pawsplay

22 minutes ago, Spence said:

The subject is converting a group of Pendragon skills into a Hero version.

Dance as it it used in Pendragon is not a background skill.  It is used as an active skill in what can be called social combat for lack of a better term.

 

Tell me more about this social combat. Also, I would love to hear a better explanation why Pendragon, alone among all other genres from Fantasy Hero to Champions, doesn't have Background skills.

It's just expensive. If everyone is talking it, either 1) you are giving them too many points for your concept, or 2) they all want to play weapon masters. If you ban it, they will do slightly less damage, but with the option of instead being very accurate when they feel like it. Literally, you are saying, "You can take CCLs at very high levels, but only if you don't put Limitations on them."

21 hours ago, Spence said:

 

Hero is a kit and can be used to simulate what ever you want.

 

As for a game where dancing plays that role, it is easy once you read through the game Pendragon. 

And converting Pendragon to use Hero as the game system is the actual topic of this thread.

 

There have been other games that use dancing and other "courtly" skills as prime skills for the characters in court intrigue and political maneuvering. Just like some games use skills like Seduction.

 

But I have never really been interested in those styles of gaming. So while I know they exist (mostly due to my addiction for buying RPGs), I haven't actually played them. 

I've played Hero in many genres, and I've never been in a situation where I thought Background skills should be priced like standard skills. A successful PS: Dancer check is not going to have any truly predictable effect beyond going a dance. It might impress someone, or they might not care. It's not the same as Conversation, Acrobatics, Stealth, and so forth, which have defined roles in challenges. Just because a Background skill is prominent doesn't mean it stops being a Background skill. Such skills typically have a narrow focus, and that definitely describes dance. Even doing a cheerleader routine or performing a somersault is not a core use of the skill, and challenging attempts would be at a penalty. PS: Dancer does not at all substitute for adventuring uses of Acrobatics.

30 minutes ago, steph said:

Personally, I have never granted Weapon Master in my sessions. I have always found talent a clone of DND. To simulate people skilled at weapons I stick to more, OCV, CSL or martial arts. 

 

 

 

Weapon Master is actually just CSLs with a limitation.

On 12/7/2020 at 10:31 AM, zslane said:

 However, in a campaign in which an ability will have major dramatic significance, it should be a characteristic-based skill with the appropriately higher price that entails.

Why? I've never seen a skill used that way. And I can't even imagine a game where dancing plays that role. There are no dance battle rules in Hero. If some noble challenges you to a dance-off, you could just refuse. Or kidnap them. Or something. Dancing as a skill is literally just used to dance.

Dodge and Block are basic combat options. We're not talking about Martial Maneuvers. I don't know why you think a magic-user shouldn't have access to Dodge unless they have some kind of Physical Limitation.

9 hours ago, zslane said:

Okay, sure, if the skill in question is just a mundane, narratively insignificant activity akin to a job, and never used in an adventuring (or dramatically significant) context, then I agree a Background skill like KS or PS might make sense. The white hot spotlight of dramatic focus will never be on the character's dance ability, so simply establishing that they "know how to dance" is probably sufficient to flesh out the character's background. But, as I said earlier, if dance is going to be an important courtly ability in the campaign, one in which the results of a dancing skill roll will typically have narrative significance, then I'd elevate it to the status of a full-blown DEX-based skill rather than a Background skill.

 

I don't really understand this reasoning. I'm not saying dancing is insignificant, I'm just saying, it's only as significant as its role as a professional skill one might have. It's not, in principle, different from PS: Play the lute, KS: Welsh history, or PS: Tanner. I definitely would not "elevate" it to being a "full-blown" skill because you are just basically saying you want to charge more points for a background skill.

On 11/26/2020 at 11:25 AM, zslane said:

Sure, but to quote the rulebook: "Professional Skills give a character the ability to perform some task or do some type of work." If the work in question is dancing, a purely DEX-based activity from a game system perspective, then it seems to me that is more appropriately handled by making it a DEX-based Characteristic Skill, akin to Acrobatics, than by making it a Background Skill akin to PS: Merchant.

It would be a PS skill you could choose to base on Dexterity. Its not like Acrobatics because it's not used in a general adventuring context. It's a skill you might have as part of your background as a dancer.

On 12/4/2020 at 8:22 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

That’s great. However do the characters know how to do this? If you have a competent warrior then by all means. But what about characters that aren’t competent Warriors like the classical magic user? Because if they are fighting like that then thats Player OOC knowledge not character knowledge.

You mean classical magic users like Gandalf, who used a sword? The Grey Mouser, who was a thief and fencer? Or maybe Elric, who used a sword? Or Lythande, who used a sword? Or Richard Cypher, who used a sword?  Or maybe more like the evil magician in the Golden Voyage of Sinband, who also used a sword?

If a magician gets involved in combat, they are a "competent warrior," even if they aren't a knight.

1 hour ago, zslane said:

I wonder, though, what dancing as a "profession" would even look like in a medieval fantasy setting. It's not like the modern dance world which involves lining up public venues, dealing with promoters, advertising, creating a dance "show", negotiating fees and payment, doing the accounting, etc. In other words, all the things that make dancing a business, i.e., a profession. In a medieval setting, I'd say that most of that comes down to one's reputation and knowledge of who to speak to in order to perform either in a courtly hall or in a large tavern in cities where there are enough people with the disposable income to spend on such entertainments. Most of that would be covered by Perks like Reputation and knowledge skills of the cities/courts in question. So, I'm not convinced there is a need or a place for a PS: Dancing skill in such a setting.

A lot of it would be traveling or stage acts, not that different than vaudeville, conjuring, etc. "Dancer" is also an ancient euphemism for a companion-for-hire; in Ancient Greece, the preferred daytime profession was "flute-player."

On 11/22/2020 at 11:44 AM, mallet said:

 

Somewhere in the book(s) there is a rule that if the Players want to kill an unconscious opponent they can automatically do it (with GM permission).

In this case it would just be a matter of saying they are stabbing the Dragon through one or both eyes, driving their swords into its brain. No extra rolls needed or anything. Just logic, storytelling and keeping the adventure moving at that point. 

 

EDIT: Found it. Hero System 6th Ed. Vol2, Pg.106 "A character in this state of unconsciousness can be killed automatically as a Full Phase Action by any character with the means to do so (a Killing Attack or other powerful attack) who makes a successful Attack Roll against the unconscious character." And given that the opponent is at 0 DCV it won't be hard to just hit him with a killing attack. In fact I remembered it wrong. It is not a special rule that needs GM Permission, it is a RAW rule, that the GM would have to disallow if he/she didn't want you to automatically kill the knocked out opponent. 

That is an interesting observation, although I'm not sure I would automatically consider an ordinary sword blow "the means to do so" if they aren't capable of penetrating the hide at all in the first place

That's... remarkable. I used to play high Speed characters often, and I would be like attack, block, block, attack.

On 10/29/2020 at 11:57 PM, BeZurKur said:

How would you build a "Time Pause" power that affects one person at a time. My first instinct says entangle, but that strong characters can step back into normal time easier doesn't seem right. I then considered an Ego Based Entangle, but as Nitrosynchretic pointed out above, that only affect the attack value. What would you suggest?

Weaken Speed?

I don't really see the obstacles to making a mega-villain. You can give them whatever numbers they need. For the Big Fight, you should have some kind of hazard or puzzle. So you would be fighting Mechanon but also his, you know, force field generator or whatever he has going on.

For high point heroes, a lot of the assumptions break down, but I'm not convinced the game itself breaks down. Has anyone performed any play-tests?

10 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Did you even read my post?  

 

The very first sentence is pointing out that on a critical hit to the head the dragon is in fact taking 6 Body.   Once the dragon is knocked out he takes x2 stun which means he is not waking up for a long time.  That gives the players plenty of time to make attacks.  When the dragon is knocked out his DCV drops to 0 and the penalty for a called shot is halved.  That means getting a critical it is not that hard considering the players can keep rolling as often as they need.   After 10 critical hits the dragon is DEAD.   On each hit the dragon also takes 240 Stun.  Even on an attack that does minimum damage the dragon is going to be taking 4 Stun. That means the dragon is not waking up as long as the players keep attacking it once in a while.

 

If the players keep attacking they are eventually going to kill the dragon.  It may take a ridiculously long time, and hopefully the GM is not going to insist on rolling every hit.   
 

Of course I read it, I just didn't find that it addressed my dissatisfaction. In movies, you slay dragons. You don't beat them unconscious, then slowly bludgeon them to death.

21 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Actually on the 4d6 attack it takes 6 Body.  A critical hit mean it takes maximum damage (24) and it has 21 DEF assuming that all of its defense activates, that is doubled for being a head shot.  After the first critical hit to the head the next shot will get an average of 39 stun through its defenses also assuming a head shot, but not a critical hit. Which means it is  uncurious and takes x2 stun after that It is down for the count.  Once this happens all the party has to do it so keep chopping at its head and they will eventually get enough damage through to kill it.

 

With the 3d6 attack things are a little harder but using a haymaker or other methods of increasing the damage can bring up the damage high enough to get through.  This also assumes that the part does not have picks or other AP attacks.  These can also be used with the 4d6 attack to make that even easier. 

 

Once something it knocked out it is not that hard to kill.  
 

 Let's say it is now knocked out. How do you kill it?

11 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

If you are using hit locations and fighting large creatures it is actually fairly easy to take them out.  You may not get body through, but the stun multiplier makes them easier to knock out.  If you are also using the critical hit rules it becomes even easier.  

 

Looking over the sample dragon provided earlier a critical hit to the head with a 4d6 HKS would get 84 points past its defenses, which will stun it and put it at 0 STUN in one shot.  Even a critical hit from a 3d6 attack will get 54 through, which is enough to stun it.  Once it is stunned it is even easier to hit and get a critical hit.  

 

That is why a lot of monsters are given damage reduction.  This tends to make a lot of monsters unbillable except by massive amounts of attacks.  The way to overcome damage reduction is a huge amount of mid powered attacks.  This is why in 6th edition damage negation works better. Damage negation totally neutralizes the low powered attacks, and often does the same to the mid powered.  It means to take out a tough target you need high powered attacks. 
 

That's still 0 Body damage. Zero.

On 3/22/2020 at 2:57 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Forgive my lack of interest; I am going to chalk it up to having retold this enough times that I just lost the interest completely.  If I still had it, I would likely have poured out all the intricate details yet again, and in proper chronological order.

 

And the Sad Puppies thing was what set all this rolling.  Frankly, I thought it was hilarious.

 Sad Puppies was not hilarious, it was reprehensible, and the furor certainly took away from the time of energy of people on all sides of the issue.

Ok, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a Limitation is generally priced according to how it affects your options. A power that harms evil, but doesn't harm non-evil, is not as limited because there are few situations where you want to harm non-evil beings but not harm evil ones. Assuming evil opponents are common in the campaign. And no, it's not really equivalent to Detect Evil, because you can't detect evil without doing some damage. That would be like saying Fiery Blast is a free detect on characters who are invulnerable to flame.

The situation "I'm being attacked by a bunch of non-evil dogs" just isn't that likely to come up, and if it does, you would employ some other tactic. In my view it's very similar to Lockout in that respect, which is worth a -1/4.

11 hours ago, Oruncrest said:

 

So if you had a character whose only means of attack had 4 charges, you'd give them an extra -1 to the limitation to compensate? Or if he had another power with 4 charges alongside the first, would you take away the -1 on both limitations because 'you can switch to the other one'? Of course you wouldn't! A limitation is valued only by the effect it has on that power (unless of course, the limitation is on a power framework, in which case, the framework is the 'power').

I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The fact that you spent points on other abilities does not make this one less limited.  Having a 12d6 Blast does not make a 4d6 KA cost less because you will not use it as often.  Why should it reduce a limitation value on the 4d6 KA?

The Charges modifier, same question. A Limitation that is less limiting is worth less of a value. If the user could purely control who was affected, that would actually be an Advantage, Selective on the Area Effect.

It may be sometimes advantageous. But it still limits its utility, against robots, police dogs, etc. But it's probably not worth -1/2. It affects a lot of opponents, and against other opponents, you probably still have the rest of your ability set.

This was for Fantasy Hero, but I had an animated statue once that had DS: Shrinking

You agree that LOS only applies to Mind Control as far as targeting it. It is the same with AOE powers. You don't require a sense to damage targets with a fiery explosion, and you do not to affect them with a radius fear effect. There is no special rule with Mental Powers requiring the effect to have LOS, just as you agree with as far as Mind Control.

p.148

Quote

Conventional barriers don’t stop Mental
Powers. For example, a mentalist with Penetrative
Sight could use his Mental Blast to attack a
target through a wall, so long as he could establish
LOS to the target. Once a continuing-effect
Mental Power is established, a character doesn’t
need to maintain LOS for its effects to continue, to
continue feeding END

And there it is. Conventional barriers don't stop Mental Powers. So as long as you can target the area, you can affect everyone in the area.

19 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

See my previous three responses.

I see your previous responses, and you don't seem to understand that LOS pertains to range. Can you clarify why you think walls block the area of mental powers, when there is nothing in the rules that says they do? Do you also think Mind Control instantly ends if someone walks behind a tree?