Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Cantriped last won the day on April 15

Cantriped had the most liked content!


About Cantriped

  • Rank
    Heroic Magicat
  • Birthday 12/11/1987

Profile Information

  • Gender
  1. Using held actions

    This is the rule (and it's examples) in both CC (page 138) and 6e (page 20): At the end of the section for Holding An Action, there is a long example of the Optional Rule involving Defender and Ogre which annoyingly never explicitly identifies itself as being an example of the optional rule and not the standard rule. This example allows Defender to Hold An Action "generically" (I.E. without him declaring what he is waiting for). And when Ogre charges him, the example allows Defender to use said Held Action to attempt to interrupt Ogre's attack with his own. Since both characters want to act simultaneously, Defender and Ogre make Initiative rolls. Because Defender wins, he gets to go first. All of which is consistent with the optional rule I quoted above and how it should interact with the rules for Who Goes First.
  2. In a perfect world, Hero Designer should be able to output a PDF copy of any type of 'sheet' (Automaton, Computer, Character, Base, or Vehicle); using the officially supported format presented in Hero Games Writers Guidelines (which has existed for no less than 14 years) and used in every single Hero Games publication since. The current Export to PDF function is not very useful to me because having a standard character sheet "pre-filled" and printed out defeats the purpose of using a paper sheet. Further, the mandatory two-page format makes running a character using said sheets far more difficult than running one using the official format. Having the option to efficiently output files in the official format would be far more useful to me. Using the other export formats require an extensive familiarity with Microsoft Word or Open Office to make the outputted files actually readable. As it is it takes so long to format the output that it is easier just to write the sheet from scratch and not use HD at all.
  3. Using held actions

    You would be correct in that it is a semantic argument (I.E. "logic concerned with the meanings of words). All rules debates are, by definition, semantic arguments (yours are no exception), so calling my "interpretation" semantics is little more than an ill-reasoned attempt to attack my credibility. Regardless, the issue is that you clearly do not understand which part of the rules for Holding Actions are optional rules, and which are not. You may Hold An Action "until a lower Dex", or "until some event occurs" (CC 138, 6e2 20). Period. Those are not examples of Held Actions, those are the basic rules for declaring Held Actions. "I wait until he strikes" and "I wait until he comes around the corner" were the examples given of legal Held Actions (they even put them in both quotes and parentheticals in 6e just to make it crystal clear which section was the explanatory text). What you are describing is the Optional Rule described in 6e2 on page 20 (bottom of the 4th paragraph): "With the GM’s permission, a character can Hold his Action “generically,” without declaring any sort of precondition for acting, and then may perform whatever Action he wants to whenever he wants to."
  4. Defense Maneuver

    What source are you referencing? Defense Maneuver is a Skill (not a Talent). All it says in 6e1 and CC is that Defense Maneuver "requires a Half-Phase Action to use," (which Defense Maneuver IV replaces with taking no time to use). However, based just on the quote alone. I would assume that whatever Talent you are talking about can only be used if you are performing Combat Maneuvers such as Dodge, which don't involve making an Attack.
  5. You are correct, my bad. I misread that sentence. Normally a power only requires an attack action if make an attack roll, but the wording in CC makes it clear enough that Aid is an Attack Action regardless of whether or not it requires an Attack Roll (and this is supported by the language defining Attack Actions). So accounting for that correction, you would have to use Move-By to activate Aid during a Full Move regardless of whom you target (and therefore suffer the -2 OCV & DCV penalties that entails); however if you target yourself or a willing target with that Aid, the attack roll is waived per the description of Aid (effectively reducing the penalties to just -2 DCV).
  6. PSLs in my Dark Champions Campaign

    Careful, Steve might just decide to publish another half-baked Errata supporting his position, like he did for the Great "Is Healing Halved" Debate. I thank my dark gods he won't touch CC/FHC with a 3m pole. To be fair, while I (often) don't agree with him, the fact that Steve Long still answers requests for rulings (and generally does a better job at it than the entire Paizo Development Team combined) is a fact worthy of a great deal more respect than I probably give him. It is a fact which I boast about elsewhere in the depths of the internet as a shining example of decency in this industry.
  7. Per CC 51, using Aid on another is an Attack Action. Therefore you may perform a Move-By Aid on another; forgoing the Attack roll per CC 51 if the Target is willing, and ignoring any Damage Classes added by the maneuver. Since Aid doesn't cause Damage, they do not apply. So basically, you can do it with just a -2 DCV penalty if they are willing, or a -2 OCV, -2 DCV if they aren't. If you make your Aid a Ranged power, you can use Strafe, but the OCV modifier for doing so is variable, so it could be higher or lower depending upon circumstances. Per CC 41 (and not contradicted anywhere I've found), using Aid on yourself is a Zero-Phase Action which could be performed during a normal Full-Move (with no special maneuvers or penalties required). The same is true of any power doesn't require an Attack roll, such as Resistant Protection or Desolidification.
  8. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    Yes exactly, for Heroic Campaigns (where the obscene potential CP savings are irrelevant) I give armor and weapons all of the Modifiers they logically deserve. Including Extra Time (Only to Activate), Obvious (usually to Sight & Hearing). I also use optional rules that calculate the BODY of Foci from their Mass (the same way you calculate any other object's BODY), and otherwise treat them just like objects. But I like detailed, granular builds, and would strictly control access to Dispels that can affect such equipment. I usually prefer SFX-based or highly limited Dispels for this reason; I find it hard to justify Dispel targeting Game Elements directly unless I'm also controlling access to that Game Element as well. For a superheroic campaign that level of detail just isn't usually appropriate (or rather, useful). For such campaigns, I consider the amount of time required to put-on/take-off the suit to balance itself out (just like the pros and cons of Universal Foci), because generally speaking it will take an enemy just as long to get you out of the suit as it took you to get into the suit. Those extra Turns, Minutes, whatever may be the difference between Defender ending up with a Public Identity (or in the super-obituaries), and escaping with his secret (or life). However, generally I wouldn't use one-shot mechanics that can strip of character of their powered-armor in such a campaign either. Being rendered powerless by something you have little-to-no chance of defending against and cannot recover from in time to be useful isn't a very fun way to spend an afternoon.
  9. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    It's Special Effects are irrelevant to the game mechanics of Dispel Resistant Protection; unless the character/power is more Vulnerable to that particular SFX of Dispel somehow. However choice of special effects are/should be relevant to whether or not you are allowed to purchase the power at all. A good GM should strictly control the creation of Dispels to avoid nonsense like Armor that "pops back on" next phase when reactivated. However that statement applies to almost every potential abuse or nonsensicality players can come up with and are legal per the rules as written.
  10. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    Per RAW: The armor is still equipped, but provides no Resistant Protection until it's wearer takes a Zero-Phase Action to reactivate it (something they can Abort to if they haven't already acted that segment). The special effect of the Dispel Resistant Protection is irrelevant, rules as written all it allows the character to do is deactivate the Resistant Protection power. Removing the armor or Destroying it require different powers (such as UAA Teleportation or Penetrating RKA). So yes, if the GM allows "the Armor falls off" as an SFX for the Dispel, than I imagine it would have to "magically pop-back on" when the character reactivated it, since it still only requires a Zero-Phase action to reactivate. But such a GM should also require armor take Extra Time (only to equip) so that removing someone's armor means something, and so that armor gets the discount it deserves for that SFX being mechanically more susceptible to Dispel than other forms of Resistant Protection.
  11. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    My precise issue with using Dispel to destroy devices is that there aren't any explicit rules governing how it works. All we have in CC is three sentences supporting the concept, two of which are explanatory text and contain no actual rules. That argument took what information is available on the concept to it's ultimate logical conclusion using the terms they used exactly as they are described by the ruleset. If you use certain optional rules, such as the optional rule for Summoning Bases & Vehicles, or the Alternate Item Creation rules from Fantasy Hero, or are running a campaign where Alchemists make 'potions' using Delayed Effect. Than such references make sense because, for example we have mechanics for determining the APs of the "Power" that created Defender's suit of Powered Armor, mechanics for how long it takes to craft a replacement (and how much LTE that costs), and also rules for how much it costs to be able to craft a suit of Defender Armor, versus the cost of being a Superhero wearing Defender Armor. However, to be pedantic, barring one of those optional rules Dispel explicitly only allows a character to "turn off another character's Power". Objects are not Characters (except when built as them...), so per RAW you can only Dispel them if they were created by a Power that a character you can target used (barring exceptions like when Summon explicitly allows you to target the Summoned Being in order to banish it). Nay. Equipping a Focus, and Turning it's powers On or Off have nothing to do with one another. As evidenced by the fact that "Changing Clothes", "Drawing A Weapon", and "Turning On" or "Turning Off A Power" are all separate entries in the Actions Table (CC 138). How long it takes to equip a focus is determined by the Focus and Real Armor/Weapon modifiers; OIF sets the minimum at 1 Turn, Real Weapon sets the minimum at 1/2 Phase. Those are the only stipulations in CC regarding how long it takes to equip a focus. How long it takes to activate a foci's power(s) is determined by the type of power, and modifiers such as Extra Time, and Trigger. However by default most powers can be activated as a Zero-Phase Action, and characters can activate as many as they wish at once. Finally, nothing in the sixth edition ruleset even hints at the idea that deactivating a foci's powers is the same as unequipping the focus. Case in point, drawing a Longsword doesn't have anything to do with Activating the HKA it grants you, the HKA doesn't activate (and thus cannot be Dispelled) until you try to make an Attack with it. So even if you Dispel every power associated with a suit of Powered Armor, nothing actually prevents Defender from turning all those powers back on next phase (or Aborting An Action to do so) because his Powered Armor isn't an object created by the activation of a power that can be Banished, and none of it's elements require Extra Time to activate. For the record, I am of the opinion that allowing a successful Dispel to disarm/strip characters of equipment is probably a reasonably fair house rule. Likewise I've got no problem with characters using Dispel on "Potions" or other such items created using the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules or prepared using Delayed Effect, and Summoned Vehicles/Bases. However I'm also of the opinion that mundane weapons and armor should be required to take Extra Time (only to equip) when appropriate to represent that in some cases equipping the item is realistically how you activate it. For example: Common sense says that you cannot "turn-off" a suit of mundane armor without removing it, but you I don't see a problem with being able to turn off a Force-Field Belt without removing it (the former would take Extra Time (only to equip), the Latter would not).
  12. Using held actions

    There isn't one, you misunderstand. The defensive quality of the Held Action itself is irrelevant to when the action normally takes place. Held Actions only allow you to wait "until an event occurs" or "until a lower DEX". If you pick an event they always occur after the event specified (and before some other event you don't know about yet). That is just how Held Actions work, they cannot interrupt an action already in progress (I.E. that has been declared, but not yet resolved). However, if two characters have Held Actions whose conditions are fulfilled simultaneously (such as if both characters wait "until DEX 1" or "until Ogre attacks", and that happens), then after that event occurs the rules for Who Goes First applies; whomever was performing a defensive action (as defined under Aborting An Action) automatically goes first, otherwise everyone involved rolls Initiative and the winner goes first.
  13. Using held actions

    Who would visit it? I'm probably the most vitriolic poster on the forums. I need to be thinned out by an entire community. Besides, there aren't enough Herophiles to populate more than one Unofficial Forum, and Chris Goodwin already has a very nice one. No you can't because the rules for Holding An Action clearly stipulate that "He may wait until a lower DEX or until some event occurs" (emphasis added). By the strictest reading of that rule: "I wait until he attacks", "I wait until he moves", "I wait until the Robber acts", and "I wait until DEX 15" (assuming your DEX is 16 or higher) are all legal conditions for triggering a Held Action. The first through third examples are legal because you're waiting "until some event occurs", and the third is legal because you're waiting "until a lower DEX". "I wait until the he is going to attack", "I wait until he's about to move, or "I wait until the Robber is gonna act" (every other possible variation on these examples) are not a legal conditions because Holding An Action does not permit you to wait "until just before some event occurs". If you want to interrupt an Action already in progress, you must either Abort An Action (possibly your Held Action), or have purchased a Triggered Power that activates under that condition. There is, however, an exception in the form of the "Guarding Areas And Ignoring Opponents" optional combat rules; which allow a character to interrupt another character's movement through a 2m radius around themselves with an attack, but only if the other character wasn't entering the area specifically to attack the character. ... and even that is marked with a caution sign. Held Actions are actually fairly limited in their potential for abuse unless the GM starts using optional rules. The rules for Who Goes First should only ever come up if two characters have the same Initiative, their Held Actions have the same condition, or their Held Actions have conditions that happen to occur simultaneously (E.G. Such as if pair of characters are Holding An Action "until he attacks" and "until he moves" respectively, and a third character both moves and attacks simultaneously using a Combat Maneuver such as Passing Strike. However, for the sake of argument, if you chose to allow "I wait until he starts to attack", "I wait until he is going to move", and similarly phrased conditions: Both characters are attempting to act simultaneously, and the rules for Who Goes First apply. Unless one of their actions is codified as a Defensive Action (under Aborting An Action) both characters must roll initiative, and the winner goes first. So even under the most liberal interpretation I'm willing to entertain. It is still impossible to interrupt an action (such as an attack) with a non-defensive action (such as to attack your attacker first, or to Teleport away from your attacker without using Dive for Cover), without first making a successful initiative check.
  14. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    An accurate but irrelevant point that contradicts the very point you are trying to make. If Dispel can explicitly only target Powers (which I agree with BTW), than by definition it cannot target Objects or Foci (which are things that sometimes have Powers, or grant Powers, but are not Powers themselves). If Dispel cannot target Objects and Foci directly, than it cannot destroy them, and the references to Dispel having the ability to destroy objects are erroneous (or more accurately, it is a vestigial element of Dispel's Fantasy Hero roots; where magic items are assumed to be created by the activation of a separate Power based on the Differing Modifiers or using Delayed Effect rules, and therefore are things which can be Dispelled, like Barriers). However if you start from the position that Dispel can target Objects or Foci (based upon the fact that it distinguishes between powers and objects when discussing things Dispel is effective against, and despite explicit rules to the contrary), than it also doesn't matter how many Powers were associated with the Object/Focus. All that matters is if I can beat the Highest Active Point value associated with the Object/Foci. If I can, than per the description of an example of Dispel, the object/foci was Destroyed, and per the definition of what it means to destroy a foci, that means that I've deprived the focus of all of it's Powers (until it can be "repaired, recharged, or rebuilt" whatever the GM thinks that means). Some support for this interpretation can be found in the fact that in CC an Unbreakable Focus is Difficult To Dispel (the focus itself, not any powers bought through it). However I consider this another vestigial rules element, since we only have three sentences in the entire book which support the idea that Dispel can destroy Object and Foci, but no concrete rules for how that it supposed to actually work. All of the extant rules for Dispel in CC only pertain to how it functions when used against Powers: Making an Effect Roll against the APs of the Power to deactivate it, taking Variable Effects to target different Powers, taking Expanded Effects to target multiple Powers at once, etc...
  15. Dispel vs Gadgets & Electronics (CC)

    Yes, in the same way that "Dumb Luck" can be the special effect of gaining +20 OCV. But calling it Dumb-Luck doesn't make that +20 OCV to function as 20d6 of Luck just because the special effect is similar to an extant game mechanic. Game mechanics and special effects are entirely separate things, and never the twain shall meet. Fluffing a Dispel as "object destroying" simply doesn't make it function as an RKA for Objects. And as I've demonstrated in my earlier examples, any attempt to make it act as such results in a horrendously unbalanced construct that renders obsolete those powers which were specifically designed to serve that function. Per the Rules as Written (which are the only rules I give a damn about). I can buy Dispel "Armor" (using Variable Effect) with the special effect of the armor being disassembed via telekinesis, and use it on a suit of armor. Mechanically, that armor remains completely undamaged (despite having been "disassembled"), and because nobody has ever bothered to put Extra Time (Only To Equip) on a suit of Armor, I can reactivate it as a Zero-Phase Action any time I want (and I suppose the armor just magically reassembles itself). Of course, there are not even any clauses in the rules for Dispel that deal with how the power works on things that cannot really be "turned off"; such as most equipment. You cannot realistically "turn off" a suit of mundane armor, or a broadsword for example, and mechanically speaking there isn't anything you can do to keep them turned off even if you do successfully use Dispel on them. A fair GM might rule that a successful Dispel causes you to drop or unequip whatever equipment is Dispelled (classic examples of characters using TK to unbuckle peoples pants come to mind), since that is the most realistic way to "turn-off" a suit of armor. However, mechanically speaking, equipping an object, and activating an object are mechanically distinct actions, and Dispel can only affect the latter.