Istaran

A couple of comments from me.....

 

1. If the argument is that people are resistant to change then why would you ever allow or support any newer versions of a game system? If your argument is that "gamers are lazy" and don't want change then you are stating that the whole CONCEPT of New Versions is flawed and the entire purpose of revision is to change (and hopefully improve) a system and if the players are "too lazy" to want to adapt to the changes then the new versions will not be successful at all. If you prefer an older version then you are free to play in that, but that doesn't make you lazy, necessarily, it just means that you don't agree with the changes that are made.

 

2. One of the reasons I would argue for the CV's and such to NOT start at 0 is that all the characteristics start at some "base" level which is considered the norm for an "average" human. That is one of the concepts of the game. Not to mention that DCV 3 is the same difficulty as hitting a target hex so your "base" DCV makes you as hard to hit as a stationary object. The same could be argued for the MCV's, even people with no psychic ability would conceivably have some defense against it, and some ability to use psychic powers if they were to obtain them in some fashion (the wide open world of HERO SYSTEM provides MANY ways in which a person could obtain psychic powers without necessarily gaining any ability to use them). In game terms OMCV/DMCV 3 is simply considered the "normal average" baseline just like INT 10 is considered the same. You could definitely set all stats to 0 if you wanted and then require every player to buy them all up from there if you wanted (providing bonus points to compensate for this need) , but since starting stats can be sold back for points this really wouldn't have any net effect on character building. Of course to each their own.

I also think all the CV's (OCV / DCV / OMCV / DMCV) should have been defaulted to 0 starting. They all resist each other across a base 11- roll anyway; nothing would have changed mechanically and it would have avoided the weirdness of characters with no mental powers having points sunk in OMCV' date=' and would have undercut the current problem with the pricing of CSL's now that OCV and DCV are 5 points each.[/quote']

 

In addition to aspects discussed by others, there is also the fact that HERO uses 1/2 or 0 OCV/DCV as the effect of various situational penalties, and also uses 0 or 3 as DCV for fixed locations. So changing OCV/DCV to baseline at 0 has a meaningful effect. You also can be drained to 0, but not below.

Your idea does seem like it could be reasonable to apply to OMCV and DMCV though.

attributes are secondary' date=' not because they are less important, but because they are dependant on the primary characteristics [/quote'] I think its amusing that this was the take away you felt compelled to comment on. The comment was re: "The inherent relationship between primaries and secondaries, regardless of the accounting arguments, were a major part of the system." The point being I do not agree with this statement, that the mathematical relationship itself was a "major part" of the HERO System, nor do I think that decoupling them was a major change. If things like SPEED, REC, STUN, END were removed from the system that would be a major change. Just changing how much of it a character gets for free is not. As to semantics.... [h=3]sec·ond·ar·y[/h] /ˈsekənˌderē/ [TABLE=class: vk_txt ts] [TR] [TD] Adjective [TABLE=class: ts] [TR] [TD] Coming after, less important than, or resulting from someone or something else that is primary.[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD] [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

Well, unfortunately, they were. Here are the major features you have to address between 5th and 6th and what they mean. If your world is thematically driven, you have to figure out what to do about Power Defense and attacks that work vs. Power Defense. Drains became 1 1/2 times as powerful because they all became ranged. Now, any idiot can tell you that 60 does not equal 90. But between 5th and 6th, that's exactly what happened. What it means: This means that unless power defense becomes more common, characteristic drains are one and a half times as effective as they used to be, because these powers now gain range for free against progressively cheaper characteristics. The two big winners were END and REC. Whereas these characteristics used to be problematic to drain, now they're truly hideous, especially END. Most characters don't have more than 50 to 60 END, nor is there a reason for them to ever buy more. Whereas before, you were being drained of about 28 END for 60 points, now you're being drained of a whopping 52. Most characters will be burning stun after just a couple actions. However, Power Defense is difficult to justify and can't be put on every sheet so easily. Stun became half as expensive, while defenses stayed the same. Players began building characters that had lower defenses (around 20) and buckets of stun, because it was more cost-efficient to do so, and you stayed on your feet while your opponent dropped like a stone. The only way to correct this, as near as I can figure, is hard maximums for who can buy how much STUN. In a fantasy game this is less of a problem, but the math remains the same. What it means: It means that attacks vs. Power defense are going to become a lot more common, in order to circumvent the ridiculously high stun totals characters can generate. Growth: Growth in 6th edition works great, except for creatures whose only main ability is the ability to change size. This is a problem because the ability's most basic use should be the ability to change your size. In-between numbers generate absurd amounts of effort and calculation for very little end result. This is frustrating.

 

Regarding Drains, is it really imbalanced though?

Drain v STUN is 10 points to do 1d6 STUN only, OCV v DCV, resisted by power defense.

Mental Attack is 10 points to do 1d6 STUN only, OMCV v DMCV, resisted by mental defense.

Blast (AVAD: Power Defense or Mental Defense) is 10 points to do 1d6 STUN only, OCV v DCV, resisted by the chosen defense.

The only real difference between the Blast and the Drain is how they are recovered. Blast will combine with other typical attacks for REC recovery per Turn (and subject to taking Recoveries), while Drain will be recovered 10 STUN/turn independently from REC.

The drain still seems weaker, at least at this level.

Draining END instead is a little more unclear. As you said, you can quickly get someone burning STUN for END. So at that point your 60 AP power has them taking 3d6 every time they use a 60 AP power. So after two of their phases they've taken the equivalent of one of those above 60 AP powers. Every Turn, they get back 25 END, which is enough to use 4 such powers, so you probably have to reapply regularly.

It -could- get out ahead (though far less likely to stun them), but on the other hand there's a lot of ways to get around it. If they have a no-END attack, for example, possibly built on Charges.

 

If Drain is more powerful, maybe it's simply that it used to be too weak?

On the other hand, Suppress is now a -1/2 instead of half base cost. Otherwise, Suppressing STUN could be kind of out of hand.

 

 

Re: Multipower Variable Slots, ever use one?

I tend to use fixed slots for the efficiency. For example, I had a draconic character with a multipower for his wings (flight, gliding, or +leaping) which cost 3 points more than any one of those. (Might have even had a second flight with lower inches and higher NCM, don't recall.), and an attacks multipower with a variety of different attack powers. Each of those MPs had nothing but ultra slots. I also had a kitsune themed character with a multipower for shapeshifting tricks: growth, shrinking, DI, stretching and a few others (PD/ED, I think?). Each of those slots were multis. She could mix and match and very fluidly change her capabilities to fit the situation from phase to phase. The dragon was a lot more efficient in combat, but mostly because of the massive point spend the kitsune had on the Shapeshift power.

Re: Is VPP overpowered/How do you properly use it?

Not even if you change into a fly?

That's a good point. The ability to turn into a fly should always be built as a VPP, with the special effect that it lets you build things on the fly.

Like: "I turn into a fly. And I build a rocket launcher (as an RKA with Explosion, naturally) on the fly."

Re: Is VPP overpowered/How do you properly use it?

5. Things shouldn't be cheaper in a VPP than outside it, so no sidestepping cost restrictions: if you want a Multiform that allows you to change into anything, you need to shell out for lots of extra form doublings.

I think a flexible shapeshifter concept is a fine use for a VPP, and one that is a lot more well defined than a lot of VPP concepts (it's pretty clear what it can and cannot do). Though it seems to me like the concept basically demands a very costly Shapeshift power to cover the cosmetic aspects (and possibly some kind of Linked, like you have to change the cosmetic appearance and the VPP powers at the same time, so that they match. Want to have wing based flight now? You change to an appearance that includes wings). (I might allow a concept like Teen Titans' Beast Boy to skip this, based on the fact that he is glaringly obviously Beast Boy no matter what form he takes. But otherwise part of the advantage of turning into anything is that people see you as being that thing you turned into.)

Multiform can be a -lot- cheaper because the possibility of completely altering your appearance is included for "free", and you can change a much larger chunk of your character sheet relatively cheaply, but the VPP + Shapeshift works much better for an "I can turn into anything" concept.

(Personally I usually use Multipower for such flexible shapeshifters. It makes you pay for each new option, but makes it all clear and simple and you never worry about assembling a new power on the fly.)

Re: Let's talk about movement

Well, one way - to continue to work within the limitations of a turn based game system (so we don't all go batty) is to assume one's current "velocity" is always based on Meters/Turn (m/T) and not "How many Meters can I run, and have I accelerated to that yet?"

 

Frex;

10m of Running, Spd 2 (I'm keeping numbers low, and simple) can move a maximum of 20m/T.

Given that A) they can only run 10m in a Phase, and it takes a full Turn to accelerate to the complete 20m/T Velocity:

 

On Phase 6 they get a running start to a 10m/T velocity, but the enemy is 20m away so that's a Full Move, they're done. On Phase 12 they can continue to run at the enemy, and attain their maximum 20m/T Velocity and do an additional full 2DC of damage (still only moving their maximum 10m/Phase).

 

Now, the next guy has 10m of Running, but Spd4. That's twice the velocity - given all 4 Phases this guy can attain a full 4DC of additional damage, if he only has 2 Phases to get his Full Move (10m) in he'll only add 2DC.

 

And if both characters just launch at the target in 1 Phase, doing their 10m maximum Combat Movement, both get the minimum 1DC of damage they could add.

 

It probably starts to get more complicated as 1/2 and Full Moves are combined.... but not much more so, just add up additions to Velocity based on how far they've moved versus standard Acceleration Rules.

This suggestion is something of a poor simulation. By the end of the first phase when they are up to their full movement per phase, they are at their full combat velocity.That is, the SPD 4 guy is already going twice the velocity of the SPD 2 guy. It's only his average velocity over the last 12 seconds that will take him 12 seconds to build up to full, his instantaneous velocity is already there, and that's what's going to determine how hard he slams into things.

It is however, possibly, a reasonable balance especially if we are going to keep the existing price scheme. Effectively you would be able to burn phases building up your momentum to get in one really solid hit. You would give up the attacks in between to add over-cap dice to your one big wallop.

Re: Is this worth a Limitation?

I had a draconic character that used that for his "blind sense" (stealing the concept from D&D 3.5 dragons). In concept, his scales were sensative enough to feel the disturbances in the air including airflow, so in a vacuum or perfectly still air it wouldn't work (but he could always move his wings a little to stir up the air to suit).

I agree with others that Restrainable isn't really fitting here. It's basically like trying to take points for "Can't see through opaque objects".

Re: Let's talk about movement

When I read a text about the re-pricing of Movement Powers right (APG I 77)' date=' they are currently in part priced based on their ability to add damage.[/quote']

 

I'm thinking something along the lines of:

Halve existing costs movement costs. (This maybe should be 1/4 or so, to reflect realistic average SPD)

Movement is now per turn: divide by SPD (round down?) to determine move/phase. (this can be done dynamically: if your speed is adjusted, it would affect your move/phase.)

Damage is now calculated based on your move/turn, not your move/phase. Set the formula appropriately for the points to damage ratio to be right.

 

Pros:

SPD doesn't multiply up your MPH/KPH. If you want to be faster at moving, you buy more movement.

Velocity damage is still paid for with a fixed AP to DC ratio. (Probably the same ratio.)

Velocity damage is now related to MPH/KPH consistantly.

 

Cons:

Movement powers are more confusing to price. This is especially an issue when buying up SPD with xp.

Certain movement types (Leaping/Teleportation) may need ability to make multi-phase movements to clear larger gaps, as it gets much pricier for high SPD characters to clear those gaps. (Or takes on the wierdness that the maximum gap you can clear is higher if you temporarily voluntarily lower your SPD.) (Does HERO already have this? I forget.) Maybe something like the ability to make a leap of up to 1 Turn (spending the intervening time in mid-air) or spend up to 1 Turn charging up a teleport before suddenly BAMFing. (is it better or worse for the multiphase teleport to remove you from play until completed? Should it be an option? an advantage?)

The other big con is that it changes the balance between velocity-based characters and others, presumably making high MPH/KPH characters more pricey. (Possibly making lower velocity characters slightly cheaper to add movement modes, depending on the price formula.) In particular, high SPD characters will feel a loss of mobility, probably reflected in lower velocity purchases.

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

The other issue, especially with superheroic games, as defences are higher is that normal and killing attacks work differently on the hit location table.

 

Take an average 12DC attack against 24 defence*, and work out a head hit. We will just worry about Stun for the moment.

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and that doubles (for the head hit) to 36.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx5 = 70 Stun-24 = 46

 

That is a big difference, and substantially favours killing attacks, certainly for head hits...let's see...1.5x multiples for normal are x4 for killing so (using the same figures:

 

1. Normal attacks: 42 damage v 24 defence = 18 through defences and x1.5 = 27.

2. Killing attacks: 14 Bodyx4 = 56 Stun-24 = 32

 

Low multiplier areas, normal atatcks do better, but KAs have a real advantage for the bits anyone is ever going to actually aim at. Again, it seems that what killing attacks are really good at is causing lots of stun damage.

 

That just makes me feel dirty.

 

 

*Not universal but I think 2xDC is a reasonable level for defences

I'm wondering if it would be more balanced for the normal multiplier to be applied pre-defenses?

For your example, that pushes the headshot to 60 STUN v 48 for the KA. The body blow (x4/x1.5) is 39 v 32 for the KA. Typical (x3/x1) would be 18 vs 16 for the KA.

Normal becomes all around better for dealing STUN, and the prefered choice for games with high resistant defenses. KA keeps its niche of being higher BODY per DC, and with only resistant counting so it is a good object/barrier/entangle/automaton breaker, but not the all-purpose go-to when hit locations are in play.

This makes normal pick up roughly the same variability as KA does in a hit location world, and makes punching someone in the head a perfectly devastating attack (for a brick anyways).

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

What we are arguing about is how likely you want extreme results to be. 4d6 Killing gives you 72 stun one roll in 3888 (in 6e: it was a lot less in 5e). 12d6 Normal gives you 72 stun one in just over 2 billion.

 

The thing about Hero combat that makes any of this problematic is that we use the "Stunned" mechanic. You can build a Hero that is very unlikely to be stunned by a normal attack, but it is much more difficult to build a Hero character that is unlikely to be stunned by a killing attack, even with the new multiplier, at the same DC: well, certainly much more expensive.

 

You might like the idea of a more random outcome to combat, or you might not. Personally I like some randomness but still like to feel that tactics are more important than dice.

 

Hit Locations are a related but different issue. If the hit location is random, you are back to volatility (only more so it applies to both normal and killing attacks) whereas if you can target hit locations, skill becomes much more impostant than the 'raw' ability to deal damage, or absorb damage.

 

Hero is a toolkit, so this is probably good, but I think that things could be done better.

Hmm.

Hit locations gives normal attacks the volatility to get the extra OOMPH to stun targets more easily, plus allows for tactics to play an additional role in damage per hit (by allowing you to use reduced DCV situations to target vulnerable locations and aim for the jackpot rather than just lucking into it). However, you probably need to limit or ban PSLs for targetting hit locations to make sure it can't become trivial (maybe 4 as a hard cap? Or limit their use to halving the penalty? Then few would take more than 2, and there would be no point to more than 4).

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

The problem with damage volatility is that it knocks out players unexpectedly. Whilst it is a bit aggravating for the major end of level monster encounter to be aced with a couple of lucky rolls, as a GM, I can live with that: there are always more monsters.

 

However, if a lucky roll (high body and a head hit) kills a PC, that is killing a lot of investment in the character.

 

Sure it is realistic for deadly weapons to be deadly, but we are not after reality, even the most grittily realistic of us, we are after a decent game play experience. I never understood why people liked fumble and critical rules because there will always be more enemies rolling the dice than PCs, so all it does - in exchange for the occasional boasting rights on beheading an ogre - is tip the odds against the PCs.

I strongly agree with you.

However, I also am aware that there is a vocal contingent of gamers who prefer their RPGs include occasional, random, semi-unavoidable PC death such that there is a noticeable PC turnover rate. I am not such a person, so I can only speculate as to their motives. I personally prefer to invest heavily in a single character, build them up over time and grow more depth and breadth to the character and I find it jarring to lose such a character unexpectedly and have to start over from scratch. If a game seems to make that a likely/common outcome then I personally have a hard time investing in characterization, and will instead make statblocks combined with hollow cliches as a way to protect myself from caring.

One of the things I like about the HERO STUN/BODY version of HP is that it can make KOs plausible (even fairly likely) while keeping actual deaths very uncommon (while possible enough to keep it on people's radar). (I find 4e D&D achieves the same ends, but earlier D&D does not. Just one of those things that tends to split people between liking 4e or liking previous additions.)

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

Well, this would see a 12d6 Normal attack average 18 STUN, so CON of 20 - 23 would limit the likelihood of being Stunned. If Stunning is intended to be a factor, you need enough CON that the typical attack doesn't Stun the target, but not so much that it's pretty much certain he'll never be Stunned. With 60 STUN, 4 hits will KO.

So if we go for heroic instead, it's say..

6d6 Normal or 2d6 KA vs

CON 10-12, 30 STUN, 12 PD/ED (6 resistant). Aside from a little extra volatility due to smaller numbers of dice being rolled, the numbers are basically all just halved and the chance of stunning remains unchanged.

Also, if you look at your numbers.. switching to 6e no hit locations, only the low defense guy can even possibly be stunned by the KA on an average BODY roll. But with hit locations, our sample dude gets stunned by a normal attack headshot reliably as well as a KA. For that matter, the x4 locations are x1.5 for normal and will also stun him. (12d6 = 42, -24 PD = 18, x1.5 = 27 STUN through defenses, more than the 20-23 CON you specified.)

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

I think the problem is that' date=' in Heroic games, you need hit locations to make the game deadly, but in superheroic games, it turns the whole thing into either a lottery or a character creation straight-jacket.[/quote']

 

I recall reading around these parts suggestions along the lines of:

for every DC in typical attacks in the campaign, a character should have (about):

1 rPD/rED

1 additional PD/ED

5 STUN

 

I don't think BODY was mentioned, and I don't recall what the suggested CON to back that was, and I'm not sure I remember the numbers perfectly accurately. But certainly you could derive such numbers for CON and BODY, and then tweak up and down for the level of deadliness desired and apply it.

It pretty much scales all the way up and down, except for some quirkily high volatility at the bottom end (i.e. when 3 DC is the norm, 1d6 KA is rediculously volatile compared to 3d6 normal).

The thing is, if you've got proportionate defenses and STUN/BODY/CON versus the attacks you're throwing, scaling the points higher (and thus the number of dice and the pull of the bell curve) should be making it less of a lottery than before.

Maybe part of the issue is the free 10 points of BODY/CON doesn't always get scaled.. Default Normals are soaking 2 DC punches with their 10 BODY/CON. They basically need a head shot to even risk stunning each other in a brawl. Are your supers packing 5 BODY/CON per DC? probably not (well maybe a brick?). Maybe that lack of scaling is what makes the hit locations seem necessary in heroic but excessive in superheroic? But I always figured it was more just a feel thing. "Heroic" feel is intended to be more of a lottery.. one solid head-shot from a sword or arrow could lay you out and maybe even put you under in heroic type stories, but not in superhero stories. Mooks might get wiped out easily, but superheros and supervillains are never put down by a single lucky shot.

 

In other words, hit locations increases volatility in both KA and normal in 6e. In 5e the KA got to keep that volatility even when hit locations weren't used (due to the 1d6-1 STUNx), but in 6e it's more balanced between the two. Because of the damage subtraction of PD/ED and the damage threshhold of CON the volatility is a powerful advantage. The free BODY/CON/STUN baseline tends to make those numbers higher proportionate to DCs in heroic games, so that they can absorb the volatility a little easier, and genre conventions make the volatility more desirable but ultimately it makes for a deadlier game (but also one in which more hits "bounce", due to the low damage on hand/feet/etc). If superheros have BODY/CON/STUN proportionate to the DCs (along with PD/ED/etc) then they should be slightly less volatile with hit locations than heroic games due to the bell curve effect, but still much more volatile than the genre implies.

 

Does that all sound right?

Re: Killing Damage to Normal Damage

The guidelines for that power-level are 12-14 DC.

This attack is twice that.

"Wolveriens claws" clearly points out that this is his normal attack, without limitations like charges or extra-endurance (wich might make a exceptional DC-attack acceptable).

 

Do you ever actually played in a game where such an attack (or something similar) was allowed, or are you just saying "I can think of a situation where you are wrong"?

I'm generally inclined to think each PC should have one (or more but few) unique exemptions from caps that says they can be just a little better than everyone else at that one thing, and I think dealing damage is a reasonable one for wolverine. (Aside from regeneration and maybe freakishly high BODY I can't think of anywhere else he would be expected to excel compared to other supers. But dealing damage, especially to highly armored targets, is quite clearly where he is portrayed as shining.)

Beyond that, even if I weren't inclined to grant such an exemption, I think ignoring one instance of AP from the cap is reasonable. In the vast majority of cases, he's just got the effect of one AP, which does increase his damage from what the dice alone indicate. The fact that he is extra-specially effective against enemies with one level of hardened (or rather, isn't screwed because they ignore his schtick and make him just plain lower dice than his teammates) is a niche bonus, for which he should pay cp but not be penalized with caps. It mostly only matters against enemies designed to let him shine.

That is.. if everyone else has 12 DC attacks, I might allow for 4d6 KA + APx2 because that's his special area to shine and go over cap, while someone else might be allowed to break campaign CV limits or DEF limits or something. But I would definitely let him do an attack that would be 12 DC with APx1 but has APx2 (paying the CP and END, but not inhibited by caps).

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

8 PSL's to cancel the modifiers for head shots becomes amazingly powerful in a Supers game using head shots. The defensive power of choice becomes "no hit locations"

I bought this once in a heroic game for a rogue/assassin type character. Everyone else had 2d6 KA or equivalent. I had 1d6KA, x3 autofire, that was always headshots. There was no question that mine was "amazingly powerful".

Going from heroic to superheroic, all the numbers scale up. THat 24 rPD super might laugh at my multiple headshot 3 DC attack, but nothing I'm actually going to fight against can shrug off those kinds of blows. (Unless they're automatons that ignore STUN or the like, in which I have the classic rogue's weakness?)

Re: Killing Damage in 6e

I know head shots with normal attacks are x2 STUN. I don't recall if that is before or after defenses.

If it's after defenses, then 12d6 (normal) is 12-72 STUN, -24 PD = 0-48 STUN, doubled is 0-96. The same max as your 4d6 KA example.

If it's before defenses, then 12d6 (normal)x2 is 24-144 STUN, -24 PD = 0-120 STUN (and none of that is being clipped up to 0).

The 4x and 5x locations do more STUN from normal attacks too.

On the other hand your example of all 24 PD being resistant does not ring true to me (at least not typical). Usually at least some PD is non-resistant, which means a high roll on the 4d6 KA could get BODY through, while the normal attack cannot. (And, as mentioned, resistant defenses can be capped if desired to enforce some lethality.)

Because the 4x and 5x locations all do double STUN from normal, their inclusion on the hit chart does not restore KAs to the best plan for dealing STUN, and I'm not sure it even gives them greater odd for stunning compared to targetting those locations with normal attacks.

4d6 KA vs head (24 rPD) averages 14 BODY, 60 STUN - 24 PD = 0 BODY, 36 STUN.

12d6 n vs head (24 rPD) averages 12 BODY, 42 STUN (x2)

(after defenses) = 36 STUN through defenses

(before defenses) = 60 STUN through defenses

(I'm becoming more convinced it is, or should be, doubled after defenses. It also helps keep hand hits from bouncing entirely)

If CON > 35, KA might stun more often since it is more volatile. If CON < 35, normal will stun more often because it is more reliable.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

I have a question: Let's say that the PC is engaged with an Orc' date=' Lala. Zugzug runs by them, provoking an attack of opportunity. If the PC takes a swing at Zugzug, does that provoke an attack of opportunity from Lala?[/quote']

 

In D&D 3.5: no. Ranged attacks and casting spells provoked, but melee attacks (such as attacks of opportunity) did not.

 

In D&D 4e: Generally no. Ranged attacks and area attacks provoked, but melee and close attacks did not. However, some characters such as a PC Fighter or some types of enemies can mark the enemy they are engaging, and get free swings if that enemy attacks anyone else, including making an OA.

In other words, a typical combatant can exploit the opening from leveling a bow, aiming a fireball, or just running past. But certain characters that specialize in it can exploit the opening from even a melee attack or attempting to move carefully.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

To properly "Tank" someone in Hero just requires a bit of Roleplaying and a Presence attack. A Pre attack that is engineered to royally enrage the opposition. Been doing that since the early days of hero. "Marking" abilities are really not needed. Of course they are easy to write up (just have a debuff ability that is on a trigger of not attacking you).

It is perhaps a "gamist" tendancy of mine, but I generally prefer having mechanics that change the incentive structure, rather than basically relying on my enemies to make suicidally bad decisions in the name of roleplaying. That's why, as someone who generally likes to play "tank" type characters, I really appreciate D&D 4e's defender concepts.

Basically, if two characters (A & are balanced against one another overall in combat, and A has better defenses (defenses here includes PD/ED, DCV, STUN & BODY totals, REC and regeneration, etc. everything that makes them passively harder to take out) than B, then logically B has some other major advantage. Either B deals more damage (per hit, or via accuracy) or can heal party members, or buff/debuff, etc. In a general sense we will call this thier "output". A has more defense, and B has more output, and overall they are balanced in combat.

If this is the case, and it is observably so, then an enemy that is fighting A and B, and can chose which of the two to attack (first) should definitely attack B first. B will be both easier to eliminate and also eliminating B will eliminate more "output" when he is eliminated.

(I realize it isn't always clear-cut, especially in HERO system. Maybe character C has low OCV/DCV, but is super tough and hits like a truck, while character D has high OCV/DCV and SPD, but is more fragile when hit and deals less per strike. I'm talking about a case where one character is heavily invested in defense while another is heavily invested in offense, or combat-defining utilities, so that the one is clearly harder to take out and the other is clearly doing more harm to the enemy, consistantly.)

If that's the case though, then investing in defense ultimately becomes selfish and wasteful.. by being so tough, you discourage enemies from attack you, thus making your toughness go to waste, while the superior "output" of your teammate(s) encourages the enemy to attack them instead. You could use PRE and roleplaying, as you said, but ultimately that means you're relying on your GM to have the enemies make decisions poorly. Personally, I'd rather make their options all suck and let them chose as they will, rather than try to convince the GM to have them chose stupidly.

That's where marking (and equivalent mechanics) comes in. Basically, the idea is that I apply some conditional defense to my allies and/or conditional output from myself that is triggered by my enemies ignoring me. If they attack me, they are bringing my high defenses into relevance, and leaving my high output colleague alone. If they bypass me, they are granting me an output boost and/or triggering the conditional defense boost for my allies. Either way, I'm contributing.

The problem with this from a hero system perspective is basically one of pricing. To allow for balance, this conditional boost in defenses/output should be less than an unconditional boost in the same. But Trigger is an advantage, quite possibly a pricey one, and it's going to be on top of paying for an additional attack power. Let's say I have a 12 DC attack power right now based off 30 STR. I want to add a 12 DC attack that triggers when an marked enemy walks away from me or attack an ally while adjacent to me. That's about a +1 advantage (no time to activate, zero phase to reset, two conditions apply simultaneously) if I'm reading it right. Doing that as a HTH (5e), that's 40 real points, before any further limitations. I think that's a fairly efficient way to buy it. Half the cost is "free" from STR, and a free -1/2 limitation on top. Of course further lims could cut it down, etc.

But let's look at some other comparable options, shall we?

For 40 points I could get +4 speed. That probably also at least doubles my damage output.

For 40 points I could add 12 DCs to my normal attack if it's a HTH attack, or 8 DCs otherwise. That probably far more than doubles my damage after defenses.

For 40 points I could get a vanilla +12d6 HTH attack and combine it with my existing attack for multiple power attacks. (Heck it's already 18d6 w/ strength, probably more than double my damage after defenses in and of itself.)

For 40 points I could get +20 DEX (selling back any speed), giving +6-7 OCV and DCV, which will greatly affect damage output and defenses.

In other words, because trigger is seen as such a potent advantage (and rightly in a general sense) I get much less effectiveness per point than just doing something straight forward (like punching harder).. but in order for a mark-type mechanic to be balanced it needs to cost much less than doing the straightforward thing. Doubling damage output (only if enemy violates mark) is strictly worse than doubling damage output (straight up, no matter what the enemy does), and should be priced accordingly.

Now one possibility is that the GM puts caps on damage output, but allows the trigger to functionally exceed those caps. For example, if the limit is SPD 6, OCV 8, DC 12 then you could have a SPD 4, OCV 8, DC 12 character with a OCV 8, DC 12 trigger (zero phase reset as above) that can potentially attack 8 times per Turn. But you then also run into the problem that you are spending so much more for your offense (especially the triggered part) that you either will be far -behind- on defenses (the opposite of the whole point) or will spend significantly more on combat.

Remember, the whole goal is to spend a similar amount on combat as a whole, more on defenses, and still have enough conditional bite that it makes sense for the enemy to attack you instead of your friends.

Does someone know a good trick for this in HERO? Say, some way to add a triggered attack as above for roughly half the cost of just adding that damage output to your character in a straightforward way?

EDIT to add:

It occurs to me that one approach that could get the desired results (in terms of change of incentive) while being cost efficient would be for the defender to have conditional bonuses rather than triggered attacks.

For example, maybe character B is SPD 6, OCV 8, 12 DC. I want character A to be tougher, but I want him to have less damage output unless I'm being ignored. So I build my main attack power as partially limited.. let's say it's 8 DC, +4 DC (only when attacking an enemy that I have verbally challenged who has attacked one of my allies since then. The bonus can't be used again until the enemy attacks an ally again). Maybe it's OCV 6 normally, but with 2 CSLs with the same limitation. And then I take those points I saved and use them to buy some extra PD/ED/etc.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

I disagree. Holding an action to attack an opponent walking past you is HERO's version of D&D's "Readied action". They're almost identical except for how they interact with initiative/turn sequence.

AoO means you have a zone of control in addition to your standard attacks. Held/readied action means you can hold off an attack for a better moment. Using a held action to serve the purpose of an AoO means you are dropping your normal damage out put to threaten to possibly go all the way back up to normal damage output if your opponent misbehaves.. meaning at most you do as much as you would normally. (The aforementioned optional rule at least gives you an accuracy boost.) Holding an action to threaten doing what you could have done normally is, generally speaking, a bad trade.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

I haven't seen the inside of that particular suppliment, not sure if my old GM ever did either.

Also, at least the official version only gives 1/2 DCV versus a held action attack.. so anytime you didn't specifically hold an action, no zone of control. Got it.

Though this does highlight one strength of HERO - it's designed to be a 'toolkit', and is generally able to pick up optional/house rules pretty easily, generally more smoothly than D&D.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

I believe (don't have FREd in front of me) that in 4th and 5th Edition Hero, if your character passed through a hex that was directly adjacent to another characters hex (as part of your guy's movement), then your guy is considered 1/2 DCV versus the other character.

 

To me, that sounds like the equivalent of "zone-of-control" and "Attack Of Opportunity".

 

I could be wrong, though. I rarely play D&D.

I am not familiar with such a rule, and certainly we never played with it. (For that matter you couldn't even stop someone from passing through your own hex.)

That could certainly help re-establish some zone of control, though it's very conditional.. so if I make an attack against that character vs DCV (not an AOE, not a mental attack, etc) that hits only because of the half-DCV then it makes a difference, and if the enemy is doing something that would halve their DCV anyways then it's suddenly costless to walk past?

It's something, though I do personally prefer the simple effectiveness of a decent OA. You're welcome to different preferences of course.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

The time that AoO's consume is more in the realm of the ridiculous extremes that players to while moving their PC's to avoid taking one AoO. Which is kind of immersion breaking to me. It's one metagame thing that filters into the minds of even the most RP oriented players. It doesn't really take much more time' date=' it's just annoying.[/quote']

 

Okay. That's more fitting with my experiences. Going from D&D to HERO was kind of immersion killing for me because of the absence of AoOs.. what, you can just walk around/past someone and there's nothing they can do about it? no zone of control, no threat from the big brick. I also found it kind of distressing that the only way I had to play what D&D 4e labelled as a "defender" was driven primarily by the GMs ruling on how NPCs reacted to my character's physical appearance.

In terms of time taken, I did find 3.5 burned a lot more time on trying to avoid AoOs in complex situations than 4e, because the 1-2-1-2 diagonal distance counting made it much less obvious where you could get to within your movement limit without provoking. In 4e, OA usually comes down to simply modifying people's behavior. (Except when you get marks involved.. and frankly I like what provoking OAs from marked targets adds to the game dynamics, both from a gamist and narrative perspective. )

I like that melee characters get a zone of control as a balancing factor for lack of range, which lets them impede the movement of advancing melee enemies, or encourage a retreat for ranged enemies. It makes the story of what happens on the battlefield make more sense to me.

If -I- were going for a HERO/D&D hybrid, that'd probably be my top priority: adding OAs for everyone and standardizing a marking mechanic that characters can buy.

Which just goes to show how far off my preferences are from the OP.

Re: Hero-D&D system merge?

I'm just curious, how often are AoOs actually coming up in your game? In my years of D&D (3.5 and 4e) I have seen them provoked only rarely (much less often in 4e, mostly I think due to removing "standing up" from the trigger list), and they are usually very straightforward to resolve.

You aren't the only one I have seen complain about how much time AoOs consume, so I'm sure it's a real phenomenon, but I just don't see it in play myself.

Re: Increased skill roll resolution

While I don't think that a chart is really needed, I can see that "die <= remainder" is simpler and more obvious than "die > 1 AND die <= remainder +1".

However, running the numbers through Excel, that -really- screws up the probability distributions. That rule works much better, IMO, if we use the idea to roll a seperate die, only when it matters to tip it over.

I'm thinking that probably is the best way.. 90% of the time or more there won't be any difference, and when there is a difference, the added drama of the followup roll will emphasise how close to the edge of success/failure the player is.

(Now I just need to decide if I'm going to keep standard rounding and start counting the remainder from the 3 mark (i.e. 14 INT is 12-(r1)), whether to give remainder rolls to attack rolls (and does DCV get a remainder factored in somehow?) and whether I want to do the CHA/3 based formula to emphasize smaller differences in characteristics more.