DrFurious

A recent thread has gotten me thinking that most alien races tend to be variations on the human race. You see a great deal of this in the Star Trek shows and in many space-faring supplements. Has anyone developed or come across some truely alien races? Of the ones that aren't human tend to be modeled on ants or some sort of hive mentality. What about something truely wierd? I'd imagine other alien races could follow along the lines found in Call of Cthulhu.

Re: Comeliness? I just have one question: How would you describe a character trying to make a COM roll? Str roll I can see, the hero exerts himself. Dex roll I can see, the heroine attempts to move about nimbly. Con roll, you steel yourself to resist. Would a COM roll be standing there trying to be prettier? Hmmm..

Re: Theory: Odd COM Mechanic how I would do it: +20 COM (positive), only affects half the people in the world (-1, loses half effectiveness) +20 COM (negative), only affects the other half of the people in the world (-1, loses half effectiveness) This winds up costing the same if you buy the +20 COM outright and handwave the effect (or just use a -0 limitation/advantage, unpredictable positive or negative effect on targets).

Re: Mind Trap: How To Build It? I don't have my book handy but my first thought was to have Mind Scan with a Damage Shield variant and perhaps Continious (reinterpreted appropriately).

Re: How to Build: "Wreaths of Holy Fire" Flametongue: 2d6 HKA, OAF:sword(-1), StrMin(?), Blade limitation(?), etc. as required. plus 1d6 RKA(flames), No range(-1/2), OAF:magic sword (-1), etc. as required. You can use a MPA to do the attack and apply the defenses seperately (one physical, the other energy). With this construct, you can also use the flames of the sword only (i.e. there is no linked limitation above). How does that sound?

This was posted in the MPA thread and I thought it should warrant a seperate thread: There was a thread on the old boards that advocated breaking up continous into two +1/2 advantages. The idea struck me as a good one although I haven't used it in any of my games. From http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/HeroSystemDiscussion/000499.html

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? There was a thread on the old boards that advocated breaking up continous into two +1/2 advantages. The idea struck me as a good one although I haven't used it in any of my games. edit: Rather than continue cluttering up this thread with a DS discussion, I've created a new thread here: http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17313 From http://www.herogames.com/oldForum/HeroSystemDiscussion/000499.html

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks?

Re: D&D 3rd ED convert I meant is are more of a value judgement rather than providing hard numbers. Someone wearing cloth, boiled leathers, or studded leathers would qualify as lightly armored. Heavier armors are chain/ring mail, plate armor, etc.

Re: D&D 3rd ED convert

Re: D&D 3rd ED convert This might have already been covered elsewhere but... Don't roll dice for damage or effects - just use the standard amount (i.e. 3 per die). For opponents (like mooks), don't even bother rolling, just use the average on the dice (eg. 11 + ocv <= target dcv). This makes tactical choices for advantages the determining factor (see below). Don't bother adding up all the little combat modifiers for range or other situational modifiers. Either give bonus/penalties for exceptional events when the players really need to pull out all the stops. Alternatively, just decide between 3 or 4 types of "combat difficulties". Easy (no modifier), Challenging(-2), Difficult (-4), Very Difficult (-6). The less time you spend adding up the various modifiers, the better. Keep power constructs simple. The fewer fancy powers you have the less you need to worry about during combat. If the gm doesn't have to roll a single die, then you're definitely going to speed things up.

Re: How do people feel about multi-power attacks? It seems to me that the introduction of multi-power attacks in 5th was designed to fix an element of the linked limitation. Before 5th, the linked limitation basically allowed you to use two powers simultaneously when you couldn't before. In effect, the limitation was giving you an advantage-like quality. By introducing the MPA, then linked actually becomes a limitation. I have this nagging feeling that MPAs weren't fully tested for potential abuses. It adds all sorts of ramifications to the game that alters many implicit assumptions.

Re: Moving Advantages/Limitations to Adders/Subtractors The numbers were suggested only as a starting point in determining the corresponding adders. It you have to recalculate the values depending on the power level of the campaign, then you haven't really gained anything. You can argue that many of the powers are already based on an expected power level. For example, the typical cost for desolid is 40 pts which puts it right in the middle of the standard super-hero average defense level and average attack level. With the addition of a lot more adders in the regular game, it seems to me that the power constructs are becoming more complicated than they need to be. With the addition of adders (no pun intended), we have a new crop of questions like "can I drain/aid adders seperately from the power or not", or "what is the END cost of a power with adders". This tends to add a level of complexity to an already complicated process of constructing powers. IMO, the game should stick with either advantages or adders and not mix them. To consider using only adders, lets postulate the following: +1/4 advantage: +10 pts. +1/2 advantage: +20 pts. +1 advantage : +40 pts. etc.. I was going to suggest that subtractors would do something like -1/4 -> -5 pts, -1/2 -> -10 pts, etc, but this seems to be problematic - especially when you start piling on "limitations" on a base power. You'd quickly get to a zero (or negative) cost - it would probably be best to keep the regular limitation formula. The end results will probably be that previously low cost powers will become more expensive, previously high cost powers would tend to have lower active costs (since they tend to be heavily advantaged constructs).

Re: Moving Advantages/Limitations to Adders/Subtractors Well, you could define adders as always applying to the power by default. If you wanted to make it not apply, maybe something like the idea behind Variable Advantage could be used. To use the previous example: Armor Piercing (+20 pt adder, always operative) Armor Piercing (+30 pt adder (20x1.5), variable) I'd like to see the various existing adders for the various powers collapsed into into defined categories. Right now, the adders seem somewhat specialized for certain powers (fine manipulation for TK, etc) which means you need to start remembering a longer list of modifiers to a power. Bah, I ramble.

Has anyone experimented with replacing advantages with adders for powers? As a starting point for obtaining the point values, you could use the average power in a game (say 40 pts) and then apply the advantage (or limitation) value toward this total to obtain the point value for the adder(or subtractor). For example, a +0.25 advantage would become 40 * 0.25 = +10 pt. adder. Similarily for limitations. Of course you'd need to have some sort of rule for a minimum cost to prevent zero or negative cost powers. Maybe subtractors may only reduce the cost by 1/2 as much (a -0.25 limitation would be -5 pt subtractor). So has anyone tried this and if so, what are the pro's and con's of this approach? One effect I can see is that some power constructs (those with a high base and many advantages) may have a much lower active point total. Conversely, power constructs that tend to have a low base cost and high advantages could wind up with a higher active point total. This would suggest that they may be less abusive. What do you all think?

Re: What about the warriors It seems to me that you can only spend so much on combat abilities before you begin hitting campaign limits. After that, warriors would need to spend their points elsewhere otherwise they'll vastly outstrip everyone in combat. Before you say that they'd need that to keep up with mages, keep in mind that mages have may more options to spend points on other than combat.

Re: Multiple-Foci Power Construction Question Disadvantage: Grabs wrong focus when in a rush. Infrequent 8-, Slightly Impairing (affects choice of tactics or wastes time) (5 pts).

Re: Force Wall Or you can add "when I will it so" to the shut-off condition(s).

Re: BattleTech Heat Sinks

Re: BattleTech Heat Sinks Just to get some practice "Heat Transport System" : moves internal heat to environment. 100 pt. HEAT Reserve (bought as an END Reserve) Heat Sink : 24 REC for HEAT Reserve ( 2 HEAT / segment ) 34 Active pts. 34 Real pts. Note: when HEAT Reserve <= 0, mech is overheating. "Power Plant" : powers laser, plasma weapons, movement, mech STR 100 pt. END Reserve 48 REC for Power plant ( 4 END / segment ) OIF : power plant core unit (-1/2) 58 Active pts. 39 Real pts. (plus) "Power Plant Shielding" 20 rpd/ 20 red Armor Only to protect power plant (-2) 60 Active pts. 20 Real pts. 31 DEF (11+20=31) (for targeting Power Plant focus only) "Plasma Canon" 6d6 RKA Costs HEAT to use : 1 HEAT per 10 Active points (-1/2) OIF : mounted cannon (-1/2) 90 Active pts. 45 Real pts. 9 END 9 HEAT 18 DEF (for targeting Plasma Cannon focus only) "Autocannon" 4d6 RKA Autofire : 5 shots (+1/2), Charges* : 60 (+1/2) Costs Heat to use : 1 HEAT per 10 Active points (-1/2), OIF : mounted weapon (-1/2), Side Effect : ammo explosion (4d6K Explosion, all ammo lost) when overheated or ammo location breached (-1) Activation Roll : 8- on Side Effect (-2). 120 Active pts. 53 Real pts. 12 HEAT 24 DEF (for targetting Autocannon focus only)

Re: Pyro Kinetic Help This brings up a thought that has been hovering in the back of my mind recently. At what point do you apply an undesirable effect to the character (as a disadvantage) or to the power (as a limitation). One way can potentially save a lot of extra points (namely as a power limitation). In this case, Liz Sherman's pyrotechnic power could be bought with a version of Limited Conscious Control (-1). But imagine a situation where she has control of her powers but they could be set off accidently - much like a Berserk disadvantage. Would it be more appropriate to have this as a minor limitation on the power (say at -1/4) or as a disadvantage? Opinions?

Re: Autofire Targeting question... I don't think there is anything in the rules that forbids this. For your case, I'd consider what is dramatically appropriate and the sfx of the autofire attack. You have a couple of ways for this to end up: - the bad guys have held actions so they shoot the hostages when the heros make a move (DEX-roll to see who goes first as usual) - regardless if the bad guys get their actions off from the above, the hostage(s) provide a cover bonus for the bad guys. If the heroes miss due to the cover bonus, then the hostage gets hit. Note, you could get the hostage hit multiple times too - even if the heroes hit the bad guy with the cover bonus, the hostage may still get struck with a stray bullet. Each bullet that misses but only misses due to the cover bonus will strike a hostage. This makes using a full-auto attack in a hostage situation a very bad idea.

Re: Imaginary Weapons Has anyone considered just buying an attack power with a limitation "illusionary damage - ego roll or when out of combat reveals damage is not real(-1/2)"

Re: Superleap and falling damage.

Re: What about the warriors This is an issue that has occured to me as well. After a certain point a warrior or rogue character can't spend more points on combat abilities or skills without (potentially) breaking the flavor of the game. There needs to be a good balance between what a mage can spend experience points on and what warriors/rogues spend points on. One option is to allow warriors and rogues to purchase quasi-magic abilities. The feats in AD&D are a good model but this can also alter the flavor of your game drastically. If you don't want to go with almost-magical abilities, you could make up a list of super-skills that these character types could purchase. Another option could be the development of followers and bases. Warriors and rogues can develop castles and guilds as a place to sink experience points - althought I suppose that mages could do the same.