SleepyDrug

Re: Scans

I wasn't aware of that in regards to this. I know posting books is bad. But didn't know they had concerns about the images.

Thanks for the tip

Has anyone here scanned in the pictures of characters from various HERO supplements? If so, could you make them available. If not, would anyone with a scanner be interested in doing this?

Re: Bashing people with chairs, lightpoles, automobiles...

To me, bashing someone with a big, hard object should do more damage, and hang the printed rules.

 

Second, I am inclined to maintain the max STR add at DEF + BOD of the object. This means it takes a truly massive object to actually add damage to a powerful Brick. A baseball bat breaks under the force of his STR, and can't deliver all that energy to the target.

Am I reading correctly, that you suggested that an item can do up to its DEF + BOD in damage, but if the character's strength exceeds this...then the item breaks.

Third, if you paid no points, the object is treated as a "weapon". Unless you have "WF: Bus" that means -3 OCV when you swing a bus. If you paid for a "brick trick" with weapons of opportunity, you paid points for the "weapon" and are familiar automatically.

Don't forget -4 for throwing a bulky and non-aerodynamic object if the character chooses that route.

Fourth, any use of objects should require that 1/2 phase to grab, 1/2 phase to uproot (and this is an attack action) and now you can use it as a weapon.

I like this. What about packing crates and buses that don't need to be uprooted? Still, 1/2 to grab and 1/2 to lift?

Fifth, it would seem reasonable to apply "encumbrance penalties" for characters manipulating a large object. Combine that with the need for a truly large object to enhance a strong Brick, and this can provide some tradeoff - enhance one ability at the expense of others.

 

Allowing surrounding terrain to convert STR to ranged AoE attacks at limited or no penalties (even if one does not allow added damage) seems, to me, to over-reward high STR. Meanwhile, saying a 10 STR mentalist can't enhance HTH damage by picking up a baseball bat or crowbar just bugs me.

I agree with this. But as an addendum, I tell all players regardless of strength that if they routinely grab objects of opportunity for use as weapons I will require them to pay points as a game balance measure.

I'm fooling around with updating my Champions Universe campaign. (right now i'm running a mixed marvel/dc world). Some thoughts bouncing around I wanted opinions on.

1) We've seen...four (?) official versions of the Champions (the original, 4th ed team, fuzion team, current), which group do you like/use or a mix?

2) Do you use npc hero guest stars much?

3) If so, who?

4) Are these converted from comic books, original creations, or the Champions?

Re: PC Groups and Hunteds

I've been doing a bit of campaign designing and the question of Hunteds has come up. The problem is as follows.

 

You have three PCs: A, B and C.

 

A is hunted by DEMON on 14-

B is hunted by VIPER on 8-

C is hunted by VIPER on 11-

 

Because these characters all hang around together, all three of them are effectively being hunted by DEMON on 14-, and VIPER on... whatever. This potentially occurred irrespective of any considerations of character conception, and, of course, different characters received different amounts of points for these hunteds.

This isn't true per se. Demon is only after "A" and even a 14- doesn't mean the whole group suffers. Nor does a 14- mean time consuming or blatantly overt action. All it means is that a demon agent shows and takes a pot shot at "A".

Now "B" and "C" are both on Viper's hit list, but "C" is obviously a higher priority target.

Now, what is supposed to happen when the GM has to roll for these Hunteds to appear? Does he/she roll once for each Hunted, or three times? Either way, both Hunteds are likely to show up pretty nearly all the time. But what if they were taken on 8-? There is a considerable difference in the frequency with which they will appear, in this case.

I usually don't roll for Hunteds, but use the occassional/frequent/very frequent terms as guidelines.

And then there is the problem about what it does to the GM's campaign... If a character is Hunted on a 14-, the Hunter is clearly a major factor in the game. In fact, the game comes very close to being an all-out war between the PCs and the Hunter. This makes a drastic difference to the campaign - like the difference between a heavily themed setting like the X-Men, or a looser one like the Fantastic Four or the Avengers.

GM: don't allow 14- Hunteds if you don't want that to be a major feature of your campaign.

Anyway, I suspect that I might come up with a list of suggested Hunteds for my next game, which will also have a fairly narrow theme and focus, at least to start with. It won't just be an open slather "design any old character and jump on in", which is pretty much what a lot of the games I have played in (and run) in the past have been like.

I always have my say as far as enemies or hunteds go. If I gotta run them, I gotta get in my words

Of course, each time a player selects a Hunter for their character, they are, in effect, saying: "I vote that our group fights this enemy a certain amount of the time". If your characters are selecting the same Hunteds, you should take notice of it. But make sure you don't overuse them.

I suggest you think of ideas to use Hunteds more creatively. How much damage does a Viper 5 team do with only one volley (shoot and run) while the heroes are fighting Mechanon?

Re: My Star Hero Campaign Information Available

Take me a bit to absorb it all, but looks good. The art is great!

Re: Equipment: CP, Money or "Real Cost/5"??

The basic answer is.....ask your GM.

As you summed up, in superheroic you pay points for everything.

In heroic, equipment is free. But the GM may require you to pay points for unique/magical equipment, esp. if you start the campaign with it.

Re: Harry Potter HERO

While we're on the subject of predections' date=' did anyone else who read the fifth book think that that prophecy means neither Harry, nor Voldemort can die by anyone else's hand? This would be quite liberating for Harry, I would think, since he now knows he can survive anything thrown at him. However, a broader interperatation could be that only Harry or Voldemort can [i']cause[/i] the other to die. That would mean that as long as Voldemort was the reason for Harry being in a situation, he could die. Any thoughts from the others?

I saw an interview with Daniel Radcliffe (the guy who plays Harry) who thinks they are destined to both die in a final dramatic fight.

Predictions aside, what did people here think of my VPP & multiple skill roll suggestion?

Re: Gate Stations

Starherofandom.Com has a b5 write-up on it complete with jump gates

Re: Achoo . . ..

This reminds me of the old Cantrip spell from D&D.

I'd use Change Environment to represent any of the minor effects this spell generated. So sneezing might cause a -2 to DEX/PER rolls for the phase.

Re: Character Transformations

The first campaign i was in, everyone saved a big pile of xp and spent it all at once. We justified it as team practice paying off and the group getting more serious.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

Well, here's the thing. If if were that cut and dried, the power armor thread wouldn't be verging on Great Debate status. A Focus acts in certain ways, and if you want something to act differently you're SOL. OIHID, even though it is commonly suggested to represent Iron Man's armor, isn't an object and doesn't act like one; it would be theoretically possible for someone to knock Tony Stark (carrying his armor in a briefcase) over the head and take it, thereby having his armor -- yet OIHID doesn't allow for that. And Restrainable is effectively the same as the Accessible part of an Accessible Focus.

Then you need to read our great debate in the power armor thread and digest the rules clarifications therein. You're wrong, however, in that the combination of OIHID & Restrainable CAN allow a item to be taken.

OIHID can be taken provided that (1) it happens very rarely, and (2) never for a long time.

This can be seen to represent Iron Man who is almost never without his armor. In 83 issues of the current title, it has happened once. Also Tony usually either recovers the briefcase or gets a spare fairly quickly. I disagreed with this in the power armor thread, but it does happen enough that if a GM wanted, he could rule this way.

Yes, it's a house rule, but the basics of the Focus Limitation haven't changed much since third edition. It might just be time for an overhaul.

What's a house rule?

Edit: Restrainable says "You can stop me from using the Power. But you can't take it away from me."

Restrainable (at -1/4) says you can reduce or stop me from using my power until I remove the means you did it. This can be an EMP pulse (requiring a reboot), losing the armor (requiring getting it back or a spare), or damage (requiring repairs).

I suggest you reread Restrainable.

Edit II: The whole point of my posting is this: Tony Stark's armor is not OIHID, because it could be taken away, has been damaged, etc., and none of these are part of OIHID. But it is not OIF, because OIF permits it to be taken away much more readily than Tony Stark's armor ever is. There's no middle ground. What we have here are discreet steps, and what we need is a continuum. What I proposed was intended to address that, and to let the system simulate more and more different kinds of Foci.

True, but losing his armor or damage can be part of Restrainable. It should be noted that OIF and OIHID/Restrainable are almost the same limitation and OIHID/Restrainable can be used as a middle step between just OIHID or OAF and OIF.

Re: Hard to build powers.

This is in the archives at least a few times. But the typical response is a double approach:

1) Huge VPP to mimic powers, skills, knowledge

2) Drain/Transform/Mind Control to KO the victim

3) Some include a linked telepathy for reading memories

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a Modifier that says "This Power is part of an object" without necessarily being a Focus with everything that implies. We don't have something that says "This thing is an object that could, in theory, be taken away from the character but in practice almost never is." We instead have OIHID and Focus.

Restrainable can be used for this.

Your suggestions are interesting. But can all be easily done with a mixture of Focus, OIHID, and Restrainable and no rules changes. I'm cautious about rules changes unless the existing rules lack the structure for what I want. Example: megascale before FReD came out needed a house rule.

The power armor thread has a good discussion of this as well.

Re: Knockback and 1/2 DCV

I use penalties for being prone

Re: Harry Potter HERO

Hermione was so bad a Divination that she quit the class. With Keith's system, maybe this could be represented by Disadvantages such as a Physical or Psychological Limitation.

In my system, Hermione would have no roll or a FAM for divination.

Actually in Hermione's case I don't think it was a lack of skill at the subject as opposed to a lack of interest in the subject. She was always going on about how Divination was a dodgy subject to be teaching at Hogwarts and she disliked the teacher on top of it. It's quite possible that if she had an interest in that subject that she could've done well at it.

 

It was Harry and Ron who were lousy at Divinations. They faked it most of the time.

I think it was said that Hermione was to logical for an unpredictable art such as divination (by Trewlany) so she quit.

Ron was awful.

Harry was good and we see him make several accurate predications.

Trewlany was a terrible teacher.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Personally, I have no problem with it. It was someone else earlier in the thread that ruled out all house rules in this discussion. If one does not allow OIHID to be breakable based on special effect as a house rule, then one can't replace destroyed with suppressed for focus damaging rules or allow for quick in-combat repairs to be made.

I think that flexibility of how damaged is within the scope of the focus rule while breakable OIHID is a change/addition to the rule.

As for CSS, is it a Full Phase Action to summon the armor? Is it reasonably easy to separate him from his cards (say as easy as slapping your hand over Billy Batson's mouth to prevent his saying 'Shazam')? If the answer is 'no' to both those questions then OIHID doesn't apply.

The cards are worn in a fancy belt that is essentially OAF while they are out of armor. I would say from the issues i've seen that it is a full phase to summon the armor.

Of course, the real difficulty is that we're trying to take a comic book character with nearly 40 years of history and wedge it into a couple of limitations.

This is why any comic to hero conversions I do include a "version" line. So I know what version of the character any particular write-up is.

However, I think we've managed to bring the majority of the conflicting issues to light:

 

Focus requires the following to be a valid focus:

1) Be in some way detectable.

2) Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat

3) Be damageable in some way

3A) Individual powers are damaged on an all-or-nothing basis, not by degrees

3B) Power Frameworks are all one power for these purposes.

3C) Repairs require significant time & effort to complete (i.e. can't be done while someone's trying to pound your head in)

4) The other three components of Focus (Mobility, Expendability and Applicability) are sufficiently broad as to not likely make much difference

 

OIHID requires the following to be valid:

1) Take at least a Full Phase Action to change forms during which no other Actions may be taken

2) Changing forms must be in some way preventable and while it doesn't specify easily, by the examples it does seem implied.

 

Restrainable has different requirements depending on level

1) Full Restrainable requires that a power can be Grabbed and Entangled in order to prevent that power from working

2) Lesser Restrainable requires that a power be disabled and/or removed by some means more rare than a Grab or Entangle (including combat damage, special effects interactions and complex removal processes like surgery) but still be targettable separate from the character (with a -2OCV mod at best)

 

Ultimately IM fails the Focus test (2 & 3) and the OIHID test. (1). Restrainable seems to be the only one that applies to IM strictly by the book.

sounds about right.

So, I think we've managed to cover all the ground there is to cover on this issue. Unless someone has something new to add, I'll probably be retiring from this thread. I'll keep an eye on it in case fresh territory does get discovered, though.

 

Later & good debating.

I think we have. This is probably a good one for the archives. This issue is fairly well settled.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

I was responding to Vorsch who had made the following comments:

Arguments along the lines of Cap is to good to be disarmed so his shield is OIHID hold no water. Rant over, i know this has been discussed before.

I wanted to point out that I never claimed Captain America was too good to be disarmed, but had in fact said that he had been disarmed in the past. In contrast to Thor, who can summon his weapon at will (as seen in several places).

In response, Hyper-Man said:

FYI, I believe that Captain America in Marvel's Universe, like his combat cousin Batman from DCU, is considered to be the best non-superpowered HTH fighter. I've seen many write-ups which have most of his combat stats pegged at normal human maximum of 30 for STR, DEX, CON, etc. with a 6 SPD too. Batman may not be 'quite' as good but he still holds the same place in his world's normal human HTH rankings.

In other threads, i've disagreed with how many comic book characters are shown in hero stats. FYI, Lady Shiva and not Batman is considered the best HTH fighter in DCU. I've seen canon references placing several others ahead of him as well. But he is in the top ten.

To Dust Raven

I always thought Cap was a super soldier, chemically altered or something like the Silver Avengers in Hero. Not a "normal" but a guy that's gotten a bit more than just training.

You are correct. The SSS maintains Cap constantly at the peak of human potential. This has allowed him to do many borderline super-human feats such as resist the effects of poisons, smash brick walls, and scale a five story building in seconds.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

Thors hammer only returned if he deliberately threw it (EB). Otherwise he had to go get it, also Beta Ray Bill was able to use it ( among others ).

This is not true. We saw Thor "call" his hammer as recently as JLA/Avengers and as far back as the Terminus Factor story in the annuals.

Arguments along the lines of Cap is to good to be disarmed so his shield is OIHID hold no water. Rant over, i know this has been discussed before.

Uhmm...I don't mind people commenting on my posts, but please be accurate. Let me repost my earlier comments here:

Crossbones has disarmed him in 3/5 fights. Once he nearly decapitated Cap with his own shield.

Molecule Man destroyed it once, so did Ultron, and Thanos, and it broke while lost.

Cap has lost the shield for extended periods and needed replacements: once as The Captain, once as Man Without a Country, once at the start of vol 3.

Cap has thrown the shield and needed to retrieve it later in the fight several times.

Note where I state the Crossbones DISARMED him.

OAF is a -1 lim the game says so, end of story. if you focus is a object that can be seen and can be simply picked up from your unconcious form or disarmed( without any sfx of teleports back to user on demand etc ).

And my point was that this may apply to Cap's shield, but not to Thor's hammer.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Eh, like I said, that's a matter of opinion. Like you said, it all depends on how common those things are in your universe & in the case of hackers, how proficient they tend to be. Without counting up comics, I can't say for certain that it's especially rare in the Marvel Universe, but I don't get the impression that it's common (at least in relation to Iron Man).

 

I've seen him make in-combat repairs often enough to think it doesn't follow the full Durability rules for Focus. It's not a matter of how easy it is (I'd think it would require a skill roll with modifiers for cutting down time & being distracted in combat), but that he can do it at all. Normally a focus cannot be repaired/replaced in combat all. That's what I meant by it being easier to repair than a normal Focus.

 

Also, it's rather common that IM's powers aren't knocked out but are instead reduced in power. That's not the way Foci work. Foci are either completely destroyed or not.

 

Now, I haven't done a count of how many issues Stark makes mid-combat repairs vs. having to go back to base; or how often powers are reduced rather than outright destroyed, but it seems to me that they happen more often than not. It likely varies by writer anyway.

This may vary from writer to writer, but I can recall more instances of the armor being destroyed/irrepairably damaged, than his making field repairs. Maybe i'll throw this one by Busiek (who once listed every instance, yes EVERY, of someone shooting/stabing at Thor to determine if he was bullet proof).

The reduced in powers comment is a good point. As a GM I consider it a minor point to adjust the works/don't works element of Focus since there is no point difference between breakable or unbreakable.

But, it is a valid concern for power armor characters. If you buy your powers in a Focus, you won't be able to make in-combat repairs (out of combat field repairs possibly), and powers will be knocked out wholesale rather than just reduced to half effectiveness or intermittently cut out.

Continuing from above, with no point change for breakable/unbreakable, what is wrong with repairs if following a consistant routine. What is the difference between having the spare suit shipped from the base and having to make an Engineering roll at -6 and expend 10 minutes of time?

Well, I've done what I could to clarify where I'm coming from. My main point that I've wanted to get across, however, is that not all breakable things are Foci nor are all removable things. Those two criteria (along with other Focus criteria) need to be examined more closely before saying 'it's has to be a focus'.

True, and this is why I brought up campaign setting. I think ultimately setting may be the ultimate factor in deciding between OIHID and OIF. We could both run campaigns in the Marvel Universe, DCU, or Champions Universe but have entirely different settings.

Largely irrelevant now as Steve has made an official ruling on weather you can take extra actions while waiting for OIHID powers to activate. His ruling was that you can't, so it does actually work different than the Extra Time limitation. That does present a problem for OIHID characters as they've got to take an actual Action to change forms. As IM has managed to automate this now (at least partly), you'd have to construct a power to get around this, just like having to construct a power to get around the 12 second removal of a focus.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the update. But as I think, it depends on what constitutes struggling, too. Stark can move with all armor systems off-line. Not that this changes your point since we've seen him completely KO'd and people have trouble opening the armor.

I'm a tad confused by your wording here, but let me rephrase my stance and we'll see if we're actually just vigorously agreeing.

 

I agree that having just OIHID does not account for the fact that the armor can be removed while the armor is being worn. That's part of the reason while Restrainable would be needed. Basically, OIHID allows you to be caught with your pants down but once they're on, they stay on. Restrainable allows others to take your pants from you (once they cut through your titanium suspenders), but you're considered to be wearing them by default. With both together, you're not wearing them by default & once they've been put on, they can be taken from you.

Where I see the problem is that OIHID does not require an item to gain that form unless you ALWAYS have access to it.

Let me expand: Iron Man must travel to whereever his armor is (briefcase, car, etc) open the package and put on the armor. We've seen this happen very quickly with some versions of the armor but he can easily be separated from the armor. Contrast with the Credit Card Soldier's power armor that could be essentially summoned from little cards they carried.

My interpretation for losing OIHID powers mainly comes from the line "never seems to lose his suit for long". You can lose the suit, but you'll get it back/replace it quicker than you would with a focus. Note, that specifically, you'd have to lose it either while you're not wearing it or while in the process of putting it on. By OIHID, once it's on, it's too late.

This is where this becomes subjective. It is a question of how often you think the armor is lost.

Re: Generation Ship Campaigns

Elizabeth Moon's Generation Warriors features a generation ship. One of the main characters keeps having to enter stasis due to injury or disaster and lives each part of her life in different generations.

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Sorry for any difficulty reading the above post. How do you split up your quote boxes like you do?

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

Yep.

 

 

 

Certainly a legal construction, but the persistent power leaves me a tad uneasy. I'd rather find a way of building it that didn't involve something as potentially abusive as a 0END, Continuous, Uncontrolled power. Also, it's debatable that there is a "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances which will turn it off." (HSR 175) for Iron Man's armor. Defeating the armor's security systems may be obvious, but does it count as common? Maybe. That's something that will vary from campaign to campaign.

 

I would say, given the commonness of EMP pulses, super-computer hackers, and magnetic manipulators that IM meets the definition of common. Our own HERO games may differ from the Marvel U.

 

 

That may be, but as I've mentioned in other posts, the effects of how the armor is most often damaged (reduced in power or intermittent working rather than destroyed) and the ease with which Tony has been able to make repairs both violate the mechanics of Durability for Focus.

 

I would disagree here. And i've rarely seen him make "easy repairs". Usually he needs to return to base and get a new armor.

 

I still dispute counts 2 and 5 for the above reasons.

 

Which are items we see differently. You say his armor is hard to damage and easily repairable. I haven't seen this.

 

 

Actually, OIHID does not say that it requires an action it change forms. It simply states "the change must take at least a Full Phase". Full Phase is a measurement of time, not necessarily Actions. If you look at similar limitations, not allowing the character to do anything else during the activation time is worth an additional limitation. I have posted a question to the 'Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions' Forum for clarification on this issue. Also, considering Stark is probably at least SPD 4 (maybe 3 but I doubt it), a Full Phase is only about 3 seconds. That's fairly reasonable for a single panel of a comic book.

 

True, but if I can take a half move...and change form. Thats not a full phase shift.

 

 

This portion is only true for OIHID. The lesser version of Restrainable can be lost, just not as easily as a Focus would be. It requires special circumstances along the lines of surgery, breaking past security systems, overcoming magical wardings, etc.

 

My first several comments were directed towards OIHID. But if you have separate limits on a power, they all must apply in full. So I can address being lost as a matter of just OIHID

 

With Restrainable, an OIHID power can be lost. Also, an OIHID power can be lost, but it's easier to recover/replace than a Focus would be.

 

Could you clearify this? I didn't read OIHID this way.

 

BTW, this is the kind of post that helps us get somewhere. It's well thought-out, organized and sticks to the topic at hand. Well posted, SleepyDrug.

Thank you for the compliment.

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

Caps shield and Thors hammer are classic OAF focus.

 

But then again how often are they without them? But when some one really tries to take it away permanently the character is in real trouble, especially thor as he utterly hopeless without it.

 

I like the sugestion that stunning makes you drop a focus, have to spend a phase picking it up. nice

Well, mjolnir (Thor's hammer) is really OIF due to the enchantment that causes it to return. As for Cap?

Crossbones has disarmed him in 3/5 fights. Once he nearly decapitated Cap with his own shield.

Molecule Man destroyed it once, so did Ultron, and Thanos, and it broke while lost.

Cap has lost the shield for extended periods and needed replacements: once as The Captain, once as Man Without a Country, once at the start of vol 3.

Cap has thrown the shield and needed to retrieve it later in the fight several times.

If you are a long time reader of Cap, you'll see he often has OAF style problems.

Re: Harry Potter HERO

Have you considered a VPP with multiple skill rolls.

The book mentions how good most wizards are by magical types. Harry is superior at defensive charms, but middling with potions. Hermione is great at most things while Nevell is only good with herbology.

Broom flying would be combat pilot; someone like Harry could have levels to represent high skill.