Doc Democracy

Voted... got us withing 7 of the lead!

...hopefully involving HERO...?

Alright, got my vote in for Darren Watts’ Golden Age Champions.  (As of this writing that makes him only 11 votes behind Sentinel Comics, which has 99 to Darren's 88.)
 
Keep it going...

Already got my vote in. GAC is only 15 votes behind Sentinel Comics -- definitely catchable.

My friend used to criticise Space Opera (Fantasy Games Unlimted) for its detail.
 
Player: I kick in the door
 
GM:  OK, first let’s calculate the friction coefficient between your boot and the door....

Because this is the Internet, and it is often difficult to be argumentative and contrarian without making false assumptions, oversimplifying someone's point, misrepresenting someone's point, propping up straw men, and otherwise arguing against something nobody is arguing for just to have something to say. 

This isn't so much a specific question as it is a request for feedback on how people have tried to introduce some granularity into armor and weapon selection. I know many of you have more experience with actual medieval weaponry and can offer some great insight.
 
Fantasy Hero 6e offers some ideas on how to offer variety to weapons in a fantasy setting. On p. 205 it says:
Bashing damage weapons: weapon automatically has +1 STUN Multiplier (or an additional +1) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather and plate armors only provide half PD against Bashing weapons Slashing damage weapons: weapon gains +1 DC (which counts as base damage) against targets with no Resistant Defense (or when it hits a Hit Location with no Resistant Defense) if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks; leather armors only provide half PD against Slashing weapons Piercing damage weapons: weapon is automatically Armor Piercing if the wielder succeeds with a STR (or DEX) Roll when he attacks (if weapon is already Armor Piercing, it becomes double AP); chainmail and like armors only provide half PD against Piercing weapons I like the ideas presented here, but I'm wondering how much variation is possible or even desirable when considering weapon types versus armor types. 
 
For example, I was always a "sword first" kind of fantasy player. This was D&D conditioning. Daggers and short swords were a stupid waste of time, and polearms were ridiculously awkward. What good was a mace, anyway? Long sword all the way, unless I was strong enough for a two-handed sword. And then all my weapon proficiencies went into that one single weapon. I went into this in a Weapon Speed discussion already. That was thoroughly beaten to death, but with lots of great insight. I'm hoping to get something like that here.
 
I'm looking at this now with the idea that all those different weapons have different purposes. A sword isn't always the right option. Is your foe covered head to toe in plate mail? Clanging away with a sword will only get the sword broken. This is where a mace comes in handy, for instance. Or perhaps an axe, which can focus more chopping power against armor. Or a dagger for getting into the little gaps. Or armor piercing crossbow bolts. There are countless examples, each showing how what I used to think of as "stupid" weapon choices may actually be more reasonable. 
 
I'd like to promote more creative weapon specialization in my players, without it simply being an aesthetic/fetishistic choice based on what looks cool. I'm cool with looking cool, but I'd also like to have some incentive for selection of different weapons. 
 
For example, the older I get the more handy I realize an axe can be. It's a great tool in a lot of ways, and a pretty darn effective weapon too. Now I'd be more liable to grab an axe than a sword, and I'm actually trained in sword IRL. I suppose a sword can be used to break down doors or fell trees, but the axe is designed to do exactly those things. So by extension, what is it most effective against as a weapon?
 
This then raises all kinds of new questions. Are there more than the 3 damage categories listed above that would be useful without overlapping too much? Is "chopping" different from "slashing"? Is there something a sword is better at than an axe? Is some armor more or less vulnerable to a mace? 
 
The converse question, then, is what armor types pair against what damage types? Which armors are more or less vulnerable to each type of damage? Is there really a difference between getting hit fully by an axe versus a sword (I mean really, not just in terms of dice rolled)?
 
Do any of you have some ideas about armor types versus weapon types that have worked, or have you found the 3 categories listed above from Fantasy Hero 6e to be sufficient? I'm curious of your experience and insight.

Lonewolf, I see where you are coming from but you are suggesting that people that want this kind of detail in their gaming are having BadWrongFun and they should be using your judgement as to what is the right way to play their game.  Brian is exploring options here, looking for different ways of playing the game and seeing whether he (and his group) might enjoy trying something different.  I guess you have never played Chivalry and Sorcery or Bushido - the level of detail in there far exceeds anything suggested here and both games have their fans...
 
 
I would contest your claim that breaking things down prevents anything at all. I would say that you are assuming a lot from the very few words I have expounded here.  So, your player bought WF with common melee weapons.  I would ask, at that point to think about the base style of those weapons and apply that (lots of bureaucracy, not my style but one of my friends would LOVE this).  When you then spend points on a martial art, you are (by default) indicating that someone has trained you in that and you would be able to apply whatever style to the familiarity that you wanted.  I think I was at pains to say that I did not want to increase the costs on familiarities but to give them more traction in-game.  Spending points gives the player control of aspects.
 
 
I would also contest whether I am placing artifical limitations on your character's background.  Every GM is going to have thought about their campaign and how they want it to work. some limit everyman skills, some change them, some add to them.  This is no different.  If your concept is that you have trained under a master swordsman for a decade, then I am sure you would have that conversation with the GM.  I do not understand why you want to paint this idea in the wort possible context...and drag up false dichotomies to support the context.  If I had, as GM, led you to a local drunk teacher to train you with the sword then I would have done so because I was hoping to use him in some current or future plot arch.
 
 
Again, it looks as though I need to apologise for my BadWrongFun.  :-)  Really, the fun of HERO is that there are many ways to similar positions, there is no need to use that list from Fantasy HERO if I dont want to.  i might be making work for myself, but I might enjoy that and it might make my next Fantasy HERO game significantly different from my last one...
 
Think about it, change can be fun!  :-)
 

Doc
 

You can do it the complicated way or you can do something like, physical complication - falls unconscious when BODY reduced to 5 or below, remains unconscious until BODY raised/healed above 5.  I might have a triggered simulate death talent (No conscious control) to go along with that.
 
That means you dont have to worry about resurrection etc. or the conditions on the Regeneration.  Simply taking the BODY down the requisite amount leaves them inert and looking as if they are dead.  Overwhelming attacks leave them trashed beyond repair.
 
Doc

Well.  I might not allow someone to pick up blades (slashing) as a 1pt familiarity.  If I am going to run a game where detail is important then that will be reflected in how points are spent. I would allow swords (slashing).  If the person having that familiarity then picked up a rapier, he would be able to use it, though be unfamiliar (thought I might allow him to use his levels etc to reflect that he has limited familiarity, it is a sword, just not one that works like he is used to).
 
It would be an in-game matter for him to go and find someone able to teach him the fine details of using a point over using an edge.  No points spent, just a little bit of a hindrance until he gets the training in.  Hasn't cost character points and should be a good excuse to expand contacts or keep in touch with them.
 
As for getting what you pay for, you would, you would get the same for 1pt in this game than in other games but you would have to think about how the character acquired the various aspects of that skill.
 
There is nothing in what I proposed that would stop you also providing advantages to weapons...but so many people do things on a weapon by weapon basis, just thought I would suggest that some variety might be achieved by varying what armour can do against varieties of weapons.
 

Doc

I am quite big on weapon familiarities.  If you decide your weapons can be used in the three classic ways, slash, pierce and bludgeon then I think that there should be something there to reflect what the hero knows.
 
When you learn a weapon then you should note how you learned it.  WF: Sword (slash)
 
If you try to use it to bludgeon someone then you use it as if it were unfamiliar.  You should then, in game, seek out someone that can train you in the art of using your sword that way and can write on the sheet WF: Sword (slash, bludgeon).  I would not charge any additional character points but I would tell players when they purchase a weapon familiarity that they get one for free but the others are acquired in game.  
 
I don't have a great knowledge of how things might match up - my reference to begin with might be Harnmaster because they did go into a lot of detail on these points.
 
Doc

You know, when I read this my thoughts very quickly went to the fact that players are very result oriented.  I think that the way to get variety in the weapons that players choose is not to give different weapons different abilities (such as armour piercing) but instead to give armour different limited abilities.
 
So, padding provides defence against smashing weapons but only half that against slashing and a quarter against piercing ones, plate provides 50% BODY damage reduction versus slashing weapons and 75% against piercing ones.
 
If you get all detailed about the armour layered on people then PCs will spread their weapon abilities or will match up with opponents based on how they think the armour weapon match-ups will play out.
 
Doc

An easy way to do it is duplication, with the default form being the duplicates, and bought at lower power level than the merged form.  Throw some limitations on it like "can only merge limited times/duration per day" and have the duplicates be different and you get the basic effect.
 
Another is for the GM to let players build a gestalt character that they can combine into for special occasions or in certain circumstances.

My usual route for someone who wants to be able to do everything is to say yes but your "theme" is therefore versatility and because you can do everything you can do it less well than specialists, so if the usual energy blast is 10D6, every power man has 8d6 or 9d6.  If the usual force field is 20PD 20ED thenevery power man has 17 or 18.
 
everything, just a little bit less of it....
 
Doc

By the way, Steffen, welcome to the boards.

My usual route for someone who wants to be able to do everything is to say yes but your "theme" is therefore versatility and because you can do everything you can do it less well than specialists, so if the usual energy blast is 10D6, every power man has 8d6 or 9d6.  If the usual force field is 20PD 20ED thenevery power man has 17 or 18.
 
everything, just a little bit less of it....
 
Doc

An example of game play... 

Ach!  Was getting carried away with SFX (all the clairsentience in my group is airy-fairly mentalist types).
 
Obviously the defence against clairsentience (mechanically) is Darkness (clairsentience)....
 
:-)

Ach!  Was getting carried away with SFX (all the clairsentience in my group is airy-fairly mentalist types).
 
Obviously the defence against clairsentience (mechanically) is Darkness (clairsentience)....
 
:-)

This makes me sad, as I like Nolgroth -- not least for reminding me that people can vote Republican and self-identify as conservative, and not be evil or stupid. I had hoped to learn more of his views as a way to expand my own horizons.
 
Perhaps I should take a vacation from the thread myself. Happy trails, all.
 
Dean Shomshak

Hmm. I'm famous for overthinking, but...you can't get round the rules with SFX, that has it backwards: the SFX explain how the rules apply, they don't change how the rules apply.
 
If you are in a darkness to sight field, you can not use the sight group to perceive anything within or outside the darkness field, because darkness to sight is impervious to sight.  If you want a form of clairsentience that you can use from inside a darkness to sight field, and you want it to work like sight, you can't ignore the effects of Darkness by simply saying the clairsentience is 'mental'.  If you want it to work like sight but not be affected like sight, you don't use the Simulated Sense rule, you build it as a detect and then apply your clairsentience to that sense: it costs more but is more useful, which is what point-buy is all about. 
 
Now you COULD decide that the fact that the perception point is outside the darkness means that you can perceive events outside that darkness to sight field with clairsentience, as discussed above, but YOU are still inside the darkness to sight field and, if the power you have bought relies on sight (i.e. you got a cost break) you still can not see.  If you want the power to project an image straight into your brain, bypassing the usual sight system, pay the cost for something that works that way i.e. pay for a sense that would work in a darkness field and use clairsentience with that sense, with appropriate modifiers to get precisely what it to do.
 
Nor can you build Darkness to Clairsentience because Darkness works against a sense group and Clairsentience is neither a sense group itself or in a sense group that you can define Darkness as working against.
 
Of course you can ignore all this if the GM is copacetic with doing so, as always, but I think that is how the rules actually work.

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

Looked up "Rights" in Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought. (Topic is a bit late, but whatever.)
 
Scruton concludes that nobody has adequately defined "Rights," so it's probably a primary concept -- one you use to define other things, but impossible to define itself without going circular.
 
He does mention, however, that legal philosophers list it among fundamental "jural relations." I didn't understand the entry for that, but the key word, I think, is "relations." A right cannot exist without other people. If you are alone on a desert island, you have no rights in any meaningful sense because there is no one else to respect them or infringe them.
 
So no, you do not have the right to believe what you want in the privacy of your own head. Until that belief is expressed or acted upon or in some way leads to interaction with other people, "right" is an irrelevant term.
 
"Natural rights" is even slipperier. These are rights that any reasonable person must concede in order for a society to exist. Like, the right to life: If anyone can be killed by anyone else at any time, you won't have a functioning society. Property is another: The bounds of personal property, family property or community property can vary from culture to culture, but everyone grants the basic truth that some stuff is yours, or your groups, and other people can legitimately use it only with your permission. But how do you define a reasonable person?
 
Next, unless I am asked to refrain: What is socialism, really?
 
Dean Shomshak

I think my problem with antifa is when they take the the offensive. There is a need to stand up for freedom and to fight for them in the streets if necessary. You should not go looking for those fights.

I think there is a huge variety of things in what people think of as a right. We often speak of them but we rarely, and I think for very good reasons, try to define what a right is.
 
I think that it is difficult to say any right is inalienable and absolute under all circumstances. The right to think what I want had me stumped until I thought about juries. I will not be allowed to sit on some juries if I think that religion is a good reason to attack people, or that one race is inherently bad or greedy or any number of other things. So I will have my ability to sit on a jury impinged by what I think, even if I have never acted detrimentally to someone due to those beliefs.
 
I think there are likely to be other cases but this is the HERO forums dammit - we should all be bought into the no absolutes rule!!! (Or is that, in itself an absolute....)
 
 
Doc