Would you allow this character?

[Alex Raven]

The clothes thing for the Reduction is a "no go". Also, I don't like the blur thing. Finally, I would not allow the mantle thing either. Other than that, I think the character is too thin in a number of areas. This guy would get creamed in the campaign I play in. He wouldn't have the opportunity to do some of the great things he has the potential for. I know the player wants to begin with a little of everything in terms of their concept. I would recommend they pair back some of the diversity and save it for the accumulation of experience.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by ChuckB

-The VPP is a little high (how familiar is the pc with the Hero System ?)

Given the monstrosity above, I'd have to say he is quite familiar with the character creation rules at least.

 

Argus, there is no way I would allow this character as is. I'm of the same mind as D-Man. There is nothing wrong with some optimization. Heck my current character is a Mage-Brick with a 22 slot Multipower. But this is just over the top on almost every single line. Send him back for a rewrite.

[Bartman]

OK, I took a second look The Character. Here are my points of concern in order.

 

CSL- What precisely is 'magic' combat. Is this going to give him a +1 with his staff, his VPP and/or against any spell cast against him, including mind controls etc? If so he should pay 8 pts and up this to all combat. It seems like too broad of a concept.

 

Contacts- I would make sure you know exactly what the character is expecting The Magician, The Master and Raven to do for him. These all sound like get out of jail free cards to me. Have a problem? One of these contacts can probably solve it. Six points seems like a small price to have access to multiple 600+ pt characters.

 

Summonable Staff- Anything that is 'summonable' shouldn't have OAF on it. If this is truly summonable he needs to drop the focus. Perhaps restrainable would be better? If it is not summonable he should rename the power to enchanted staff or some such. And why does this have no knockback? If there is an effects based reason have him keep it. If not that should probably go as well. Because it looks like an attempt to just shave a fe extra points.

 

Spells of protection EC- This is questionable from the get go. Under 5th this isn't a sufficiently tight group to qualify for an EC. I would allow it under some circumstances, but as he has it, it is over the top. He has GM permission required constructions in 5 of the 6 slots. The whole construction simply looks like an excuse to save points. And why would draining his Clairsentience also reduce his Force Field? Until he can answer this to your satisfaction I'd disallow this.

 

Protection Bubble- He hasn't defined what the IAF is for this. And why is he taking Only In Heroic Identity as well? He has already defined it as part of his costume. It sure looks like he is taking the same limitation twice.

 

Damage Reduction- This shouldn't normally be in an EC

 

Danger Sense- Ditto

 

Blur Field- Ditto. And he has taken IAF and OIHID on the same power again. He has also taken "Costs Endurance Only Costs END to Activate" twice on this power. And I certainly wouldn't allow 4x End on a power that he only has to activate once. He would be getting a 30 pt power for 4 points, and none of the limitations seem very limiting.

 

Clairsentience- Why is this in a "Spells of Protection" EC? This should be right out

 

Instant Change- Always be cautious of OIHID and instant change. This isn't a deal breaker. But combined with everything else, I'd nix it too.

 

Mantle of The Hero- Focus and OIHID on the same thing again. Assuming a mystical heroic form is a comic classic. Combined with everything else this is just pure cheese. That +19 REC will also eliminate any problems from his costs end limitations. And what does he expect to be doing the one in five adventures in which his IAF costume it missing? He'll lose all his characteristics and defenses. Is he really will to let that happen?

 

VPP- How is magic a limiting special effect? I'd also take a good look at some of his sample spells. Two are GM permission required. And I am leery of the others. One thing you will definitely need to decide what happens to points when someone takes his IAF staff away. Given what I've seen here he will assume he can reuse those points immediately in another spell. And if that is the case why should he get a limitation on it? I'd also be leery of stacked attacks and defenses. As it is he is almost a brick defensively. He'll be able to pop on another 25-25 Force Field and still have enough left to give himself an additional 13DC to his Staff attack.

 

Now any single one of these probably wouldn't elicit a comment from me. But once a character has a dozen questionable constructs, it is too much. The sad thing is I think there is an interesting character buried under there. But as it is he needs a complete rewrite.

[Lightray]

I notice he also has that munchkin classic - Requires Skill Roll with the skill set to 16-.

 

IIRC, the skill roll is penalized by the active points of the power at the RSR -1/2 level, though, so it looks like he's accidentally given all his VPP powers a 9- activation roll.

 

I'm thinking combat won't be as fun as he thinks it will be...

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Lightray

I notice he also has that munchkin classic - Requires Skill Roll with the skill set to 16-.

 

IIRC, the skill roll is penalized by the active points of the power at the RSR -1/2 level, though, so it looks like he's accidentally given all his VPP powers a 9- activation roll.

 

I'm thinking combat won't be as fun as he thinks it will be...

I don't know about Argus' player. But I had one just like him. If my player had this character this is what he would do.

 

He would make a list of 20-30 spells that he'd claim he uses so often that he should get a +5 to the skill roll with them. He would also plan on using that +1 with magic combat roll to add the skill roll as well. Not to mention he'd want to use at least two of his KSs as complementary skills everytime he casts a spell. Just look at the Light Beam of Good spell. He would claim that he should get a +5 straight off, after all he should get a bonus to frequently used spells. Then he would claim that because it goes through his staff he should get a +1 because he has a WF: Staffs. Add in the CSL Magic and we have a -16 already. He would also claim that this spell should use KS: Occult 14-, KS: Magic through the ages 14-, and KS: Items of Power 14- as complementary skills because it is an ancient occult spell that creates an item of power. That on average will result in an end roll of -19.

 

Of course this would take forever because he would have to convince the GM of the situational modifiers every spell. He would also then have to make multiple skill rolls for each power every phase. Which I guess is one more reason to disallow the character. Unless the player is very fast at figuring the minuses for RSR, every phase is going to be rather long. He will have to decide how his VPP points are allocated. Then he will have calculate RSR and roll it. Then he take his normal actions. Every phase will have two extra steps. This can really bog a slow or indecisive player down.

[phydaux]

Originally posted by Bartman

The sad thing is I think there is an interesting character buried under there.

 

Yeah, and her name is Mystica (see attachment).

 

Now be honest with me guys - Is Mystica as dink-fu'ed as our case study is?

[Bartman]

Originally posted by phydaux

Yeah, and her name is Mystica (see attachment).

 

Now be honest with me guys - Is Mystica as dink-fu'ed as our case study is?

Not bad. There are a few things I'd question though.

 

You have both Gestures and Incantations on the VPP at -1/2. Shouldn't those be -1/4? As it is any instant power such as Energy Blast couldn't go into the pool, because instant powers only take a -1/4. And constant powers would require 'gestures/incantations throughout'. That may match the effect of some spells, but I bet you are expecting to be cast a nd forget.

 

I would also question the -1/4 for magic powers only. As a GM you would have to convince me that at least 20% of the powers in the book wouldn't ever be usable in the pool. And frankly I can't think of a single power in the book that coudn't be defined as under the effect 'magic'.

 

So I would make you bump your control cost from 16 to 25. But other than that she looks good. I like her permanant enchanted items. And her skill set and perks look good. I especially like the fact that you bought access and contacts for both Trismagistus and Thoth.

[Kristopher]

Originally posted by Bartman

Not bad. There are a few things I'd question though.

 

You have both Gestures and Incantations on the VPP at -1/2. Shouldn't those be -1/4? As it is any instant power such as Energy Blast couldn't go into the pool, because instant powers only take a -1/4. And constant powers would require 'gestures/incantations throughout'. That may match the effect of some spells, but I bet you are expecting to be cast and forget.

 

I would also question the -1/4 for magic powers only. As a GM you would have to convince me that at least 20% of the powers in the book wouldn't ever be usable in the pool. And frankly I can't think of a single power in the book that coudn't be defined as under the effect 'magic'.

 

So I would make you bump your control cost from 16 to 25. But other than that she looks good. I like her permanant enchanted items. And her skill set and perks look good. I especially like the fact that you bought access and contacts for both Trismagistus and Thoth.

 

$.02

 

I think the "for magic powers only" limit is more about SFX than for limiting which Powers can be used. For most concepts of magic, it's hard to justify anything that manipulates machines, or uses scientific principles. No mechempathy, no UV blasts, no radio-based powers, etc, etc.

[phydaux]

Two-handed gestures is -1/2. Incantations is only -1/4. Neither will be nessasary throughout the duration of a Constant power, and will allow the use of Instant powers. I'll need to adjust Incantations down the -1/4 and fix the math.

 

According to FREd, Magic Powers Only is a -1/4 limitation on a VPP's control cost. As far as what's covered in that -1/4, well I did a whole thread about that.

 

This was the gist of my idea:

 

First, no Mental Awareness for free, even though the character has access to mental powers via the VPP. This doesn't preclude the mystic from using VPP points to buy Mental Awareness for a little while. The character just doesn't get it all the time for no point cost, even if she is using VPP points to access "mental" powers.

 

Second, make the player come up with a "Spell Book." Even though the character can change powers in the pool during combat with a Magic skill roll, the player will only be able to select from powers pre-approved by the GM and listed on the back of the character sheet. All spell effects must be listed, both meta-game AND special effect. So the player can't just write "Energy Blast." He has to have Energy Blast - Fire, Energy Blast - Cold, Energy Blast - Lightning.

 

Moreover, every spell will have to be named. So rather than just Energy Blast - Fire it will have to be "Breath of the Balrog" and so on.

 

Any power that isn't listed in the Spell Book at the start of the gaming session, or any power without the desired special effect that isn't listed, can't be used that session. The player will have to add it to the list when the character spends game time to "research the spell."

 

At the very LEAST, this will cut down on the fumbling with a calculator and FREd during play time while the player is adjusting the VPP on the fly. That in itself is worth making the player do it.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by Kristopher

I think the "for magic powers only" limit is more about SFX than for limiting which Powers can be used. For most concepts of magic, it's hard to justify anything that manipulates machines, or uses scientific principles. No mechempathy, no UV blasts, no radio-based powers, etc, etc.

Sorry I may have not made that sufficiently clear. This is purely my own opinion. I as a GM woudn't find that line of argument sufficiently limiting. I personally woudn't allow a "magic only" VPP to have a -1/4 limitation.

[Bartman]

Originally posted by phydaux

Two-handed gestures is -1/2. Incantations is only -1/4. Neither will be nessasary throughout the duration of a Constant power, and will allow the use of Instant powers.

Mea-culpa. I missed the 2-handed part. So that is just fine. And as long as you are limiting the character to pre-learned spells that alone justifies the -1/4, if not a -1/2 IMO.

[Solomon]

I was a bit surprised when I found out that FREd actually lists "Only magic powers" as a -1/4 limitation on VPP. For one, I have an hard time figuring out a broader SF than "magic". Then, a limitation such as "Only attack powers" is also listed as -1/4. Obviously each GM should work out a list of "acceptable" magic powers for his campaign to make sure it fits the bill for a Limitation.

[phydaux]

Originally posted by Bartman

Sorry I may have not made that sufficiently clear. This is purely my own opinion. I as a GM woudn't find that line of argument sufficiently limiting. I personally woudn't allow a "magic only" VPP to have a -1/4 limitation.

 

Frankly, I agree with you. But I'm thining Steve and the boys must have ment something when they included that line in FREd. Thus my "Spell Book" idea, which is really more of a limitation for the player than the character.

 

As a GM, I'd GLADLY give a player -1/4 on his VPP control cost if he did all the math ahead of time, and didn't take up session time fumbling through FREd looking up powers and limitations for his next spell.

 

But if you're the GM and I'm the player, then it's your call and not mine.