MrKinister

Interesting situation. It strikes me that you are building encounters where the PCs can easily overwhelm a small set of opponents, who may be at varying power levels, with very focused paralysis spells.

I would recommend the following:

1. Increase the number of opponents. They don't have to be more powerful, just more numerous. This will keep the PCs on their toes and open opportunities for the villains to actually strike back, protect, counter-attack. Don't forget to apply the multiple attacker penalty on their DCV.

2. Include among your villains casters who can do the same things: have the PCs be mentally paralyzed and sent to the hospital for a few months.

3. If the PCs are known for these tactics, clever opponents will arrive prepared: consider spell reflection abilities or wards, or spell nullification preparations. I would pay good money to see one of them cast that spell and have it reflected back on them. The look ought to be priceless.

4. Consider having the villains have exotic pets: have some unearthly monsters with high mental immunity - constructs, high powered enslaved undead - things that will generally be immune to mental powers. 

Overall, the players are acting out a specialization with that power. All you need to do is create a setting in which the specialization does not apply. That should put them over the flame for a while.

Just my $0.02.

Hello there,

I've been mulling the "teleportation into an area you can't see" rules for a bit and found a light layer of ambiguity (in my mind at least) about how the penalties apply.

I have a character with a Mega-Scale teleport power, Gate. My GM says that a PER roll is necessary to place a Gate at a long distance. For distances of a mile or more this could go as high as -15 or more. I am not debating the ranged penalties at all. We are in agreement that it would apply just fine. What I am seeing is that a blind jump is different from a jump into a location that is hard to perceive.

Both interpretations make sense to me, and the layer of ambiguity (for me) is in the following two paragraphs:

(Here's the base text from Volume 1, page 300)

Quote

If the PER Roll fails, the character must make an Attack Roll (against DCV 3) at -1 for every point he missed the roll by to Teleport to the proper location. (The GM might reduce the penalty slightly if the character can perceive the target location with a Nontargeting Sense.) If the character is using Noncombat Teleportation, he retains his full normal OCV solely for purposes of targeting his destination; he doesn’t have the usual OCV 0 when using Noncombat Movement. If the Attack Roll succeeds, he Teleports to his target Area without difficulty. If the Attack Roll fails, the character lands “off-target” by 2m in a random direction for every 1 point the roll failed by. This may result in his Teleporting into a solid object, which can have dangerous consequences (see 6E2 29).

If a Teleporter cannot perceive his target location at all and is simply guessing where it is, he must make an Attack Roll (against DCV 3) at -5 to move to his target Area successfully. The character uses his standard OCV to make this roll, unless some other circumstance (like being Flashed or in Darkness) affects him. The Range Modifier applies, and the GM may also apply any other additional modifier he wants; the character may use applicable Combat Skill Levels if desired. If the Attack Roll succeeds, he Teleports to the target Area successfully; if it fails, he lands “off-target” as described above.

Now, the way I originally read this is that the worst case scenario of a blind jump applies a -5 penalty to a regular Attack roll. Which is better than PER roll at a long distance (Mega Scaled) which could include penalties into the high double digits (-20 or more).

Am I reading this wrong? Is the "blind jump" worse by the fact that it includes an -5 to the Attack roll IN ADDITION to the missed PER roll penalties for a hard-to-see target spot? Or is it independent from the PER roll, seeing as no PER roll can be made to target a teleport location you can't see to begin with?

Thank you for the help.

9 hours ago, Khymeria said:

Why yes I do.  

Khymeria@gmail.com

Message and HDC sent, along with some comments and observations.

Keep me posted.

I can create a character for you, if you'd like me to.

Do you have Hero Designer? I can send you an HDC file.

Shouldn't take me too long.

Well, it sounds like you are actually up for running a game.

I like classic mages, but not Vancian. I am looking at the research academic, steeped in books and arcane philosophies. A possible wide variety of minor spells of all types (represented by a small VPP, perhaps 15 AP max), along with a small bevy of heavier spells, carried possibly in a 30 or 40 AP Multipower pool. This allows the mage to have no particular specialization, but makes him capable of casting a decent variety of utilitarian spells, some battle spells, some restoration spells, and perhaps some travelling spells.

That would definitely be a mage I'd see being "smart", using what he has to his advantage, and avoiding unnecessary conflict where possible.

What do you think of those ideas? They are mostly mechanical in nature, since the concept has already been done many times.

100 points? Standard Heroic is 175, I believe. You can make a competent physical or mystical character with some good skills with that many points.

How do you handle magic in your setting?

Khymeria: I am currently in Los Angeles. Would be one heck of a commute for a weekly drive. 😃

Maccabe: personally I like Moderate or High Fantasy. Something bright and heroic. I don't like Dark Fantasy or low-powered/Iron Age Fantasy. Standard power settings. But I can be adaptable, depending on the game and GM. I like archers, versatile rogues, and cunning mages as personalities/contributions to the game when I design my characters. I have yet to play an armored warrior (plate, sword, and shield) in all my Fantasy Hero games. 

Wow, congratulations!

That's a rarity: a small group of Hero System players all found around the same table.

15 hours ago, Khymeria said:

My schedule is pretty open, I am in California for time purposes.  I would love to play and am comfortable running a FH game.  I am less comfortable with the online tabletop software but have figured out how to play Champions on it.  Just not a pro.  

And Khymeria, of course.

I feel that the choice of VTT is not so critical. Any one system that can show a map and can have its participants move tokens on is quite sufficient in my opinion. This being the Hero System, we know they will not have support for the specific nuances (speed chart, character sheets, etc) of the game's mechanics. Which ever system you pick I am sure we can learn to handle it, as we always have when playing an actual table top: pencil and paper for notes (although nowadays it is more water-soluble pens and the old Chessex battlemats).

If you are up for running a game, do you have a particular frequency, day of the week, and session length in mind?

I can do as often as weekly, on the weekends, and perhaps Monday as well, for a max length of perhaps 6 hours, although 4 hours would be a nice easy session.

And, if you do choose to run a game, what type of setting do you have in mind? High Fantasy? Swords & Sorcery? Something unusual? Perhaps homebrew?

PS: I am in California as well, so coordinating times would be easy (or easier anyway).

On 5/14/2019 at 3:45 PM, Anonanonanon said:

im starting up a discord server for a 6e fantasy game. its currently intended as a sort of hybrid game experiment with text (if people cant find the time for more scheduled gameplay) and normal gameplay. 

Yes, where is this Discord server you want to set up?

It would be interesting to see what you have in mind,

So far, we have Diamond Spear trying to arrange for a Thursday game, and Anonanonanon with the possibility of a Discord-based text game. 

Promising. 😃

So... Diamond... what are you thinking? Is Thursday the only day you have open? If so, I shall bow out because... it's Thursday. Others may join you, though. 

I haven't seen an online solution for Hero System yet. Most systems try to be agnostic as to what rules they use, or perhaps favor the most popular ones (D20, Pathfinder).

5 hours ago, Diamond Spear said:

Do Thursdays work for y’all 

Unfortunately not. Monday was good because it looks like my schedule is shifting a day, but Thursday is firmly planted in the "work day" category, and I would have little chance of shifting hours to make time for a game then.

If magic is so common, magic suppression would be common as well. Blanket the location with trinkets that suppress magic and spells won't work in there.

Checking on the chat record so far, I don't see a suggested method of "communication". (Did I miss it?)

Will you be picking a VTT platform of any sort? Something on which to show maps and get some text going?

That sounds good. Every other week is fine. Way back when, when I used to run a D&D 3.5 game, we would get together in person every other week for 6 to 8 hour Saturday sessions. It worked out fine because everyone had a weekend in between to do what ever they wanted, and I had that weekend to plan and prep for next week's session.

A 3 or 4 hour session should be just fine with me. 😃

There is also RPG Crossing

https://www.rpgcrossing.com/

although the Hero System is relatively unknown there.

I would rather have a solid session of roleplay where we get together for three or four hours and do stuff. Even if it was once a month, it would move far faster than any email or play by post could ever achieve. (Even if it was text-only!)

You know, I may be able to swing Monday nights.

Let me know what's possible.

Actually, it is quite up. Lots of people already with characters at level 50, and I am playing it every night. Good game. Still kicks some butt.

It is up and running for the foreseeable future, legalities and funding notwithstanding.

Wow, activity in this old thread. I am surprised.

I would certainly be interested in doing a bit of FH. I would vote for the Mystara setting, since I actually have some of the ancient modules for it. Loved Basic D&D back in the day. And definitely 6th edition if possible, although I have all the books I need for 5th or 4th.

I would only be able to do this on the weekends, since you are on EST and I am PST (and work all that).

What are the possibilities of that?

I was about to say that: the staff sounds like it is a special effect for extra DCV and OCV, with amazing teleport acrobatics added in for good flavor.

And, sadly, the accidental suicide rate would go through the roof from all the people who heard that some heroes got their powers by experimental exposure to hazardous materials, chemicals, radiation, high voltage, pacts with otherworldly entities, etc, etc. There would be quite a lot of dead hopefuls who just didn't have the right mutation, strength of will, galactic alignment of stars, the right parents, etc, etc.

Tragic, really. ?

Interesting idea.

I am much more liberal than that. The PCs are supposed to be the "heroes". They ARE supposed to be remarkable, extraordinary, astounding to behold and sometimes frightening to face in battle. They are competent and trained, and can dominate the battle field.

This is so wonderfully exemplified when they can act twice as fast as a normal untrained character (speed 4 vs speed 2), and will give a trained character a run for their money (4 vs 3). I tend to celebrate reckless behavior and risk taking when it turns into wonderful results.

I use the normal characteristic maxima rules, but if the PCs have earned the points for them, they are entirely within their right to buy up their stats even if it costs twice as much. They are, after all, the heroes of the story, the protagonists of amazing stories, capable of things that few other people are able to do. They are the "super heroes" of their times.

I ran a game once with a character who played a barbarian, a nordic blonde-braid haired, heavy leather hide clad, axe-wielding adonis of a man (COM 20, back in 4th edition). His name was Rudgar the Barbarian. He was fast enough (speed 3), but he was very strong (21 STR to start) and very tough (CON 23, PD 8, ED 8). He had bought his running to some ungodly value, I don't remember what it was, but he could move.

Once, a herd of buffaloes was threatening a small village, and he decided to face them head on. He ran along one of them (he had the speed and running movement for it), and he punched the buffalo in the head. It wasn't enough to really hurt it, but it CON-stunned it, and the buffalo fell very hard, knocking itself out ever further in the process. We talked about it for years how Rudgar punched the buffalo out with one hit. He was building a legend for himself. It became part of his reputation.

Another time, the party was in a desert town, where the buildings were build from very flimsy mud bricks. The walls were thick, but not very strong (3 DEF 2 BOD). They were looking for vampire thralls, and found them! The vampires were agile and jumpy, able to move over the rooftops with ease, outmaneuvering the party who had to weave around the densely packed buildings. Rudgar was strong enough at that point (STR 23, IIRC), that on a standard effect move-through maneuver, he could plow through the walls with casual STR without harm to himself. So, in the end, the vampires tried to use the environment to their advantage, but Rudgar just broke through building after building, like a bulldozer, surprising them over and over again by slamming into them as he crashed through the walls like a Kool Aid man on steroids, a blond quisenart of axe fury. In the end, we proclaimed Rudgar a nordic demigod, and his legend grew even more. 

None of that would have been possible if I had chosen to limit the PCs to normal stats.

So, in conclusion, I encourage PCs to be extraordinary. But your mileage may vary.

Don't worry. They are still quite mortal. Between spells and heavy weapons, even the demigods fall.

PS: On one occasion, Rudgar had been mind-controlled. You can imagine the fear in the rest of the party as their heaviest bruiser suddenly turned against them. The master sword wielder used a wooden sword to hit Rudgar in the vitals (location 13) so hard (we called it a well place shot to the groin with a martial offensive strike) that he keeled over in one blow. After waking up, Rudgar remembered all that happened, and replaced his 3 PD leather loin guard with a 8 PD metal cup he carried everywhere, even in his sleep. He would never again be hit that hard in the manly bits. We still laugh about it. ?

Oh, yeah. And in order to not get stuck on rolls, any information that is critical to the plot should NOT be behind a roll-wall. If it is really that critical, they will have to get it, no matter how. That will have to be an investigation freebie. It should be easy to get, even if there are rolls present. Otherwise you may be shooting yourself in the plot-foot. ?

It strikes me that you may need to pay attention to the player's personal preference. You, as the GM, have absolute control over the story, except where public rolls cannot be denied (hence a GM screen).

If you have a series of players that do not like investigations, you need to adapt your game to those players. It looks to me your players are into the game as a way to splash stuff around with powers in combat. You have combat junkies. There's nothing wrong with that. Other players will be more skill oriented, and others will be more roleplay oriented.

There is no point in giving an action player a mystery to solve. They will look at it and walk away like a cat faced with distasteful food. Just bury it.

What do your players want? Give that to them. It will make them happy. Now, the question then remains, what do you, as a GM, want? Do you want to run combat scenarios all the time? Do you want to make things more clever or cerebral? It might help a bit to give the players an idea of what to expect in a scenario. Something along the lines of "Hey guys, these next three sessions are going to be about a mystery you have to solve. Put on your thinking caps." Unless they are unusually stubborn, or being passive-aggressive, they will at least know what is expected of them and they may pay attention to things they might not normally pay attention to.

As a last resort, you may just have to spoon feed them the information in a way that makes sense to them. You can present it as a the characters reaching the conclusions that the players then learn about through your exposition. After all, the characters are usually much better at what they do than the players. Sometimes the characters will have better investigation skills (and perhaps more common sense) than the players. ?

And that might just be the case: If the players are new to "investigations", they really may have no idea how to go about them. A few in-game examples of how to think through such a situation, and what to pay attention to, and the types of questions to ask, will give them an education on how to proceed in those types of scenarios. Again, unless your players are deliberately dragging their feet because all they really want to do is get into the next fight they will eventually pick up on these details.

This may be especially true if their only background to roleplay is fantasy-based, where the typical plot is "there's trouble in town (cave, dungeon, dimension, etc), go there, find the monsters, kill them". Not much of a thinking man's game. They may be stuck in that "we need someone to tell us where the monsters are so we can kill them" mindset. I know I was stuck there for a little while, until I learned more by watching more and more investigation games. I got better. ? 

Just my $0.02.

Even though I won't actually play in this game, I would agree that I don't play FH for D&D. I like a separately defined magic system, even if it just the Colleges of Magic 4th edition had to offer. Anything but the D&D "you only get 4 first level spells per day" system. ?