Opal

Re: Sell me on HERO 5th ed. GURPS did lift some aspects of it's system from Hero - the use of 3d6 as the resolution die, for instance, and the general point build system. Asside from that, though, GURPS is an evolution of The Fantasy Trip. The main difference is that GURPS is essentially a list-based system. You build your character by spending points to buy from a list of abilities - stats, skills, and whatever special abilities are apropriate to the genre. You want to play a fantasy game in GURPS you need GURPS fantasy for the spells. GURPS Supers has long lists of various superpowers. Hero, OTOH, is effects-bases. While it still has stats and skills like any other game, the thing that makes it a little different is the powers. Hero has a list of generic powers that can be customized by the player to model any special ability - be it superpower, spell, high-tech gizmo or whatever. You don't have to add new rules to change genres. Hero does put out genre books, but they contain few if any additional rules. And you don't /need/ them to play in the corresponding genre. That's a nice feature - if you're not selling books, that is. Hero has some published settings, and it's flexibility makes it easily adaptible to any setting you want to create. It does have some general guidelines for creating a campaign, and they're not difficult to use. If you're creating package deals, equipment, spell colleges, or any other 'bits' you want available for the players, though, that gets more time consuming. Character creation is involved, especially if you're designing powers. It's what turns a lot of players off on the system. It's also what makes some of us love it, because you can build to concept very closely.

Re: Is this a legal build IMX, yes, a character who depends on Dodge, Block, Dive for Cover, Desolidification, or other 'active' defenses does need a higher speed (and some good tactics from the player) to be effective, And, if you compare something like this to that higher speed, it is a lot cheaper. Of course, it hardly does everything a higher SPD would.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics I'm sure there are several different covnersations going on, yes. De-coupling characteristics is an obvious solution - if you want to eliminate the sort of 'discounts' represented by figured characteristics, ECs, perhaps other frameworks and even limitations. It's also an obvious solution is you want to reduce all purchased abilities (anything that costs points) to thier pure, single, unique, unambiguous fuctions. So that's two conversations that are going on here, for a start. I suppose you could put limitations on primary characteristics to reduce thier utlity, and that wouldn't carry through to the figured ones. DEX 'doesn't affect initiative order' or CON 'doesn't protect vs stunning.' Increased END, though is a limitation that's normally aplied to anything that costs END, without much controversy. Yes, comparisons have been made in this thread between STR and attack powers, for instance, so I'm still harping on that some. And between Primary stats and Power frameworks. (Hmm there's actually another very similar thread, it might have been there). The idea that STR is 'too cheap' because of the value it gives in figured characteristics, often at the heart of increasing it's cost or dropping figureds, is also in effect, a comparison between STR and those characteristics (mainly thier costs, obviously).

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics It necessitates a few exceptions to normal rules. For instance, if you put multiple END cost on STR, you have to lose figured CHA, since they're not impacted by that limitation. That's not the case with DEX or CON - put limits on them, and, presumably, the figured stats could share the limitation. It's one of a number of unique things about STR that make comparing it to a sing power, or even to the figured CHA it provides, problematic.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Strength is such a straightforward thing, though, you'll find it in any campaign, and it'll do the same things. And, yes, if a GM wants a certain skill or power set to be commonplace and/or predictable in his campaign, he can make it so by presenting many NPCs with it - but he can make it so for the players by giving it a discount. And, having a power set that doesn't stand out is a little less cool than having one that's unique. True. That was tacked on when people in conversations like this one complained loud and long that EC was just giving people 'free points' - and, no, it wasn't /anything/ like figured characteristics, oh, no, figured characteristics aren't free points, you can't sell them back! Seriously, that's the kind of argument you got against ECs back then. Not looking at the system as a whole, not considering anything but points. True, though that wouldn't be a difficult change to make. Yeah, um, if I every see any I'll let you know... There's the Drain, thing, yes. Tell me, if that were a disad, along the lines of a vulnerability, how many points do you think it'd be worth? 60? I fully apreciate your point of view on that, in fact, I agree, that would be ideal. But, point costs are already impacted by such things in much broader ways than that. The judgement the GM uses when setting the value of limitations and disads, for instance. And, the GM may well /want/ to influence PC choices a bit. Discounts do that.

Re: Cool Guns for your Games I remember one cool looking gun I saw in American Rifleman as a kid. It was a prototype that competed with the M1911. It's funny, I've seen it once in my life, never heard mention of it again, but it only took a few minutes to find a picture on line: http://nra.nationalfirearms.museum/tour/graphics/1907%20Savage.jpg Actually, that probably doesn't strike anyone under 40 as funny.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics OK. "Most powers and other characteristics..." then.

Re: Is this a legal build Bizarre. I must still have the 4E copy of UMA. Or it's just my versionistis again. By the time the BBB hit, I'd played under all three previous editions, including the Champions II/III suplements, and the various other games, not to mention variants. Though most of the powers and rules are second nature to me, they're not always the most recent ones, and the I lose track of the more obscure stuff easily. FRED has only deepened the problem.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics Well, and climbing & jumping, yes. One of the oddities of STR has always been that it's both a characteristic that you always have, and an ability that costs END to use. Most powers are one or the other. Either always there (unless you turn them off), or there only when you pay END for them.

OK. The Full Move element still just gives you the option to move farther than normal when using the manuever. If one wanted to trigger movement, shouldn't the trigger be on the movement power? Is there some obscure rule that lets you put advantages on a manuever, by multiplying it's active cost??

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Well, lets see: 25 EC: "Plain old Brick" powers 25 STR: +50 points 25 Superleap: +50" 25 PD +50 25 Rec +25 25 STN +50 Um, not quite the same, no. Nevermind that it's an illegal construct, unless we start taking on some freakish 'costs END.' Oh, sure, you could just build him 'easily' by buying all his stats straight up, he just trims 55 points off whatever he had before. While the guy with the EC is still getting his 60 point discount... The reason for the cost breaks isn't so much the useless skills, as it is the whole package. Instead of customizing the charcter, you're conforming it to the package. That's worth a little something.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics Fine, but that does make it a more philosophical rather than practical argument. It's not nonsensical or game breaking that STR adds to PD, it just doesn't perfectly fit the underlying philosophy of the game. This is true, but it doesn't follow that core concept slavishly. It compromises it in the name of accessability and playability. Can you imagine how turned-off a newbie would be to buying ordinary human STR to the level of detail we're talking here? Lumping all physical stats into one stat would break that, since not only do you now have less flexibility, but you're also pidgeonholed into a specific SFX of an all-around burly guy. There's a fuzzy line there, actually. For instance, you buy EB:EX, and you are paying for an attack that might, at times, do damage to you. You don't buy an attack when you buy STR, you buy the ability to exert greater strength than normal. That's a very familiar concept, since exerting strength is something most of us do on a daily basis (even I carry my laptop out of the office at the end of the day). What a person can do with strength is obvious, and breaking it up is counter-intuitive. Inconsistent with the underlying philosophy of the game, but justifiably so. I have, in the past, let me assure you, gone down the road of trying to hone the system into a perfectly affects-based list of 'atomic' powers (atomic as in individible, each representing a single, clearly defined, unambiguous ability and nothing more). It's virtually impossible, and even working towards it too far gets you something that no one will want to play...

Re: Is this a legal build I wanted to say 'no,' but I think I should just say it doesn't make much sense to me. You can't abort to movement. You can abort to that manuever, yes, but the manuever is simply useable with movement, not movement itself. If you can't move (because it's not your phase), you can get the DCV bonus, that's all. I assume the trigger idea is to activate a movement power. Maybe my eyes are getting old, but I don't see where there'a an actual movement power associated with it? I've always thought it would be nice to have an enhanced Dive for Cover buildable through the martial arts rules. Allwing things like extra DCV, or bonus to the DEX roll, or not having to end the 'dive' prone. Certainly would be much simpler and less prone to abuse than a triggered movement power. Hard to Hit makes a little more sense. Isn't the trigger the AE attack against you, though?

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics It's actually what makes bricks ordinary. Bricks are a very simple character concept. They're really strong, they're kinda tough - stereotypically, they're a little slow. The options they have to deal with challenges - pound someone uncsioncious, break something, bend something, throw something, hold something still - are pretty darn predictable. 'Other characters' might also be able to do that sort of thing (TK), or just about anything else (every other power in the book). A brick can buy any other power, too, but, except for HKA & superleap, he's buying it from scratch, he can't just toss his STR into a multipower and be able to fly or go desolid, when he doesn't want to be strong. A basic EP can do that with his EB. The sort of package deal you get with STR (or any other characteristic), does limit your other choices once you've decided to invest a fair proportion of your character to it, simply because it doesn't mesh well with other such discounts. Honestly, package deals - GM authored packaged deals - should still give package bonuses, too. They shouldn't 'hide' disadvantages like they used to, but package bonuses are just fine.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics That 'slow strength' thing is a really odd case. A limitation works fine for it. I mean, I think I've maybe seen /one/ character with STR that worked that way. Actually those were purely mechanical observations. STR gives you just enough REC to get back the extra END you use to exert it each turn, /if/ your SPD is only 2. That has nothing to do with F/X. STR gives you just enough PD to stand up to the average BOD of your own STR-based attacks. Yes, and you have more stamina when doing things other than exerting your massive STR, like simply walking. That assumption was actually given as a counter-point to my own argument. STR, assuming just the figured CHA from STR, exhausts you faster the higher you buy it up, if you have SPD higher than two. That implies that the extra REC from STR is hardly excessive, from a mechanical point of view. Mittigating that point is the fact that CON and R END are out there. Ih. Where you draw the line between stats is very much a design choice. Champions has more stats than most games. Some put all your physical attributes - what Champs breaks out into STR, CON, BOD, STN, REC, END, & PD - into one stat. Some games break what champs does with EGO into two. It's pretty arbitrary. Well, if you didn't have a PD equal to the BOD you typically inflict, wouldn't you be hurting yourself more than the otherguy some of the time? For that matter, wouldn't you be doing yourself some injury any time you fully exerted your STR? I'm not talking F/X, here, just rules physics. If you hit someone with a DEF 2 BOD 2 object, you do a maximum of 4d with it, IIRC (and again, I'm sorry if that's actually a dated rule from an earlier edition, I've played this game too long...), and doesn't it break, too? If you did, by default, run around with a 2 PD fist dishing out 12d with a brute-force punch, wouldn't that perhaps strain credulity a little? (Obviously, with enough martial arts, you can do just that, but that's an exraordinary amount of skill involved, too). Indeed, you can - and STR doesn't give you nearly enough PD to stop you from doing so.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics That's why I said "/perhaps/ even limitations." In FRED, the gangfire type rules do make having multiple attack powers worthwhile, to an extent, though it's still wildly inferior to just having one big attack, so there is some 'loss of utility' in putting attack powers in a multipower. Before, though, when attack powers couldn't be combined unless linked, there was no difference to speak of between having six different attack powers, and six different attack powers in a multipower. You weren't getting a discount for 'reduced utility' for taking a multipower of attacks, so much as a recognition of the redundancy of having multiple attack powers in the firstplace. Any package discount, though, could be justified as a reduction in 'efficiency' or 'utility,' since it limits choice. Buying 3 powers in a 'Fire' EC, saves you lots of points, even in 3rd Ed, before you faced discrimination with adjustment powers, but, even then, you'd have come up against situations where fire-based powers just weren't the thing to use, and having three unrelated powers would have worked better for you. Similarly, STR has always been something of a good deal, but it does give you a very predictable and commonplace power set. Getting rid of some existing cost breaks but not others would change the balance of the game. No STR bonus for bricks, for instance, means you'd see fewer bricks with thier powers bought 'straight' up, you'd see more with frameworks or limitations more typical of energy projectors, or simply fewer bricks.

Re: Decoupling Figured Characteristics To be fair, it wouldn't really make a lot of sense for a character with 1,267,650,600,228,230,000,000,000,000,000x normal human STR (+100 STR), and the same mass as a normal human being (one flaw of the 'biological being' F/X model: buying STR doesn't make you heavier) to be able to jump no further than a normal person. Also, the added REC from STR doesn't actually give you more 'stamina,' when it comes to exerting your STR. With a speed of 2, the extra REC merely offsets the extra END cost of exerting your STR. If your speed is higher, you'll actually run out of END faster while exerting your full STR every phase, the higher your STR is, in spite of the added REC. Not a problem bricks tend to run into, too badly, since they also tend to buy up thier CON, and/or buy reduced END on thier STR. Similarly, all the added PD does is give you enough PD to resist the BOD you'd do if you punched yourself - presumably, one reason Hero doesn't bother with a 'you hurt your fist' mechanic. (No, I have no such rationales with regard to STN.)

Re: Sith Lightsaber Yes, ignore that the stormtrooper costumes are obviously made of thin plastic, that's just because it would have been impractial to put all those extras in thick, convincingly metalic-looking armor. (in 1977, today, of course, it could all be CGI).

Re: Star Wars arms and armor

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics KAs are innately better at inflicting BOD (3.5 average per 3 DCs vs 3 for normal attacks) and much better at inflicting it on normal people (no resistant def); they're not as good at inflicting stun (9.3 average per 3 DCs vs 10.5). In addition, KAs are much less consistent in dealing damage, because they roll fewer dice, and because of the STN mutliplier. Consitency is desireable for a character who has a clear advantage, as with a super fighting Agents. A longshot chance at very high damage is desireable when the shoe is on the other foot, such as Supers fighing uber-villains meant to whipe the floor with the whole team. That the STN lotto gives an agent with a 3d RKA a remote chance of instantly KOing an 'invulnerable' brick, or the group wolverine type a remote chance of stunning the galactus type is arguably a flaw in the system. But it doesn't make KAs better at inflicting STN than normal attacks - normal attacks do more STN, the extreme corner cases where the STN lotto gives unfortunate results notwithstanding. Thus, while KA may need a tweek of some kind, the idea of a 'normal limitation' for EBs is bunk. That is the question you have to ask yourself. Do you want 'discounts' in the game, at all? If you don't, figured characteristics, power frameworks, perhaps even limitations need to go. If cost breaks are OK, then they can all stay. Getting rid of some cost breaks and not others, though, is not such a great idea. Even reigning in a cost break and not others, as was done with EC, in part, I'm sure, due to complaints like those now being leveled at figured characteristics, causes problems. This thread illustrates that.

Re: "Oooops ! I don't know my own strength...." If the concept is your strong, you just haven't learned to control your STR, you should just buy the STR straight up. Then take a psych lim: exerts STR as if it were still normal. That is, when you do a task that would require your original casual STR, you exert your new casual STR. When you do a task that would have cost you END for STR, you exert your full new STR. You can make an Ego roll to 'remember' to exert your STR propperly. You can slowly buy down the disad as the character gets used to his power (and accumulates experience points). The reason I'm thinking psych lim is because pscych lims aren't absolute.

Re: What about a Space 1999 Hero UFO was set in the future earth of 1985, Space 1999 of course, in the far-flung future of that year. I remember on Sept 13, 1999 I though "hey, this is when the moon was supposed to be blown out of orbit - and it's not a friday." (it was a Monday) Yeah, they got that bit wrong, too. I mean, you can excuse them for not accurately predicting the development of the moon as real estate, but they could at least have gotten the calendar math right. August 1999 has a Friday the 13th for instance. Folks go on and on about how Star Trek anticipated this or that, but y'know, the Space 1999 comlink sure was a lot like a cell phone. Just remember to buy the lasers with the power limitation "doesn't work vs alien threat of the week."

Re: A resource for PA characters I recall at least one post /post/ apocalypse story in which the profession 'miner' did refer to people who made thier living digging up landfills, graveyards, burried cities and the like looking for good stuff. The creepy part was that perfectly preserved corpses in crystaline coffins ended up in the tailings pile...

Re: Building John Carter of Mars

Re: Change the focus from KO to Killing It does, and I didn't, but I did say "anythings on the table." Of course. That'd make killing the main effect of most weapons, but it would be possible, just difficult, to use them to subdue. That would work, but I'm afraid it would just encourage more non-normal-armor defenses, which can be pretty cheap. Unless there are ideas other than my Force-Wall one, above, for an elegant way to make resistant defense more costly. Anyone?