Istaran

Re: Increased skill roll resolution So my ruling was that you roll remainder +1 or less, but not 1. So 1 on die never changes. (Thus it is impossible to roll a "2" on 3d6.) 2 on die changes if remainder is 1-4. 3 on die changes if remained is 2-4. 4 on die changes if remainder is 3-4. 5 on die changes if remainder is 4. 6 on die never changes. This causes multiples of 5 to be the where the new breakpoint occurs (due to eliminating rounding). When you reach a multiple of 5 from the number just below it, you lose 4 die-faces on which you could have subtracted 1, but all those rolls where subtracting 1 would have made it a success are now a success because your skill notched up by a full +1. In addition, rolls with a 1 or 6 that would have failed by one are successes now. Running some numbers through Excel, this creates a maximum delta of 3.2% for a single point of characteristic. For an unmodified roll, this occurs at the values -5, 0, 5, 10, 15, and 20. Within that range(-5 to 20), 16 is only a .9% delta, but the rest are 1.4%-2.8%, with generally higher values the closer you get to 5 (which is the 50% success mark). However, it is pretty "randomly" distributed.. I could see how rolling a seperate D6 makes the effect more predictable, in terms of how much value you get per point spend. I kind of like the making it part of the roll myself, particularly the part that it effectively splits the possible die rolls into more distinct possibilities (there a 61 possible results, which could be described by minimum characteristic needed to succeed, in a range from -30 to 45 (there are some skipped numbers toward the edges) as opposed to the normal 16 possibilities for 3d6. This is a possibility.. it definitely makes smaller characteristic differences much more pronounced, so that, say, a 15 INT feels a LOT smarter than a 10 INT. Yeah, ultimately the question will be how it plays out at the table. Thanks everyone for your thoughts.

Hello all. I'm concidering running a HERO game in the future, probably starting off at very low point totals and building up from pretty much "normals". As part of that consideration, I got to thinking about how the characteristics/skills trend strongly toward breakpoints and really have little variation within the normal character range. That is, most characterestics are going to be ending in 3 or 8 for most characters, so in the 0 to 20 range, PCs will usually be at 3, 8, 13, or 18. Very few PCs will buy anything down to 3, so effectively the characteristics break down to "medium, good, or great", with a lot of resolution in between. Skill rolls of course just flow from the characteristic rolls (except those bought without referring to a characteristic). Just FYI, I will be running 5e if I do get my campaign started, though I believe this option should work out about the same in 6e from what I recall. So my house rule I am concidering is this: 1) Instead of rounding off the characteristic / 5 for rolls, record the remainder. For example, if your int is 13, your int rolls are (9 + 13 / 5) = 11- (r3). 2) When rolling a check, roll one die that is a different color than the other two. I call this the 'tipping' die. 3) If the tipping die rolls a number greater than 1 but less than or equal to your remainder +1, you may reduce your total by 1. Depending on the target number, each point of INT (or whatever) will give +0%-3% improved chance of success on each roll. (More precisely, 0 to 6 of the 216 possible rolls will be subject to tipping over that otherwise were not). The 0s occur at the top and bottom only: if you are looking for 4- only the first point of remainder matters, for 17- only the 4th point matters. For 7- to 14-, every point matters. You can go ahead and count up the result normally (without reducing by 1) and then, only if you are exactly one over, check the tipping die to see if you can "tip it over" because you have a high enough remainder. (That should help keep it from slowing the game down when your remainder doesn't matter). However, doing it that way would make it even easier to forget. :/ This makes multiples of 5 become efficiency breakpoints for checks, rather than numbers ending in 3 or 8, but the breakpoints are much less pronounced. It makes a much smoother curve so that 12 INT is noticeably smarter than 8 INT, while 13 INT is just a bit smarter than 12. So has any one tried anything similar to this? Has it worked well, or is it just too fine grained in practice to matter? (Am I just getting too worked up over the idea that 8/13/18 are so much more practical than other values?) Does anyone have alternatives that they have used for similar purpose that worked well? Thanks!

Re: Multiform For what little it's worth, anecdotally, when I played a character with MF for over a year, the rule we went by was that the highest an alt form's point total could be was the base form's total points (including xp) minus the (real) cost of MF. So for example, when I reached 300 total character points, with a -1/2 lim on multiform (I think that was right, but works as an example regardless), my alt form would be about 265 CP, with my main form being 300 pts with 35 spent on MF. Thus I was continually slightly behind the other party members in total points active at any given time, but since each form had more than 35 points of stuff the other form didn't have, it balanced out. (The overall function is similar to a multipower: you have more total points in the universe, but less points that can be used at any one moment.) I think that's generally a good sensible rule for having a MF that is balanced, particularly in a case where it can be switched back and forth basically at player discretion. On a case by case basis, a GM may reasonably allow MF that are noticeably above this line. Basically, if the character can use their alternate form only in a minority of the situations where it would be useful, it may be alright to have it be a notable power bump. It's something to approach with caution though. For example, if MF has a single charge that last 5 minutes 1/day, and grants a significantly more powerful form, (wasn't there a 500 pt Dragonform Amulet in the 5ER book?) that can be fine as long as the campaign typically requires several fights per day so that it is useful a minority of the time (and the PCs normally aren't too far off from 500 pts or whatever to begin with). But this is a call you should make on a case by case basis.

Re: Ability Guidelines for Cosmically Powerful Characters (6e) Based on my very limited experience with it, Damage Negation shines in what it takes off the top end. If I remember correctly, we ruled it as being the equivalent of 4 PD or ED, 2 of which is resistant, for the purpose of interacting with defense limits. It was a heroic level campaign, so I either had 1 die of DN with 6 def, 3 resistant or 2 dice DN, 2 def, 1 res (don't recall, it might have been one of those for PD, one for ED or something), and ended up buying regen as a safety net for the expectation I'd be taking a lot more body damage.. I remember I got hurt a fair bit less than the other characters, and especially not badly hurt often, and I think the biggest difference was hit locations.. when a reduced damage hit location was hit I still felt it a bit but it didn't really matter, while the really vulnerable spots were very well protected. I went into it thinking DN would probably be a lot worse overall, but I feel I was proved wrong.

Re: 6th Edition Question: New Powers? Yes. This is exactly what the regenerator paid points for: being in a better position in terms of BODY 10 minutes after any given fight. This depends. If the "end boss" makes attacks that are resisted by rPD or rED, then the guy at 4 BODY is more likely to survive than the guy at 10 BODY under many common conditions. An attack dealing 19 BODY in excess of RG's defenses will kill DG but not RG. An attack dealing more than 19 BODY in excess of RG's defenses will kill both. An attack dealing less than 19 BODY in excess of RG's defenses will leave RG with at most 1 more BODY than DG; a second such attack will leave RG with 4 BODY less than DG (assuming DG isn't just taking 0 BODY with some of his defenses not applying). Now, if we have heros who haven't bought up BODY facing attacks that exceed their defenses by 14-19 BODY at a time.. Hmm.. sounds like my last session actually. In any case, during the course of this battle I believe DG is more likely to survive. RG gets some fringe bonus for the fact that if the fight drags on accross multiple turns he will be gaining back BODY while DG is likely to be losing BODY over time. If both survive, however, RG's position will be far superior to DG's 10 minutes later. Regeneration is favored by multiple-encounter "endurance challenges". This is one of its strong suits. In any given battle rPD+rED will usually win out.

Re: Three point CSLs

Re: Three point CSLs First off, thanks everyone for the input. Thanks. I'm aware of 5 pt levels, and use them on my other character sheet. I have multiform, but each form has a different personality and the one that I want 3 pt levels on is less combat oriented but for personal reasons doesn't always want to 'tag out' and let the more combat oriented personality handle the fight. So instead I would like to be able to generate an OCV in both forms. As G-A pointed out, Strike is a special case for CSLs and has to be taken seperately for each attack. Otherwise, I would look for a third manuever. My copy of the rules (5th, revised) starts that section with "The 3-point CSL applies to any group of three related maneuvers or attacks (...)." Later it says "This could apply to any three Combat Manuevers, to a single martial arts style ..." and so forth. So it's not completely clear to me whether the manuevers need to be related, or how tightly. Does anyone think block is too far out from the other two?

I have a shapeshifter character that switches off between 'punch' and striking with a bamboo sword. I would like to take 3 pt CSLs with Strike (punch), Strike (bamboo sword) and Block (with or without the sword). When I asked the GM whether those were three sufficiently related manuevers to take as a 3 pt CSL, he said to ask the forums. So what do you guys think? Are a) hitting something with your limb to inflict damage, hitting something with your bamboo sword to inflict STUN, and c) hitting something with either one to deflect an attack suffiently similar to go in a single 3 pt CSL?

Re: Multiform help and advice. Reversion is an inherently subjective limitation that you need to discuss with the GM. The cost is not based on the ratio of points per se but based on how much of an advantage or disadvantage it is for you to be switching back when your alt form is KO'd or stunned. The primary considerations are persistant defenses, STUN, BODY and REC, Regeneration style Healing, and possibly the likelihood that changing back when knocked out will lead to plot effects from the revelation of your secret ID. If your 300 point form spent more points than your 500 point form on things that keep you safe and recovering quickly when unconcious, then Reversion is an advantage. If your 300 point form is much squishier than your 500 point form when unconcious then Reversion is a disadvantage. If both have advantages (like a prior version of my shapeshifter who had higher defenses in his alt form but higher REC and Regeneration in his normal form) then they need to be weighed against each other by the GM to decide whether they balance (making it a +0 modifier) or lean toward one or the other. Knowing the point totals of the two forms is not enough to judge the value of Reversion.

Re: Review this character I'm not an expert on mental powers, but I think the Mind Scan being mutually exclusive with the other mental powers will greatly restrict its usefulness. While it has value as a pure detection power, Mind Scan is valuable for allowing you to target other mental powers through it, which is only possible if you can use both simultaneously.

Re: Distinctive Features and Multiform As far as number 2 goes, I've wrestled with it a bit but I'd have to say it's probably worth the points it's normally listed at, but only to the form that has it. I'm not unsympathetic to G-A's position though. With Multiform, you purchase the power to completely replace one character sheet with another. It lets you wipe out one set of advantages and disadvantages and replace it with a different set. The distinctive features Disad is already being limited by the fact you need to replace it with a different Disad (or just have less points) in your other form. Also, while you are in the form that has DF, you are distinctive. Multiform does not allow you to remove the penalties of DF except by removing DF from your character by switching to the other character sheet. Does Susceptibility or Vulnerability need to be adjusted because you don't take extra damage while you are using a different character sheet? As for the Hulk example in particular, shifting to the Hulk form is a lot like pulling out a gun. At best it's like you're holding it and pointing it at the ground, not about to shoot someone. But even if the threat is not direct and immediate, it is still there and everyone recognizes it. You can't use that form without everyone being aware of the threat you pose. (FWIW my own character has a comparable situation; his apparantly human form has no distinctive features, but his dragon form generally draws anti-mutant hate and has a reputation for violence as well as just being physically imposing to a degree on par with the Hulk (more from the sharp pointy bits than just raw muscle, though 40 str is nothing to sneeze at). He definitely has DF.) As far as #3, DF has two modes of operation that make it function as a Disad. The first is when it triggers biases and so forth. If being a Jedi has a widespread social stigma in your campaign, then maybe it can qualify (or maybe that should be a Social Limitation?). The lesser usage is the "Noticed and Recognized" minimum level of the Disad. The basic point of it is that people can easily spread word of who you are and what you've done and have it come back to bite you later. When Arilendyscaex the dragon walks down the streets of Seattle, everyone will notice that they passed him on the street and will be able to point the police or the mob in his direction (depending on what he did -this- time). He can't hide in a crowd and escape detection. And when the police question witnesses to the incident at the 7-11 they may have 20 contradictory descriptions of him, but every one of them will be enough to pick out that it was him and not someone else. Bob the Jedi, however, can generally ignore just about every limitation that Distinctive Features would provide, since even those who are looking for "that guy that fights like a Jedi" and know how to recognize what fighting like a Jedi looks like would not be able to pick him out of a crowd without engaging the crowd in combat. (And even then he could Conceal it by chosing to fight with simple punches and kicks as though he were an unskilled novice if he knew hiding his identity was more important than winning the fight.)

Re: Working with Multiform Suggestion 1: Ignore the standard rules. Give each person two character sheets, one for normal mode and one for super mode, each with a different point total. The switching is pretty much just a bit of plot-devicium. In this way, both versions will be well balanced for their contexts. Maybe give much slower XP growth to the normal version than the super version and require anything on the normal version to be on the super version as well. The price for multiform is built around the assumption that not everyone has multiform; it's designed to compare against Summon and Duplication (other powers that introduce extra character sheets) and Multipower and Variable Power Pools (other ways to swap between various sets of capabilities) as well as against the other things a character could chose to have. If every PC has it at the same power level, there's no need to price it out. Suggestion 2: OIHID. Liberally slather OIHID limitations on the characters. In this case, the point savings on OIHID will allow those who make the most use of it to have more powerful characters in their super ID and those that use it less will be more capable in their normal ID. (Though it's only a -1/4 so it's likely to favor those who use it scarcely in their mundane ID more than it favors those who use it liberally.) Presumably you'll make anything super-human in nature require OIHID. Suggestion 3: Multiform. If you do use the multiform idea, set a cap on the alternate form points and raise that cap as you would give out XP for the supers version of the game, while also giving out XP for the normal characters. Characters will pay for multiform at different rates based on the limitations they take (does it cost END to change? you mentioned incantations.) assuming they can take differing amounts, as well as possibly some will take instant change or multiple alternate forms if you allow. The difference in total points and point expenditure rates will allow those that hamper their own changing to invest more in skills for their mundane version. So if Speedy has instant change and no limits on his multiform, his mundane version will be kinda mediocre compared to Thinker who has Costs END to change and Extra time(full phase, only to activate), and Gestures and Incantations on his multiform and invested instead in INT and skills. But Speedy will have a full extra phase to act every time its time to change, and won't get stuck in mundane form when the badguy entangles him or puts a Silence (Darkness vs Hearing) field on him.

Re: Chrono Trigger-themed Dual Techs Looks like we've successfully started communicating. Yay! I like the Dual Techs as higher-cap powers that require two people idea because it gives an incentive to use it over say just having each person take their own suite of powers and use them in Coordination attacks but keeps things in line power-wise. Otherwise, why not just have each character take their own powers at the campaign caps and use them together? What kind of power is Frog going to be donating to another character that is going to be better than what they have on their own, and why does that make sense? For Frog + Solid Snake I'd concider something like an HKA autofire that uses charges off of Snake's gun (assuming it's bought that way) and END from Frog (I'd charge Snake X-1 charges for the Autofire X attack and Frog END as though it weren't autofire to be clear). SFX wise Frog uses a powerful upward swing to knock the target in the air, and Snake fills the target with lead before he lands. Just one random idea. Though the same manuever could also be (better?) modelled by Frog doing a straight up throw, with Snake (and anyone else with range in the party) holding to fire while the target is airborne and at 1/2 DCV (assuming the target can't fly on its own). If I ever get around to running a Hero game I might need to keep this whole topic in mind and see about including it. It might be a good idea in general to build the Dual Techs in such a way that both characters are splitting the costs as a general principle, though I think the multipower build I suggested works well in your case if you want to keep the idea that Frog is the one who knows how to team up well, so he's a member of every pairing.

Re: Chrono Trigger-themed Dual Techs The main reason for my suggestion is that, as a long time fan of Chrono Trigger, I see "me and other person both do this power off of my character sheet, such that the same power goes off twice" as completely unlike any of the Dual Techs thematically. They were always "me and this other person combine our completely dissimilar abilities to do one single combined super power that is greater than either of us can do alone". I'm thinking things like Chrono + Frog, where Frog embeds his sword in a target and Chrono uses it as a lightning rod. That one I would model as a HKA from Frog that does lightning damage versus ED for higher DCs than I would otherwise allow, but costs an attack action and END from Chrono. Chrono would need a targetting sense on the sword once it's embedded for the attack to go off, but I'd let him have free indirect for the lightning striking from the sky (the 'real' attack, Frog's HKA, is not indirect). Nothing about the attack we're trying to model says "both people making an attack with the same power is equivalent" to me. Also, fittingly in my opinion, the one single powerful attack version makes it more effective against high defense targets, while the usable simultaneously option makes it more geared toward low defense targets. Something like X-strike or whatever it was called, actually just plain is a Coordinated pair of HKAs. (I'm assuming swords are HKAs in your game.) No need for anything special, unless you want to give bonus dice that only count on a coordinated strike or something. If you use the usable simultaneous option for the AOE healing instead of twice as many dice, the AOE will be smaller and the maximum that can be healed by repeat applications will be lower as well. I don't know if that's desirable to you. Also, your player probably wants Selective on it, and then both PCs OCVs become a factor in pulling it off successfully. So, I get what you're saying, I just disagree because I don't think the Usable Simultaneously option comes close to modelling any of the Dual Tech options I can remember.

Re: Chrono Trigger-themed Dual Techs I don't have my books on me, but seem to recall some kind of limitation called Crew-served or something like that.. basically a limit to require two or more characters to work together to activate a power. Further adding a Limited Power to require that the specific character be the partner is easy enough. I'm thinking something like this, for say a 60 AP game: Multipower Main Pool: 60 AP, no lims, 60 RP. Multipower Dual-tech Pool extension: 30 AP, Crew-served (-1/2?), 20 RP? Slot 1 to x: 60 AP maximum each, attacks and other solo powers. Slot X+1 to X+n: 90 AP maximum each, dual tech powers, all with Crew-served (-1/2?) and Limited Power (Only specific character can be the 'crew'). Against a 21 PD/ED target, an 18d6 Normal attack will do about twice the damage of a 12d6 Normal attack, and be much more likely to STUN. While the PCs could already achieve a similar result with Coordinated attacks, this could let them branch out to things like 9d6 EB AoE (Cone, hex, etc.) which is far more powerful than two 6d6 EB AoEs. You DEFINITELY don't want to double the AP. And I'm sure someone will tell you +50% is too much. Also check that Crew Served limitation to see if it normally requires END from the 'crew'. If not, that's another lim that can be on the pool extension.

Re: Somewhat Confused tesuji, could you explain what changed in the variable lim rules that makes it not as good to you? I have only played 5er so I'm interested in the historical perspective.

Re: 'En passant' extra attack Killer Shrike: can you explain how the two-part trigger you used in your Combat Reflexes example is different form "when an enemy leaves an adjacent hex"? I would like to better understand what is meant by your trigger language.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? I could be misreading you, Markdoc, but you seem to be saying that something that people already don't do because it is obscenely expensive and doesn't do enough to be worthwhile needs to have penalties stacked onto it, to bring it in line with the free option. Also are you saying that linked attacks would be free of these penalties (which you say ends the Linked debate, when it is in fact the source of the linked debate) or that Linked attacks would always and everywhere be subject to the penalties (which destroys the most common use for MPAs, which is multiple-effect attacks bought as linked powers that are always MPAd)?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? To me this creates problems. Not just the "Linked is an advantage?!" issue, but also the following problem: Character A has a 12d6 EB, bought full price. Character B has 2 12d6 EBs, bought full price. A can Rapid Fire his EB. B can Rapid Fire either EB or MPA the two together. The only difference between As option and any of Bs options (that he paid twice as much for) is that B may have better SFX choices. Assuming one SFX is superior for a given situation (and not the combination of the two hitting simultaneously), A could gain B's advantages by paying 12 points to make his EB an MP of two EBs. That is assuming you apply the full penalties of Sweep/Rapid Fire to MPA. MPA is more expensive to build than Sweep/Rapid Fire which is why it is priced cheaper. Maybe MPA should just be disallowed for any powers you did not buy with points? To combine Gun (bought with cash) + Gun (found) + Gun (borrowed off buddy) + Gun (stolen from baddy) into one four-armed volley of doom you use Rapid Fire. To combine Gun (paid for with points) + Gun (paid for with more points) + Gun (paid for with yet more points) + Gun (paid for with, you guessed it, more points) you can MPA.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? Build B can have minor manueverability issues, since he can't teleport and take both shots in a phase after taking both shots. (It'd be more balanced if he couldn't teleport and take both shots in the same phase period, but that's not quite how MP rules work.) I agree, B is superior to A. Let's see what's superior to B. Build C: 12DC EB 60 points Multipower Reserve (60 Active) 60 points Slot 1: 30” Teleport (Fixed Slot) 6 points Slot 2: 24” Teleport (1”=1Km)(Fixed Slot) 6 points Slot 3: +12D6 EB (Fixed Slot) 6 points Total points: 138 (I said no caps. 24DC EB is better than 2x12DC EB and costs the same.) Build D: Rapid Attack (Ranged) 5 points +4 with Rapid Fire 8 points +4 with EB 8 points Multipower Reserve (90 Active) 90 points Slot 1: 30” Teleport (Multi Slot) 12 points Slot 2: 36” Teleport (1”=1Km)(Fixed Slot) 9 points Slot 3: 12D6 EB (Fixed Slot) 6 points Total points: 138 (This one's more offense-heavy. For single shots you have 4 more OCV. For multi attacks you take 1/2 DCV but get 3 shots at no to-hit penalty. The +4 OCV makes you a lot more likely to hit at all, and even hit multiple times even with the first miss ends. Also you have a longer range long-range teleport, and keep half your short-range teleport while firing.) Build E: +5 with EB#1 10 pts EC (75 AP powers) pool 37 points 12D6 EB (Autofire 3) 38 points 30" Teleport (1"=1Km, optional +1/2) 53 points Total points: 138 (The 3rd hit from the autofire is still +1 OCV over B's MPA OCV, and he still has both teleport options (the long range option is even longer range) an he can hit for three hits not just two.) Build F: +6 SPD 60 points Multipower Reserve (60 Active) 60 points Slot 1: 30” Teleport (Fixed Slot) 6 points Slot 2: 24” Teleport (1”=1Km)(Fixed Slot) 6 points Slot 3: 12D6 EB (Fixed Slot) 6 points Total points: 138 (If B was not more than SPD 6, F can attack at least as often, even concidering that he might not be able to attack every phase. He can also easily get in some extra recoveries, perhaps from a kilometer away from the fight.)

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? My point for a while now is that a tactically oriented group will avoid MPAs like the plague since you can do more damage for less points more reliably with a variety of alternatives. The only exception I can see is if MPAs are given blanket approval to override DC caps, in which case they are the equivalent of buying things up past NCM. Paying about double for the added effectiveness is about what it comes down to in most cases. Can someone actually give a good example where without concidering caps the MPA comes out ahead over the existing alternatives for the same point total? Or where, even concidering caps, it comes out ahead of Sweep/Rapid Attack? (btw, anyone care to take a stab at the math for how much extra + on a sweep would balance the first-miss-ends of sweep versus the all-or-nothing of MPA in terms of expected hits per volley?) The one big benefit I see of MPA is the ability to do more than one effect at once, such as drain + normal damage. And this generally is a loss of raw effectiveness in exchange for added coolness. Though attack + flash does strike me as potentially powerful.

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? For further comparison: Hero 1: 30 DEX, no CSLs: 60 pts Power 1: 8d6 EB: 4 END, 40 pts Power 2: 8d6 EB: 4 END, 40 pts Cost: 140 pts. Common attack: 2x8d6 for 8 END at 10 OCV. Hero 2: 30 DEX, +2 with Power A: 64 pts Power A: 8d6 EB, Autofire 3, 1/2 END: 2 END per attack, 75 pts. Cost: 139 pts. Common attack: 3x8d6 for 6 END at 8/10/12 OCV. So for 1 less points, he spends fewer END to attack, gets in 1 hit if Hero 1 would have missed by 1-2, and gets in a third hit if Hero 1 would have beat the DCV by at least 2. When you scale these two up, the points savings just get better on Hero 2. The only downside to Hero 2 is he runs afowl AP caps more quickly. But if you have DC caps that apply to the whole MP, Hero 1 actually runs afowl those more quickly for some strange reason! (i.e. as written above Hero 1 is throwing 16 DC, and if the DM counts Autofire then Hero2 is throwing 10 DC.)

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much?

Re: Multiple Power Attacks: How much is too much? Perhaps because the inherent limitations of MPAs are needed to balance the cost savings of multiple frameworks? (such as they are)