Doc Democracy

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects Christopher, it is in the area where it gets more difficult that Hugh and I are operating in this thread. Do you see some utility in having the option of covering the less common but possible attacks the character may face that he should have some resistance to?

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects So. we get to buy five points of defence for five points and the possibility that there are other effects that it might work against for free? Hugh had proposed that 1 point of effect defence would cost one point but would not provide generic defence. So a character might purchase 15 PD, 15 ED and 10 fire defence. When attacked by an energy beam (ED) he would have 15 points to defend against the damage, when attacked by a flame thrower he would have 25 points to defend against the damage. Cost - 40 points Your proposal would cost 80 points to get the same benefits but would also provide 25 points against the energy beam and 10 points against a range of other generic effects. Is that how you see it?? Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects OK. I have read Damage Negation properly now. As Hugh pointed out, in its base form it is limited, like ED, to one attack form (ED, PD etc). However, like Ghost Angel says, you can buy it to cover a whole special effect (like Fire) rather than limit it to an attack form. However, that does still not do what I am proposing. You say it sounds like I have never heard of Only versus xx attacks at -1/2. I am not looking to limit the defence, I am looking to advantage my defence. I do not want to have to think about the attack forms I need to defend against nor do I want to think about the powers used to attack me. ED is limited to those attacks built to target ED, Damage Negation, even in SFX form, only defends against a limited number of attacks (flash is not included, entangle is not included and most drains are not included). I want to buy 20 points of defence and advantage them such that it works against ED as normal and additionally limits the effects of all attacks that have a Fire SFX. Now that I think about it, I think that if someone does purchase this advantage then they should have to purchase it for all defences that they do buy - this avoids any danger of choosing the lowest defence they have to get the universal SFX coverage... Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects Who said that protection from being burned protected you from being hypnotised by flames. If a character has a concept of having added protection from anything with a flame SFX then it is possible that is because they have some control over flames (like a fire elemental or fire mage). If someone uses that SFX against them then that same control should be able to disrupt those flames to provide a defence. Yup. Just making the extreme example of saying that adding a rule does not always equal less fun. If this was true then HERO would definitely be less fun than most games out there because it is definitely one of the most rules heavy examples out there... I am going to have to go read Damage Negation - am not well up on the 6th edition additions... Doc

Re: need more than plot hooks! My problem was always the big bad guy. It is difficult to get the balance right for a villain that can take on the whole group and yet be vulnerable to them enough to be taken down at the end of the day. It is also difficult to avoid taking people out of the fight too early and have them sitting on the sidelines through the final battle. Very unsatisfying for a player. Ultimately it came down to judicious use of damage reduction rather than defences, those defences that I did use being ablative and having things that the heroes could do to provide themselves with advantages in the fight (added defence or offence always helps). I also tended to spread the big bad guys attacks to ensure they hit (with less damage) than go for the full damage effect right away. Doc

Re: Help HERO can be a real challenge when coming from a different system. You have a range of assumptions in your head about what you will find and how things work. Now. What you have, if I have been following this right, is a minor godling who, in the dark (or during the night) turns into a monster. becoming the monster increases his physical attributes. What you have to decide is, does his personality change when in monstrous form. If it does then I think you are pretty much consigned to the multiform route - you build the godling and the monster separately giving them the powers skills and characteristics they need and then topping off the complications to reflect the changed personality. If it does not then you are simply adding powers to the character when it is dark. In the strength example you gave a strength of 55 lifts about 50 tonnes and strength 60 lifts about 100 tonnes. lifting strength is geometric in HERO, each +5 STR doubles the lift capacity and adds 1D6 to the damage. As Christopher says, if you want to make the change significant then you might want to add more than 5 STR. However, for the build purposes that +5 STR is bought with the limitation, not during the day. I would probably give it a -1/4 limitation and so the 5 STR would cost 4 points (5/1.25). You could simply build all of the added powers of the monstrous form in this fashion. Does the godling have control? Could he, for example, decide not to take the monstrous form in the dark or is it imposed? If it was imposed then I might change the limitation to 'only in monstrous form -1/2' and have a complication of PHYS LIM: 'Always takes monstrous form at the fall of night' HERO is very flexible but that means you have to think of everything. If you want a particular sword to do more damage to a supernatural being then you must remember to build that into the being e.g. VULNERABILITY - 2x BODY when struck by Excalibur. That way, you do not have to make Excalibur anything extraordinary - it is a sword with a perk - it is Excalibur and will damage such creatures more than other swords that appear equally well forged. If you want a supernatural being to be unable to be vulnerable to turning, then you build it into the creature and it all depends on the skill of the cleric performing the exorcism. HERO is, when it comes down to it, all about the GM planning ahead as far as he is able. The more he can do this then the better the game. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects No, but it cannot be as comprehensive or as detailed as exists in a long standing relationship. As I said. With a pick-up game, you go by the rules in the book and in the book it says you can apply any SFX to your attack that seems to make sense. Getting into that level of detail for a pick-up game is more than I, or any of the many GMs I have played with over the years in just that kind of way, seem willing to get into. Communication can make up for the lack of a rule, but a rule in the toolset removes the need for that conversation to take place - everyone knows where they are. As for why anybody would play in a game that is not fun, you only have to look around the forums to see games that people are involved in that are not fun but are persevered because they are getting together with their friends and not willing to risk friendships with criticism or walking out of a game. There are lots of reasons, some because gamers are not reknowned for their social skills and graces and some because they just want to play and this is the only game in town. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects You want to explain that? Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects I did bring up his age, since he questioned my experience and ability to understand the system. I wanted to make sure that he knew I had been through all this design stuff many times and I was not lightly suggesting this, that I had seen a need. I do not accept that familiarity with the current iteration of the rules makes Christopher's view more valid because the discussion is not talking about application of the rules, simply me suggesting there is a gap for a rule supplement and Christopher telling me that I am playing the game wrong... Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects Lucky to have the option - though people do say that no gaming is better than bad gaming. However, a GM in a pick-up game is not going to remember all of the special builds he has agreed with people over time and many builds are simply built book-legal, not according to the ideal of a GMs internally consistent campaign. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects I am so close to everything you say here but the rules are a players only defence against bad GMs, that and not playing. With good players and a facilitative GM all things are possible. The best systems compensate for deficits on both sides... Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects I am going to avoid getting drawn into the discussion of individual examples. Are you really telling me that HERO never finds itself in a position where the game rules contradict in game reality and a strict following of the rules would go counter to the intuitive result? Even is tightly controlled campaigns? Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects The point here Christopher is not about a player seeking point saving for his attack but instead a away of a player seeking to pay more points to get reasonable added value from a defence. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects And this is fine if you are playing in a campaign where there is one GM or all the GMs are bought into the same design principles - easy to say they should be... If there is to be cross-campaign portability or characters that are not at the whim of a variety of GM decisions, then this is probably desirable. Will have a look and see if these do the job. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects Christopher , I love it that things are so black and white in your world. mine seems to come with more shades of gray. Makes my gaming needs more complicated too. Doc

Re: ampullae of lorenzini Did you mean what you said there, or did you mean to say that a lack of knowledge does NOT mean it needs a different build? It is late on a Friday afternoon and things like that confuse my brain!! Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects All attacks based on Fire SFX or only those bought as working against Energy Defences? And there you have the crux of the issue. With fire it is pretty black and white, few people would define a fire based attack as dealing physical damage but there is nothing against it in the rules. There will be other SFX where the interpretation is less black and white, and that is where this kind of thing would come into its own. Doc

Re: Hmmm. More on Special Effects Christopher, I don't think you are quite getting what I mean. Pheonix240's example might be better than mine. However, the system has intuitive gaps in it. Obviously GMs can fill those in or the system can provide the tools for the players to fill them in. I prefer the second route as it means a player is not dependent on a GM making a 'reasonable' call during the game. Roy has a good point though, there is something to be said for opponents being able to detect one another. However, I was not looking to make sense affecting stuff go from one sense to universal. I was looking for something to allow it to provide defences whenever a particular SFX was used. So if I had a ring of fire protection built with rED and someone fought me with a sword of fire built as a physical EB then I would get no benefit from my ring of fire protection. That makes no in-game sense though it is entirely reasonable as far as the rules go. If I could tell the player that he could build his ring with rED and then add rPD and maybe some other stuff to cover other types of attack it gets pretty expensive awfully fast for something that would use the rED more often than not. For the addition of +1/2 you would get the benefit of the points spent on rED against any attack using fire as a special effect. See where I am coming from now? Doc