Doc Democracy

Re: Need an organization name

Hmm. If you are still wanting the one, then I guess I have to try. I'm not big on acronyms in official material so I was trying to think of names that would build on the future or exploration themes. So far that has come to:

The Horizon Institute

The Frontier Society

or

The Impossible Dreams Council

Doc

Re: A new Player here

Really nice point of view.

How much is worth the limitation: "only for combat"?

And about the PRE vs PRE, I'll use the Skill contest, or I'll apply the Limited Power limitation?

Thanks for your opininon... now I have many ways to make the power.

Personally I'd go for -1/2. I know that it affects DEX rolls and several skill type things but I do think that the main reason players buy DEX is for CV. I could even be persuaded to make it -1/4....

As for the PRE v PRE, that is the Requires a Skill Roll limitation.

Doc

Re: A new Player here

Simply, he inspire fear. Always.

Also, PRE attack normally strikes the Morale and technically the DCV...

It is always more difficult to affect others than yourself. As the mechanics do not differentiate between lowering an opponents DCV versus raising your own (I presume the fear and lowered morale only occur when directly fighting the wearer of the armour).

Thus I would build the effect as +9 DEX (only for combat) versus opponents who fail a PRE vs PRE roll. (Presence does work as a morale measure - braver opponents should not be affected as much as lesser ones). You can make this more complex by requiring higher rolls to get rid of all the DEX advantage.

Effectively this means that those who fear you find you harder to hit and get hit more often by you.

Doc

Re: Need an organization name

NORTHSTAR (National Organization for the Realization of Tomorrow for Humanity' date=' [b']Space Travel[/b], and Astronomical Research)

 

And you could have propoganda ads like "NORTHSTAR... Tomorrows Realities Today" or "Shining the light on the Future of Mankind."

I'm not even going to try, I like this one. It has a good ring to it - The Northstar Foundation - a guiding light to the future....

Doc

Re: AsSFXiate

Much chat about SFX and what they can and should do, and do you know what, I am pretty much in the 'they shouldn't do anything but make the game look pretty' camp. A small and lonely camp, but there you go.

As Ghost Angel said - Steve promised stuff on this in the Ultimate Energy Blaster.

Don't be lonely though - I am firmly in the SFX is flavour camp, unless they do a lot more of definition on the effects of SFX.

I think the problem is that with adjustment powers and NND etc there are quite a few powers that depend on SFX for effectiveness - it creeps in there wherever there are absolutes (eg: Desolid) and that utility begs to be used elsewhere.

I think that if SFX are to be a greater part of teh game then there needs to be some codification - that has been discussed before - but I think what HERO would need is guidance to a GM on how to codify SFX for their own game and how to organise those SFX with respect to value and interaction.

Doc

Re: Chat tonight

What I was wondering is whether chats could be archived and browsed through for those of us that cannot wait up for them (over here in London)...

Doc

Re: Suffer, Kate!

To me it is like saying: I've got megawatt laser beams, OF COURSE they can punch a hole in a wall or an enemy - I don't need to buy it as a RKA, it is covered by the sfx.

How many megawatts in those lasers?

Doc

Re: Suffer, Kate!

The game mechanics for suffocation require that all recoveries stop. There is no way to accomplish that in game except with some sort of transform or some enormous REC drain unless you allow Change Environment to do it' date=' which is clearly (to my mind) having an effect WAY beyond the 'minor' that the power allows.[/quote']

 

Well, I think I would allow the CE to provide that stopping of recoveries as it is an environmental change that is doing it and there should be obvious (possibly easy ways) to circumvent it.

 

Drowning is environmental damage and the only effect that stops recoveries in an absolute sense and so I would have to think that changing the environment should be capable of causing that kind of effect....

 

Doc

Re: Inverse Find Weakness

Character has 6 PD bought through their OIF (chainmail' date=' whatever). Their 2d6 power uses Set Effect to always boost this armor in increments of 6. Then, someone Drains their chainmail by 3 points, to a new total of 3. Now, the boost of 6 would [i']triple[/i] the PD (effectively, assuming it was cast without any previous effects extant). If the chainmail were instead Drained by 4 points, to a new total of 2, the +6 effect would effectively quadruple it.

If it truly was a multiplier effect then the limitations on the additional armour should be further limited rather than trying to work out limitations on the core armour element.

I would suggest

Armour 10pd 10ed 30 points

PLUS

Armour 10pd 10ed 30 points

Activation roll 11- (jammed) -1

Only against one opponent per phase -1

Additional armour value cannot exceed base armour -1

7 points

PLUS

Armour 10pd 10ed 30 points

Activation roll 11- (jammed) -1

Only against one opponent per phase -1

Requires a full phase to activate -1/2

Additional armour value cannot exceed base armour -1

7 points

Total : 44 points

That would mean that the additional armour only multiplied what the core armour is.

I might be being mean with the -1 as it potentially triples the effect of drains etc.

Doc

Re: Inverse Find Weakness

So opponent one has to deal with three times the normal armor from the ability.

Opponent two only has to bother with one boosting of the ability.

Opponent three doesn't have to worry about it at all.

My biggest concern with the power would be the book-keeping - what a nightmare!

PS - How do you make a RSR so that it depends on the opponent's roll rather than your own? Ex. a Dex roll allowing them to dodge an attack - or an accrobatics roll to dodge (a skill which they might not have)?

No-one has addressed this as far as I can see. I'm not sure what effect you are trying to get here - their DCV aids them in dodging an attack. If you wanted to provide opponents with the ability to dodge attacks that would otherwise hit (due to the normal mechanic) then you can limit your power that way.

Limited Power: Acrobatics roll from opponent negates effects of attack

You would have to discuss with your GM what that would actually be worth and how it would work in game. If it has to be an acrobatics roll then it might not be worth a huge amount, if a limited DEX roll would suffice then the limitation value would be more. If it required just a simple success then the value might be higher than if you wanted a good roll (Acrobatics at -3 or -5 or -1 per 10 STUN that got through defences). I would probably start at -1/2 and work from there.

Doc

Re: Suffer, Kate!

My concern though is that even the mechanical rules method of suffocating does not really and properly paint the effect of being unable to breathe - the burning lungs and disorientation' date=' far beyond any damage being done, is difficult to reduce tro mechanics but I was quite pleased with the EGO roll or panic approach.[/quote']

 

Well, I haven't costed it myself either, it just seemed the best way.

 

I do like the EGO roll thing myself though I might have limited the roll per so many STUN taken or something. It seems as though there should be more chance of panicking the closer to unconsciousness that you get.

 

 

Doc

Re: Suffer, Kate!

Sean

could I venture once more with a "I think you think about this too much" type response?

Surely the whole suffocation thing is already in the rules - you outlined what suffocation means in game terms early on in the thread. It comes down to the fact that we are playing with human templates - there are assumptions in the game that we are playing carbon based lifeforms that require food at regular intervals, sleep and the correct air to breathe. If any of these things are removed then these lifeforms suffer.

I think if you are looking at a power then it has to be one that changes the environment because that is exactly what you are doing - you are changing the environment around the person. I'm not sure that the CE power is well set up with regard to game mechanics to deal with this kind of attack though.

I hate to do this but it is the first time that I have ever suggested such a thing - essentially what you want to do, either singly or over an extended area, is to move the character from an environment where their breathing needs are met to one where they are not - without actually physically moving their body at all. It sounds EDMish to me (I KNOW!! Everyone has to be allowed to suggest it at least once).

Suitably limited - for a choke hold type attack - I would suggest EDM usable against others - the dimension being one where they can physically interact with the physical world but cannot breathe - linked to a grab, ends when grab is broken.

At this point the game rules already in effect come into play doing all of the things that you want.

I think that EDM is probably, mechanically, better suited to the individual effects than change environment....

Maybe that's just me.

Doc

Re: Balance versus flavour

I don't want to say they are wrong. Far from it. But if Hero is anything' date=' it is a game where 1) PLAYER control over the building of their character is emphasized and expected, and 2) Quantified, statistical knowledge of the capabilities of a character compared to the imaginary world they inhabit is emphasized and expected. [/quote']

 

I think in a very broad sense you are correct here. I agree, it is one of the expected tropes of HERO games. There is a openness about the balance and value of the characters that isn't so obvious in many systems.

 

In a group that can easily put that aside to take up the game rather than the system it isn't even a down side.

 

Now' date=' again, I'm not ruling good or bad, here. I'm saying this is the default design intent of Hero... the default play experience is built upon such control and knowledge... so diverging as Doc and Sean have done is a clear move away from such intent. It is not wrong... but it should be noted as a conscious diversion. While I think such games would be a blast, but then I have a much more Nar/Sim preferences. I would think a strong Gamist would dislike this, because the rules are hiddenl, which is the anti-thesis of their preference. [/quote']

 

There is an elemtn of trust involved in that. I think that a strong gamist could be content to know that the GM has used the strong point value basis of the system to balance the characters and so part of the 'fun' element for the gamist would be to test the parameters of his character and his ability to influence the game in a way that would not be possible with full revelation of the mechanics.

 

For example, in a recent game I translated a partial desolid type power with IPE shrinking and tunnelling. A gamist could enjoy testing the paramteres of the desolid ability just to determine the mechanics behind the SFX.

 

It would all rest on trusting the GM though.

 

 

Doc

Re: Balance versus flavour

Even though the characters were in fact reasonably balanced, and any Battle Royale would have been a whole lot closer than most of them thought, the players' perceptions of the characters was very different.

 

They did not feel homogenous.

I think that my latest attempts in character sheet design might move towards that, as they describe the powers but reveal virtually nothing of the mechanics behind them.

In a low powered game, I had a player whose character was described as walking away from fatal crashes with barely a scratch. The player played him as if he were invulnerable (he had 12 rPD, 6rED). The player felt as if he were invulnerable but if the mechanics had been in front of him I do not believe he would have done.

I think the more that you can get the players playing the powers rather than the mechanics the more flavour you engender within the game as a whole.

Doc

Re: Dead - or just an NPC??

Zombification of a PC with no way back is a pretty traumatic ordeal for some Players

Moreso than just killing them?

I know, in my group, that I have a player who will not allow himself to be captured but I think they would all enjoy stalking and killing a zombified former member of the party.

Doc

I will be running a pulp based game in the near future. I intend to have a recurring zombie type opponent in the game and was looking at the mechanics for the baddies to produce their zombies.

Now. I want any transformation into a zombie to be permanent and so, working on the ancient reasoning behind Transform I intend to have a killing attack by the baddies where the BODY damage is an all-or-nothing affair but if a target 'dies' (is reduced to -BODY) then the target becomes a zombie (with the small changes in ability that entails).

Does this sound OK? If I attack a PC with the killing attack and kill him then I am effectively making that PC an NPC and instead of changing his status from living to dead I'm changing it from alive to undead.

Thoughts?

Doc

Re: Balance versus flavour

Well there's no real need to accentuate the distinctiveness of two characters' date=' one of whom flies and shoots energy blasts and the other of whom benchpresses Buicks. They are already quite distinct. Even in a fantasy game, the guy who has spells is going to be very distinct from the guy with the bulging muscles and the battleaxe and both of them are going to be distinct from that little guy who knows how to pick pockets.[/quote']

 

Actually I think the problem is less so in lower powered games such as fantasy.

 

In superheroes there is a need to accentuate differences. If the guy who flies and shoots does similar amounts of damage to the big bad guy as the BenchpressMan then their game effects are remarkably similar.

 

I think the message I'm getting is that there needs to be a variety of challenges (including having the PCs fight villain groups rather than one big bad guy).

 

With a variety of opponents it is possible to have a patsy for everyone that they can find and a huge variety of options in how to go about the fight.

 

Out of combat it is the same - there needs to be variety. Thus it is possible (I think) to effectively balance the flavour requirements of the PCs by the provision of a suitable variety of opponents and obstacles.

 

No? If the flavour powers of the PCs are the ones that get the job done due to their applicability to the obstacles and villains in hand then there is less focus on the slowly grind out a victory (5 STUN per phase each)....

 

 

Doc

One of the things that has struck me over the years that I have played this game is that, given enough thought, I can balance the characters i my game so that they are almost equally effective in combat. No-one need feel inadequate in taking on a villain regardless of their schtick.

That makes me happy in that the game treats everyone the same. It also makes me concerned in that everyone is the same.

One of the strengths of D&Ds class system was that you knew your role in the group. In a well-balanced hero team there is not the same defined roles.

I was wondering, as GMs, what do you do to accentuate the distinctiveness of characters and do you do this at the expense of a bit of balance?

Doc

PS: I actually made 1000 posts!

Re: making killing dmg balance with normal dmg

Before I say anything else, let me indicate that I am in 100% agreement with you about the choice of mechanic to reflect the desired SFX expressed by teh player and their description of the power. In my groups I have tended to do much of the design and construction and so have not really had to deal with much overuse of killing attacks for this reason or any other.

However....

Some sample rolls:

4d6 RKA: 8B/24S, 13B/65S, 16B/64S, 19B/95S, 18B/36S

12d6 EB: 12B/39S, 12B/46S, 13B/42S, 14B/47S, 14B/48S[/Quote]

 

Nice rolls

 

Looking at this - as you point out later - taking 25 defence (20 resistant) - some of the RKAs do no damage at all. However if this was one turn in a game lets take it phase by phase with each charaxcter having 28 CON and 60 STUN.

 

Phase 3 - RKAGuy does nothing and takes a solid hit from EBMan.

Phase 5 - RKAGuy stuns EBMan who would have done damage to RKAGuy if he went first. If he didn't then RKAMan has a vulnerable opponent who will not damage him next time.

Phase 8 - EBMan is stunned and RKAMan's attack stuns him again, though the accumulated damage pushes EBMan to -19 STUN.

 

That is before we got to the drooling damage.

 

EBMan has come nowhere near stunning RKAGuy and will only rarely do so. Three out of the five attacks by RKAGuy result in a stun result on EBMan. It is enough of a lure for the thrillseeker.

 

The character took no BODY damage at all. However, he took almost twice as much STUN from the RKA as the EB. But look at the rolls. The EB did some STUN with every attack. There was one attack that the RKA did NO damage at all and another that did less STUN than the lowest EB.

 

[snip]

 

Which attack would you rather have? Well that depends a lot on your play style. If you are a min-maxing, cheese-eating, fromage-smelling power-gamer then go with the RKA with an Increased STUN Multiple. [/Quote]

 

Tell us what you think Rapier - don't beat about the bush with all of that flowery language!

 

I know plenty of friends who want their attack to be effective and be capable of 'taking out the bad guy'. It can get boring slowly building up the necessary stun to KO the bad guy and it never feels that heroic....whereas one-punching definitely does.

 

 

The main point is that you should never make a choice on what power to take (RKA vs EB) based upon the effects of one over the other (attack X does more STUN). You should make the choice based upon what is correct for the character and the concept of the weapon. If you are going to choose an RKA over an EB because it does more STUN' date=' you are not very imaginative at all. You should be taking a STUN Drain and call it a day. After all, almost NOBODY has Power Defense in any kind of decent amount.[/quote']

 

 

As I said at the start, absolutely. Think about the powers and buy the mechanics that best reflect those. That's the way for a good colour filled game. It does not, however, remove the temptation for those who want their character to be 'effective' as well as colourful.

 

 

Doc

Re: making killing dmg balance with normal dmg

On average, Killing Attacks don't really do much more STUN than normal attacks.

You are exactly correct. But basing things on averages do not equate to gameplay.

To make the example more extreme - VariableGuy has an attack where can do 100 damage but only in one out of overy four hits. Other times he does no damage at all. SteadyMan has a much more reliable attack that does 25 damage every time.

Each will do an average of 25 damage but, in a game where defences are 20 and you can expect a fight to go on for more than four hits, VariableGuy will win every time. In that fourth hit he does 80 damage to his target while SteadyMan has only done 20 overall even though he has hit every single time.

It isn't the average that makes the killing attack attractive it is the hugely increased chance of one-punching your opponent or stunning him so that everyone can pile in with their big attacks.

The variability isn't an issue, the gamblers just sit there waiting for everything to pay off with one big hit - and it works often enough to make it a viable tactic.

Doc

Re: making killing dmg balance with normal dmg

2d6 KA averages 7 BODY

6d6 NA averages 6 BODY

 

Stun averages are meaningless, but Alibear is right, your method reduces the BODY damage a killing attack does.

I guess to even that up you would have to make 1s equal 1 BODY rather than 0 BODY - that would give an average of 7 BODY to 6 dice.

If you wanted to increase the diversity then 1 and 2 could equate to 0 BODY, 5 to 2 BODY and 6 to 3 BODY for the same average of 7 but I expect I'm getting number happy.....

Doc

Re: Missile Deflection - Can someone explain this?

So... a Fastball Special, a guy following a ballistic trajectory, is considered controlled movement but a Maverick missile isn't?

 

a guy leaping through the air to perform a Move-Through, following a ballistic trajectory, is controlled, but laser beam, moving at the speed of light is fair game?

 

...

I think the best defence is that it is all about game balance. What you want to do is use the movement power to allow you to reflect the person moving through you. The game discriminates on the basis of the power used. It allows reflect/deflect on inanimate objects but not someone moving toward you.

As such you cannot reflect/deflect someone running, flying, gliding, leaping or using any other movement to get close to you to carry out a HtH attack.

It might not reflect the physics of the situation but it does prevent one mode of movement being rejected as inferior to the others.

Doc

Re: Help Required. Undead PC

Pretty new. I have only been using Hero since 1983.

That was 23 years ago and you say you are only 32! You were too young to be playing Champions then...I was playing in '83 and felt a bit too young at 18!

And if you've been playing that long why haven't you been on the boards more?

Let us know how you get on - we're always desperate for stuff to talk about....

Doc

Re: How to build a Density-altering ATTACK?

The problem with any solution that does not actually change the density of the target (such as STR drain) is that it only affects the person being made more dense. It would not, for example, have a game effect on a teammate lifting him to safety.

I think what you have to do is decide the effect you want the power to have on the target. If you simply want the target to be less able to use their STR then perhaps a STR drain is the answer - and the SFX of that would be a massive increase in wieght. If you want to hinder movement then you might look to an Entangle - SFX, a massive increase in weight.

I think you are falling into the trap of thinking too much about the special effects you want rather than the game effects.

Doc

Re: Balanced Opposition

In my experience it is usually easier to balance equal or near equal numbers of PCs to villains. I have also found that the players prefer the type of fight where they have opponents at worst only slightly better than they are. They can see small successes during the fight as the villains begin to go down.

With one huge villain it can often be frustrating as they try to wear him down while avoiding being one-punched.

I agree that the first fight being against a similar number of lower pointed villains, possibly supplemented with agents, being a good intro - the players feel more like they are superheroes in that kind of scenario.

Doc