Doc Democracy

Re: Help with spell construction

Seems like this would oddly enough be PRE purchased as power that costs END to use against an opponent as independent PRE attack.

 

- Christopher Mullins

Ooh! I like this, it would probably work the right way as well....

Doc

Re: Wisdom

Turning to Talents' date=' Danger Sense is justifiable in some circumstances. I think some of the alternate versions of Resistance would reflect wisdom, such as Tight-Lipped (resists Conversation) or Immovable (resists Persuasion).[/quote']

 

Ooh. I know my mind was thinking exotic senses but I hadn't tripped over danger sense yet.

 

I think that a reasonable facsimile of wisdom would be knowing the danger of certain courses of action (non-combat danger of course).

 

Good idea!

 

 

Doc

Re: Wisdom

Wisdom is' date=' in my opinion, all in the roleplaying.[/quote']

 

Ideally that would be how I'd like it to play. My players aren't often that 'wise' though and some of their characters should be!

 

But maybe a few KSes won't come amiss?

 

That was one of the things I was looking at - I need a few broad categories to allow them to make rolls and get some GM wisdom hints...

 

 

Doc

I am trying to construct a spell but need some ideas from the boards.

The spell, when successfully cast, demoralises the opponent. This is an old RuneQuest spell and the effects there were that it made the victim reluctant to act in a postive fashion. The victim could attack but at half effectiveness but could defend at full value.

My head is stuck on a PRE suppress/drain etc.

Any bright ideas out there?

Doc

So, what is it?

If a character's background involves being extremely wise, how is this modelled in the mechanics?

I guess this comes from me not being entirely sure what I (or many other people) mean when they say that something is wise...

[n] the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight

[n] the quality of being prudent and sensible

[n] ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight

[n] accumulated knowledge or erudition or enlightenment

How do you even begin to bring common sense and insight into the game mechanics? An exotic sense??

Doc

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

Ok' date=' that's a lot to take in all at once, although the general sentiment is clearly that I need to seriously reassess this situation. Perhaps I am indeed being too generous.[/quote']

 

Well, the big problem you face is the inherent human template built into the system.

 

The default abilities of a Hero system character is human - which makes sense as most characters are actually, or in essence, human in ability. That means the game (players and GMs) can safely make assumptions about certain things.

 

All of this falls down when someone really does want to play a character which is not, at core, human-like.

 

A sword is not human and you have to make huge changes to the template to get to something that _is_ a sword.

 

You are finding some of those problems already.

 

As you say a sword in the game is often represented by 1D6+1 Killing (OAF). There are a lot of assumptions about that sword - like what it can withstand in the way of hostile environments, whether it gets stunned or falls unconscious etc etc and what it can do without someone to use it.

 

As far as game mechanics go - it is easy to dismiss it to a short line on the character sheet and look at what happens to the focus about it getting damaged.

 

When you want a character to be a sword there are a lot of plusses about being a sword rather than a human. Swords don't need to breathe or eat or many other things that a human does.

 

Problem is the things that a sword doesn't do that a human does - like have consciousness, have free will and volition.

 

If you wanted to handwave all of the abilities of a sword as not fair to charge the character for then you would have to handwave all of the human abilities sold back because he is not a human.

 

It would be nice to have a few templates other than human on which to base a character and then the template could come with all of its own sets of assumptions.

 

Until then a character like this is a lot of work to make it feel and play properly.

 

Doc

Re: A very strange build for critiquing.

If I were the GM looking at this as a submission I would have a few quibbles with it.

 

Stun: 0

 

Perks

Takes No Stun: 60

- This should also triple the cost of defences. However, due to the fact that the sword itself is unlikely to be the target of many attacks, I decided that the 60 point cost is already sufficient penalty for this ability (see also comments on Life Support, below).

First the character has no STUN. In the system, 0 STUN = unconcious. The takes no stun power was designed for automatons who have no conciousness to lose. You have, for 60 points, provided the character with the ability to ignore any and all attacks that would cause unconciousness and your handwave would allow them to ensure that they could easily become immune to most, if not all, killing attacks. They become invulnerable (yup, Lucius - I said it, invulnerable).

I would require the character to have STUN and would limit the takes no stun power to physical attacks - then I might allow the defences handwave but probably not.

Wielder (Follower): 30 (But see comments on Mind Control)

 

Mind Control 3d6

- Cumulative (Up to 8x, +1 1/4)

- Difficult to Dispel (+1/4)

- Constant (+1)

- 0 End (+1/2)

- No Range (-1/4)

- Gradual (1 week, -2)

Active Points 60, Real Cost 18

 

The No Range lim limits the power to the sword's wielder and a range of a few feet. In conjunction with the Gradual Lim, this makes the power practically useless beyond making the basic concept actually viable. As such, I'm counting it's cost towards the Follower perk (meaning the 30CP follower only actually costs 12).

This would flash all kinds of warning bells in my mind as well. Because you are a sword and get carried around you have sold back all of your movement abilities and bought a follower. That sounds reasonable. But you also use the purchase of mind control to justify reducing the cost of that follower by 60%.

A creative player will get their 18 points of value from that Mind Control without it providing a discount on the follower...

Life Support (Full)

I'm not going to charge for any of the Life Support options. Since the sword is almost entirely dependant on his wielder, who will not have Life Support, there is virtually no actual benefit to any Life Support option.

So there is no benefit from being able to survive without food, in hostile environments or when exposed to acids and toxins?

Dexterity: 0

 

I'm a Sword Multipower

Multipower Reserve: 60

-Strength Min 18 (-1)

- 2 Hands (-1/2)

Real Cost: 24

 

2u HKA 2 1/2d6, AP

2u HKA 4d6

Note the CV of 0. The killing attacks that you have bought are not usable by others and so it would be the sword doing the attacks - thus having to use its own CV.

I would be careful about that CV as well. If someone was to know that this was an intelligent sword then attacks directed at the sword would be against a DCV of 0 as well.

I think this is a difficult concept to model but you have to be careful that the character doesn't benefit unduly from the concept rather than abilities that any other character would have to buy to benefit from.

Re: 6th Edition thoughts

Mostly I was refering to #1. The rules by default only allow you to buy down one figured stat. So by default the character concept I mentioned is against the rules.

I'm not arguing with your basic premise. I think I once started a thread about characteristics being contrary to HERO principles.

However the way to have a high STR and CON with low PD and ED is to buy the primaries with no figured stats (-1/2). All well within the rules but not a common sense way to go about it.

Doc

Re: M&M cross-over ideas?

Personally I think you are trying to avoid the M&M vs HERO thread in General Roleplaying....

Re: Tactical Principals

Off hand I'd say a move out the way block does not stop the mov througher - they just miss' date=' and a brace block means the blocker takes the impact and full damage is rolled for BOTH attacker and blocker, then halved if the other takes KB.[/quote']

 

Hmm. As you say, I'd be inclined to look for a game logical result.

 

I'd be more inclined to reverse the application of the damage - so a successful block means that the attacker takes full damage and the blocker takes half.

 

 

Doc

Re: The Power of Presence

It seems to me that' date=' for every time the source material has the takedown of the leader demoralizing the team, there's an example of the team being galvanized when the leader gets taken down. "He took Cap down. Let's show him what 'Avenger' means!"[/quote']

 

I guess it depends on the Psych limits and secondary leadership capabilities in the team.

 

The Avengers will all probably have strong 'team solidarity' psych limits that would counteract the demoralising effect of Cap getting taken down and there are a few other strong personalities in the team able to use these to rally the troops.

 

Morale is a strange thing - this is just a way of simulating the effects. You could reason that the rallying shout was made because the loss of Cap would otherwise detrimentally affect some of the lower presence group members.

 

You could also reason that the more often the leader gets taken down the less and less useful it becomes as a tactic!

 

 

Doc

Re: The Power of Presence

Of course this may make leaders more of a target and would mean that' date=' potentially, if the leader got taken down that could be rather a blow to morale - so their may be advantages to NOT having a leader too [/quote']

 

Never took it this far but you could make the loss of a leader a free PRE attack on the footsoldiers using the casual PRE of the leader that had been lost.

 

So losing Corporal Joe Schmoe while taking a pill box would be a minor setback to the troops while losing Oliver Cromwell could result in a whole wing of the army turning tail and leaving the battlefield....

 

 

Doc

Re: The Power of Presence

It's a long time since I played with a character who had excessive PRE. One of the things that I used to limit the effectiveness (the PC had perfected ways of making massed ranks of agents turn and run) was to allow leaders of the opposite side to have a casual PRE defence.

If the leader of the opposition has 20 PRE then he would have a 4D6 PRE attack. Half of that (casual) would be 10 PRE which would counter 2D6 of the attacking PRE attack.

This seemed a pretty fair way of counting in the effect of charasmatic or impressive leaders without requiring any rolls or anything else. Of course the same rule meant that the PCs were pretty much immune from PRE attacks while Mr PRE was around.

Doc

Re: How far have you gone?

There's a whole other can of worms!

I think there was a thread on something like that in the past six months or so. Possibly not surprisingly there was no such thing as a consensus on that!

What is sacrosanct to some (like the speed chart) is valueless to others.

GIR was supposed to address some of that issue.

Doc

Re: Painful Entangle

Now' date=' if on the other hand, you want the pain to actually [i']do[/i] something to the entangled character... then I'd have to ask you what you'd like the pain to do to her?

 

Does she have to make an EGO Roll to try again?

Now this was what I thought of immediately, though I thought "Must make EGO roll to attempt break-out".

Wasn't sure how to cost this into the Entangle though. Sean's Mind Control could be a way though that would require an CON roll?

My thought was to link two entangles, one would be a continuous uncontrollable entangle based on PRE, no BODY and limited DEF which would have to be broken for the normal entangle to be attacked. Each time the PRE entangle was broken then the normal entangle would potentially take damage and then the PRE entangle would reset due to its continuous uncontrollable nature. The PRE entangle would stop resetting when the normal entangle was broken.

Expensive I think but it would be a powerful prison for many people.

Doc

Re: How far have you gone?

Personally' date=' 'toolkit' is marketing jargon intended to increase the perceived value of the product and has very little real meaning in terms of mechanics or the system.[/quote']

 

Absolutely. I agree. However, I think that the marketing highlights one of the major advantages that HERO has over other systems in its ability to be manipulated at a fundamental level to achieve what the GM wants in his game.

 

Doc

Re: How far have you gone?

It's a "house rule" that affects the final result of the toolkit/rules' date=' not the rules themselves, so I'd say it counts as toolkitting. The cost of the Powers don't change at all, just that everything with a Magic SFX has it's final cost reduced to 1/3.[/quote']

 

To me that is less toolkitting than changing a cost to enforce a game genre. It doesn't fit the genre to have many people with hugely divergent speeds, the easiest way to do that in HERO is to change the cost of SPD - cost benefit changes away from SPD to other things.

 

The best thing about HERO is that the points allow the GM to incentivise or disincentivise the use of various parts of the system purely by changing the 'fundamental' cost of any one aspect of it.

 

People argue about the cost of STR and there are good arguments on both sides (there wouldn't still be the disagreement if the arguments didn't have merit). HERO allows those people to make that small adjustment in a fundamental building block, knowing that this will propagate wherever else it is needed.

 

That is not true of other systems, like D20.

 

The cost of reduced END changed between editions - that is a fundamental cost as well - didn't mean that the game was any less HERO, just that the point balance shifted somewhere.

 

In the end, any toolkitting is Houseruling by a different name, it's just easier to do and, in 5th edition, encouraged. I think it is all on the same spectrum.

 

I think that the whole point of the toolkitting is that in HERO anyone familiar with the rulebook should be able to look and understand how you got to 'here' from the vanilla rulebook and either reverse engineer the toolkitting or manipulate it more to you another particular taste.

 

As Phil said, he's toolkitted a new game from the HERO rules. People can come and play that game on its own merits. HERO gamers can discuss how well the toolkitting achieves particular ends whether or not characters from that game could play in another HERO game.

 

If portability is ultimately important (and no-one I can remember has yet claimed that) important then every HERO genre and game ends up feeling like Champions with less points and lower AP caps.

 

Phil's game doesn't feel that way. I'd love to see his (as yet unwritten)designer notes and argue different ways to achieve the same but I don't need that to play the game. My familiarity with HERO allows me to use the game better than a whole new system as it still works like HERO - the mechanics are essentially unchanged - surely the point of a generic system has been achieved - I am still playing HERO.

 

Doc

 

PS: gosh, wrote a lot there....

Re: How far have you gone?

I don't see much of a difference there. In Phil's case' date=' he changed the cost of something from 10 to 15 points, which goes beyond toolkitting.[/quote']

 

Fantasy Hero suggested reducing the price of magic by a factor of three. That go beyond toolkitting too?

Re: partial entangle

What DR said.

You could also, if you were masochistic, construct an intricate complex of drains with delayed return where the effects could also be removed by causing damage to the SFX of the drains.

If you wanted to...

Doc

Re: How far have you gone?

Not to knock what you've done' date=' Phil, but changes like this is not using the toolkit, but ignoring it entirely. Once you [i']change[/i] the rules, you are no longer using the rules, but using rules of your own creation.

 

Now I really don't want to start an arguement of when it stop being Hero System, as far as I'm concerned, Phil is still playing a Hero System game. But he isn't using the toolkit.

Actually I think it is using the toolkit. The whole game leans on the HERO system quite substantially. I don't think that he'd have devised the whole system on his own and the toolkit provides all of the mechanics that are used in the game - nothing has been brought in from outside.

Skills still work like skills but there is the potential for more defined use of stats in them. Combat still works the same as does damage.

All the mechanisms are Hero mechanics so I would say its toolkitting, an extreme case perhaps.

Doc

Re: Golden Age speedster advice needed

Well, when you're in town drop me a line. I'll sort something out.

Thanks for the rep! I knew if I kept thinking something should turn up!

Re: How far have you gone?

If you mod the basic rules set' date=' like Phil has with characteristics, or others have with combat or skills or whatever, that is very cool, but it makes meaningful discussion of the impact of a particular build or campaign guideline that much more difficult.[/quote']

 

Obviously a serious mod of the system makes Hero less obvious in the rules - if you looked at his spreadsheet though the provenance of the game is obvious and it is obviously Hero in play. However things have a different feel to them.

 

I think that the whole point of using the toolkit is to provide a different feel to the game than generic Hero. All I think Phil needs to do now is provide a set of designer notes to show what he changed and why.

 

THAT would provide us with lots of grist to the HSD threads!

 

 

Personally, I am writing a system for Glorantha using Hero. I have made lots of decision about how I want things to work and, I think, the important task of how I will present this to the players. The character sheet that I want to design should ensure that my players will play in my Glorantha and only interact with the Hero system through my character sheet interface.

 

I'd like to style my game as a Glorantha GUI over the command line interface of Hero....

 

 

Doc

Re: Golden Age speedster advice needed

Probably far too late now Hooligan X but I did have a thought of a name:

Hotspur

It is probably most famously used now (outside of historical circles) as the name of a football team (Tottenham Hotspur, aka Spurs) but the word actually means:

[n] a rash or impetuous person

[n] English soldier killed in a rebellion against Henry IV (1364-1403)

Cool name for a British speedster.

Spurs have a long standing connection with jewishness - I believe as their support was drawn from a part of London where a lot of Jews lived - which might also be another interesting aspect to a character in a WWII situation...

Doc

Re: Activate

The idea is a character whose powers are dependednt on their 9rather eccentric) biorhythms: you build him with a lot of powers' date=' all built with 11- activation, rolled per day, so basically the available powerset will vary on a day to day basis: sometimes there will be a lot of powers, sometimes a few, sometimes powers that work together, sometimes not: each power will be available 62.5% of the time, on average.[/quote']

 

 

Hmm. I understand why you are doing this with an activation roll but I don't think that it truly reflects biorythms.

 

What you are wanting to do is determine where on the cycle the biorythms are. Most biorythms have three lines (can't remember what they are supposed to mean - body mind and spirit I suppose) that all vary at different times. When one is at maximum the others are not - very rarely they are all at maximum or minimum at the same time.

 

It is not random though - it is predictable (according to the pseudo-science behind it). In one-off scenarios I suppose that a series of random rolls covers this - in a campaign the GM has a pain in having to keep track of days etc to reflect the rythms.

 

I thought I was going to have something constructive to put at the end of this but I don't, everything I've thought of is rubbish and not worth typing out!

 

 

Doc

Re: 2nd Thoughts About the Hit Location Chart

Oh well . . .

 

I still think the S/B ratios are significant, and that the chart as constituted does not give acceptable results, but I'm clearly not persuading anyone, so I'm just going to drop the subject.

Sorry I didn't shed any light...

Doc