bwdemon

Re: Your version of the Champions C:NM - Behemoth + Goliath - Seeker + Nighthawk

Re: DEX levels in your campaign. So what happens if you take the attribute out of the equation? 1. Everybody has CV=0 unless they pay otherwise (CSLs) 2. DEX impacts SPD, DEX Rolls, and Initiative 3. DEX becomes essentially as valuable as INT - should cost 1:1 It isn't a bad idea, really.

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages Can't ignore the "at the very least" part before "(the GM) should require..." This means that the lowest possible requirement is a set duration and a reasonably common and obvious way to turn the power off. However, by the structure of the sentence, the GM could impose more strict limits, perhaps through other means (though it isn't easy to figure out what those might be if not a set duration and off switch). The minimum example limit is a set duration and reasonably common/obvious "off switch."

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages

Re: Firewalling Mental Attacks Mental Illusion? You're essentially making a major mental sense modification (friend's mind appears and acts as enemy's mind).

Re: DEX levels in your campaign. One of my favorite argume... err.. topics! DEX/SPD inflation is an issue in HERO. NCM represents a normal human's maximum stats and most other stats revolve around this premise in core HERO Games material. However, DEX & SPD are noticeable exceptions. Some players and GMs take inflation even farther. I would strongly prefer the end of such inflation. It represents a tax every character is forced to pay to be competitive in the game. Still, what it comes down to is this: you should adjust your NPCs & PCs to account for the degree of inflation in your particular game. I tend to believe that DEX/SPD figures should be dropped considerably in light of NCM, but I guarantee that I've made more inflated characters than not. I also guarantee I'll make more inflated characters in the future just to fit the games I'm likely to play in.

Re: Analysis Thread: Synergistic Advantages Penetrating definitely has synergy with Autofire. It acts as a cheaper version of NND (vs. hardened defenses). For 52pts you can have a 3d6 one hex accurate, 0 end, autofire (5), penetrating EB. That's 15 STUN on average against anyone without hardened defenses. Make it a 1d6 RKA and you'll cause 5 BODY on average - yikes! Armor Piercing has some synergy with Autofire. Due to the lower base cost and quantity of advantages combined, it'll be better than its equivalent in normal damage against all but the lowest-defense targets. Regardless, it won't be as good as Penetrating. A 3d6 AP AF5 AE-1HA 0END EB causes 11 STUN with each hit on average before it faces 50% of the target's defenses. If 25 is the normal defense, then it does nothing at all. Drop it to 20 and you'll do 5 STUN on average. Make it an RKA and you can hope for the STUN Lotto effect and take advantage of (generally lower) resistant defenses, but Penetrating is still nastier. The big thing you're looking out for in both examples is what I call "sneaky" or "back door" damage that avoids or mitigates normal defenses. These cause problems whether they hit in groups all at once (autofire attack) or over time (continuous attack). Both become most powerful when using 0 END or charges to ensure repeated/continuing use. Likewise, as mentioned by the original poster, you want to be careful of any Cumulative+Infinite effects.

Re: Worst. Hero. Ever.

Re: Strength and Doubling Damage Structural limits aside, there is a point where a bladed weapon simply won't do more damage by virtue of strength or speed of the slice. If you're really just attacking with the knife then the most damaging thing that can happen is the blade going in to the hilt and all the way through the target. If that is a small blade (1/2d6 HKA) then you won't be able to do more damage than that small blade can possibly accomplish (1d6+1 HKA) by virtue of the blade alone. Before anyone complains about a 1d6+1 HKA not being able to kill a normal person, remember that hit locations are there if you want more realistic results. If you want to model a character's strength damage in excess of the blade, then subtract the STR used to increase the HKA and go from there. So if a 60 STR character stabs someone with a kitchen knife at the full force of his strength (following through to use his whole strength, not just stopping when the hilt hits the target), it would cause 10d6 normal damage and 1d6+1 killing damage.

Re: That's Easy?? Show me how _you_ did it.

Re: Splatproofing megascale flight Think of driving. You're going through an intersection (green light) and someone travelling perpendicular to you decides to enter that same intersection, but is already past your peripheral vision. You don't see a thing... WHAM!... you're hit and you never had a chance to avoid it. That's why we have pretty strict air traffic control. We want to make sure that things (mainly those things carrying people) moving through air don't hit each other. Without some link to that system, it's certainly possible to have something fly into you from outside your peripheral vision. On the bright side, your character is compartively tiny and moving REALLY fast, so you'll be pretty much impossible to hit. If you're really paranoid, then you could go with Desolidification, but it's a weak build. If you're a little less paranoid, consider buying a couple dice in Luck (use restricted to flying-based accidents).

Re: Experiments in Character Construction Bullets aren't invisible, anyway. They're just tiny and move really fast (up to 2000mph?). Now look at how HERO models flash suppressors: IPE normal sight. Food for thought.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Have them both, but balance them and assign some effects to armor so that the two are distinguishable. If they are balanced and indistinguishable, then they are unnecessary. Right now, Armor is just PD & ED with DR, so it is balanced (against that anyway), indistinguishable in all ways, and unnecessary. It could be removed without problem. Along the same lines, I want to get rid of KAs for a new +1/2 advantage AVLD (resistant). Simplifies combat, simplifies power building, and removes the STUN Lotto issue. I have problems deciding whether it is truly balanced at +1/2 (comparable to AP), but that's what I settled on. Remove Ego Attack for BOECV? Eh... I don't think I'm quite ready to do that yet. For balance's sake, I am tempted to remove BOECV altogether, though. Want an mental entangle effect? Use mind control (do nothing) or mental illusions (entangled). BOECV always felt a little dirty to me.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Which was one of my original suggestions much earlier in this thread and, I believe, the best. Unfortunately, the system is saddled with the legacy of both Armor and Force Field. Maybe H6 will get it right?

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Out of curiosity, are there any published characters who use Armor to model a force field?

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Booster Gold (and Braniac-5 by extension), Green Lantern (uses both), Iron Man, Magneto, Superboy, Superman (arguably ED only), and many others have force fields of the HERO game mechanic variety... Because it makes the system look bad when players and GMs say "you don't want to use Force Field to model your force field, you want to use Armor." The most intuitive approach would use a power called Force Field to model a power that is a force field. It actually works in-game, too. Characters used are inconsequential. Which is why you don't have to bother writing 0 END if you write Persistent. If a power is persistent, then it does not cost END to use. "Persistent" is shorthand for "0 END, Persistent" but you can show all your work if you feel like it. Either way, the modifier is the same (+1 total). Because, and especially in this case, it makes the game look bad. The rules are out of balance, sure, but pointing it out in so obvious a manner is just a slap in the face to the system. As a gamer concerned heavily with balance and common sense in games, this is a sticking point for me. You have admitted to the first two of my proposed reasons: characters typed/written and cost. They are more important to you than using Force Field to model a force field when it will perform exactly as you want. That's your position and it is directly opposed to mine. We really can't go anywhere from there.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? If you remove Persistent and retain 0 END (no other modifiers), then Force Field costs the same as armor - it isn't cheaper. If you remove or reduce the END modifier, then force field is cheaper. If you are able to put the Force Field in an EC, it becomes much cheaper. Stated another way, you're accepting his words without doing analysis. Now - assuming that he has one or more characters who want a visible, constant, 0 END defense without it going into an EC - I would want to look at how he chose to model it. Would he use a Force Field (0 END) over Armor (Visible, Nonpersistent)? If so, then I would at least partially accept his stated reasoning that it solely comes down to whether the power is Constant or Persistent. Armor would be the (significantly) cheaper alternative in this case and he would be choosing the more expensive alternative. Likewise, I would look for characters with a visible, constant defense that costs END and won't be going into an EC. Force field costs 1:1, while Armor costs 0.86:1. It isn't as big a difference as the above example, so I'd be a little less convinced, but again this would show whether he's a slave to the calculator or if he really follows his own stated explanation. If his characters never find themselves in either of the above position, then my inner skeptic will need some convincing. If Persistent weren't an option for Force Field, then I would understand completely. I'd even use the mechanic myself and wonder why they made Armor so cheap. It's difficult for me to believe anyone would take a hardline stance on one definition and adhere to it exclusively (Persistent) while purposefully ignoring the fact that they aren't using the power Force Field to model exactly what a force field does and can do in-game.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Let's start right there, you can find Force Field in the book and it does what you want (provides defense). Now we continue... So we buy it at 0 END and make it Persistent... Already taken care of by the Force Field power... And we buy it with a focus. All set. Instead of you saying Armor (Visible, Focus), I say Force Field (Persistent, Focus) and we're at the same spot. Still, you want to use Armor, even though you've defined it as a force field and Force Field can handle everything you want it to do. Here's where I need greater explanation. I'll give you my guesses and you can tell me if they're right or wrong. If all are wrong, then you're going to have to explain why what you're doing is the right thing, a better thing, or even an equal thing to what I'm doing. 1) The extra writing involved: Armor (Visible, Focus) takes a total of 22 characters (including spaces). Force Field (Persistent, Focus) takes a total of 31 characters (including spaces). Those 9 characters (8, with 1 additional space) might be too much for you. Maybe you want to add "0 END" to the mix for Force Field (redundant with Persistent, but it shows you know how to do this longhand), which would add five characters (4 letters and a comma), plus two more spaces (between 0 and END and after the comma). That takes it up to 16 characters. Whether it's 9 or 16 characters, I just find it hard to believe that this is the answer. Maybe you've got really bad carpal tunnel or arthritis? Just write/type really slow? Like I said, hard to believe. 2) The extra points involved: The Armor example (assuming OIF belt) costs 0.86 character points per point of rPD or rED provided. The Force Field example costs 1.33 character points per point of rPD or rED. I've already said that defenses were inefficiently priced, but that's not enough reason to create a power called "force field" that acts like the power Force Field, but uses Armor instead. I still maintain that points are the most likely answer, but perhaps that justification is buried... 3) You've been doing it for so long that you forgot why: At this point, I'd strongly think about whether you started doing this because it saved you points waybackinnaday (these two powers have been broken in the same way since the original edition) and now it's just second nature to purposefully ignore the obvious answer in pursuit of points. For example, I was a big fan of the old OIF + OIHID + EC power armor build when I first saw that travesty in the old PRIMUS & DEMON book. My friend and I were doing the occasional bit of competitive Champions back then so this was huge. I wouldn't dream of doing that now and I'm ashamed of it in retrospect, but at that time it was a goldmine of points for my power armored legions. I did this for a long time, even though I thought it was dirty from the moment I saw it, and eventually it just became what I did. When players pointed out how cheap it was, I said that there are published examples and the limitations all make sense. I was really just pimping the system, but I would've found anything to justify my abuses. Eventually, the system corrected the problem and I had to move on. So, with all that said, what I need to know is the reason why you believe it is so important to dodge using Force Field when in your own words you're making a force field and the power adequately fulfills your intended result?

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? You grabbed a power without deciding what you wanted it to do. At this point, you haven't defined what you want done, so you can't make the appropriate choice. What you've chosen is the the way the power looks and absolutely nothing beyond that. And here's the power! You want a power that slowly weakens your foes, sapping their physical strength, and forcing them to collapse under the weight of their own bodies. Unfortunately, you already made the decision to choose a power before you knew what you wanted. Let's see how that works out... Because you chose the power you wanted to model with before defining the power you wanted to model... And we finally get to the point where you finally choose a power that blatantly does what you want done (the supression of STR). Names aren't just convenient terms. They're descriptors and very important ones. Failure to define your power and choose the appropriate power by name messed your analysis up more than anything else. For example, let's say I want Telekinesis and I want to use it to fly... (see above). WTF? That's the point of giving things names...

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX?

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Reasoning from effect says that if I want a lightning bolt attack, I should use something like Energy Blast to model it, because there is no "lightning bolt" power listed in the book. Luckily, the rules thought of this for force field and armor already so the choice is easy. I want a force field for my character so I look in the book and - lo and behold! - there's an entry for force field. How do I want the force field to act? Do I need any special modifiers to model that? Add any as appropriate and I've got the power built. I want the effect of having tough armor on my character so I look in the book and - lo and behold! - there's an entry for armor. How do I want the armor to act? Do I need any special modifiers to model that? Add any as appropriate and I've got the power built. It's counterintuitive to say that if you want a force field you're going to use armor to model it - force field already exists in the system. The only reason to go with this method is to avoid the higher costs of a persistent force field. To be fair, I believe that the mechanics are out of balance and should be replaced. I've said as much above. It's just that it makes the system (and by extension the player) look bad if they use Armor to model a "force field" effect when Force Field is an available option, regardless of the modifiers you intend to apply to it.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? What you're seeing in my explanation is a single screwdriver, but in reality it's the entire set of screwdrivers. Everything you'd need to represent personal PD & ED is there in one simple, balanced package. Nothing falls outside the package.

Re: Ablative defences I like the 5AP variant, though I will vary the degree of ablativeness with the limitation value (e.g. 3AP for -1/2 or 10AP for -2). You could build a defensive power with boostable charges, trigger, and the limitation that you must use as many charges as necessary to stop all damage. Make it something like a +5pd/+5ed force field with 16 boostable charges and you could take an 80 STUN hit once before it failed. I dislike the 15- Ablative mechanic, because you start off unprotected in a given area. If you got to apply the defense to the attack you missed the roll for, then I would like this more. Aid doesn't work for me due to the return rate issue.

Re: Armour has a fixed SFX? Though I believe the rules mention exactly this, I don't think I'd use skin contact as the defining attribute, because that would make your typical power armor character's armor into a force field (skin-to-skin contact won't happen through the armor). Just to clarify this, I would change it to surface-to-surface contact and a force field should prevent this. Yes, I feel like I'm nitpicking with this one. Ice Armor doesn't prevent surface-to-surface contact and is more physical than energy in nature, so I would use Armor to model it. Assuming it requires effort to create, it should Cost END (however, see below). If it costs END to maintain (as parts are damaged or movement requires that they fall off, they must be replaced), then this would be the standard Costs END limitation. If it only costs END to create and requires no maintenance, then Costs END to Create would be the appropriate limitation. You might even consider Ablative with the no maintenance version to show that some maintenance is required over time (I recommend the 5AP variant, though I might make it a 3AP variant at a -1/2 disadvantage). Because it costs END, it becomes visible - no points gained or lost here. The problem comes with whether you want the Armor to stay or go if Iceman goes unconscious. I believe there are examples to support either definition from the comics, so there is no right answer. If you do want it to be Persistent, then you would drop the Costs END limitation and add the Visible limitation. If not, the first model proposed would cover it.