with casual STR), don't bother adding that to the maneuver. How 'bout this instead: +2 OCV: +2 CP +2 DCV: +2 CP 1d6 NND: +2 CP Throw (opponent falls): +1 CP No STR used: -2 CP Total cost: 5 CP Plus 10 extra DCs (40 points) which can be applied to all other maneuvers as well (other than Blocks and Dodges). So a 6d6 NND that puts the opponent on the ground even if he remains conscious, with +2 OCV and +2 DCV - and it costs 0 END to use! All for 45 points. Outside of martial arts, a 6d6 NND, 0 END, No Range, would cost (30 x 2.5)/1.5 = 50 points, and that doesn't include the OCV and DCV bonuses, nor does it knock the opponent to the floor. Granted, I'm using the 5e construction rules, and assuming they haven't changed. If there's a change that makes my build invalid, let me know.

As has been pointed out, that's not anywhere close to true. Even besides types of damage, there's grab, disarm, grab weapon, escape, shove, ... Eh? This (bold added) is the first I've heard of this. This would be a major 6e change, and makes the argument even stronger that DCs should cost more. Pre-6e, an extra DC was an extra DC. Now you're saying it can be used for OCV instead if you want?

If the HA lim is only -1/4, that makes it even worse! The "limitedness" of MA DCs is significantly less than the limitedness of HAs, but we don't have a limitation value smaller than -1/4. (I have advocated in the past for greater granularity in Limitations and Advantages. I suggested using values that are multiples of 1/20 - "nickels", instead of 1/4 - "quarters". With nickels, you can still make -1/4 if you need to, and you can also have modifier values of -1/10, +1/5, -2/5, +3/10, etc. So two small limitations that are both currently -1/4, but one is clearly slightly better than the other, you'd be able to give them different values that more accurately reflect how limiting they are. But I digress.) The "entry cost" is certainly a mitigating factor for the MA DCs, and might be enough to ignore the problem. You have to spend at least 10 points on maneuvers before you are even eligible to pay 4 for an extra DC. But with those 10 points, you can already have a maneuver that adds 4 DC to your regular STR damage.

Uh, which is it?

"can be used equally by all types of characters" doesn't really mean anything. You might as well say, "it isn't a problem because now all characters will be martial artists," or "those that don't use martial arts will be at a disadvantage." If my character doesn't buy Martial Arts because it's not part of his concept, it doesn't help that he "could have" bought martial arts. I can understand that in 5e, when every 5 points of STR gave 5.5 points of figureds, that a MA DC had to cost less than 5. But that isn't the case anymore. Is there any further clarification in 6e what the -1/2 "Hand-to-Hand Attack" limitation actually does? That is to say - How is it limiting? Because as we all know, a limitation that doesn't limit... It looks like HA is essentially just STR with "Only for normal HtH damage - no lifting or 'exerting' combat maneuvers like Grab". So perhaps the -1/2 is appropriate. But that makes a MA DC equivalent to STR with "Only for HtH combat maneuvers including all 'exert' maneuvers, and all types of damage (but 1/2 for Killing damage)" and 0 END. I keep checking and re-checking my math, and I'm getting 6 points for that. And no, it's not any more of a problem for a MA DC to cost 6 than it is for a d6 of HA to cost 3 1/3. HA is 5 points per DC with a mandatory -1/2 limitation. (Which comes to 3 1/3 points per DC, assuming no other modifiers.) MA DCs are 5 points per DC with 0 END* and a mandatory -1/4 limitation (because they're less limited than HA). (Which comes to 6 points per DC, assuming no other modifiers.) The whole "5 points per DC" rule is still satisfied. * And the 0 END should probably also be considered mandatory, just because that's the way martial arts work, thematically. The extra damage is due to greater skill, not greater bodily effort. I'll probably just have to house rule this for my games.

I don't have 6e (yet). Did I correctly read somewhere in these forums that extra DCs for Martial Arts cost 4 points each? Is that the correct price? And if so, why? What does HtH Attack cost in 6e? Maybe I've misunderstood. +1d6 with STR costs 5 points, costs END to use, and adds to Lifting capacity. +1d6 HA costs ?, costs END to use, does not add to lifting capacity, and can only be used for normal damage strikes. +1 DC with Martial Arts costs ??, does not cost END to use, does not add to lifting capacity, and can be used with any Martial maneuver, including those that don't do damage, like grabs, disarms, shoves, escapes, etc. And if you have Martial maneuvers, you're never going to be using the corresponding standard maneuvers. As I understand it, the only differences between STR and MA DC are: 1. STR costs END, and DCs don't 2. STR adds to lifting/throwing, and DCs don't 3. DCs are used only with the (better) MA maneuvers Anything else? It seems to me that #3 doesn't really matter to the cost, since you're going to be using the better maneuvers if you have them anyway. #1 should make DCs cost more (0 END is a +1/2 advantage). And #2 is at most a -1/4 limitation on DCs. Thus, MA DCs should cost about 6 each, by my calculations. So what's the deal? What are these costs in 6e? Are they what they should be? I suspect that (if there's a problem here) this topic would have come up before. I searched for it, but didn't find one.

And even if he could, you certainly wouldn't call him a "monk". And he wouldn't need a minimum 15 Wisdom, nor would he be required to be Lawful in alignment.

Weirding Way / The Voice / Spice Prescience from Dune Bejoran "prophets" and "mystic orbs" from DS9 Charlie X / Q / etc. Doctor Strange & Thor live in the same world as Iron Man and the Fantastic Four and Henry Pym. Zatana & Doctor Fate & Captain Marvel live in the same world as Batman and Superman and Steel. It's not easy to find an extensive sci-fi setting that doesn't eventually throw in some magic.