The HERO System

[buzz]

This is not really news. like i said, every so often on the HERo boards themselves someone asks about how to judge balance and IIRC no one (or almost no one) says "use total points." You are i think the first hero gamer to let his need to defend the system drive him that far down the road.
...
To me, something like the above, is a more informative than just "the points work, its balanced" rote defense. pretending the problems dont exist is not helping to propote the product.
...
Effectiveness vs cost was a noticeable consideration in those cases. They all figured it out. i am surprised you did not.

FWIW, I appreicated your snark-free post explaining the brick/extra limb conundrum. Looks like there was a big discussion about this on the HERO boards just last year. I was sad to see your above post, though, as you once again seem determined to run this discussion into an argument.

I never claimed that HERO was perfect. On the contrary, my position began as a refutation of your initial post, i.e., a) that it's simply not as flawed as you're making it out to be, and 2) the system of points is just as valuable as levels are in D&D, and not a bunch of "wasted time doing math." I did not say that point totals are *always* a perfect (and the only) measure of balance, but rather (and repeatedly) that, *in general* they serve said purpose, and I would indeed bet on this. I think the mere fact that you are able to conduct your critical analyses demonstrates my point. Even if the end result leads you to think, "Hey, this is kind of under/overpowered for that amount of points," it's at least told you *something*. I don't find my judgement nearly as reliable with D&D. Granted, I've been playing HERO a lot longer...

More importantly, the HERO point-build system comprises a toolkit that I find very useful, very fun, and, IMO, more workable for me than the, to me, more subjective process of designing things from scratch in most d20 games --D&D in particular. I don't find the math "wasted" time. Actually, I find it quite enjoyable, to the point where I look forward to, say, shuffling points around to better build a PC. OTOH, I have yet to find myself wanting to sit down and create new D&D spells or feats (though I certianly do like messing around with the material I already have).

If you find this a "rote defense," I'll say this: I didn't realize that I needed to prepare myself to be "rote attacked." I find it unfortunate that merely advocating HERO on gaming forums seems to invite extended criticism that assumes advocacy equals blind zealotry.

I also hope that the devolvement of this thread (I know, I helped) hasn't put off its author from giving HERO a test-drive.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

I never claimed that HERO was perfect. On the contrary, my position began as a refutation of your initial post, i.e., a) that it's simply not as flawed as you're making it out to be, and 2) the system of points is just as valuable as levels are in D&D, and not a bunch of "wasted time doing math."

Actually didn't you say the hero math did a lot of the work for you, while DND levels only allowed you to do comparison by example?

I think it was specifically on for instance magic...

With D&D, all you really have to go on is example...

With HERO, though, at least there's a baseline, and the math does most of the work for you.

honestly, if your position now is that all hero's math gets you to as good as levels at assessing balance... well then i must ask, why did you need to do all that math?

I did not say that point totals are *always* a perfect (and the only) measure of balance, but rather (and repeatedly) that, *in general* they serve said purpose, and I would indeed bet on this. I think the mere fact that you are able to conduct your critical analyses demonstrates my point. Even if the end result leads you to think, "Hey, this is kind of under/overpowered for that amount of points," it's at least told you *something*.

buzz, please go back and look at all my analysis... when i did the analysis of 4.5 d6 aoe 2" r fireball and 9d6 firebolt, when i threw average damages, spread to 3 hexes across, viper agents defense from champions, etc etc etc etc and finally came to the conclusion that "the aoe is too weal by comparison" the number "45" played no role.

had i stated "9d6 firebolt and 4.5 d6 fireball cost 74 pts" the final analysis and comparison would have been the same.

the fact that i did some hero math to arrive at 45 before i compared the powers for EFFEXCT and RESULTSm had no bearing whatsoever on the analysis and conclusion of that analysis for EFFECT and RESULT.

When asnwering the question of "what fireball would be equivalent in effect and result to a 9d6 firebolt?" all the hero math did is get me started at the wrong place...4.5 d6.

I could have done that without the math up front.

eyeballing it, i would have started with 6d6 and a 3" AOE (in HERO speak making AOE radius a +1/2 advantage for normal defense powers.)

Analyzing 6d6 3"r vs 9d6 bolt it looks a lot closer balanced with tangible advantages and disadvantages to both. The 9d6 can no longer spread to the full width without doing LESS damage than the area and both will do at least some damage on average to the top end defense supers.

I don't find my judgement nearly as reliable with D&D. Granted, I've been playing HERO a lot longer...

I will agree wholeheartedly that the more experienced a Gm is with a system the more easily he will find balance designing for it. I just think its a matter of experience, not the math.

Actually, I find it quite enjoyable, to the point where I look forward to, say, shuffling points around to better build a PC.

mosyt of the hero players who like hero i knopw personally list chargen, building characters, squeaking out points, as the most fun. i have spent many an enjoyable time doing so myself. i like crunching numbers... whether its hero characters, designing classes, building gothic fleets or star fleet battles task forces, etc. give me a complex "build your assault unit" point scheme and i usually will be entertained for a while.

and other times, i want to playong or running rpgs.

If you find this a "rote defense," I'll say this: I didn't realize that I needed to prepare myself to be "rote attacked." I find it unfortunate that merely advocating HERO on gaming forums seems to invite extended criticism that assumes advocacy equals blind zealotry.

If i were to make claims that were inaccurate about DND or stargate or any other rpg on a thread asking about that rpg, i would expect someone with kjnowledg to step in and challenge those assertions. i would hope they did so with good knowledge of the system, examples from the system, and so forth.

if that happened, i would not bemoan the fact that it happened.

the fireball vs firebolt example was chosen to emphasiuze a point... its not just oddball wierd niches of the genre that hero math falls down on. this wasn't super baby powers exploited meson burst pulsars (eb nnd aoe autofire) some savvy guru would whip out to try and pass by a snoozing gm... this was as simple as fireball vs firebolt.

if it doesn't get the simple math right, the stuff a novice might try thinking it will be fine, why would we assume it gets the less obvious stuff right.

even eosin decided to, instead of just saying "yeah its balanced", discuss how once advntages start getting applied, cost does not relate to power well.

The hero math to arrive at cost does not help with the effect & result (enr) that a decent gm will do to determine balance. The enr still needs to be done. people at the hero boards admit this and start talking combat values, average stun, chances to hit just like DND people do who never used the hero math.

if the hero math starts you off at a wrong result, like it pointed me to 4.5 d6 instead of 6d6, it doesn't help at all and may even hurt.

more importantly, if the hero math gets accepted as sufficient proof of balance, if one actually believes the point value is an accurate measure and thus takes it over ot in place of doing the enr, then it really does hurt you.

Someone even a little sane, not using hero math, using just his own experience and judgement, would never say...
1. weak tail should be either more expensive than full tail OR less expensive than no tail.
2. a smaller base should be MORE expensive than a larger base with everything the smaller base has and more.
3. a character who is a billionaire playboy scientist shapeshifter with (several bases and a jet plane) who can also assume the exact form, skills, and powers of each of his 350 pt partners is also a 350 pot character.

All thre FRED, you want page numbers, or have i earned enough bonafides now that we dont need to take the time to show the math?

I submit that the initial gut reaction to each of those by anyone starting from eyeball would be "no"... but those starting with hero math would be starting with "yes".

That math up front took some time and did not help them one bit. Arguably, if they pay heed to ot and try to "prove it was right" as opposed to going with the obvious conclusions... it hurts them.

if they are so faithfuol as to not even want to pay attention to the enr or not do it and just accept "its generally right" and move on, it hurts them a lot.

With HERO, though, at least there's a baseline, and the math does most of the work for you.

emphasis mine.

 

[Dogbrain]

By the way, is there any rationale for CV being based on Dex/3 rather than Dex/5?

Less granular. The difference between DEX 10 and DEX 30 is 7 CV rather than 4 CV.

 

[isidorus]

buzz
I also hope that the devolvement of this thread (I know, I helped) hasn't put off its author from giving HERO a test-drive.

Nope he is already on the Hero Boards

What I find amazingly funny about every discussion on Hero is how long the thread goes on. To tell you the Truth it was one of these threads that turned me onto Hero, is that wierd or what. I am gald of the threads though at least I found Hero was alive and Kicking.

Taking a little bit to get back in the groove but the it has been 20 years since I played Champions.

 

[PCD]

It was this very detailed, passionate discussion that inpsired me. For D20/D&D/Modern..."I've lost that loving feeling"...laffs. Any game that inspires this much discussion is worth looking into. I did and HERO won me over. I already miss my book. It sits at home, on a shelf...all alone. laffs.

 

[proditor]

Welcome to the cult PCD. I've been playing D&D for nigh on 26 years now. Wait...let me amend that. I played D&D for almost 26 years. I stopped playing about 6 months ago. It wasn't that I bought HERO, saw the light and converted like a zealot, no, I've been playing Hero based games for almost 20 years. What did it was simple things like spending three times as long creating a mid-level d20 PC as I was spending on a 350 point PC. The level system had become so class dependent, PRC dependent, feat dependent...too many books, too much outlay of cash. Yes, I could be just a player for 20 bucks if I only bought the PHB. I could also be just a player in Hero for 10 bucks if I buy Sidekick...

Anyway...The amount of nitpicking and feat selection and skill raise work to qualify for this class at 7th, then this one at 9th...it was exhausting. I am by nature a tinkerer. I want an effective character that allows me to RP the personality I designed for that PC. Doing that in d20 has become a nightmare for me. I mean, come on now...I take one level of one prc (War priest?) and I get Mettle which is evasion for all my saves. But I already had the right combos to get normal evasion and will evasion, so now I have evasion for everything, and I have tons of PRCs in dribs and drabs attached to my core classes since they won't get me the earned XP penalty. UGH! I loved the idea of PRC's when they first came out. I loathe them now. And to the guy who says that the rules for character creation and balance are in the DMG...then why didn't WotC follow them?!?!? There's a great thread on the WotC boards http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=142565&perpage=30 that shows you how to make a character that does something like MILLIONS of d6 damage per attack with a completely legal, WotC approved PC. THIS is balance????

I retired D&D shortly after 3.5 came out, mostly due to Sean K Reynolds and Monte Cook mentioning that 4.0 was due out in 2 years. Fool me once (3.5 after 2 years), shame on me. Fool me twice...

At this point, I'm mostly just angry that WotC managed to kill my longest running pass time.

If you like d20 better, bully for you. If you like HERO better, bully for you. They both have problems, but at least I can accept Hero's and not feel that things are completely out of whack.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

By the way, is there any rationale for CV being based on Dex/3 rather than Dex/5?

I'll agree with others who've said that it scales better (given the bell curve used by Hero for attacks). Also, if this ratio was changed, you'd have to adjust all the combat skill costs, or it would be a no-brainer to buy a low dex and lots of skills. As with so many things in Hero, changing one element ripples through the entire system.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

SWD:

No offense (I mean that), but you seem to be attacking straw-men. I've read the entire thread, and the only person stating the assertion that total points is a perfect measure for comparing the effectiveness of powers is...you (as you then proceed to demolish that assertion). No one who has any experience with the system thinks that simply comparing points is enough. Buzz sure hasn't said that.

What was said is that the math within the system does most of the work. If you want to quibble with the word "most", go ahead. But I really don't think anyone is disagreeing with your main point: that there are better and worse builds, using identical points. Of course. For many players, myself included, that's part of the fun of the system - figuring out how to create an effective character, while still making one that's fun to play. But just as levels are a D&D standard for comparing approximate ability, so are total points - an approximation which can be useful (just not perfect).

As for the player who "hoses" himself by designing a character with an AoE attack as his main power, well that's what GM's are for. The fact that a newbie is able to design an ineffective character isn't unique to Hero, just more likely given "all the math" in the system. In Hero, a GM must pay careful attention to all character designs, not just to stop the experienced guys from breaking the system, but also to help the newbies design effective characters.

BTW, I design AoE attacks all the time. No, they're not the typically the character's main attack, but in some encounters they get used more than any other attack power - versus groups, versus speedsters or high-dex opponents, and so on. And an AoE entangle can be devasting in setting up my team members to take down the bad guys. Circumstances matter. No one build is optimal in all situations. Which is why I love this system.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

No offense (I mean that), but you seem to be attacking straw-men.

nope. i am attacking claims and using examples.

I've read the entire thread, and the only person stating the assertion that total points is a perfect measure for comparing the effectiveness of powers is...you (as you then proceed to demolish that assertion).

Where did i make that assertion? No offense but i really dont recall it.

i thought i was countering an assertion that in hero cost was a good metric for balance, specifically that if two powers or characters had the same cost within a given setting then they would "generally" be balanced.

Yo counter this, i have pointed oot some obvious errors in the hero costing and we had the big aoe vs regular debate.

buzz, differs apparently fdrom me, you and eosin in that he seems to feel final cost is "generally" a metric for balance, while we all seem to feel analysis beyond cost is required.

i did not ask for perfect.

how many examples do i need to post before the notion that maybe "generally" or "most of the time" are not accurate to describe the relationship between total cost and equivalent or balanced or equally effective is even considered?

How many casaes of "not in this case" need be profferred before those CLAIMING a thing can actually have their claim be questioned?

No one who has any experience with the system thinks that simply comparing points is enough. Buzz sure hasn't said that.

buzz said total cost was enough for him to bet on. he said it was enough for it to be generally the case.

neither he nor i are talking perfect.

What was said is that the math within the system does most of the work. If you want to quibble with the word "most", go ahead.

i am quibbling with the assertion that "generally" the total cost in hero will give you balance determination. That two powers of 45 pts will generally be balanced within the same setting.

But I really don't think anyone is disagreeing with your main point: that there are better and worse builds, using identical points.

it seems there is some disagreement on that point.

Of course. For many players, myself included, that's part of the fun of the system - figuring out how to create an effective character, while still making one that's fun to play. But just as levels are a D&D standard for comparing approximate ability, so are total points - an approximation which can be useful (just not perfect).

Again, the claim seems to be that the total cost offers more than levels in this regard... that unlike levels it does most of the work for you.

if buzz wants to switch over to total cost being only as good as dnd levels, that for both cases, the real test is the comparitive one, i will not disagree at all.

reiterating my position... whether its DND or hero or MNM or gurps traveller, the useful informative that is necessary for assessing balance comes from comparisons of things based on effect and result. Neither total points or levels tells you any more, except that levels in some contexts presume collections of like things and standards... you know a 10th level character will have more hit points and better saves than a 2nd level one for instance but do not know whether a 350 character will have more stun or DCV than a 100 pt one.

if the above is the case, an agreeable position, thats fine. But then the obvious question arises. Why do all the up front math in HERo if it gets us to the same point, where we now need to do the EnR to determine effectiveness? What did the math get us? What did the extra work net us?

The answer seems to be... fun for those who like doing the math.

As for the player who "hoses" himself by designing a character with an AoE attack as his main power, well that's what GM's are for. The fact that a newbie is able to design an ineffective character isn't unique to Hero, just more likely given "all the math" in the system. In Hero, a GM must pay careful attention to all character designs, not just to stop the experienced guys from breaking the system, but also to help the newbies design effective characters.

forest & trees.

normal area attacks, as opposed to the area drains and nnds which populate hero so much, are a staple of many genres. if thats a case where hero... "ehh well... this is not one of the cases where it generally works" yet it is a reasonably represented power, then the question of how "generally" the cost matches balance arises.

egads, thats ugly.

BTW, I design AoE attacks all the time. No, they're not the typically the character's main attack, but in some encounters they get used more than any other attack power - versus groups, versus speedsters or high-dex opponents, and so on. And an AoE entangle can be devasting in setting up my team members to take down the bad guys. Circumstances matter. No one build is optimal in all situations. Which is why I love this system.

yes, as stated earlier.. AOE on attacks in hero that bypass defenses are quite cost effective. Experienced hero player get that.

How often do you find area attacks of say EB without nnd and so forth of similar point totals to be as effective as your defense bypassing AOE entangle?

rather infrequently would you say?

but, do you agree, would you bet that, sight unseen, two 45 pt powers would be balanced?

or would you want to see the powers, run some analysis, before you put your money down?

 

[Eosin the Red]

i am talking about the game. i find it a lot better than talking about me. sorry if that dissapoints.

Sorry, that it disappoints but it does bear some on the case. You have published for Hero system, you have played the system through several incarnations and know minutia about the system YET your tone and tenor indicate that you hate it. There is some kind of disparity here and it relates directly to the amount of venom in many of your posts.

I always wonder about "bashers." Some weird thing that makes me wonder why someone could be so into a system [books or movies] for years then turn all of that joy and fun into a personal crusade to make sure that no good word about it goes unpunished. It is something like the disgruntled former employee - I understand that they cause more financial loss than crime each year. You are former employee of sorts - you did publish with the hero system, get editing credits, and you are assuredly disgruntled. Before you start smoking a system on a public forum, I suspect that proper decorum would require that you mention, "Oh, by the way...I worked with Hero Games on a few projects and here is why I hate it." Without the knowledge that you worked with Hero, you are being disingenuous with your opinion. Here is what Monte Cook does when talking about WotC – first he identifies himself as a former employee – even though you have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to know this.

ARCHIVED TOPIC:
[ Line of Sight ]
DATE: July 3, 2002
By Monte Cook
More Wacky Wizards Hijinks
Okay, let me start by saying that those of you tired of my armchair quarterbacking Wizards of the Coast should probably click on another link on the left (the Ptolus story is interesting this week), because I'm doing it again. You might think, "Oh, it's just because he left the company, now he sits back and second-guesses them," but you'd be wrong -- I did it all the time while I worked there, too.

Now, re-reading your post I am less sure if the tone and ‘tude are directed at Buzz or Hero in general. It might help for you to clarify some or not.

I think that we can both agree that specific examples will get us no where in system comparison – I can identify instances where Hero & d20 both break. You see an overall trend in Hero with 350 [and probably 250 and 150 point] characters being unequal without lots of DM supervision thus negating the reason for the numbers in the first place. I disagree, no where in Hero or d20 does it mention that you should build a character in a vacuum. I have read the Sultans of Smack and seen the grossness that is a charging paladin with rhino hide armor and other goodies leveling 2,000+ points on his charge on average. I have also seen characters built with Ranged Perception levels, Find Weakness, AF, AP, Penetrating…..Or NND, AF, Damage Shields. People can break the systems. I suspect that deep in our respective hearts we all know that.

Uh... i would have to say both of those are dubious statements at best. The value of the RKA is really dependent on the body levels and resistant defenses and style of the campaign. if the campaign features a moderate amount of agents, the rka will be killing some, or at least leaving them dieing, and will cause significant problems and a 12d6 eb will be just as effective at dropping them without killing.

Now, to those attack powers 4d6 RKA ---- 14 Body Average – 12d6 EB = 12 Body average. I want the 14 Body but that is me. If I had a CAK, I would step off the RKA and try the EB but in terms of effectiveness --- the KA is superior even if you play “STUN loto” to steal an over used phrase. You are reading campaign specific roleplaying penalties into your effectiveness. I am saying RKA does slightly more BODY than EB and is slightly more effective.

In either event, most attack powers bought strait up are close to equal. You choose to make a cool highly advantaged power and then call it “more effective” but I disagree. First, like I have said – points are only a measure of the base powers effectiveness. Once you start adding advantages or disadvantages, it is no longer an effective gauge of power. You could however add the same advantages and limitation to different attack powers and they should be roughly equal barring some hiccups [A AP RKA is roughly as effective as an AP EB or an AP Ego Attack]. Compare apples to apples and the numbers turn out much nicer, not perfect just nicer.

“Buy low and Sell High” = Nerfed in my game. Just like I nerfed Harm's no save in 3E. All systems need the DM to use some form of common sense be that d20, Hero, Tristat, or GURPs..

Anyhow, I am done here. Your Debate FU is strong and mine has grown weak and feeble. More importantly, I have things I would much rather be doing than arguing minutia with you (and others). All games appeal to certain crowds and it is likely that players and GMS will find themselves drawn to different games at different stages of their gaming career. Just because a person no longer likes a game (or movie or book) they should not feel inspired to ensure that no one else enjoys it also. I am happy that some folks like Tristat and Storyteller and Palladium. I feel no need to go tell them that their game sucks [those games used above are only examples]. I hope that you have a blast playing MNM [or what ever you play] this weekend; I hope to give it a run someday pretty soon to see how it runs.