Tonio

Re: Minotaur Racial Package I'd say Bump Of Direction doesn't make them Maze-proof, since all it really lets you do is know which way is North, whether he's above/below local ground level, etc. In fact, the description specifically mentions it doesn't allow him to find his way out of a maze. Maybe a Detect Way Out Of Maze? On the other hand, Bump Of Direction might be a more realistic rationale... like, say, Minotaurs weren't really maze-proof, they were just naturally good at knowing where they were facing, etc, that they were reputed to be maze-proof, although in reality they weren't.

Re: Would this require shapeshift I dunno, I'd say that'd be a Limitation on Shape Shift (Can't Change Colors, -1/2).

Re: MPAs and Martial Arts That'd be my impression, too, but I can't figure out what it balances, why it's unbalancing to do a MPA with multiple powers from a single power framework. For example, I can have four ECs, based on Fire, Ice, Stone, and Air powers, each one with an EB, and I can MPA with those four EBs. But if my Fire EC has two EBs while my Air one has none, I can only MPA with three EBs.

Re: MPAs and Martial Arts That seems like a thoroughly ridiculous rule... I wonder what the logic behind it is. I, too, see no problem with using multiple MP slots given a big enough reserve... not to mention multiple EC slots. After all, you CAN turn on multiple powers in a Phase... if you can turn on 3 attack powers, why shouldn't you be able to attack with all of them? o_O

Re: Would this require shapeshift

Re: D&D twists on Fantasy Hero Ok???

5ER, pg 314, says "A character cannot Link Powers in different slots of an Elemental Control to activate together. He must buy any Linked Powers in a single slot. A character cannot buy two or more Powers in the same EC slot unless they’re Linked or the GM permits him to." If I understand correctly, this lets me do the following: 20 Radiation Control: Elemental Control, 40-point powers 20 1) Irradiate: Energy Blast 4d6, No Normal Defense ([standard]; Defense is LS: Safe in High Radiation; +1) (40 Active Points) 17 2) Radiation Field: (Total: 40 Active Cost, 33 Real Cost) Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) (Real Cost: 20) plus Energy Blast 1 1/2d6, Damage Shield (+1/2), Continuous (+1) (20 Active Points); Linked (Force Field; -1/2) (Real Cost: 13) Excellent... except it seems to me Linked can give me substantially more point savings in cases where the linked powers would not normally fit into the EC. In the case above, for example, I'm saving 23 points, rather than the 7 that I'd save if I bought the FF and DS outside the EC. Which is not a bad thing (it IS an EC after all)... except I can't do that with unlinked powers! If I could only do it with powers that are two-way Linked (that is, each can only be used with the other) and that must be used at proportional strengths, then it'd make somewhat more sense, since what you're probably building is a power that has elements of more than one Power (a blast that both hurts and blinds you, a net that entangles you and drains your strength, etc.). But in the case above, which appears to be book-legal, I can turn on the FF without turning on the DS component. Thoughts?

If a character with 60 END expends 20 END, then is Drained of 20 END more ("10" was rolled on the Drain dice), he is currently at 20 END, and can Recover up to 40. When the Drained points come back, do they raise the max only, or both max and current? In the previous example, when he gets back 5 APs, his max END goes up to 50, but does his current END stay at 40, rise to 50?

Re: Transform on 0 Body things I see issues with this solution. First off, 1d6 isn't enough to affect most people (this is a Mental Transform... can't "fudge" it as "no no, I'm transforming their MEMORIES" ). Second, 1d6 isn't enough to affect some objects which might bear his name (say, a statue erected in the hero's name). Third, you might be missing other types of "records" (I dunno... mystical?). What's really needed is a Cosmetic Transform (Universe into Universe where Hero's name is "Stinkybutt") with enough dice to cover the BODY of the entire Universe.

Re: Rolling mechanic question

Re: Rolling mechanic question No, not really. But I can point to how most situations where you roll dice, rolling high is better for the roller than rolling low. I can also point to how most numerical values assigned to a person represent "better" qualities when they're higher, rather than lower. Certainly not all... golf scores, latency, moves it takes you to win a chess game, place in line, income tax due (debatable, since it represents a reduction, a "minus", so lower absolute value is higher number)... there are plenty of exceptions. But they're still exceptions.

Re: Hitting or attacking Endurance Oh I unnerstand the "losing empty vs full points" concept, I didn't mean to imply it was faulty reasoning. All I can think of to explain it is that if you recalculate your END given recent changes to your END score (recoveries, expenditures... assuming drains and aids affect your stat, not your score), you'll end up with the lowered END score. That is, start with a baseline of 50 END, spend 30, get 10 back from a recovery. Calculate current total: 50-30+10 = 30. Now, you get drained of 20 END (10 CPs worth of END). Recalculate current total: 30 (your new max) - 30 + 10 = 10. How "recent"? Well, I'd say since last time it was max, which is the default, I guess. Then again, I do realize this isn't stricly spelled out like this in the RAW, even if I just realized that, hehe.

Re: Actions versus Spotlight - revisiting the SPD Concept from a more fundamental lev

Re: Hitting or attacking Endurance Well, if you've spent 20 END, and your max is 30, how much END do you have? 10. It should not matter how it came to be that your max is 30. Don't think of it as losing full or empty CPs, think of it as losing END (the stat, not the 'current END' count), then recalculating your current END count from your new max and past expenditures/recoveries.

Re: Rolling mechanic question Sarcasm notwithstanding, the idea isn't "shot down". The idea isn't that rolling high is categorically and under all circumstances better than rolling low. It's that intuitively rolling high is presumed to be better than rolling low. Some systems use counter- or non-intuitive systems, and that's not a big problem. Most of the time it's easy to get used to (like HERO's system). Some systems use roll-high but add in complexities [oh, I see now... earlier I said "complications" when I meant "complexities"... my bad!], like most (all?) board games. Just because you can drive drunk and not crash your car doesn't mean driving while drunk is a good idea. Just like there being games that use roll-low for success and work doesn't mean rolling low for success is a better idea. It might be a better idea for that particular game, it might be a worse idea balanced by superior mechanics in other areas, it might be a worse idea that's not worse enough to warrant a change (sure, you can scrap your 3-month-old video card to buy a brand-spanking new one, which is slightly faster... but it's not worth it).

Re: Rolling mechanic question That's what I meant by "whatever you have to roller under of". =) Then I pointed out a case where there might not be a target roll (i.e. the number you are trying to roll under). I didn't mean mathematically, I meant psychologically, intuitively, emotively, something along those lines. =)

Re: Rolling mechanic question Well, in both Monopoly and Chutes & Ladders, rolling high is best in general, it's just that there are complications. In C&L, you wanna roll high... but not land on a chute, and if possible, land on a ladder. In Monopoly it's the same thing, since passing through Go gives you free money, only you want to land on some unbought properties so you can buy 'em, too. Even in Trivial Pursuit, where there's no "goal" space to reach, you still want to generally roll high, to reach the next pie-awarding space fastest (until you're close enough to land with one roll, then you want an exact roll, not a low one). And yes, there are games (those three are great examples) where rolling high is not always best... but they are exceptions to the rule (some more than others... Trivial Pursuit is probably the biggest exception of the three, Chutes and Ladders the smallest).

Re: Rolling mechanic question Regarding menus at the top, Windows UI vs Mac UI, etc... it was an example, not supposed to spur a debate on "which is better". I picked a bad example. =) First place being better than 2nd is different, since we're talking ordinals, not cardinals... it's not exactly analogous, since there's really no 0th place (the "0th" item in a 0-based array is still the first item, it's just convenient to call it the 0th item), but you CAN roll 0 damage (well, mebbe only on BODY with normal attacks), and you can inflict 0 damage (like whenever defenses are greater than damage rolled), and with modifiers you can roll a 0 on your to-hit roll (HERO's rolling system doesn't permit this by using a special rule: 3's always hit, 18's always miss), etc. In situations where we're representing an ordinal quality, it can be argued that roll under makes more sense. For example, determining who acts first. Curiously enough, HERO does this the other way around (only you're not rolling). The highest DEX acts first. If you had an "initiative" stat, it'd make sense that "lower is better", since you could just add a "st", "nd", "rd", or "th" to it to determine when you act... initiative "1" goes "1st", "2" goes "2nd", etc. I'm not suggesting lower DEXs should act first, and I'm not suggesting the current system is bad or broken. Of course higher DEXs should act first... they're quicker to act. But there's a concrete concept to determine that: quickness implies acting first. No such thing with rolling under/over. As a side note, D&D used to work that way... initiative was "roll under", or more correctly, "roll low". Made sense until you consider initiative modifiers... suddenly "pluses" were bad. I guess it all boils down to general weirdness when you consider all the math involved. When you roll under, pluses to your roll are bad. You have to apply them to your roll's target (whatever you have to roller under of). That's fine, except when there's no actual target. Like say "whoever rolls best wins". In a roll under system, a plus would either have to be applied to your opponent's roll (how come my opponent, who's not interacting with me, is modifying my roll?!), or turned into minuses (but minus is bad!). No, it's not hard to understand... it's just... odd, I guess. Easy to get used to, certainly! Just odd, initially.

Re: Transform on 0 Body things Well, that would actually be more like a Mental Transform on everybody who knew the character, plus a Physical Transform on any occurrences of the character's name in the world (well, the universe, really... I mean, if the character's name is actually really changing, then the logs of aliens from the other corner of the universe would show the new name). Scads of MegaScale, Area Effect, etc... =/

Re: Actions versus Spotlight - revisiting the SPD Concept from a more fundamental lev I'd say this issue is seen even in the comic books. Imagine a fight between a very high SPD character and a very low SPD one. Wouldn't the high SPD one get more "frames" of action? Sure, both might appear in roughly the same amount of frames, but the high SPD one will be acting while the low SPD one will be reacting (going "Oomph!" when hit for damage, saying "Ha ha ha, your attacks are too puny for my tough hide-like skin!" when attacks don't go through defenses, etc.) in most of them. I think Derek got it right... just because you're not running, flying, attacking, or disarming a bomb doesn't mean you're not there. =) Granted, this applies to Superheroic games mostly, but then this is where you're most likely to see big differences in SPD anyway, no?

Re: Hitting or attacking Endurance Fair enough. I didn't mean it as a correction, but as more of a clarification. That is, rolling a "10" on an END Drain wouldn't drain 40 "END, Only At Night (-1)". Not that you claimed, or even implied, it would... I just thought someone might be confused (which basically means I was confused, hee hee).

Re: Hitting or attacking Endurance Ah! I had a feeling a more scrutinous look at the rules would solve this. Although I'd like to point out that Drain (and presumably Suppress, etc.) modify Active Points, not Character Points (as in not Real Cost points). Not that it makes your comment less valid, just pointing it out. =D

Re: Hitting or attacking Endurance I was about to post the same question. It sort of makes sense, especially since it might make STUN and END Drains (and to a lesser extent, Supresses) too weak otherwise, but I really haven't "done the math" to be sure.

Re: Rolling mechanic question I don't think anybody's arguing that roll under is "too complicated" or "too confusing". I'm certainly not. I'm not even arguing that it's counter-intuitive. Just that it's less intuitive than roll over, and that the fact that you (and I) are comfortable with roll under is more due to experience (getting used to) than intuitiveness. Neither system is inherently more complicated. Taken alone (that is, not considering any other rolls), neither is really more intuitive, except for a small bias towards roll over, since usually "bigger is better" in games (higher scores being better, for example, in most games). My solution would be to introduce an "optional rule" to convert the system to roll over (using the same values everywhere), eventually (say, next version, or two versions after the current one?) turn the current system into the optional rule, and roll over into the standard, and after that, eliminate the current system. Not because there's anything wrong with the current one, but because they're mechanically identical and roll over is more intuitive for newcomers.

Re: Rolling mechanic question There's a reason why most/all of the "big boys" do it the same way. It makes more sense; it's more intuitive. Now, experience can trump intuitiveness... so rolling over would be awkward for longtime HERO players, but that doesn't make it a worse technique than rolling under. Consider, for example, how all (most?) applications have their menu at the top (File, Edit, etc.). This is widely accepted as being more intuitive than having it at either side, or the bottom. But Windows continues to put the taskbar (i.e. the Windows "menu bar") at the bottom. Not because it's better, but because Windows users are used to it. Mac users have always had all their menu bars (OS and application) at the top, and they're used to that. Notice how, when rolling, bigger is always better, EXCEPT when rolling skills/to-hit. Damage, Flash effect, Entangle, Mind Control/Scan/etc effect... in all of these, high numbers are good. But when rolling to-hit, or to succeed in a skill, the reverse is desired, for no intuitive reason, especially when contrasted with, for example, Mind Control. When trying to Mind Control, you roll two sets of dice, and both are the same general concept: roll to see whether I succeed or not. Both rolls result in succeed or fail (different from rolling a, say, EB, where you roll to-hit (succeed/fail), and then damage (quantity of damage, varying effect, not succeed/fail)). But in one of those rolls, I want to roll high, the other, low. Just seems odd, if you're not used to it. =) And pandering to the lowest common denominator is only a problem when you're creating problems for the greatest common factor (to extend the math analogy!). If you simply the system in such a way that it becomes boring, only so that "people [who] are too dim" can use it, then you have a problem. If you say "how much is 2+2?" rather than "solve for x: x-2 = 2"... then you're simply creating a more usable system. =)