The HERO System

[Eosin the Red]

I've just decided that GURPS Supers is the superior superhero game engine. The rest of you are full of bologna.

You are not even a bad troll. I did enjoy the tirade about farmers but please, do not let my opinion stop the inane comments.

BTW - GURPs is a pretty good system - there is a big thread about how many Hero folks (and d20 folks I suspect) buy GURPS stuff cause it is so well done and researched.

 

[mmadsen]

I'll agree with others who've said that it scales better (given the bell curve used by Hero for attacks).

If Dex/3 scales better, then why don't all skills use Stat/3 (rather than Stat/5)?

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.

If you note how many characters have superhuman Dex -- without it being part of their conception -- then you might agree that Dex is too good for the point cost.

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, that it disappoints but it does bear some on the case. You have...

snipping the long section about you thoughts about me and criminally inclined former employees...

I can say "wow"... you sure have spent a lot more time working on the psychology of people who you dont know than i have.

All i can do is say again...
i have no ill will or disgruntled employeeisms with HERo games, GRG, and so forth. There was no bitter employee-employer parting of the ways and, frankly, since i was never "hired" or "paid" by hero games (and never applied for any jobs with them) i really don't think references to criminally inclined former employees has relevence.

My issues are with the claims made about the game system that i find inaccurate, based on my experience.

let me repeat that... i am talking about the system.

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.

my posts are about the system and more specifically certain claims being made about the system. nothing more, nothing less.

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.

Uh... OK, are you of the opinion that I am trying to show DnD is "more balanced" than hero? Because i am not. This isn't a "my game is less broken than yours" thing, at least, not for me.

But, on a more interesting note, if specific examples won't get us anywhere in evaluating claims about a system as accurate or inaccurate, what would? Should any claim just be accepted as gospel?

I always thought specific examples of system use, correctly using the system rules, were good places to start when analyzing claims.

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 see little or no relation between total cost and actual effectiveness or balance. I find the mathematic model to be flawed and feel, based on my experience, that the cases where the two do match up to ne more coincidental than to be evidence of accurate accounting. i find the downsides of the complex up front math for the rpg to outweigh the upsides.

I disagree, no where in Hero or d20 does it mention that you should build a character in a vacuum.

nor do i. hence the use of published settings, standards and characters as part of the examples, when necessary.

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.

and this would be great if my posts had been all about complex munchkin tweaks for excess power... but they were not. Certainly, as i pointed out, the area effect thing was simple, regular power builds in the genre... fire blast vs fire ball and such. the weak tail produced a bigger overpriced error than a lower priced on and i said both were equally bad. Multiform is straight out of the book.

In short, since you want to use DND as a comparison, this isn't like i am touting out examples of munchkinized multiclassed thru four PrC classes and finding discrepancies... its like i am touting out mid level fighters or low level clerics.

Now, to those attack powers 4d6 RKA ---- 14 Body Average – 12d6 EB = 12 Body average. I want the 14 Body but that is me.

IMX, 90% of the characters drop in superhero fights in champions due to stun, so stun vs body, i tend to favor stun. Now, of course, there is a very good argument to show that "after defenses" the stun lotto will get you more stun thru against high defenses, making the RKA in those cases the better attack for both stun and body. So i can see your point.

But, IMX, for supers campaigns, there are plenty of (remember, not in a vacuum) downsides to killing attacks... the chance of killing... that serve as a detractor. These of course will vary from campaign to campaign.

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.

and i would argue that would be true or not depending on the campaign influences and genre for the game. You, I and buzz all agree, setting matters.

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.

given the number of powers that are bought with advantages or limitations or other cost modifiers as opposed to the number of powers bought straight up at full price... thats like saying " Dnd classes are balanced except for once you include attack bonus, saves and feats."

Easily half the powers actually bought for hero characters IMX are not bought without advantages, limitations or other cost adjusting elements. If we are to discount those when assessing how often it works out right...

well, lets put it this way...

if we discount all the cases where it doesn't work right, toss out all those specific examples to the contrary, then HERO is 100% accurate all the time.

“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..

HERo works better when you dont use the parts that dont work.

 

[swrushing]

BTW - GURPs is a pretty good system - there is a big thread about how many Hero folks (and d20 folks I suspect) buy GURPS stuff cause it is so well done and researched.

Count me in. i have many a gurps supplement and never bought the game itself. They just put too much useful stuff in those supplements to let the game stop me from plumbing them.

 

[buzz]

If Dex/3 scales better, then why don't all skills use Stat/3 (rather than Stat/5)?

I think it's becasue skills and attacks don't work exactly the same. Attacks use 11 + OCV - DCV, while skills (and characteristic rolls) use 9 + CHR/5. If they worked the same way, I'd imagine they use the same divisor.

I'm not the math whiz swrushing is , but I think that if skills used Stat/3, they'd progress into mastery too quickly, given the scale used by HERO stats and the 3d6 bell curve. It'd overvalue the stat in the skill equation (the "GURPS effect").

 

[drnuncheon]

Count me in. i have many a gurps supplement and never bought the game itself. They just put too much useful stuff in those supplements to let the game stop me from plumbing them.

Oh, GURPS is a great system, no doubt, and the supplements are even better.

GURPS Supers, specifically, though...

J

 

[ScottDM]

What about Villains and Vigilantes? I loved that game.

 

[PCD]

Been reading my HERO book in more depth. Damn, there is a lot to it! I am finding that since it is a totally new system (to me) that it is a fun read. I use the glossary and index a lot...there are so many abbreviations!!!

 

[collin]

V and V

What about Villains and Vigilantes? I loved that game.

I liked the modules better than what HERO would publish for Champions (e.g. Dr. Apokalyps island vs. Dr. Destroyer) but I found the game system suffered from the very thing I hated about most role-playing games, and that is that there was TOO much randomness to it. I prefer to create a character I know that I want to play rather than hoping it will turn out like I want.

 

[Endur]

For super-heroes, Hero (i.e. Champions) is the best game system, period. Champions totally destroys the DC and Marvel super-hero games, Villians & Vigilantes, all of the D20 supers, and any other game system that uses super heroes (except maybe GURPS which I have not played or read).

I have several of the other Hero System products (Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Espionage), but have not played them enough to comment on them. My feeling is that the Hero system is best for Super-heroes (for which it was originally designed) and is too complex for fantasy or non-superpowered games.

I think D&D is the best fantasy game. Champions is the best super game. Not sure what the best sci-fi game is, maybe Traveller.