A Modified Champions Universe

[Ninja-Bear]

Pamelaisley are you using any 4ed stuff or just 5th and 6th?

[PamelaIsley]

3 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Pamelaisley are you using any 4ed stuff or just 5th and 6th?

 

Just 5 and 6.  I would say my backstory preference is strongly for 5E (keep Nighthawk in the Champions).

[Cassandra]

I've always considered Magic to be the use of the Mental Illusion power for any changes in reality.  Otherwise it's just a type of energy like electricity or fire.

[Mr. R]

I was just thinking about the lack of blasters and some high tech.  If you want an in game mechanical reason why some use blasters, someone once remarked on a house rule for  Real World Item (-1/4).  This is generally the idea that it needs to be cleaned, have regular maintenance and no mater how high the DC of the weapon it will bot hurt a safe or an APC.  He added on idea for a super's campaign: 

 

Real weapons have reduced penetration vs anything that is not Real World Tech/super powers.  So an AK-47 (2d6 RKA) will be two 1d6 RKA for purposes of calculating damage.  So anyone with 15/15 resistant def or above is practically immune to the rifle fire.  A Stinger Missile (4d6 RKA) becomes 2 x 2d6 RKA, or no measurable damage to the super.  Basically this means a person with 30 resistant pd can bounce main battle tank shells.

 

Real Armour becomes less effective, so all super attacks become Armour Piercing.  So that APC with resist def of 12 PD when faced with a 10d6 normal attack, has a def of 6.  Suddenly supers are more dangerous, and high tech super gear (ie Blaster rifles and poly carbon armour with memory matrixes) become viable to use under certain circumstances.  

 

I plan to try them out if and when I can get a group together!

 

Something to think about!

[PamelaIsley]

1 minute ago, Mr. R said:

I was just thinking about the lack of blasters and some high tech.  If you want an in game mechanical reason why some use blasters, someone once remarked on a house rule for  Real World Item (-1/4).  This is generally the idea that it needs to be cleaned, have regular maintenance and no mater how high the DC of the weapon it will bot hurt a safe or an APC.  He added on idea for a super's campaign: 

 

Not bad ideas, but exactly the opposite of what I prefer. 

 

I want no blasters because I find them silly.  And I want real world weapons to hurt superheroes.  I definitely think all but the mightiest bricks should be hurt by a missile!

[Mr. R]

No problem!

[Cassandra]

15 hours ago, Mr. R said:

I was just thinking about the lack of blasters and some high tech.  If you want an in game mechanical reason why some use blasters, someone once remarked on a house rule for  Real World Item (-1/4).  This is generally the idea that it needs to be cleaned, have regular maintenance and no mater how high the DC of the weapon it will bot hurt a safe or an APC.  He added on idea for a super's campaign: 

 

Real weapons have reduced penetration vs anything that is not Real World Tech/super powers.  So an AK-47 (2d6 RKA) will be two 1d6 RKA for purposes of calculating damage.  So anyone with 15/15 resistant def or above is practically immune to the rifle fire.  A Stinger Missile (4d6 RKA) becomes 2 x 2d6 RKA, or no measurable damage to the super.  Basically this means a person with 30 resistant pd can bounce main battle tank shells.

 

Real Armour becomes less effective, so all super attacks become Armour Piercing.  So that APC with resist def of 12 PD when faced with a 10d6 normal attack, has a def of 6.  Suddenly supers are more dangerous, and high tech super gear (ie Blaster rifles and poly carbon armour with memory matrixes) become viable to use under certain circumstances.  

 

I plan to try them out if and when I can get a group together!

 

Something to think about!

 

Well, Blasters are clumsy and random.

[Mr. R]

Yeah but good lightsabers are hard to find!

[Greywind]

3 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

Well, Blasters are clumsy and random.

 

And also uncivilized.

[Cassandra]

5 hours ago, Greywind said:

 

And also uncivilized.

 

Because Science did a show that said a light sabre would vaporize a human being in a steam explosion.

[L. Marcus]

Ah yes, civilization.

[Greywind]

10 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

Because Science did a show that said a light sabre would vaporize a human being in a steam explosion.

 

No, because Obi-Wan said it was uncivilized after he used one and tossed it away after.

[PamelaIsley]

47 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

No, because Obi-Wan said it was uncivilized after he used one and tossed it away after.

 

The original line is from ANH where he calls a lightsaber "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."  This, of course, was not really borne out by the Prequels, where blasters were just as common (if not more so) and lightsabers almost as rare.

[Greywind]

2 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

 

The original line is from ANH where he calls a lightsaber "an elegant weapon for a more civilized age."  This, of course, was not really borne out by the Prequels, where blasters were just as common (if not more so) and lightsabers almost as rare.

 

[deprived of his lightsaber, Obi-Wan kills General Grievous with the general's own blaster] 

Obi-Wan Kenobi : [throws the gun away]  Uh! So uncivilized.

[PamelaIsley]

27 minutes ago, Greywind said:

 

[deprived of his lightsaber, Obi-Wan kills General Grievous with the general's own blaster] 

Obi-Wan Kenobi : [throws the gun away]  Uh! So uncivilized.

Oh I remember that.

 

I'm just saying the origin of the blaster as uncivilized was ANH.

[PamelaIsley]

I've been looking into the Sentinels and Justice Squadron (ugh).  Besides just the Justice Squadron's name (which actually sounds cheesier than Futurama's New Justice Team), these are not very well put together superhero teams.

 

Let's look at the listed members.

 

Sentinels

Black Rose. Supermage. Leader of the team (this is actually not clear; in the team history, Diamond is said to be the most recent leader, but in the bios, she is identified as leader).  Extradimensional mage.

Diamond. Brick. Long serving member who has diamond skin. He's the Thing. Almost unashamedly.

Diadem. Psionics.  Youngest member and mentalist. Supposed to be a relatively new hero, but as of News of the World, she's quite old.

Dr. Vox. Energy Projector. Recently developed sonic blast powers.

Proteus. Shapechanger. Mysterious figure who can alter his form.

Bravo. No real class. Extradimensional swordfighter from Faerie.

 

Justice

Blink. Teleporter. Mainly can teleport others.

Brawler. Brick. Legacy hero and one of strongest men in the world. Sort of the leader?

Drifter. Supermage. Extremely powerful mysterious magical figure.

Flashover. Energy Projector. Reformed supervillain.

Superstar. Energy Projector. Very powerful cosmic energy projector.

Tomahawk. Sort of Brick. Experienced supercombatant.

 

Each team has six members (ruling out voting as a means of making decisions). Neither team has a real gadgeteer. And neither team has a speedster. The Sentinels, in particular, have some serious weaknesses as a tactical unit, despite massive point inflation. Some of the bios are just bizarre, and some clearly have struggled with some version issues (Diadem mainly). They all suffer from simply being too old because their bios use specific dates, they clearly are from earlier versions of the game than 5E (I think), and time has sped past them. If you wanted to set your game at the time News of the World came out, only Superstar is reasonably younger than his early 30s. (Diadem started superheroing in 1989, Blink in 1993, Flashover in 1994, and Superstar in 2001. These are the young members, and Superstar is supposed to be a "rookie.")

 

So just because of some date issues, these teams are in need of a refresh. The question is whether they are in need of a full reboot. I have given serious thought to totally re-creating both teams from scratch using original heroes. I've also considered pruning the ranks a little and just re-doing several spots to build out more balanced teams and allow them to feel more vibrant (like the Champions) in a setting update.

 

What do people think? I feel like these teams are more significant in the Champions Universe than the offhand mentions they get in 6E, but I'm not really all that pleased with the fleshed out versions that appear in 5E for the reasons above.

[Ninja-Bear]

I don’t think every team needs to be “balanced” especially if their NPC teams.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Published 5th edition "NPC" superteams tend to be strange builds in my limited experience. Both the Champions and Champions 3k seem to be fairly balanced teams with strong and also paradigmatic characters. I think that's because they're supposed to be models.

 

With the NPC teams, there may be some philosophical point. The Sword of Ackal in Champions 3000 and the StarForce both seem handicapped by some very baroque builds that leave them effectively down a member or two or even three. StarForce in particular only seems to have two fully effective members. UNITY is a little less strange, but basically throws away at least one membership slot. My take on this is that there's editorial guidelines to the effect that the NPC team not overshadow the players. 

 

The thing is that editorial guidelines are for contributors. The Sentinels and Justice Squadron were both written up by Steven Long. Revisions probably explain the contradictory bits in the backgrounds. The writeups are another matter. My personal read is that there's some degree of compare and contrast going on, with the Sentinels' membership often significantly less effective than their Justice Squadron counterparts in spite of being built on more points. Or I may be generalising too far. If I recall the discussion on the boards, there was some push for "viewscreen" heroes who can show up in the background during a climactic event. They're the guys who stay and defend Earth/guard the President/lay in coffee and light snacks while the player characters  carry out the mission the GM has laid  on for them --the one that turns out to matter. In that respect, it is useful to have a team made up of members who can actually do things. But not too many things!

[PamelaIsley]

14 minutes ago, Lawnmower Boy said:

Published 5th edition "NPC" superteams tend to be strange builds in my limited experience. Both the Champions and Champions 3k seem to be fairly balanced teams with strong and also paradigmatic characters. I think that's because they're supposed to be models.

 

This is probably my main problem with them.  They are all so strange (except for The Thing take off) that they just don't feel like good "example" superteams.  Maybe only the Champions are supposed to be made up of recognizable superhero types.  The Sentinels and Justice Squadron would make good fodder for a parody (or a bizarre 80s cartoon), but they are just too weird.  I can't really see either of them starring in an actual comic book (much less a film based on a comic universe, which is how many players now come to superhero stuff).

[Lord Liaden]

No shade thrown at PamelaIsley, of course she should modify the official setting in any way that makes it more fun for her to play in. Steve Long himself has written as much.

 

But re magic underpinning the rise of superpowers, in the context of the modern era, that's just an enabling device to explain how the world could progress for centuries pretty much as in real life, and then one days supers start popping up (that day being analogous to when the first comic-book superhero debuted in the real world). Supertech, mutant powers, ch'i-fueled martial arts, aren't "magic" themselves -- magic just loosens the laws of physics enough for them to manifest. (Let's face it, comics break real physics every issue.) If every time "magic" as the reason for super powers appeared in print, you scratched it out, and wrote in your preferred causative force -- cosmic energy, quantum flux, dimensional instability, whatever -- the rest of the setting would roll on pretty much the same. IME the main problem most gamers have who express distaste for that explanation, is that they have strong personal preconceptions as to what magic "really" is (which is an amusing notion in itself).

[PamelaIsley]

35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

IME the main problem most gamers have who express distaste for that explanation, is that they have strong personal preconceptions as to what magic "really" is (which is an amusing notion in itself).

 

I've already said where I stand on this issue.  Just to add one more thing though, Champions Universe (both 5E and 6E), meaning Steve Long, practically concedes that it's a bizarre and confusing metafact with the long explanation of the difference between "magic" (like what Witchcraft uses) and "MAGIC" (like what causes people to develop superpowers and, strangest of all, supertechnology).  One would have thought that once you got halfway through writing p. 33 and 34 in 6E CU (p. 29 and 30 in 5E), you might have decided that this explanation wasn't really helping with suspension of disbelief (even at a table of people willing to play a superhero game to begin with).  If you had used "cosmic energy", "quantum flux", or whatever, it would have taken one sentence and I think most people would have moved on.  Using magic as the explanation has just lead to lots and lots of text about the issue (and not just in the published books).

 

It's just odd to say that "magic" is both a special effect and the cause of all super stuff in a setting.  

[Lord Liaden]

Hey, it wouldn't have been my first choice either. But I don't have a fundamental problem with it. I suspect Steve didn't expect so many other people would.

 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this issue, if you are.

[PamelaIsley]

15 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Hey, it wouldn't have been my first choice either. But I don't have a fundamental problem with it. I suspect Steve didn't expect so many other people would.

 

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on this issue, if you are.

I'm fine with disagreeing, but now you've made me re-read these pages (I usually skip them when I go back through these books), so the punishment is that I have to write something else.   

 

Steve had to know something was up (as I said before, at least partly because of how much preemptive, defensive explaining he does).  At the beginning of this section, he writes that CU is an unlimited source campaign.  He then lists a lot of different sources, including the categories of Magic and Mysticism.  Then, half a page later, he says magic is the source of everything.  I just can't believe he didn't think this would be received as confusing (at best).

 

*This is compounded by the fact that when explaining sources in Champions (6E and 5E), that book actually contrasts an unlimited source campaign with a magic-only campaign (one of the examples of a limited source campaign).

[steriaca]

2 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

I'm fine with disagreeing, but now you've made me re-read these pages (I usually skip them when I go back through these books), so the punishment is that I have to write something else.   

 

Steve had to know something was up (as I said before, at least partly because of how much preemptive, defensive explaining he does).  At the beginning of this section, he writes that CU is an unlimited source campaign.  He then lists a lot of different sources, including the categories of Magic and Mysticism.  Then, half a page later, he says magic is the source of everything.  I just can't believe he didn't think this would be received as confusing (at best).

 

*This is compounded by the fact that when explaining sources in Champions (6E and 5E), that book actually contrasts an unlimited source campaign with a magic-only campaign (one of the examples of a limited source campaign).

I like to ignore the "everyone is a mage" explanation. It is not that confusing (the high mana level is the reason people get superpowers as oppose to killing themselves or being killed), it just that it seems to be lazy. Very lazy.

[steriaca]

 

 

2 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

I'm fine with disagreeing, but now you've made me re-read these pages (I usually skip them when I go back through these books), so the punishment is that I have to write something else.   

 

Steve had to know something was up (as I said before, at least partly because of how much preemptive, defensive explaining he does).  At the beginning of this section, he writes that CU is an unlimited source campaign.  He then lists a lot of different sources, including the categories of Magic and Mysticism.  Then, half a page later, he says magic is the source of everything.  I just can't believe he didn't think this would be received as confusing (at best).

 

*This is compounded by the fact that when explaining sources in Champions (6E and 5E), that book actually contrasts an unlimited source campaign with a magic-only campaign (one of the examples of a limited source campaign).

I like to ignore the "everyone is a mage" explanation. It is not that confusing (the high mana level is the reason people get superpowers as oppose to killing themselves or being killed), it just that it seems to be lazy. Very lazy.