APG 3 Ideal: AVLD Levels Beyond Rare.

[Hugh Neilson]

 

 

So what are the actual limitations?  Well, just having the abilities available costs END, but because the END is based on the reduced cost, it's probably -1/4 rather than -1/2.  All the powers have Side Effects in the loss of DCV, size and mass, etc.  I'd call those, especially DCV, more than "trivial", so let's call that -1/2.  And, after a fashion, they are "unified" so -1/4, for total limitations of -1.

 

+10 STR = 10 AP, 5 Real

+1 OCV (HTH only) = 5 AP with an extra +1 limitation, so 2 Real

+1 PD and +1 ED Damage Negation - I'm not clear whether this is +1 PD and ED, or 1 DC of Damage Negation.  The latter would be 10 AP, while the former would be 2 AP, so either 5 or 1 real.

+1" Knockback Resistance - Assuming 2 meters, 2 AP, 1 RP

+1" Stretching - Assuming 2 meters. 2 AP, 1 RP (this is conceptually troubling as it's too much at low levels and too little at high levels)

+2 Meters Running (not sure here) 2 AP, 1 RP

+3 Pre ( also open to debate) (The PRE could be Striking Appearance, rather than PRE.) +3 PRE, PRE attacks only (-1), 3 AP, 1 RP

 

So one level should cost 12 if we get PD and ED, or 16 if it's full-blown Negation.  Take away the automatic Running as Duke suggests and leave this as Negation, and we get 15 real points.  Limitation Stacking becomes a bit of an issue if we then limit the Growth, but we accept that with other abilities, so why not here?

[steriaca]

About Growth. 

 

Honestly I never used it. It just doesn't appeal to me. I do accept that Growth is needed. But I don't have a dog in this fight.

[IndianaJoe3]

My solution to the whole Growth/Shrinking issue is to eliminate the Powers entirely, and buy larger or smaller forms with Multiform, perhaps with an, "intermediate forms" Advantage (+1/4?).

[Grailknight]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 

So what are the actual limitations?  Well, just having the abilities available costs END, but because the END is based on the reduced cost, it's probably -1/4 rather than -1/2.  All the powers have Side Effects in the loss of DCV, size and mass, etc.  I'd call those, especially DCV, more than "trivial", so let's call that -1/2.  And, after a fashion, they are "unified" so -1/4, for total limitations of -1.

 

+10 STR = 10 AP, 5 Real

+1 OCV (HTH only) = 5 AP with an extra +1 limitation, so 2 Real

+1 PD and +1 ED Damage Negation - I'm not clear whether this is +1 PD and ED, or 1 DC of Damage Negation.  The latter would be 10 AP, while the former would be 2 AP, so either 5 or 1 real.

+1" Knockback Resistance - Assuming 2 meters, 2 AP, 1 RP

+1" Stretching - Assuming 2 meters. 2 AP, 1 RP (this is conceptually troubling as it's too much at low levels and too little at high levels)

+2 Meters Running (not sure here) 2 AP, 1 RP

+3 Pre ( also open to debate) (The PRE could be Striking Appearance, rather than PRE.) +3 PRE, PRE attacks only (-1), 3 AP, 1 RP

 

So one level should cost 12 if we get PD and ED, or 16 if it's full-blown Negation.  Take away the automatic Running as Duke suggests and leave this as Negation, and we get 15 real points.  Limitation Stacking becomes a bit of an issue if we then limit the Growth, but we accept that with other abilities, so why not here?

 

It's a full level of Damage Negation vs PD and ED. 

 

Good call on the Striking Appearance. That's close to how I envision it working.

 

It's for Sixth, so 1" is 1 meter as far as the scale for Stretching and KB Resistance.

 

The Running should really be more. +12" for each doubling in height but that quickly becomes OP. That could however be balanced by -1 DEX Rolls  per level. Big things can really move when they get rolling but they don't corner well and can't do fine manipulation easily.

[unclevlad]

On 3/11/2022 at 10:25 AM, IndianaJoe3 said:

My solution to the whole Growth/Shrinking issue is to eliminate the Powers entirely, and buy larger or smaller forms with Multiform, perhaps with an, "intermediate forms" Advantage (+1/4?).

 

I dislike Growth because it gets so unwieldy *so* fast, and I've never been convinced that the benefits are worth the cost.  Shrinking, OTOH, almost goes the other way:  it's almost too cheap.  

 

For a VERY granular Growth, where 3 growth levels == 2x size and 8x mass, per level:

+5 STR

+2 CON

+1 PD/ED

+1 BODY

+2 STUN

+4m Running

-2m KB

 

Those would be direct translations.  The odd factors are Reach, and when your attack becomes AoE.  Reach isn't the same as Stretching;  it implicitly has Limited Body Parts, No Noncombat Stretching, and Always Direct.  OTOH, IMO it doesn't cost END to use.  With 6E Growth, Reach (for any character NOT having Shrinking) is defined as ( 2 ^ levels of Growth) -1 meters.  (1, 3, 7, 15, 31, 63...add 1 to each.  2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64.)  OK;  this can also be defined as (Height / 2) - 1.  However, this is not constant by level.  Same problem kicks in with "your hands and feet are now an AoE" in that this essentially applies AoE to your STR...and given the STR bonuses involved, this gets to be considerable.  The size template rates it at 22 points for Huge, but also says it "maxes out" at 60 STR, but that's arbitrary just to put a value.  Literal reading of 6E says you could buy Huge from a 25 STR basis.  Also:  say someone wanted to buy a trained martial artist, with Huge Growth.  Say, +4 DCs between purchased HTH DCs and maneuvers.  Would any of us say, oh, well, that's down to 3 DCs because of the AoE?  To me that feels really nitpicky.

 

The cost becomes a mess because a)  the naked advantage changes values at irregular points, and b) because it's applying to a derived value, STR, which increases by level.

 

Another angle here, IMO, is that the Disadvantage is *severely* underrated.  I think this is something we get as players.  15 meters tall, and 45 metric TONS?????  That's Huge.  Where can that be used?  Your foot's a 1 hex attack...even walking, you darn sure need to look where you step.  And imagine if your Growth is Persistent...and you get Stunned and fall over.  LOOK OUT BELOW!!!!  

 

One solution would be to limit PCs to no more than 2 levels of standard, 6E Growth...which suggests the finer levels with lower benefits would be good.  8 meters is still 25 feet.  The Reach cost can largely be ignored, it's still very small.  Attacks aren't AoE ever, so...OK, +1 OCV per *2* levels...dropping fractions...with HTH only.  That's a max +3 for a PC.  For the perception/DCV...heck, to keep it simple?  Make em -1 per 2 levels as well.  Someone who's 8 meters tall REALLY stands out anyway.  If you're looking for someone in a room or on a street, there's a great deal of "clutter" at the level you look;  but not in this case.  And it's simpler.

 

Option 2?  Expanded Shrinking is 1/2 height per 2 levels.  So, flip that:  2 levels of Growth doubles height.  We'll limit to 4 levels to keep it simple.  Each Growth level gives:

+5 STR 

+3 CON

+2 PD/ED 

+2 BODY

+5 STUN

+5m Running

-3m KB

+1 OCV (HTH)

per 2 levels:  opponents gain +3 OCV and to PER rolls

 

This makes it somewhat more of a defensive power...more of the power is related to soaking up the damage.

 

Costing:  base costs are 5 + 3 + 4 + 2 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 4 (for the OCV) == 31.  Offsetting this, IMO the OCV is 9, the PER is 3, for 12, per 2 levels, so -6 per level.  These get subtracted from the base cost, so it's 25 per level.  Then there's the issues related to being exceptionally tall and massive.  These are awkward, as the physical complications aren't very flexible.  For cost purposes, let's call it 4 points per level.  NET:  21 points.

 

NOW...none of the individual powers cost END to *have*.  Some cost END to *use*...the STR, the Running...but that's separate.  So there's the blanket limitation of Costs END Throughout, for -1/2.  2/3 of 21 == 14 points per level at this point.  This is actually slightly higher than 6E for a given height/mass level.

 

[indy523]

On 2/27/2022 at 2:36 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Before throwing in with the "I don't think we'd ever need it" club, 

 

I will show you the proper courtesy of due diligence, because I think there's always a chance I could be wrong:

 

How do you see this being different from AVALD or existing Advantages?

 

(and I agree with Chris:  the APGs are less "guides to getting familiar with the rules and playing more smoothly" than they are "hey!  Want to twist the rules and do some really goofy stuff?" or "We know you love rules for corner cases; now let's check out some fractals!" books.)

 

 

Okay here is an example and you tell me how this works out.  I have a character that is a nymph or avatar of Aphrodite in the game so she has a power I call if looks could kill.

 

It is essentially a flash vs voice.  In APG2 (I think if not it is APG1) you can treat a person's voice as a kind of nontargeting sense and thus it can be affected by darkness, flash etc.  This woman's power is to give a look that is a flash vs voice that is bought as a Long Term flash (1 segment = 1 turn) for +2A.

 

I want the power to be resisted by the Resistance Talent which adds to EGO to resist Interrogation or torture.  So the normal defense for this is Flash vs Voice defense which is already rare.so by the rules changing it to the Resistance talent is also rare so this is a +0A or +0L.  Under this scenario could one possibly justify the Resistance Talent as very rare and make it a -1/2L in effect?

 

You tell me!  What is reasonable?

[Hugh Neilson]

9 hours ago, indy523 said:

Okay here is an example and you tell me how this works out.  I have a character that is a nymph or avatar of Aphrodite in the game so she has a power I call if looks could kill.

 

It is essentially a flash vs voice.  In APG2 (I think if not it is APG1) you can treat a person's voice as a kind of nontargeting sense and thus it can be affected by darkness, flash etc.  This woman's power is to give a look that is a flash vs voice that is bought as a Long Term flash (1 segment = 1 turn) for +2A.

 

I want the power to be resisted by the Resistance Talent which adds to EGO to resist Interrogation or torture.  So the normal defense for this is Flash vs Voice defense which is already rare.so by the rules changing it to the Resistance talent is also rare so this is a +0A or +0L.  Under this scenario could one possibly justify the Resistance Talent as very rare and make it a -1/2L in effect?

 

You tell me!  What is reasonable?

 

Will the switch result in markedly more, or markedly fewer, targets having the defense?  If the former, it is a more common defense.  If the latter, it is a more rare defense.  If there's no material change (including "virtually no one has either defense), then there's no change to the advantage level.

[steriaca]

Ok. A few stuff...

 

1) Advance levels for AVLD.

 

2) An alternative way for Growth costs and levels.

 

3) A system of Mental Martial Arts which follows the system of creating your own martial arts maneuvers like in Hero System Martial Arts. 

 

4) Using Flight for Air Walking.

 

5) How to Gravity Shift Walking (where any flat surface is "down" when the user walks upon it).

 

Of course other stuff than this needs to be found to make a decent book.

[Hugh Neilson]

12 hours ago, steriaca said:

4) Using Flight for Air Walking.

Running, Usable as Flight

 

12 hours ago, steriaca said:

5) How to Gravity Shift Walking (where any flat surface is "down" when the user walks upon it).

 

Running, usable as flight, must be in contact with a surface.

[unclevlad]

Hugh:  I don't personally feel that Running, Usable as Flight should be legal.  Otherwise, for relatively routine velocities...say you want 18m for a nice combat half-move, and x8 non-combat.  Flight would cost 28.  Running would cost a base of 16 (+6m, +10 points for the non-combat), and 7 more for the Usable As.  6E1 p. 158 covers the advantage, noting that it has to be applied to the more expensive power.  They point out Swimming...but IMO because Running has a non-zero base value, it's the less expensive power compared to Flight, Teleport, and Swinging.

 

Champions Now has a power called Surfaces, that has 3 variants:

--Clinging:  effectively, STR only to remain attached to a surface.  Unlike Hero, you don't get your base STR...which is higher cost, but makes more sense.

--Air-walking is 10 points.  Ron's definition is moving across a horizontal surface at an arbitrary height;  the arbitrary aspect is a problem.  I'd rather it was limited to slightly above the surface.  As Ron wrote it, it seems to allow moving from 1 rooftop to another.

--Escher lets you redefine "up" and therefore "down" as you like, so you can move across vertical surfaces, or the underside of a ceiling.  It's 25 points...so, rather pricey.

 

Grav Shift Walking is also covered by Clinging in 6E, and by Flight, only on a surface.  The rules say "generally has to keep moving"...but that's at GM discretion.  There's ways to handle it.  While some will disagree with me, IMO an enormous problem with Hero is there's *too many* ways to do a number of things.  That said...?  I could see eliminating Flight only in contact with a surface, and adding an advantage or two for Running.  Say, air walking for +1/4...lets you move slightly above any reasonably flat surface, including those which wouldn't normally hold your weight (so, yes, you can move across water).  For an additional +1/4, you gain orientation independence, AND drop any requirement to be moving...so you can stand on water or cling to a vertical surface. 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Hugh:  I don't personally feel that Running, Usable as Flight should be legal.  Otherwise, for relatively routine velocities...say you want 18m for a nice combat half-move, and x8 non-combat.  Flight would cost 28.  Running would cost a base of 16 (+6m, +10 points for the non-combat), and 7 more for the Usable As.  6E1 p. 158 covers the advantage, noting that it has to be applied to the more expensive power.  They point out Swimming...but IMO because Running has a non-zero base value, it's the less expensive power compared to Flight, Teleport, and Swinging.

 

Well, now we get to questions of interpretation.  I'd say "running on air" sounds exactly like "running usable as flight". It seems like your objection is more relevant to the costing of "usable as a second mode of movement".  What stops the hypothetical character selling back all his Running (-12), then buying Flight (28) usable as Running (+7)?  This is the same net cost of 23 CP as your example  of 16 for the extra Running and 7 for Usable as Flight.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Champions Now has a power called Surfaces, that has 3 variants:

--Clinging:  effectively, STR only to remain attached to a surface.  Unlike Hero, you don't get your base STR...which is higher cost, but makes more sense.

--Air-walking is 10 points.  Ron's definition is moving across a horizontal surface at an arbitrary height;  the arbitrary aspect is a problem.  I'd rather it was limited to slightly above the surface.  As Ron wrote it, it seems to allow moving from 1 rooftop to another.

--Escher lets you redefine "up" and therefore "down" as you like, so you can move across vertical surfaces, or the underside of a ceiling.  It's 25 points...so, rather pricey.

 

Conceptually, I prefer Clinging purchased as a separate power.  Spiderman irradiated by gamma beams is no sticker than he was before.

 

If I can "walk on air", why can't I climb it like stAIRs?  An arbitrary cost for an ability whose utility will be determined arbitrarily.

 

Escher seems pretty pricy if I have 12 m running, but a lot cheaper if I have 120 m. Why would I pay for this instead of Clinging?  I guess I don't fall off if I pass out??

 

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

Grav Shift Walking is also covered by Clinging in 6E, and by Flight, only on a surface.  The rules say "generally has to keep moving"...but that's at GM discretion.  There's ways to handle it.  While some will disagree with me, IMO an enormous problem with Hero is there's *too many* ways to do a number of things.  That said...?  I could see eliminating Flight only in contact with a surface, and adding an advantage or two for Running.  Say, air walking for +1/4...lets you move slightly above any reasonably flat surface, including those which wouldn't normally hold your weight (so, yes, you can move across water).  For an additional +1/4, you gain orientation independence, AND drop any requirement to be moving...so you can stand on water or cling to a vertical surface.

 

On your +1/2 to have full orientation independence, we could add "has a turn mode" for -1/2 and be back to the price of Flight.  Feels like we are getting close to the power "Movement" which we customize for various types of movement.  For 3 points/2 meters, you can move in three dimensions with no turn mode.

[unclevlad]

40 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Well, now we get to questions of interpretation.  I'd say "running on air" sounds exactly like "running usable as flight". It seems like your objection is more relevant to the costing of "usable as a second mode of movement".  What stops the hypothetical character selling back all his Running (-12), then buying Flight (28) usable as Running (+7)?  This is the same net cost of 23 CP as your example  of 16 for the extra Running and 7 for Usable as Flight.

 

Applying the Usable as Flight to the Running means he can move in circumstances that weren't possible before.

Buying the Flight with Usable as Running doesn't do that.  

 

TBH, I think "usable as a second form of movement" is one of the most poorly written, poorly considered advantages in the system.  I'd be perfectly happy to ditch it.  Allow Flight to be used as Swimming implicitly...if you like, at 1/2 or even 1/4 of your flight speed, if you want to encourage actually buying Swimming.  It's *extremely* rare that I even consider upping Swimming.  Or maybe define a more specific Advantage for Flight...usable underwater.  Are there really any other combinations of Movement A, usable as Movement B, that make sense?  

48 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

Conceptually, I prefer Clinging purchased as a separate power.  Spiderman irradiated by gamma beams is no sticker than he was before.

 

If I can "walk on air", why can't I climb it like stAIRs?  An arbitrary cost for an ability whose utility will be determined arbitrarily.

 

Escher seems pretty pricy if I have 12 m running, but a lot cheaper if I have 120 m. Why would I pay for this instead of Clinging?  I guess I don't fall off if I pass out??

 

 

On your +1/2 to have full orientation independence, we could add "has a turn mode" for -1/2 and be back to the price of Flight.  Feels like we are getting close to the power "Movement" which we customize for various types of movement.  For 3 points/2 meters, you can move in three dimensions with no turn mode.

 

Ron built and costed things in ways that don't align with Hero, that's a given.  I'm just offering them up because it is a plausible set of definitions.  If not Ron's, then what is air walking?  Escher:  Ron's Clinging isn't a flat cost.

 

I actually would be *fine* with a general Movement power.  It's somewhat tempting to build it into my personal HD...maybe later.  I'm still in the middle of changing the code...deleting a ton of stuff I simply don't care about, to run in a 6E supers mode ONLY.  Well...ok, that's done already.  Now it's the first of potentially *several* passes to streamline the code;  there's a massive amount of cut-and-paste duplication.  

[Hugh Neilson]

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Applying the Usable as Flight to the Running means he can move in circumstances that weren't possible before.

Buying the Flight with Usable as Running doesn't do that.  

 

TBH, I think "usable as a second form of movement" is one of the most poorly written, poorly considered advantages in the system.  I'd be perfectly happy to ditch it.  Allow Flight to be used as Swimming implicitly...if you like, at 1/2 or even 1/4 of your flight speed, if you want to encourage actually buying Swimming.  It's *extremely* rare that I even consider upping Swimming.  Or maybe define a more specific Advantage for Flight...usable underwater.  Are there really any other combinations of Movement A, usable as Movement B, that make sense?  

 

Ron built and costed things in ways that don't align with Hero, that's a given.  I'm just offering them up because it is a plausible set of definitions.  If not Ron's, then what is air walking?  Escher:  Ron's Clinging isn't a flat cost.

 

I actually would be *fine* with a general Movement power.  It's somewhat tempting to build it into my personal HD...maybe later.  I'm still in the middle of changing the code...deleting a ton of stuff I simply don't care about, to run in a 6E supers mode ONLY.  Well...ok, that's done already.  Now it's the first of potentially *several* passes to streamline the code;  there's a massive amount of cut-and-paste duplication.  

 

Buying the Flight usable as running allows it to be used without a turn mode while used for running. Swimming also has no turn mode.  Flight Usable Underwater is just Flight Usable as Swimming.

 

I have never liked the concept that a character with 20 meters of running and 30 meters of flight cannot run 5 meters and then fly for at least 5 more meters as a half move.  Not sure "usable as another form of movement" solves that, although it would mean the character is not turning one power off to turn another on.. 

 

1 hour ago, Massive Metakine said:

How many pts. to turn your base running into turn mode flight? Looks like 'Running' should be kept separate from 'Flight' right there unless you want everyone 'not flying around' requiring a solid, continuous surface, mostly level? So we just lift this -1/2 limitation to your running until your veritably flying?

 

Well, No Turn Mode is a +1/4 advantage, and adding one is a -1/4 limitation.  Flight gets a -1/4 limitation for Only on a Surface. Seems like applying both No Turn Mode and Only Touching a Surface would get Running that goes up vertical surfaces for the same price as normal Flight or Running.  Perhaps that Limitation value is a bit light - seems like it gives up more than taking on a Turn Mode.

[unclevlad]

Quote

Flight Usable Underwater is just Flight Usable as Swimming.

 

I'm suggesting that you should not have to buy Usable as Swimming to move underwater using Flight...because I'm talking about a framework where Usable As does not exist.

[Hugh Neilson]

10 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I'm suggesting that you should not have to buy Usable as Swimming to move underwater using Flight...because I'm talking about a framework where Usable As does not exist.

 

So does that make swimming "flight, only through water"?  More  than most movement powers, Swimming's usefulness is extremely dependent on the campaign.  It seems like the rest of the Justice League gets along just fine when they travel to Atlantis, so it's largely glossed over in the comics.

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

So does that make swimming "flight, only through water"?  More  than most movement powers, Swimming's usefulness is extremely dependent on the campaign.  It seems like the rest of the Justice League gets along just fine when they travel to Atlantis, so it's largely glossed over in the comics.

 

Which is why swimming gets 1 point for 2 meters.  And yes, it is glossed over, which argues for allowing flight to be used underwater in at least some cases.  Human Torch?  No...SFX conflict.  Hawkman?  No...can't use the wings.  Iron Man?  Hmm.  Maybe;  probably in a special version of the armor.  Green Lantern?  Yes.

 

It certainly wouldnt' be worth a limitation to say one's flight can't be used underwater...but conversely it's not frequent enough to justify an advantage.

 

Quote

I have never liked the concept that a character with 20 meters of running and 30 meters of flight cannot run 5 meters and then fly for at least 5 more meters as a half move.  Not sure "usable as another form of movement" solves that, although it would mean the character is not turning one power off to turn another on..

 

It's perfectly legal...unless you sold back all your base running to shave the points, and everything's in fixed slots in a multi, or in a VPP where you're not trying to support them both.  But yes, I get your point.  Another one would be running and leaping combinations.  They either get fairly expensive, or you get that hard divide in place.

 

A lot of this may just be implicit in a point-buy system, particularly one that attempts to do everything.  Some of it may be simply costing, to a degree;  nailing a proper, balanced cost is very hard given the diversity of uses.

[dmjalund]

I would increase the END cost if using flight underwater

[SCUBA Hero]

19 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

I have never liked the concept that a character with 20 meters of running and 30 meters of flight cannot run 5 meters and then fly for at least 5 more meters as a half move.  Not sure "usable as another form of movement" solves that, although it would mean the character is not turning one power off to turn another on.. 

4 hours ago, unclevlad said:

It's perfectly legal...unless you sold back all your base running to shave the points, and everything's in fixed slots in a multi, or in a VPP where you're not trying to support them both.  But yes, I get your point.  Another one would be running and leaping combinations.  They either get fairly expensive, or you get that hard divide in place.

 

No, it isn't.  6E2, 24: "Each Phase a character may move any portion of his meters of movement with a particular mode of movement." (Bolding is mine.)  Although I do agree with Hugh that I don't like the concept, and of course a GM can allow the combo... but it's not legal RAW.

 

[Utensil]

In my games I allow for Usable As Another Form Of Movement to allow for Blended Movement ... for example a dolphin that swims and 'jumps' out of the water and dives back in, or character that runs and then Leaps (Olympic Long Jump Event !?). That just my two cents on the subject.

 

Maybe a new +¼ Advantage need to be created for Blended Movement (I personally not feel the need for such).

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Utensil
Added comment on the +¼ adv.

[unclevlad]

32 minutes ago, SCUBA Hero said:

 

No, it isn't.  6E2, 24: "Each Phase a character may move any portion of his meters of movement with a particular mode of movement." (Bolding is mine.)  Although I do agree with Hugh that I don't like the concept, and of course a GM can allow the combo... but it's not legal RAW.

 

 

my bad.  

a)  I really dislike that so much basic stuff is in what's mostly the GM's book.  This is one of the reasons why the common belief is that the system's so hard to learn.  

b)  OK, I agree.  It's stupid.  You're 10 meters away from a 6 meter gap.  The BBEG is 3 meters past the edge.  You've got 30 meters of running and 20 of leaping.  Half phase to move the entire amount, then attack. 

 

Requiring more is IMO being pedantic.  Yes, sure, there can be combinations that might need addressing.  You're 5 meters from the intersection, facing east, with a building blocking your view north.  You want to move to the intersection (12 meters running) then teleport your full teleport range to the north.  (So he's teleporting to a spot he can see.)  How long does this take?  I'd probably just go with a full phase right now, then a half phase burned for the character's next phase. 

 

My favorite forms of movement are flight and teleport;  flight's the coolest, teleport's awesome for going VERY long distances quickly.  After that?  Parkour master.  Lots of running, lots of leap, and lots of acrobatics...but the running and leaping clearly need to blend.  Yeah, I suppose you could buy Running, usable as leaping...but I'd rather keep the scales separate.  The max you can cover with a leap might be MUCH less than the max running, and the noncombat multipliers might be quite different.    

 

I suspect the rule's there to just keep thing simpler.  

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

Which is why swimming gets 1 point for 2 meters.  And yes, it is glossed over, which argues for allowing flight to be used underwater in at least some cases.  Human Torch?  No...SFX conflict.  Hawkman?  No...can't use the wings.  Iron Man?  Hmm.  Maybe;  probably in a special version of the armor.  Green Lantern?  Yes.

 

Restrainable wings - easy to justify "not underwater". 

 

The whole argument does go away if flight and swimming are different movement powers, with specific costing to allow flight to work through water.

 

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

my bad.  

a)  I really dislike that so much basic stuff is in what's mostly the GM's book.  This is one of the reasons why the common belief is that the system's so hard to learn. 

 

There's a Character Creation book and  a Rules book.  I agree, however, that they could be better divided..

 

3 hours ago, unclevlad said:

b)  OK, I agree.  It's stupid.  You're 10 meters away from a 6 meter gap.  The BBEG is 3 meters past the edge.  You've got 30 meters of running and 20 of leaping.  Half phase to move the entire amount, then attack. 

 

Requiring more is IMO being pedantic.

 

Agreed.  but then, I'm pretty sure every big issue to someone is pedantic to someone else.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I do understand why Growth was built the way it was (it dovetails in to the Growth templates for creatures always that size) but I agree, as a power it stinks.

 

I'd avoid increased movement, there are equal examples and arguments for both "longer stride" and "takes longer to make a stride".  I don't agree with increased defenses (you're still the same stuff, why are you tougher?).  Increased Body and reach are obvious: you're bigger.  I can buy a bonus to offensive presence and penalty to Concealment.

 

The problem with Growth is that its never been approached as "what does growth do" but rather "what are characters in the comics who got bigger like?"   In a universal game you gotta approach it more as what being bigger would actually do rather than how Giant Man was written in Avengers 43.

[Grailknight]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I do understand why Growth was built the way it was (it dovetails in to the Growth templates for creatures always that size) but I agree, as a power it stinks.

 

I'd avoid increased movement, there are equal examples and arguments for both "longer stride" and "takes longer to make a stride".  I don't agree with increased defenses (you're still the same stuff, why are you tougher?).  Increased Body and reach are obvious: you're bigger.  I can buy a bonus to offensive presence and penalty to Concealment.

 

The problem with Growth is that its never been approached as "what does growth do" but rather "what are characters in the comics who got bigger like?"   In a universal game you gotta approach it more as what being bigger would actually do rather than how Giant Man was written in Avengers 43.

 

But the Growth templates are just that, templates. They were made to be a quick generalization for different types of creatures without taking into account body type or locomotion. And the emphasis is on quick. They don't offer any price discount over buying the equivalent Characteristics and Powers to balance the issues that Growth brings in Physical Limitations.

 

If Growth causes you to take that much longer to make a stride, why doesn't it slow down your other reactions. Why is the most common comment, "How can something that size move so fast?" ? Given equal DEX and Skills Ninja Titan flips around, dodges, picks locks and throws shurikens  identically to  a normal sized (N)PC. But being big slows down his stride and only his stride? Conversely, Micro-Ninja, has his small stride speeded up because he doesn't lose any speed. Watching them run alongside each other would be quite surreal. I do think doubling is too much in combat situations, perhaps +3" Running and 2x NCM while adding a Turn Mode would be a better fix? The templates are in line with the longer stride  argument.

 

As for increased defenses, my Damage Negation suggestion was there to reflect my interpretation of the source material. Normal weapons do less damage because they just don't penetrate  as deeply against larger creatures and so inflict lesser wounds. That could be done with STUN and BODY increases but it would need to than currently granted. As it stands, growth does not give the breadth of Defenses you need for the cost.. 

 

    

[dmjalund]

3 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I don't agree with increased defenses (you're still the same stuff, why are you tougher?)

thicker defenses often have higher DEF