director13

Re: The Overbearing Presence

Hrm.

A little off the OP, but I like the Opposed Skill Rolls idea Sean mentioned earlier. Well, Opposed Characteristic rolls (PRE vs. EGO) as a zero phase "in conjunction with some other activity" roll, which lets me punt with skill vs. skill (or possibly skill vs. EGO, depending) for interaction skills when appropriate.

Abstract the result to "reduced effectiveness for 1 action" per margin of success (two gets you a whole phase, for instance), and "temporary bonus to EGO for one phase" per margin of failure. I'm free to roll for group or individual EGO, as appropriate. Free to use the existing Presence attack table for what "reduced effectiveness" means guidelines, too.

Re: More Complications, Please

[snip]

The question isn't really "should these complications have a point value" but "should my character get more points for positive attributes because I took more complications" or, alernatively, "if I am going to have more points in complications, shouldn't everyone else be required to do the same"?

[snip]

Your original comment was that YOU want more complications FOR YOUR CHARACTER to fully flesh him out. The answer is that you can have more complications. My characters often do. But it does not mean your character gets more positive attributes, nor that the other players are penalized for falure to have complications to the same level your character does.

[snip]

Sometimes, extra complications are a way of stealing extra spotlight time - when MY DNPC, or MY HUNTED, or any other issue unique to MY CHARACTER provides more focus on my character and, by extension, less on the other characters. At that point, these drawbacks to the character become a benefit to the player seeking more attention for his character/himself at the expense of the other players around the table.

Generally, a big +1 to everything Hugh said, with a focus on those three things.

Two things I would add are:

1) Granted, the creature writeups do look a bit goofy with the preponderance of 0 point Complications, but I suppose if it's good enough for lions, and horses, and bears, it's good enough for me; and

2) Regarding getting what you pay for with regard to points from Complications, I've always felt a bit uncomfortable with equal weight given to character design for what they *can't* do as to what they can. That just feels off center to me.

Re: HERO SYSTEM MARTIAL ARTS -- What Do *You* Want To See?

What I'd like to see (some of these have already been mentioned in the original post, or by other users):

1) How to build new maneuvers, and the point costs for doing so (as appearing in "How to built custom Talents")

2) Martial Arts specific Talents (with appropriate "Reality / Subgenre levels")

3) Optional Training rules

4) A discussion of optional Stances and Rock/Paper/Scissors maneuver modifiers, different ways to implement them, and fair (sample) cost modifiers for doing so.

5) How to use new and existing Skills to Martial Arts campaigns.

Re: Weapon Speeds and Casting Times

-1/4, "Weapon Speed"

Using this weapon imposes a penalty to DEX equal to DC/2.

Option: Only when against weapons with a shorter length.

Option: Only when the attacker hasn't take at least a half move action since his last attack

Option: Different formula than DC/2

??

Re: Phantom Steed

You should take a look at this old thread on a similar topic.

 

HM

Unrelatedly, that thread is crazymaking.

Re: Teleportation [usable as Attack]

If you let the player have an EDM power to send other people to hell' date=' you need to constrain it in some way so that the player can't use it willy-nilly. If the player is good about staying in character this could be as simple as a strong Psychological Complication; sending people to hell is a morality call that most humans aren't fit to make. [/quote']

 

Make everyone you send come back 7 days later with an extra 100 points worth of demonic abilities?

Re: DoT/Con

A related issue is comparing the cost of DoT versus Compound, Linked powers with Extra Time and costs no end on the linked powers. In the 2-3 instance field, real costs are cheaper with the compound power version. At the 3 instance version, both linked versions go off at the same time, as opposed to chaining off each other.

Of course, it's been demonstrated that the subtleties of DoT continue to escape me.

Re: Damage Over Time / Extra Time

DoT can actually be a Limitation, if you choose a long enough Increment.

 

Just out of curiosity, have you read the description for Damage Over Time?

Three times now. Did I miss the part where it says the default is 1 instance, 1 turn for +1, but you can't actually take it for 1 instance (even though that's the default)?

I did see where it says "Depending on the number of times the target takes damage, the length of the period, and how defenses apply, Damage Over Time can be an Advantage or a Limitation".

I suppose "if the number of times is 1, that's a completely different limitation" would be confusing. Or setting the default to 2, if that's the least you can actually take?

Re: Damage Over Time / Extra Time

Those are pretty good reasons, the fact that DOT has "1 Turn" as a +0 modifier for duration but no +0 for 1 instance also suggests the same.

But (setting aside DOT and Extra Time both have duration modifiers and integrating them would save space and, you know, make sense) if Damage over Time wasn't intended to be used for a single instance, why not call it "Repeated Damage Over Time"?

Or set the default to 2 instances instead of 1, and have that actually be selectable? Anybody want to buy a 0 DC Blast for 5 points?

Re: Damage Over Time / Extra Time

Damage Over Time is not intended to be left at the 1/1Turn level' date=' the base +1 is just that: the base starting point. It requires at least 2 Increments.[/quote']

 

 

Good to know. Why?

Re: Damage Over Time / Extra Time

Extra Time would be the limitation to use' date=' but I don't see anything in the description of Extra Time saying the damage would be interruptible.[/quote']

 

I do. 6E1 375

"

All powers with Extra Time are subject to

being interrupted. At the GM’s discretion, if the

character is interrupted while activating the power

— for example, by taking STUN or BODY damage

from, or otherwise being affected by, an attack —

then it may stop activating. A character must pay

the full END cost for a power with this Limitation

when he begins activating it, so he loses the END

even if he stops activating it or is interrupted."

Re: PRE and EGO

6E1 442

"Permanently shorter-than-human characters pay points as part of their Size Template to increase their DCV by the same amount as the Target Size OCV penalty. Therefore, don’t use the Target Size modifier when other characters attack them — the purchased DCV takes the place of the Combat Modifier. (Unless the GM rules otherwise, the DCV purchased to simulate the fact that it’s harder to hit a character who’s always small don’t “turn off” if the character’s Knocked Out, asleep, or the like. Think of them as being Persistent.)"

Re: Damage Over Time / Extra Time

Sadly, the APG doesn't, and the default for DOT is one instance. I don't know why (and don't expect enlightenment) DOT didn't work more like Charges, in that the default was a limitation, but you could buy it up higher to an advantage (although one not capped at +1).

An opportunity for a single mechanic that made sense was lost. Makes me cry.

In 6e, a poison that takes an extra turn to take effect from being inflicted either has a +1 (1 time / 1 turn) Advantage or an (Optional) -1 1/4 Limitation on it, although in the latter case by default it could be interrupted.

Right?

A character with Reflection (only Energy Beams) attempts to Block the blast from a laser rifle (with his hands).

Would the normal penalties for Blocking unarmed be applicable?

I'm the GM in question, and I'm still not sure.

Thanks!

Re: PRE and EGO

I had similar thoughts, but because of 5e ECV calcs swapped where you have EGO and INT.

Then I had some runoff thoughts about Interaction skills as Combat Skill Levels with particular maneuvers (PRE dice for effect).

I never did get what the results would come out of (social STUN and BODY) figured out, though.

Allow OMCV vs. DMCV "attack rolls" in Presence Attacks as "Interaction Skill Rolls".

Whether or not this takes half an action, and whether or not it makes Haymakering a Presence Attack slightly less cheesy is at your discretion.

Re: Gun Summoning

A vigilante with various darkness/extra-dimensional powers (relatively easy), but also the ability to summon and banish guns from the other dimension or what-have-you that he gains his power. He also keeps his ammo there and essentially "teleports" the ammunition into the weapon as he fires, eliminating the need to reload or worry about carrying massive amounts of ammunition. This still requires him to obtain the ammunition.

 

Sounds like your brother saw Ultraviolet.

Re: No Gliding Limitation (6E)

I mean that to qualify for 'Unified Power' you have to have something to unify it with' date=' so 'you can not do it if it is your only power'. I'm completely with the idea that you can unify a complete MP with another (external) power, but I'm extremely unadjacent to the idea of unifying a MP with its own (internal) slots, for all the reasons I've given EVEN - and I must stress this - if it makes no real cost difference. Mere mamon is not the point at all.[/quote']

 

OK, cool. That's a fair point. If a player only had the one (multi)power, and put Unified on it, I might be a little suspicious myself.

Re: No Gliding Limitation (6E)

 

But you can not allow this:

 

48 12d6 EB (unified power)

 

I would not even allow this:

 

48 12d6 EB (negatively adjusted by powers affecting Blast OR RKA -1/4)

 

That simply is not enough of a limitation to count.

Do you mean that you can not allow the limitation on the EB if that was the only power the character possessed, or that you can not allow the limitation on that power at all (or some third thing that I missed)?

Re: Limited Deflection

Y'see I've not looked up whether you can get away with using 'Unified power' on a MP like that, and, frankly, I'm afraid to. Adjusting MPs has always been, well, wrong. Also PowD and MD are special powers and should not appear in a MP. Without 'Unified Power' it comes out at 50 points.

 

I suspect that, although HD allows it as a limitation, you can not unify the slots of a MP. That would lead to enormous silliness:

 

+1 to the opposing camp that allows it, mostly because of drains (there are a fair number of technological drains against mutations in my Gamma World game).

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while...

So...no votes in favour so far...

I like it, and I'll be using it (although not until January or so, I had to promise my players a rules freeze). I play in a Heroic scale game with Hit Locations, but I use the STUN Multiplier for AoE attacks, which comes out to be Grenades, Flamethrowers, and various post apocalyptic mutations. The lower STUN Multiplier means I get to use even *more* of these on my players (and vice-versa, I suppose).

Hmmmmmmn. Smells like... victory.

Re: Seeing in the dark

If you have an active Sight sense, it should work perfectly well under those circumstances. As noted under Enhanced Senses, active or passive can be defined as such at no extra cost.

I like it. It's elegant and simple.

Wouldn't you need Concealed to avoid the "Flashlights shooting out of my eyes" effect, though?

I'd love to see a published yearly supplement with FAQ updates and any necessary changes to pre-built power builds for Hero System.

Hero System Annual 2009, Or Hero System Six Annual #1, kind of thing.

Even Annual #0 if all the sample powers weren't in the main book, allowing them to be revised as necessary without worrying about needing to update the main book in the highly unlikely event that changes would be needed soon after publication.

$5 seems like a fair price point, especially if it's text only, and mostly content from the web site.

(Hopefully implicit is a "keep up the good work, let me give you money for supporting my hobby")

Re: Seeing in the dark

What are you talking about?

Apologies. I was talking about Nightvision being a part of the Sight Sense Group and not a subset of Normal Sight, which seemed to be what you were correcting someone about, not how you would houserule a new sense build. I don't have an opinion about the latter.