Pattern Ghost

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll? It seems I'm jumping in a little late here, but for handling large groups of Mooks, here's what I'd do. I'd tend to go for just using Mook stats for the mooks and running the combat normally. Each Mook gets his CV/Damage recorded. Each time a PC hits a Mook, the margin of success determines how close to taking out the Mook the attack comes.* Suspend any optional damage rules in place in the game for the duration, for both sides. (Things like bleeding, hit locations, etc.) For dramatic effect, allow players to make called shots if they want, but assume they succeed if the attack roll succeeds. These are Mooks, after all, it's OK to show a little flair. If the damage roll is below average, the Mook is still standing but the next hit will take it out. Have some of the Mooks flee, or attempt to if they get hit like this, and that thins them out a bit. If the damage roll is average or better, the mook is one shotted, and out of the fight. You don't need to track anything except damage to the PCs this way. You'd want to assign values to the Mook's stats that ensure that the PCs won't take too much damage, but I think it's appropriate for the genres in question for the heroes to emerge with a few dings and dents after the fight. *For some assumed numbers. Let's assume the average PC has a CV of around 8 or so, counting base CV and maneuvers/skill levels available. You'd want to give the Mooks a less than even chance to land a hit on the PCs. So, let's give the Mooks a CV of 5. The Mooks need 14- to hit a PC and the PCs need an 8- to hit the Mooks. Give the Mooks some appropriate weaponry, and you're ready to roll.

I just had an idea for a particularly nasty vigilante archer trick. What if an archer were to lace a broadhead with an extremely potent anticoagulant to ensure their victim bled out, to hinder medical treatment/first aid attempts? How would you build it in Hero terms?

Re: Harbinger got neutered! You could always get him some neuticles . . .

Re: Nonarchetypal Heroes I think that quote sums it up quite well. The dungeon crawl can certainly be fun. The new edition seems to really encourage the tactical/wargame approach to using the minis a bit overmuch (though I think you could ignore some of that altogether and still be left with a playable system) for my tastes as well. But the bottom line is the game is designed for powering up to be able to take on the next biggest dungeon, not for what has become roleplaying in the intervening years since its release. One thing that always annoys me on other boards when Hero is mentioned is that so many people think it's a rules lawyery game. The first time I saw the Disadvantages side of a Champions character sheet, my only thought was "WOW! These guys have built a game mechanic to help you roleplay!" Ars Magica was the next game out that did something similar, then Amber DRPG (that I picked up, that is.) BUT, Hero was there first (IME), with rules built to encourage players to get into character. Now all the rules-light gamers out there, whose games are very much inspired by this aspect of Hero/Champions, denegrate the game on the grounds of it being rules-intensive, when a huge chunk of the rules are a roleplaying aid. Not to mention that 4th Edition Champions had one of the best sections on roleplaying I've read in any game book. (Sorry, Steve, but I'm going to have to admit to having glossed over the similar material in Fifth. =)

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes Actually, that might be amusing. =) Of course, with DnD, you'll get standard classes as choices most of the time, and anything non-standard has a fair shot at being munchkiny. Of course, with Fantasy Hero, players are encouraged to build something more or less from scratch, so you get happy accidents like your example group. Sorry about that comment. I thought it sounded very bad when I read it later, but I didn't edit it out b/c I had to run to work.

Re: "Common Sense" descrepancy Champions has a "Normal Guy" (not sure if that's the exact phrase used) Disadvantage package. It has stuff like vulnerability to falling damage to make the character more fragile, or less cinematic, as it were. I can see a Physical Disadvantage that limits the character's ability to damage tougher materials working in a similar fashion. The up side is that you wouldn't have to limit his attacks, just say that the character can't damage things a normal human can't reasonably be expected to damage, and/or takes feedback damage when he doesn't do BODY damage or KB* with an attack vs. hardened targets (can define "hardened" how you want, such as having resistant defenses, or defenses over a certain amount, or made of certain materials, etc.) edit: *stole that KB part from the above post, as it also makes sense.

Re: Range of Light OK, a hex is two meters diameter. That's one honking big laser pointer! In fact, that's big for a flashlight. Not sure I understand your reasoning on this one.

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes The default setting for those areas of the books that need to make an assumption on the setting is indeed Greyhawk. Now, tell me everything you know about the Greyhawk setting based on a read-through of the core books. That's a bit harder, since we only have some monsters, the names of some dieties and some spells named after Greyhawk mages. You cannot construct a Greyhawk specific scenario out of the core books, because you have no history, no geography, and no people to populate it. Therefore, you have no setting that amounts to anything other than some flavor text. Granted, the rules are structured as such that the game is expected (espcially at the higher levels) to be played in a Greyhawk type world full of powerful magic, strong monsters, and all the rest that goes along with the DnD flavor of fantasy. And it's hard to seperate the rules from the style of play. But, for lower-key play, with lower level encounters, it's not impossible, just not ideal.

Re: Nonarchetypal Heroes I think you put your finger on the biggest problem with DnD: The game seems to be designed so that access to magic at higher levels is a necessity. And the skills system, while better than previous editions, lacks a lot of depth. 3rd Edition added a bit of flexibility, but it's still far from a generic system. Hero just does a lot of stuff better.

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes Obviously not obvious enough. Let me make it clear: Your three choices of characters are obviously underpowered weenies in combat. So are the NPC classes. Therefore,the group is just as doable in DnD. There would be no rules cludge. The rules for running NPCs are right there in black and white. (Or brown and lighter brown, as it were.) Suppose you started an adventure with these three guys. The Experts are actually quite capable of adventuring, the Commoner would likely have a decent CON if he's a laborer, so his low hit die wouldn't be that much of a hinderance. You'd probably want to start the group off at about third to fifth level. You'd set the ratings of their encounters to several levels below the PC's level, so that they could handle the ocassional combat. DnD doesn't come with a setting in the core rules. There's nothing "stupid" about running them in YOUR OWN SETTING, because there IS NO DND LAND IN THE CORE RULES. There ARE concepts that cannot be done in DnD. Your characters, however, can be. Certainly not with the depth or detail allowed by Hero or any good generic system (I think GURPS works well for lower level, skill-intensive stuff too.), but it can be done. And if the NPC classes are too weak, there's nothing wrong with the character waking up one day, deciding, "Hey, I'm getting tired of running away from goblins with pointy sticks, I think I need to learn how to fight better," and taking a level of Warrior or even Fighter. Aristocrats and Experts are pretty close to playable as PCs without any modification. You could go with an Aristocrat for the scholarly type (access to education, and he gets some decent combat skills out of it), an Expert for the Bard, and a Commoner with high STR and CON for the Laborer, and have a halfway decent group. Or have you actually read that section to know why and how the NPC classes function and to see the suggestions for using them as PCs? Because, although not recommended, those suggestions are there. Or are you just dismissing a post out of hand because it challenges your assertion?

Re: Cannonball Although the protection would only be versus two maneuvers, you'd be using the power constantly, and to get rid of one of the major drawbacks of the maneuvers, so I'd go with -1 max. You'd only need non-resistant PD for this, though, to it'd still be pretty cheap.

Re: Inconsitancies I think in that example, Obsidian is carrying the milk truck.

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes Obviously.

Re: Explanations and Apologies... YOU STOLE MY LIFE! (Now also the computer guy for an office supply store, with not enough time on my hands. =)

Re: Unarchetypal Heroes Actually, 3rd (or whatever .x they are up to) edition can do it. It has a slightly bigger box. Not that I'm a DnD advocate, actually haven't played the new game yet. I'm thinking this can be done with the Commoner NPC class. Easy one: Expert NPC class. Again, Expert NPC class. It's kind of a catchall. Now, the survivability of the NPC classes will be much lower, but you can adjust the encounters appropriately, and in a lot of cases the PCs will interacting with NPCs of the same group of classes, so within the same power level. I've actually toyed with the idea of doing a low-power game with the new rules.

Re: Pregnancy and combat I like the encumberance option, myself, though to account for the balance issue, you might double the penalty from the table. You might allow a Croft-esque character to run full speed, but add a turn mode. Sudden changes of direction are hard with any unbalanced load. Threw my back out walking up the stairs last year with a dresser on my shoulder b/c the weight shifted. (If the kid's as heavy as a dresser, she has serious problems, though.) Edit: Oh, it's probably obvious but you definately shouldn't be rolling for miscarriages or going into labor. That should all happen when/if it's dramatically appropriate.

Re: Rep? LOL, you just got my first Rep award for making me laugh. Remember, the first rule of Rep is There is No Rep.

Re: I smell something fishy I kind of like a high PER roll, maybe with the rapid sensing options tossed in, and complimentary skills such as Disguise, Concealment, etc. I'd even throw in some PRE skills such as Acting, Seduction, High Society, Streetwise. If he can only use those as complementary skills (i.e., he's good at spotting a disguise but has no talent for creating one), I'd give them an appropriate level of limitation. Bundle all the complementary skills up and toss on the limitation and you have a (long character sheet lol) sort of talent: 9 PER +3 to all Sense Groups 15 Complementary Skills (all are Only for Complementary PER rolls, -1): Disguise 12-, Acting 12-, Concealment 12-, High Society 12-, Streetwise 12-, Deduction 12-) (All based on 10 stats, so 5pts each) Total:24 Pts. Assuming a bit brighter guy, say a 13 INT, 15 PRE, you're looking at 13- complementary rolls to a 15- PER roll. Not bad. On the other hand, each of the skills listed could be bought only to counter itself for -1, and then skill levels applied to the group. Then add in a decent overal PER roll and a Deduction roll. Since Concealment and Acting and Disguise can all be used to make opposed skill rolls, that may make better sense than making them complementary skills to PER. You'd still need PER for general PER of areas not covered or counterable, and High Society, Streetwise and Deduction for gathering info which can be used to complement PER rolls in certain situations. Any way you look at it, one power/skill/talent doesn't cover it. It's a sort of a package deal for the uber perceptive/fast thinker type of character. I disagree on basing it on danger sense. The character could just as well use this skillset to detect a surprise birthday party or any other number of harmless shams.

Re: Retractable Armor? I have this power with an expendable OAF: Mexican Food.

Re: DCV penalty to dodge? You could also use change environment, limited to the area that the character can act in. If he's hth type, then it'll be a small CE area, if he's a ranged type, it'd be a wider CE area. Kind of a sphere of control thing, representing tactical genius or the like. EDIT: Of course, you'd need to have some kind of selective advantage tacked on to do it w/CE unless you want to screw up your own teammates...d'oh!

Re: EC balance fix I have one problem with the drains one, drains all approach, and that's the SFX of the adjustment power. Especially movement-affecting ones. Fire Guy: EC: Fire Powers a) EB FF c) Flight Gets drained by: Wind Tunnel Guy: Drain Flight by creating wind shear effect. But now Fire Guy can't blast as much and his defense is lowered? Well, maybe if Wind Tunnel Guy's wind was strong enough to blow out some of the flame, but the SFX of wind shear have just been viloated. Gravity Girl: Drain all Movement powers by increasing gravity. Same problem. Pacifist Lad: Drains all Offensive Powers with a Linked Aid to all Defensive Powers: Heh, resolve that one. Kind of a pain, really. I can see some balance being necessary, but IMO all adjustment powers should be strongly tied to their SFX, and the EC rule steps on that. EDIT: Maybe it's enough that the GM simply makes note to occassionally throw Water Gun Dude at Fire Guy, where WGD has paid for his "vs. All Fire Powers" adder on a hefty drain/suppress. Or that the GM make the EC player take a susceptability, vulnerability, or dependance related to the EC's power source. Or a little of both.

Re: Golden Heroes... I used to have a boxed set way back when I was trying to collect every supers game made. Sold it a while back, though. I thought one of the best features was the random power generation, b/c you had to rationalize any powers you wanted to keep. That idea always seemed fun to me, though I never did play the game, so I'm not sure how it'd work out in practice. Could cause some player/GM conflict, I suppose.

Re: Superleap and falling damage. Well, a fall means uncontrolled. So, leaping won't help, b/c you won't necessarily be landing on your leaping appendage(s). For just a regular downward jump, I allow the horizontal jumping distance down as safe, rather than the verticle b/c it's easier to jump down than up.

Re: Need Help with Some Villain "Lackeys" James Blish wrote what may be the best scientific explanation for werewolves in his short story "There Shall Be No Darkness." (1950) It was reprinted in Bill Pronzini's anthology Werewolves! in 1980, which you might be able to find at a library.

Re: NPC for Review: Opinions Please If she's using the Bullseye schtick, you might consider dropping this limitation. In Elektra Lives Again, Bullseye nails a fly with a seed from his orange juice, and when Hand assassins come after him (he's tied up tighter than Hannibal Lector at the time), he looks for another seed, implying that he at least thinks he's capable of killing a human with one, too. Then again, it's no biggie. I'd think as an assassin, she'd have at least one or two contacts or followers to use to line up jobs. Her background seems to indicate a positive reputation as a reliable assassin, as well. (Positive rep with a limited group, of course.) "Vengeful" and "Lives for the Kill" seem like double-dipping. Not a big problem for an NPC, but I generally don't like psych limits that overlap at all. Likewise, "Bored by Normal Life and Normal People" and "Lives for the Kill" seem to overlap, since someone who lives for the kill presumably doesn't care much for normal life. Being bored by normal life is just the SFX for Lives for the Kill.