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

4th editon did the following:

• Added New Powers: Change Environment, END Reserve, Extra-Dimensional Movement, Hand-to-Hand Attack, and Mind Link

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

I know that this goes against the conventional wisdom on the boards' date=' but Fuzion was a good ruleset. They did a ton of things right with the rules. I think that it gets a bum rap because it was 1) too large of a change 2) and the superpowers rules were totally incomplete.[/quote']

3) The fusion of Hero and Mekton rules wasn't complete: Choice between 3d6 and 2d10, meters/yards, etc., rather than settling on a single option.

 

But overall, I thought the rules seemed good for non-supers games - and I have seen some rather good games based on Fuzion and Fuzion Light.

 

- Klaus

Re: Bloody?

I mean' date=' you have 10 to 15 BODY for a typical Heroic character, so 1 BODY is nearly 10% of your overall "health." 1 BODY and you've lost 10% of your blood, or have 1st Degree Burns over 10% of your body, or have broken your wrist or ankle (if impaired / disabled.)[/quote']

You will be dead way before you lose 100% of your blood, for instance. 1 BODY's worth of blood loss is probably closer to 3-4% of your blood (for a 10 BODY person).

 

However, I think that the BODY score shouldn't be thought of as linear. One 10-BODY wound is probably far worse than ten 1-BODY wounds (and it is, if you use the advanced options). Similarly, the first 10 BODY you lose probably represents far less damage than the next 10 you lose.

 

It's like tapping a coconut with a hammer. The first many hits don't do any really visible damage, but suddenly, one hit no harder than the previous cracks the shell. Or a single hard hit will smash the coconut where many milder hits won't do much damage.

 

- Klaus

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

Once I began thinking about the possibilities in Area Of Effect (Surface)' date=' it changed my thinking about how to revamp that old HERO System favorite, Damage Shield. I’d initially planned to revise it using Trigger, but then a better idea hit me: a Damage Shield is just a Constant Area Of Effect (Surface) applied to one’s self — the Surface is the character’s body. Anyone who touches it, or gets touched by it in certain ways, suffers the effect. Conceptually and mathematically this worked out quite well, and I think you’re going to have a lot of fun with it.[/quote']

Running with that idea, you could make a Damage Shield that affects targets that hit you with ranged attacks by having an AoE Radius, no range, with the limitation that it only affects targets that hit you with ranged attacks. The Active Cost might become rather high, tho'.

 

- Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

I think this is an issue in games where STR can enhance the damage of weaponry the characters pay no points for' date=' while anyone using a non-STR mechanic has to pay full points for everything. Fantasy games, in particular, have this issue.[/quote']

Actually, most of these games were superheroic, though there was one fantasy game.

 

- Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

My guess is that the cost of high DEX characters will increase as much or more than high STR characters. With SPD, DCV and OCV broken out from DEX, what does it cost to buy the equivalent of, say, +15 DEX?

 

Assuming DEX costs 1 point, that's 15 for DEX. Another 15 gets spent for +1.5 Speed. Now we need to buy +5 OCV and +5 DCV. I'm guessing these will not be priced at, say, 2 points for DCV and 1 for OCV such that the remaining 15 points will generate +5 OCV and +5 DCV. If they are 3 points each (which seems cheap), we need 60 points to buy the +15 DEX 45 points used to pay for. If they are 4, 5 or 6 points each, that cost goes up to 70, 80 or 90. And pretty much every character bought DEX up.

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.

I didn't find the game unbalanced in favour of high STR characters in the first place. Although I think STR with all its figured was bargain priced, doubling its cost would have made it too expensive, in my view.

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

The issue for me isn't that point have intrinsic value but that I don't like juggling with lots of points to create a character. A higher base to get the same results is a turn off for me. It has nothing to do with high points=automatically bad but it is another reason I prefer low point games.

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

It's not necessary to discuss the creation/writing of the 60th edition... by then' date=' our computers will have Hero System OS 7.0 and will write, correct and modify the rules to the very best they can be. At this point, you won't have to sit down and write stats: just tell your computer what character you want and Hero System OS 7.0 will do it for you. [/quote']

After which, it will also play the game for you to save you the effort of being involved.

 

- Klaus

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

In one famous case a high functioning man with Asperger’s recited pi to 1' date='000 decimal places in front of an audience for a charity event.[/quote']

"I know pi to a thousand places." (Weird Al Yankovic, White and Nerdy)

 

Back when I was a student, I worked part time in a supermarket. This was before bar codes, so prices were punched in manually. There was a woman at a cash register who added the numbers in her head while punching them in, in order to see if she punched correctly. And she punched very fast...

 

Another friend (who might have been borderline Asperger's) could multiply two-digit numbers in his head as quickly as snapping his fingers.

 

Lightning Calculator, I guess, in both cases.

 

The protagonist in Fritz Leiber's "Gonna Roll the Bones" could toss small objects very precisely, to the point of determining which side of dice would come up. This could be bought as a limited, weak Telekinesis with Fine Manipulation (though it would be a lot simpler to build if Telekinesis started at STR -30 or some such).

 

- Klaus

Re: 6E Rules changes confirmed so far

Even in my superheroic games REC' date=' END and STUN tend to be left at their default Figured values unless the character concept is supposed to be higher, such as a brick.[/quote']

Our experiences obviously vary. In most of the games I have played, people have bought up PD and bought down END, after buying CON to high values. The only reason STUN, REC and ED weren't bought up was that you got a better deal buying up CON (and sometimes STR) until you had the ED, REC and STUN you wanted, then buying down END.

 

FWIW, the math regarding figureds never bothered me. What bothered me was:

a) That people bought high stats out-of-concept because it was cheaper than staying in concept.

That Drains, etc., didn't affect stats with many figureds the same way they affected stats with few or no figureds.

c) That there were so many breakpoints to consider (now it's just 8, 13, 18, etc.).

 

- Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

True' date=' but I think that's going beyond the spirit of the meta-rule. An attack should be more expensive than its corresponding defense, but that doesn't mean a defender wanting to protect against all possible attacks should win the chess game. The purpose of the meta-rule is not to easily allow creation of a near-invulnerable character in my opinion; it's just a small, reasonable, "favor defense over offense," bias in the system.[/quote']

Would have repped you if I could.

 

- Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

At the risk of making this even more math-intense' date=' perhaps the defenses should start at rDEF = 1 per 1 DC of attacks. Everyone will buy some base level of defenses. From there, I suggest it is fair to ignore BOD damage.[/quote']

Okay, let's do that. Let's say we have a DC12 campaign, and use average damage. Average STUN from a Normal attack would then be 42, while average STUN from an EGO attack or STUN Drain would be 21. Given that KAs in 6e have a fixed x2 STUN multiplier, an average DC12 KA will do 28 STUN and 14 BODY. We should set base rDEF at 14 in order to be able to ignore BODY damage (from average attacks, anyway).

 

Let's give the base character the following stats:

STUN 30, CON 16, REC 5, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0.

 

Character A spends 34 points on increasing defenses:

STUN 30, CON 16, REC 5, rPD 26, rED 26, MD 5, PowD 5

Note that CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

Character B spends 34 points on increasing STUN/CON/REC, assuming STUN and CON cost 1 and REC costs 2:

STUN 42, CON 28, REC 10, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0

Again, CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

Character C spends 34 points on increasing STUN/CON/REC, assuming REC and CON cost 1 and STUN costs ½:

STUN 54, CON 28, REC 15, rPD 14, rED 14, MD 0, PowD 0

Again, CON+DEF is just enough not to be stunned by the average attacks

 

A normal DC12 attack will do 16 STUN through defenses to character A and 28 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after three hits, B would be knocked out after two hits, and C would be knocked out after three hits.

 

A DC12 EGO Attack or STUN Drain will do 16 STUN through defenses to character A and 21 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after three hits, B would also be knocked out after three hits, and C would be knocked out after four hits.

 

A DC 12 KA will do 2 STUN through defenses to character A and 14 STUN through defenses to Characters B and C. Given that they get two PS12 recoveries during a fight, A would be knocked out after 20 hits, B would be knocked out after four hits, and C would be knocked out after six hits.

 

B is clearly worse off than A or C versus normal and killing attacks, and no better off versus exotic attacks.

 

A and C seem more equal: They do equally well versus normal attacks, C is slightly better off versus exotic attacks, but much worse off versus killing attacks.

 

Not included in the calculations is that normal attacks that do slightly more than average BODY would do BODY damage to B and C, while even maxed out normal attacks would do no BODY damage to A. All would take equal BODY from above-average KAs.

 

I think this makes a good case for halving the costs of STUN and REC.

 

- Klaus

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?

Are we trying to include Resistant Defenses?

That may be a good idea if we are to include BODY in the calculations.

- Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

You state that buying STUN should be an equivalent build to buying Defenses. This' date=' by itself, is the flaw.[/quote']

Actually, I'm not stating that. I'm looking at whether increasing defenses or increasing STUN/REC/CON would be the better strategy from a starting point of adequate levels of defense, STUN, etc.

 

Recovery is the key to this point, the higher your Recovery the better off you are at any case. But it's also where the greatest variance comes in. If the Defenders Speed is twice or more the Attackers Speed they can spend the Phases taking Recoveries, negating Damage quickly without losing the ability to retaliate. If the Defenders Speed is less than or equal to the Attackers Speed the Defender will always lose eventually without Damage Mitigation.

I have only looked at PS12 recoveries. Taking recovery actions in combat is usually a very bad idea.

 

Bases: PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 20 REC: 4 CON: 15

-All Damages used were Averages

-Body Damage was Ignored, assume Stun Only Attacks.

Here is a grievious flaw: At the 2 PD/ED you use for the STUN-based character, BODY damage will be very significant.

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED 8 MD/PwD: 4 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal Attacks, Ego Attacks, and Drain Stun start doing Damage at 3 Damage Classes

-Killing Attacks start doing Damage at 4 DCs.

-Normal Damage exceeds Recovery Rate at 4 DCs (it takes 2+ Recoveries to undo the Damage Taken)

-Killing, Ego, and Drain Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 6 DCs

-Target is Instantly Knocked Out at 12 DCs for Normal and Killing Attacks (14 DCs for Ego and Drains)

 

Points Spent: 20

PD/ED: 2 MD/PwD: 0 Stun: 32 REC: 8

-Normal, Ego and Drains start doing Damage at 1 Damage Class

-Killing at 2 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate at 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drain exceeds REC Rate at 5 DCs

-Instant KO at 10 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 15 DCs for Killing) (@ 19 DCs for Ego, Drains)

 

At low point levels Defenses are definitely better at current costs.

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.

 

If we Double the cost of all Defenses we get:

PD/ED 5 MD/PwD: 2 Stun: 20 REC: 4

-Normal, Ego, Drains start doing Damage at 2 DCs

-Killing at 3 DCs

-Normal Damage exceeds REC Rate @ 3 DCs

-Killing, Ego, Drains exceeds REC Rate @ 4 DCs

-Instant KO at 8 DCs for Normal Attacks (@ 11 DCs for Killing) (@ 13 DCs for Ego, Drains)

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

So Stun isn't a decent substitute for adequate defenses and/or DCV. I can live with that. Most heroes should have a bit of both' date=' or their players are bonkers. [/quote']

I'm not saying that heroes shouldn't. I'm saying that once characters have a barely decent basis of defenses and Stun, increasing defenses is a far better deal than increasing Stun - and I think both should be decent options.

 

- Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

I don't think the costs are as off as you think. So I've never felt the need for that level of depth. But alright.

 

First, CON needs to be set at a Set Level. I will use 15.

 

Second, the comparison is Defenses vs Stun - remove all notions of "being hit" for the comparison we're going to simply use a Number Of Hits to reduce to 0 Stun. CVs, Dex and Speed are irrelevant.

 

Third, because Tactical Situations vary too much, we can only be assured of a Post-12 Recovery. We will simply measure Number Of Recoveries Needed to regain Lost Stun due to an Attack

 

Fourth, Damage Classes are 5 Points/ Damage Class. 1DC = 1D6 Normal Attack, 1 Pip Killing Attack, 1/2D6 Ego Attack and Drain. Follow the progression normally.

 

We assume that the Defender has purchase ALL Defeneses, CON+REC will be purchased at a 60/40 Rate (if a Defender bought 10points of Defenses total they will have +6 CON +4 REC). Just because. They get 2 PD, 2ED, 0 MD, 0 PwD, 20 Stun, 4 Rec (calculated as if you had Figured at Starting Levels). Stun = 1:1 REC = 2:1. Then we'll make up some adjustments in numbers based on some results.

 

Also, I will note Defenses are priced compared to Attacks. Not Stun and I believe you're starting from a false presumption to begin with.

 

I'll be back later tonight with a work-up from 1 Damage Class to 20 Damage Classes with some results. It takes a bit of time to get the spreadsheet working correctly.

I will look forward to it!

- Klaus

Re: Are PD and ED far too cheap?

Being up after 8 full-power attacks is pretty much not going to happen. Halve the number of all attacks received.

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?

That would be my inclination as well. Defenses last indefinitely. Give people more Stun so the finite battle will last a little longer and we can enjoy more potato chips.

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