Arsenal

Re: Damage Reduction You make some very excellent points. Truth be told, I do not seek to take up the torch of balancing Alter Reality against Energy Blast, nor would I suggest that to anyone else. I don't think that powers like Alter Reality are ever going to have a universally balanced point cost vs. power effect structure, so we're very much agreed on that point. Being totally honest, I wouldn't go to Hero system for this sort of campaign, myself. If I simply had to run a campaign based around reality-bending in Hero, I would have to judge the rules for how to work that based on the specifics of the power concept. If it were something like Zelazney's infamous Amber books and their reality-traversing uber-powers, I would likely look to EDM and probably supplement it with other powers to simulate the lesser factors. If people were making wishes, I would probably build some power for the mechanism/entity that was doing the actual work without regard to budget - making a wish isn't a power, but granting a wish certainly is! (I'd use Transform or simply say "The genie can do this." And probably feel very dirty.) Part of my point was that a player in a campaign that is not about altering reality should probably be politely told that their character concept does not fit the relevant setting/campaign/GM-style, but also asked what it was they were going for with the reality altering idea and worked with to find out if there is a potential for compromise. I'm certainly open to new constructions, but they have to fit the game being offered. Similarly, I want Damage Reduction to stay, not because I feel it's well-balanced or fits in well with the system, but because I'm willing to make a judgement call on its usage, both as a player and a GM. Maybe what I should have said initially is that I don't like the kludge of EDM as wish-fulfillment, but I think other GM's are free to make their own decisions on that. But I want the GM to make that decision, not to cajole the writers into altering the mechanics so they can say that something isn't legal. (Talk about altering reality! "EDM: Appeal to sense of balance.") I'm not as concerned with the system being balanced, point for point, as I am interested in the system being flexible. That doesn't mean I expect it to do literally anything. It does mean that I expect blanket and seemingly arbitrary decisions to be left out. Why is there no way to raise the maximum effect of Healing? I could easily skirt that rule by buying dice of Healing with the Limitation "Only to raise maximum" and be within the word of law, if not the spirit. I could build a Transform that automatically redesignates a Duplicate to be the core character, but I can't simply create a Duper without a core? Is there room for abuse if the rules allow you to? Yes. Is that bad? No. It's the GM's job to stop rules abuse. The system can't do it, especially in Hero. The existing level of permissiveness already opens the door for myriad abuses. Let the GM sort that out. And send the munchkins to play video games, where the system abuses aren't affecting anyone else's fun. I don't want to coerce everyone into playing any edition of Hero my way. Goodness knows, there are power builds and conventions of character design that are accepted within my circle of gamers that would cause people to balk. However, there are a few topics that deserve to have their cause taken up and one of mine is the cause of minimal House Ruling. Maybe this is a problem of my 'gaming upbringing', but I'm not fond of altering rules or mechanics if I can avoid it. I don't see telling a player that a particular build isn't appropriate to my game as being a rules alteration; it's an issue of setting or genre. My problem, and I feel the problem of others who don't like to engage in house ruling if at all possible, is that you have numerous examples of 'Oh, that's a special case' that make it really tough to use your best judgement in regards to FrED. Take Instant Change, for example. Hypothetically, you still need to make a targeting roll and use an attack action for that construction to work as built, but they make a special exception for it. Similarly, if Regeneration works as per Healing, then it stops working after you heal however many points of Body you have in Regeneration per Turn, because it would have to exceed the previous effect level to add any further effect. However, EDM is then used to simulate wish-granting in canonical works. So those of us who are reluctant to muck with the system are left in a bit of confusion. How do we use our best judgement here, especially in light of using the examples as a guide for what is and isn't recommended in the system? I don't see healing your wounds in combat time as particularly more useful than altering reality - especially since no exclusion is made to prevent the character's wish from including some method to heal themselves. So if they were to get rid of Damage Reduction, sure, I could get around that in a kludgerific way by building Armor with a limitation "only up to X%" or something, but I would feel the loss of it for not wanting to just House Rule/Grandfather the old power in, especially mechanically, because that Armor stops working properly if I get hit with a sufficiently large attack. And I would certainly be further incensed at the loss if I were to see the Adder "Alter Reality" made canon for EDM. (Though I think I just doomed myself by throwing that one out.) Arsenal PS: Apologies for being long-winded.

Re: Damage Reduction I would like to say up front, I don't like EDM as Alter Reality or Desolidification as Immunity (especially not without purchasing "Affects Physical World" on relevant abilities). Heck, there's an awful lot of power builds in the source material that I consider clumsy or ill-conceived. However... I feel that the Hero system needs to move toward greater permissiveness rather than restriction. I would rather the system gave me the tools to build literally anything and that the GMs would have to pay attention to what their players bring forth and veto ideas that don't fit in their games. There's a difference between a legitimate character build and a good character. Just because Hero publishes a power construction doesn't mean the GM has to allow it or use it. I don't consider any power construction to be canon outside of FrED. (And it kills me that Instant Change, Regen, and others suffer for my considering those canon!) Maybe that's just splitting hairs, but the folks writing the material tend to build most of their powers with a specific power level or style of game in mind and it behooves us to recognize that. I mean, EDM basically states that it requires a lot of GM involvement - I can't imagine running a game where I said "Oh, EDM? Yeah, do whatever you like." Part of what I'm getting at is that I don't, for my part, disagree with you. However, I know there are changes wrought in FrED that I dislike that I suspect are the result of more vocal parties making their opinions known. I would rather see the system allow something and call upon the GM to exercise their wisdom than see another castrated power show up in the next edition. (Woe are those who did not abuse Aid!) So if the kludge gamers want to make wishes on their EDMs, they can go do it in someone else's game. Hell, anyone who wants to Alter Reality is barking up the wrong GMly tree coming to me - unless that's the game I'm pitching at the moment. (I already had that happen once - I learned my lesson.) Maybe it would help if I asked a question: Are you running a Champions Universe sort of thing where the canonical power builds cause problems, or is this more an abject and ravening hatred of all things kludge? Oh, and regarding the original topic: I think Damage Reduction falls into a lot of the same area. If it's not right for your game, say no. If it's messing up your game, talk to the player and find a fix. Also, rather than buy limited Body, Stun, etcetera, why not buy Armor with a Limitation like "Only up to X% of the damage"? Just a thought. Arsenal

Re: Character Design Theory For my part, character creation goes something like this: 1) Talk to the GM. Get the GM's info regarding the campaign: limits, restrictions, Do's and Do Not's as well as available origin(s) and the state of society/technology. This is a BIG step, usually leading to at least one or two ideas, since my group rarely plays pre-fab settings and the "anything goes" games are rare. 2) Inspiration. Come up with an idea and try to pin it down to one word (preferably) or a short phrase. This is sort of our group benchmark for a good concept and is somewhat enforced on new people and somewhat relaxed on the vets. 3) Stat this mess. Ideally, Step 3 would be to take care of the abilities necessary to reflect the concept, however, I find I have a very hard time building those without first looking at the stats. After all, you can't leave out Characteristics, so it feels awkward to me to fail to take care of that. I justify that as falling under the "necessities" clause, but I know it's a polite fiction I maintain to keep myself happy. 4) Actually take care of the necessities. By that, I mean whatever is core to the concept, not the playability necessities. This may or may not involve fully constructing the powers. A lot of times, it's more of a brief mental list with a quick check for how playable I think I can make the concept. Moreover, this is the 'step' during which I tend to check in with the team about what's being built, assuming that wasn't discussed during one of the earlier steps. 5) Get crunchy. This includes constructing the Skills, Powers, and Disads, but also involves rechecking the potential usefulness of the character. I usually build to budget, not in excess for there are no guarantees the game will go more than a few sessions, let alone long enough to actualize my latent Mind Control or some such. 6) Spit and polish. This is where points get scraped and/or points get consumed by 'flavor text' abilities. This is usually repeated after the GM has looked over the character. Frequently, any character backstory is a matter of bouncing ideas off the GM and seeing if they fit his world. We tend to be somewhat in the dark about some setting elements, compared to what I see from other GMs, so sometimes we can't properly judge that ourselves. He and I both feel that sometimes overly conceiving a character's mindset and history before the game can hurt the game and/or the character - especially in light of the lack of information we sometimes suffer - so our backgrounds tend to be brief and to the point. They also tend to be the result of a conversation, not of a one-sided decision making process on the players' (or GM's) part. A lot of "Can I..?"s and "Is this appropriate?"s. Arsenal

Re: Western / Steampunk Hero Idea Bouncing: "Bone Falls" I don't mean to start any controversy, so don't take this as a slander of D20... The original Deadlands system is much more feel-appropriate for its setting. They intertwine well and the system helps to immerse you in the feel of the universe. I don't think any of the other systems used to simulate the game capture that flavor quite as well. I say this as someone who has played Deadlands for over three years. As a sidenote, I would warn you that the system is QUITE deadly. If you want to maintain the horror elements over just having a fun game of western steampunk, I would recommend keeping your players out of the secret stuff. I've been kept out of it, and as a player, I can attest that it does heighten the tension and fear in some circumstances.

Re: Which of Your House Rules should be System Rules? If I were given the power to change HERO system - to create 6th Ed I guess - I would certainly make some changes. Bearing in mind, I haven't had a chance to play much of FrEd yet, my revisions are largely hypothetical/observational. 1) Aid and Healing would revert to one power, possibly with the increased cost retained. Regen may or may not return, it worked separately, but the new build doesn't seem horrible either. Personally, I'd rather give players a Lim. for not regrowing limbs, but that's just me. I'd probably retain the Adder for regrowth in the published version and just house rule it. (Query: I hadn't interpreted the revised Regeneration to restore lost STUN; Is that incorrect?) 2) Shapeshift would not be bought per sense. It's primarily a special effect Power so it needn't be so costly. Or perhaps it would be folded into the functionality of Images, since they work similarly in FrEd anyway. The 'Limited Power' family of Limitations is a wonderful tailoring tool! Also, Instant Change would be shunted to the same mechanics as Shapeshift. 3) I would seriously review the cost of MegaScale, though I feel it is a valuable addition to the system. (On a personal note, it makes me nervous, but that doesn't mean that no one should be able to achieve MegaScale effects.) At a more general level, I would endeavor to improve the flexibility of many Powers. This would assuredly result in a lot of potential abuses (see below), but I have found that when I want flexibility, I go to HERO first. I realize that a GM can always make an exception, but there are concepts that are readily within the bounds of a given Power that are outlawed in the name of game balance. I don't see a generic system as one that should try to police certain abuses. For example, I don't feel that being unable to have any Dupe be the 'original' in the case of a Duplication character is necessary. Not having one can be abused, but not being able to define whether or not there's a 'core' Dupe limits creative character conception - or in some cases, forces points to be spent to simulate something that really isn't that important in some cases. (Transform Dupe to Core Character? It's ugly, but it could be done.) I realize a GM can always say "Sure, you can break that rule." But honestly, I'd rather be in the position of asking a player not to do something, offering alternatives, and working with them to see if the concept will work - or to simply point out that it's not an appropriate concept for the setting/power level/etc. Similarly, I would rather have the rules consistent - by and large - than be making exceptions to them regularly. (See Instant Change in FrEd; that's an inobvious build for the Power, given how Transform works and that it's an Attack Power.) Denying a character/power construction feels distinct from making a rules alteration/exception to allow one. I guarantee there are loopholes upon loopholes in the system anyway, so you're already on the lookout for abuses - and presumably, for concept-appropriateness. I think one of the problems that arose with FrEd is that a number of rules were altered because of "squeaky wheels" and I'd hate to see further problems arise due to a countermovement. So honestly, my major revision might not be so much be in mechanics as in the advice to the GM. And the major piece of advice there would be: For Pete's sake, be willing to say no! If a build looks unbalanced/inappropriate (be it for the genre or whatever), please take up your role as GM and have a chat with the player. See what you can come up with that satisfies the players' desires without completely stomping all over your game. Just because a build is systemically valid and within the rules does not mean that it's a good character! We didn't put those stop signs in there to be cute, you know! HERO demands a greater level of involvement from the GM. In most systems, if you're well-versed in the rules, you can pick out an illegal or unbalaced combination in about 3 minutes (if not much, much less!) of looking over the sheet. Now a good HERO GM can do about the same, but the new guys need a hand. And let's face it, most of the veteran HERO GMs only read the GMly advice out of curiosity (at best), so the advice is really there for the new guys anyway. Arsenal

This isn't so much a suggestion of how-to as the semantics of how to handle it, but I would suggest that you could take some degree of liberty with the Real Weapon limitation (5E pg 328) in the case of the flamethrower or grenade (or most Foci). The intent of said lim seems to be to require maintenance, but you could also use it to reflect other "real" limitations - such as acting more in line with a universal or average speed as suggested previously.