I wonder how many have stopped using Champions/HERO for similar reasons to this?

[Hugh Neilson]

La Rose I see your point. I would say though that genre conventions and simulation outweigh common sense in these rulings-mmv and imho of course : )

Sure. And in genre, I see Stretching characters reel in people they have grabbed, but I can't recall ever seeing them reposition Grabbed targets at will. So genre simulation gets the same ruling La Rose suggests, not that espoused by Balabanto.

[Ninja-Bear]

In my experience too the term "partialy" or "has some elements of" can be nebulous.

[Tasha]

I just think that the rules for Stretching are crystal clear as to what you can do with a Grabbed person. It says that you can drag a person straight back to you, it doesn't say that there's any lateral movement allowed (ex If you throw the grabbed person). It also takes time to move the grabbed person anywhere from 1/2 to a full phase (unless the movement is less than 25% of the total stretching then within that small radius it's a 0 phase).

[Balabanto]

Sure. And in genre, I see Stretching characters reel in people they have grabbed, but I can't recall ever seeing them reposition Grabbed targets at will. So genre simulation gets the same ruling La Rose suggests, not that espoused by Balabanto.

Not at will. You still can only do it on your DEX or with a held action. You can't just up and do this as a freebie. That IS ridiculous.

"

The point is basically "If I can squeeze bob or throw bob, why can't I just move Bob around within my zone of reach? If I can be in hand to hand combat with bob, and grab bob, what is to prevent me from moving him three hexes to the right?" Well, obviously, if I can't lift bob, because he has 10 levels of DI, this tactic will fail. The grabber does have to be able to lift/carry/move the target. The basic functions of the STR chart still apply to this maneuver. If I can only lift 200 pounds and Captain Obesity weighs 2000, he is moved zero hexes!

[Greywind]

Because the rules specifically say "drag towards you"?

[Balabanto]

This is why we reason from effect in Champions. Telekinetically generated Hands function differently from the amazing Bungee Cord dude. Not everyone can and should be able to do this.

[Tasha]

Not at will. You still can only do it on your DEX or with a held action. You can't just up and do this as a freebie. That IS ridiculous.

"

The point is basically "If I can squeeze bob or throw bob, why can't I just move Bob around within my zone of reach? If I can be in hand to hand combat with bob, and grab bob, what is to prevent me from moving him three hexes to the right?" Well, obviously, if I can't lift bob, because he has 10 levels of DI, this tactic will fail. The grabber does have to be able to lift/carry/move the target. The basic functions of the STR chart still apply to this maneuver. If I can only lift 200 pounds and Captain Obesity weighs 2000, he is moved zero hexes!

 

You can't go from saying that 6e is stupid because of a rule that you are not following, to saying that 6e is stupid because it doesn't allow the thing that you think is stupid and unbalanced. The fact is that Stretching only allows you to pull targets to yourself. It doesn't allow you to shift them from side to side (ex if you throw them with strength, but that's different).

 

This is been in the rules since 5er. It may have started as an errata thing (5e had a LONG LONG set of errata hosted here on Herogames.com). It was made official in the 5th edition Revised edition and is also part of 6e. and Champions Complete.

[Hyper-Man]

On a side note, all this rules debate is kind of proving the original point* from the rpgnet thread that inspired this thread.

 

*re: HERO

 

My issue with it is this: It's become too much for me to handle. Both as a player and a GM.

 

 

[Balabanto]

You can't go from saying that 6e is stupid because of a rule that you are not following, to saying that 6e is stupid because it doesn't allow the thing that you think is stupid and unbalanced. The fact is that Stretching only allows you to pull targets to yourself. It doesn't allow you to shift them from side to side (ex if you throw them with strength, but that's different).

 

This is been in the rules since 5er. It may have started as an errata thing (5e had a LONG LONG set of errata hosted here on Herogames.com). It was made official in the 5th edition Revised edition and is also part of 6e. and Champions Complete.

 

Stop putting words in my mouth. It isn't civil.

 

The fact also exists that I can, as part of my action, move a target to any hex adjacent to me without stretching if I grab him. So if I buy stretching, my character suddenly loses his elbows and all forms of side to side movement? The fact is that you're only reading the power, and not the combat rules governing grab and reach. You're literally saying "If I have growth, I cannot choose into which hex I place the target," because as far as granting reach is concerned, Growth and Stretching are the same. The only thing reach does is change your Hand to Hand combat distance. You're also not covering the part about what indirect means for stretching. (I.E. I can stretch my head around the corner, look in a window, target an attacker and pull that character out of the room on the other side, assuming my casual STR will allow me to do so. Furthermore, I can stop the use of stretching at any point along that distance, effectively repositioning him.)

 

Plus, now we get to another reason why you can't possibly be correct. It leads to min-maxing, where I estimate the distances that my fellow heroes move in a turn, and buy just enough stretching to make sure that when I reach out to grab someone as you suggest, and pull them towards me, that the target can't possibly make it to me with the amount of stretching I have. Rules shouldn't be there to encourage rules lawyers to abuse them. And that's what your interpretation does.

 

Remember that characteristics create the body of your character, skills are what your character is skilled at, and powers modify what your character can do in combat.

 

The combat rules, on the other hand, work the same for everyone. That's why your interpretation makes no sense.

 

This is why we reason from effect in Champions. You're going to have to be content to believe what you believe, and I'm going to have to be content to believe what I believe.

[Greywind]

Looking at both the powers and the combat rules, you are still limited to "adjacent". Not anywhere you please.

[Balabanto]

To what are you "Adjacent" That's what reach governs. You are considered adjacent to any location within your reach. That's the point. The target is not necessarily considered "adjacent" to you. But you are "adjacent" to him, because you can reach him.

[薔薇語]

Looking at both the powers and the combat rules, you are still limited to "adjacent". Not anywhere you please.

 

 

Just to make sure you and I are reading the exact same text, can you cite where you were looking to find that? And was it in 6e1 or Champs Complete? 

 

La Rose. 

[Greywind]

To what are you "Adjacent" That's what reach governs. You are considered adjacent to any location within your reach. That's the point. The target is not necessarily considered "adjacent" to you. But you are "adjacent" to him, because you can reach him.

 

Within reach is not necessarily adjacent. Adjacent is considered next to. In game terms this would imply the hex where you are situated, meaning that there are 6 adjacent hexes/character has 1" reach. Stretching changes reach, but it does not change the definition of adjacent. Using Growth, the character has a bigger footprint, giving more area to be adjacent to, and also increasing his reach. But nowhere does that change the definition of adjacent to anything that can be reached.

[Balabanto]

Why don't we try this another way, since I seem to be having so much trouble explaining this?

 

I grab you. I do not throw you or what have you. You are grabbed. I squeeze you, or not, it doesn't matter. If I don't throw you, or release you, or pull you/move you indirectly using stretching, my action ends. The character is still grabbed.

 

See, this is the part people missed, I think. You can pull him to you as part of a grab, which is a full phase action. However, if not, attacking ends your action.

 

On my next phase, I use the grabbed character as a club, also using stretching. I smash him into character C.

 

Where does he wind up?

 

Is he adjacent to character C? Is he adjacent to me? Well, logically, he's just been repositioned, because attacking ends your action. So as far as the combat rules are concerned, he's adjacent to the position where Character C may or may not be. (Possible Knockback)

 

However, I did not pull the character towards me. Nor did I only move him. I used the grabbed character as a weapon. So why is moving someone around (Less valuble and powerful) not within the rules according to this interpretation when beating the snot out of Character C (More powerful and MUCH more valuble) is?

[Greywind]

Apples and oranges and straight on to fruit salad.

[Ninja-Bear]

Fwiw Balbanto I believe that the adjacent hex would dependant on the hex where the hand is from the grab. I.e. I stretch 8" in a striaght line, I grab and throw. The adjacent hex is at the 8" mark. I could see to that the strecther doesn't have to release the hold. If the strecher decides to pull the grabee back 4" then again at the 4" mark is where I would judge the adjacent hex to be. Now if the grabber stretched 3" forward and then 3" to the right, when he throws a person the adjacent hex is along this path. What I can't see is allowing a strecther to grab someone 4" from the front and 2" to the left and moving him 1" behind and 4" to the left.

 

Even though growth has stretching and some indirect properties, its indirect is based on height and an arc that height gives you where the typical strecthing does not grant though imagine full indirect would.

 

So how about battlefield stretching: TK (based on useres STR) physical manifestation (useres DEF) limited range (based on strecthing) lock out (no other strecth powers) limited to useres limbs.

[Hugh Neilson]

The fact also exists that I can, as part of my action, move a target to any hex adjacent to me without stretching if I grab him.

Page cite, please. I'm looking at 6e and I don't see that. I see the ability to Squeeze for normal STR damage or throw, or Slam. All three require normal attack actions after the phase in which the target is grabbed. I also see that the Grabber cannot normally use combat maneuvers other than Strike against targets he has Grabbed. Shove is a combat maneuver other than Strike.

 

You can drag him along when you move. I can see allowing the character to Stretch his arms out to "move" the target, but given I can only Shove him 1 meter per 5 STR used, I am unconvinced that Grabbing him while stretched should allow for greater repositioning. It should allow maintaining the Grab, unless he's shoved out of my maximum Stretching distance. That's from reading Grab in 6e. The 6e rules discuss Grabbing and Moving Objects in considerable detail, and I would suggest the specifics of "grabbing and moving objects" for stretching would override any more general rule.

 

So if I buy stretching, my character suddenly loses his elbows and all forms of side to side movement?

So if I have the ability to stand unharmed in the heart of the sun, I can still be burned by a flamethrower?

 

The fact is that you're only reading the power, and not the combat rules governing grab and reach.

Would you like to quote the rules you are reading? You seem to expect us to take it on faith that yours is the only possible valid rules interpretation.

[Christopher R Taylor]

There's a difference between what you can do as a free redirect after you've grabbed someone, and what you can do with them on your phase as a combat move.  The free redirect is very limited and specific.

[Tasha]

Why don't we try this another way, since I seem to be having so much trouble explaining this?

 

I grab you. I do not throw you or what have you. You are grabbed. I squeeze you, or not, it doesn't matter. If I don't throw you, or release you, or pull you/move you indirectly using stretching, my action ends. The character is still grabbed.

 

See, this is the part people missed, I think. You can pull him to you as part of a grab, which is a full phase action. However, if not, attacking ends your action.

 

On my next phase, I use the grabbed character as a club, also using stretching. I smash him into character C.

 

Where does he wind up?

 

Is he adjacent to character C? Is he adjacent to me? Well, logically, he's just been repositioned, because attacking ends your action. So as far as the combat rules are concerned, he's adjacent to the position where Character C may or may not be. (Possible Knockback)

 

However, I did not pull the character towards me. Nor did I only move him. I used the grabbed character as a weapon. So why is moving someone around (Less valuble and powerful) not within the rules according to this interpretation when beating the snot out of Character C (More powerful and MUCH more valuble) is?

Actually you can only pull grabbed targets to you with grab. So if you retracted your grabbee he's in the stretcher's home hex. You can't then propell them into another person using stretching, since you are not allowed to push the grabbed target anywhere.

 

I would agree that a PC who is dragging a target toward themselves COULD drop them off in any hex that is in a direct line between the hex the grab took place in and the Stretcher's Starting Hex. Since again the rules clearly state in both 5er, 6e1 and CC that you can only drag a target to yourself.

 

Oh and no you can't just put a grabbed person in any hex once they are grabbed, you can Slam them into a hex as part of the initial grab (IIRC you lose the grabbed state if you do so)

[Christopher R Taylor]

Hero has gotten more complicated as time has gone on but the 6th edition suffers from a greatly increased perception of complexity, I believe.

 

One reason is the vast size of the original books: it gave a reputation of being a hugely complex, massive set of rules that has lingered past the release of Champions Complete.  Enough on this has already been said.  

 

Second, I believe that the attempt to answer any potential objection and handle any expected rules confusion with specific examples, rulings, and carefully crafted write up leads easily to the conclusion that instead of the GM deciding it or taking the simplest route, people should look up the exact place in the book.

 

I fell prey to this last bit pretty heavily.  9 times out of 10 when I do this, I already knew but I looked it up anyway, uncertain with the new edition if I'd missed something or trying to take advantage of the depth of the rule system.  When before I'd either hand wave it or have them roll something appropriate, now I was looking things up.  It gave the players (especially the new player from England) the impression that the Hero system was more like cramming to pass the bar than a game.

 

I've since stopped and gone back to my gut and what I recall from the rules.  Later I can look something up but in the game, I go with what works best and easiest.

 

So Hero 6 feels more complex when all it is is more precise.  But that precision is tending to make people more cautious and meticulous, I think.  And that's giving Hero an unfortunate reputation.

[薔薇語]

While I think there is that perception about HERO (Pre 6th and now with 6th), it is a perception that is not that objective. I think it suffers more from confirmation bias than actually being overly complicated. For example, I have had to re-read whole spells, general references to spells in general, and then countless specifics about other spells, races, classes, etc for DnD games. Indeed, it was that extreme need to cross reference everything that annoyed me so much and one of the reasons why I like HERO system so much. While it may take some getting used to, in general I can rely on the fact that I needn't always be cross checking things across several sections of several books to just make sure how two things interact. Rather everything (once built) is nicely and clearly labeled and is easy to account for. 

As to the needing to reference how certain maneuvers and such work in game, I can understand your plight. I can understand how that would negatively affect the views of new players. But I think that has to do more with your comfort with making on the spot decisions than with the system. As you said, you have taken a different approach and from context, I would assume it has had positive results. I think decisiveness along with a willingness to accept mistakes is best. 

 

La Rose. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Really that is mostly what it comes down to, a sense of perception.  I mean the same guy who claims to "f'in love science" and can do trig whines that Hero has "too much math" in it.  As I said, its the sense that things are more complex rather than the reality of it, but I believe the way to get past that is with the "x Complete" approach that shows the game stripped down and lean then the rules show how to answer specific questions and confusion that might come up, if need be.

[Pegasus40218]

While I think there is that perception about HERO (Pre 6th and now with 6th), it is a perception that is not that objective. I think it suffers more from confirmation bias than actually being overly complicated. For example, I have had to re-read whole spells, general references to spells in general, and then countless specifics about other spells, races, classes, etc for DnD games. Indeed, it was that extreme need to cross reference everything that annoyed me so much and one of the reasons why I like HERO system so much. While it may take some getting used to, in general I can rely on the fact that I needn't always be cross checking things across several sections of several books to just make sure how two things interact. Rather everything (once built) is nicely and clearly labeled and is easy to account for. 

 

As to the needing to reference how certain maneuvers and such work in game, I can understand your plight. I can understand how that would negatively affect the views of new players. But I think that has to do more with your comfort with making on the spot decisions than with the system. As you said, you have taken a different approach and from context, I would assume it has had positive results. I think decisiveness along with a willingness to accept mistakes is best. 

 

La Rose. 

 

Conceptually, I agree; however, as someone trying to convert (and drag my gaming group along with me) from systems such as D&D and Pathfinder, my experience has been that the players (admittedly, "rules lawyers", at least in my group anyway)  have an expectation that the rules will define unambiguously what can and can't be done.  This seems to be born from a lack of trust in their GMs such that, rather than allowing a GM to make a ruling during the game, they'd rather dig through the books and argue for 30 minutes in order to get a +1 advantage or some such.  It's sad, but that seems to be how many of the people trying to convert from other systems tend to look at and handle things...at least, in my experience...

[薔薇語]

Conceptually, I agree; however, as someone trying to convert (and drag my gaming group along with me) from systems such as D&D and Pathfinder, my experience has been that the players (admittedly, "rules lawyers", at least in my group anyway)  have an expectation that the rules will define unambiguously what can and can't be done.  This seems to be born from a lack of trust in their GMs such that, rather than allowing a GM to make a ruling during the game, they'd rather dig through the books and argue for 30 minutes in order to get a +1 advantage or some such.  It's sad, but that seems to be how many of the people trying to convert from other systems tend to look at and handle things...at least, in my experience...

 

That seems rough. From my  personal experience, I know it can be rough. And more accurately, from my personal experience as a rules lawyer type in DnD, I most certainly understand how rough it can be. I didn't spend all that time looking things up because someone posed a question to me as a GM, rather the opposite where I was going to make a suggestion to the GM about X or Y obscure statement on pages A, B, C and indexed in Book D. And the fact that such strategies were available was an issue. 

 

In general, 5e (my first experience with HERO) had some loopiness. Fred was better and alleviated some confusions that would creep up. And my play experience with 6ed is non-existent but the RAW have been fairly easy to grasp. While I still get my Rules Lawyer twitch when I am making characters, I am generally glad to know that short of min-maxing things it isn't a very fruitful strategy in HERO because it has fairly clear rules on a variety of subjects. It really does take rather extreme situations for such things to crop up. 

 

And if you are running into troubles with that in your switch to HERO and did not encounter it with your experience with DnD then maybe there is a greater issue at hand. I know that, for example, when people are first learning a new system it takes time for things to become natural to them. It takes time for the rules to flow out of them easily. Thus people in these situations will have views of how things work that are not well grounded in the actual mechanics and this leads to conflicts. But these are not the conflicts of "HERO is complicated" but rather "Learning a new system can be tedious". Perhaps it is best to intro the system in minor chunks where the players are not aware of the whole. 

 

When I was first introed into the system, Dr. Anomaly didn't give me or my fellows the book. We walked through character creation the same way we would walk through a brain storming session for a book - we talked and someone took notes (the GM). He later created the character sheets for us and then we were put into a simple game set up with a simple fight sequence. Since we had limited knowledge of the variety of things available we stuck to what we actually knew was possible. If we wanted to do more it was incumbent upon us to describe in words what we wanted to do rather than stating the in game mechanics we wanted to execute. All in all, this led us to understand the system in bite sized chunks before taking the dive into the deep end. We had the tools needed to understand the general mechanics before being asked to understand the detailed ones. Perhaps that can be a strategy you use with your current and future gaming groups. 

 

La Rose. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

I agree, I think the class specific books and all those extra rules have led some people to fixate on finding the perfect combination of rules and tricks using the books instead of playing the game.  I think MMOGs have contributed to that too, with min maxing using spreadsheets and real time calculating programs to maximize DPS.