One thing I REALLY liked about HERO over D&D

[Darkness]

swrushing,

You're making very good points here; closing them with accusations is neither helpful to getting people to consider your reasoning nor to keeping this thread flame-free.

For the record, Psion likes D&D quite a lot; read some more of his posts and reviews if you really doubt that.
However, it might useful to point out that he happens to disagree quite strongly with some of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5.

Please keep this friendly and try not to distrust others' motivations, everybody. Thanks.

-Darkness,
moderator

 

[Calico_Jack73]

It seems to me sometimes that we as D&D players let fear of imbalance mess us up, sometimes without a problem ever bein demonstrated in play. And some of us whine loud enough that the designers listen to us.

Sometimes I wonder if HERO-philes and designers have a healthier attitude in this regard.

My thoughts exactly my brother!

 

[swrushing]

For the record, Psion likes D&D quite a lot; read some more of his posts and reviews if you really doubt that.
However, it might useful to point out that he happens to disagree quite strongly with some of the changes between 3.0 and 3.5.

I never said differently. i don't doubt that psion likes D20... he has said so clearly on this very thread.

Also, i too am strongly in disagreement with much of the 3.0-3.5 changes, so psion and i may be in similar vein there.

 

[Darkness]

It seems to me sometimes that we as D&D players let fear of imbalance mess us up, sometimes without a problem ever bein demonstrated in play.

Sometimes? What are thinking of? Poképaladins, probably. (Though in all fairness, personal mounts apparently indeed weren't very handy in some people's games.) What else?

Also, on the other hand, WotC sometimes has proven quite... reluctant... to fix even obvious problems.
(e.g., "No, the Halfling Outrider is supposed not to have a BAB progression. It's a feature, not a bug." and "Dragons are so special that, unlike everything else in the game, their CRs are intentionally lower than they should be. Isn't that a cool way to demonstrate how badass dragons are?")

I mean, it's not like they're exactly falling over themselves to cave in to whining campaigns initiated to get apparently-near-broken things fixed.

 

[Darkness]

I never said differently. i don't doubt that psion likes D20... he has said so clearly on this very thread.

Also, i too am strongly in disagreement with much of the 3.0-3.5 changes, so psion and i may be in similar vein there.

Ok. You two'll get along just fine here, then? Very well then.

 

[Psion]

Sometimes? What are thinking of? Poképaladins, probably.

WRT 3.5e I'm mainly thinking of spells. Many, many spell changes had me thinking "what was the problem with that, exactly?"

Also, on the other hand, WotC sometimes has proven quite... reluctant... to fix even obvious problems.
(e.g., "No, the Halfling Outrider is supposed not to have a BAB progression. It's a feature, not a bug."

I secretly desire to know what the "errata for S&F" meeting was like in R&D. I picture in my mind:

"...so I told them that we meant to do it that way."

"You told them what?"

"The nice thing about email... it's easy to have a straight face."

 

[WizarDru]

Sorry, but, IMX, having GMed and played both... while both systems have invisibility as good for sneaky stuff out of combat (fringe working only slightly against HERo here), invisibility in DND is much more effective in actual combat IMX.

How high a level in D&D have you played? IME, once spells like See Invis and True Seeing enter the picture, Invisibility ceases to be anything but a single-round bonus at best for all but a handful of situations. Items, targeted dispels and a host of other solutions exist to counter-act Invisibility. And when you have characters who can routinely get spots in the 50s and 60s...well, you get the idea.

The same applies for etherealness and incorporeality. There are lots of counters in the D&D realm...from ghost touch weapons and force effects to a host of spell effects. When the attackers can become incorporeal or ethereal, or simply throw the target into a maze, it becomes an academic problem, mostly. It's only a question of how many resources they might consume against an unprepared group, as opposed to being anything close to invulnerable.

How that applies towards Hero, I couldn't say...but in D&D, there are many counters and limitations to those abilities built into the system as part of the many balances present.

 

[swrushing]

resisting the urge to respond and turn this into a series of anti-3.5 posts... and trying to stray to a degree back to topic...

ignoring the "who does and who does not" angle... i turn to the merit of the stop sign and magnifying glass... errr... dating myself... caution sign.

I have run a lot of games using hero since 3rd edition back during early reagan....

i have grabbed the book for costs, for values, for specific reading of "how does this work", the type of power (adjustment, attack, defense, "special", standard, etc etc...) and many many other reasons during play, during chargen, during long periods sitting on the can, during online discussions, and so forth...

i cannot ever recall grabbing the book and looking up "does this power have a stop sign." or "does this power have a magnifying glass". I never had occasion to actually use "the writers flagged this power" as any element at all in a decision i was making, in a choice between options. it was never a relevent issue in decision making in any of my games.

When i wanted to assess its balance issue, i looked at what it did, not its label.

Wait, i sit corrected, now that i think of it, in some net discussions about comparatives, sometimes people would want to limit the discussion to "non-stop-sign powers" regarding balance discussions, so I might have had on occasion to look up a power's label for net arguments about balance to help me on some internet balance discussions..

So, frankly, its not been of merit to me. Sure, I can see how some Gms might want to use it, but, for my money, if a Gm told me "You cannot take this power because they put a stop sign (or caution sign) on it."... i would be really really rethinking the game and my participation. (If he said "...because i see it as inappropriate or unbalancing for this game"... not a problem. but that decision should be made on the power capabilities vis-a-vis the game/setting, actual analysis, not its label.)

Psion... would you ever see yourself deciding whether to disallow a power based on its label?


All this IMO.

 

[Darkness]

WRT 3.5e I'm mainly thinking of spells. Many, many spell changes had me thinking "what was the problem with that, exactly?"

True, dat. Apart from the 'H' spells (harm, haste) not very many spells needed to be changed. (Reducing the duration of buff spells was theoretically a good idea IMO but the new duration probably nerfs the spells a bit too much.)

Most of the other spell changes weren't based on fans' bitching, though, or were they?

I secretly desire to know what the "errata for S&F" meeting was like in R&D. I picture in my mind:

Indeed.

 

[Psion]

When i wanted to assess its balance issue, i looked at what it did, not its label.

Isn't the idea of the label to say "you really might want to take a look at what this does.

Psion... would you ever see yourself deciding whether to disallow a power based on its label?

When considering a new campaign, I might use it as a guide to consider which would work well in the game and which wouldn't.

For example, many "mystery blowing" powers in hero have magnifying glasses. The label serves as a warning to me that in some situations, the power can have a big influence on the game.

That doesn't necessarily bar those powers/abilities. But it does give me a guide I can use in two ways.
- I CAN limit those powers or abilities, but this does not necessarily mean barring the power. For example, in hero, I might require that the power be purchased with limitations that prevent the player from using the power continually, thus allowing me to keep a few tricks up my sleeve.
- I can also let the players use those powers as written, but use it as a guide to what game elements the players might use when designing the adventure. Some adventure writers do this now, by describing and planning around to what extent divination spells can be used to penetrate the plot, and putting up some stop gaps to make sure that, while the power is useful, that it is not a one spell solution to the adventure.