Crypt

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

No. Just make sure your defense limit is lower than your attack limit - 60 AP attack maximum vs. 45 AP defense maximum

I'm not fond of this kind of arbitrary limits. I'd prefer the available points being the actual limit.

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

60Pts => 4dK => 42 Stun, 14 Body on the average. (not 12 nor 13, guys ! LOL)

Armor: 60 pts: 40 Resistant PD or 20 PD/20 ED or any other combos

Let's say the character has 5 normal PD (which, in a 60 pts context, is not huge...)

With locations rules and an average loc (chest, X3/X1)

40rDef version => STUN= (Body x3) - (N+R) = 42 - 40 - 5 = 0

20rDef version => STUN= (Body x3) - (N+R) = 42 - 20 - 5 = 17 STUN

40rDef version => BODY= 14-R = 14-40 = 0 (actually far under 0 ! It would need a 12dK/180 points attack to pass this armor on the average.)

20rDef version => BODY= 14-R = 14-20 = 0 (It would need a 6dK/90 points attack to pass this armor on the average.)

I suppose i should force players to spread Armor equally amongst PD and ED...

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

I want a Defense vs Attack Analysis that shows they're too cheap. And don't pick a single power level to prove your point.

3DK => 45 points = 10.5 BODY on the average. (using maximum rolls as a reference in a xD system would not be probabilistically honest...)

10 PD armor = 15 points.

(I guess this is why the full plate armor is as resistant as a armored car (delirious...).....actually this example leads to another problem = using DEF and BODY for items is silly. Think about a sheet and a cube of alluminium...)

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

Devil's Advocate for a minute:

Why bother with points at all if they don't matter?

Thanks !

And so why bother with a game where every effects are the result of spent points.

I wouldn't play with a group I didn't get along with; I wouldn't GM for a group that didn't accept I was GOD for the next few hours of their lives

If you really have to get around that' date=' then use [i']Custom Adders[/i] instead of limitations - this subtracts points from the total rather than dividing.

I don't remember this Custom Adders rule. Is it in the main book ? (i don't find it)

Do you use Hero Designer?

No. Should i ?

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

Sorry you feel that way' date=' but you have yet to actually express a Rules Problem. Only a Game Implementation Problem.[/quote']

 

The problems are that defenses powers are too cheap (i know you disagree) and limitations stop working beyond a point.

 

About the limit of limitations, i would not be surprised to hear that's one of the reasons Greg Porter uses adders instead of multipliers in EABA.

 

Removing a Limitation and not changing the cost doesn't affect play.

 

so i could as well use the Chaosium's Basic System...

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

In your opinion.

 

I find it works just fine for games I've run. But then, I don't add Modifiers to look at point/gain loss.

 

Removing a Limitation and not changing the cost doesn't affect play.

You seems to be a lucky man with very very nice players

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

I think the reason behind this is that at some point, more limitations doesn't really limit the power. I mean, if you have Gestures, Incantations, Focus, and Extra Time on your spells... sure that gives multiple ways to stop spellcasting - if you held an action to do so. Beyond that, the extra time kind of accounts for the other three.

 

Having "diminishing returns" on limitations keeps players from buying every power in the book at max level with limitations that bring them all down to a few points apiece.

 

In short, I think the way HERO stacks limitations (and advantages, for that matter) works quite well.

Yes but the limit of limitations appears too quickly.

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

The System Is Not Your Babysitter.

Offending and too easy.

Stop trying to make the points do the work. You will fail.

592 pages of point based rules....LOL

and WTF is a "classic case" anyways... based on whose assumption of "classic"?

a magician casting an armor spell isn't classic ? Come on...

and what are your plans.

Currently:

- Fantasy Hero : a high fantasy version of Hârn + crossworlds (Yashain, Arduin, etc.)

Plan:

- A low level Post Apocalyptic Hero campaign based on the video game STALKER - Shadow of Chernobyl.

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

I keep reading the OP, and there's an itch in the back of my brain...

 

And I figured it out.

 

Limitations are not Points Constructs. They are Roleplaying Tool to simulate an ability appropriately.

What is the point of using a huge, 100% points based and relatively complex system where building characters can take hours if the system can't prevent unbalancing situations by himself, even in very classic cases ?

If the only reply is that the GM must put limits all the time so we could use any other game and do the same in 90% less time.

Back on topic, you posit removing 'Extra Time' and still having the same real cost - but extra time is a mandatory lim...

Can't Hero be played in crossworlds campaigns ?

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc.

Another point - you've said that they can do no more than 2.5D Killing... why can't they improve that too?

They can.

not really.

 

the CHARACTERS can't determine Active Points because that's not an In Game Thing.

 

Players, sure. But if part of the fun is letting players tweak and alter things, then it hardly matters.

 

Still - the problem is not the system.

the magician has this spell =>

Stone Skin

Armor 6 PD/6ED

Base: 18

Hardened (+1/4)

Active: 22

Cost Endurance (-1/2)

Gestures (-1/4)

Incantations (-1/4)

Requires a Magic(Earth) roll (-1/2)

Increased End Cost (X3, -1)

Extra Time (Half Phase; -1/4) to activate

Real : 6 (still 6 without the Extra Time)

(Note: Underlined limitations are mandatory and cannot be removed. I have added an Extra Time (half phase at least) on all non attack spells because the campaign tends to be a crossworlds one, thus technos, psionics, mutants, etc..... may be encountered and i want the cost of powers to be fair.)

- An important law i've said to the players: "you will be able to improve your spells as far as their nature stays the same."

- Another thing= they did not create their characters, i've converted them from their old HARP's ones. So, for instance, in this example the player could have put every armor points in PD instead of spreading them.

- The maximum K damages the warrior of the group may do is 2.5D. (Imagine if i'd let the player build a 12PD/0ED Stone Skin spell...)

Now let's modify it =>

Stone Skin

Armor 6 PD/6ED

Base: 18

Hardened (+1/4)

Usable Simultaneously (X4, +3/4)

Active: 36

Cost Endurance (-1/2)

Gestures (-1/4)

Incantations (-1/4)

Requires a Magic(Earth) roll (-1/2)

Extra Time (Half Phase; -1/4) to activate

Real : 13 (or 14 without the Extra Time)

- The characters earn 1 CP per session on the average.

Two problems =>

1. IMHO in campaign where powers tend to have several limitations (for instance FH) the way costs are computed often lead to situtations where removing one limitation does not change the real cost. That's a problem because it means that cost rules eventually mean nothing.

(Multiplying costs and CP by 10 would solve the problem. This is the same as not rounding the first digit.)

2. In a campaign where liberty of improvement is a ground rule defenses powers like Armor can easily and quickly ruin everything because of their low cost. The magician's player could improve his Stone Skin spell to the very boring second version in only an average of 7 sessions. (or 8 if we ignore the Extra time)

Now we may say that players are not supposed to tweak their spells.

That's not fun.

I have buckets of games where everything is limited in this way. I'd like Hero to be different.

(note: as far as i remembered we did not have such troubles in MEGS...)

Of course i could say that the X3 END cost is mandatory, or say that Usable Simultaneoulsy changes the nature of the spell so it would be a different one.... of course........ But it would be even nicer if the "bullet proof-592 pages-almost 100% rules-bible" actually helps the GM not "cheating" so often. I do not speak about babysitting gamers. I only speak about rules.

PS: the title of the thread could have been "No, you can't "

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

IMNSHO, the characters cannot determine the AP of their spells. They can only assess how powerful they are based on their results. This eliminates the problem.

To the extend it means that rules are useless.

All players in all our campaigns, whatever the game, tend to tweak with the systems. That's part of the fun at our table.

It would be a very very weird paradox to forbid that with the ultimate gamer's toolkit.

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Are PD and ED far too cheap?

IMHO Armor is too cheap too. One of my players's characters is a magician, if i'd let him build his spells his armor spell could easily make him untouchable. Even worse if i'd let him buy a use on other modifier (it would ruin the campaign.) He has asked for it..... What am i suppose to say to this player ? "In this world everything is possible. With this system too. But i won't let you do that. If you think that's unfair, you're right."

The fact that the GM must review any point spent is OK.

But IMHO this is only frustration when dealing with PD/ED/Armor. The problem appears when the GM doesn't allow something not because it would be impossible in his campaign (the only good reason imo) but because the rules are simply not balanced enough.

(3 pt for 2 resistant DEF while 1d6K costs 15 pts....Armor is 3 times cheaper than the Killing attack, i see no fun in that unless i'd like long and boring combats)

Re: Confused about 6th edition

Curiosity = will the lingering option (from FH) appear in :

- the core books ?

- the advanced book ?

- FH6 ?

- none of them ?

Re: Diviation From Called Shots (House Rule)

Another possibility is to replace your d6+various mods by twice the failure margin.

This way you are sure to (indirectly) take distance into account and this is globally faster than making an extra roll.

Re: Diviation From Called Shots (House Rule)

I like the general idea despite the fact that the deviation should (imo) varies with the distance to the target (the more distance the more deviation.)

For instance you may simply add the range penalty to the number of deviation's hexes.

There are two interesting consequences =

- weapons could have deviation mods.

- the character could buy penalty skill levels to negate them. For instance in a "deviation compensator focus"

For instance a shot at 14 meters (-2) with a 1" deviating weapon + 1d6 (ex:3) - 1" compensator = 2+1+3-1 = 5" deviation on your chart.

Another (very simple) possible house rule = instead of declaring called shots before the hit roll you may see it as choices offered after the roll.

For instance your hitting success margin is 4 (do not count called shot penalties when rolling to hit)

So you may choose those locations: chest or thighs because their mods are -3 and -4 (or choose to roll for 3d6)

If you had succeed by a margin of 8 you could choose any location (or choose to roll for 3d6.)

If you had succeed by 2 or less (*) you may not choose any location so you simply roll 3d6.

Etc.

It makes combats more violent (sensible locs would be hit more often) and would not suit to every styles of play.

(*)unless Mods are halved.

Re: A roll high variant

Indeed

==>

no, thanks

You can not roll 1 or -1

nor -2 & 2

Re: A roll high variant

One interesting - and very quick - variant that gives a broader range of results (-12 to +12) and a most peculiar distribution is that you roll 2 green and 2 red, and take the highest number as the result (then make green poitive and red negative). If the rolls tie then the result is zero.

 

do you mean, for instance:

5 2 -3 -6 ==> -9 ?

Re: A roll high variant

Rather than having open-ended rerolls, the range can be extended in simpler ways, e.g.: Count 1s as 0 and 6s as 10. This extends the range to -20 to +20 while retaining a fairly nice bell curve.

One interesting - and very quick - variant that gives a broader range of results (-12 to +12) and a most peculiar distribution is that you roll 2 green and 2 red, and take the highest number as the result (then make green poitive and red negative). If the rolls tie then the result is zero. You can not roll 1 or -1

Both are a little too weird for me

Re: A roll high variant

maybe you may prefer this variant:

Opens are no longer simultaneous and less frequent.

If one side has a double 6 (+6+6 or -6-6) but the other side doesn't so you roll a dice and add +1/-1 on a 4+/- (1/2 chance) and reroll (and add +1/-1) until it stops.

=>

Some examples:

3 4 -3 -4=0

1 5 -5 -6=-5

6 6 -4 -2 (+1) (+1) (+1) (0)=9

5 3 -6 -6 (0)=-4

6 5 -6 -6 (-1) (0)=-2

1 1 -6 -1=-5

5 6 -6 -6 (0)=-1

1 1 -6 -6 (-1) (-1) (0)=-12

Results =

http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/2d_2d2/

EDIT: i've modified it. Negative and Positive opens may be simultaneous.

Re: A roll high variant

Then out-think it, trick it, bluff it, distract it or run faster than the rest of the party.

 

Fighting it sounds insane though.

Yes, some mythological heroes were insane.

run faster than the rest of the party.

nasty

Re: A roll high variant

all it is doing is changing the theoretical shape of the bell curve.

to compare:

Number of rolls =1 000 000

2d6-2d6

# -10 ----------- 0,0822% ----------- 100%

# -9 ----------- 0,317% ----------- 99,9178%

# -8 ----------- 0,7676% ----------- 99,6008%

# -7 ----------- 1,5365% ----------- 98,8332%

# -6 ----------- 2,6852% ----------- 97,2967%

# -5 ----------- 4,273% ----------- 94,6115%

# -4 ----------- 6,1982% ----------- 90,3385%

# -3 ----------- 7,9883% ----------- 84,1403%

# -2 ----------- 9,6462% ----------- 76,152%

# -1 ----------- 10,8157% ----------- 66,5058%

# 0 ----------- 11,307% ----------- 55,6901%

# 1 ----------- 10,7762% ----------- 44,3831%

# 2 ----------- 9,6231% ----------- 33,6069%

# 3 ----------- 8,0983% ----------- 23,9838%

# 4 ----------- 6,1631% ----------- 15,8855%

# 5 ----------- 4,3444% ----------- 9,72240000000002%

# 6 ----------- 2,6896% ----------- 5,37800000000001%

# 7 ----------- 1,541% ----------- 2,68840000000002%

# 8 ----------- 0,7638% ----------- 1,14740000000002%

# 9 ----------- 0,3096% ----------- 0,383600000000015%

# 10 ----------- 0,074% ----------- 0,0740000000000123%

2d6-2d6 with symetrical open ended

# -26 ----------- 0,0001% ----------- 100%

# -24 ----------- 0,0001% ----------- 99,9999%

# -23 ----------- 0,0003% ----------- 99,9998%

# -22 ----------- 0,0004% ----------- 99,9995%

# -21 ----------- 0,0009% ----------- 99,9991%

# -20 ----------- 0,0014% ----------- 99,9982%

# -19 ----------- 0,0022% ----------- 99,9968%

# -18 ----------- 0,0037% ----------- 99,9946%

# -17 ----------- 0,0086% ----------- 99,9909%

# -16 ----------- 0,0145% ----------- 99,9823%

# -15 ----------- 0,0262% ----------- 99,9678%

# -14 ----------- 0,0484% ----------- 99,9416%

# -13 ----------- 0,0945% ----------- 99,8932%

# -12 ----------- 0,1608% ----------- 99,7987%

# -11 ----------- 0,2795% ----------- 99,6379%

# -10 ----------- 0,4957% ----------- 99,3584%

# -9 ----------- 0,8413% ----------- 98,8627%

# -8 ----------- 1,3718% ----------- 98,0214%

# -7 ----------- 2,1734% ----------- 96,6496%

# -6 ----------- 3,1876% ----------- 94,4762%

# -5 ----------- 4,5449% ----------- 91,2886%

# -4 ----------- 5,9714% ----------- 86,7437%

# -3 ----------- 7,5097% ----------- 80,7723%

# -2 ----------- 8,7149% ----------- 73,2626%

# -1 ----------- 9,589% ----------- 64,5477%

# 0 ----------- 9,9302% ----------- 54,9587%

# 1 ----------- 9,5836% ----------- 45,0285%

# 2 ----------- 8,703% ----------- 35,4449%

# 3 ----------- 7,469% ----------- 26,7419%

# 4 ----------- 6,0321% ----------- 19,2729%

# 5 ----------- 4,4936% ----------- 13,2408%

# 6 ----------- 3,1988% ----------- 8,74720000000001%

# 7 ----------- 2,1919% ----------- 5,5484%

# 8 ----------- 1,3793% ----------- 3,3565%

# 9 ----------- 0,8394% ----------- 1,9772%

# 10 ----------- 0,5015% ----------- 1,1378%

# 11 ----------- 0,2843% ----------- 0,636300000000006%

# 12 ----------- 0,1578% ----------- 0,352000000000004%

# 13 ----------- 0,0866% ----------- 0,194200000000009%

# 14 ----------- 0,0477% ----------- 0,107600000000005%

# 15 ----------- 0,0279% ----------- 0,059899999999999%

# 16 ----------- 0,0144% ----------- 0,0319999999999965%

# 17 ----------- 0,0092% ----------- 0,0176000000000016%

# 18 ----------- 0,0039% ----------- 0,00839999999999463%

# 19 ----------- 0,0017% ----------- 0,00449999999999307%

# 20 ----------- 0,0014% ----------- 0,00279999999999347%

# 21 ----------- 0,0009% ----------- 0,00139999999998963%

# 22 ----------- 0,0002% ----------- 0,000499999999988177%

# 23 ----------- 0,0002% ----------- 0,000299999999981537%

# 26 ----------- 0,0001% ----------- 9,99999999748979E-05%

if you are already at -10' date=' perhaps you should run away rather than fighting on.[/quote']

 

The monster runs faster than you.

Re: A roll high variant

Open ended systems are hope, and there is no crueller thing in the Universe: why do you think all the nasties were so eager to get out of Pandora's Box? Hope was in their with them.

Hope is adventure

I see rolls the same way i see rules = everything must be possible.

Re: A roll high variant

I can not personally see the point in an open ended system though, unless you introduce a 'Margin of Success' element to the mix, and I'm against that in HERO combat because it conflicts with the whole basis of the system set up, IMO.

You're right but i don't use margins and IMHO margins are not required to justify an open ended method.

As far as a system use modifiers, difficulties and random rolls an open-ended method can make sense. There is no need to use margins.

Eg. you are at -10 because of various reasons (poor skill, poor conditions, injuries, etc) and this is your last chance to hit the monster's head (-8), which is his only weak part. Open ended rolls give you a chance (i personally dislike and never use rules like 3 (or 18)= auto success. Don't even try to persuade me to use one)

I also use a "unmodified action roll to effect total" conversion table so it adds another reason.

Third i simply dislike static rolls. That's boring. The straight 3d6 is not funny (for me.)