MrAgdesh

I think that one of the lures of D&D is that you definitely notice a character progression. I'm not a fan of level based systems, but in this case, it does impart a feeling of improvement and heroism as new abilities unlock as you gain experience.

With Hero, you tend to start out, more or less, as you want and surging forwards dramatically is not something that I have noticed in 30 years of playing it. Instead, your experience tends to creep up on you - unless you save for something big like a Radiation Accident.

In Heroic games you are also more likely to find Maxima and caps on Stats and Skills, which the GM doesn't want you to exceed for fear of breaking game balance. This is perfectly reasonable of course, but can further a feel of stagnation when the character has a ton of XPs that he doesn't know how to spend.

D&D is just really easy to pick up and play (5E is anyway, and the last time I played was 1st Ed AD&D). Hero isn't.

I think this is important. It isn't just Nerds that play anymore, RPG has gone mainstream and 'normals' play. I've seen hipsters in drainpipe jeans and 'Nerd' t-shirts. Other, Beautiful People have hijacked the hobby. You don't have to be weird anymore and revelations that you play are met with interest rather than wedgies.

Beautiful People - people in general these days it seems - want something that they can run with straight away. That ain't Hero System. 

On ‎10‎/‎23‎/‎2019 at 1:24 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

The only basis I can see for CV being costed at 5 CP is that, pre-6e, the closest thing we had was +1 Skill Level, DCV only, for 5 points. 

That's logical. So effectively, the Advantage that a Skill level can "add 1/2 DC" (+1/4?) is balanced by the Limitation: "Extra Time: 0 Phase" (-1/4?)

If that's the case the 5E Skill Costs do seem to work better.

I'm just coming to 6E and I'm converting characters over from 5th but I feel that I really have to fix this combat skill issue for my own games because I like Skill levels and don't want to see them shelved for a superior alternative mechanic (purchasable CV).

Without having you guys going round in circles again (I see both sides of your arguments but I like the construct of Skill Levels as is - flexibility, adding damage, and to some degree just being a little different), I'm just curious as to how 5pts per +1OCV/DCV was arrived at as a cost under the system? I notice that the cost to build DEX, SPD, and CV is now double what it was under previous editions (e.g., a DEX 15, SPD 3 character would cost you 20 points and come with CV 5. In 6th all this costs you 40pts). Was 5pts therefore chosen for this reason, or am I missing some other mechanical reason?

As Hugh said, if you remove the damage add from skill level use, it also affects how things like Talents are built. My point is would increasingly the cost of CV slightly (between 6-8 points) cause massive ripple-throughs in the system? Or is CV just self-supportive that I could tinker with it a little and not damage other parts of the rules?

Its true, as GnomeBODY said that you don't want to make CV so expensive as to people would take levels instead, but is 5 as a cost more open to tweaking without detriment to the system?

The 1/2 DC add per Skill level equates to what, about 4 points? (Zero End, Can add to normal or killing damage, Extra Time 0 phase to assign) so need to figure that into the cost of what a floating point of CV is. I need to do maths.

I think Massey is correct in saying that "Sometimes you just have to accept that there are just going to be cost breaks" (apologies for paraphrasing) you just don't want the cost break to undermine to the point where the alternative is scrapped. At the moment, 20 points for +2OCV & +2DCV permanently, is far better than two levels with All Combat. What if CV cost 7 points? Then that would be 28pts vs 20pts - which would allow the addition of an extra level in HtH. Your choice would then be +2 OCV +2DV permanently or a +3 Floating CV (with the drawback that you have to assign it) and 1 extra DC (1 1/2 but you get my drift).

14 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Then you flip-flop the problem and people who naively buy OCV/DCV straight get screwed while people who buy CSLs get the better deal. 

 

The solution is to kill the concept of CSLs.  There's no valid reason to have two different ways to buy the same thing at different costs. 

Player wants a construct that lets them assign OCV, DCV, or DCs as they want?  Flexible Slot Multipower it up! 

Making a multipower necessary in order to simulate boosting skill is not something that I personally would like to do. Seems excessive, especially in an Heroic campaign. 

I'm just wondering why OCV/DCV are costed at 5pts a point?

Rather than alter the Skill Costs, what about charging more for OCV/DCV? Say, 8 points each?

(I presume that they cost 5 points because the changes in 5rEd DEX/SPD/OCV/DVC to 6E were costed up to be double. If so I don't know if there was a specific reason for that).

Anyone know if this spell/ability is written up somewhere? (6E)?

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 11:44 AM, drunkonduty said:

Oh and sharks. But hey, sharks are everywhere. They aren't just Australian. We certainly talk about them a bit more than most people, because we as a nation, not me personally, like to spend time in the ocean. Shark attacks happen very very occasionally. But they don't really want to eat you. Seriously. Sharks aren't fond of human. If they mistake you for a seal (surfers in their wetsuits look very seal-like to a shark) they'll take a bite out of you, but spit you making the  sharky equivalent of lemon face. You might bleed out before you got back to land...

 

I just don't see sharks as being gourmand enough to care. Compared to car number plates even Long Pig must be appealing...

I’ve been talking about this recently with some of my players. I’m thinking of the next Heroic level game I run having the Speed capped at four, with the CHA Max being set at 3.

On ‎6‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:06 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Actually one of the most overused lines in comic books is "how can something so big move so fast??" so the big=slow thing isn't necessarily a valid concept.  Plus, most of the big = slow thing came from movies using slow movements to emphasize their vast size, plus animation issues.  Elephants aren't any slower than weasels.

Yep. Hulk moves pretty darn fast in the Avengers. Chasing Black Widow through the Helicarrier he's keeping pace.

Comic Book Physics...

Player 1: 18 DEX Speed 4. Phases 3,6,9,12.

Player 2: 15 DEX Speed 3, Phases 4, 8, 12

On Phase 3, Player 1 attempts to hit Player 2. Player 2 Aborts his phase 4 to a Dodge.

On Phase 6, Player 1 declares “Hold my Action until Player 2 stops Dodging”

At 15 DEX, phase 8, Player 2 stops Dodging.

Does this mean;

a) That Player 1 may now act because he has the  'priority' of Holding and that Player 2 has stopped Dodging (but could Abort his action this phase to Dodge again should he wish)

b) The two characters, now acting simultaneously at 15 DEX enter a DEX roll-off for priority as to who goes first, with neither being able to abort (6E2 pg 19)

On ‎5‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 1:25 PM, Lucius said:

I'd go back to the source material:

...

Gygax decided "vorpal" meant "tends to behead easily" but that is not at all obvious to me from the poem; in fact, the meaning of "vorpal" is pretty obscure...

 

So perhaps I'd give a "vorpal" weapon a combination of Armor Piercing, Penetrating, Reduced Negation, and some extra damage.

 

 

Or maybe Vorpal is just + vs Jabberwockys?

 

Reminds me of an old D&D character with a Sword of Hobbit Slaying and a Wand of Polymorph (to Hobbit)
 

If you dispense with the DEX roll at simultaneous DEX’s and institute some other priority system, e.g., Held Actions, does this also negate the ability to Abort that accompanies the usual simultaneous DEX roll rule?

E.g.

Two characters, Player 1 is Speed 4, Dex 15. Player 2 is Speed 3 Dex 14

On phase 3, Player 1 attempts to hit player 2, who announces an Abort to a Dodge.

On phase 6, Player 1 Holds his action; “I wait until he stops dodging”

On Phase 8, at Dex 14, when player 2 would act (and therefore stop Dodging) , Player 1 decides to strike again.

Rather than commit to Dex rolls, the GM rules that the Held Action has priority.  

Does this mean that Player 2’s Dodge Bonus has ended? They’re at DEX 14 but player 2 hasn’t acted yet. I presume so, or there would be no point in Player 1 saying “I wait until he stops Dodging”

At this point is player 2 unable to Abort?

I think that I'll go along the lines of what I said about Feint halving the target's DCV - but Only if they choose to Abort. Otherwise just straight OCV modifiers.

I'm thinking to leave in place as is for unconscious characters; they're rhythmically breathing, 'relaxed' etc.

4 hours ago, Lucius said:

The only reason I can think of is to speed up combat by ensuring people go down faster and stay down.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Or to feed it to a palindromedary

Yes, that's it. Just looking at a variety of options. This is something that I've thought of, along with the obvious limiting of Speed. Wondered if anybody might have tried it and if so what conclusions they reached. We haven't even tried it in a trial combat yet.

Has anybody experimented with this long term in a campaign?

2 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

But it comes at a price: you just sacrificed your next phase entirely, and are at a disadvantage from then on in terms of actions.  

 

But as a GM you should remember that someone cannot abort to dodge something they are unaware of.  A surprise attack almost never will allow anyone to abort to dodge, because they are not even aware there's anything to dodge.  The surprise comes because they are not expecting and do not know the attack is coming, and cannot respond to it unless they have some special ability (danger sense, etc).

The economy of actions will lead me on to another thread, sir, following some discussion at our gaming table this morning.  

Second point: Isn't that the difference between Surprised and Surprise Move, though? A Surprise Move (which Feint is) does not halve the target's DCV like surprised in combat/out of combat -does, and thus still allows the abort.

A halving of the target's DCV might be along the lines of what I'm after - so that an Abort to Dodge is not that great an option all of a sudden. Although then you have the prospect of Abort to Block...

I appreciate the input!

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Feints aren't always successful.  Even if the target is fooled, they still can react with a desperation maneuver (aborting their next move).

Isn't the success determined (a) by the initial Skill vs Skill roll (Feint vs PER) and (b) by actually hitting their DCV?

My point was that in response to a player declaring a Feint for an OCV advantage (or, in fact penalty if he fails the roll) his opponent can just abort to a Dodge to cancel that benefit out.

The same is true of a surprise manoeuvre;

Player 1 (15 DEX): "I use my acrobatics skill to cartwheel across the floor, catch his neck in a scissor lock with my thighs, and execute a Killing Strike!"

GM: "Groovy, make an Acrobatics roll and I'll give you a +1 OCV"

Player 2 (14 DEX):  "Abort to a Dodge"

In both cases Player 2 can easily negate the 'surprise'.

4 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How does the target know the feint occurred and succeeded?

 

Opponent's action comes up and he Feints.  Dice get rolled.  Depending on the results:

 

 - he tried to lure you in with a fancy maneuver, but you picked up on the attempt and were not lured in; or

 - he lunges forward with his rapier and...misses.

 

The latter is all the target would perceive of a successful feint, so why should the player have any more information than that?

 

EDIT:  Now, when the feinter attacks next phase, perhaps the target gets to make a PER roll to figure out that prior attack was just to lure him in, and gave the feinter an advantage.

 

So the next time he misses, does the target assume it was another feint and Dodge or Block?

The target knows the Feint occurred and succeeded when he gets hit by the attack. Especially so if the OCV bonus from the Feint was *just* enough to cause him to be hit. 

I agree with Greywind in that if you are playing NPCs then matters like this are less relevant. However If you’re talking about player knowledge not influencing gameplay how do most of you games master the occasional (and thematic) hero vs hero punch up?

Do you ask the player on the higher dex (player A) for a general statement of intent? E.g. “I’m going to somehow attack player B” and then require a reaction from player B; “I abort to a block” 

or does player A say “I’m going to martial strike player B sticking my two Levels with HtH combat, and my 1 overall level in OCV”

To which player B might say “I abort to a martial dodge” (as the attacker’s OCV might be better than his own at this point )

As others  have pointed out, the problem is in player vs character knowledge. The target may not know to abort to a Dodge but the target’s player would. 

However, as has also been pointed out, it can be difficult to differentiate these at times. 

Yes, but if the Feint/Sleight roll works then the target will know to abort before the attack roll gets boosted. Same if the GM grants a surprise manoeuvre bonus. 

It just seems counter intuitive to me that these “surprises” allow somebody to then block or dodge them. 

I’m playing around with a swashbuckling setting and I’m looking at Feint (HSMA pg 200, UMA pg 116) as an Agility skill to boost OCV for the next attack. 

The trouble is that I don’t think that it works. Assuming that you go on a higher DEX than the target and you declare half phase Feint (and get a good roll) your opponent can just Abort to a Dodge - which probably easily negates the Feint mechanic wise, and just seems to nix it thematically,  too.

The same could be said for ‘surprise manoeuvre’ bonuses.

I have a character who is looking to transform himself into a large crashmat/cushion  - the sort that stuntmen would use to safely fall onto from height. In other words it prevents falling damage.

I'm looking for ideas on how to replicate this. 5th ed rules being used.