Markdoc

Re: When sfx lie I think I've worked out why High DCV as a mechanism for toughness offends me at such a basic level - it's the very binary nature of the result. Either you are completely unaffected by an attack, or you're totally soft and squishy. With DCV, there's no actual toughness if hit. In contrast, mechanisms like DR or PD may never make you 100% certain you can't be hurt - but they will always make you "hard to hurt", apart from exotic attacks. So DCV works fine for an active defence (I liked the IPE/Speedster example) but I stand by my gut feeling - it's terribly poor match for a passive defence like "hard to hurt" cheers, Mark

Re: What Have You Watched Recently? Dunno if you've read the manga, but in addition to gory death it also pushes the line on terms of "adult situations" for something that isn't explicitly adult content. I inherited the manga from Kath's sister who found it too violent/gross for her taste, and I'm actually kind of liking it. cheers, Mark

Re: "Vorpal Longsword" Your point's a good one, but you also need to look at Defences - in a game where most players have 6-8 rDEF (or more) via armour being able to dish out BOD in excess of that is very useful. But on the whole, you're probably right: for a -2, "any head shot" is likely better. cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie Well, it doesn't work one me - but otherwise ... yeah. I think you've summed up what I've been trying to say pretty well. I agree with your strict reading of SFX, as well (it's why I've used the phrase "power set" instead), but I understand that it's being used a bit more flexibly here. The Thing for example is "invulnerable" - or "nigh-invulnerable" because he has a really dense, rock-like body (or skin ... I've never been really sure...). So his SFX is really "dense rock-like body" but more loosely, you could say his schtick or SFX is "invulnerable to normal attacks". And really, my point, was that buying up his DCV because "normal attacks never hurt him" (because they never hit him) is actually a pretty poor mapping of mechanics to SFX/concept. I think you'd agree. To make some comparisons .... The Thing gets (for example) hit by a bus (AoE attack) wielded by another Brick. High PD Thing is a bit mussed up. High DCV Thing is a red stain. The Thing gets tagged (for real) by a lucky to hit roll. High PD thing is a bit mussed up (and also takes knockback into a wall, making a hole in it). High DCV Thing - if he survives - requires emergency care from Reed Richards. The Thing gets "hit" by an EB with a normal to hit roll. High PD Thing is a bit mussed up and takes some knockback. High DCV thing ... is completely unaffected. What happened to the EB that "hit" him? Does it just stop in mid-air?* Basically, although the two builds have the same general concept "Hard to hurt" and might otherwise look similar - or even share SFX, they play totally differently. High DCV is a perfectly feasible defence, but as a model for "really hard to hurt" ... well, basically, it sucks. cheers, Mark * If so, who needs missile deflection when high DCV does the same job more cheaply, more effectively and doesn't require an action - at the same time as it provides extra DCV?

Re: When sfx lie Ummmm. No. The original post - and most of the posts since (certainly all of mine), have been discussing whether the concept "invulnerable" can be well-simulated by the mechanic "high DCV". Or to put it another way whether the SFX "Can shrug off damage from attacks" can be modeled well by the concept that attacks that hit, do no damage because games'-mechanic wise, they actually miss. There hasn't really been a discussion here about "how to model invulnerability". In general, neither Sean, who first posed the question, nor myself, nor indeed most of the posters are particularly discussing "how to model invulnerability" in this thread - it was only given as an example of SFX mapping poorly to powerset. I gave another example - super-running defined as "flight" - in an attempt to make that clear. You really do seem to be having a different discussion to everyone else. cheers, Mark

Re: Firearms in fantasy? The shock effect might have been almost as important as the bullet in the days of early firearms on our world - but I question how much shock value an arquebus would have in a world where overt magic (like say, lightning bolts or fireballs) exists. cheers, Mark

Re: "Vorpal Longsword" And just to add a third variety, I made a vorpal sword thusly: 1d6 HKA + 2d6 HKA (only if location 5 struck, -2), both OAF, real weapon. 15 real points. It'll cut like a normal sword, but if you hit the neck, odds are it'll take the head clean off. I didn't add a STR min, since it's a magic sword and thus feels "light and easy to use", thus allowing it to do respectable damage even though it's only 1d6. cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie In your case, perhaps. Not mine, however, nor as far as I can see, anybody else's. It's already been mentioned at least twice that damage negation can cause a similar effect.

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie I think you are missing my point: my comments are not about setting a cost for absolute advantages - indeed I have tried to stay away from that discussion, as it has little or nothing to do with Sean's OP. Let's try it another way. Generally invulnerability is though of as "really tough to hurt". I'm not fussed about NND, or AVLD or Force field or any sort of mechanism at all, I'm just thinking concept here. In contrast, not getting hit by attacks is generally thought of as being "hard to hit". Again, no mechanisms here, just general concepts: your SFX could be entirely unrelated to dexterity - you could be nimble, precognitive, out of phase or something that affects targetting you - whatever. Now when it comes to mechanisms, "really tough to hurt" maps pretty simply to high defences. It doesn't actually matter what those defences are (Armour, rPD, DR, whatever) - it's still fairly simple mapping of concept. Likewise "hard to hit" maps pretty readily to DCV - conceptually. Now in theory, you can define "hard to hurt" as actually being "hard to hit" and vice versa ... but it's a poor mapping of SFX to powerset, as the various examples discussed here have so clearly shown. cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie Right. That's one approach - but now you are saying that by defining his levels in DCV with a certain special effect , he ALSO gets free levels in ECV or extra free PD. As GM, of course, you can do anything you want, but you are now playing a game very different from the majority of Hero system players. SFX is supposed to described what you power looks like, but the mechanics describe how it works, more or less. You're suggesting instead that clever definition of SFX can net you major, quantifiable advantages in how your power set functions.

Re: Historical Colonization versus Historical Navies and Future Spaceships In the 1500's though, the European fishing fleets were primarily littoral: they weren't fishing the rich beds just off the cast of North America. They weren't even fishing far down the coast of Africa. A better analogy would be if we had lots of space ships in-system. cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie

Re: Faith, Courage and Humble Obedience For my games, faith is simply something you have or not - at high levels it's worth a disadvantage/complication, which will (properly played) inhibit your ability to do certain forbidden things or encourage you to do certain other things, but also armour you against temptations/mind control to do those things that are forbidden. As for faith-based magic, that's a power skill roll. A mage who learns spells by rote and diligent study might base his power skill roll off INT - a priest who runs on faith might base it on EGO or PRE. That's up to the GM or religion in question. Shucks, if you were priest of the god of might, the GM might even base it on STR: the stronger you are in faith the stronger you actually become. Converting the heathen by persuasion is simply a social skill roll (oratory/persuasion, etc) which may or may not be affected by divine assistance (floating in the air radiating a holy radiance that heals the sick is likely to give you a bonus when you try to persuade people that you have divine backing). Of course, it's an open question of how much "faith" means when people can manifest such powers. At that point it becomes more like "knowledge". cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie Yep, I understand that part - it's just that DCV is a really poor gauge for that purpose, since it only protects you against attacks that you can react to (ie have normal DCV against) and which are not area effect. As I've noted, I'm not keen on the whole idea of "invulnerability" in my games, but if a GM were to allow it, then working out how much it would take to cver any reasonable damage and setting the cost there seems to be a reasonable approach. But if you were to price it, you are going to get more consistent results using the tricked out desolid, or lots of rDEF/DEF to gauge where the price should be. DCV is going to give you a very different number in most cases (though here, we've slipped from discussing SFX to discussing mechanisms ) cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie I'd be more inclined to watch the game, though! cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie The difficulty is the poor match of SFX to concept. "Wait, to hurt invulnerable guy I should use an attack that does less damage (for example AoE)?" I don't think it that people cannot grasp the concept of the GM explaining it's a miss that looks like a hit - it's more that " a miss that looks like a hit" is a poor mach for "invulnerable" - conceptually. "He dodges aside so that the hit barely grazes him" or "He stops the hit with his shield" both evoke the response - "I need to hit more accurately" or "I need to get around his defence". "You hit him fair and square in the eyeball and it does nothing" - even if the players understand "it was actually a miss" evokes a response which is not in-game appropriate (in this case "use an attack that doesn't target DCV"). cheers, Mark

Re: When sfx lie

Re: When sfx lie I tend to agree with Sean: SFX must be appropriate to the powerset. That still leaves you a wide degree of latitude. DCV as "roll with the punch" or even "actively block the incoming attack" (a la Darth Vader with a blaster shot to the hand) I'd be good with. DCV as invulnerabilty, I'm not going to accept, simply because it fails to map on so many levels - AoE, grabs, entangles, damage shields, even simple falling damage. This is not about the sort of internal consistency that Doc Democracy was talking about. I wouldn't allow "invulnerable" in my games, but if a GM said "Buying r30 PD and r30 ED is enough to make you invulnerable" I'd have no real beef with that. Defence maps pretty well to "invulnerable". A tricked-out desolid would be OK. But DCV simply doesn't map well to the SFX described, in this case. cheers, Mark

Re: Firearms in fantasy?

Re: Talk to me about: Haymaker For Bricks I've always been fond of it when you've actually already grabbed your opponent. Think of it as the "lift him over your head and then swing him really, really fast down onto something hard.". If you already got' em, they're not getting away. Alternately, hold your action and then let 'em have it just after they've attacked you. No aborting to nuthin' when they've just acted. cheers, Mark

Re: HERO SYSTEM MARTIAL ARTS -- What Do *You* Want To See? No! Key Lime! Point: as a GM I wouldn't be going for this. Tight group is martial arts (skills) or martial arts (multipower) not both.