So what do we want to talk about?

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

16 minutes ago, Pariah said:

Honestly, I'm still not convinced that the 6th Ed change from "Disadvantages" to "Complications" was necessary either.

A Disadvantage should logically be the inverse of an Advantage.  It wasn't, so that terminology change made sense.  The ones you talk about feel like change for change's sake. 

[assault]

The case for situations is the strongest of these. Simply, they aren't Disadvantages, and they aren't use to balance a character's points.

 

As it happens, the change in this case was from Disadvantages, not from Complications. The latter term doesn't necessarily imply the same as Situations either.

 

Incidentally, GB(i) posted while I was originally writing this post.

[ideasmith]

23 hours ago, Pariah said:

 I have yet to determine whether flexibility will suffer unacceptably as a result.!

 

Keep in mind that special effects cover lots and lots of ground. When (in the Kickstarter discussion) I asked Ron Edwards about using Luck to represent Dream Girl's precognition, he seemed to consider it appropriate.

[PeterLind]

Something I would like to see:  a conversion of the weapons and armor tables in Champions 3E, pp. 83-85, to Champions Now.  

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, Pariah said:

I'm now another 30 or so pages in. One thing I'm seeing that perplexes me a bit is the names of things being changed for reasons that aren't obvious to me. As mentioned above, "Situations" instead of "Complications".* "Multipower" is now "Multiform". "STUN" is now "Knockout", which I suppose makes some sense. And so on. For me, half the challenge of reading the new book has been the vocabulary.

 

I scanned the character-building chapter today; I'll read it in more detail in the next few days. After that, I should be able to start building characters....

 

 

*Honestly, I'm still not convinced that the 6th Ed change from "Disadvantages" to "Complications" was necessary either.

 

Multiform was a Power that, for all intents and purposes, was simply an enormous (usually) Pool in a Multipower structure.  But it was also weird, in that you never had partial shifts, it was full shifts only.  Banner/Hulk (the brute versions), Donald Blake/Thor.  The various Chameleonic characters weren't Multiform, they were Shape Shift + VPP (shift-related), or a Multipower of Compound Power slots perhaps.  And there's extensive overlap, conceptually, structurally between a Multipower and a Multiform.  

 

So going down to 1, rather than keeping 2, makes sense, and having it as a framework is far more solid than as a power.  So that gets us just to the name.  I think Ron picked Multiform *because* it was different, to force you to look at it and recognize that it's not intended to be the classic "which type of arrow do I fire here" only. It covers the core notion of a Multipower, as well as Multiform and Summon (with the Separate advantage).

[unclevlad]

3 hours ago, PeterLind said:

Something I would like to see:  a conversion of the weapons and armor tables in Champions 3E, pp. 83-85, to Champions Now.  

 

Is there a need?  Basic non-supers gear costs nothing, but it won't be durable.  If you want durable, pay for it.  Recognize that Focus is *intended* to be something that goes down.  For conversions, on the guns, I think 1d6 Killing -> 2d6 with Piercing.  Melee weapons become Blast with Strike, and Piercing if they're killing attacks.  Everything else probably translates, perhaps with slight scale tweaks.

[PeterLind]

Perhaps not for everybody, but if I was going to have a hero attacked by a bad guy with a gun, I'd like to know how much damage a standard gun does.

[unclevlad]

7 minutes ago, PeterLind said:

Perhaps not for everybody, but if I was going to have a hero attacked by a bad guy with a gun, I'd like to know how much damage a standard gun does.

 

Remember that comments in Champs Now.  Supers basically ignore street-level guns, is the intent.

[PeterLind]

Sure.  I do not think that the game will suffer from a bit more realism, for those GMs who might lean a bit more in that direction . . .

[unclevlad]

True, and he's mentioned that too.  Figure that even 2D Piercing is only gonna do 1 to most PCs, since 1 Resistant is inherent.  For a bigger gun, go 3D Piercing.  At least for normal weapons, I think the straightforward translation is 1D killing -> 2D Piercing...points remain the same, END's not the same per se but similar.  (And a gun's on Charges in any case.)

 

BTW, the other reason why I don't care is...what gun are we talking about?  .38?  9 mil?  10 mil?  .40 S&W long barrel?  .45?  Desert Eagle?  5E has a bunch of these.  The range is 1D for the wimpy ones (.38) up to 2D for the Eagle, IIRC.  More than that and we're into rifles.  But...just convert using DCs.  2D killing is 6 DCs...so that's 4D with the 1/2 advantage.  Play around as you like.  Even 5D might be a hot load in a bigger gun...maybe with an 8- Burnout tied to it because they ARE overloaded rounds.

 

If ya wanna scare em...autofire.

[PeterLind]

Yes I think you have it about right.  I was taking a look at the weapons table in Champions 3E and thinking that a straight conversion of 1d6KA to 3d6 Piercing would be a bit high.  So I think you have it right at 2d6.  

 

As for detailed list of weapons?  Not really what I am looking for.  The list of guns in Champions 3E works for me, where a gun is described as "pistol," "heavy pistol," etc.  Thanks.

[nitrosyncretic]

Regarding handguns and normals using weapons, check out the gun discussion on page 208 of CN and the Hazards You Can Fight section on page 188. 

[PeterLind]

Yes, thank you.  The discussion in p. 207 to 208 about guns leaves them undefined, but also acknowledges that a GM may want to "pull the realism cord."  This also relates to the discussion on p. 188, Hazards You Can Fight.  I think that this discussion is helpful to GMs when the characters have to deal with mobs of people or hordes of agents.  In essence, rather than treating them as individuals to deal with, they are being abstracted into a "hazard."  So I get that and it can be a useful guide in some situations.  But there also is the other end of the spectrum, from abstraction to the realism side of things.  If as a GM I would like to set up a situation where the characters have to take on agents who have training in dealing with paranormals, then I  don't mind writing them up as individual challenges.  Sure they won't be as tough as characters, and they might be using regular guns, but hey, I am just exercising a bit of GM perogative here.  I believe that the Champions Now game can handle it and take this kind of language in the book as advisory, and not as game rules per se.  Thanks.

[Pariah]

I feel like there's going to be quite a bit of GM prerogative in the execution of this game (assuming I can get a group together, of course....). There's a lot so far that seems open-ended, or not clearly defined, or just counterintuitive to me. Of course, I haven't finished reading the whole thing yet--work keeps getting in the way of my reading time!--so I may be basing that thought on information that I haven't seen.

 

Having said that, I've always used a few house rules and other adjustments as I have seen fit as a GM. I won't feel bad about doing it here, too.

[Pariah]

So, I'm getting a ~40 Points vibe for attacks. This leads to average Core and Knockout scores of 8 and 28, respectively.

 

With Body values realistically between 10 and maybe 15, this leads to Stunned values of 10-15 and Knockout values of 20-30.

 

Starting with 10 Defense, Body damage won't be an issue very often. Without increasing the Defense, though, Stunned and Knockout could be problematic.

 

I'm guessing that at least 5 points of extra Defense would be a practical minimum, especially if you haven't bought up your Body score (which I, personally, can't imagine not doing). One of the baddies in the book, I forget which, had a Defense score of 26. That's going to bounce a lot of attacks.

 

A couple of points of Resistant Defense may be prudent, but probably not more than 5 or so (even if you could afford it, which is another issue). You get 1 Body back with every Recovery, so losing it isn't as big a deal as it was in mainstream Champions.

 

The lack of a Post-6 Recovery concerns me a little. My dim and fading memories of 3rd Edition are littered with Phases spent taking recoveries and muttered petitions to the Powers That Be that the character could stay conscious long enough (and have enough END) to reach the blessed Post-12 Recovery. I know that's the feel Ron was going for, but having played 4Ed-6Ed, I can't say I'm fond of returning to it. The lack of an automatic Recovery each Turn just makes it worse.

 

Skimming through what I haven't read yet, it looks like I've seen most of the character building stuff. I may put someone together this weekend....

[PeterLind]

In terms of recoveries, one thing we noticed with Champions Now is that there is no risk of losing your recovery.  This is unlike regular Champions, where if you are hit on the same segment/phase while recovering, you end up losing your recovery.  Hope this helps.  

[Pariah]

Two long-time characters I've had are Black Bow (Hawkeye knock-off, but with a crossbow) and Bronze Guardian (powered armor Brick). Both of them relied quite heavily on their respective Foci.

 

With the institution of the Ratio (and, to a more limited extent, the elimination of Inobvios Foci), I don't know that I'll be able to build either of these characters for Champions Now.

 

Morningstar (presented in the Character Builds thread) relies only minimally on her mace, and she still came in at 118.5. I should be posting another character tomorrow whose Focused Powers are limited to a 20-point Multiform with three slots, and he comes in at 108. I guess that's probably the point, to make sure that characters aren't too reliant on their toys. But this feels really restrictive so far.

 

Of course, it's also possible that I'm calculating the Ratio incorrectly. I've looked at a couple of examples from Ron, and I'm not really sure where his numbers are coming from.

[assault]

Personally, I'm still very interested in the Body/Speed tradeoff.

 

For the same points as single point of Body, you can buy a phase to Recover in.

 

In a one to one fight, that's a bargain.

 

I don't really see the point to buying up Body for a starting character. However, here are some things you can do if you spend 100 points on characteristics:

 

Combat monster option:

+ 5 Speed (50) -> 6 Speed

+ 4 Dex (40) -> 15 Dex

+ 2D6 Pre (10) -> 4D6 Pre

This character is weak against Mental attacks, but that is acceptable in many cases. Strength and Defense are bought with the "other" 100 points.

 

Spreading it around:

+ 1D6 Presence (5) -> 3D6 Pre

+ 15 Defense (15) -> 25 Def

+ 2 Dex (20) -> 13 Dex

+ 2 Spd (20) -> 3 Spd

+ 1 Int (10) -> 12 Int

+ 1 Ego (10) -> 12 Ego

+2 Body (20) -> 12 Body

A bit of swapping around is possible. This is good for a character with lots of skills. Moving the points from Ego to Int is a nice boost to intelligence based skills. Strength, and maybe extra Def, are bought with the "other" points.

 

Really lame:

+ 3D6 Strength (15) -> 5D6 Str

+ 1D6 Presence (5) -> 3D6 Pre

+ 10 Defense (10) -> 20 Def

+ 2 Dex (20) -> 13 Dex

+ 2 Spd (20) -> 3 Spd

+ 1 Int (10) -> 12 Int

+ 1 Ego (10) -> 12 Ego

+1 Body (10) -> 11 Body

Probably OK for generic Golden Age characters. Swapping around can make the character less cookie cutter. Obviously the +3D6 Strength is a target.

 

 

[unclevlad]

9 hours ago, Pariah said:

Two long-time characters I've had are Black Bow (Hawkeye knock-off, but with a crossbow) and Bronze Guardian (powered armor Brick). Both of them relied quite heavily on their respective Foci.

 

With the institution of the Ratio (and, to a more limited extent, the elimination of Inobvios Foci), I don't know that I'll be able to build either of these characters for Champions Now.

 

Morningstar (presented in the Character Builds thread) relies only minimally on her mace, and she still came in at 118.5. I should be posting another character tomorrow whose Focused Powers are limited to a 20-point Multiform with three slots, and he comes in at 108. I guess that's probably the point, to make sure that characters aren't too reliant on their toys. But this feels really restrictive so far.

 

Of course, it's also possible that I'm calculating the Ratio incorrectly. I've looked at a couple of examples from Ron, and I'm not really sure where his numbers are coming from.

 

That mace isn't "minimal".  There's 75 active points...3d STR No END, and the 6d Blast High Impact.  BTW, you miscalculated, I think?  6d6 High Impact with -1 1/4 limits should be 20, shouldn't it?  Not 16.  But that's a HUGE chunk of your powers, and you're trying to use a honkin' big limit...OF.  Throw out a focus of that magnitude and the intent is, it WILL be unavailable a high percentage of the time.  

 

BTW:  The Mace is showing as +3d6 STR...so you're saying it's HA.  Buy it as Constrained (Only With Martial Punch).  You shouldn't get the mace's damage with the martial kick, for example.

[nitrosyncretic]

8 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

That mace isn't "minimal".  There's 75 active points...3d STR No END, and the 6d Blast High Impact.  BTW, you miscalculated, I think?  6d6 High Impact with -1 1/4 limits should be 20, shouldn't it?  Not 16.  But that's a HUGE chunk of your powers, and you're trying to use a honkin' big limit...OF.  Throw out a focus of that magnitude and the intent is, it WILL be unavailable a high percentage of the time.  

 

BTW:  The Mace is showing as +3d6 STR...so you're saying it's HA.  Buy it as Constrained (Only With Martial Punch).  You shouldn't get the mace's damage with the martial kick, for example.

 

I can confirm from playtest with Ron that The Champions Now Focus limitation is intended only for items that will often be taken away in play. Many powers, like PowerStar's resistant defense and his Distortion Generator are gadgets that are separate, but I did not want them taken away, so no focus limitation. His Tesla Tap does have an inobvious focus, because I imagine the connection between the generators in the PowerCave and his receiver are subject to interference. The Focus limitation is primarily intended as an exploit heros can use against villains. 

 

Another bit of advice: make characters that are fun to play, not combat optimized. Half the fun is coming up with creative ways to bring down a villain when your best attack can't on its own. The other half is getting knocked down and coming back. Heros aren't about winning, they are about persisting.

[Pariah]

But...combat optimized IS fun to play!   You make a great point, though. I've played Morningstar in a campaign, and she's basically Hawkgirl with the serial number filed off: Up front and in your face. I had a blast with her, because that's not really my own personality. She was one of the team's heavy hitters...until some Genocide goon zapped her with a neutralizer and knocked all her Kinetic Powers down to 1/4 strength. Kinda scary, because she was 40-50 m in the air when that happened....

 

Question from playtesting: When someone tries to take away a focus, do you get a Strength vs. Strength roll to try to hold on? Or is it just considered a takeaway if the attacker makes a successful attack roll?

 

In terms of the Kinetic Strike Power itself: The Blast is 6d6 (30 points) with the +1/2 Advantage High Impact (45 points total). Take away 10 for the Elemental Control (35 Points), then apply the -1.25 Limitations for OF and Tricky (15.555... or 16). Yes?  

 

And in terms of attaching it to the Martial Strike, well, I hadn't really considered that. I though of it as an either/or thing. (My first GM taught me that you get one and only attack, even if you have the slots and/or END to do more than that.) So no, the intent was never for a 75 Active Point attack. I need to find a way to make that evident, I suppose.

 

Be patient with me, guys. I'm still on the uphill part of my learning curve for this thing.

[nitrosyncretic]

We didn't have many focii in the playtests I experienced, so I can't say. However, my understanding is that taking away a focus would be based on the special effects involved. A grab and strength contest makes sense for something like the mace. 

 

And yes, the cost of an EC slot is calculated by reducing what we used to call the active cost by the pool  value, then applying limitations to what's left.

[PeterLind]

> The Champions Now Focus limitation is intended only for items that will often be taken away in play <

 

Thanks for your comment.  I will change the write-up I posted for Wisp, the mentalist character, who had a costume as an inobvious focus for some points of DEFENSE.  I will at this point just change it over to the Amulet she already has for her Awareness power, though this could be changed by anyone who wants to use the character.

[Pariah]

Quick question: At the 15 point level, the Vulnerability Situation specifies double effect for one specific Power. Does that mean "Blast", as in, the character will take double damage from any and all Blast attacks, regardless of special effects, Advantages, etc.? 

 

Or does that mean, for example, double effect from a Blast with a given special effect (like fire)? Then, at the 25 point level, the character would take double effect from all fire-based attacks (e.g., Blast, Flash, Drain, etc.)?

 

Does that make sense?

 

Maybe let me ask it a different way: I'm thinking that if a character Hicks double effect from a blast with psychic special effects (i.e., Ego-based), that's 15 points. If the character takes double effect from all psychic attacks (the aforementioned Blast, Telepathy, Mind Control, etc.), that's 25 points. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

[Pariah]

Looking at the Hazards table on p. 163, I see several references to "Life Support (extreme environments)"...which I don't see if the description of the Power.

 

A little help?