Klaus Mogensen

Re: 6th Edition Measurement I imagine that for superheroic battles, which often cover a lot of ground, I will use 5m hexes or squares and say that you can HTH attack anybody in the same hex/square. I might even use my old Marvel Super Heroes maps and guesstimate distances. - Klaus

I just got to thinking about turn mode for movement powers (primarily Flight) and how it has always seemed a bit too complex to be worth it, while not being very flexible. I'm considering an alternative that goes something like this: Turn Mode (revised) Movement Powers like Flight don't allow free-form movement; it costs movement to turn. The Turn Mode of a movement power is how many meters of movement it costs to make a 60-degree turn. The maximum distance you can move is reduced by this. The basic Turn Mode of a power is 1m per 20m of (combat) movement. If you e.g. have 40m of Flight and make five 60-degree turn, your movement will be reduced to 30m, or if you make ten such turns, your movement is reduced to 20m. For non-combat movement, Turn Mode is multiplied by the nc multiple times 5. If the above Flight power has a x4 nc multiplier, the nc Turn Mode will thus be 40m. Making a single 60-degree turn will thus reduce nc movement from 160m to 120m. For Gliding, you can choose to drop a number of meters rather than reducing forward motion. What do you think? - Klaus Caveat: I don't have the rule book with me, and I haven't read up on the Turn Mode rules in a while, so they may not be as bad as I remember. Edit: Wow, my post number 1,000!

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I can't find my 3e rules, but wasn't there a form of END Reserve in them? I seem to recall something that had a fixed ratio between END and REC - which at any rate would be a better idea than the current mess. Another change was that in 3e, non-combat multipliers for movement powers were calculated from the active cost - the greater the power, the higher the multiple. There was also a "Stalling" limitation for Flight, where you couldn't go below 1/4 top speed (or some such) without stalling. I wonder, if there had been a forum to discuss the changes from 3e to 4e, how much resistance would there have been to the changes? - Klaus

Re: Alternate Advantage and Limitation configuration IIRC, campaign limits are not part of the RAW, so you can do what you describe easily enough. A flexible magic system could have a fixed "Variable Limitations -2" with the requirement that the limitations must come from a list including e.g. Extra Time, Concentration, Increased END Cost, Gestures, Incantations, Requires a Skill Roll, and Focus: Staff. The campaign limit would be in RP rather than AP. You could then allow certain spells to take an extra limitation: Sacrifice, which allows greater AP for the same RP. The value of the limitation could vary according to the value of the sacrifice; e.g. sacrificing a dove or a jewel might give -1/4, while sacrificing a virgin or a powerful magic item might give -1. - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: Bloody?

Re: Monate The huge number of options makes the power somewhat complex and hard to get a feel for. I know you're not asking how to make this with existing powers. However, given that the target must be willing, etc., I think it could be done with Multiform with a Focus limitation, possibly linked to a Transfer if the Monator absorbs some of the target's powers/abilities. - Klaus

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #3: Area Of Effect And Damage Shield

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far We don't know yet if SPD will still be 10 points per +1, though I concede that it likely won't drop below 8, which doesn't change your result much. However, if skill prices are reduced (which I hope and think), buying up skills will be a better bargain than before, so what used to be a DEX-based character may become a skill-based character at a similar cost. Also consider the greater flexibility: Before, if you bought up DEX to improve OCV, you also got improved DCV, initiative and DEX skills, which you might not need. Now you can buy each to the level you need. YMMV. I have played in campaigns where the cost of STR was set to 2 (with END cost of 1 per 5 STR), and the high-STR character builds still seemed very effective. - Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far I don't see that characters necessarily will have to be built on more points in 6e. True, you don't get all the 'free' stuff from STR that you used to, but all the other characteristics that used to give figureds will mlst likely have their costs reduced (I assume all primary characteristics will cost 1 each). If STUN is reduced to ½, there's also points saved. And there have been serious suggestions towards reducing the cost of skill levels from 2/3/5/8 to 1/2/3/5, which again will reduce costs. Bricks relying heavily on STR will likely become more expensive, but other character types may become cheaper. If the price reductions outlined above do come through, I expect a typical selection of adventurers or superheroes, with a little tweaking, will have about the same total cost as now. - Klaus

Re: Hero System 60th Edition

Re: Hero System 60th Edition Given the current evolution in page count, the rules for 60th edition will be more than 7 quadrillion pages: Champions 1e: 64 pages Champions 2e: 80 pages Champions 3e: 144 pages Hero 4e: 219 pages Hero 5e: 384 pages Hero 5er: 592 pages This is an average of x1.74 per edition. We don't know 6e yet, so counting from 5er (edition 5½), we get that edition 60 will have 592 x 1.74^54.5 pages, or 7.525 quadrillion pages. - Klaus

Re: ... armor, limits of limitations,etc. I have never run a Fantasy Hero game, but played in a few. I have seen something which can be perceived as an imbalance: Warriors can use weapons that add damage for free, while magicians have to pay points for their spells. Hence, if I were to run a game, I would do it this way, which also solves the problem we discuss: Spells exist naturally in the world, they don't have to be bought with points. In order to utilize spells, a magician will need a Magic Skill and proficiency with certain groups of spells, just like a warrior will need combat skill and proficiency with certain groups of weapons. Spells naturally exist with some limitations, e.g. Requires Skill Roll, Costs END, Gestures, Limitations, Extra Time, Concentration, Focus (staff) or perhaps a Variable Limitation that requires at least -1 in a combination of these (in addition to RSR). Possibly all spells should also have the Uncontrolled advantage (but then, Costs END should be mandatory). Hence, the GM writes up what spells are available. Players may suggest something they want, but the GM can say: "Such a spell doesn't exist". This may include protection spells above a certain magnitude. - Klaus

Re: Some crazy talents

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Re: Remember the Old Resurrection Debates? As I see it, there are two types of Resurrection: Resurrect Self, and Resurrect Other. Resurrect Self could simply be making an new character more-or-less identical to the deceased one and declare it a ressurrection of said character. Or buy Duplication with the limitation that only one copy is present in the real world at any time. Then, when a duplicate dies, another duplicate pops into existence. Resurrect Other seems more like Summon, perhaps with Uncontrolled (lasts until summoned character is killed) and a limitation that you need a dead body (a Focus that is used up?). Or you could buy Transform: Dead Body into Living, linked to a Summon Spirit of Deceased (Uncontrolled, lasts until body is killed). - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? That may be a good idea if we are to include BODY in the calculations. - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I have only looked at PS12 recoveries. Taking recovery actions in combat is usually a very bad idea. Here is a grievious flaw: At the 2 PD/ED you use for the STUN-based character, BODY damage will be very significant. If you add that, with average damage, the Defense-based character won't take BODY until DC 9, while the STUN/REC-based character takes BODY already at DC 3, Defenses are much better! Also, assuming average damage, the Defense-based character gets stunned at DC 7 normal attacks, DC 11 EGO Attacks, while the STUN-based character gets stunned at DC 5 normal, DC 9 EGO. To counter the anti-stunning advantage of higher defenses, the STUN-based character will have to buy +8 CON, leaving only 12 points for STUN/REC (assuming that CON in 6e will cost 1). Try to run your calculations for a character with PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 28 REC: 6 CON: 23, which will be a fairer comparison with the Defense-based character - except that we still ignore the heavy BODY the STUN-based character will take. I never suggested doubling the costs of MD/PwD, so this isn't a useful comparison. I have also been persuaded that it is better to halve the costs of STUN and REC. Can you do the calculations for that? And please include the effects of BODY damage: Given (e.g.) BODY 15, how many attacks will it take to kill the two character types? - Klaus

Re: 6e Characteristics

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? I will look forward to it! - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? Okay, will do! That's: 2 agent attacks vs. PD, 1 of which did STUN 1 agent attack vs. ED, which didn't do STUN 1 powerful energy attacks, which did STUN and BODY 2 powerful physical attacks, both of which did STUN, and one of which stunned him 1 EGO Attack, which did STUN +1 PD would have saved him 3 STUN +1 ED would have saved him 1 STUN and 1 BODY +1 Mental Defense would have saved him 1 STUN That's 3 points to save 5 STUN and 1 BODY, and get the anti-stunning benefit of +1 CON - all in all 7 points worth (given a 6e CON cost of 1). Edit: Or you could just buy +1 PD, +1 ED at 2 points and save 4 STUN and 1 BODY, and get the anti-stunning benefit of +1 CON - all in all 6 points worth for two points. Given the fewer attacks, we must assume that our hero only gets one PS12 recovery. This means that having +1 STUN is just as good as having +1 REC (or better, since +1 STUN reduces the chance of going out in the first turn). We still get a better than two-to-one cost benefit from defenses over STUN/REC/CON. Satisfied? - Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap? And this is exactly the point I'm trying to make: Because defenses now are much better deals than STUN, we get boring combat where you can't deal any damage unless you've got that extra 1d6. I'd rather see combat where decent attacks count for something, even if they aren't top of the line. - Klaus