Doc Democracy

Re: How would you write up the following power? As has been pointed out before, the issue is really one for the GM to write into his NPCs. If a demon had PD/ED bought 'not versus approapriate vanquishing potion' and a 2X BODY vulnerability to appropriate vanquishing potion then a 4D6 KA would be doing on average 28 BODY to a demon. Substantial for an instant kill....

Re: Statting up NPCs on the fly. When I ran a pulp one-off for my (non-Hero) group I redesigned the sheet to look more D20. It seemed to work - I had no complaints about complexity or maths or anything else (though that might be due to the pre-gens). That's be good. I would like to see a Hero Book that demonstrated various ways to present the system to players. As a toolkit a Hero game rarely has the same finish as dedicated systems and the notation (e.g. 3D6 RKA AP 0 END) enforces that perception. Anything that improves the presentation of a campaign using the Hero toolkit has to be good. Doc

Re: How would you write up the following power?

Re: Autofire as Accuracy Booster Well. You could argue for limited CSLs. If you bought Autofire 5 you might also buy +4 OCV limited by how many bullets can hit from a burst of autofire. If one hit is allowed then all 4 CSLs will count, if two hits are allowed then 3 CSLs etc etc. I might allow this to have a +1/4 limitation on the CSLs. Doc

IMO that ghost is a plot device that needs no statistical write-up. If there is only one way to defeat it then the scenario is about the heroes finding out what that way is. Obviously you can run combats but the ghost is quite removed from the statistical battle taking place. A good scenario is possible from this, given the right players , but you are making a decision at the planning stage to remove any combat/power mediated means of success. Thus why invent a power for a plot device? I know that one of my most successful games was a haunted house style adventure where the basis was an all powerful mental illusionist/mind controller. I didn't write up the powers of the protagonist as I didn't want to roll dice - it was a plot device that funnelled the players to the place I wanted them. It was an all-powerful power - virtually no defence (one player had a defence but switched it off and then couldn't switch it back on). The players loved it because they could see there was no way round it and went with the story and trusted me not to screw them over. Your scenario would likely be the same - and still not require any new rules - there are no rules required for a plot device. Doc

Re: Full Desolidification So how does the NPC reason then? Should you be looking at the automaton rules where the NPC would not have INT or EGO and thus simply not show up on a mentalists radar?? (I haven't played HERO since 5th edition - it does still have automaton rules doesn't it??) It might be simpler than looking at desolid to such things. If the NOC does reason and does think then it would have INT and EGO and you could probably assign a difficulty penalty to mentalists chances - give him defensive levels in ECV and/or Ego defence to make things that much more difficult due to the alien nature of the mind in question.

Yeah, but when he came up against someone of his ability he missed. He didn't have a never misses power he just had a huge OCV that meant he had never missed before. It was his schtick and - as I mentioned later - the Gm should provide lots of opportunity for a player to exercise his schtick but shouldn't necessarily introduce a rule to make the schtick statutory. That's the best way to do it. Write the power as invulnerability on the character sheet if you want with the existing mechanics you used to build that. Sometimes, in the right circumstances, that invulnerability doesn't provide total protection. I don't think that using existing powers is going to chargen extremes, I think that creating a new power however IS going to chargen extremes. This is the crux of the discussion though. What possible resolution could the definitions provide. If one player has an auto hits power and another has an auto avoids, what possible resolution could you come up with that would not break the definition of one or the other?? It is better to explain to the player that he has never missed as far as he can remember and in play that he will get lots of opportunity to display what he wants to be his schtick. Also explain that against a sufficiently dextrous metahuman that he might actually miss but that will be a competition between his power and the power of the target. Actually no different in principle from the definitions you propose but doesn't require extra powers or rules. Doc

I think the biggest problem about ultimate powers is when they clash. I have a power that is irresistable whereas my target has true invulnerability. Who wins? If I'm the player I want my invulnerability to be total - I don't want some half assed GM telling me that this particular NPC has a power that hurts me. I'm INVULNERABLE!! Same with the person who has an attack that never misses coming up against someone with the ultimate dodge skill. What trumps what?? I'm not sure that the core material even merits such things. Sure, D&D has magic missile but since when has D&D been genre material? Superman is classed as invulnerable but there have been plenty of people that have damaged him some of them seriously. Essentially Superman is just VERY tough and not many people are in the same combat class as him. Put up against his peers he is just as vulnerable as they are. I think that if a player wants a character that is invunerable you have to give him powers that make him effectively invulnerable in most situations and put him in those situations often enough that they get the kick they are looking for. Doc

What limitation would you, as a GM, give for PD only versus small-arms fire?? It would be a decent way of providing for the extra PD needed to ignore a hail of small-arms fire but leave the character within the defence limits against supervillains.

I've happily used and probably misused ECs since I started playing the game many years ago. I don't have any driving desire to change it but there always has to the possibility that it could be done better. When you get to the point that you believe any system is perfect then there is something wrong. Even if it was as good as it could be it wouldn't be perfect! Well, Hero is often touted as the ultimate system for tinkerers and all you are doing here is tinkering. The system is actually labelled as a toolkit and encourages people to look at alternative ways of running the system. In fact, I would welcome a book that provided a range of ways that the system might be changed and used as well as the Ultimate stuff and genre books. What would it be called - Ultimate Hero Alternatives???

Don't want to get into the Gary vs Kristopher argument - it's obvious Kristopher sees nothing wrong with ECs and that he's not convinced that they could be improved. However, I think that this is another reason to look seriously at this idea. If you don't like the fact that ECs get all their powers drained at the same time then this system would allow you to remove that facet and reduce the benefit provided. On the face of it, it looks more complex but as it simply uses limitations it works the system as it normally would instead of introducing an exception (power framework) that provides benefits outside the normal advantage/limitation/disad system. Keep going Zornwil!

I'd have thought that you are essentially looking at some kind of clairsentience - only someone who has just teleported within your vicinity and perhaps within the range of your own teleport ability. That would provide some sense of following someone through a teleport 'wormhole' and being able to follow them - you can now 'see' the location. You might also think about trying to stop people leaving by nullifying their teleport with your own - perhaps the GM would allow a grapple style using teleport active points instead of STR active points.

This is another issue. The rules are quite clear though that the EC essentially represents a single power that the character is able to manipulate for different effects. Thus the fire character is using the same power source for everything and as you drain one of those things it has effects on them all. It is consistent and it does provide a significant limitation for the cost benefit it provides.

I'm always fascinated when people do this, partly because I'd like to and never get round to it. I'm sympathetic to the way it's going though! I'm not sure that I agree with this. The EC bonus is there regardless of whether the character has power defence or not. Just because the character has power defence doesn't alter the fact that draining their flight will also drain their force field and energy blast...

I think what you have to keep in mind with roleplay systems is that there are horses for courses. I love HERO as it appeals to the tinkerer aspect of my personality. There is however a high up front cost with the system - which it pays back in the level of flexibility that it provides. A lot of that up-front cost can be offset by buying the campaign books that make decisions for you in how to present and level things. Use the Grimoire for spells, use the bestiary for opponents and use the Fantasy Hero book for equipment and templates. I am also a fan of the D20 system because of the ease of pick up and play that it provides - often because most people know the system but also due to its design. There aren't too many upfront costs with the system though you _have_ to buy the books. For freestyle play - as was picked up earlier - my favourite is HeroQuest the new system for playing in Glorantha. It is a fantastically open system and I think could become my favourite superhero system if a genre book was released for it. Some work has been done on a fan site and I recommend trying it to everyone... http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/bferrie/resources/index.htm I'd also rather use the West End Games D6 system for Star Wars than any other as the system is structured in such a way that it reinforces the genre. I guess what I'm trying to say is that Hero is a fantastic system but, like every other system, it has its limitations. I recommend looking at more than just HERO vs D20 - decide what you want from your game and choose the system that gives you that. When I want good player knowledge I tend to look at D20, when I want detailed control of the world and its systems I look to HERO, when I want free-flowing games I look to HeroQuest and when I want Star Wars I look to WEG! Doc

Just more grist to the mill. In the past I considered making the STUN multiple = the number the to hit roll was made by (to a maximum of 5). That means that good to-hit rollss with killing weapons are rewarded. It does make them very dangerous to use against normals but it might make 'heroes' more unlikely to use them that way.

I normally use knockback but I have dropped it for games I run for the local kids club. My take was that rolling with the blow took you away from the combat and you had to either half move back in or take range penalties if you had a ranged attack. Thus if a PC rolled with the punch I gave them a -1OCV for the next phase. No-one seemed to mind and it reflected the penalties that would otherwise have accrued.

Believe me, the way I teach the system is as simple as it gets. My players are well capable of understanding the system, just resistant to playing something they feel is complicated. The problem, as in many facets of life, is that Champions is believed to be a complex system. Whether that is or isn't true factually it is definitely the perception _out there_. There isn't a lot you can do about that. I also think that D&D is just as, if not more, complex than Hero but there's not many non-Hero people that'd agree with you. They see it simply as D20 which they take to be simple maybe because its mass market. I wanted a core mechanic to present to the players - it makes everything 'feel' more coherent. Its true that if they want to go to the rulebook they'd find something different but then that's what comes of house rules in all shapes and sizes. Derek's killing attack option seems similar to mine but far more considered and worked out. I think I might steal that. Doc

Bacause I wouldn't want to go through the rest of the powers etc as I'm quite happy with the point system. I like the 3D6 and I like the stats and on the whole I like the power balance. I just wanted to make it a bit more coherent for my players.

I've been thinking about streamlining the system. When I present it to people they look at the way the combat calculation is different from the skill calaculation and the normal damage is different from the killing damage and think it is all too complex. Obviously this adds on from the reputation of the system being complex. I was thinking of unifying the combat and skills to be simpler. I was thinking that they should both be based on the following 3D6 + stat/3 + skill levels - difficulty modifier >= 11 Thus for a skill you have skill levels encompass both skill levels and the two point adders within the skill and the difficulty modifier set by the GM. For combat you have the difficulty modifier be the OCV of the opponent. In both cases you are looking to get a modifed total of 11 or greater. For damage calculations I was thinking of simply retaining the normal damage calculation and using an advantage to say that the attack is 'killing' and thus only resistant defences would apply against it. You could also purchase increased damage advantages by making a 5 or 6 be 2 BODY, or a 4,5, or 6 be 2 BODY. Not decided what I'd charge for those yet. Just thought I'd run the ideas up the flagpole and see whether people think this would indeed streamline the system for non-Hero people. Doc

The whole issue of drug based disablement is one that has bugged me about Hero. The system doesn't seem to handle it particularly well and there are many work arounds that don't really seem to work either. I was thinking that there might be another way of handling it. I can't decide what the name of the power should be (something like Inhibition) but essentially you decide whether the power affect physical abilities (movement, combat etc), mental abilities (ego combat, perception etc) or both. I cant decide whether to make it a step by step thing: Each 1D6 of the inhibition power would reduce the effectiveness of the powers chosen by 1DC and a give -1 to the CV (or applicable skill roll). So 4D6 Physical Inhibition would mean that a STR 70 brick would be sluggish and only able to effecitvely use STR 50 and a STR 20 martial artist would be using STR 0. Both would be at -4 to their OCV. Or make it a bigger step thing like damage reduction: 25% reduction in physical/mental skills 50% reduction in physical/mental skills 75% reduction in physical/mental skills I'm inclined towards the latter and basing it upon the costs of damage reduction but I think that removes some flexibility that might be inherent in the former way. Doc

I like the idea of there being a limited amount of something - either artefacts or spirits that combine with a human being to produce the superbeing. Thus, the number of superbeings at any one time is absolutely limited. When a superbeing dies then the artefact/spirit returns to a particular place/relic and the next person to enter/touch the place/relic recieves superpowers. The history of this could be scientific or mystical or religious and thus you get the growth of the lottery. When a superbeing dies perhaps the relic glows and the authority in charge of it know that they need to run the lottery to allow a new superbeing to be born. My first thought of a scenario was that the villainous superbeings had worked out how to corrupt the lottery and began to kill heroes and replace those heroes with placed men. Thus the balance between good and evil is disrupted and if the heroes don't work it out then the earth will be dominated by villains for the rest of time...

Re: New GM with serious dilema Do your own players use focused powers themselves to save points?? I know many of the PCs in my games do. What about stealing one of their focuses and having them lose the points. Then ask them whether they are still keen on the 'but it makes sense that I can use it' when that becomes but it makes sense that I can use it or lose it'.

Re: High Dex characters aborting Has this changed or have I always played it wrong? The way I play it is that you cannot abort on the very same segment on which you attack. On the very next segment I can abort my next phase to a defensive action. For example. MartialArts Man (SPD 6) on segment 2 throws a kick at BrickGuy (SPD 4) hoping to take him out of the fight. It just makes BrickGuy mad and on segment 3 BrickGuy throws a bus at MartialArts Man. As it is the next segment MartialArts Man aborts his segment 4 phase to dive for cover. Both will next move on segment 6. The way Nate has phrased it seems back to front to me...

I have to admit that when I first thought about this that my initial instinct was to go for limited end battery type stuff. Then I thought about the character and the comics I've read. I have _never_ seen the ring run out of power beyond the 24 hour recharge rigmarole. I'd be inclined to give whatever powers based on OIF (the ring) an additional limitation of 'must be recharged every 24 hours' (+1/4). That brings the focus half way between OIF and OAF which seems appropriate. If you cannot deprive the character of the ring you can make the ring useless by preventing its recharge. That allows unlimited use of the ring until it is time to recharge. That follows GL canon, no??