Just Joe

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread Then why do they do their velocities have the same effect on damage due to move-by's, move-throughs, and trips, for example? (I raised this issue earlier.) We discussed these possibilities earlier, and gave what I regard as good reasons for rejecting them. (Actually, I don't think we discussed limitations on speed, but that strikes me as a more cumbersome approach than my own, especially if you're going to apply it to ever character with SPD > 2).

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I think I might have an adequate way to deal with teleportation. (Mind you, the standard rules work fine for teleport, but it would be nice to have a way to deal with it that meshes well with MPT rules for other forms of movement.) So here's my idea. A character buys MPT and maximum single teleport. The former costs 1 point / 2" (not 1 / 1" like most other forms of movement). The latter costs 1 point / 1". Examples: 1. 2 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 12" max teleport (12 points). Same as standard rules. 2. 3 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 12" max teleport (12 points). Can teleport three times per turn for a total of 24" (no more than 12" per phase), or can teleport twice up to 12" each time and still run 4" (12"/3), assuming usual running. 3. 3 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 8" max teleport (8 points). Same as 3 speed, 8" teleport using standard rules (except 4 points cheaper). Whaddaya think?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread 1. My and Hierax's proposal deal with this in straightforward ways that have little or no effect on point balance. 2. I haven't given this much thought, but the two most obvious solutions would be to use the existing system tweaked to an MPT standard or to base turn mode on movement in the phase (the latter option making higher speeds more manueverable). 3. Unless I'm missing something, Hierax's and my proposals would not have results identical to the standard rules, but neither would they produce radical results. I see no problems whatsoever with 1-3. 4. I have not had sufficient time and inclination to deal with this adequately yet, though I suspect I can do so. Teleportation is actually an unusual case of a kind of movement that works OK with the standard rules, but it would probably need tweaking to make it balance with the other forms that I've proposed changing. Leaping should probably be handled similarly. I hadn't thought about gliding or swinging. My first thought is that swinging will be handled much like leaping. I don't see any problem with gliding, but I'll have to give it more thought I'm mainly interested in heroic level games, and especially relatively realistic ones. And to the extent that I play Champions and other high-powered games, I'm inclined to think that it's more trouble than its worth to change the rules for these games (as much as it's theoretically desirable). Nevertheless, I don't think Hierax's and my MPT proposals hurt speedsters. To achieve the same MPT, a character with a high speed will need to spend a lot more points on movement, but: (a) to get the same nominal movement, with its corresponding effect on move-by damage and the like, costs the same as before, and ( I proposed cutting the cost of speed, which will save the character points. I think it's worse than a dichotomy. I think it comes at least real darn close to a logical contradiction. Just how fast is a character with a 4 speed and 6" running going compared to one with a 2 speed and 6" running, according to the standard rules, and how does the answer make sense in light of the rules governing them? I think the choice between the MPT proposals I've been discussing (on the one hand) and the segment-by-segement proposal (on the other) is essentially a matter of detail vs. simplicity. By contrast, I doubt the MPT proposals end up being substantially more complex than the standard rules (though thinking them through is of course more complex than taking what is given). In any event, the effects of the way movement and the speed chart interact that bother me (on the standard rules) do not appear to be unavoidable. I seem to have avoided them (though I admit to not having worked out all of the details; I am merely confident that they can be worked out).

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I haven't found a good way to do it, and it is my suspicion that if that is your main concern (it's not mine), then you'll cause more problems than you solve unless you go with something resembling segmented movement. Here are two proposals resembling segmented movement, but which might solve some book-keeping problems: 1. For most purposes, use one of the MPT proposals (yours or mine) discussed above. But have different numbered counters showing a character's path on a segmented basis. This way, the player decides on movement only on his character's phase, but if someone wants to intercept or outrun him, you have the segmented movement marked out. This probably works best with a mini showing where the character intends to end up* and flat counters showing the path. * Your map will be more accurate if the mini represnts the actual current position, but I'm guessing that will slow things down. 2. An idea I have considered for a Dinosaur Island game, where outrunning the dinosaurs can be quite important, has features resembling segmented movement, your latest suggestion, and the original poster's suggestion. It only works for speeds 6 and below. All characters can move on all even segments (once started). They can start moving on their own phase. Movement rate is determined by an MPT method. 6 speeds have phases as normal (all even numbers). Others: 5: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 4: 4, 6, 10, 12 3: 6, 10, 12 2: 6, 12 1: 8? . . . or something like that. Starting to move would be a 1/2 action, stopping a zero phase action. Attacking while moving at 1/2 max rate would incur a -1 OCV penalty, at full rate, a -2. (Or substitute a penalty based on current rate in inches per turn). Move-by and -through penalties would supercede these, not add to them. 1st idea is half-baked, but I see no major problems except possibly slowing down the game, which I suspect will happen with any approach that acheives your desiderata. 2nd idea is 2/3 baked, but I think it might work nicely for the right kinds of games.

Re: Your scenario style In the past, I've tended to run serial campaigns with one long continuous "plotline" (I use the word loosely). In recent years, I have switched to adventures of around 3-5 sessions each, only loosely connected (the three I've run have had large overlap of players and PC's, but a few players have come, gone, or switched characters). My goal for my next campaign is to compromise: short-medium adventures, but with some ongoing "plotlines".

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's Not necessarily useless, but less useful, or useful less often.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's I don't generally use penetrating, nor is it at all common in my group. My approach would just mean that the higher stun X would apply to whatever body penetrated, just like body that got past armor by any other means. If it were likely to come up in a game of mine, I would have to give more thought as to whether this might be unbalancing, but right now it does not seem that way to me.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's Not a bad build, at least if the weapon is exceptional, but I'm not sure it's any simpler than my approach. If you want to handle a range of related cases, I think your approach becomes an even bigger hassle. Also, the extra stun should be at least approximately proportional to the amount of body that gets through.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's I don't see the problem. If Swashbuckler wants to be able to hurt PAG's, he just doesn't buy his sword as a real weapon. This might be because it's made of super-metallium, or because he is just THAT amazing with a sword, or for whatever reason. If players take the real weapon limitation in Lord Liaden's campaign, they do so knowing what they're getting into.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread OK, I think it will be helpful to look at a moderate variety of cases as they are handled by the standard rules, your (Hierax's*) MPT approach, and my MPT approach. I want a big enough variety to illustrate the main issues, but not so big as to be overwhelming. Let us take running MPT ranging from 12" ("average") to 24" (twice "average"). As for speeds, 1 is boring**, and 2 gets treated virtually identically by the three different approaches, so the lowest I will consider is 3. I will also look at speeds 4 and 5, for two reasons: because I see MPT as much more valuable for heroic level games (where speeds above 5 are very rare) than for superheroic ones, and because 5 is the lowest number that can cause ugly rounding problems. So here we go. Standard rules: Speed 3 can have running of 4", 5", 6", 7", or 8", yielding an MPT of 12", 15", 18", 21", or 24". Speed 4 can have running of 3", 4", 5", or 6", yielding an MPT of 12", 16", 20", or 24". Speed 5 can have running of 3" or 4", yielding an MPT of 15", or 20". (2" or 5" per phase would yield respective MPT's of 10" and 25".) Notice that the standard rules cause a problem: for any given MPT range, higher speed characters have fewer choices of MPT than lower speed characters. For example, a speed 5 character can't have average running speed! This problem is the other side of the problem of the hassle of characters with MPT's not divisible by their speed. We each have to decide how to balance these two problems. Your approach: A character of any speed can have running of 6", 7", 8", 9" 10", 11" or 12", yielding an MPT of 12", 14", 16", 18", 20", "22" or 24". Speed 3 has no rounding problems with MPT of 12", 18", or 24". Speed 4 has no rounding problems with MPT of 12", 16", 20", or 24". Speed 5 has no rounding problems with MPT of 20". So your approach presents greater rounding difficulties than the standard rules, hence making the "careful builds" inconvenient (e.g., a carefully built 5 speed character who runs faster than average must run A LOT faster, and exactly as fast as -- or else twice as fast as -- other reasonably realistic 5 speed characters). If we are to use your approach, we will probably want a rule that allows for some MPT's not divisible by speed, but I don't think that means we need to allow for all such possibilities. I would allow any possibly MPT for 3 speed. I would simply alternate between rounding up and rounding down, restarting the pattern at the beginning of each turn (which meshes nicely with your rule of staring each combat in phase1). Hence speed 3, MPT 14 would go 5", 4", 5"; 5", 4", 5" and speed 3, MPT 16 would go 5", 6", 5"; 5", 6", 5". For speed 4, I would allow any MPT divisible by 2 (which is any MPT that can result from your approach anyway). I’d probably round up on phases 3 and 9, down on phases 6 and 12. For speed 5, I would allow MPT’s that, when divided by 5, yield a remainder of 2 or 3. I would alternate as per 3 speed. Hence speed 5, MPT 12 would go 2", 3", 2", 3", 2"; 2", 3", 2", 3", 2" and speed 5, MPT 18 would go 4", 3", 4", 3", 4"; 4", 3", 4", 3", 4". I would reject remainders of 1 (e.g., MPT 16”) or 4 (e.g., MPT 14”) as too much hassle. Combined with my rounding recommendations, your approach yields the following results: Speed 3 can have running of any value from 6" to 12", yielding an MPT of any even value from 12", to 24". Speed 4 can have running of any value from 6" to 12", yielding an MPT of any even value from 12", to 24". Speed 5 can have running of 6", 9”, 10” or 11", yielding an MPT of 12", 18”, 20", or 22" For speeds of 6 or higher, you can follow the pattern: MPT/speed must be either an integer or a yield a fraction that can be dealt with by alternating between rounding up and rounding down (in either order as needed, and restarting each turn). My approach: A character buys MPT for each form of movement directly (for running, starting from a base of 12”), for half the cost given in the standard rules. If I were to stringently avoid rounding problems (i.e., require that MPT/speed be an integer) then the resulting MPT’s would match those of the standard rules (again, assuming we are looking at MPT’s ranging from 12” to 24”). Suppose instead I allow remainders in the manner I recommended for use with your approach? Then: Speed 3 can have running MPT of any value from 12” to 24" (as could speed 2, it now occurs to me). Speed 4 can have running MPT of any even value from 12” to 24" (same as your approach with my rounding suggestion). Speed 5 can have running MPT of 12", 13”, 15", 17”, 18”, 20", “22”, or 23" (i.e., any value from 12” to 24" except 14”, 16”, 19”, 21”, or 24"). I’ll have to go back later and carefully reread my post in which I was convincing myself that your approach is better than mine, as the above analysis leaves me favoring mine. It gives the largest variety of possible MPT’s, and it does so without the need for a complex chart or rule. Note that regardless of other details, your and my approaches both remove the contradiction present in the standard rules between MPT and “velocity”. On the hand, also note that I have yet to solve the problem of how to deal with leaping and teleporting (though I have some ideas, and have not yet made a concerted effort to solve these problems). Are you still with me? If so, what do you think? * This post is addressed to Hierax, but I certainly hope others will read it and reply. ** To keep speed 1 characters from getting a big jump on speed 2's (and others) I would institute 1 special rule to say that speed 1's can only move 1/2 their MPT on phase 7, and must wait until phase 12 to move the rest.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I see. That does solve some problems. And quoting your last comment out of order . . . I think it is a minor concern, but I can live with it, and I think you should be able to as well because: (a) it's a consequence of the standard rules, so your and my movement per turn (MPT) approaches don't create a new problem, they just faill to solve all of the old ones, ( the lower speed character does not have an advantage in races (at least not if we use your start on segment 1 rule or adopt another fix, such as treating everyone as speed 2 for the initial phase 12), the higher and lower speed characters just trade leads, and © GM judgement can always impose segment-by-segment movement or a rough equivalent in the rare cases where this small difference matters. I like the general approach you used in your chart, but I think we can and should avoid a chart altogether. My initial thought that what you called "careful builds" were the way to go, and that they would not present much of a problem. On further consideration, I think that such builds are a bit more limiting than I initially realized. I see two main possible solutions: 1. A compromise: semi-careful builds + a simple rule capturing the main idea of your chart, or 2. Use my MPT approach rather than your own. For the sake of digestibility, I will discuss this in another post (if time allows, to be posted soon after this one).

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's I generally use the hit location table as well, but it retains most of the features of the Stun Lotto that people dislike. BTW, isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I haven't seen any problems worse than the official rules have. Are there other problems you haven't mentioned? I wouldn't think the balancing issue would be that bad. It should become second nature. Does the slight tweak of my idea help? (e.g., 3 SPD character could move 9" or 15" or 21" per turn, not just 6", 18" or 24"). I don't know if my brain is "Heroized" better than yours, but I'm tempted to think that both of our (similar) ideas are better than the official rules. If we continue to discuss these ideas (hopefully with the help of others), we might be able to improve them even more. Can anyone find some other big problem with Hierax's and my suggestions that I'm missing?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I don't think it's a big problem if slower SPD characters get more movement than higher SPD characters on a certain Phase. Heck, with the standard rules, a 2 SPD character often moves 6" in Phase 6 while a 3 SPD character usually moves 0". OK, maybe that misses your point, and in fact, the problem can be worse. A lower speed character can get an early lead that the higher speed character cannot make up. For example, we could modify your example above by having the "race" start in segment 6 (where the higher speed character was not ready). Actually, every phase 12 will present this problem: lower speeds go further in phase 12, at the end of each subsequent turn that lead is maintained. And this problem even applies between SPD 2 & 4. I am not sure what the best solution is. I'm inclined to think that on the phase 12 that begins combat everyone's movement in that phase should be speed-independent (e.g., movement per turn divided by two). This only solves half of the problem, though. But in any event, I think the approaches we discuss are better than the standard rules. Consider the case where you want to build a character who is faster thinking and better trained to deal with emergencies than most people, but who runs no faster than average. The standard build would be something like 3 SPD, 6" running. But this build fails to match what we are looking for. We may be accustomed to this problem, but if we accept this design, then we are accepting a huge flaw: the character goes 1.5 times as fast as we want him to. That's A LOT faster. So suppose we buy down his running to 4". Then we end up in a situation that is essentially identical to the one created by our proposed alternate rules, plus the additional problem that he does less damage with move-bys and such (and takes less from being tripped). So the official rules have the same problems; they just hide them by encouraging us to build our high SPD characters so that they run quickly (. . . without that increased velocity affecting move-throughs and such).

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread I think my comments here are consistent with Hierax's second post: Dan should still have to use noncombat movement to move 24" per phase. His advantage over Bob is just that he can do more attacks or other non-movement actions (including more move-by's, if he doesn't want to slow down). Or, he could do two attacks and still move 10" in combat (two 2" half moves and two 3" full moves), whereas Bob can only move 6" in combat if he attacks twice (two 3" half moves). Also, depending on how strict you are with rules about holding action, Dan might have a greater ability to react to others' actions in deciding how he moves.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread Counterveil, I am sympathetic to your concerns, but I don't like your solution, mainly because I think it mucks with things more than necessary. I think that for most Champions games, a change would be theoretically desirable, but may be more trouble than its worth. For heroic level games, my current thinking is that some kind of change is called for. (I overlooked some of the details of your second post before I wrote this, including the fact that it was you. Rather than revising this a second time before posting, I'm going to put it out there "as is". My intention had been to reply next to "that other guy" (your second post), so maybe I'll still do that.) I like an approach along these lines, but there are still details to be worked out (which you might have done, but have not told us here): 1. How much does speed cost? One could use the current costs, while requiring higher-speed normals to sell back running, but I think repricing makes more sense. I'm thinking 8 points (something like a -1/4 limitation on speed -- does not add to movement, though I would not let players exploit rounding here; as in the standard rules, if you pay for 2.9 speed, you have a 2 speed). A -1/2 limitation is also worth considering. 2. How do you handle a move rate per turn not divisible by the character's speed? At least initially, I would not allow it. If my group got comfortable with this approach and liked it, I might consider changing this. I think my approach would be slightly different from yours. You seem to be suggesting that all rates of movement/turn will be divisible by two. I would have characters buy movement per turn instead of movement per phase. Your approach is perhaps simpler, but mine avoids the messiness of movement rates not divisible by speed. 3. How much does movement cost? Considerations are similar to 1 above. I would advocate 1/2 the cost given in the rules (but would NOT treat this as a limitation; I'd start with half cost and then apply any lims). This is, of course, movement per turn, not per phase. (Perhaps another advantage of your approach; it might be OK to leave movement costs alone). 4. How do you handle formulas involving velocity, such as move-through damage? Unless I'm missing something, this is easy. STR + (V/6) where V is velocity in inches per turn. Same approach for move-by's etc. (Though again, advantage to you, your approach leaves the formulas unchanged). I seem to be convincing myself that your idea is better than mine. I will have to give this more thought; I was about 3/4 done before I even realized that your approach is not identical to mine. (Here's another complication I haven't thought through yet: how does one handle discontinuous movement forms like leaping and teleporting?) I think this seemingly-innocuous addition opens a big can of worms. I have in the past considered making all movement quasi-continuous. However, I currently disfavor that solution on the grounds that it (A) slows down combat too much and ( changes fundamental rules too much. (Consider: what is a full move? what is a half move? what if one is in the middle of moving and wants to fire a gun?) If I were designing my own RPG, I might take this approach -- if "segments" were long enough -- but I tthink it will have too far-reaching consequences as a change to HERO. I would advocate noo specific rules for movement broken down that far (GM judgement could still be applied in individual cases).

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's On the one hand, I think there is merit in the arguments that bricks should just buy their defenses higher and that taming the stun lotto is the real solution (and these approaches may be combined). On the other hand, Lord Liaden's solution is rather elegant, and has numerous advantages already mentioned in this thread (provided that one is playing something close to 4-color Champions). I would like to consider another perspective, not yet considered in this thread. Whether or not a KA should be able to do substantial stun without getting through any body depends in part on what the KA represents. I will give examples more applicable to heroic level games (recall that we aren't on the Champions board), but the issue could still come into play in a 4-color Champions game as well. Consider the following weapons: a light bow, a laser, a mace, and a bullet. The light bow can be pretty painful to an unarmored target, but if it doesn't do body, it's probably not going to do much, if any, stun. A laser, arguably, is a more extreme case: it can do horrendous amounts of stun if it gets past armor, but may do little or none if it does no stun (possibly depending on the kind of armor -- armor that converts the attack to heat and disperses it might leak through considerable stun, while reflective armor should stop all stun). Also, notice that it is not clear that the 0 body / 1 body line is all that crucial. Light bows and (even powerful) lasers that net 1 body through defenses still might not do much stun. By contrast, a mace which does no body might cause considerable stun. Of course, body damage can penetrate without the mace itself penetrating armor, but still I think this attack can do significant stun without doing body and can certainly do a LOT of stun without doing much body. Similarly, bullets from at least some guns hitting some kinds of armor (e.g., kevlar) can cause considerable amounts of stun while doing little or no body. How do we represent the difference between these two types of attacks? I have a suggestion that is theoretically quite simple, though in practice it might be a bit unweildy. My suggestion (#1) is to build weapons like light bows and lasers (as well as whips and switchblades, perhaps) with an increased stun X that only applies to body that gets past armor and/or a decreased stun X that only applies to body that does NOT get past armor. Weapons like bullets and maces can still be built according to the ordinary rules, with or without increased stun X. To this, I would add (though these suggestions are theoretically separable) the suggestion (#2) that for all KA's, the minimum stun after defenses be equal to the body past defenses times the stun X (modified, if applicable, by suggestion #1 above). Whaddaya think?

Re: Slow reload/flintlocks, muskets etc. How about "clips" of 1 charge each with increased reloading time? (5ER, p. 285). For example, 16 clips that take 1 turn each to reload would be a -1.25 limitation, I believe.

I stumbled upon the Hero version of Fires of War: Algernon Files Volume Two at my FLGS this morning. Anybody own this? Heard anything about it? Is it any good? http://www.blackwyrm.com/Products.htm

I stumbled upon the Hero version of Fires of War: Algernon Files Volume Two at my FLGS this morning. Anybody own this? Heard anything about it? Is it any good? http://www.blackwyrm.com/Products.htm

Re: Pulp Hero Resources Thanks! I don't know when I'll have time to work on it, but I bet I can get one of these to work. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Curufea again.

Re: Pulp Hero Resources