Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1496601" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>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.my posts are  about the system and more specifically certain claims being made about the system. nothing more, nothing less.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.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.nor do i. hence the use of published settings, standards and characters as part of the examples, when necessary.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. 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.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.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.HERo works better when you dont use the parts that dont work.[/QUOTE]

Verification