Talon

Re: Questions about Hero from a DnD GM I second the suggestion to buy Sidekick -- it will give you the information you need to understand the Hero System (and run it if you want). None of the other books are needed (you don't even /need/ 5th Edition if you have Sidekick, though I'd recommend it). The best campaign I ever ran was a fantasy game using only the basic rulebook. Like the cover of FREd says, Hero is a gamer's toolkit. You can take the basic book and build whatever you want. You might end up wanting other books because they have built stuff for you, but you don't need them. There are a few interesting rules in them as well, but they are definitely optional. For example, if you were going to run Fantasy, I'd definitely recommend at least one monsters book, just because it's a pain to make up every single monster yourself -- but you could, if you preferred.

Re: Combat Fatigue Yes, I agree with everyone who says that this kind of rule is not appropriate for every campaign. I wouldn't say "heroic vs. superheroic", but rather gritty vs. epic. I wouldn't use it in a high-fantasy game or a four-color supers game. In my low-fantasy campaign, however, it fit the bill perfectly.

Re: Combat Fatigue I've used a very simple one: the gist is that you get penalties to just about everything when you hit 3/4, 1/2, and 1/4 END. (Optionally you can use the worse of END or STUN). The penalties are -1, -2 and -4 respectively, and you can overcome them temporarily by spending 2x, 3x, or 4x END. I also houserule (when using this rule) that maintaining full DCV requires 10 STR, so it costs END even if you just dodge. I used this in a fantasy game and the players liked it. People would hold back from using full STR just so they wouldn't get too tired.

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG] So then you could do the same thing with a multipower-like construct? 60 point reserve 1 point slot 60 point defined static slot with -3 Limitations: 4 attack powers at 60 Active each 3 more attack slots. That seems way more powerful than the current rules allow.

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG] Bigger problem: Currently, a character with a 60 point VPP and -3 worth of Limitations can put 4 60 point powers in the VPP at once (60 Active, 15 Real). OTOH, a character with a 60 point MP can only have 1 60 point power going, regardless of Limitations. With this framework, the MP model is used, making it difficult/expensive to duplicate the existing VPP functionality. The only way you could really do it would be to buy the pool up, which also increases the Active Point total.

Re: Jetpack with SPD stat. Buy the amount of Flight you want for a SPD 1 person, then apply a Limitation that the Flight is reduced based on the user's SPD: 30" Flight, reduced by SPD (-1). Thus, a SPD 2 person gets 15" of Flight, a SPD 3 person gets 10", etc. Alternately, switch the whole campaign to per-Turn movement rules.

Re: Power Question Seems to me a Transform would be a more flexible solution -- summon Base gets weird if you want to use it over time to mold an entire forest (creating paths, etc.).

Re: Universal Framework Proposition [LONG] Hm, let's try some basics. The "attack MP": 60 60 point pool 5 5 defined slots 6 power #1, 60 points (fundamental, static) 6 power #2, 60 points (fundamental, static) Net result: cost is almost the same. Cool. Cosmic VPP: 60 60 point pool 25 5 universal slots 30 power #1, 60 points (universal, fluid) 30 power #2, 60 points (universal, fluid) 30 power #3, 60 points (universal, fluid) 15 power #4, 30 points (universal, fluid) 15 power #5, 30 points (universal, fluid) Holy crap! This as a VPP would cost around 90 (and have unlimited slots), this costs 205. Comment: If the cost to reduce switching time and the skill roll is on each slot, the cost will be even higher. Specific FX VPP: 60 60 point pool 10 5 fundamental slots 20 power #1, 60 points (fundamental, fluid) 20 power #2, 60 points (fundamental, fluid) 20 power #3, 60 points (fundamental, fluid) 10 power #4, 30 points (fundamental, fluid) 10 power #5, 30 points (fundamental, fluid) Yikes! (A VPP would be in the 75 point range, assuming a -1/2 "limited FX" Lim on the control pool.) This is 150, again with the limited slot issue. It seems like this doesn't do as good a job with VPPs -- you have to worry about how many slots you are going to need, plus the cost is just plain a lot higher. Other comments: Turning the slot power cost reduction into another Limitation is good because it simplifies the rules, but also greatly reduces the effect of other limitations on the slot – i.e., you have less incentive to take other Limitations on slots. The language for applying other Limitations to slot powers is confusing, I'm not sure what it means. It needs costs to reduce change time and skill roll (as with VPP). I would suggest calling the defined slots "slots", then adding "variable power" and "fully variable power" as modifiers. I'd also take out a lot of the specific language describing fundamental slots and leave it up the GM to decide what constitutes a reasonably defined FX. You could also say that a "fluid" slot gets half the Limitation, and make that chart a lot simpler. Unifying the frameworks is definitely a good idea, but I think the result would have to be numerically close to both MPs and VPPs -- or at least achieve similar design goals -- for it to be worth using.

Re: Question 2 - Recommended Cost The problem with using Aid is that it takes a lot of attack actions to get the power up to high levels. The problem with open-ended powers (or any powers that exceed a campaign's DC limits by huge amounts) is that players usually want more control over the power than the GM is willing to give. Take the Hulk: in the comic, the writers can decide how angry the Hulk /really/ is, and make sure he doesn't get too strong for a situation. In a campaign, however, the player can just go "wow, I'm really really angry!!!" and get +200 STR. Oops. I would use a variant of the "absolute" rule from Fantasy Hero -- have the GM define some level of power that is totally outrageous (say, 150-200 STR, or 30-40d6 EB). Have the player buy the power to that level, and say at that point they can go beyond that level as a special effect. Presumably, the player is then going to limit the power big time so they can afford it. Example: a 60 STR brick buys +140 STR with No Conscious Control and 1 Continuing Charge of 1 Minute. That's 35 points; a reasonable amount for what you get, IMO.

I'm trying to figure out something about hyperspace in the Terran Empire setting. As I understand it, a hyperspace drive puts you into hyperspace for a limited time -- the better the drive, the longer you can stay there. Once you are in hyperspace, you move at whatever rate your conventional thrusters dictate (times one million, of course). Thus, all ships move at more or less the same rate in hyperspace; what varies is the length of time you can be in hyperspace before the drive has to recharge or whatever. First question: how does this jibe with the concept of hyperspace beacons? If you can only spend a limited amount of time in hyperspace, how do they get the beacons there? Second question: the drives in TE are bought as Megascale Teleportation with Extra Time, then effectively converted to a LY/day or week velocity. How does this jibe with the fact that the drive doesn't actually let you move faster in hyperspace, just lets you stay there longer?

Re: Seduction an Everyman Skill I had a thought about the whole larger subject of skills that everyone should be able to do: Make it the default that characters get a roll on every Skill. If you are a kind and generous GM, make it 7 + STAT/10, so that most people have 8- or 9- rolls. If you are a mean and nasty GM, make it 6 + STAT/10, or less. This makes more sense to me than the current rule where people simply can't do things that it seems like they could at least attempt (with a low chance of success) in the real world. Oh, and you'd have to come up with a list of skills which must be bought to be attempted (many KS's, Languages, etc.).

Re: Should all skills be everyman to some degree? I think that Hero definitely lacks a mechanic for resolving this kind of situation. Lying without Persuasion, bribing without Bribery, etc... there should be a rule for this, since it is a common occurrence. Definitely something I will be mentioning on that far off, distant day when 6th Edition is announced.

Re: Turakian Age with no Kal Turak

Re: Turakian Age with no Kal Turak If I ran a TA game, Mr. Turak would not play a major part in the game, though he might be up there. Since I'm running a large-scale game right now, my next one will have a less-epic focus. The TA magic system is...high powered. It would be nice to have seen some notes on balancing it, but I suspect it would do just fine as long as the rest of the game was equally high powered.

Re: Strange Question 1: On Robots that Bleed and can be Stunned You could also take a Phys Lim "does not recover BODY naturally", since they must be repaired. Truly shoddy robots could take "Bleeds at 1/2 BODY or lower" (or some other threshold).

Re: Strange Question 2: Recovery in a Multi-Power I would be inclined to require Healing, just because characteristics in Multipowers can be inordinately powerful. The Post-12 thing (which would work by the book IMO, though I would be tempted to pro-rate it since it's supposed to represent recovery across the entire Turn) is an example. Then again, with Healing you get the "how long until you can Heal again?" issue. Tough call.

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? It's the balance with the other players that concerns me. It's so cheap and so powerful that it's hard to come up with a better way to improve your character, especially if defenses are going to be high. Hey, can a mage buy deadly blow for their spells?

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? The difference here is that the lightning damage is separate -- the target gets to apply PD against the sword and ED against the lightning. IMO, buying a HKA that adds to any Focus-based HKA you use is not legal by standard rules. I wouldn't allow it in a supers game, that's for sure. Buying a specific HKA which is partially limited is a different matter. This part is, of course, spot on. I can easily picture games where Deadly Blow fits right in -- if you're using the TA magic system with all the gross spells in there, then melee characters are going to need some help.

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? It does seem like, for the most part, a high-fantasy Talent. If you're using Combat Luck (another high-fantasy Talent IMO) it becomes more balanced. I prefer to run low-fantasy, where the ability to add 3DC to weapon damage would be overpowering. I'd allow it in any game for very limited circumstances (vs. zombies, for example), but even then it would more likely be in the realm of a power (or power as skill).

Re: Alien Wars review in Pyramid I was bothered by lots of other stuff in AQ -- Krutch holding back for political reasons, the lack of depth concerning Xenovore culture, the fact that humanity really wasn't on the verge of extinction like we had thought they were, the treatment of hyperspace beacons, etc. -- but the logistics computers thing didn't bother me a ton. I guess I feel that I could make up enough plausible excuses as GM (say, examples of commanders screwing up, added complexities of interstellar maneuver, etc.) to cover it.

Re: New to HERO and looking for advice on some issues... In general, you don't -- the "breakpoint" values are always going to be more important. With INT I generally use attribute value as the tiebreaker in Skill vs. Skill contests, but that's about it. For Fantasy and other heroic games, I prefer to expand the range of skill levels beyond what Steve presents as a metric in FREd (sidebars starting on p.28), so that the range tops out at 25- or so. This gives more emphasis on skill levels and gives characters more design space to occupy. Meaning "drop the figured part of figured characteristics"...I'm a big fan of this, in large part because it makes the game easier (no more figured characteristic math). STR, CON, and DEX are underpriced IMO -- some players will buy them up because they can without regard for character concept. Something for a GM to watch out for. The key to remember is that attacks and defenses shouldn't be what make the character special -- personality, special effects, and other powers should do that job. In most campaigns, everyone is going to be reasonably close -- but if everyone is buying the campaign limit on all items (CV, attack, defense, SPD, etc.), you might want to step in and restrict them. Nope, like it the way it is. Most characters with lower SPD won't Abort unless they are desperate -- the better move is to buy things that don't require aborting (levels, armor) so they can save their actions for attacking. Yes, they will sometimes Abort at the start of a fight, but that's life sometimes. Also, 1 on 1 fights emphasize SPD differences much more than group fights. SPD is very important in all Hero games -- it's a stat that gives you way more than the point value (and probably would at any reasonable cost level; doubling or tripling the cost really wouldn't change anything). The answer is to account for that in character design; give the low SPD character more leeway on buying other things like high defenses to balance out. In Fantasy, I don't let more than 1 character (2 in a large group) go to SPD 4 unless everyone is playing super-reflex-types, which has its own drawbacks (overspecialized party). In other words, I limit the character concepts for which high SPD is valid, and I watch carefully for people trying to get around the limits (with XP, Aid, etc.).

Re: Instead of END, Focus uses STUN? The easy way: just apply a Limited Power limitation, "user loses 2 STUN every Phase". The tricky way, make the Side Effect be "1/2d6 EB NND, Uncontrolled Continuous 0 END (shuts off when power stops being used)".

Re: DARK CHAMPIONS: What Do *You* Want To See?

Re: The Harbinger of Justice Thread To me the Harbinger fit into the Elminster-role...a grossly powerful NPC who is so powerful that he becomes a walking plot device unless used with tremendous care. (I remember statting up a Harbinger vs. Mechanon fight, and the odds were at least even.) He seemed to violate the "don't overshadow the PCs with NPCs" campaign tenet pretty badly. Anyway, I think that the 5th Edition universe has a better handle on dealing with high and low point NPCs of varying moral outlooks, so hopefully he'll come out much better in the new edition.

Re: Should this be called Dark Champions? I'm not worried about people who pick up the book and are disappointed, I'm worried about people who DON'T pick up the book because "Champions = Superheroes", an association that is fairly well-known within the gaming community. Like many others apparently, I had ignored this forum and all DC topics for a while because I thought it was just a superhero sub-genre. I figured it out eventually...but why should I have to? I think the name it will affect sales unless Steve and crew spend some time and money marketing the facts. "Dark Champions, it's not just for superheroes anymore!"