sbarron

Re: Help, Zombies are eating my PCs! I wouldn't worry about rolling damage for shots to the head. If you hit a zombie with a killing attack in the head, it dies. That's the way the genre works. Depending on how many points your characters are, I might suggest either halving called shot modifiers (-4 for head shot) or lowering the zombies DCV. It's not like the zombies are trying to avoid getting hit, right? So you can justify their being easier to target for head shots. (And aren't there rules about attacking things that are not in combat? Maybe you could treat all zombies as if they were not in combat, for the same reasons as above.) Also, maybe the zombies you're using (from the bestiary?) are kind of tough for this genre. The average normal person in Hero is generally understood to have an 8 DEX and a 2 SPD. Just because a person becomes a Zombie is no reason to raise their DEX or SPD. Most PCs (even if you play 25/25) will have OCVs of at least 5 or so, and a SPD of 3. So if the players are smart, they'll be able to handle these zombies in ones or two with little trouble. Zombies in large groups will be a problem, though. Again, this simulates the genre. Combat luck. You also might want to consider giving the PCs a free point or 2 of combat luck. It'll give them an "almost bit me" chance in the event a zombie were to hit them with a bite. Further, you could rule that a zombie has to grab a PC before it can bite them. It'll give the PC an extra phase to save themselves, and some time for the rest of the group to help out. Hope this helps.

Re: DEX vs. CSLs Basically, the rules lawyer is right. DEX is more efficient than CSLs. CSL still have utility for certain characters, and I use them all the time to create characters that aren't that fast, but are still good in combat. But if you do the math, DEX is the more efficient buy.

Re: RSR. Can you think of a different way?

I have never liked the idea of RSR for spells. Well, maybe I don't dislike the idea of it, just wish I could think of an good alternative. As a RPG balancing mechanism, it's excellent. Having a spell not go off because a player blew a roll isn't very heroic, though. And I don't know that it's really in genre, either. Or, it probably is in genre, but it's not as common in fantasy literature as it is in fantasy role-play. There are several reasons for this, but mostly I think it's that the writer decides when a spell fails in a story. Spell failure usually results in something comical, but no big deal. And almost never will a spell fail when all the chips are down and the it's time for the heroes to be there most heroic. The opposite is true in RPGs. Most spells get cast in combat, and spells failing aren't funny at all. Especially if you have side effects. And there is nothing but probability preventing a PC from blowing a roll at a crucial time in the story. Hell, I think we'd all agree it happens more often when it matter most. Sure, I could hand-wave that bad roll, but I'll feel like I cheated if I did. I do like the idea that a spell can be disrupted if the wizard gets hit while doing their thing, however. Just not that a Magic Skill 16- with a 40 pt power results in a miscast 1 time in 4. 18- gets you 1 time in 10, which is way better, but still results in random failures that I don't think fit the Genre. If something disrupts you, that's one thing (which the GM can control). It's something else when the power is built to fail every so often. So, I guess that is a long intro to say: I don't want to use RSR for my magic system. Does anyone else not use RSR for their magic system, and if so, how do you do it?

Re: Help: Sniper Syndrome Most of these posts seem to deal with ways of structuring combat to either 1) hurt the sniper because of his tactics, or 2) make the sniper useless because of his tactics. But those solutions don't address the problem, IMHO. The problem seems to be that the player is afraid his character will get hurt. Neither of these solutions addresses that fact. Since it seems that talking to him hasn't worked, first, I think you need to show him that his character is relatively safe in close-up fights. And I know this sounds weak because you are catering to his punk-a$$...but you said he was almost a brick, right? Maybe you should have him attacked by a group of agents with blaster rifles that just bounce off of him. Or have some lesser brick take a shot at him that his character doesn't even feel. Anything that will demonstrate to him that his character is relatively safe, even if he gets hit. Secondly, how do you suppose his character would react if the rest of the team is taken out, and his character was the last one standing? Would he try to save the others and stop the bad guys by joining the fray? Or head for the hills? Is his character heroic at all? The peer pressure from letting the team down when they needed him most might change him. And on the flip side, by saving the team by getting into the mix, the player may decide the team needs him to be close, because he is so valuable to them. Either way, you are giving him a reason to get into the mix. A D&D mindset can be such that the player sees it as good to ensure that his character lives, even if the rest of the party dies. That may be what is happening here. He is making sure that his character lives, regardless of the consequences. Trying to hurt his character because of his tactics will only make him bitter. Making him feel responsible for ensuring team survival by being in close is a much better way to address his issue. I hate catering to wimps, myself. But letting him learn to be heroic rather than forcing him to is the better the way to go.

Re: How would you write up the following power? I would go one step further than Osprey. Since it always works, I'd make all Demons take Physical Disadvantage: Banished if hit by banishment potion. It does the job, and removes the worry of bad roles preventing the always works part from happening. I suspect a lot of other such things should be handled like this as well. It just takes some real advance thought on the part of the GM.

How this scenario plays out depends entirely on how the GM handles the results of PC actions. A couple of things jump to mind... 1) Removing dictators. We've seen over the past 20 years that many nations (Yugoslavia and Iraq in particular) are kept peaceful by an oppresive dictator. Once that dictator is removed, old grievances and racial hatreds bubble to the surface. Would the GM have this be the case in his world? Or would removing the evil dictator result in a happy, prosperous and thankful nation? What happens when several dictators get romoved at the same time? 2) PC rule. As has been stated ealier, rule of the world by the PCs does not ensure prosperity, improved well-being, or even that people get fed. So what happens as the PCs try to establish their new worldwide administration? Does food get distributed? Do basic services continue to be provided? Does the power vaccuum at the low end of the spectrum cause general lawlessness and chaos to break out throughout much of the world? I mean, sure, maybe society in the US or much of Western Europe wouldn't break down if their entire government was publically humiliated and then executed on TV. But we've had the rule of the law working for a long time. What happens in most African nations? How about South Asia? If the GM glosses over possible problems, and makes the PC actions generally beneficial to people, then the PCs probably won't have much trouble. But if problems that they try to solve grow into larger problems, the PCs will find themselves facing the same issues that plague most nations today. And that would make for an interesting game...

Statistics, huh? When I block, I control my own destiny (since I roll the dice). How many percentage ponts is that worth?

If you want to never miss, just roll to cover your target rather than actually attacking. If you succefully cover your opponent, pull the trigger. If you don't, don't pull the trigger. Never, ever miss.

I think that what people are saying is that if you want to simulate effects like this, you can do so if you are creative with the existing rules. Power word: NND EB AOE, defense being can't hear the words, incantations. Invulnerable to cold: (Mike W has the right idea) 75% Damage Reduction, only vs cold (-1) 40 points of DEF Only vs. Cold (-1). Sure, you could take some stun on really high end cold attacks. But its simple enough to attribute the little damage that leaks through to the concussive force of the blast... Voodoo Doll: They had one of these in the old Horror Hero. How to do it would depend on what you want, but you could model something pretty close... So in answer to your question, yes, I think it would be damaging to the system to introduce these. Absolutes are fine for comics. But if you are looking for balance, I think it's best to shy away from them.

I don't understand your concern. You would like to get more points from Psych disads? It's not like there is a limit to the number of disads you can take. If you want to take more psych disads because you think they fit your character, you can.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills Actually, I think it would discourage buying up Dex. It isn't cost effective under that system. Currently, your character with the 43 Dex spent 99 points to have a 14 CV vs Average Joe's 3 CV (+11 diff, or 9 pts per CV). Under that system, your characer would have an 18 CV vs. Average Joe's 11 CV (+7 diff, or 14 pts per CV). It would probably be cheaper to select attacks to be skilled in and purchase levels in them. This brings up another interesting question. You don't use Weapon Fams in superheroic games, and most characters rely on some natural ability (punching, kicking, shooting beams from hands, etc.) rather than using a weapon of some sort. Would Unarmed be a skill (probably)? How about "fire powers?" Or would you have to do "energy blasts" and "RKAs?" I am spending way too much time thinking about an idea I will never use...

Re: Re: Re: OCV, DCV as skills Actually, I don't think that is how Knightmare invisioned it. He wants to have CV based on skills, so they'd be (9 + Stat/5). Also, I think he intended that you buy skills with particular weapons (or maybe Fam. groups, like Common Melee), not just buy up your CV in general. So, you start out with a 10 Dex, and buy Weapon Skill Swords for 3 points. Your base Sword skill role (CV) is 11- (9+ Dex/5). If you wanted to add levels to this, you'd do so at +1/2cp, just like regular skills. These levels wouldn't help you shoot a bow or swing an Ax any better, though. You'd have to buy a seperate skill for that. I suppose if you wanted to run with this idea, you could make Fam. Group skills cost more to buy and increase, to reflect their increased utility. Or you could make PCs buy each weapon as a seperate skill. Regardless, I think BNakagawa pointed out some excellent reasons why this would be difficult in execution. Finding a different way to calculate CV is one thing. Opposed combat roles is a much bigger animal.

Not that it makes a lot of difference, but it only fires at 3000 rpm, not 30,000.

That'd be a cool scene in a movie. The character throws just one caltrop in the floor behind her, then says "hocus pocum." The one caltrip, jumping a little, kicks out a second caltrop. Then both kick out another each. Then there is an exposion of caltrops (thinking popcorn popping) as the caltrops multiple to fill the space. Sweet idea, Rechan.

Sweet, Badger! You're the man! Thanks!

I recently got out of D&D game I'd been in for about a year. It was pretty standard stuff. A group of characters with no good reason to be together (some with very real reasons to not be in the group), almost no shared goals (other than accumulating experience, wealth, and magic), and nothing in particular to do but wander around finding ways to get into and then out of danerous and profitable situations. So, why did I quit? There was little story. There was no earth shattering evil that would crush all in its path unless the PC were able to stop it. Basically, I remebered why I had moved away from table top gaming and into CRPGs. I wanted the novel. I want campaigns that have an intro, conflict, climax, and then resolution. Something more like the literature that I read rather than the stuff that seems to be gaming in most circles. So, what kind of games do you play in? Do you play in continuing games that go from one crisis to the next, with the PCs acculating wealth and experience along the way? Or are your games more like novels, in that they follow the PCs through one large adventure dealing with some universal threat, and then put those characters away and start on the next? Some combination? Am I alone in looking for games that have a built in ending?

Re: Can't Hit the Blind Kid What does the power do? Dodging attacks is DCV levels. The best way to do this is to buy DCV levels to offset any penalties for being blind. Or, if it is his only defensive power, just buy a bunch of DCV levels, some to offset the penalties and some to increase DCV, and throw in some combat luck.

+5 DCV, 25 pts? or +5 DCV, only to off-set penalties due to blindness (-1), 12 pts?

I've read them. Fun stuff.

And you believe that J'onn knows his opponents in this fight, that he knows when the fight starts, that he is able to find Marvel's best mentalist and kill him in .0001 seconds . That's a lot of assumptions. And you want to talk about trying to end around the fight in the favor of Marvel? Your entire argument seems to be that the DC universe will win within the first 0.0003 seconds of the battle commencing. Can you cite a single example of any of DC supers winning a fight with another group of supers in .0003 seconds? If it ever happens I'd be surprised. It's a rather fallacious position to take, don't you think?

Re: Re: MA Costs and Weapon Elements This is exactly how I do it.

Here is the question. Do you make a character pay for martial maneuvers twice if they have 2 styles that have different weapon elements? As a quick example, suppose I made a character who is a fencer and a boxer. Would you make him pay for 2 martial strikes, one for using a sword and one for unarmed? The reason I ask is I have been tinkering with a Victorian Age heroic game off and on for a couple years now. Mostly just making characters, coming up with plot threads, deciding how supernatural to go, etc. One problem I encountered was that while characters that choose a eastern MA style frequently get to pay one point for an additional weapon element, that isn't possible with the more traditionally western MAs like fencing or boxing. Making a character with 150 pts that has to buy 2 martial arts styles, and pay for duplicate maneavers twice because the styles aren't really compatible, is difficult and not particularly balanced vs. eastern styles. Ultimately, I just decided to let characters just buy one MA, and call it the combination of Fencing and Boxing, Combat Training, Martial Skills, or whatever they want, and throw on any weapon element that fits their style. I'm not planning to use style disadvantages, so no one would get that regardless of the style they select. Has anyone else dealt with this? How did you handle it?

The Harbinger of Justice thread got me to thinking about the Dark Champions genre/setting a bit. Reading the description from the Our Products page, Dark Champions is no longer low powered supers. Now it is "...modern-day action-adventure genre — everything from vigilante crimefighting, to espionage, to technothrillers, to special forces, to cops and robbers." Nothing about that makes me think supers will be mentioned at all. Maybe some really low grade super abilities, but that's it. And quite frankly, I hope that's the case. The super genre has been pretty well covered by Hero products so far. I'd like to get more info on playing the genre's listed above. Not toned down supers, and not agents from a superheroic setting. Something closer to the "real" world. The HoJ thread reads like Hudson City will be the Gotham to Millennium City's Metropolis. But the modern day action adventure, espionage, technothrillers, special forces, and cops and robbers genre's don't have superheroes. Vigilante crimefighting obviously could, but it doesn't have to. Is Dark Champions intended to cover the low powered supers setting, and also cover the other genres it lists in it description? Or will it only cover the genres it lists, and leave the low powered supers to its Champions line (this is my hope)? Will Hudson City be like DC's Gotham, meaning a setting for 4th Ed Dark Champions (e.g. low power supers)? Or will it be a city outside of the Champions Universe, where there are no superpowers and no superheroes? And what does that mean for Predators? Will it contain a bunch of Batman type villians? Or will it be James Bond, Bruce Willis character, and Tom Clancy type baddies? Lastly, what are you hoping for from Dark Champions?

I'd play it 75+75 and have equipment be free. I still think it would be a very cool game, though, either way. I enjoy having my characters up against very long odds. It makes success so sweet. Probably the same reason I like playing normals vs. vampires/demons/werewolves. Of course, things can get messy for the PCs sometimes. But the risks come with the job...