bwdemon

Re: The Things That I've Learned Facing Bricks Thinking a bit more on this, are bricks really that much of a problem in the era of AP limits? 12d6 is 12d6 whether it comes at the end of a set of knuckles or from a blast of radiation. Or do a lot of games use more appropriate limits? Or are character points the only limits used in many cases? I've been interested in coming up with a solid "Rule of X" formula for a while. Maybe Attack AP = 2xOCV + 10xSPD + Power AP? Set the limit at 130 AAP for an average of: 10 OCV, 5 SPD, and 12d6. A brick might go with a 10/4/14d6 split instead. A martial artist might go with 12/6/9d6. Hmm... Anyway, it just doesn't seem like this should be as big of an issue if AP limits are used.

Re: Introducing the Game to new players Unless you've got players who love to crunch numbers on their characters, then any showing of CharGen could scare them off before they even begin. I highly recommend starting with pre-made characters from the basic comic archetypes. Use very straightforward builds, avoiding the desire to showcase the flexibility of the system by loading up on adders and modifiers. Keep defenses low (2def/5ap in attacks) to prevent the fights from outlasting the fun. With the characters complete, use a minimal plot to run a few smash-'em-up sessions. They can go against each other or against whatever opposition you want to throw at them. If their character goes down, have them pick another from the pile of pre-mades so they can keep playing and try something new. The session ends when pizza gets there or whatever other limit you want to use occurs. After one good session or a couple small ones, the players will probably know if they want to play and, if so, what they want to play. From there, you can tailor the archetypes to fit their concept.

Re: The Things That I've Learned Facing Bricks 1. All those cool brick tricks in TUB? They probably picked up a couple, especially to deal with hard-to-hit annoyances (e.g. at range, high-DCV, etc.). Don't count on the old cheap tricks to work. 2. Abort to dodge - not a bad idea. 3. Don't fight in a phone booth, make sure you've got plenty of room to run.

Re: Who plays: Jack of all trades, master of none There are a few possible reasons for that. First, the favorite power armored characters are JOATMON types, so this becomes the default in games. Second, you see it more often on powered armor types, because they have the power limitation to help bear the brunt of the additional costs. Take the -1/4 OIHID or -1/2 OIF limitation off of those extra characteristics and powers and the character's cost jumps significantly. Third, people who like powered armor characters might be the same people who like JOATMON characters. I would also put gadgeteers in this boat, because they typically have normal stats, foci for powers, and a wide range of abilities instead of a concise set. You won't see the same sort of strength levels on most gadgeteers, but you will see a greater range of powers.

Re: Who plays: Jack of all trades, master of none Defense is probably the major power for my power armor characters, too, though intelligence and associated skills are usually pretty close. Outside of that, I tend toward a breadth of offensive options that run a bit shy of the game's active point limits (e.g. @50ap attacks in a 60ap game, @60ap attacks in a 75ap game, etc.).

Re: Who plays: Jack of all trades, master of none I have played this sort of character on occasion, usually because I like powered armor characters.

Re: The Hero Forum's Hottest Woman in Comics. Emma Frost

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. "So, you're here to pitch a new character to me. The character's name is 'Cable.' His powers revolve around some kind of arm things like Dr. Octopus?" "No." "Really? Umm... is he able to slip into computer networks, hacking into them and traveling through the cables? I think we could sell that..." "That's not how I envisioned the character, but I'll give him hacking abilities. I'll make him a cyborg, in fact. Ooh! I liked that techno-organic thing from New Mutants, let's give him that virus. I don't want it to mess him up though, so we'll give him control over it. I don't think he needs to travel in networks, though I like the travel thing... I know! He needs to travel through time! In fact, he'll be from the future!" "So, he's a time-travelling hacker cyborg infected with the techno-organic virus? That's what his power set is?" "No, those are just some things I want to work into the character." "WTF? So that's not his power?" "No." "So what is his power?!" "I don't know. I have this picture of a guy with a glowing eye and a weird-looking gun, though. Neat, huh?" "Glowing eye... eyebeams... like Cyclops? He's been a pretty successful character." "The eye glows, but he doesn't have any beams. You know what, though... I'm going to make Cyclops his dad. Ooh! And then Jean Grey can be his mom - I always liked them together. Then he can have psychic powers!" "So our cyborg hacker from the future has psychic powers that he got from his mom? And his mom is Jean Grey?" "Well, when you put it that way, it sounds so cliche. I'll make it a clone of his mom!" "You say he's from the future and Cyclops and Jean-clone are his parents. He can't be from that far in the future, right?" "I can work with this. We'll use an alternate future where Mr. Sinister clones Jean, who gets with Cyclops, and they have Cable. So we can put him further out in the future, we'll have a futurenanny come snatch him away and take him far into the future, clone him, and the clone will be turned evil, and... and..." "And I need a drink..." A few shots of tequila and drops of rohypnol later, Cable was set loose in the Marvel Universe.

Re: New Adder: Killing Attack A damage-causing attack should use a mechanic similar to damage-causing attacks. Any melee maneuver and any energy blast result in use of the same mechanics. Killing attacks are the only damage-causing attack that don't conform to this.

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. In discussing the bulkier appearance and changes in bone structure, it is important to note that Lobo did not realize he was taking what some people would call a "steroid." His trainer merely offered him the opportunity to test something called "Steroid X." Lobo did not understand this to be an actual steroid, as he believed the "X" meant it was clearly differentiated from the steroids that are bad for you. The required injections and unfortunate side effects like "back-ne" and... well, let's leave it at that... did not in any way alert Lobo to the true nature of the substance. It is important to note that many superheroes find the injection of supplemental materials to be part of a well-balanced exercise regimen. I am confident that Lobo did not and could not have realized the nature of Steroid X. It is important to note that Lobo has not failed any drug tests to date. It is also important to note that his collection of masking agents is strictly for sponsorship purposes.

Re: New Adder: Killing Attack There is a majority that would prefer the STUN Lotto to a single consolidated mechanic? Did I miss a poll? Is the reason anything more than habit?

Re: New Adder: Killing Attack Though I can't speak for the original poster, my reason for going with the lesser-AVLD method is to consolidate damage systems in the game and remove problematic irregularities. The killing damage mechanic is a complication for complication's sake. It introduces the STUN Lotto problem and uses a mechnic not used anywhere else in the game. The game is improved through its removal.

Re: New Adder: Killing Attack As I've mentioned in previous threads, I think it should be a new, lower-priced variant of AVLD. Price it as a +1/2 modifier and you're done. It has similar effectiveness to Armor Piercing, so I'm comfortable with the modifer chosen. The potential effect is too great to leave it to an adder, I think.

Re: DEX levels in your campaign. How does the ability to dance have anything to do with combat ability? You might be in good shape so that when you do get trained, you are capable of causing/taking more harm and of fighting longer, but you aren't going to waltz around your opponent to any great effect. Your ability to understand footwork might help you understand melee combat footwork a little quicker, but the ability to learn quicker is not the ability to start out better by default. I also don't buy the earlier hand-eye coordination argument. Plenty of people with solid hand-eye coordination couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in actual combat, because they don't know what they're doing. I've seen plenty of people with great hand-eye coordination screw up their aim when pulling a trigger. The gun goes back or sideways, because they don't understand the mechanics necessary to maintain a steady aim. Others don't have the breath control to be successful. And let's not try to extrapolate combat ability from ability to use a mouse with precision.

Re: DEX levels in your campaign. DEX shouldn't have a connection to combat. The ability to flip a coin through your fingers or shuffle a deck of cards impressively isn't going to help you land or avoid a punch. No character is quick to act absent high SPD, so all DEX covers is the grace of your movement and the nimbleness of your fingers. On the other hand, I can see how you might not be comfortable with 0 DCV as the standard. Some people are below average, after all. That means either that the average person buys a couple CSLs or you can go negative in CV. I'm fine with negative numbers.

Re: DEX levels in your campaign.

Re: How do you handle Super Battle damage in your Campaigns ? It depends on the mood of the game, the players, and the GM. It can be something that just isn't thought about or something that creates lasting problems and it could fall anywhere in between. Here are some things that might happen in response to the damage... 1. Unwelcome help: people begin to view the heroes almost as poorly as they view the villains due to the damage caused. This is probably the most common and easiest to work with. 2. "Fright flight": people move from areas where super-fights take place or might take place. Nobody wants to live near a bank or research center, let alone work at one. As population density changes, heroes have to cover a wider area and reporting is slower. 3. State of emergency: we all know what a blackout can do to an overcrowded populace, so what happens when power and water are cut off for a prolonged period due to a super-fight? Riots everywhere! Call out the National Guard... 4. Criminal & civil charges: pretty much self-explanatory. The insurance industry would be very aggressive with this. 5. DNPC Involvement: that Buick you just tossed at Grond looked familiar... 6. Specialized (likely superheroic) clean-up services: did a super-fight leave your town worse for the wear? Dial 1-800-Clean-Up today for your free estimate!

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Remove the tools (arms) and the opportunity to do harm (incarceration). No lobotomy required. They'd go to antipsychotics well before they'd start poking holes in gray matter, regardless. Who does the act seek to control? Those persons with naturally-occurring powers, those who acquired powers, and those who are using exotic technology to approximate powers. You need more than the mere ability to create exotic technologies, you have to use the technologies. In fact, it seems like the creators have a significant loophole. And it's still a very viable topic, apparently. Whether the arguments are the same as they were waybackinnaday or not, they're still interesting and relevant in today's world. Plenty of topics remain viable centuries after they were first brought up and many people will argue that there are no new stories. I don't see an issue, so long as I'm entertained or, at the very least, provoked to thought.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions I'm stopping short of that stage, because I don't have to go there. Take away the arms and the opportunity (not ability) to remake them. That particular threat is then defused. Now let's talk about a "hero" since Dr. Octopus pretty clearly falls on the villain side of things. Would it be wrong to take the guns away from the Punisher, lock him in an asylum, and put him on a steady regimen of antipsychotics? Punisher not being the model hero and certainly not super, let's take someone like Spider-Man instead. Assuming he has caused damage before and escalated some situations that led to greater damage and harm to the populace (a pretty safe assumption), what would be the proper solution? He refuses to go along peacefully to register or face charges and he is both willing and capable to fight any attempts to make him register or face charges. You manage (somehow) to capture him. What do you do? You could put him in some form of super-powered prison for the duration of his sentence, hopefully working toward reformation, but what if he refuses? He's going to have the same abilities and he won't work for you. You let him out and wait until he puts people and property at risk again? If you have the means to remove the power that causes the problems (e.g. specifically-tailored antivenin), why not do so? You "disarm" him, he can go about his life normally, and all's well. Now, let's take it another step up. Spider-Man received his powers by accident - he wasn't born with them. What about a mutant? Replicate Forge's neutralizer? One zap and you're normal - no more powers. No surgery required, no drug regimen, and no mess. One day you're a potentially-dangerous mutant and the next you're normal.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Exceptional abilities in reality is a big difference from exceptional abilities in comics. The amount of power and the degree of danger represented by those abilities can be extreme and is in the case of many heroes. Males 18-25 isn't exactly equally-applied to all citizens. That's kind of a very small minority, in fact. Mutilating is a tainted word carrying a lot of its own spin. In most cases, it would be significantly closer to disarming. If the only difference between the former person and the new person is a lack of dangerous superpowers, then they've been disarmed. If they are lobotomized or otherwise actually disfigured, then I'd consider using mutilated to describe the act. On a related note, is it mutilation to remove Dr. Octopus' arms to prevent him from causing damage with them? Assuming he survives the process and is otherwise normal? (as normal as he could be...)

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever. I'll stick to characters who've stood the test of time and remain, for some reason or another, popular. Superman is overpowered and, because of it, could be considered boring. Punisher doesn't fit well into his setting and shouldn't be hanging around with superheroes, regardless. Still, both are better than Cable, right? Cable is a mess of a character with no real redeeming value. He's a monument to how screwed up continuity and characters can get when editors don't - or aren't allowed to - do their job. And he's still in the comics! They should've killed him off or sent him back to whenever he came from years ago so that people would forget him. Instead, he worms his way into the books, time and again. Blech...

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions The law prevents people from playing with explosives in their backyards, absent meeting very strict requirements. The more powerful those explosives, the more strict the requirements. The government really doesn't want people building nuclear weapons in their backyard. Similarly, think of demolition companies. They have all sorts of hoops to jump through to bring in equipment that can level whole city blocks. They have to act in ways and at times that will minimize the chance of public harm. Even though they're well-trained and assuming they're perfect morally and rationally, we still want those restrictions in place to protect the public. For bank robberies, the number one bit of advice is to give over the money and let them go on their merry way. The police want this, the banks want this, and the government as a whole wants this. Why? Interfering with the robbery inside a bank makes it more likely that Bad Things will happen. It's worth it to give up insured cash rather than deal with Bad Things (bank robbers have one of the highest arrest ratios in spite of this). Superheroes typically go against what is widely considered the public good in all three of the above examples and more. Some sort of government control over their actions would be demanded. That leaves the conscription argument (please leave the politics to NGD). All males aged 18-25 have to register for selective service (a.k.a. conscription) in the US. Why do we do this? On the off chance that it ever becomes politically viable to inflate the armed forces, we'll know where to look for the most viable candidates. If you have superheroes, then they should face the same requirements. One might argue that they have a greater duty, because they are inherently more powerful than normal humans. If the government has trained and registered people who can bounce bullets off their chests and wipe out whole acres of opponents with a single thought, should they really put normal people at risk? The point is that there are two sides to the Civil War registration argument that boil down to personal freedom vs. greater good. The standard balance point is that personal freedoms end where they infringe or endanger other people's personal freedoms. The answer, in the case of the SHRA, is debateable, which is why it quickly brought about a highly polarized conflict despite having good, heroic people on both sides.

Re: Strength and Doubling Damage Heavyweights hit harder than lightweights, but lightweights throw much faster punches. The heavyweight's hands aren't significantly heavier when both are wearing those big red pillows on their hands, so the lightweight should hit harder by that analysis. They don't, though. So why is the bigger opponent's punch so much more damaging? A punch contains the weight put behind the fist, not just the weight of itself. The more weight you can put behind it, the harder the punch. A huge guy who does nothing but poke his hand straight out from his shoulder might not hit as hard as a small guy who twists his hips to put his body weight into the punch. However, a big guy who puts his weight behind his punch is going to hit significantly harder than the small guy. So haven't I just argued the mass * velocity thing again, but expanded on the mass used? Well, yes. I just don't think it's entirely representative, either. Part of me wants to look at mass as what you are capable of moving as opposed to the portion of your own mass that you are putting in motion. I'll explain why after this next paragraph... The amateur (professional if we've got 'em) physicists here can talk about "power" and its components (Work / Time) and I think that's a great place to look. Wht I don't like is that instantaneous power can be expressed as Force * Velocity which works out to Mass * Velocity^2. I don't think that adequately reflects what is going on. If it did, then the speed of a punch would be largest determinant of power. That takes us back to the heavyweight/lightweight issue above. That is why I think it is important to look at mass in terms of what you are pushing with a punch rather than what you have. Which might be what the equation does (I'm no physicist). Or it could be that what I'm looking for really is Power, Velocity really is that important, and the lightweight really does hit with greater power. Or maybe the speeds of the punches are relatively equal in comparison to the mass differences put to use. Anyway, if mass is determined based on what you can move with a punch, instead of the weight behind it, then STR is the right determinant for damage. If not, then... well, it's based on comics and strong people hit harder.

Re: New Avengers are very Dark Champions Back to the topic at hand, I don't think I'd put the New Avengers in Dark Champions territory. They aren't exactly street level heroes handling street level issues. They are, however, on the wrong side of the law (for now). That's not necessarily a Dark Champions thing or even a new thing for the most black-and-white of Four-Color comics. The grim and gritty trend has certainly toned down in the 2000s. Comics aren't the guns-and-blades bloodbath that they were at the height of the Iron Age. The problem most people seem to have with the Civil War arc has nothing to do with shades-of-gray story material, but rather a major update in relevance. Any time you update relevance, you're going to upset people who are comfortable with the current degree of relevance in a comic series. Like cyberpunk fans who don't want to give up the future of the 80s, they don't want to see a long-established setting readjust itself to take the modern world, its developments, and its issues into account. The biggest shock here wasn't the subject matter, but the sudden dose of relevance. In some ways, this is good (big sales shock value!) and in other ways, this is bad (updates/changes setting dramatically). People don't like to have their paradigms shifted and tend to lash out against quick shifts. Now, if the Illuminati miniseries had come out when it happened, instead of being a 20 year retcon, with occasional reminders throughout the years that something might come of this, then I think it would've been easier to handle. It also would've made people mad (When will they finally do something with this?!). It would've required the sort of planning that editors aren't typically known for, too. That said, I think the current 616 leadership is looking ahead. They're doing the necessary changes and planning to take the setting to more interesting, accessible, and (by virtue of those) profitable levels. In doing so, they won't be hit as hard by any changes in writing and they have time to alter planned events to prevent continuity catastrophes. All said, I'm pretty excited about it. I'm contemplating buying House of M and Civil War (hopefully as hardcover compilations) and plan to keep abreast of the setting - something I haven't done for over a decade.

Re: DEX levels in your campaign. I'd rather increase the cost of SPD over DEX in that case, due to the value of the stat.