Simon

Re: EC Concerns... what is legal? 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) 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) I can offer a little input on the HC side of things: 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. Fair enough. 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!

It returns on the next recovery.

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.

It should be noted that the same applies to Aid: 0-9 points = +0 SPD 10-19 points = +1 SPD and so on... There is no "decimal value" for the SPD....that's a bad way to think of things which can lead to errors in play.

To an extent....at the very least, you're on the right track. A Drain does not affect a character's SPD until it Drains a full 10 character points worth. So: 0-9 points = no loss in SPD 10-19 points = -1 SPD 20-29 points = -2 SPD 30-39 points = -3 SPD and so on....

To be clear: there is no reason that an attack that is accurate enough to spear someone's elbow joint at range would not also be just as good at targeting any other small area. So OCV bonuses for the maneuver work best.

Again, all you need is Basic Shot and then add in OCV bonuses to it to offset the hit location modifiers. Or buld a custom Maneuver in the Strike basis and add in OCV bonuses directly.

The maneuver for HTH does not automatically disable the limb. It is just an HKA (a relatively small one at that). Defenses apply. If you attempt that maneuver on a well-armored opponent, nothing will happen except that you will have grabbed their limb. To mimic that at range, all you need is Basic Shot. Use it with your RKA and you're good to go. If you want to grab someone at range, then you'll need to build an Entangle and then convince your GM to let you use Ranged Maneuvers with it.

I'd say "no". A lock or a throw is independent of defenses. You can be armored to the gills...it won't keep you from being thrown. It will just prevent the landing from doing much damage. What you're talking about is very different....you would be ignoring someone's defenses and doing damage (BODY damage) to the joint. You could have a normal take out Superman with that attack. If you want to have defenses come into play, then I'd just define it as a Basic Shot and let Hit Location and disabling rules come into play to take care of the disabling of the joint. YMMV, just my opinion, etc....