Just Joe

Re: What CV's (OCV & DCV) model in Heroic settings A lot of excellent points have already been made. My small contribution: A 6 OCV/DCV is already better than a 3 by enough to cancel a dodge (in 5th edition anyway; I haven't heard about any changes to this in 6th). Add the one CSL, then the advantages of the martial maneuvers themselves, and this guy sounds A LOT better than your average shmoe. But enough better? Depends on a lot of things. The two that stand out in my mind most are (1) how exceptional or unexceptional is this particular monk supposed to be? (average for his temple? best in his temple? best in the world? best ever in the history of humanity?) and (2) what kind of game do you (or your GM or your group) want to run? (especially regarding realism and power level).

Re: Question about Linked Powers I had been using compound powers in HD in a manner similar to what Sean Waters describes, without realizing (until a few hours before starting this thread) that compound powers are explicitly mentioned in the rule book (5ER, at least). They are described as a (the?) way to build linked powers and as the way to build partially-limited (or -advantaged) powers. As for linked powers, I'm inclined to say that they should not be built as a compound power unless iff-linked. When iff-linked, I would regard them in many respects as a single power, but would still apply limitations as per the 5ER, FAQ, and 6th edition, as mentioned in the first few replies in this thread. As for partially-limited (and -advantaged) powers, I'm am thrilled to learn that this is the way to build them. They never caused me problems with paper and pencil (where it didn't much matter whether one called them "compound powers"), but I had not figured out how to build them in HD. I had even started to wonder if they weren't allowed any more.

Re: Question about Linked Powers Sociotard: Thanks. I didn't expect there to be anything about this in the FAQ, but I now realize that by not checking I was being faithless and lazy. On the other hand, I never would have read the useful additional replies if I had just gone to the FAQ. ghost-angel: Yes and no. I was not specifically suggesting this because I thought the rules made it clear that one may not do this. But it would seem like the logical solution. And the last sentence of the 6th edition quote from EverKnight appears to be just this suggestion (with the -1/4 limitation for the greater power being consistent with 5th edition rules). EverKnight: Thanks. That's one more small reason to buy 6th, IMO. It explicitly addresses something that should be addressed while allowing for different solutions depending on GM judgment. Not a huge deal, but nice. Here's one more thing to consider. If two attack powers are iff-linked*, then it seems to me that one ought to be allowed to buy 2-point OCV levels that apply to the use of the combined power -- because by SFX it's really one power (at least, in many cases it would be). But then this is an advantage, albeit a small one, of iff-linking the powers -- which the GM should consider when deciding on what lim values she will allow. * "iff" being an abbreviation for the biconditional "if and only if". Alternatively, one could say "doubly linked" or "2X-linked". In any event, it seems to me that there ought to be an accepted abbreviation for powers linked in the way we have been discussing in this thread. It also seems to me that such linked powers should not be especially rare.

I've been playing Hero System for over 20 years and it seems like I ought to be able to answer this question myself . . . but I can't, so I'm swallowing my pride and asking. As I read the "linked" limitation (in 5ER), I do not see an option to have two powers that can each be used if and only if the other is used. I'm thinking of something like an eb + flash which can only be used together (i.e., the eb can only be used with the flash and the flash can only be used with the eb) -- it would seem natural that they would need to be used in proportion to one another, but I'm not sure how important that is to my question. Is there a way to build powers linked in this way? If so, then how? If not, then why the heck not?? I mean these as 5th edition questions, but if there is a noteworthy difference in 6th edition (or in an earlier edition), I'd be interested in hearing about it.

Re: Eastern Canadian History/Geography Resources? Um, wow. Thanks to all for your replies. I particularly enjoyed Lawnmower Boy's essay. I found a nice tidbit in my own (i.e. home) library: the Penguin Altlas of North American History (need to check that later, might be "Concise" atlas.) It only has one brief paragraph specifically on the Vikings in North America, but it also a good bit of more general information. I noticed in particular that Halifax only shows up on the atlas' maps (which are, admitedly, very not very detailed) after the British take the area from the French -- though why, I cannot say. In any event, this idea is back on one of my back burners where it belongs, but I do find it interesting, so if anyone cares to add, please do. One last tidbit. The idea crossed my mind that it might be fun to imagine a temporary warming sufficient to melt the polar ice caps for a few summers sometime in the 1000-1400 time range -- leading to vikings in Alaska and British Columbia!

Hi Folks, As often happens to me, while I'm supposed to be prepping for one game, my mind wanders to possible future campaigns. I'm currently thinking about two, each involving an alternate history, and each possibly set in what is now the Atlantic coast of what is now Canada. The first is a Vikings-in-the-New-World kind of campaign; the second is roughly a Napoleanic era naval campaign. For both, I am curious about the history and geography, esp. of ports, of the Atlantic coast of Canada. Can anyone reccommend a historical atlas or other resource accessable to the non-scholar that could tell me, for example, whether Quebec and Halifax were prominent settlements of native peoples, when they were settled by Europeans, and when these and other regional ports first became important to transatlantic trade? Thanks in advance for any suggestions.

Re: Is Leaping too Cheap? I think you're assuming that initial velocity is independent of the initial angle. That works for howitzers, but I don't think it works for leaps, especially not running ones. Also, even if everything you write is true for maximum leap, I don't see a way to infer the required height for leaps shorter than a character's maximum. I still think your approach is helpful as a general guideline, but I would view it more as an upper limit for possible required clearance, rather than a true minimum.

Re: STRONGHOLD -- What Do You Want To See? 1. Body & DEF of all walls, doors, machines, etc., as well as any special defenses or vulnerabilities. 2. Guidelines for determining the success, failure, or partial success of attempts to destroy or circumvent particular security features by brute force or by skill (e.g. security systems, mechanics, or computer programming). 3. Maps. I know it's been said, but I want to reinforce it and to emphasize tactical level maps with hexes (they can be small, as long as they represent 2m each). 4. Suggestions for using Stronghold in alternate ways, especially in other genres. I know something like this has already been said and I know this is a CU product, but a modest amount of work on this front (e.g., in an appendix) would substantially increase the likely of the book being bought by those of us who rarely play in traditional supers games.

Re: Is Leaping too Cheap? Wow, I finally get around to checking replies and there are 5 pages! You guys are great. Thanks for the replies. I'm going to focus on only a small subset. The comments on NCM and megascale were interesting, for example, but are of little practical use to me because I'm not fond of the underlying rules and have little or no involvement in campaigns in which they might be appropriate anyway. I will also say that while Archermoo's attitude about balance and consistency strikes me as entirely reasonable, nevertheless my sympathy in this case (as in most cases involving Hero System rules) is with Sean Waters. Regarding physics, leaping and enclosed spaces: given fixed gravity, starting point A, and ending point B, there are (infinitely) many leaping trajectories that could get one from A to B. One could take a higher or lower arcing trajectory, and it is not clear what the minimum height for a given horizontal distance should be. As for the official Hero System rules on the matter, I have not pored over them as carefully as I'm sure I should have, but the -1 limitation "Forward Movement Only" (5ER, p. 197) suggests that one need not leap high to leap far. And, BTW, if one takes this limitation, leaping becomes even less versatile, but also stunningly cheap. Quick edit: forgot to say that one could price leaping as 3 points per 2". I certainly would not advocate 2 / 1" (unless with a mandatory limitation, as per the excellent suggestion above regarding reconciling END cost for all forms of movement -- in which case I would suggest a limitation of perhaps -1/2 for leaping, rather than -1)

Forgive me if this has come up 100 times before. I tried a search, but as usual, I failed to find a pertinent thread. Leaping seems awfully cheap to me for superheroic and similar power-level games. This is especially true for stronger characters, but let's take a 10 STR character, just for the sake of argument. For 18 points, you can buy +13" of leaping and the "accurate" adder, for 15" accurate leaping. Or you can buy +9" of running for 15" of running. This seems about right to me. The running allows you to turn corners and such, the leaping allows you to punch a flying opponent, get you on top of a 3 story building, etc. Roughly evens out. But for another 18 points, you can have 24" of running or 33" of leaping. Of course the 24" running has some advantages, but isn't the 33" leaping better overall?

Re: Pulp Hero Resources Dover Books' Architecture section (http://store.doverpublications.com/by-subject-architecture--interior-design--period-style.html) has lots of books with house plans from the Victorian Era (built pre-pulp, but probably still quite common during the Pulp Era) as well as a number with house plans from the 20's and at least one from the 30's. There are also at least a few books with things other than houses. I just ordered The Architecture of McKim, Mead & White in Photographs, Plans and Elevations, which includes plans for well-known museums and such and The Metropolis of Tomorrow published in 1929 and written by Ferris (the guy who invented the Ferris Wheel). Also, Osprey Publishing (http://www.ospreypublishing.com/) has some nice books for this and other periods. The "Naval" section has books on WW I and WWW II submarines and the "Aviation" section has at least one Book on Zepplins.

Re: Mollusk Man Build Hmmm. Maybe. It depends on whether the active points can be separated at all. I don't think placing parts of a build on separate lines is sufficient to make their active points separable, nor am I convinced that any other sufficient condition is met here. But let's suppose you're right about that: line 2 is zero active points.

Re: Mollusk Man Build I'd say the second build as a whole has 30 active points. The problem comes in separating out the two lines. How many active points does the second line of the second build have? I'm not necessarily convinced that the answer is 30. Heck, I'm not even sure it's an answerable question. The problem is that the multipower in your earlier post, to be book-legal, requires the answer to be 15, and I'm not at all confident that the rules support that answer. Thanks for clarifying, but I wasn't feeling pressured. Nor am I hostile to your idea. As a GM, I actually tend to be rather loose in my enforcement of rules regarding builds of both PC's and NPC's, provided that they are not abusive. But as a player (and this character idea is potentially a PC) I prefer not to have to rely on a similar attitude from other GM's.

Re: Mollusk Man Build

Re: Mollusk Man Build Here's where I start to get worried. How many active points are needed for slot A? I'm afraid it might be 30 (and, oddly enough, the same regardless of how much of the limitation you're trying to buy down). This might be another argument for your idea that multipowers should be based (at least in some circumstances) on real points rather than active points, but alas the rules are what they are. I will say, though, that as I get more and more comfortable with very limited VPP's I am starting to suspect that they are the best solution to such problems.

Re: I've got a train to catch

Re: Mollusk Man Build Thanks for the ideas, folks. The character is going back on the back burner (but mainly because I have other priorities now, not because I am stuck). Here's a bit of what I came up with in the mean time: PhilF, I find your ideas appealing, but I would like to have him as close to strictly book legal as possible. From this standpoint, I'm afraid I don't get how even your second suggestion works. Since the AP of the armor is unaffected by its limitations, I don't see how a multipower slot can reduce or remove a limitation. Lucius, oh friend of the palindromedary, I like the idea of variable limitations, except for the fact that it takes a/n (half?) action and 1/2 DCV (IIRC/IDHMBIFOM). However, with other characters I have used a limited version of variable limitations that one might call a disjunctive limitation. The idea is that there are only two or three (conceptually well justified) sets of possible limitations. These limitations are only worth 1/2 value (as per variable limitations) but may be switched freely. Something like this might work for "mollusk man", especially to distinguish the half-open and fully-open states (e.g., if I use multiform to distinguish closed from any-amount-open). SW(1), I'm starting to like multiform as an option, especially if the character ends up being relatively high point-level. I particularly like the way one can buy an advantage to automatically switch to the "natural" form when KO'd. I think it would be cool if MM automatically closed up when unconscious. SW(2), I'm guessing your multipower suggestion would be too expensive, but in any event, I want to go as book-legal as possible. SW(3), your side effect idea is very interesting, but I'm not sure how to apply it to a persistent power like armor. Still, it might be made to work, if one could convince the GM. SW(4) I think lockout is part of the solution, at least if I go with a variable or disjunctive limitation. After glancing over TUMetatmorph, I decided to try a VPP. It actually worked pretty well. I made it no roll, 1/2 action (though zero might be just as appropriate) and very limited choice of powers. The full active points must be spent on armor which must be the same but for certain limitations (mainly activation). Any points still available may be spent on life support, stretching, swimming, and swinging, in ways appropriate to conception. The three sets of slots I came up with were: wide-open (11- activation armor, relatively large amounts of stretching, swimming, and swinging) half-open (14- activation armor, smaller amounts of stretching, swimming, and swinging; alas, I saw no good way to limit DCV), and closed (fair amount of life support, no stretching, swimming, or swinging, armor with the -1 limitation "immobilizes pseudopods"; this limitation combines features of the -1 limitations "gestures, both hands, throughout", but with no visible gestures, and "concentrate, 0 DCV, throughout" but with the possibility of full DCV through, e.g. flight). So there it is. As mentioned above, I'll look into the multiform option later on. But for now, back to other thing. Thanks again, folks.

Re: Rules Mechanic: A Six Second Turn I'm sympathetic to your concerns, but I think this change will cause you more problems than it solves. Why not just restrict speeds to a maximum of 6 (with possible special GM-approved exceptions)? Also, as you point out, a 6 speed with your revisions is roughly equivalent to a 12 speed, so aren't you going to end up adding to speed inflation?

OK, this is not at all what I should be doing right now, but . . . I'm thinking about this characterr idea I've had on the back burner for a while now. It's an intelligent mollusk-like alien (not very man-like, but I thought "Mollusk Man" was a catchy title). It has a very tough shell that it can open and close. Ideally, I'd like to have a nearly continuous range of states from tightly closed shell to wide open, but at a minimum, I want three states: closed, partly open, and wide open. The main difference between the states is the activation roll on the armor (probably none, 14-, and 11-), but there are other differences as well, especially regarding movement (and it probably can't attack when closed -- unless by mental powers or something that I don't currently have planned). This does not seem like it should be such a complex build, but I'm kind of stuck. If activation rolls affected active points, I could probably do it using a multipower plus lockout, but alas they don't. I tried messing around with multiform, but it did not seem particularly appropriate (the forms are too similar, the build too expensive, etc.). However, since I'm not particularly adept with multiform builds, I may be missing something. Or maybe there's a third approach that has not crossed my feeble mind. What would you do?

Re: Help Me Populate A Creepy Hotel The exorcism is not complete, thanks to my brother, who told me about a guy he knows who raised a baby "pinkie" squirrel to near-adulthood. The guy let the squirrel climb up his arms and onto his (bald) head. The scars and open wounds were, apparently, disturbing. I don't think one would need to modify this guy much to put him in the hotel, though one might change the species of rodent, or change it to a small cat. One must decide whether hotel staff accept it or if he has to hide it (accepting a rodent would be stranger, of course). One could exaggerate the wounds, and maybe the animal would frequently put its mouth to the guy's ear and make quiet little sounds.

Re: Help Me Populate A Creepy Hotel Cross-posting from "The Lost Room Hero": I thought about this connection right away as well. My version of the hotel, if I ever design it, will include a few doors that go to the "wrong" rooms. There will also be some portals linking non-adjacent rooms, and at least one room reachable only through such a portal. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part of me wants to go into more detail, but I'm hoping this will be enough to exorcise the demon that wants me to think about my potential future campaign that would borrow substantially from the Creepy Hotel and the Lost Room, rather than working on my new campaign that's supposed to start within the next couple of months.

Re: The Lost Room Hero I thought about this connection right away as well. My version of the hotel, if I ever design it, will include a few doors that go to the "wrong" rooms. There will also be some portals linking non-adjacent rooms, and at least one room reachable only through such a portal. Other thoughts on TLR Hero: 1. I don't especially care what genre it is (though the answers above strike me as plausible). 2. I'm more interested in stealing ideas from it than directly copying it. 3. I would design objects only to the extent that it was useful to me. The only reason I can see to design them all would be to deal with drains, dispels, etc., which I probably would not allow (and which do not appear to be an issue in the source material).

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running Darn it, Hugh. I was attempting a quick lurk-through, but you sucked me in. I think that running in-combat and out-of-combat should be thought of primarily in terms of sprinting. Trying to get the END and LTE rules to work for marathons is an admirable goal, but I think it is more important, and should be easier, to get reasonable sprinting rates.

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running For a related discussion, you might want to look here: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47168 You will get the most out of it if you skip over everyone else and just read my posts in the thread. Note that your suggestion, if I read it right, requires a 2 speed, 6" per phase runner to spend 12 points on running (and 20 on speed?). This will imply a change in the power-level of a given point-level of characters. This is a subject that interests me considerably, and I have been thinking more recently about the thread linked above, but nevertheless, I'm going to try not to get drawn in any more to this discussion, as I'm trying to make more time for design work. So please forgive me if I do not reply again (or do so only very belatedly).

Re: KB discussion I apologize for requesting discussion of my idea and then disappearing. After this, I am probably going to disappear again for a while, as I need to spend more time designing for a campaign and less goofing off online. I think Zornwil did a pretty good job of answering for me, but I'll add the following. 1. Surely there is a positive correlation between BOD and body mass, and the correlation would probably stronger if official sources didn't design large animals with too little BOD. 2. Figured charictaristics can be bought up or down, as can, for example, leaping, which I believe to be the better analogy here. (I also think this addresses Zornwil's concern about BOD that doesn't affect KBR; I would say that I would be as reluctant to allow it as STR that does not affect leaping -- better to sell back KBR or leaping). 3. My approach probably works best if KBR costs 1 point per 1", either for all KBR, or up to a certain limit analogous to NCM. One could pick 5" -- corresponding to 10 BOD, 10" -- corresponding to 10 BOD, or the particular character's BOD/2. 4. I wouldn't go with the -0, -4, -8, etc., because I like some variability in KB for attacks of the same type that do the same BOD, but it's a nice option for those who don't want that even that little variability. I'm not sure I'll reply after this, and do not object if no one replies to me, but I thought I owed SW and Zornwil a reply.