RDU Neil

Thanks aylwin (long time no talk), that is exactly what I was thinking, and how I built it in the end. Perfect!

I'm sure there is a thread somewhere on this, but I couldn't find it. Thought I'd see what the gurus suggest. Earth shaping dude. Wants to be able to "wave of hand" make flat ground into a wall... or create a domed hut, or stone columns grow out of the ground... and they are permanent. This is NOT using TK to push the earth around, but more of a "transform - earth from one shape to another"... which is how I want to buy it, but everything in 6th ED is about transforming a "target" and only something about human sized. I'm thinking Transform, AE, Xd6 Minor (earth from one shape to another), maybe cummulative. Does that seem about right? (This is not usually for combat purposes... like he still is buying Barrier for that, etc.) Is there something I'm missing? UNTIL Superpower Database doesn't even list anything like this, but for earthmoving with TK. This is much more than that. I'm assuming it really comes down to being able to define how much "body" is in the earth being shaped? How is that determined? Is there a chart for "body of dirt?" somewhere? heh.

Doc... that is the basic concept, yes. Not arbitrary, but, like with KA, a reasonable limit when using equipment. It can only do so much. That gets a bit fuzzy when the equipment is an indestructible staff of God... heh... but that shouldn't mean it gets to do unlimited damage. Thanks!

Yes... I've factored in the STR minimum in this case, and that is one control... but 10d6 is still pretty crazy. Basically just wondering if newer Hero rules updates had provided any controls on normal damage weapon attacks, similar to KA weapon attacks. Maybe that's a "no." Thanks!

It has been years since I've been looking at Hero, but I'm running a game again and coming back to an old problem. At Heroic Level, it is too easy for a martial artist type, with weapon element, and something like a quarter staff, to very quickly be doing superhero levels of damage. There was always a nice control on KAs, where adding STR can't more than double a KA damage. ON Hand Attacks (adding normal dice) the ability to stack to crazy levels was always a quick way to break a game. Question... are there newer rules around this I should reference? Is it logical to say "Of all the things being stacked, the largest value is the base, and that base can't be more than doubled." ?? Example... 20 STR/4d6 (crazy high for Heroic level, but happens)... plus Offensive Strike (another 4d6)... plus Quarter Staff (another 4d6)... and suddenly you have a martial artist hitting at super-Brick levels. TOTALLY fine for Superheroic... but for Heroic, how about this maxing out at 8d6, no more than doubling the highest base value? Thanks for any thoughts on this.

Re: Bell curve spread? I don't know from "doubling cap" issues... but then, I was a 4thEd proponent still, when I left... never did get behind 5th fully. I can see how difficult it could be to continue to publish in this harsh economomy and digital takeover of media. I worked for 19 plus years in the book industry... and now am somewhere very different after running the unemployment hell-race for a year or so. Impressed that Hero is still here at all, really.

Re: Bell curve spread? Ah... my work is done here. See you all in a couple of years!

Re: Bell curve spread? Hey, Doc! Glad to see you are still representing from across the pond!

Re: Bell curve spread? Now THAT is what I've missed on these boards. Yes!

Re: Bell curve spread?

Re: Bell curve spread? "the big argument seems to be "Will here go under", and "Should they have decoupled figured characteristics" Do you mean "Will Hero go under?" As for the decoupling of figured characteristics... in my brief glances at 6th Edition, that was the one thing that I really liked, at least in concept. I'll have to dig up some threads around that, because while it was a very traditional Hero mechanic, and made sense at a certain conceptual level, I always felt it was at the core of many mechanical loopholes and min-maxing issues that were better avoided. Interesting.

Re: Bell curve spread? Ah ha! What Escafarc posted was exactly what I was looking for. Thanks! And Killer Shrike, Bloodstone, Sean Waters... serious blasts from the past! So... what's new with Hero? I haven't been active since before 6th Edition came out, so what are the big system arguments going on these days?

It has been years since I've been on this forum. Nice to know it still exists, though it looks very different. I even see many names I recognize from the past. A simple question... I'm sure the answer has been posted here in the past... what are the percentages for the 3d6 bell curve? Likelihood to roll a 3, a 4, etc. I did a few searches, but couldn't find anything. I know there are quite a few stats gurus out there who could answer this in their sleep, so thanks ahead of time! Neil

Re: Hit Location and armor conundrum At some point, years ago, I mapped out the Hit Location as follows. 3 - Face 4 - Skull 5- Throat 6 - Hands 7 - Forearm 8 - Upper Arm 9 - Shoulder 10,11 - Chest 12 - Stomach 13 - Groin, Kidneys, Etc. 14,15 - Thigh 16 - Knee 17 - Shin 18 - Foot I think that was how I did it. Worked well, and the only odd bit was the Knee (16 I think) which I thought should have be increased Stun multiple... usually just ruled incapacitation was greater when that applied. Also... the Hit Location chart was great for ranged combat, but I always felt that even the Upper/Middle/Lower elements for HtH combat didn't work so well... though I did use them. Might work for you.

Re: Speeding Up Combat I really like this one and have used it before. I had a big gang war... two large gangs with supers on both side and the good guy and cops caught int he middle. Every five gang/cops... was one opponent with a standard CV and Damage. Damage done hurt or eliminated another group. If a group had a Super with them, the super was played as normal, but the group got bonuses to CV and damage. I would also support the suggestion that all but the most important villains and heroes have stats simply "X damage if they hit... will take 1 hit, 2 hits, 3 hits before going down" done. Even minor supervillains can be played this way. The important thing is that, as GM, you decide what happens based on what is dramatic. Use lots of dramatic description with ultra-simplified rolls that the players can participate in. "Ok... as you dance around with Der Fleidermaus, a squad of US Marines makes a counter attack, rushing at the Nazi frogmen Thompson's blazing!" Then have a player roll the attack "Marines have 5 OCV and the Frogmen have 6 DCV for cover and range. Roll it! The better you roll, the more damage done!" Then use one roll to resolve that salvo. "You rolled an 8! Whee! The Marines pour it on and cut most of the Frogmen to ribbons, driving the others back into cover for the moment!" or "Rolled a 14?! Damn! The Nazi's were prepared. They move forward undercover of the sea wall and now that Marine squad is exposed for the counter attack!" That kind of thing makes combat really flavorful, and you can spend time with the details on the named hero fights.

Re: Dispell: Ranged?

Quick question... rep to the first to answer. I don't have a book readily available. I can't remember if Dispell has Range built in or not. Do you need to buy the 1/2 Advantage ranged, or is it inherently a ranged attack of sorts. I think it is NOT ranged, but I can't remember. Thanks!

Re: Super Action rules interpretation Heh... I had to ask the same thing like two weeks ago. It is a great acronym... if you know what it means.

Re: Super Action rules interpretation Great post... and no I don't take it as an attack at all. It is a perfect example of what I mean when the two approaches can be opposing in game play. I know people who would absolutely expect and feel justified to play by the "is it on your sheet?" kind of game. They would feel cheated by a GM allowing loose interpretation for dramatic sake, when they had spent so much time trying to engineer the most complete character and wanted that to really mean something. Just as those who'd get quite p.o.'d if a rule meant for game balance is used to say, "no you can't do that schtick, no matter how cool it would seem." Actual play often reveals these things and I totally agree with you that what the GM really means is "it would hinky things up" but uses the "not per the rules." In some folks defense, they KNOW that the rules exist as is in order to "not hinky things up" and thus "no, that isn't on your sheet" is implicitly saying that. Unfortunately the message gets lost. In many ways, Hero leaves itself so open to interpretation that it generates these miscommunication areas. Whenever I've talked about "Please put design intent into the book" this is exactly what I want to see. Things as simple as, "The reason the game doesn't allow multiple on-offs of powers in a single phase is because certain powers like Desol and Force Wall can be quite abusive and unbalancing, so this general rule prevents that." Explain the intent of the rule when possible. It is also the age old curse of the GM that they are judged as being unfair when they break the rules against the player, but never get recognized when they break the rules in the player's favor. People instinctively want to put the decision on "the rules" rather than on themselves, 'cause they avoid the potential reaction of what might be seen as arbitrary or unfair. Also... one of the reasons I point this out is that on these threads it is interesting to see how certain people answer from a "Well, how would you allow this as a GM" and others jump to "How would I build a power construct to achieve that?" kind of answer. We are all formed by our environments, and to your point, your environment has rewarded the engineer, so you are primed to think that way as often as not. Not right or wrong... but different enough that people need to recognize when they might seem like they are talking about the same thing, but are really in different worlds.

Re: Super Action rules interpretation No... i totally agree that this is the best answer. Use two actions to set yourself up to do it, so you are using the base, clean, functional rules and not trying to break them, or create a kludgy power stunt. It was just that I framed the initial question as "Can this be done in one action..." and got the answer I expected, which was "no"

Re: Super Action rules interpretation At this point the discussion has gone far beyond my initial question... but hey, thread tangents are fun. What we get into now are very different game philosophies and interpretations of Hero. To me... having to start worrying about weird builds with telelportation and STR usable when desol and such is not a good thing. Basically, I have a Speedster who can move fast and vibrate through solid objects. I want to move through objects and hit something on the far side in one action. The game answers this very simply... no, you can't for game balance reasons. To me, that is fine. To others it seems to instill this desire to go out and find mechanical power builds in order to simulate the effect wanted. Neither interpretation is right or wrong... but they are sometimes at odds with each other in terms of actual game play and "fun." I find nothing fun about digging around with strange power builds to generate specific effects. The whole "stunt build" thing is WAY over done, IMO. Yet others really get into it. Part of the fun and challenge of Hero is to "engineer" cool game effects through power builds. The big issue is that both of these are possible, but they actually indicate very different and often opposing game play styles and desires. I'm of the school that the harder it is to build an effect, the more you need to realize the game is telling you "don't do this" and so it becomes a philosophical question of "how and when do I allow this rule breakage in actual play that doesn't degenerate the game"... whereas the other side is saying, "Anything is possible as long as you throw enough points and engineered power constructs at it." The philosopher's approach to play vs. the engineer's. On the philosopher side, my question is, "Why should it be so hard to create a pretty standard genre convention with Hero?" That leads to "Because in game play of an RPG as opposed to a written story in a comic book, that genre convention is unbalancing." This leads to, "Ok, so the real question is, how do we (or do we at all) incorporate the genre convention without it breaking the game?" Which leads to "Why do we even want that genre convention?" Normally the answer is either, "eh... we don't really, it isn't that big a deal or is actually something we actively don't like" or "the convention is pretty cool and dramatic in the right moments." Now the real question is revealed... "How do we allow for Dramatic use of character abilities that are probably game unbalancing if considered a conventional use ability?" That's the way my mind works. While I completely understand the "power construct/power stunt" way of thinking, it is unnaturaly, mind numbing and decidedly un-fun for me to do or discuss. I dislike having to jump through Rube Goldberg-like hoops for what is a very clean and simple concept. The engineer LOVES those hoops. That hoop jumping is part of the absolute appeal of Hero. That puzzle building, mechanical functioning is entertaining for its own sake in many ways, and thus drives a very different method of problem solving. Both create a very, VERY different feel in actual play, because play is based on interpretation in RPGs. The SIS is all about shared imaginary interpretation about "how things work." I find it fascinating... and the reason I post this, is that I think a lot of Hero interpretation discussions talk past each other... 'cause one person is an engineer and the other more a philosopher and they aren't really approaching things from the same stance at all... and my not even define the problem in the same way.

Re: Super Action rules interpretation Yeah... a blue chit solves this completely! Unfortunately, this is an online game and "throwing chits" isn't so effective. Really, the question is one of me verifying the RAW before I make my call. Thanks (and Rep) to all!

Re: Super Action rules interpretation Great reference. I hadn't realized (still stuck in 4th ED in my mind) that the "can't turn on and off in same phase" rule existed. Still... this implies that if a character STARTED the phase desol already, he could move and turn it off and then attack... hmmmm. I wonder how much this "rule" exists purely because of the power of desol. What other power has such munchkin issues if allowed to be turned on and off multiple times in a single phase? thanks

Re: Super Action rules interpretation A half move to turn off a power? Really? Wow. I totally missed that. Thanks for the reference.

Re: Super Action rules interpretation If he wanted to buy a build like that... could be cool, yes. He doesn't have that power, so I was really trying to look at just the manuever of Move-Through, married with the maneuver of zero phase action to turn off a power.