RDU Neil

Re: Super Action rules interpretation This isn't a "build" question, but an "in game maneuver" question. Can someone turn off desol midway through a move through attack, to pass through stuff on their way to the target, then be solid to hit the target at the end?

Interpretation of Action question: I'm very interested in hearing how some of you would interpret the following: A villain with a forcewall... a speedster with desolidification. Speedster wants to run at through the forcewall desolid and then turn solid and hit them. It is very "in concept" but likely violates the rules. Those of you who really are into the RAW of Hero... how would you interpret these actions? Can a zero phase action (turning on or off a power) happen in the middle of another action (in this case, move through)? Would the character need to "Turn desol, half move through wall, turn solid, strike" by the RAW? (This seems much more in line with the rules IMO.) I, personally, as the GM would like to allow a combination of Int and Dex roles to judge timing and distance by the character... failure at which could mean a variety of screw ups... but still allow the potential. I would just like to compare that idea with the RAW. (Again, I understand that as GM, I can allow any interpretation I want... I'd just like to get an objective RAW statement on this, as I have no access to 5th Ed at this time.) thanks

Re: "Super Heroes" vs. "Superheroes" HOLY Thread Necro, Batman!

Re: Beginning the "End of Days" If you do it, let us know how it works out. It takes openness from all... so that the GM is open to input from players... players are open to input from others on their character... etc. I'd suggest having people come in with just a two sentence description of their character... and nothing more. Let the details and further aspects fleshout in the story telling. THEN go make the characters in detail, with points and all. Hope it works for you!

Re: Beginning the "End of Days" Let the play group come up with it. One thing I did once was have an initial session, where folks just "story told" a bit of their origins and past adventures... and everyone got to jump in and add to it, linking their characters and the like... and the play group essentially built up a "history" for their characters and the group so that everyone felt that when actual play started, they already knew each other and had a sense of continuity. I even did this as part of a large metacampaign with 15 years of history... retroactively adding in the characters as having existed for a while and how they had fit into past events, or been shaped by them... as well as simply creating all new elements of teh world that hadn't been fleshed out, yet. It was a fascinating free form experiment that was really successful... with both experienced long term players and newbies at the table. Try it for your campaign and see what the players come up with. When the campaign starts, with many elements based on their own input, you'll have inherent buy in and commitment to the game from the start. Remember... it isn't how well the charcters know each other... it is how well the players know eachother and the game.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Skinwalker: --- From GM: From Skinwalker:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Impetus: From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Crusader: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Crusader: From Skinwalker: From Speedball: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Impetus: From Crusader: From Skinwalker: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Crusader: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Impetus: From Speedball: --- From GM: From Impetus: From GM:

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage.

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage. Yeah... reading this, I'd instinctively rule that no Body penetrated so this rule didn't come into effect. Stun penetrated... and such a great amount of stun caused a loss of Body... but Body damage didn't penetrate. I think this has only come up occasionally... and I ruled on the fly that since it is "stun inflicted body" that the person takes it, not the focus. BUT... if it was more dramatic and cool for the suit of armor to take the Body instead... "You are gasping for air... and worse... your boot jets are offline!" That would be something I'd suggest and let the player decide. Dramatic players might enjoy one or the other. I'd also rule on the fly that a quick system reboot gets the jets back online... whereas if it had been a laser beam attack targeting the suit that did body, I'd say it was broken until it could be fixed after combat. The nuances of the situations make for nuanced GM calls and thus more nuanced play. Again... the rules are there to help simulate dramatic action stuff. Every time the rule comes up it could be applied differently as long as the play group likes the ruling and thinks it is neat! Default is that the Stun induced Body damage is to the character... but other interpretations are cool... if they make the game cool.

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage. Yeah... I've often thought about this. The basic function is that Stun is dealt out a 3.5 times the amount of body, on average. That spread leads to the traditional... "I need 35 PD to feel like a brick in resisting stun... and that far outclasses any possible Body happening from normal attacks." If you reduce that spread... by say adding a x2 multiplier to Body on Normal attacks... you get a very different "feel" in the game. I've never played with it enough to know if I liked it... and the +20 Stun + 1 Body rule covered what we wanted in our play group. Have you played with a Body multiplier? How did it work out?

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage. This I don't understand. The rules for many combat maneuvers and the "effect" of being stunned or knocked unconscious are not "on the character sheet." This house rule is just creating a new "effect" of certain power interactions... not a power construct, not a part of any one character in particular... but a game rule that creates a certain kind of game play. In early Champions there were lots of things that didnt' exist that do now... lots of martial maneuvers or combat stuff like "bouncing" and attack. Certain effects of powers like negative characteristics and such. Only over time did certain effects get built into the game. But they aren't "on the character sheet" in any way shape or form. This rule just adds an "effect" to the game, and has nothing to do with RAW or cooked.

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage. No... sorry.. I was incomplete. 20 Stun after defenses from a SINGLE ATTACK. So... a really big shot has a chance of doing one body, maybe. Sometimes mega hits that do 40+ stun after defenses do two body... and usually Con Stun the target or knock 'em out completely... or worse. So... only occassionally is more Body done... and then, only on really big hits... but it allows for the possibility of massive damage doing body over time to massive defenses.

Re: House Rule: Only half of your defense stops body damage.

Re: Defence Stacking Stacking defenses is a clear example of mechanical interactions. The system is defined by mechanical interactions. Current Hero has a very clear "rats ass" POV on stacking defenses. It says, "Stacking Defenses is fundamentally part of the core mechanics. Defenses are generic, and mechanically interact as stackable layers of the same thing, no matter what Power provides them." I'm just saying that this core axiom was developed from the original Champions game which wanted high defenses to make characters very hard to hurt. My thought was whether or not this core axiom is appropriate in a Hero System that has far outstripped its original concepts as a Supers game, and that easily stackable defenses often are counterproductive to the non-Supers games that Hero claims to support. Nice to see you are as mellow and amiable in your conversations as ever, Ghost Angel.

Re: Defence Stacking This actually goes to a core axiom of Hero that has been there from the beginning. Attacks are expensive and unique and non-stackable... where defenses are cheap and generic and very stackable. I believe this was intentional, to create a very Superheroic feel of big damage being thrown into big defenses where no real injury or such took place. With Hero now clearly moved well beyond the classic Champions model, I think the question of "Should defenses be so cheap?" and "Should defenses be stackable?" should be addressed clearly. Like, if I have armor with forcefield on top of it (in concept) does the FF take the hit FIRST and then the armor? It sometimes makes a difference. As noted above, many of these issues come out in Heroic/equipment based/crunchy campaigns... supers being much more generalized in nature. I'd still be quite happy with something D&D like that said, "Only one bonus from a certain kind of defense"... so you could stack FF and Armor... but not two FFs.

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Crusader: From Impetus: From Speedball: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Crusader: From Skinwalker: From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Impetus: From Speedball: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Crusader: From Speedball: From Skinwalker: From Crusader: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Speedball: From Crusader: From Skinwalker: From Impetus: From Speedball: From Impetus: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Crusader: From Speedball: From Impetus: From Skinwalker: --- From GM:

Re: PBEM - RDU: The Mavericks - Example & Discussion From Skinwalker: From Impetus: From Crusader: From Skinwalker: From Speedball: --- From GM: