zornwil

Just a brief addition here - I think the issue implicitly cited with INT (and thus PER) is how contextual it is compared to other characteristics. I can have a lot of INT when it comes to being an athlete, but low INT in other regards. When I'm skiing, I perceive and quickly analyze every little detail in front of me, not just the trees, but that very slight bump which at my speed is more dangerous than someone who is less nimble with this info would perceive. Otherwise, though, I'll walk right into a den of crackheads because I don't process that non-skiing info very quickly. Of course that's an extreme example for simplicity's sake. The point being that as discussed prior, skills and skill levels are the way to go for the more specialized areas. And I would add (I don't think I'm repeating on this point, if I am, sorry) that characters with specialized skills should be allowed a degree of use with those as basically PER rolls in certain situations. Let's say you're a great lawyer. Facing you in court as the adversarial lawyer is a guy with great INT, much superior to yours. But you are much more skilled with the practice of BEING a lawyer, of performing law. The PER rolls for the jury, what they react to, should run in your favor, not the guy with greater INT but no expertise, in my opinion. In practice, I don't use PER rolls a whole lot. My super-INT characters are quick to ask for them (justifiably) but I don't get absorbed in them other than what I as GM think is appropriate for the character and the situation, of course taking into account their INT. If they have an angle with their request ("I'm looking for (x)"), fair enough, if it's within the character's mindset and INT. Otherwise I'm not going to give clues just because someone has a big PER roll - unless they have the appropriate skills to leverage with it.

Hey, Herolover, please be sure to let us know how it works out. I've wanted to find a way to convincingly run heroic along with super-heroic characters but never really tried it out. My own thoughts: the "heroic" level not having any power frameworks while the "superheroic" do will still be a disadvantage unless you're allowing pretty high-tech equipment - if you are, I suppose it'll work okay. One alternative you might not like as it's not very "flavorful" is to let the heroic levels have a points pool for regular gadgets but it's basically a "free" (no control cost) VPP. You might want to make your super-heroic characters stay awy from skills other than a few for flavor, to help distinguish the heroic characters. Gives them a real opportunity to shine. I wouldn't recost skills for either class (although then again it might be nice to allow heroic characters to get skills cheaper), just enforce it in character conception. At its core, I think you have basically a good idea, it just may take a lot of during=game/between-game "tuning" to keep the heroic characters on par.

Well, in my game a brick can't do anything with 10 points of Martial Arts just because I do something similar to the earliest editions in that MA is essentially an advantage on STR (long story and a tangent to this thread, I've posted it elsewhere in more detail and you've probably seen it). So I will thoroughly admit I can't relate on this one. But as one of my players pointed out, you can just buy skill levels for the brick anyway and it's just about as cheap. Skill levels do that for just about anybody. I dont' disagree that the MP/VPP with EC is an efficient design. But to AgentX' point, while the characters you've seen are more "efficient", were they really measurably more effective in game play? Now that's a loaded question - if you're like me as a GM, you strive to ensure there's some equivalency in point of play. So I understand that and it's not intended to back you into any corner. I welcome any comments you have that say "no, but here's what I had to do as GM to "correct" it"

Just to chime in from real world experience - "most" (actually the vast majority if I look through sheest) players I've seen will take the versatility over the big attack any day. And "most' players I've seen don't put a big attack in an EC and smaller attacks in an MP, although I've seen this on occassion certainly.

I don't think that's true, because for encounters villains/situations are geared to challenge players in a "realistic" way. That being said, I'm not so likely to create a villain who can stop a wide variety of MP powers (except at their root, and with MPs there's no enforced linkage as the same degree as with ECs) as I am a villain who will stop "the element" that is obvious to the character. The reason that the villain isn't as likely to stop an entire MP is that "realism" in the campaign; I can't afford to suspend disbelief to the point where a villain has a counter for everything in an MP. If the MP conveniently rests on a focus (yes, many do) it's a good bit simpler. But I find most players are unwilling to do so. And your classic Batman has an MP of "gadgets" that usually is not solely dependent on his utility belt. Typically, I see MPs that are harder to scatter at once, whereas ECs are always pretty obvious in their effects. I would say that's been true well before 5th edition. As an aside, as to your comments about the "changes" in 5th, the only one I can see that really matters is the 0 END one. That does address some of your concern. As to the drain-one-drain-all "addition", I don't know of a person who didn't play it such that a reasonable drain didn't drain the EC, and I don't know of a reasonable person who is playing it in practice identically to what 5th says on that point UNLESS they're (and this is reasonable) ensuring that any drains are well-defined enough in SFX that in practice it always works out.

Although I'm not accusing you of such, I'd just point out that the many holes and loopholes are only problematic when not taking into account the whole of the system and that there MUST be a GM and that HERO cannot (and should not) be written such that points can be spent without GM oversight. I only say this because I've seen many objections to rules and frameworks based on their "abuse", potential or otherwise, and that sort of bothers me when one considers that the rules were not written to be played without an umpire, thus most things cannot be taken at face values. LIke, just to pick a blatant example, just because the rules don't limit the number of slots in an MP or the number of frameworks that you can have every power in an MP or 10 frameworks just to reduce prices/create efficiency. Again, Gary, this post is a tangent and not a direct reflection on your take on things.

In that spirit, I'd argue that the control cost for VPPs should be at least the cost of the pool itself (instead of half) and MPs slots should be -1 for variable and -2 for ultra. But it's your game of course and to be fair and honest, it's not like I'd refuse to play in a game because they messed around with ECs. However uninformed and foolish such a decision would be. (I am really kidding on that last line)

Okay, having seen the house rules thread, lots of great ideas, interesting variations. But all those being said, let's say you took over HERO tomorrow (Steve Long handed it to you on a Silver Age platter). What would you actually change in the HERO system? I think most of us (?) recognize our house rules really speak to our personal quirks rather than that which we would "impose" on the game system. When it's all said and done, I'm not sure what I'd really change. I might refine EC to be clearer that the linkage on the powers being drained requires some common SFX on the part of the Drainer, although I might go so far as to "simply" write that into the Drain-type powers instead of addressing EC. I'd almost certainly decost Damage Shield a little, putting it between the way 4th was popularly perceived and 5th was stated. I might attempt some simplifications with Shape Shift and to a lesser degree Transform. I'd study harder on Aid and ensure it's costed right, I have some lingering doubts. But really, nothing fundamental. Probably less changes than were made from 4th to 5th. Remember, before answering, you are becoming the steward of the HERO Rules System that people have played for over 20 years...

I've been playing, though with a couple breaks, for just about 20 years now (19 or 20). Just to be clear, that's what my experience is based on as well. None of this should discount Gary's experience, but may suggest it's somewhat aberrant.

Put another way, do you really think that the MP disad is worth 1/10 or 1/5 the points for powers, setting conceptual awards aside? Really? Rhetorical question. I'm sure you do, or you wouldn't argue re the difference. I sure don't, though. Not by a longshot, for the flexibility you get with an MP. Fair point re martial arts stacking. But that doesn't take away from their base values, which is at issue here. ECs stack way too effectivley as you add more, and MPs are worse than ECs that way. If we steer the discussion into which is more abusive when taken advantage of (as opposed to use as anticipated/regulated properly), that's a different topic. As stated, I have seen lots of character concepts that don't work outside of using ECs. I am not arguing there's some "point for concept" (which you insint on calling points for free),but I've yet to see the difference in those points for concept versus MPs or versus the way people (normally) award XPs. And I'm annoyed at one point you make - "vague intangibles". Scew that. There's nothing vague about SFX drains. Are you seriously arguing that if I build a "drain Energy Blast" and all it does is drain active energy blasts that it shouild drain a force field de facto? Now, of course, I shouldn't build "drain EB" as such, I should qualify it. But in my example, I qualified it as a drain on aggressive energy, energy directed at others. Explain to me why that should drain an FF in an EC. This is an area where 5th is dead wrong. It's fine, as I've stated, for you to feel that ECs are way too cost-effective - that's your right - but don't impugn the way many people play them, especially when I have yet to see anyone construct a logical defense of 5th's change aside from "well, it limits it more". hich is only barely logical, as in this game SFX are a major in-play determinant of results. In any case, as I've said and you don't agree (though I'd like to hear more commentary on the different methods), I feel ECs provide a much less arbitrary method of fitting character concepts into a preordained points total, whatever that points total is. HERO has given us a model which removes the arbitariness of "hmm, well, here's an extra 50 points for you, but for you I'm only giving 30". I think they did a good job, ultimately. Everyone bitches about ECs - but I've not seen an effective substitute in play. I think one can be justified in feeling this way simply because it's been playtested and no viable alternative has been embraced by HERO as of yet. Even aside from that legacy, which one is free to disregard, I feel from pure experience that it's clear ECs are not unfair (unless the GM makes a mistake, which I've not personally witnessed yet).

Oh, I'll PS instead of another edit - Gary, you and I won't cross the chasm that you don't see ECs as having a significant enough limitation and I do. For the life of me I don't see why you don't see MPs as just as problematic and just as not-quite-as-limited for the points, though. And just to emphasize, while I and others don't but the auto-drian-one-drain-all, it doesn't mean we don't see ECs as innately non-drainable, or more tangibly, affected by MANY conditions. I can imagine lots of conditions ECs change in - I"ve had it happen to players when crossing dimensions. It just is SFX-based and some of us dispute that it makes any sense that an inappropriately-designed drain EB would affect an entire EC.

In short, I would still argue that the relative value of things like Martial Arts maneuvers and MultiPower Frameworks are every bit a cost break as Elemental Controls (edit adding) and those are based on concept bonuses (particularly MPs). As to your last question, I think you're not "listening" to what I said in this thread - the ECs provide a more balanced and time-proven method than arbitrarily giving more points. If you can "squeeze" your points in via an EC, your character is likely more balanced than me arbitrarily saying "oh, if you can't fit it in, here's an extra 50 points for you, and here's an extra 100 points for Feral Lad over there".

I'm just curious to hear from MistWing how he wants to really play it so it's not abusive. For now I'm willing to say it only "sounds" abusive lacking other info. As a couple of you have pointed out, though, good points re seg-limitations and the size of the pool (though it's not clear from the original post how large or small it will be).

Thanks, my print driver is not to sophisticated as to have that many options. I can always screen snapshot and copy to Photoshop. Edit - adding that HERO should think about making this an easier process. I know they want to prevent piracy, but maps being one of the major deliverables of the package, they should be simple to deal with. Would prefer to have them as single files.

Let me know if you want their character sheets. Nothing too amazing on there though.

Q: So what's so funny about emphasizing a lack of self-esteem? (note - no commentary, just seemed to be the right Q) A: Clark Kent isn't such a tough guy.

Bump - could use some help, please see prior message.

I found 4th to be the most readable. But I'd have to say 5th is overall my favorite, it sets a standard that although exceeded by subseqent books is still excellent now that time has allowed for more reflection. And I like rulebooks best, way more than supplements and mostly more than sourcebooks/genre books.

As I think of it, most have been jobless and homeless, though almost never with any related disads or advantages (it tends to cancel out, they can make ends meet and have the skills to do so but it requires some effort). That's odd, never really realized that consiously. Will have to change it next time. Those who haven't been have been in nondescript marginal jobs. For those who have been jobless/homeless, one was a punk living among friends and the street, one was an artist living in ad-hoc arrangements, and one lives off the land.

Sounds like some of my more oddball vilalins! I don't have anything that works for this thread really, save a couple friends who came in with characters you've all pretty much shown already one way or another. But I'd like to think I'm responsible for the most ridiculous character concepts with some of my super-villains. I've posted notes elsewhere on these, such as the couple Home Despot and Office Despot, with powers reflecting their respective workplaces. And the Living Tongue - a giant tongue, massive REGEN (after all, your tongue heals fast), strength, entanglement, and a burning acidic secretion. He didn't have much body and limited defenses so everytime he got hit he'd feel it but just recover quickly. But I think it's okay for villains to be completely flakey concepts. I may borrow the quoted one.

Religion doesn't come up much in my campaigns and I prefer to keep it that way. I've had the Catholic church involved in a couple conspiracy things in the past though, and in my current campaign the local Catholic church is sort of an oddball messenger for all sorts of things, but it's deliberately muddy as to whether that means the church has any real ties to those efforts (and as those efforts are contradictory, it's questionable that they would). Fringe ritualistic organizations have come up though in the more "traditional" ways they're treated in conspiracy/UFO texts. As far as PCs I don't recall any really in campaigns I've GMed. My PC in a game is religious in his way (Native American mysticism) but mostly it stays in a friendly-but-serious "competition" of sorts with the scientist character, and commentary on the other characters' misguided "modern" ways. Because the character himself is pretty misinformed, though, it's not that serious overall, and (I think/hope) it is played in a way that doesn't reflect on any Native American beliefs in real life.

How do you intend to keep this balanced in game-play so you're not too powerful? Just curious.

Depends on the MA's basis for his powers. First, I've played few MAs and there's been very few MAs in my campaigns. As to your point, if it's just a few maneuvers, they're too cheap to really put in an EC. Anyway, my current character in someone's game is an MA who depends on his EC. His EC includes: missile deflection, knockback resistance, damage resistance, stun, and con. All of these are mana-dependent; if he does not or cannot recharge his powers by communing with nature and performing rituals, he loses his powers. As an overall issue, though, let me say this: ECs DO help to realize characters who are well-founded, non-abusive, and don't fit the points caps. They've traditionally been used in this vein for years with no ill effect on other characters. Are EC definitions somewhat arbitrary? Sure! Is much of the game when it comes to frameworks...I would say equally, SURE! Anyway, I have a character in the game I'm GMing who has a robot with an EC of the powers based on his robotic body structure/mechanics. Is that cheesy? Maybe. Did the character work without it? No, otherwise I would have had to raise the points just for him. I would argue that it is less arbitrary to use ECs, which have a defined structure and have been playtested over a couple decades, than to raise points caps here or there according to character conception and how good it seems.

I dunno, a multiform si pretty darn cheap for what you get in versatility and it requires a pretty solid conception to be allowed in many games IMHO. However, I agree there's a seeming issue as to what you indicated. However, I'm not sure Indiana Jones is such a good example as he's heroic-level and now you're comparing a super-hero though. I think once you "up-size" Indiana Jones into the super-heroic level he's either going to end up with an MP of gadgets which can include his bullwhip and gun or if he's way flexible a VPP as it's advantageous. Okay, so let's take what you wrote at face value and have a heroic character compared to a super-heroic. If the heroic character is less cost-effective than the super-heroic, that's unfair...except for the fact that the super-heroic one is actually beyond the other character by leaps and bounds. The points scale is not straight-forward and I'd expect the super-heroic to be more cost-effective for all his neat abilities. I don't think HERO is intended to scale on a 1-for-1 basis. I also think HERO deliberately rewards CERTAIN character concepts at the expense of others (non-standard ones). Related, I think you are right in that ECs are a remnant of HERO's past as originally a super-hero game only. It doesn't translate as well to heroic and other such games, but sometimes MPs and VPPs don't, depending. Is this a flaw of HERO? Depends on your point of view. It is a part of how it reinforces genre conventions; as the game expanded to include non-super-heroic action, it attempted to stretch to encompass "heroic" genre conventions at large. Personally I've never been convinced it did so in as decent a fashion as it did the super-heroic, but as a "unviersal" system (which I don't like the idea of anyway) it's probably the best series of trade-offs out there, and minimally at least among the best. Still, yes, it is flawed as you try to shoehorn non-traditional character conceptions. I think all other games are, too, to some extent.

Why get 350? or 250 XP to start with for free? Why not start with 0 and build your XP up through experience? Why award experience points, as someone else posted, for good role-playing? Because in all these instances they are not precisely free. They are solely to build characters with the correct genre conventions to be functional at a certain level, and for reasonable conceptions. XP are awarded not just for tangible accomplishments or hours spent doing something; they are awarded (at least for most games which award them) based on roleplaying, with bonuses for great moments, along with those for results. I see no difference in awarding XP versus a bonus for character conception at creation time - especially when that conception isn't fitting within the points limitation - which is arbitrary to begin with. Also, you are ignoring that those who would argue that the "drain one, drain all" limitation be removed mostly believe that if the drain SFX warrant, the whole EC is affected. What most (including me) object to is the silly rule that if I have a "Drain Aggressive Powers" (again, bear with the example) and it drains Fireman's Fire Blast it should also drain his Fiery Damage Resistance which is purely defensive. Most people who argue against the automatic "drain one, drain all" would wholeheartedly agree that "Drain Fire" would affect Fireman's whole EC. I think your criticism is pretty unfair as it snips a lot of this rather elaborated-upon point in this thread. You're welcome to believe ECs unbalance the game - and other GMs feel this way - and ban them. So far it seems to me the majority of people with experience over the years see them as having problems but not inherently unbalanced. At least no more than MPs - which I still argue are at least as much prone to abuse, if not more given that the scalability issues with MPs are far more serious. Quick edit, hope you haven't read it yet - also, what's the worry about "free points" (I meant to put this above) given it is a game - not a simulation?