Markdoc

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: FRPG Ideas from Hero that ain't necessarily so I regard that one as a feature, not a bug! cheers, Mark

Re: D&D twists on Fantasy Hero Ok???

Re: D&D vs. FantasyHERO vs. Palladium Yes, I suspect he is. These days it's not that hard. The 1st/2nd ed. grappling rules however were not only needlessly complex, but severely broken as well. However I used them, both as a GM (only rarely) and as a player (frequently). My character Angror Ironfist got his name for his predilection for using the unarmed combat rules to take down humanoid foes far more powerful than he was: people he could never have beaten in a straight fight, he could KO - and then coup de grace cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Umm - haven't I been saying for some time now that the rules are open to interpretation? (checks post immediately above this - yep, that's what I wrote) You can, if you like decide that your interpretation is not a house rule. For me, when I interpret the rules, I'd call that a house rule, but OK, I can see you might not agree. Now let's take your statement at face value - "move an object a foot or two at most". OK, that sounds reasonable. So in several phases, they can move it more than a hex. Even if you are using LTE, they can move it many hexes before becoming exhausted - in direct contradiction to the encumbrance rules, which state a movement rate of 0. However, you have already stated that you didn't know the encumbrance rules and didn't use them. To me, dropping out the specific (technically speaking, non-optional) rule that specifically covers the issue of how much you can lift and how far you can carry it is most definitely a houserule. Moreover that particular houserule (don't use encumbrance table) is not only common, but the simplest way to resolve the contradiction. And it is - for Pete's sake, how many times do I have to write this! - exactly what I said was required in my very first post on this subject. I don't know how to put it any simpler. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: D&D vs. FantasyHERO vs. Palladium Because nobody actually plays GURPS fantasy cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: ~ All Out War~d&d Vs Hero Vs Palladium Really? I've been running a game that's apparently impossible to actually run for years. Who knew? Now it is true that DnD has far more suport material and I actually like some of their current settings: but even when I GM'ed DnD I homebrewed all my stuff. Doing it in Hero is a little more effort, but it's not that different. Well in terms of sales, DnD certainly wins. I've nothing against it - I'm off to play DnD in about 3 hours myself. But we're only 5th/6th level currently and we're already hitting the wall where fights take longer than in my FH game where the players have been playing for far longer and so are presumably more "experienced". As to the fight it out aspect, I know several GM's that have chosen to switch from DnD to Hero and even one or two who switched back - but only briefly, and then returned to Hero. I don't know of any GMs who have chosen to switch from Hero to DnD. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: Spell cost multipliers? Use them or not Basically the cost multiplier (shouldn't that be cost divisor?) is a way of getting all the advantages of a multipower, without any of the disadvantages. To put it in perspective, using the spells straight out of the Grimoire, the 10 points mentioned earlier could buy you +4 SPD (page 13), create a wand that lets you cast 3d6 RKA fireballs plus a whole bunch of other cool stuff (page 130), bury an opponent miles below the earth's crust (page 77), create a small continuous NND does body that will soon slay the stongest, most heavily armoured warrior, (p40), summon a 395 point mummy, etc, etc. Changing the divisor will help (a lot), but it won't solve the fundamental problem. Rather than rely simply on a mechanic to restrain your mages, I agree with what others have suggested: build your magic system (and preferrably restrict the spells available) to give your magic the "flavour" you want. Various mechanics to restrict the number of times magic can be used per day/encounter is another good idea. I do use multipowers (and other frameworks) and so far have never had a problem with a "swiss army mage", even though my games tend to run for years, because of the way the system is built up and the fact that I build all the spells and control access to them. cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA Not really - your own builds at this level worked about at 10 STR more than the vastly more effective TK build, and the continuous build below about the same as a comparable entangle (though far less useful). As pointed out, the tradeoff - an extra 2 DC for less utility seems pretty reasonable. That's an amusing image - however it doesn't stop the hero running/flying up to the villain and whopping him one - as long as he doesn't use the civilian to do it with! So yes, you could ... umm .... and so? It seems like an amusing, and colorful use of the power, but hardly a killer attack. As to the "tacking someone down" sure - that doesn't affect their breakout any, so again, I'm not sure what the issue is. If they are lying down, they're at 1/2 DCV. If they are stuck down they are still at 1/2 DCV. You can stop them getting up (which is nice), but this is still less effective than TK, where you can throw them down and then stick them there As for "pointing the wrong way", I can look over my shoulder - I assume heroes can too. It might be an issue for a hero who was some reason inflexible and built with his attacks only on the front, but then he's likely got points back for such a build so it seems only fair it come into play sometimes. This really sounds like it'd only be a problem for a hero who has his attacks built into his feet. Like, ....um ... like ... actually, I can't think of any heroes who have their ranged attacks built into their feet. Likewise, the martial artist argument makes no sense: there's no movement requirement built into DCs. Or do you not let MAs use their full attacks when grabbed? No, didn't think so. Which seems fair enough - you could quibble about whether "solvent" is common, but as long as it didn't require a specific difficult-to-get solvent I'd allow it. The requirement however is common and reasonably obvious, so PCs should be able to work it out. That means Glueguy might get some mileage out of his attack the first time he used it (as long as his targets didn't know about his powers). The second time, however..... It does? How? It's not (you'll pardon the pun) sticky or continuous so it only affects the person standing in that hex when you fire it. If you fire it at the hex, you'll stick whatever's in the hex to the hex itself, but functionally that's the same - you can still only affect a single target - mass is largely irrelevant to this power (except inasmuch as it can be used to break out: It'd be a GM's call, but I'd allow a character with density increase to use his added weight to help a breakout roll if he was stuck on the ceiling, just as a flier could probably do the same with his flight). Anyone passing through the hex after you've fired off the attack will be fine. I specifically considered continuous, but as you have demonstrated, by piling the advantages on, you keep pushing the STR available down - now, you've got an attack which is similar to a 4d6/4DEF entangle - though in most circumstances, far less useful. So, OK, I concede that your various builds have demonstrated fairly convincingly that the power is not abusive. I think the key point is the one below... Now this - an æsthetic argument - I can see the point of. Looked at from that perspective, I can see how the build might appear inelegant. In this case, however I gently disagree. STR is the scale used for breaking the attack, but it is not really modified STR any more than an Entangle is. cheers, Mark

Re: Clinging, UAA Umm - why do you hate spiderman? Seriously, in a genre where we have guys who shoot "force beams" out of their eyes, I really can't see what the objection to the power to "make sticky" is: particularly since it's relatively easy to identify characters in published comics who use clinging, both in and of itself and what looks a lot like clinging UAA. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: How much XP per 'level' Well, depending on how desperate the need, the maximum he can shift is up to his maximum pushing level. In less desperate situations (using a fix to the encumbrance rules), our STR 10 guy is stuck with 100 kg. That's the most he can shift, and if he can find some way of getting it up on to his back, or similarly make it mobile, he can actually shift it as far as he can go in 20 phases (40 metres in your system, 80 metres in mine) before reaching utter exhaustion (assuming we're using LTE - otherwise he can drag or push carry it for ever). Obviously he's not going to able to hump it a mile - he's not going to make it that that with even 75 kg if you're using LTE. I take your point: in real life there will probably be things you can move a little, but not actually lift, and the system isn't granular enough to model that. My assumption is that you can drag/push double what you can lift, but that's not from the rules. Otherwise, you can move your maximum lift. Agreed. But again, this is more granularity than I really need - as stated above, while you are free to add such detail in your games, it doesn't bear on my original points at all. And I've reached the point where writing them out again feels like a waste of time. I haven't read it, but the earlier post suggest that it offers a definition different from that suggested by either the STR rules or the encumbrance rules As for my suggestion - yes, it covers these issues. Your max lift governs how much you can get up off the ground (however you do it), your END governs how long you can hold it up and your move governs how fast you can stagger, the encumbrance rules define how penalised you are and LTE defines how long you can keep all of this up before you collapse. It's not terribly granular with regard to object size and shape - but then it doesn't need to be.

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: Clinging, UAA Not really. It's only an issue if: a) you're using AP caps the character is "stuck" to something they can't break c) the character can't meaningfully react from where they are (ie: they have no ranged attacks) d) they can't use the built-in option to turn off the UAA. and e) the attacking character can afford to use his actions holding the target in place - for example if he has other comrades to attack. Now there are going to be cases where one or more of those conditions are met, in which case it could be an effective attack. There are going to be plenty where it isn't. Having actually used this attack in a game, I safely say that in most ways it's far weaker than an entangle of equivalent AP, simply because it's not continuous/uncontrollable (which entangle essentially is, by default) and it does not actively impair the target. It simply sticks him in place - as long as you concentrate on holding him there. Basically you are trading better "stickiness" for less utility - which seems fair enough to me. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Not at all - though in a superheroic game he does have an unaltered DCV and given the genre, I can live with that. Your question is specifically why I favour using the encumbrance rules - but I found that when I did, it became impossible for PCs to move objects which the STR rules said specifically they could lift and move a small distance. Hence, my use of the word "contradiction". I'm still not seeing why this is so hard to accept. For that matter, I'm not seeing what your argument is - it seems to shift from post to post. So now you are saying the reverse of the earlier posts that it's not movement but lifting, which encumbers? In that case, I'd agree - but it still doesn't address the contradiction I alluded to. Ah, but it does define the upper limit of what's possible: if you can push in emergency situations and lift 200 kg without ripping the muscles from your bones, it's a pretty solid indicator that lifting 100 kg isn't going to do that to you. No - the confusion is mine Ahem - I dashed that off and I was thinking, "2 END, 2 DCV". Sorry. Which is reasonable - but now we're moving into the realms of "well, it could be interpreted like this" - nothing I have seen anywhere in the rules suggest that if you are holding a rope for a climbing team-mate, you have to drop him "because you can only hold that much weight for an instant". To me, all this discussion seems to be adding extra layers of complication in an attempt to avoid accepting that the contradiction is there. Why not simply say "You know - there's a disconect here. It can be easily fixed by ..." Ah - briefly. How briefly? A phase? You are now saying less (though I'd hazard a guess that this is not actually how you play, since I've never seen any GM do this). I'd always assumed a minimum of a phase, and based on real life, probbaly several phases. Certainly less than a minute. Based on the STR rules as written, any of those interpretations could be valid. Hence my use of the words "Mechanics-free". Whne player are routinely performing heroic actions, falling off things and being caught, running away carrying fallen comrades, trying to hold up the descending portculis to allow a friend to wiggle underneath, etc, it's not like the issue rarely comes up. How much you can lift and how long you can hold it, is a basic issue. You seem to be deciding that PCs can only hold their weight allowance for an instant - less than a phase - in order to try and reconcile the description with the mechanics. That's fair enough I suppose, but in a game where encumbrance is in play that makes it even more confusing and reduces playability further. Because of rounding. Your 1/2" half move is just enough to get you out of your current hex into the next one. Your remaining 1/2" half move is enough to move you to the far edge of your current hex, but not into the next one. That was simple enough. Your basic point is reasonable enough, though - you can, if you hunt, find places where the rules break. This whole issue of STR and carrying capacity however was not such an attempt - it's something that came to my notice because it occurs repeatedly in-game. In heroic games players are forever trying to carry heavy objects/bodies hither and yon, lift heavy things and so on. And there's a contradiction - one which is very easily fixed - in the rules as soon as that becomes a focus of activity. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Ah - so three strides would take you about 1" - and you therefore reject the exact wording of the rules on page 250, in favour of adhering to the exact text on page 20? I used the word "contradict" advisedly, since the encumbrance rules make it plain that a normal can't move 100 kg at all, at all. Actually that's pretty close to the truth (at least when it comes to games rules). If a 4d6 EB was described as "devastating" I would not pay much attention to the description - it's a 4d6 EB, for pete's sakes. Likewise, in most settings, a 20d6 EB is devastating, regardless of the description. The consequences are what happens. If a 4d6 neural blaster is described as "4d6 NND: incapacitates target with excruciating pain leading rapidly to unconsciousness" then I wouldn't insist that a Brick with CON 20 was "incapacitated by pain" on being shot - though I'd tell him he felt pain. The 16 STUN he takes is the consequence - the descriptor is mechanics-free and there for flavour. Same for the STR rules. The mechanics-free descriptor suggests minimal, hindered movement. The consequences (ie: rules) specify no hindrance (DCV unaffected in superheroic games) and no movement at all. So the consquences in the rules as written are actually laid out if you use LTE and encumbrance - they're punitive at the heroic level and trivial at the superheroic level. Once you start altering them - as I have done, or making up new consequences as you suggested with muscle-tearing, then you are in house rule territory. Which is (sigh) what I said in my first post. And I admit, had the encumbrance rules not existed - and made the in-game consequences clear - I would probably have used the descriptor text as written and just house-ruled my way through questions of END-use, LTE and "how far you can move X". cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Sigh. All right. Let's try this, nice and simple. Normal. 10 STR, SPD2, REC 4. In a superheroic game, using encumbrance. Picks up 100 kg. Stands there. He is is using 2 END per turn, recovers 4. Why exactly does he have to drop the object? He has plenty of END, it's not more than his STR. How is this "rules wrong?" If you are using Encumbrance (and I admit I have never seen a Superheroic game that did - apparently, including yours and presumably Hugh's) he can't move, but he can stand there and his OCV/DCV is unaffected. Those are the rules, as written and to me they don't scan with "barely lift, stagger a few steps and drop" because the way they actually work is "pick up, hold, dodging and attacking is unaffected but can't move at all". So yeah - whether you use LTE and encumbrance or not, the game mechanics don't reflect the description very well. No, I asserted two things. First: that it gave no details: "stagger a few steps" - how many steps? 2? 10? 50? "Barely lift" Barely lift how high? Knee height? Waist height? Shoulder height? You are suggesting that shoulder height is fine with you as long as he doesn't move (it is with me too - and pretty much every other GM I can think of) but it matches poorly with "barely lift". Second, that it contradicted the other rules. If using encumbrance rules "a few steps translates to "no movement at all" since that states pretty clearly that out prototypical normal has a total move of -2". If I'm wrong, please explain how "a few steps" (it takes only 3-4 to make 1" movement") squares with the -8" movement allowance given under the encumbrance rules. Really? You have just indicated that you didn't use the encumbrance rules in your games (otherwise you'd know them and the degree to which they are optional), and in the post prior that, suggested that actually you don't have a problem with the normal lifting 100 kg onto his shoulders or even over his head, suggesting that it's the movement that's the problem and that inflicts the penalties.... though you don't use those rules yourself..... In other words, you're doing what virtually every GM does - using the game mechanics - not the rules as written. Now I *have* used the rules - and it rapidly became clear that I had to change one or the other, because you can't use both: they contradict each other. Or does the description of STR have to be read literally but the -8" to movement not have to be? That's a separate - but related - issue to exactly what the penalties are - yes, they are too punitive, but it doesn't take much to fix that problem. As it stands, I decreased the penalties on encumbrance slightly (but didn't remove them) and ignored the descriptive text on STR. If the mechanics are done right, you don't HAVE to have the description because the mechanics enforce behaviour consistent with it. As it stands (in my game) the encumbrance (and LTE) rules now enforce the "you can't carry that very far, or very fast" aspect, and also make using your full STR for lifting a bit problematic - not only do you get exhausted quickly, but you are are reduced CV and reduced movement - in other words, getting rapidly exhausted and staggering along. I also don't have to worry about those ill-defined things like "barely lift" or "a few steps" or "stagger" since a simple change specifies all of those things. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' Heh - I used to work in a warehouse and I move weights when needed in the gym. My experience is the exact opposite. Getting a 70 kg roll of linoleum up onto my shoulder required far more effort than walking with it once it was actually up there. Same for weights - getting them up and balanced on my should requires more effort than walking away with them once there. followed by Which, according to what you are writing now, is 100% true, since you are staying that the encumbrance rules only kick when you are moving. Of course, of you take this approach, someone carrying a heavy load can improve their DCV massively by, uuhh, stopping moving. Isn't that kind of weird? No, the original post stated - and I've quoted it above - that as it stands, a normal can pick up and hold - essentially for as long as he likes (even if you use the optional LTE rules) - 100 kg. You have just agreed with that and said as long as he doesn't move, that's fine, since hey, encumbrance only kicks in when he moves. So the original comment that "that's not how the rules work" appears to be accurate. If you are using the encumbrance rules then the ability to hold up heavy weights for ever changes. They would rapidly force a person just holding his maximum weight to drop it, and if you add the optional LTE rules he'll get exhausted. Trouble is, if you use those rules, even people using casual STR rapidly become exhausted. And as I did to Hugh, I'd suggest you read them, because there's nothing in there about them only applying if you move: the only place moving is mentioned is in the section on effect of encumbrance on movement: not on END use, not on OCV/DCV/DEX rolls. Now as noted, you can get around these problems and contradictions by houseruling the encumbrance rules which - surprise, surprise - is what I originally suggested. cheers, Mark

Re: How much XP per 'level' They are optional in that they are explicitly recommended not for use in Superheroic games - meaning they will be in use in some games and not in others. Or does the concept that the rules are all the words written in the description not apply in this case? True - however, the encumbrance rules say nothing about movement being required for extra END use of DCV penalties - even while standing still it costs him extra END and also reduces his DCV to have a heavy weight in his arms (which makes sense: it's not like an object only has weight if you move). So it's not actually effortless (unless you define "effortless" as "involving significant impairment"). And we'll skip over the slightly bizarre image you have painted that it's easier to hold a weight over your head than carry it on your back. Together with the amusing image of someone shattering their bones and tearing their muscles by lifting 100 kg, I think you guys are reaching the point where your arguments are starting to trip over each other in a desperate attempt not to actually adress the rules. Agreed - this is one of the problems with the encumbramce rules I didn't bother to note - but in answer to the statement above that one, "can't move at all" and "can't move out of the hex" come to the same thing when trying to actually move things over more than a single phase (and a total move of -2" would certainly imply to me "can't move at all") It isn't - but then that's neither what I wrote, nor what the rules state. A normal lifting 50kg has his DCV reduced by three to a total DCV of -1 (and yes, I know he can't actually go below 0, so maybe I should have written DCV 0 - either way, he remains a sitting duck)

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: How much XP per 'level'

Re: ~ All Out War~d&d Vs Hero Vs Palladium Actually we played it a bit. Compared to AD&D which came out not long before, it wasn't a bad game at all for the early 80's. When I look at it today, I think it's not a bad game - for the early 80's. cheers, Mark