Simon

Re: Cost of Armor vs PD/ED+Damage Resistance

You don't get to apply Nonpersistent to Armor if you are going to take Costs END. As soon as you apply Costs END, it becomes non-Persistent (without the Limitation) -- that's a facet of the Costs END Limitation.

Likewise, it becomes Visible when you do this.

So, to make Armor into a FF, all you do is apply Costs END:

Force Field (10 PD/10 ED) = 20 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED) = 30 points

Armor (10 PD/10 ED); Costs Endurance (-1/2) = 20 points

Q.E.D.

Re: Disad Advice

I was thinking about this some more ... how about something akin to this:

Susceptibility: Deprived of Oxygen, 3d6 Transform (From Superpowerd to Normal Being) per Phase (Uncommon)

 

Still too cheesy?

Yup. About as cheesy as "Susceptibility: Deprived of Oxygen, 3d6 Transform (From Living Being to Dead Being) per Phase (Uncommon)"

If your campaign takes place on Earth, the the general rule is that everyone needs oxygen to live. If the character doesn't need oxygen to live (i.e., he has purchased Life Support), then he should put a Limitation on his Life Support: Side Effects. He should not take a Disadvantage to represent his need for oxygen.

The same goes for the DF. Normal humans tend to turn a kind of bluish-grey when deprived of oxygen for too long. They don't get to take a Disadvantage for that.

Re: Is this Munchkinish?

Actually, one thing to note is that purchasing Ranged and Indirect on the character's Martial Arts would be MORE expensive than purchasing Stretching.

You need to remember the rules for applying Advantages to Maneuver: you take into account the overall "Active Cost" of the Maneuver, not the Maneuver's cost.

To apply Ranged and Indirect (any direction, any location) to just Basic Strike makes Basic Strike cost 34 points.

To apply Ranged and Indirect (any direction, any location) to a reasonable group of offensive Maneuvers that amount to 10 points (the minimum purchase for Martial Arts), you end up in the vicinity of 130+ points.

The Maneuvers would also cost END to use at this point....unless you further Advantage them by purchasing Reduced END on the group as well.

So no, I would not call it "Munchkinish"

Re: Multiform Cost?

5E, page 137 (2nd paragraph of Multiform):

The cost for Multiform, which only the true form pays for, is 1 Character Point for every 5 Character Points the most expensive form is built with (including points from Disadvantages)...

So, 70 points for the above construct.

Re: How to Do Scaling Damage Reduction...

Or, go the MP route and put the Linked Limitation onto the MP itself (valid, since all slots will be taking it).

Re: EC Concerns... what is legal?

Ooh! Thanks! I didn't realize it's been updated.

 

Mags

You can check for full version updates via "Tools -> Check for Updates" within the app (Ctrl+U for a shortcut).

Alternately, you can see what's going on in the current interim build (basically the development version of the next update) by going to "Help -> View Change Log..." If there are features listed in the change log that you're interested in, just grab the current interim build and you're good to go.

Both of the above features require that you are online when you execute them, as they contact the server to gather the current information.

Re: EC Concerns... what is legal?

Thank you!

But you did bring up a question that I planned on asking in the HD section: What if a GM oks something, but the program won't allow it? How does one get around that problem? I noticed that occasionally a pop up message will say "you can't do that"... but what if it is allowed by the GM?

HD will allow you to do anything which is legal in the rules. Anything which is stated in the rules as "requires GM approval" is generally given a warning dialog, alerting you to the fact that it requires GM approval while still allowing the action to proceed. Most of these options are configurable under the Campaign Rules section. The few exceptions to this are items which Steve has stated are core to the system and cannot be allowed to change (and most of these can be changed anyway by GMs that really want to customize the app).

Re: EC Concerns... what is legal?

You don't need to go nearly so far as turning off Modifier Intelligence (that wouldn't help with putting a non-END-using Power into an EC, anyway).

The Campaign Rules, among many other things, allow you to specify what action to take when a non-END-using Power is added to an EC. By default, it is set to "Warn" -- which will let you know that you shouldn't do that without GM permission, but then put the Power in anyway (basically, the program lets you know that you need GM permission, but then assumes that you know what you're doing and allows it). You can set it to "Ignore" if you don't want the warning at all or "Do Not Allow" if you want to utterly disallow the addition of non-END-using powers to an EC.

If you're using the default Campaign Rules on your character, you will be able to add Life Support to the EC....just "ok" the warning message and continue.

You will need to put both Powers into a Compound Power if you want to Link them, however -- as stated above.

Just as a side note, I would strongly recommend updating your copy of HD to the most recent version -- 2.33. The updates are free and can be found in the Free Stuff section.

Re: Global Guardians - Champs by email (review)

Worldmaker -

I dropped you a PM about hosting, if you need additional capabilities (such as PHP and mySQL). I'd be happy to help out, if you need.

PHP is an excellent way to go. I tend to write JSP, but that's because I'm a Java programmer

Between PHP and mySQL, you'd have great speed and (if done right) ease of maintenance. If you're currently modifying static HTML pages (as it seems), then you definitely want to look into SS's offer. You'll be amazed at the power, flexibility, and ease of use.

Re: Global Guardians - Champs by email (review)

Anyway, there it is, in a nutshell. Is it rough? Sure... but I'm a chef for God's sake. We eat stress for breakfast.

Heh...we're in the same boat.

Caffeine is always good....helps wash it down

Just on a side note, what technologies do you use server-side? If you're running on a Linux server (or are using Linux-compatible technologies) I may be able to help out a bit. Drop me an email or PM if you want....

Re: Global Guardians - Champs by email (review)

This whole PBEM sounds really interesting, but have a few questions.

What is available? What campaigns are accepting players?

Do the campaigns usually last? Many PBEM that I have been involved with, including two Hero Central games, have started out good but then just fell apart.

The longevity of a campaign is largely up to the GM. If the GM gives the campaign the commitment that it needs, then it will keep going. Often, this will mean putting up with lulls in the campaign and not getting frustrated.

I've seen a large number of campaigns shutdown because they go through a lull....or because one or more players decide to leave. There's no reason for these campaigns to stop because of this....not if the GM is willing to put forth the effort to get the campaign back on track.

It's just like any other campaign (FtF or PBP or PBEM or what-have-you).

On HC, a good way to get a feel for things is to look around at the various campaigns. Joining a new campaign with an "unproven" GM on the site is a crap-shoot.....you may luck out, or the campaign may fold before it starts.

If at all possible, look for campaigns that have been going for some time. Read up on them, find out what they're about and what's been going on recently (why are they looking for new players).

Above and beyond all else, when you get into a campaign, help to keep things going. Add to the story. PBEM/PBP is about storytelling. If things are slow and no one is posting, get in there and mix it up a bit -- add your thoughts to the story. Have fun. I've seen entire months of posting devoted to going across the street for a cup of coffee -- and they were some of the most humorous and enjoyable posts that I've read.

When the players are enjoying themselves, it's very easy for the GM to keep things running and to keep him/herself interested in putting forth the effort that the campaign needs.

Re: Global Guardians - Champs by email (review)

Disclaimer: I've never played on GG.

However, I can offer a little insight, I think, into some of the complaints that I hear people making. Specifically about Worldmaker.

When you run a site like GG, you are devoting a rather large amount of your time to maintaining it. Both in the code that drives the site, the back-end software, and the universe itself. I have a hard enough time managing the few campaigns that I run....I can only imagine what a nightmare it is to try to keep the number of players/campaigns that GG has up and running.

Part of the job of the site admin (over-GM, or what-have-you) is to be the "bad guy." We're the ones that say when something is wrong. We're the ones who determine when the line is drawn, where it's drawn, and what will happen when it's crossed.

Frequently, this comes across as being overly harsh. Oh well. Such is life. You can't go around walking on eggshells, terrified of ruffling any feathers -- not if you want to keep the site running and keep the majority of the players having a good time. No one likes the cops....especially when they show up at your party.

As others have said, what it all boils down to is whether you can have a good time on the site or not. The vast majority of the people that I've talked to have had a very good time on GG.....it's got a large and loyal following. That, frankly, tells me all that I need to know. Worldmaker is doing his job.

If you're one of the ones who gets flustered by WM's attitude or who can't seem to get past the policies and practices that have been adopted by the site, then don't play there. That's easy. To my knowledge, WM doesn't make any money off of the site (if he does, I truly hope he'll drop me an email and tell me how )....your lack of presence on the site will not be missed.

On the flip side of this, if you can deal with the audit process and the policies/practices that the site employs and still have fun, then you should by all means do so and not let anyone else's opinion get in the way.

This is a game. It's about having fun. If you're not having fun, don't play. But don't take it out on the guy who is running things and (judging by the number of people that enjoy the site) running things well.

Re: Hero Central opinions wanted

I've got to agree with WM....there's never been a flame war or even really a rivalry that I'm aware of between HC and GG.

In its origins, HC was just a site that I had developed to run a PBEM that I had started with a bunch of friends. As the feature list kept growing, I decided to open it up to multiple campaigns and let others enjoy....and it's just sort of grown from there (new features being added in as the number of players on the site continued to grow).

I think that HC and GG are really only similar in their basic concepts (PBEM) and the fact that they both tend to follow the Hero System. I've never played on GG, so please forgive me if I mistate anything here.....WM is (obviously) the one to ask about anything GG-specific:

HC is entirely open. Any type of campaign can be started, in any genre, with any number of players. If GMs want to coordinate and run "shared world" campaigns (it's been done before and, I believe, a couple of the campaigns on HC are doing it now), then they are more than welcome to do that, but the coordination of this effort is up to them.

GG is one, big, shared-world. This requires fairly strong oversight by the site admins/GMs. Characters need to fit into the world concept, etc. It's a very different idea from HC. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this way of doing things (and quite a bit right about it). It's just not the way HC was developed.

Again, I have no problems whatsoever with GG....and I'm unaware of any rivalry between the two sites. I don't get anything out of people playing on HC (there's no advertising system or subscription fee or anything like that).....I just have it out there so that people can take advantage of it if they want to. If they find GG more to their liking, then they should (obviously) play on GG.

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

Folx, let me see if I can save everyone a little time and trouble. I very much appreciate the suggestions -- believe me, I do -- but I think some focus is being lost here.

 

This is not the 6th Edition. I don't intend to change the rules about Charges, RSR, Damage Shield, HA, or anything else except in the limited circumstances that I've already discussed in various places. When the time comes -- many, many years from now -- I'll throw open the floor to discuss changes in anything and everything, ranging from the firmest fundaments of the system to the most esoteric optional rules. But now isn't the time for that sort of discussion.

 

What I'm more interested in are suggestions like "include a separate index of Power Modifiers" or the like -- things that make the book easier to use. There's a limit to what I can or will do, and ultimately the final decision rests with me, but I'd be happy to hear your suggestions.

Including a fully-detailed list of the rules for Charges would be a good thing. When Charges get a cap of +0, what order to apply the optional Adders in (Clips are always figured last), etc.

Re: Some suggestions for FRED revised.

I'll chime in on this one.....but first, a caveat:

These are merely my own gripes with the system. I think that, overall, the system is fantastic....these are just the things that irk me a bit, and they likely don't bother others. In short, take this for what it is: one person's opinion.

1. Requires Skill Roll. This is badly broken when you start looking at the limits for Requires 2 Skill Rolls and in other areas. To give some examples:

• RSR with a Skill is a -1/2. RSR with a Background Skill is -1/4. The difference in cost between a Skill and a Background Skill is 1 point. The difference between a -1/4 and a -1/2 is 2 for every 15 points in the Power. That's unbalanced. The two should be the same....making them different is trying to be "fine grained" without any purpose and with a negative effect.
• RSR on a Characteristic follows completely different dynamics from RSR on a Skill (in that the value of RSR on a Characteristic is determined from the Characteristic Roll -- similar to Activation Roll). This should really be one or the other. The argument that the character needs to pay for Skills is moot -- they need to pay to raise their Characteristic as well. In both cases, they get what they pay for - the benefit of the Skill or Characteristic. If you want RSR to act like Activation Roll and base its value off of the ease with which the character can make the roll, then this should be done across the board. If you don't want it that way, then it should be done that way across the board. Consistency is the key.
• Required 2 Rolls is badly broken. I can take RSR with a Skill for -1/2. I can take RSR with a Skill and a CON roll for -1/2. The limits imposed on Requires 2 Rolls need to be looked at and balanced with the rest of the Limitation's rules (once these are adjusted and balanced).

I'll stop there for now.....point is, that RSR is just sort of this hodge-podge of different rules and different mechanics that simply don't balance the way they're worked right now.

2. Charges. Yes, charges are immensely useful. They're a wonderful tool and a very necessary Limitation. But the rules for figuring out their value are rediculously complicated. Simplify the Limitation. Drastically. One of the main suggestions that I would have here is to lose the "Charges makes an ability 0-END" rule. If you want the ability to be 0-END, buy Reduced END. That just screws things up and allows for serious point-mongering. They just seem like a hodge-podge of a lot of different rules as it stands now....not entirely sure how to sort it all out.

3. Normal Characteristic Maxima. I have never seen the point to this. If a character takes it, they typically don't buy their characteristics above the NCM level. If they do, then they don't buy enough of them to justify the points that they gain for NCM. It's a Disad that does not disadvantage them in any way. The only way that I can see to make this a worthwhile thing is to remove it from the Disadvantage category and just make it a campaign rule. GMs that want to enforce it make all characters take it for 0-points. That's just the way characteristics work in their campaign. The way it stands now, it violates the principle rule of disads: it does not disadvantage the character in any way. Just like a character not buying an Energy Blast is not disadvantaged and cannot get points for this fact.

4. It may be worthwhile to revisit the rules for assigning an OCV/DCV penalty to a particular ability. Side Effects is kinda kludgy for this and makes things very ambiguous. Allowing for a "negative Adder" (defined as negative CSLs) would work, given the proper rules to define them....and would open up a new precedent to clean up other areas in the future.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Again, if none of these is ever adjusted, I still love the system (obviously). These are just the items that have irked me in working on HD....they stand out from the rest.

Re: Multiple-Foci Power Construction Question

My recommendations:

1. Put all Powers in one MP.

2. Put a common Modifier on the MP for the Focus (yes, I know there are multiplie foci....that will come up next).

3. Put a private +1/4 Modifier on the MP (not affecting the slots) of "Requires Multiple Foci or Functions at Reduced Effectiveness" -- this is straight out of the book on multiple Foci.

4. Put a private Activation Roll Limitation on the MP -- Requires Activation Roll to switch slots. Since this will be reducing the cost of the MP as a whole, I would say that you should just take this Limitation and not Side Effects as well.....just have it be understood that a failed Activation Roll means that the slot changes to something random.

"Tireless: Reduced END (0); +1/2) on up to 15 STR" is a Naked Advantage.

In HD, select the Naked Modifier "Power" and assign Reduced END to it. Set the "Max. Base Cost" (how much STR can use the Advantage) to 15, and type in "STR" for the "Applies to" field.

The ability will cost 7 points....the cost of applying the +1/2 Advantage "Reduced END" to 15 points of STR.

Steve -

Just a quick followup on a previous question where you indicated that the Speed Chart in Sidekick replicated the one in FREd:

You are, of course, correct, but I think that the poster was referring to the Speed Quick-Reference Chart on the same page in Sidekick, in which there appears to be a discrepancy for SPD 1.

The Speed Chart (both Sidekick and FREd) show a SPD 1 as acting on phase 7. The Speed Quick-Reference Chart shows a SPD 1 as acting on phase 12.

Is this a typo or a change? Phase 12 certainly matches better with the other SPD values, but (if I'm understanding the SPD Chart right) is a deviation from the way things have been handled.

Also bear in mind that it does not matter what order you purchase abilities in...so:

2 SPD (base)

+2 SPD Power, OIF = 13 points

+2 SPD Characteristic = 20 points

The Characteristic is all that is used to figure the NCM "cost"/incease -- Characteristic Powers are ignored.

This can get very confusing when it comes to Figured Characteristics.

To take another example:

10 DEX (Characteristic)

2 SPD (Characteristic/Base)

+40 DEX Power, OIF = 80 points

This gives you a base SPD of 6 (50/10 + 1)

Buying +2 SPD as a Characteristic still only costs you 20 points with NCM, as your SPD as figured from only Characteristics is still only 4, which is within the NCM range.

Figuring NCM costs when dealing with combinations of Characteristics and Characteristic Powers can be a pain....hopefully this makes at least some sense....

Correct. Characteristic Powers are unaffected by NCM.

By the rules, IPE can only be applied to Powers which are Visible. Invisibility is not one of those.

If you want to house rule it to do something different, then that's your own lookout.

Unless you have a Sense which the Invisibility is not purchased for, you cannot detect the Invisible party (ignoring fringes, etc). If you want to be Invisible to a particular Sense (such as Detect Magic), then you need to buy the Invisibilty accordingly -- with that Sense/Sense Group purchased. IPE does not come into play on that.

Yup....Invisibility cannot take IPE -- it is already Invisible by default.

Oops....that must have been added in since I last talked to him about it (which was, admittedly, some time ago). Thanks for the correction!

Originally posted by Outsider

Just to be a pain in the butt....

 

 

SPD drain doesnt effect the target until a full 10 points are drained.

 

IF the return rate on the drain is 5/turn, do a full 10 points have to return before the SPD is recovered?

 

Ie : IF I am drained 10 character points and lose a SPD, does it return on the next recovery, or the one after?

It returns on the next recovery.

Originally posted by NuSoardGraphite

Now a use for fractional SPD! Makes it harder to drain and easier to boost via Aid/Succor...

No, it does not. There is no such thing as "fractional SPD" beyond the "discount" that is given to the first point of SPD purchased as a Characteristic.

If you have a character with a 23 DEX and a 3 SPD, it still takes 10 points of effect to either Drain or Aid a point of SPD.