Jump to content

Starlight

HERO Member
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Starlight

  1. Re: Dream Park Hero? This is slightly off the main topic but still relating to Dream Park. One of the features of Dream Park I've thought about trying to implement, but never done so as yet, is having the other players play NPC's in those scenes where one or more characters has the spotlight. While the idea is highly appealing the downside that's discouraged me is the sheer amount of work required in fleshing out all those NPC's to the point a player can pick up the NPC and play the NPC in a manner consistent with the underlying game logic. Has anyone tried this? If so, how did it work?
  2. One of the players in a Supers game (6th edition) I'm helping to run wants to build the following power - a megascale teleport from a deployed teleport pad to any other already deployed teleport pad. He intends his character to have four such pads available, able to deploy a pad in his character's current location while the character has any left. The teleport pads have the capability to teleport his character and another character. Now this seems simple enough; until we add in the fact that this is wanted in a gadget VPP. The teleport pads being foci in the gadget variable power pool. I'm trying to help the player, who isn't all that familiar with the Hero system. I started out with fixed locations, one for each teleport pad, and the megascaled teleport limited to fixed locations only. Although this works as such, for purely aesthetic preference, I'd like to create the power as a self-contained VPP slot without needing fixed locations bought outside the VPP. However I'm coming up short on ideas how to achieve this. Short version: build a teleport in a VPP that allows going from one location to a limited set of other locations, each location needing a 'teleport pad' to be previously deployed, the power to be contained entirely within a VPP slot without needing fixed locations bought outside the VPP. Can it be done this way?
  3. Re: Cannot Combine Duplication The limitation specifically excludes giving Innate, so it can be Drained or Dispelled. However the Mind Control point is valid. Congratulations. You win the prize. That's an actual genuine benefit. Repped.
  4. Re: Cannot Combine Duplication There's no doubt about the benefits of Duplication. But that's not the issue I raised in my original comment. The Cannot Recombine limitation for Duplication states that it's a -0 value because the benefits of not being able to recombine and the drawbacks of not being able to recombine cancel out. Now I could agree with a ruling that the drawbacks of not being able to recombine aren't significant enough to be worth anything more than a -0. But the book text specifically mentions benefits of not being able to recombine and I can't actually think of a single benefit. So what are they?
  5. Re: Working Notes for my Campaign Conversion to 6E Greywind, thanks for the heads up on Repping. If it works you just got Repped.
  6. Re: Easiest way to... emulate 5th negative skill levels in 6th It's not entirely obvious, as in there's nothing that specifically addresses the question either for or against, but the impression I got after reading fairly carefully through the 6th edition Change Environment is that OCV and DCV penalties have been dropped from the range of possible effects. The 5th edition CE distinguished between CV penalties and Characteristic Roll penalties. In 6th edition there's no mention of CV penalties. But OCV and DCV are now listed under characteristics, so can they still be affected? If the answer was yes I'd have expected one of the sidebar examples to illustrate that. None do however. If this has been answered in a previous post, such a post has escaped my poor search-fu skills.
  7. Re: Working Notes for my Campaign Conversion to 6E Fascinating reading. Repped, provided I worked out how to do that on the new forum software. It's an insight into the problems that anyone converting an existing campaign will face. Especially the manner in which characters are going to be impacted in differing degrees by the conversion process. Character teams that were well balanced are going to encounter the same issues you've described so clearly. I hope you'll post again to relate how your group eventually resolves those issues. I suspect the same issues will loom even more significantly with a full blooded superhero campaign. Would anyone who's already done that conversion job care to comment?
  8. So I'm reading through the 6th pdf and get to Duplication. There's this, unchanged from 5th edition as I recall This Limitation represents a form of Duplication that doesn’t allow the Duplicates to recombine. Typically this is a -0 Limitation, since the benefits and drawbacks to this situation balance out, but the GM may alter the value as he sees fit. As I'm skimming past it suddenly occurs to me... what benefits? And you know, I can't think of any benefits for not being able to recombine. The limitation does not confer Innate, so a Drain or Suppress can still force recombination. Without this limitation the duplicates can recombine, but do not have to. I'm playing a 5th edition character with duplication (that's why I was reading up on 6th edition duplication) where the duplicates don't know they can recombine. They duplicated at birth and have been bought up believing they are twins. There's been occasions during the years of play this character as seen when recombining, if only they knew it was possible, would have been very useful. But the converse isn't true because recombining is a voluntary action and the character doesn't have to do it. So there's no benefit to not recombining that a character without the limitation can't get by simply deciding not to recombine. I throw this open to the floor. What benefits are there? What am I missing?
  9. Re: Negatory Applying the mathematical definition of floor as that which you cannot go below, since you can self-evidently go below 9- that is clearly not the floor. As to whether 9- is a good choice of lower limit? Your opinion is as valid as mine. It's purely a matter of personal preference. A character with 0 DEX has a 9- base chance of success in a DEX based skill roll. A lump of rock has no chance of making such a DEX based skill roll. So the character with 0 DEX is still getting a benefit from having a DEX characteristic. The characteristic is obviously not gone as the character is able to use mere possession of the characteristic as a reason to be allowed to make a skill roll. (As a GM I'd never prohibit a player from trying to make a skill roll even if their character's relevant characteristic had been drained to zero. I would probably pick something less than 9- for the chance though. (And then add back in situational modifiers if it was a suitably heroic and needed action to give the player a good chance of making it. Rules take second place to group enjoyment in my games. That I personally would ignore the analysis given above doesn't make it any less accurate however.)
  10. Re: Negatory Sean, correct me if I'm missing your main point but it seems that your concern is that it's not possible with a fixed floor for a characteristic value of zero (0) to completely nullify the benefits of the affected characteristic. The point was mentioned that draining EGO to 0 only reduced the base EGO breakout roll to 9-. Unlike an Energy Blast drained away to 0pts when the power is totally useless, in the case of EGO, and some additional characteristics, you haven't reached a true floor. There are still residual benefits; 9- base rolls for skills is one such benefit. Alternatives which have been suggested, the Transform to mindless state, for example, are not solutions to the basic issue. In the case of the Transform it is perfectly suitable for some special effects - but fails to provide a valid means of steadily draining away a target's EGO until they reach the point of mindlessness. Modelling, as a counter example, a surgical procedure where a person's brain is 'switched off' by an implanted device would be a suitable case for the Transform rather than an EGO drain. EGO drain and Transform are different powers for a good reason. It seems to be, in my view, that the true floor for many characteristic values is actually -27. What I mean by this is that we can rewrite the classic skill roll formula as 0 + (CHA+27)/3 Resetting the 0 value for characteristics to what is now the -27 value would allow a smooth reduction of base skill and EGO breakout rolls all the way down to 0. I'm not in any way suggesting this. It would wreak utter havoc in many other aspects of the rules. But as an academic exercise it gives a fresh viewpoint from which to look at this issue. As a quick and dirty solution within the 6th edition rules regarding characteristics, a house rule that a characteristic value of zero (0) means that characteristic provides NO benefits. Skills based on the characteristic are not useable at all. Characters with an EGO value of zero (0) do not get a breakout roll. If you want to be a little less harsh, pick an arbitrary base for a zero valued characteristic, 3- or 5- or whatever.
  11. Re: Champions 6th version I'm thinking it's not a matter of how many Champions (Hero) players also started to play CoH when it began, but rather how many CoH players subsequently took up playing Hero? The former is not too surprising to me. Champions players obviously like superhero games and CoH hardly strained their brains. Reflexes possibly. Brains no. CoH players clearly like superhero games too, but the mental challenge of Hero System is an order of magnitude greater than CoH.
  12. Re: Cage Barrier ghost-angel is correct. This is an advantage on Barrier. The modified power in question isn't providing a reduced utility from the basic Barrier power. It's providing reduced utility on a Barrier bought with the One Way Transparent advantage. I'd already given this some thought, see the last paragraph of my post in the initial Barrier thread, and decided that for my house rules halving the advantage value of One Way Transparent for a Barrier that is transparent in both directions probably seems reasonable. Comments welcome. So transparent in both directions to a limited class of attacks is +1/4 and transparent to all attacks (except a limited class) is +1/2. e.g. Barrier (Cage) - 10 PD/6 ED, 10 Body, 5m wide and 3m high, Transparent to all attacks (Solid objects larger than the space between the bars of the cage cannot pass through) +1/2 You can fire an energy blast through it in either direction. Shoot at and damage the bars. Shoot a bullet through in either direction. But not pass through it unless you had shrinking or were naturally small enough or had a malleable body. A Brick could not throw a truck through at someone on the other side. It's a pretty accurate representation of a barred barrier.
  13. Re: 6E Cool Stuff Shout-Outs Rearranging the basic to-hit formula. Probably the smallest change between 5th and 6th. But an improvement that will only increase in value as the continuous hours of playing mount up and a few beers are consumed. Anyone who's see a game grind to a halt at 3am in the morning as the group, which includes several maths graduates, struggle to figure out what's needed to hit DCV 9 will know exactly what I mean.
  14. Re: Power Discussion: Barrier Correct me if I'm reading this wrong but the above implies that you, a SETAC member, never had a chance to see Barrier in use in a game? I'd wondered, given the impressive speed with which 6th edition emerged after the 6th edition discussion forum was locked, how much time had been available for play-testing the changes. It would concern me greatly if the answer was little or none. In any large complex project, and the Hero System with roughly 800 pages in the core books certainly qualifies as such, it's almost a truism that the first iteration will be flawed. Often deeply flawed. There's even a saying regarding this in programming, 'Build the first version to throw it away'. In general I'm more impressed with 6th edition, in my so far incomplete reading through of the books, than I expected to be. It is an improvement on 5th edition in my opinion. Numerous minor improvements and a few major improvements. So I'm not beating down on it. But there are more than a few rough edges that I would not have expected to see. Issues that play-testing should have caught. Barrier is the roughest of those edges I've encountered so far. Great concept, of that there's no doubt, and the 7th edition version will probably be quite excellent. (cf. Megascale, introduced in 5th edition with some significant flaws. 6th edition Megascale is vastly improved.) In the current incarnation, however, it shows signs of rushed finalisation, a lack of objective thought about the fringe uses (such as englobing opponents rather than creating barriers) and a degree of uncertaincy over exactly where it stands within the underlying Instant/Constant meta-structure. I don't want to be criticising. I want to be saying it's a fantastic achievement and I'm going to enjoy playing and running it. It is. I will. But if I see what appears to be a problem I'm not going to ignore it. This thread, the responses to points raised by others and myself, will help shape whatever house ruling is finally made in my group regarding Barrier. If these issues are not raised there can be no discussion about them.
  15. Re: 6E Cool Stuff Shout-Outs Megascale. Improved immeasurably.
  16. Re: Power Discussion: Barrier So I've just finished reading through the Barrier power write-up. Did anyone else blink in amazement at this part of the write up? "An attacker could use a Move By/Through to try to hit a target on the other side of a Barrier .... If his Attack Roll against the target on the other side of the Barrier fails, he stops dead at the edge of the Barrier but takes no damage from hitting it." That's just... well, silly is the kindest word I can think of. So Cannonball in full out move-through mode charging at a 10m long 5m high Barrier flunks his roll to hit the nimble martial artist on the other side of the Barrier - and is brought to a dead stop with neither him nor the Barrier taking any damage? And please, let's not hear the 'Dramatic and Common Sense' refrain yet once more. A silly rule is a silly rule. Telling me I can override it doesn't make it any less silly. As far as the dismissable aspect is concerned I'm reminded of a house rule my group used back in the early days of Champions. We used two types of Force Wall. One was an instant fire-and-forget Force Wall rather like the new Barrier power. It was permanent. The other was a constant Force Wall which could be dismissed at will but would also go down if the creator moved out of line of sight, was knocked out or stunned, etc. That house rule is likely to be making a comeback. I can see a One Way Transparent advantage for Barrier. I cannot see any sign of the old 5th edition transparent to PD/ED advantage. Did I simply miss it - or has it been removed? If the gerenic transparent advantage is missing what would be a suitable advantage value to restore it by house rule? For a limited class of attacks (Matching the +1/2 One Way Transparent advantage) and for all attacks. Transparent against all attacks? What possible use is that? How about a hi-tech air lock force wall, built as Barrier transparent to all attacks (except gaseous) in both directions.
  17. (with apologies to Richard Feynman) There's a thread for commenting on the cool ideas in sixth edition, which is sure to grow with time. So I figured we ought to have a matching thread for commenting on the sixth edition ideas that seem, shall we say, somewhat less than optimum at first sight. This thread isn't really the place for the big issues that are sure to get full attention by forum regulars. However there sure to be, in a set of rules of this size and complexity, a number of minor items that will induce a 'you're kidding, right?' reaction when reading them. So let me start the ball rolling. 6E2 p 47. Climbing - "More difficult climbs, including most climbs that require the character to make a roll with his Climbing Skill, reduce his DCV by up to half and subtract 2 DCs from all attacks." Now, it strikes me that a character hanging by their fingernails on the side of a cliff is most certainly going to be at reduced DCV, and is hardly in a good position to swing a battleaxe with anything like full effect. However, while his chance of hitting a target are likely also reduced, should he manage it I cannot see why, if he is shooting a 44 magum, that weapon will do reduced damage.
  18. Re: AP-limit idea If you can break through an AP cap, there's no point in having an AP cap in the first place. Sure the active point cost is high, but if you have a villain stopping power you'll only need to use it once in a fight so the real cost can be lowered significantly with limitations. Charges comes to mind. That's not to say you can't have an enjoyable game where this suggestion is in use. But you need to realise you're not playing in a AP capped game any longer, and the assumptions that derive from an AP cap are no longer valid. ( The defense subtracts from damage mechanism means that an increase in an attack, once it starts getting damage through, more than proportionally increases the final effect. Putting some figures in play, a 60ap (12D6) attack versus 30 DEF does an average of 12 Stun. Increase to 120ap (24D6) and the average Stun damage is 54 Stun, which is more than 4x the final damage for 2x the AP. )
  19. Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I agree. I even made the very same point regarding figured characteristics and decoupling of OCV/DCV/OECV/DECV in the post that you quoted from. What the decoupling mentioned above does is not to expand what is possible but to make doing it more elegant. With that in mind, failing to carry through the same reasoning to the Int/Perception coupling is oddly inconsistent. Limited perception bonuses can provide situational modifiers to perception. Buying INT with a does not add to perception in X situation limitation can deal with the issue of wanting a perception less than a character's INT would normally provide. But it isn't an elegant solution, and if 6th edition is decoupling pretty much everything else leaving Int and Perception coupled seems an odd decision.
  20. Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far That restriction is, sadly, absolutely essential. Otherwise, because of the costings of characteristics, once you allow selling back multiple figured characteristics you can make selling back give you more points than the cost of increasing the primary characteristic to add the figured characteristics you're selling back. To put it another way, the more you buy the less it costs overall.
  21. Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I'm late joining the party. That's given me the chance to see how the discussion has gone so far. The basic 3d6-roll-for-success mechanic remains, and it will continue to be "roll-low." I'm glad this is unchanged. The 3d6 roll has been at the core of Hero since its inception. It wouldn't feel the same with a change here. I'd like to see the primary attack roll calculation and alternative attack roll calculation reversed in the new edition however (see 5ER p371). I've seen combats grind to a halt with bemused players desperately trying to work out what roll is needed to hit. I'm not talking of players with limited numeracy skills. Most of the group either had or were engaged in studying for advanced degrees in hard science subjects. But at three or four in the morning and after imbibing a few cans of Newcastle Brown (a strong British ale) the alternative method proved to be significantly easier to use. There also the side benefit that the player can roll and state what DCV has been hit. In the alternative attack roll calculation there's no need for the GM to reveal what DCV the opponent has. No changes to the Speed Chart. The speed chart is at the heart of the Hero combat 'feel'. The game wouldn't, in my opinion, be Hero without this in use. Extremely glad this hasn't been altered. Movement will continue to be measured per Phase. Phased movement is fundamentally unsound. In fact the only worse movement systems are everything else that I've seen suggested. So while I can see the flaws in phased movement it's arguably the best compromise in terms of simplicity in play versus realism available. So count me in the wish there was something better but not having seen anything better on offer I'm glad this hasn't been changed camp. All measurements will be given in meters. There will be no use of "hexes" or any other mapping arrangement in 6E. This is potentially nothing more than a terminology change. Wherever you saw 1" in the rules - now read 2 meters. If you want to use hex maps it's really not going to be a problem. A distance of 12 meters is going to be six hexes on the map. It's as simple as that. I'm in favor of this change simply for the elimination of the confusion that can happen when using both real inches and game inches. When I tell my group an object is six inches tall they'll now know I mean six inches, as in half a foot, and not 12 meters. Comeliness will no longer be one of the Characteristics. It's being replaced with a Talent, Striking Appearance, which a given group can choose to use in their game if they want a character's appearance to have a mechanical effect. This is a change that I'm not in favor of. I'll want to see the writeup of the talent before making any final decision. But as a base position I'm likely to be house ruling COM back into any 6th edition game I run. However the very fact that COM was so badly underutilized in game mechanic terms in 5ER means that restoring COM, and indeed expanding its role, is not going to be difficult. All the other Characteristics will remain, but none of them will be "Figured," i.e. derived from other Characteristics. They'll all start with a base value that must be bought up separately. The costs of some of them have been "tweaked" -- no further details yet. This is gravely disappointing. Figured characteristics have been a core aspect of Hero character generation since the first Champions book. They were different to, and superior to, the way every other game at that time handled characteristics, and gave Champions character generation a positive style all of its own. Yes, there are flaws in the current implementation. We all recognize that. However, discarding the principle feels very much like throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In practical terms though, the elimination of Elemental Controls also signaled the doom of figured characteristics. Having one without the other distorts game balance too severely. OCV, DCV, OECV, and DECV will become separate Characteristics, not derived from DEX and EGO. They'll start with a base value of 3 and will be bought up separately. Crazy! Insane! This is... actually not a bad idea with regard to promoting flexibility of character design. Maybe. When I get over the shock. I don't recall this being discussed in the 6th edition forums. Seems to have come into being from out of the blue. As always the details are important. So I'll make no final judgment until I see the finished writeup. This change, and discarding figured characteristics, do add conceptual complexity to the character generation process. What do I mean? I think an example is needed. If I'm building a martial artist in 5th edition I know I'll be looking for a good DEX and CVs. In campaign X I know a dexterity of 28 giving CVs of 9 will fit the bill. It's a quick, albeit slightly lazy, solution. In 6th edition though it seems I ought to think deeper about this character. Sure, I could just make the DEX 28 and the OCV and DCV each 9. Three character build point assignment operations instead of one. But that is being very lazy. What I should do is think about each aspect separately. So - increased conceptual complexity. I do wonder what proportion of characters will make use of this increased elegance in flexibility. I also note that, with admittedly ugly combinations of partially limited characteristics, everything possible in 6th edition was already feasible in 5ER. It does feel as if to make a small percentage of builds more elegant every character has to now jump though additional hoops. Suggested starting point totals will be raised to compensate for the change to Characteristics -- no specifics yet. Hopefully the new guidelines for starting point totals will be intended to allow the replication of 5ER characters in 6th edition. Moving from 250pt to 350pt characters (for my preferred game style) in the transition from 4th to 5th helped create more complete and rounded characters. It was an improvement. I think the sweetspot has been reached in that change, and would not be in favor of any further boost in starting character power. But given the announced changes an alteration in starting point totals is inevitable. Perception will still be based on INT. This is a missed opportunity. Plus it is inconsistent with the changes made to CVs. As a previous poster commented (I'm sorry, I cannot remember your name to give you credit for the quote) intelligence may be considered a perquisite for good perception but it's not a guarantee of it. Highly intelligent individuals can be unperceptive. There's also the missed opportunity of allowing for situational perception; had perception been divorced from INT. The skilled woodsman is going to be highly perceptive in the wilderness. He may well be at a loss in the city. And vice versa for the New York detective heading west after a fleeing criminal in a Wild West campaign. Some new Powers have been added, and others have been removed. The only one mentioned is Find Weakness, which is being removed. There will be no official way to reduce Defenses below 1/2 as with Armor Piercing. I have mixed feelings regarding this. I like the concept of Find Weakness. But I felt the implementation was flawed. As a previous poster commented the fixed cost regardless of the size of attack that the Find Weakness applied to was one of the flaws. The unpredictability of Find Weakness was another significant problem with the power. I noted a couple of suggestions relating to stacking Armor Piercing in the discussion so far. That might make it into a house rule as a replacement for Find Weakness in any 6th edition game I run. Adjustment Powers have been significantly reworked -- no further details yet. Good that they are going to be reworked. Until further details emerge there's no point in having an opinion though. The Stun Multiplier for Killing Attack will become a straight 1/2d6. It will still be possible to buy up the Stun Multiplier with Advantages. In my style of games this is going to be an excellent change. I can see it might have a negative impact on other styles though. On the other hand there can hardly be any easier house rule for a reversion to 5ER if that is wanted than 'use 1d6-1 instead of 1/2d6 for killing attacks'. The method of Adding Damage is supposed to be simplified -- no further details yet. Good! Again, details are the important thing. But this was urgently needed. The Multipower and VPP Frameworks will remain, but Elemental Control is being replaced by a new Limitation, Unified Power (no value given). Aside from GM oversight there will be no restrictions on what Unified Power can be applied to. Some of the options suggested in the 6th edition forums for VPPs seemed worth looking at. So I'm moderately pleased that there hasn't been any radical change to MPs or VPPs but wonder if a opportunity has been missed. As to the elimination of Elemental Controls, and the introduction of a new Unified Power construct, I'll want to see what the details are before making any judgment. Damage Shield is going to be "different" -- no details yet. Good. Damage Shield was badly handled in 5ER. A change is needed. There will be another, more granular way to make a Power ECV-targeted than using the BOECV Advantage. No specifics given, but it involves breaking the Advantage into its separate components (i.e. ECV Attack Roll, Line Of Sight, etc.) and "reassembling" them to make them more flexible (and simpler according to Steve). Steve implied that he's used this approach for other elements of the system. This is discussed in the first 6th edition highlight, and what I've seen in that thread looks kind of excellent. At last: a 6th edition 'wow' moment. Disadvantages are being renamed Complications, and Psychological Limitations will become Psychological Complications. An improvement in terminology. No functional change it would appear.
  22. Re: Why the dislike for Find Weakness? The pragmatic answer, I would suspect, is that Find Weakness makes the GM's job somewhat harder. There's always a certain amount of luck involved in the resolution of any combat. But in general dice luck plays an even handed game and experienced GMs can usually predict how much of a challenge any given opposition will present. Throwing Find Weakness into the equation can make the luck factor considerably more significant. The tough villain that's designed to give the hero term a good workout can go down in a single hit after player X gets a unlikely two or three successes with Find Weakness. Conversely, player Y fails to make even one successful Find Weakness roll and is then reduced to virtual ineffectiveness during the engagement. Neither of these outcomes is desirable from the GM's viewpoint.
  23. Re: Mending an item Transform is the way to go for this effect. It needs to be at the major transform level as you'll be making a major alteration to the function of the repaired object, from non-functional --> functional. You'll also want to add a limited group of results advantage otherwise you'll get the same dratted repaired mousetrap each time no matter what the original object was. Good as New: Major Transform 1D6 Limited Group of Results +1/4 (Restores objects to an immaculate 'good as new' condition) <19 active points>
×
×
  • Create New...