GamePhil

Re: Order of the Stick

I wonder if Elan is shivering in the fetal position after listening to Haley's story?

Possibly not. t's very in genre for the good but naive character to fall in love with the much more jaded and even ruthless one, and actually have those feelings returned. Viewed that way, it's almost inevitable that she not turn out to be, well, as nice as him.

Re: Order of the Stick

One saving throw at a time.

 

 

Best. NPC. Ever.

The reward for Best Single Line Spoken by an NPC goes to... And yet, some people don't see his greatness and think he's a male Mary Sue. What a world, what a world.

My favorite line in the strip, though, was in Elan's decision and the tortured logic he used to get there.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

For genres where its universally apropos I don't have an issue with it being an everyman manuever. For genres where only characters with germaine concepts can do it, or where their concepts allow them to do it in a broader array of situations, it becomes a fairness issue. In such situations it may make more sense for it to be a buy in with a defined effect.

Here again I'm having trouble understanding the problem, even after your clarification. Your ability to Block a Ranged Attack as a Common Maneuver should logically be based entirely on genre. That is, if you're in a Wild Martial Arts campaign, maybe all PC's can Block arrows with their hands at no cost. In a typical Fantasy game, maybe they require shields. In a modern action adventure game, perhaps blocking bullets comes from taking cover. And so on. If some character concepts require going beyond the genre restrictions established by the GM that everyone else has to use for the free maneuver, they have to pay for it. Nothing unfair about that.

I suppose Steve may have contradicted that statement in the Combat rules, but I feel it is unlikely. We'll see.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

But it's starting to look like some of the changes that some folks are reacting somewhat negatively to in 6E' date=' are changes that are [b']increasing[/b] the separation of mechanics and SFX.

Depends on where you draw the line. I prefer to pursue an ideal unless it interferes with the game actually being fun. I expect that's the opinion of most. But, where I find that line has not yet been crossed, or even approached, some would argue that it has been stomped all over.

If you're talking about me' date=' I personally [i']love[/i] the changes being introduced.

He's not. He's talking about a general trend that isn't even best represented in this thread, and the best examples of which I'm not going to bring up. That's not to say examples aren't here, they're just not as clearcut.

So whether or not the maneuvers are completely divorced from SFX (and whether you really want to call interception vs. complete avoidance a SFX issue)

I am a bit unclear on why it wouldn't be an SFX issue. Each maneuver gives you a set of game mechanics for avoiding damage. You describe how you're doing this as you wish, and assuming the GM accepts your definition, you do it that way. If some GM's are more or less restrictive with it than I would be, that's just the nature of the game. But it's certainly an SFX issue.

Re: Preview/Teaser Videos

Has everyone seen Gamephil in the Lemuria video? Looks just like him' date=' doncha think? dw[/quote']

 

I hope I look so good when I'm in my 50's. I certainly don't look so good now

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

If a guy is shooting an arrow at me from 20 m away, I can either Deflect it at, say, the 10 m mark, or I can Block it when it comes within arm's reach. What's the real difference? Either way, I don't get hit by the arrow. But Deflection I have to pay points for, and Block I don't.

I had assumed you could Block a Ranged Attack for someone else at range, based on the following:

1. You can currently Block for someone standing next to you.

2. No mention of changing (1), so presumably you can now Block for Ranged Attacks for someone standing next to you.

3. This allows you to Block Ranged Attacks at range, so presumably you can now Block for someone else at Range rather than standing next to you.

Edit: Currently, you can't use Block against HTH attacks that are AoE without GM permission, and there hasn't been mention of changing that, but director13 has a good point, that when you do have such permission (thrown grenades and what not), you would be able to deflect them from over there rather than next to you. That might also be beneficial.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

1a) "Should" being dependent on genre and SFX and exciting cinematic descriptions of maneuvers.

Exactly correct. SFX and exciting descriptions would trump "must use an object", much less "usually must use an object". If your Block SFX is stepping out of the way at the last second, obviously it doesn't require an implement (though it could also be a Dodge), and falls outside the "usual" use of the maneuver.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

I'm getting older now' date=' but wasn't the original reflection power one that could be specified to work vs. physical, energy, ranged or hth attacks? Seem to recall something like that, it had a roll, -1/d6 of attack?[/quote']

 

As I recall, it was 30 pts (base), 18- roll to start reduced by AP of attack (1/5, I think), worked against Ranged Attacks only, and didn't care about special effect beyond that. The roll could then be bought up.

 

I think it was Champions II, could be wrong there. I'll try to unpack the book and look when there's time, if no one beats me to it.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

The "system default" appears to be that everyone can block Ranged Attacks, but it will usually require am implement (dodging behind a wall is, to me, an implement, though), and that if you want to be able to do it better, you buy it. Han can't block a blaster bolt with his hand, the fact that Vader can is simply an indication that he bought Deflection without a Focus (and possibly No Range) or a similar ability.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #4: Deflection, Reflection, And Range

He said that Blocking Ranged Attacks would usually require an object. I see nowhere that he said Blocking HTH attacks would usually require such.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

This is extremely similar to what I suggested on the 6E thread dealing with attacks' date=' so obviously, I'm all for it. The one thing I suggested that isn't here is simply making killing an advantage which goes against a less common defence (rDEF)[/quote']

 

Well, it's quite possible you'll be able to build them that way if you want to, it's just that Killing Attacks will continue to exist as another option. Here's hoping.

Re: Order of the Stick

Except of course that a pretty large percentage of people do "know" that there is an afterlife. So the comment doesn't really match up with the real world...

Well, by the usage I was assuming that "know" meant "have empirical evidence of" rather than "are certain of". The fact that Roy failed to take into account the idea of faith is in keeping with his character as I've been thinking of him.

Which is not to say that faith is a cause of violent behavior, in any event. Plenty of people have committed violence against others or taken great risks that profess no such beliefs. It's irrationality that leads to these things, not belief in/knowledge of an afterlife, which he, in a sense, did take into account. I think that he did a good job figuring out the real world considering how completely alien it would be to him.

And that's entirely too much thinking on stick figure theater.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield

I suspect he's referring to 5e players who do not visit the Hero Boards regularly (if at all) but may visit other RPG sites.

Wait, there are Hero fans with Internet access that don't visit these boards regularly?

Yes, that would make sense. Nevermind, then.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield

They would mean something to anyone who currently plays 5e.

 

Y'know, like most of us.

Well, yeah, but he was specifically responding to a suggestion that these also be put up at other RPG sites.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Actually' date=' none of these builds sell back Leaping. They might sell back Running, or INT or EGO, but their inability to Leap was taken as a Physical Limitation, described out with severity and frequency, but only awarded points equal to the value of the Leaping. IIRC, Elephants and Rhinos have it.[/quote']

 

Not quite: You'd take the value of the Disadvantage (5 or 10) or the value of selling back half/all but 1"/all of your Leaping, whichever is greater. Overly complex mess I won't be sorry to see go, though there are still some drawbacks that will require GM oversight.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield

Just wondering, where are you getting the value of +1 from? Did he give any indication of the value of Area of Effect or AoE (Surface)? I don’t think we know the value of Continuous or AoE (unless I missed something) and you do have to take into consideration that some powers start out as Continuous.

I'm reasonably sure he is talking about Continuous and using the value for it pre-6E, which has been consistent since it was introduced I believe, so really not an unreasonable assumption. Still, nothing is safe from being changed in 6E, so it certainly could be a lower Advantage.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield

When you throw out as many wild-eyed ideas as I do (or used to, anyway) some of them almost have to be good.

Re: Hero Extreme Edition

I can't see a game with this degree of granularity being popular among anything but a very select niche market of hardcore Game Mechanics. With that much division and things to purchase to make even the simplest of characters it probably would be sort of an example of some of the hyperbolic complaints leveled at Hero.

Well, you wouldn't leave it in that state any more than you wouldn't provide Power Creation examples with Hero. You'd have that as your base and then your power list would be based around it, making it consistent though unlikely to have as nice a number set as we have (even with rounding, probably a lot of 7 and 13 point powers and whatnot). If done very well you might get both the hard-core gaming wonks and the more "casual" (in quotes because we're still talking a Hero-like game) gamers to like it.

Which is why it's almost bound to fail: the HCGW is likely the one that would write it, and wouldn't make it accessible to anyone else.

Re: Hero Extreme Edition

Scary thing is..the author is serious.

 

Seriously cracked too......

Yeah, my fault, I should have added, "If it's a usable set of rules". Ah, well.

Re: Hero Extreme Edition

I did say, "If at all related", you know.

Amusing, so I'll forgive you.

Re: Hero Extreme Edition

Should I post a link to HYBRID here?

I think you should, if it's related I wouldn't mind seeing it. Unlikely to break me from Hero, but it may have ideas that are useful.

Re: Hero Extreme Edition

i imagine an extreme natural evolution of HERO where only Powers exist.

No more chars, skills, etc.

It'll never happen, at least not in the core rule book. People like those divisions of abilities you just have for being a creature from things you learn from your Powers, and very few people want to go from scratch. Personally, I'd prefer going from scratch and taking a pre-built Template: if I'm human, I take the one with the standard Characteristic block, human Senses, Running, and so on. But that's an unusual attitude.

Re: Alternative systems for mental powers

It is an interesting idea' date=' but I don't know if Mental Powers have to be fixed [i']that[/i] drastically.

The trouble is that currently, Mental Powers work on an all-or-nothing basis, barring taking Cumulative or using some other (perfectly acceptable) tricks. Either you hit the target and it works, and the target is under the influence for at least a Turn, or you hit the target and he breaks out immediately. Either unsatisfactory for the Mentalist, or unsatisfactory for the Victim. If it errs, it probably errs on the side of the Victim, but without a fundamental change to that mechanic, a change in either direction only changes the problem, it doesn't fix it.

So, yeah, I think some drastic changes or some optional, but fundamentally different, rules for running Mental Powers are not unreasonable. I prefer the "optional" approach, as it's not necessarily a problem for everyone.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

I'm well aware of how it works in earlier versions. My question was if we had any confirmation that 6E actually permits selling back Characteristics. As I noted upthread' date=' without Figured Characteristics there's going to be a lot less probability of having "excess" Characteristics in the first place; much less needing a mechanism to sell them back.[/quote']

 

And you've yet to show any reason why this would change, neither a post from Steve saying it was going to nor any balance issues that changing a long-standing rule would need to address nor any tangible benefit from adding such a restriction. But, technically, no, there has been no public confirmation. But it's confusing that the question has even come up without any apparent reason.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD

Do we even know if 6E permits selling back Characteristics? Without Figured Characteristics' date=' there's going to be a lot less probability of having "excess" Characteristics in the first place; much less needing a mechanism to sell them back. Why would any hero want Characteristics below the baseline of a Normal in any genre?[/quote']

 

All Characteristics except more than one Figured have always been sell-able, I've seen no indication that this will change. And just because few would want to sell them back doesn't mean there should be a restriction about it, can you think of any balance issues in doing so that need an extra rule to restrict them?