Toonol

Re: Weak Supers who just needed better writers I know I'm jumping on late, but casualplayer, well, he spoke to my heart, and I've got not choice here but to throw out a rant. In the space of a year or two, the mess that Marvel made of the New Mutants not only turned me off of that book, but led me to quit collecting comics for nearly two decades. I am only just now tentatively sampling their wares again. Doug, Illyana Rasputin, and Warlock... my three favorite characters in any comic book when I was younger. Geez, I felt personally attacked. And in respect to Doug Ramsey, I have to point out that he represents one of the ways in which fiction is very different than RPGs. Doug would never have worked in a champions game for a number of reasons, but he worked very well in the comic. Claremont could have min-maxed him more to justify making him a martial artist, or some such, but that would have ruined the main hook the character had. The hook was that he was fundamentally just a normal, decent, kid, who was immensely out of his depth in all this superhero business... and yet, just through being clever and having a good heart, was able (somehow) to hold his own. He really is one of the most unique characters I have ever encountered in comics. I normally avoid reading fan-fic like the plague, but I once came across a story about Doug that was tongue-in-cheek and yet oddly touching. It was about Doug, hanging out in the afterlife, and how the powers-that-be (realizing that nobody is supposed to stay dead in marvel comics) eventually offered him the chance to come back. Initially, Doug lept at the chance, but when the current state of the Marvel Universe was described to him, and he saw how none of his friends were left in any state he could recognize, he decided to stay dead. He always was the smart one :-) Toonol

I am not running a campaign right now, but if I was to start, one of my only house rules would be changing the speed formula. Instead of Dex/10 +1, I would make it Dex/10 +2. I don't have any problem with the speed chart being too complex or cumbersome; I just don't like the granularity at low speed levels. Giving a normal a speed of 3 just seems more balanced... and this change doesn't seem like it would have terrible repercusions anywhere else. (I would probably also declare normal movement as 12" per Turn, distributed among your phases, but that's another easy fix.) I didn't read the Digital Hero article, but I guess it gave a scheme similar to this? Toonol

Re: Re: Another (sorry) Speed Variation Right, I was probably not making my motives clear. Maybe this isn't really a rules variant so much as it is just a different restatement of the speed rules, without a speed chart. I just thought something like: Spd 1: Act every 12th seg Spd 2: Act every 6th seg. Spd 3: Act every 4th seg. Spd 4: Act every 3rd seg. Spd 5: Act every 3rd then 2nd seg. Spd 6: Act every 2nd seg... ... Spd 12: Act every seg. Might be a more easily explainable way of explaining speed to a new player, without changing much. The Hero system is like DNA; so finely tuned that most major mutations (house rules) are detrimental :-) -Toonol

I always find rules tinkering to be a fun; and I'd like to get my two boys interested in champions, and so I'm trying to find ways to simplify the rules while changing as little as possible. (My boys are ages 9 and 13) Anyway, the thought was that instead of using the speed chart, characters simply act every X segments, where X is 12 divided by their speed. If this is not an even number, it just alternates between the two closest numbers. For instance, a speed 3 acts every 4 segments. A speed 6 acts every 2 segments. A speed 5 acts every, um, 2.4 segments; we would just have that character alternate waiting 3 then 2 segments between actions. This breaks down at some higher speeds (I've always hated 7 as a number :-), but it seems like it would be a little more easily comprehensible by a newbie than the speed chart, and could be dropped in without unbalancing everything. Recoveries would just come at the end of every 12th segment... Any feedback, guys? -Toonol

The Barsoomian (Mars Series) code of honor might work. Among other things, it was immoral to use a weapon that had a longer reach than your opponent's. So if he has a gun, you can shoot him. If he throws it down, or runs out of ammo, and draws his longsword, you have to throw down your gun as well. If he draws a knife, you draw your knife... I would guess that would lead to firefights that would last until ammo ran out, or one side decides they would have better odds man-to-man than in a firefight... -Toonol

I was thinking about the math behind power limitations and advantages, and was toying with a different way of calculating power costs... I was wondering what all of you may think, pro or con? As it stands, you add all the advantages together and use that number to calculate the active points. For instance, a 30 pt EB with two +1/2 advantages would have 60 active points. I think it might be more appropriate to apply each advantage seperately, calculating each in turn. A +1/2 advantage would raise the active points to 45; a second +1/2 advantage would raise it to 67 points. Limitations would behave the same way... two -1/2 limitations would normally add to make a -1 limit, which drops a 67 pt power down to 33 pts. The method I'm thinking of, you would apply the limitations independently, and end up at 30 real points. This requires a little more math... why do I think it might be better? I'll give a few reasons... Small powers with lots of advantages. One of the examples of abusive powers sometimes given is (for example) a 5 pt, 1d6 energy blast, with tons of advantages heaped on it. You can add four +1 advantages to a 5pt power, and the active cost is only 25 pts. If they are instead applied sequentially, the cost would be 80 points... Cleaner math in some circumstances Suppose I've created a really cool power, with three advantages and five limitations. Final cost is 30 pts. How much does it cost to make it armor piercing? Currently, you need to go back to the base cost to figure it; this way, you just apply the +1/2 to the final cost of 30 pts, making the cost 45 cpts. Power Construction Related to the above... I design a power. Let's say it's a tweaked energy blast that behaves a special way. It ends up costing 8 pts per d6 damage. Maybe I think it's really cool, and want to put it in my campaign's book-o-powers, for other characters to use. By the rules, if somebody wanted to use that power, but put a +1 advantage on it, the cost would be 13 pts per d6 damage; they would have to reverse engineer the power, and apply the modifier to the 5pt/d6 cost of energy blast. Instead, if the modifiers were applied independently, the +1 would make the power cost 16pt/d6, which is the way you would expect it to work. Comments? I realize that this would make characters absolutely incompatible with other campaigns, and so it is pretty much purely hypothetical... Toonol

I like the scheme of "X HERO"; I'm sure it builds brand identity, and anybody who has purchased one HERO book will possibly notice another partly because of the consistent titling. However, I do think "Pulp Hero" is a terrible name. Call it "Two-Fisted Hero" to punch it up a bit (pun intended :-). Nearly anything would be more dynamic than 'Pulp.' BTW, hello all; been lurking for a while, and this is my first post. -Toonol