Third Edition Renaissance

[Scott Ruggels]

13 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Dwerp! After reading about buying Characteristics under Focus rules, I totally forgot that they have the Poster Child-Armadillo! Third shift brain!

This is how a lot of my early Champions Characters were. Loved Powered armored suits.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

This is how a lot of my early Champions Characters were. Loved Powered armored suits.

 

I can see why! And frankly if I wanted to mess with Elemental Control, (I feel Stretching/Elasticity is a viable sfx) I would go that route for a few more Powers.

[Scott Ruggels]

7 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I can see why! And frankly if I wanted to mess with Elemental Control, (I feel Stretching/Elasticity is a viable sfx) I would go that route for a few more Powers.

There was I think a comic character that had extendable limbs in an Armored suit, So they had super leap, stretching,  plus some of the usual sensory powers.

[Ninja-Bear]

Two more things: Leaping is a full phase action and with Stretching I can grab an object and snap myself to that object. I assume that’s a full phase action too.

[Ninja-Bear]

Elastikick

Secret ID Paul E. Moore

30 STR 18 DEX 20 CON 10 BODY 10 INT 10 EGO 10 PRE 12 COM

20 PD 20 ED 5 SPD 10 REC 50 END 35 STUN CV 7 ECV 3

 

Powers

40 Stretching

10 RED END Stretch 4 END

30 Martial Arts

15 1/2 Damage Resistance vs ALL

7  RED END STR 3 END

10 Super Leap 12" total

6 +2 with Stretching-Combat

 

Disadvantages 100+

Secret ID                           15       Unluck 1D6                           5

Hunted by Viper               30       Phy lim:  +3 KB                  10

Psy Lim: Overconfident               20       Hunted: Cheshire Cat*     20

Vuln x2 STUN -Cold         10       Psy Lim Novice Hero       20

Vuln x2 STUN-Sonics      10      Phy Lim: x2 END Cold      10

 

Char: 122 

Powers: 128

Disadvantages 150

 

Here he is.

Edited May 31, 2020 by Ninja-Bear
Correct a duplicate psy lim

[Ninja-Bear]

The model is from Reaper miniatures named Blubbery Rand. He is the inspiration for Elastikick.

[assault]

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Disadvantages 100+

...

Psy Lim: Novice               20       

...

Psy Lim Novice Hero       20

 

Looks like a duplication.

[Ninja-Bear]

8 minutes ago, assault said:

 

Looks like a duplication.

The one pay lim should be overconfidence.

[Duke Bushido]

6 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

if I wanted to mess with Elemental Control, (I feel Stretching/Elasticity is a viable sfx) I would go that route for a few more Powers.

 

 

Yes; Stretching is a viable SFX for an EC.  Realistically, _every_ SFX is viable for an EC; that's likely the biggest reason they required GM oversight: in addition to having the right special effect, you sort of want it all to make sense.  I know: there are no rules that _say_ they have to make sense, but all the given examples have a kind of "feel" to them.  Otherwise you can end up with "I stretch my rubbery finger into his ear and create a direct neurological pathway to his brain, meaning I can get Mind Control in my EC: Fantastic Plastic."

 

Seriously: it meets the book-legal requirement, but it's a bit out of place, thematically.....

 

 

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Two more things: Leaping is a full phase action and with Stretching I can grab an object and snap myself to that object. I assume that’s a full phase action too.

 

that's going to vary from GM to GM, I think.  Some may consider it an SFX for Leaping, defaulting it to a full Phase.  Others (like me) might consider it to be its own unique movement power Dependent on Stretching (did 3e call it Linked yet?  I don't remember.  3e simply included it under the examples of custom limitations: power dependent on another power).

 

It's not entirely necessary, but you might consider Swinging.  I don't think it's a Power yet in 3e (could be wrong) but still a Skill.  It says you have to have a swing line, and frankly, you've got as many of those as you have hands, so....  Skills that aren't actually using a Characteristics base don't have an END cost associated with them......  

 

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

that's going to vary from GM to GM, I think.  Some may consider it an SFX for Leaping, defaulting it to a full Phase.  Others (like me) might consider it to be its own unique movement power Dependent on Stretching (did 3e call it Linked yet?  I don't remember.  3e simply included it under the examples of custom limitations: power dependent on another power).

Well RAW said Superleap takes Full Phase because your run the first 3” then leap.  So I can see though a generous GM should give you standing leap as half move.

 

I also when I envision writing up these guys for this board an old GM/Player who was the stereotypical Rules Lawyer.  I mean in essence we can always claim GM approval and for your on games that’s fine. I just (cue Johnny Cash) walk the line. 
 

I had to laugh at Mind Control example. Back in the day I was so unimaginative I would’ve never thought of trying to pull something like that! Heck for years I thought it was dumb that Cheshire Cat had a billy club and able to missile deflection anything. Lately I came to the conclusion that it’s a focus of his teleport powers and he warps the missiles away.

 

Next up is Zenith a Speedster. I’ve never played a speedster before.

[Ninja-Bear]

FWIW I got to run a sample battle with Elastikick versus 4 standard Viper agents. (I did swap ou their RKA for UNTILs EB though) and after a turn and a half I took them out except one. My son had him run away and the “leader” call him coward. 😁 I got a special gleam in my eye when I threw 12D6 at an agent I won’t lie!

[Ninja-Bear]

I changed Elastikick a little to remove Martial Arts.

 

Changed DEX to 23 39 pts

Increase SPD cost to 27 pts 

Dropped MA -30 pts

+3D6 STR Dice 0 END 15pts

-5 Lack of Weakness 5 pts

[Ninja-Bear]

Forgot

+1 STUN 1 pt

[Duke Bushido]

On June 1, 2020 at 12:11 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

Well RAW said Superleap takes Full Phase because your run the first 3” then leap.  So I can see though a generous GM should give you standing leap as half move.

 

If it helps, somewhere down the line (I don't recall the edition, or even if it was something from the Adventurers Club or some other publication, but I can't be the only one who remembers it) that specified a character can make _ten_ leaps (hyperbole added) in a full move, so long as he 1) doesn't exceed his movement total and 2) can justify landing, changing direction, etc, as needed to get where he wants to go.

 

This is both helpful and problematic:

 

it's problematic in that is seems to contradict the "leaping takes a full Phase" comment from the earlier rules.   Unless you understand that to mean that, like any other movement power, making your _full range_ move takes a full Phase.  Yes; it's a sideways squint, but built into that idea-- making multiple "hops" per leap, implies that "one hop" _can_ take less than a full Phase, meaning that the idea of a traditional "half-move" was supported, even in the early editions.

 

Hopefully that helps a bit.  

 

 

On June 1, 2020 at 12:11 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

 

I also when I envision writing up these guys for this board an old GM/Player who was the stereotypical Rules Lawyer.  I mean in essence we can always claim GM approval and for your on games that’s fine. I just (cue Johnny Cash) walk the line. 

 

Said with full care and respect:

 

What else matters?

 

Seriously.  The _value_ of asking an internet full of strangers is inspiration when you're stuck for ideas, camaraderie, and swapping concepts, adventures, and neat ideas.

 

That's really about it.  What's the value of making sure-- and I'm not pulling a name out of the hat, here:  the person I am going to invoke has a history of being a very good sport about having name invoked  ---  what's the value of making sure you are playing the game the exact same way that Hugh is playing the game?   Or even the exact same way _I_ am?!  Actually, I encourage you _not_ to play it the way I do, because I quite intentionally do not use things that I know you _like_ in your games.  (Not in a cause / effect way, mind you; they appeal to you and not to me, so....).

 

The whole "well that's okay....   _for you_...." is just a bit condescending, considering that "what's okay for you" is the _only_ cussed thing that really matters!      I know Sean lives in the UK, and I _suspect_ that Doc does.  I thoroughly enjoy hearing the things they have to say, and bouncing ideas off of them, but the fact is that if I don't do something that they _do_ like, or I do a thing that they absolutely detest---

 

I'm going to keep not doing or doing it, so long as it works for me.  Frankly, I suspect that they are going to do the same when it's the other way 'round.

 

The difference, I think, is that I'm pretty open about the fact that my methods are not going to change based on someone else's approval or rejection.  As they will never sit at my table (not a personal decision:  That's a heck of commute for a regular game!    ) and I will never sit at theirs.  This isn't even a philosophical observation:  it very, very, fully-applicapable, real-world, true-to-life statement:  It will _never_ matter, not once, that we are doing the exact same thing.

 

Discussion is _fun_; I have absolutely _no_ argument there!  But important?  Realistically?  Not in the least.  

 

Do the fun thing.  Always, always, _always_ do the _fun_ thing.  That's why we play, right?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

On June 1, 2020 at 12:11 AM, Ninja-Bear said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I had to laugh at Mind Control example. Back in the day I was so unimaginative I would’ve never thought of trying to pull something like that! Heck for years I thought it was dumb that Cheshire Cat had a billy club and able to missile deflection anything. Lately I came to the conclusion that it’s a focus of his teleport powers and he warps the missiles away.

 

Next up is Zenith a Speedster. I’ve never played a speedster before.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke I am doing the fun thing trust me. 😁 Why I envision certain GMs/RAW “BY the book”/as a player, is that it helps me focus on character build. I hate coming up with 150 pts in Disadvantages and yeah I could say as a GM you only need 100 pts but since I’m going with RAW it’s making stretch the old brain. Also Super leap as a full phase doesn’t bother me. I just found it interesting. I used it in the battle and it worked fine. 
 

Zenith is done and Razorback is almost finished.

[Ninja-Bear]

I find it interesting to see where the system came from.i think I can see why certain things were done.

[Ninja-Bear]

So. Duke what is your game guidelines? Do you start Heroes at 200 pts or 250 pts or something else? What do you consider is a  power point iow, 8D6N or 12D6N? 

[Ninja-Bear]

Did I mention Duke that I enjoy reading old Champions game supplements too?

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry, N-B:

 

Similar to your "third shift brain," this is the time of year where my job becomes a 12-14 hours / day, 6 days  / week thing.  it's also, from what I gather in snippets around the board, also considerably more physical than most of the regulars here do for a living.  Accordingly, I'm _pooped_!    

 

My game guidelines...

 

I'm going to blame this on fuzzy brain, but I sincerely don't quite understand what you're asking there..

 

Starting heroes:

 

It really depends on the plan and the theme, at least at the start.  I'd give it about an even split between 200 and 250, though those numbers aren't exclusive.  I've done a considerable amount at 300, and quite a few at 125-150.  Still, 200 and 250 are easily 2/3 of the supers games over the decades.

 

A couple of things I'd like to add to that:  I've _never_ required anyone hit those totals exactly.  I've never required anyone even come close, if they (and I, of course) were happy with the character they had built.  (Seriously:  the old Red October board was probably the first time in my _life_ I'd ever heard the term "points sink" as it relates to Champions / HERO.  It baffled me for _days_ afterward).  Hell, I've even been known to handicap one or two particular individuals and bonus one or two others over the years.

 

Why?  Why the bonuses and handicaps and lack of strict adherence to max point totals?

 

Remember that I started out as a player in a 1e group.  Even when I bought my first 2e, I was still a player; the GM was using my 2e for six months or so before I really felt I was ready to give it a try!        One thing I learned early on-- and one of the reasons I tend to get all roll-y eyed and saddle burred when I run across discussions on "balance" and "points" and "mathematical balance"-- is that points don't balance _crap_.  They don't.  They just _don't_.

 

We can "prove" it on paper, but disprove it over and over again at a gaming table.  The fact is that I can sit down with a group of six players and tell them to spend _exactly_ 300 points on a new character.  There would be _one_ player who's character could easily slaughter everyone else even if they worked as a team (and clean the blood with their desiccated corpses) and at least one who couldn't fight his way out of a wet paper death trap.  Or a wet paper romantic entanglement.  And everyone else would fall at various points in between.

 

They all spent the same number of points, right?  We've proven that balances them, right?   Yeah!  _Riiight_....  (wink wink; nudge nudge)

 

I could go on and on about that, but I won't, because it's late, and I'm tired.

 

i've mentioned this before, but for whatever reason, all of my groups since the very first have really enjoyed _growing_ their characters, so we tend to be quite happy starting in that range.  We also tend to retire characters when they "get grown."   Think about it like a book series you really enjoyed: you really got behind the characters and their struggles, but it wasn't just the story of _one particular struggle_.  That would get really boring, really fast.  There was a series of struggles, and because each time the character succeeded, you knew what he could handle, another of the same struggle wasn't as interesting.  The author knew that, too.  To keep you reading, each struggle got just a little harder; each opponent became a little more powerful.  Sometimes the author even highlights that with a quick re-vist to an early-model scenario, which our heroes handle almost on autopilot, unthinkingly, without even breaking stride as they head to their _real_ objective....  We've all seen it; read it; whatever.  These scenes in movies and such are almost always played _for laughs_, the protagonist has gotten so much better, more skilled, more powerful.  He's grown.  A lot.

 

There comes a point when the struggles required to challenge the character either stop being the kinds of things we enjoyed using the character for:  my own two-and-a-half decades character Martin Power was an absolute _blast_ when he was "just" a nice-looking, well-mannered brick with surprising intelligence.  He was popular enough with the rest of that particular supers group that my own friends would constantly veto me retiring him, even when it got to the point that _I wasn't enjoying him anymore_.  Seriously.  He went from being just a stand-up guy with lots of muscles to being involved in a secret intergalactic war in space and the accidental upheaval of the major First-World governments.  I _hated_ it toward the end.  Not because the GM wasn't good, or because the group wasn't _great_, but because the challenges had become so hokey and so far beyond the scope of where I wanted the character to go  (imagine that you wanted to write a book, and you wrote it, and it was exactly the book you wanted to write, with all the loose ends tied up, but you are contractually obligated to write _nine more books_ about the same character.).

 

Anyway, there comes a point where you get the character to where you wanted him to end up.  There comes a point when your satisfaction is _complete_ with that character.  There also comes a point right after that where the threats and menaces have to be so over-the-top in order to remain plausible threats that they strain your willing suspension of disbelief.

 

It's time to let that character go, too.

 

And we do it, willingly and happily.   

 

Because we enjoy that character growth (and generally longer campaigns), it's actively not fun for us to "start out" with 400 or 450 or 600 or whatever-the-new-normal-is points.

 

No: I'm not denigrating it.  I'm just explaining how I feel about it and why.  Don't read anything into that.

 

 

As far as "low power" goes--- well, just like everything else, that's going to really depend on the over-all build of the character-- the whole package: powers, skills, characteristics, focus, specialties, and personalities.  I've had characters and players with characters that start out as low as 6d6N and grow it up from there.  Had a few that started with 4d6N with a few really creative advantages that gave them some surprising effectiveness for a mere 4d6.  Granted, it wasn't often, and they often had to go to great lengths to stack the deck in their favor for peak effectiveness, but that in itself was a kind of fun for us.  

 

_Typically_, though, a starting character will have a primary attack somewhere between 8-14d6, usually 10-12, and grow it from there.  Those that start on the low end of the scale tend to have a single heavily-disadvantaged "hold out weapon" of some sort, just to make sure they can pack a punch when they are in serious trouble.

 

By the time they are grown--- who knows?  Depends on the flavor of the campaign.  About the time we're throwing around 30DC with regularity, things tend to start heading for wrapping up the campaign, at least for the higher-end characters, in some fashion, and I think the absolute highest we've ever gotten to before we all had to admit we were sort of ready for a new story and fresh characters was mid-forties on DCs.  (seriously:  these games tend to run for _years_ at a story).

 

 

In the last ten years or so, we don't have the time we used to.  We still start low, but consider ourselves lucky to get a character into the twenties on DCs before being ready to try on something else.

 

 

I don't know if any of that was helpful (or remotely interesting) to you, but I hope so.

 

Good night.

 

[Ninja-Bear]

Duke thanks  for answering my curiosity! I agree with “Balance” and don’t get me started on “point efficiency” either. 😁 I do wonder if the creators would have given a higher Base points then Players wouldn’t have felt the pressure to squeeze as many points out of their characters. Also I was curious at starting points/Power level because when I came in at 4th, I got the feeling that If you didn’t take Max (60pt) Powers then you were lacking. More at next break.

[Spence]

20 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

I don't know if any of that was helpful (or remotely interesting) to you, but I hope so.

 

Good night.

 

[Chris Goodwin]

Ninja-Bear, just curious.  Are you using either of the two supplements (Champions II and Champions III)?  

[Ninja-Bear]

1 hour ago, Chris Goodwin said:

Ninja-Bear, just curious.  Are you using either of the two supplements (Champions II and Champions III)?  

Well I only have Champions II. And as a starting point no. The reason is I’m seeing how everything works IF I just used the Rule from 3rd.  I have nothing against the the supplements   (I think II is neat.) 

[Ninja-Bear]

I find it funny and a description for martial arts it says how it will help you hit someone with mechanically it does not it helps you avoid being hit but not to actually get someone.

[Ninja-Bear]

So would any one really have a Problem with a SPD 6 STR 20 DEX 33 Speedster aging Martial Arts ? 😁