Ice9

Re: Regneration and Starvation/Dehydration effects Even if, in a given campaign, Regeneration normally prevented starvation, I wouldn't exactly call this a limitation. I'd call it effectively "selling back" the LS - so, -3 points.

Re: Persistent vs. Costs END Only to Activate Honestly, I find that answer strange. Official it might be, but it makes no sense. And for that matter, there was at least one oversight, because "a power has to cost 0 END before Persistent can be applied." is clearly wrong in 6E. And as for OCETA being too cheap, I'll make a counterpoint - "Half END" is overpriced. With END significantly cheaper, the real advantages to 0-End are the ability to use the power right after waking up from KO, and being able to use constant powers for a long duration, neither of which Half-END provides. For a 60p power, you could get Half-END for 15 points, saving 3 END every time you use the power. Or, for only 6 points, you could get +30 END, which will give you the same benefit for two turns - longer than many fights last; plus, you have the versatility to spend it faster in a short fight. And buying extra END won't screw you when you want to use a power framework. I would argue that +1/4 is the correct level for OCETA, and Half-END should ideally be at the hypothetical "+1/8" level.

Re: Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor Not sure unifying focus and power obviousness makes sense. I can easily think of an inobvious focus (amulet), which creates an obvious effect (blazing aura of fire). And while it's less common, there's also the obvious focus (neutron rifle) which creates an invisible effect (neutron beam) - primarily useful for stealthy characters. Adding an "Unavoidable" category sounds like a good idea. I presume an Unavoidable Focus for an attack power would take damage from Damage Shields? I'm not sure of the limitation value, however. A sword (OAUF) would only occasionally be worse than a staff-of-fist-hardening (OAF) - unless you're facing someone with a powerful damage shield, there's no difference. On the other hand, armor which takes damage from every attack (OIUF) is much worse than a protection amulet (OIF) - maybe as much as -1 worse, depending on how much DEF is has. For that reason, maybe it should be two separate limitations: Direct Attack (-1/4?) - Focus of attack power takes damage from defender's damage shield, or any damaging areas in its path (throwing something through a wall of fire, for instance). Unavoidable (-1?) - Whenever character is physically attacked, focus is also attacked. NOTE: Not just for defense powers, could also apply to an invisibility cloak or diving suit.

Re: Persistent vs. Costs END Only to Activate Given that the bolded section is clearly wrong as of 6E, it's rather a stretch in logic to assume that the intent was specifically to prohibit OCETA, rather than a simple omission in updating. Or to put it another way: As for an example spell, how about this classic? Darkness: Darkness (Sight) 3", OCETA

Re: Persistent vs. Costs END Only to Activate Whether OCETA is underpriced has no relevance on whether it's legal with Persistent. I believe the prohibition to be an accidental leftover from 5E, where powers that cost END couldn't be Persistent. Given that a power which costs END every phase can be made Persistent, there's no reason one that costs END less frequently shouldn't. As for whether it is underpriced, the issue is really that there's only one level between "full END" and "zero END". OCETA is less good than Zero-END, and that leaves either putting it at +1/4, or putting it at +1/2 and having it be useless. Given that OCETA is the best way to model a number of powers (many spells that create a lasting effect, for example), making it +1/2, and thus making anyone who takes it instead of Zero-END get ripped off by their concept, doesn't seem like a good move, IMO.

Re: Gun Summoning Actually, if you're using that many points already, you might as well go with the real thing: Shadow Storage - Multipower (60 points), All Slots Only Inanimate Objects up to X lbs (-1), Only in Shadow/Darkness (-1/4) 1) Store - EDM, Usable as Attack, Trigger (fixed, 0-phase reset) 2) Retrieve - EDM, Usable as Attack, Trigger (""), Transdimensional Total Cost: 32 points

Re: Nano-Gadgeteer I don't think it'll be too cheap - VPPs tend to the expensive side, although they're generally worth it. However, I wouldn't just let him pass out tons of gadgets for free. I think "gadgets that last" can be achieved with a combination of several methods: 1) Transform (raw materials into gadgets). This will work for producing mundane items like a wrench - anything that you don't need a power for. 2) Large pool relative to control. So if the control is 30 AP, maybe a 90 RP pool. Combined with limitations like OAF, Charges, and Real Weapon, this will let the character have a number of gadgets active at once, without ignoring the rules. 3) Trigger, for grenades and other single-shot items. If a power is constructed with Trigger (and set), it can be used after the pool has shifted. 4) Usable Simultaneous, if he wants to hand out gadgets to all his teammates. So with these, it's possible to get a number of gadgets running at once, legitimately. However, I wouldn't let him use the entire pool for a plasma cannon, hand it to someone, then switch the pool to something else and keep using the plasma cannon. If he wants more gadgets at once, he can buy a larger pool.

Re: Ways to limit my Utility Belt VPP? Of course, it could be argued that a Batman-style utility belt would actually be limited more like this: Limited Power (Must have a halfway plausible reason to have brought gadget, -1/4), Limited Power (Once belt has produced eight gadgets, those are "locked in" until a return to base; -1/4). Letting the belt produce anything remotely plausible and then retroactively declaring that item to have been picked back at base seems like a better fit for a character with near-psychic planning abilities than actually making the player choose the gadgets ahead of time. Make the skill for the pool be Deduction maybe, to see whether you predicted the given item would be necessary.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong Not necessarily - a 60 STR Brick has the same damage output as someone with a 12d6 Energy Blast. In fact, I often see bricks given a low SPD, when there's no reason to do so balance-wise. Damage/Turn: SPD * Accuracy * (DCs - DEF) By this metric, a Brick with SPD 4 should be dealing significantly greater DCs and have the same accuracy (or even higher DCs if they have lower accuracy) as a Martial Artist with SPD 6. But as a result of DC caps, I seldom see that. EDIT: Had an error in my math - the operative factor is average damage for DCs minus average defense, not the DCs alone. However, that doesn't take into account that everyone gets to act on Phase 12, giving even a low-SPD character a chance to make a decisive impact on the first round - for which reason I like to add +1 to everyone's SPD when comparing them. Even then, it's still clear that Bricks having a lower SPD and lower Accuracy doesn't balance unless they have significantly higher final DCs. As for a non-strength-based Brick, I did make a mineral-controller which had most of the Brick traits, but wasn't Strength-based. High DEF/CON, low DCV, low SPD, devastating attacks. Just not Strength.

Re: Captain America Build 350 pts The "no Ranged on HA" thing has always bugged me, given that you can put Ranged on HKA, and it would be perfect for representing blunt thrown objects. So I guess my personal solution would just be to ignore that rule and put ranged on it. But if I couldn't, I'd do this: Blunt Thrown Object: HKA 1d6+1 (3d6-1 w/ STR), Range based on Strength (+1/4), Increased STUN Multiplier (+1/4), Not Very Killing (uses full non-resistant defenses, only deals 1 BODY/DC max (full roll still used for STUN); -0?)

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages For some purposes, Cumulative works pretty well. Instead of Mind Control 12d6, go with Mind Control 6d6, Cumulative to 144 points. It'll take several phases to reach full power, but once it does, good luck trying to break out - even a fairly tough person will be at -18 or more, meaning they have no chance for quite a long time. Which was pretty much what I was suggesting - make Mental Powers a bit more potent, give characters a few more points to compensate, and expect them to buy some mental defenses, unless they want that to be their big weakness.

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages Well, adjusting the required levels would also adjust the Breakout roll. If you can do with Ego+10 what you previously needed Ego+30 for, that's -4 to the Breakout roll, which is pretty significant on someone with normal range Ego. And if you just change breakout rolls in general, how do you get around this problem? 1) It is entirely thematic for Mentalists to "mind trick" an agent or bystander in one wave of the hand. 2) Players do not want to be out of the fight with one wave of an enemy Mentalist's hand. Even if it is in-genre. Conversely, fights aren't going to be very exciting if the PC Mentalist ends them on the first phase. The way this is solved with physical attacks is for PCs (and BBEGs) to buy appropriate defenses, as a necessary function of survival.

Re: No Gliding Limitation (6E) Personally, I think they are. The only time 0 End is much improvement over Only Costs END to Activate is in combat, and Gliding is at its weakest in combat. So really, you're only getting the equivalent of a 1/4 advantage. And the gliding downsides are pretty big, both for combat and for long-distance travelling.

Re: Concerning a not-that-cosmic VPP Probably the best way would be for the player to have a randomizing chart, and to do the relevant calculations, except when the GM specifically wanted something different to happen. Could be as simple as: 1) Same effect, random target 2) Same effect, reverse target (hits teammate if aimed at foe, for example). 3) Reverse effect, same target 4) Reverse effect, random target 5) Sound and fury, accomplishing nothing. 6) Big shockwave of energy.

Re: Limited Deflection Thinking about it that way, the new MP-drain rules do seem a bit off. I mean, you can basically make a power require two separate drains, as approximately a +1/5 advantage. Laser Powers: 60p Multipower 6u Red Laser: Blast 12d6 6u Blue Laser: Blast 12d6 Now I doubt anyone would actually use MP that way, but it does mean you get that as an added benefit whenever you use a MP.

Re: No Gliding Limitation (6E) What would you replace it with then? "Gliding Only" as a -2 limitation that doesn't remove the halving of distance? Because I think pricing gliding equal to flight (without 0 End) would be massively too expensive.

Re: No Gliding Limitation (6E) -2 (effectively) sounds about right actually. 1) Massively less useful in combat. 2) Can't escape from pits, quickly reach rooftops, or stop an escaping helicopter. 3) Can't even reliably travel long distance without a second movement power to gain height or tall things to jump off. When comparing 10" of flight (0 End) to 10" of gliding, the gliding costs 1/3 as much, hence a -2 effective limitation. That a hypothetical method would cost more isn't relevant.

Re: Limited Deflection It is bizarre. Personally, I've been houseruling it since 5E, based on the actual percentage of attacks. So for instance, Missile Deflection, Arrows Only, in a Champions game: First off the bat, that's physical only, so half the spectrum. Within physical ranged attacks, bullets are probably the most common, at maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of the attacks, arrows at lot less so - probably no more than 20% of even ranged physical attacks, even assuming multiple archer-themed villains exist. So that's in total, 10% of possible attacks - a -9 limitation. Even in an "archer heavy" campaign where arrows were twice that common, it would still be -4. Heck, "bullets only", a much more common situation, could still reasonably be a -2 to -3 limitation.

Re: The Ten Things I Love About 6e and the Ten Things I hate about 6e I don't see the Megascale being a price issue - either it's a good fit for the genre or it isn't. In a superhero campaign, or one set in the future, or even a modern-day on where the PCs have access to military vehicles, it's no big deal, and shouldn't cost that much. Sure you can move quickly - which you could also do by jumping on a jet. Getting from point A to point B just isn't a big deal in many settings. In a low-magic fantasy campaign, or a historical past campaign, it's going to be a bigger deal - so much so that it probably shouldn't even be available except under special circumstances. The pricing isn't the limiting factor.

Re: Walking Network Guy If you have the normal hacking skills, then you could possibly apply them remotely by building your EM sense with Transmit and Rapid. Maybe get some skill levels, only vs extra time. That would only work on machines that were possible to hack though; for others, a Transform should cover it.

Re: Nudity for your benefit That's true - in an extreme case, compare: 90 - Neutron Rifle - 2d6 RKA, NND, Does Body 45 - Smart Scope - No Range Penalty on Neutron Rifle. 105 - Neutron Rifle w/ Scope - 2d6 RKA, NND, Does Body, No Range Penalty

Re: How to Build: Dooms Day Device (6th) Doesn't that only work if the advantage/limitation balance is right though? With an AoE, 0 End, Continuous effect like the OP mentioned, you'd need significant limitations to actually have your maximum cap be increasing faster than it was getting used up.

Re: How to Build: Dooms Day Device (6th) Even in 5E, you wouldn't (by the rules) get the exponential growth effect you're looking for, as Transfer was capped like Aid. It's hard (for good reason) to get any kind of exponential growth effect, but you could probably do it with Summon. The initial doomsday device summons a few Dark Energy Motes. Motes have their own Summon power (summons more Motes), but it requires them to consume a certain Body worth of matter to activate it, for which purpose they have a Continual Drain AoE aura. If you want this device to be stoppable, also give the Motes a Physical Limitation - can only exist as long as the doomsday device exists.

Re: Well, we haven't talked about Killing Attacks in a while... I guess I should clarify - we use Hit Locations (rolled on the chart) for Killing Attacks (and particularly important normal attacks), but we don't use called shots, unless the target is immobile. We've tried using called shots, but indeed it does lead to repeated headshots on bricks.

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e) I should have said "20 PD, of which 12 is resistant" - being immune to pistols also means not getting knocked out by them, IMO. The points spent on DN 6 could alternately get you 24 PD, 12 of which is resistant. As 2d6 RKA will usually not do much more than 24 stun, but it could do up to 36 (or 60 with hit locations). And that level of defense has a good chance to negate or almost negate even something like a rocket. Hence the DN provides a sharper line.