Talon

Re: truly realistic movement rules? I actually submitted a rule to this effect during Star Hero playtesting, but it didn't make it in. IMO, most of TUV does a good job of compromising between Hero System rules and reality. Creating a thoroughly realistic movement system is beyond the scope of a supplement and would really require another rules revision. You can simulate a lot of the fine detail (tailwinds, towed vehicles, etc.) by simple rules changes or GM fiat if you like.

Issue with "one power at a time" -- actually, two issues. 1) If you're hit with a Multiple Power Attack, you're out of luck. 2) Technically, the character (or something) has to choose what the power is targeting each Phase (or each time it is used). IMO, saying "the power I'm being hit with" isn't acceptable, so you'd have to build something with a Detect and a Trigger. That's why I favor the +2 version.

Actually, the 1st edition DMG has rules for fighting with two weapons: -2/-4 to attacks, offset by Reaction Bonus (so an 18 DEX character would be 0/-1). Note the tradeoff: in exchange for an extra attack, you lose accuracy on all attacks. Under 5th Edition Hero, you lose accuracy when making two-weapon attacks, but don't get any more attacks than a character with a single weapon could make.

I'd suggest Suppress instead of Drain because a) it's cheaper and it doesn't need the long-term aspect of Drain. It also needs to be Continuous, so: Magic Resistance: Suppress 5d6, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Variable Effect (All Powers Simultaneously; +2) (137 Active Points); Only vs. effects targeting armor or its wearer (-1), No Range (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Always On (-1/2), No cumulative effect (-1/2) Power Cost: 34 Add STR Min, etc. to taste.

My solution to the PSL issue is to treat them the same as CSLs when evaluating a character's effectiveness (see my combat rating table at http://www.shalott.com/hero). That way, a PSL character will have a hard time being better than the other characters, but may be more specialized (and thus have more points to spend elsewhere). The only way I would allow +8 hit location PSLs is for dramatic effect ("only to pin notes to sleeves", etc.).

Don't forget that unlike D&D, these don't all have to be combat-oriented. Ties of Honor: Detect Truthful Statements 18- (Range, Sense) (17 Active Points); Only for sensing heartfelt oaths (-1), total cost 8 points. This could represent a paladin's ability to know when someone was making an honest oath -- a good way to avoid "lawful stupid" syndrome, without being a perfect polygraph (which would pose a lot of plot headaches for the GM).

I would add that it does (or at least, it did) provide an admirable amount of support for vehicles towed by animals.

I loved this series too, and hope that they can find some way to revive it. I haven't done any conversion work, though I don't think it would be a big deal to do.

I agree both scenarios are possible. My experience as GM is that if you don't spell it out in advance, there is likely to be a clash during the session when the player's idea differs from the GM's idea in a way that affects the game. Since special effects were not specified, it's entirely reasonable for the player to make the Side Effect subtle -- but if that's the case, I as GM need to know about it, which was the point of my comments. I prefer to err on the side of caution, since if I say "sure, it's a -3/4 Limitation", the assumptions made in that call might come back to bite me later. Guess we need to hear more from Ben.

Don't forget Triggered on your PRE ("I am rubber and you are glue, whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you!").

Monolith, The logic you are using seems to be ignoring the offensive potential of this Side Effect, as mentioned above. IMO it's more likely that a foe would get zapped trying to use the Side Effect than it would be for the hero to be without his gloves. Now, if the gloves are a serious restriction on the character (they're bulky, they interfere with a Secret ID, etc.), then a straight Side Effect approach seems more reasonable. But if not, then I would argue that the GM should modify the Side Effect guidelines and reduce the value of the Side Effect, and possibly even require a Triggered power to be added to the staff (part of a Multipower, hopefully). If it were patently obvious to observers that the staff was dangerous, and that the user was being protected only because he was wearing protective gloves, then just a Side Effect would probably be OK.

I'll be posting a review (or at least impressions) once I get my hands on a copy -- hopefully about a week from now. I'm hoping that some concerns I had about the playtest version were addressed...we'll see!

I GM a lot, so most of my moments are goofs by my players instead of me. My favorite dates back to one of my first junior-high school campaigns, right after Champions III came out. Despite not reading comics, I somehow came up with a Cosmic Power Pool character who looked like the Silver Surfer -- but as he was unable to speak, he was known as Mute. The heroes were attempting to infiltrate an aerial base, and landed on a lower entryway. The base's security systems picked them up, and a camera swiveled to point at the frontmost hero. "Identify yourself!" The player thought for a moment, then the light of inspiration came into his eyes. "I'm Mute!" he proclaimed proudly. It hit him about two seconds later, as the base's alarms began to go off.

TUV answers this question, but I can't remember what the answer is. I think the default is to base the Size stat on the vehicles length (or longest dimension).

Re: Re: To add on here... I think this is the best idea so far -- this creates a clear special effect emphasis, provides a non-numeric approach which should encourage newcomers, and feels like exactly what Hero should be doing.

Re: How can you defend this rule? The abuse isn't limited to spending XP, since there's no longer any point limit on the other forms (i.e., you can create 8 350 point Multiforms, each of which is as powerful as each other PC). That is also inherently abusive -- useful at times, but abusive. Instead of saying "forms don't gain XP normally", FREd should have talked about how limited alternate forms to the true form's total minus the cost of the Multiform is a good way to maintain balance -- although of course this would be just a guideline. Similiarly, when the character spends XP on Multiform, the point total for each form shouldn't be allowed to increase faster than the point totals for other PCs -- again, just a guideline. (Also, remember that if the form is already at the maximum point total allowed, then it can't increase more than the number of XP applied to the true form without breaking the rules.) The problem I have with applying XP to each form is that it creates a difference in the writeups: a 350 + 25 XP Multiform character is different from a 375 Multiform character. It's possible to treat them the same without being abusive, which seems preferable to me.

I'd recommend waiting for TUV before finishing the article; I do think there's space for what you're talking about, but TUV will at least offer some new perspective on how that space should be filled. Your idea is certainly a lot more generally applicable than the "Orbital Mechanics Hero" article I'm working on.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. As Steve has pointed out, this is a fantasy game, not a historical research project. As such, certain things need to be changed for game balance purposes. In the real world, there were many reasons for choosing weapons that are not simulated in Hero: ease of training, ease of construction, cultural bias, legality, effects against populat armor, etc. If FH copies the weapons precisely without taking these factors into account, then the game is accurate in one small area, but incomplete as a whole. On the other hand, if FH tweaks the weapons so that, within the system presented, each weapon has good and bad aspects, the accuracy of the weapons may suffer, but the playability of the whole system improves dramatically. I don't think that people who choose to roleplay should be penalized via game mechanics just for choosing a weapon that's not "the best". Of course, Steve has said that he likes the 5E weapon chart as is, so unless my Mind Control ray has finally kicked in, I'm expecting an expanded chart but no significant design changes. Steve, feel free to disagree.

IMO, the best way to get an open-ended magic system is to treat spells as equipment -- instead of having to pay points for spells, mages pay points for the Skills and Talents needed to cast spells. That way, mages can get huge numbers of spells and don't have to worry about active point limits.

I generally agree -- which is why my house rule makes it so goshdarned expensive. Even with that rule, it would require GM permission and a real good reason for me to allow it in a game. I had this issue come up in a high point campaign that never got past character design: one of the players was a chip-skill guy who ended up eclipsing someone else's character who had substantial Skill investments. (It didn't bother me, as I was playing the character with the lowest skills:point total ratio I think I've ever designed.) "All skills" is just too broad an area of expertise for any campaign where skills are more than background color.

Historical research aside, it would be good to have a little bit more accuracy in the armor/weapons area: list armor by actual pieces that existed rather than by hit location; calculate armor weights with some eye for reality rather than just based on the 3d6 bell curve; etc.

Even if Frameworks aren't shown, I think it would be good to keep the powers at fixed Active Point levels so that they are easy to add to Frameworks. I would suggest four levels: Low (40 points), Medium (60 points), High (80 points), and Special (above 80, mostly for special-case powers). I agree with Storn that it would be good to show at least a couple examples of how to use Frameworks; of course, since the power descriptions are going to be elsewhere, this shouldn't need to be more than a page of: Sample EC: Fire Powers (Medium power level) 24 EC, 60 point powers, only in hero ID 24 Flame Blast (page ???) 24 Flame Shield (page ???) 24 Flame Walk (page ???)

Page 151 of FREd pretty specifically says the opposite; a Transfer can't function as a Drain if it's capped out. Surprised me -- I thought he was just trying to get a more efficient Drain effect.

I suspect that modern fantasy, as a sub-genre (like cyberpunk), will get no more than a minor mention in the main FH book; later on, if there's a market for it, a separate genre book would give it the detail it deserves.

I don't think there's anything in the rules or FAQ prohibiting this -- Linking the outside power /to/ the entire MP is a no-no, but Linking each slot to the outside power is fine. Seems OK to me.