schir1964

Re: New limitation Idea Ah, I see where you problem is then. (8^D) Notice that "invisible" is not "Invisible" which implies non-perceptible. I see invisible in this context as obviously being "not visible" per my explanation above. Therefore, all that I propose holds true.

Re: Acro is bored Would you like one of each then? (8^D) Any other changes you would like to see? - Christopher Mullins

Re: new campaign how to start Here's an idea off the cuff. Allow character's to build under normal guidelines, whatever that may be. Allow the following Disadvantage for those who would take it. Mutant Burnout [20 Points]: Mutant's lifeforce is used for mutant powers. One lifepoint is spent everytime a mutant power is used. +5 Points: Each mutant power can be used 10 AP above maximum. One Lifepoint Per 20 AP Mutant Power use. +10 Points: Each mutant power can be used 20 AP above maximum. One Lifepoint Per 15 AP Mutant Power use. +15 Points: Each mutant power can be used 30 AP above maximum. One Lifepoint Per 10 AP Mutant Power use. +20 Points: Each mutant power can be used 40 AP above maximum. One Lifepoint Per 5 AP Mutant Power use. +25 Points: Each mutant power can be used 50 AP above maximum. One Lifepoint Per 1 AP Mutant Power use. The GM must decide how many Lifepoints each character has starting out. This is just a structure to build off of. Change any values or modify as necessary. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Acro is bored

Re: New limitation Idea Was trying to think further on this to help clarify what I'm talking about and came upon this example which highlights it nicely. Player: My character can sheath himself in flame effortlessly. GM: That's the SFX. What does this sheath flame do for him. Player: While he's sheathed in flame it helps protect him from bullets and stuff by burning them up before they him him. GM: What if he gets knocked out? What happens? Player: Oh, well, his flames goes out. GM: Ok, you'll need Armor (12 PD, 0 ED) that's Non-Persistent. Ok, we have an SFX thats obvious to anyone looking. Can't use straight PD since he can turn if off an on. Actually you can use PD as a Power with proper modifers, but it won't change anything for this example. Armor is the closest match since it costs no endurance, per the SFX description. It only requires Non-Persistent. Force Field isn't the best match since it requires both Zero END and IPE for one or two Sense Groups. Unecessary for this SFX. Sight Group: The Flames are obviously perceivable. Hearing Group: The Flames might be perceivable. Could go either way. Radio Group: The Flames logically wouldn't be perceivable. Smell/Taste: The Flames logically wouldn't be perceivable. Unless the character specifically stated that the flames gave off a smell. Touch Group: By GM permission only, since this is not ranged. And even if the heat could be detected the range would be too small for any practical effect. Unusual Groups: By GM permission only. This is just one SFX that makes perfect sense for the SFX to be seen, yet the game mechanic clearly says it is Not Visible. Those who would say that Not Visible = Invisible would declare that the Flames Inviisble or force the build to use Force Field with IPE/Additiona Sense Groups or force a Distinctive Feature, although, since it can be turned off might not be worth anything. SFX = Any Physical Suit Of Armor that is not a Focus. SFX = Any Sheath of Energy that requires no effort for the character yet is not peristent. My point is that there are tons of SFX that would meet the criteria as above for game mechanic effect, yet still would be perceivable by sight. Just My Humble Opinion - Christopher Mullins

Re: Acro is bored I'll color the pencils if they want me to. That's my area of enjoyment. Wish I had the talent and patience to actually draw. (8^D) - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea Correct, although, I would think it would be more accurate to have said, "A Power that does not cost END usually is but does not have to be visible to one or two senses (based on SFX), this is a -0 Lim". But it amount to the same thing in the end. Design is also subjective, however, due the rules about Suppress and Dispel, I think that using natural PD/ED and such makes more sense, in my opinion. Someone else my think Armor might be better, but then it's subject to Suppress and Dispel. Just depends on how you view the SFX. But I think JmOz understands my reasoning on this, even if he doesn't agree. (8^D) - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea

Re: New limitation Idea Not in my games they don't. (8^D) As I said before, so I'll say it again to be clear, a player has to be give me a really, really, good reason for thier SFX via Armor will not be perceivable in some way. Otherwise, in my game, it'll be perceivable by sight in most cases, fewer cases it will be hearing, on occasion some other Sense Group, and only in the rarest of cases, would I approve no perception whatsoever. Your use of many of course is vague, so not sure how that would measure up. But you haven't answered my question. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea Actually, I''m not arguing that it "must be at least one Sense Group". (See My Previous Post) When it comes to Non END Costing Powers. The SFX should determine what Senses the power should be Perceivable. This allows for those rare examples, such as the one you gave above, where the GM should allow for Not Perceivable By Any Senses. I'm saying that the most common SFX that use the Armor Power will most likely be Perceivable by one Sense. And therefore the default for Non END Costing powers. Exceptions can alway be made. What I trying to understand why it seems that others infer the opposite position, that the Rare SFX is the default. At least that is the way it seems to me. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea The logic does not follow based on the very specific definitions that the system has chosen use. Visible SFX, defined by the rules, is Perceivable By Three Sense Groups. Sight and Hearing are the defaults for the first two. The Player has choice for what the third one is based on SFX. Any Power that costs END must be Perceivable By Three Sense Groups, even if it's bought to Zero END. Again this is stated explicitly in the rules. Visible Limitation (-1/4): Makes a normal no END power Visible By Three Sense Groups. Notice that there is no level for "Partial Visibillity", therefore, the logical conclusion is again that Visible is defined to be, Perceivable By Three Sense Groups. Therefore, anything considered Not Visible in the game implies directly "Not Perceivable By Three Sense Groups". And furthermore any SFX that is Perceivable By One Sense Group or Perceivable By Two Sense Groups, is by definition of the rules Not Visible. Invisible Power Effects (-1/4 to -1): Makes a Visible Power (Initially END Costing) partially or fully invisible. Notice that both Visbile and Invisible definitions are based solely on those powers that Cost END initially. These Definitions to not touch on those powers that don't Cost END initially. Therefore we are left with the following categories: END Costing Powers are Visible. END Costing Powers with IPE are considered Invisible (Partially/Fully). Non END Costing Powers are Not Visible nor Invisible. Per the specific definitions given in the rules. Therefore, logically, this area that falls under the Common/Dramatic sense of the GM. And this is a rule in the Hero System and therefore applies. So I put it back to you. Is is more common for the Armor power to bought in such a way it would be perceivable by sight or not? And wouldn't make more Common/Dramatic sense that most (not all) uses of Armor should be able to be seen or not seen? I think my reasoning so far has been logical. You still haven't explained your claim using the definitions of Hero. If I still missing something here, please explain. - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea Per the rules, Armor is not Invisible. It may not be "Perceivable by Three Sense Groups", but that simply implies that it can be "Perceivable by One or Two Sense Grouips". Granted that the GM needs to use common sense rule for determining what senses a power like Armor will be perceived by, but unless the SFX involved would imply that the power wouldn't be sensed at all (rare SFX), then it would be sensed. Perhaps I'm missing something. Why are people presuming that Invisible, defined by the system as Not Perceivable By Any Sense Groups, is the same as Not Visible, defined by the system as Not Perceivable By Three Groups? I can how this can be easily missed in reading the rules, but it is there. Just Curious - Christopher Mullins

Re: New limitation Idea To back up JmOz. The Rules FAQ clarified this.

Re: New limitation Idea And what makes you think PD and ED are Invisible? (8^D) Unless maybe you don't have skin or muscles or bone... (all are visible to sight in some way) (8^D) However, you actually incorrect in saying "simplified form of PD, ED, and Damage Resistance", since PD and ED aren't resistant to start with. It's a more complicated form of PD and ED (Resistant, Set Ratio), and can include Flash Defense and Power Defense. Further the rules enforce a set ratio between PD, ED, etc... that can't be changed once set, also there's no official limitation to change Resistant Defences to Normal Defences. GM intervention is required at this point. However, do as you will, but in my games unless you have a really, really, good reason, your Armor is going to be visible to the sight group. Just My Humble Opinion - Christopher Mullins

Re: Superhero Images I check this thread from time to time. Looks like the talent just never ends. (8^D) Is everyone still enjoying this thread? I still can't believe it's going so strong. Well, my hat's off to all those that can draw. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

Re: Power Defence... Ugg Sorry to have confused you. No, in an at attempt at brevity and not singling out a specific defense, I was giving a construct that would apply to all of them. But each individually. So you'll probably still have problem with the cost of things. And yes, I do understand that by changing this that you might infer that a change in cost might be required by Armor, Force Field, and so forth. However, I don't think that would be necessary. Perhaps you should test it by playing some games with this change in it to see if it would actually make a difference for how your games are played. Frankly, I don't know if it will or not. And just to clarify, I'm not advocating that this solution is better than current one, just that it would be more consistent with the "General Rule". My bugaboo was that Adjustment Powers target a game mechanic when it makes more sense for it target a SFX as the default. I doubt anyone feels that this particular change would hinder the actual game play, since you can still do the same thing, just for more points is all. And again. Just My Humble Opinion (8^D) - Christopher Mullins

Re: Power Defence... Ugg

Re: Power Defence... Ugg In my Universe, we can. (8^D) Which is where my "Exception Rule" comes into play. (See original post) This balances those things that would inhibit ease of use and simplicity of creation. Thanks.

Re: New limitation Idea Just A Clarification Again, I feeled compelled to bring attention to slight nuance in the system. The Armor Power is not invisible. Theres a big difference between being Not Visible and Invisible by the rules. All Powers that cost endurance must be "Visible In Three Sense Groups". Powers that do not cost endurance are not "Visible In Three Sense Groups". Therefore, Armor is in most circumstances is Visible only. In others, it might be Audible only, and in fewer cases it might only be detectable by some sense in the Radio Group. Only in the most rare exception, approved by the GM, will Armor be completely Invisible. That's might explain why it only requires Armor a -1/4 Limitation to become "Visible In Three Sense Groups". Just My Humble Opinion - Christopher Mullins

Re: Power Defence... Ugg Wow! I post my opinion and no responds to it. Guess everyone agrees with me. (8^D) Still not sure why it couldn't simply be handled like most other thiings. Physical/Energy/Power/Flash Defenses default to one SFX. Expand Scope Advantage (Two SFX): +1/4 Expand Scope Advantage (Four SFX): +1/2 Expand Scope Advantage (Eight SFX): +1 Expand Scope Advantage (All SFX): +2 All SFX Defenses cost 3 Point Per 1 Point. Don't see how that's really going to hinder anybody, and it's more consistent with General Rule of Hero (See previous post for info). If the cost is a bugaboo, then simply increase the total points for the character to allow normal values at the new cost to prevent any hindrance in purchasing. Just An Idea - Christopher Mullins PS - Keep in mind I'm one of those that has no problem with using the official Hero System Rules for creating new powers, especially if there seems to be some gap that the current rules don't cover or require twisting them beyond recognition. At that point, just create a new game mechanic to cover it.

Re: Power Defence... Ugg Finally decided to give my opinion on this, since is touches on some inconsistencies that the Hero System allows for. The general rule for Hero Design is to build a small effect and then build up from there with Adders and Advantages. The exceptions to the rule is where certain mechanics are built for ease of use or for simplicity based on how common that mechanic will be used. This leads to the need for restricting those mechanics even further with Subtractors and Limitations. Adjustment Powers by Default affect a game mechanic instead of an SFX, thereby, granting the base adjustment power ability to affect an infinite number of SFX. This is inconsistent for the General Rule, but doesn't qualify to be an exception. In My Opinion, the commonality of a power that affects and infinite amount of SFX is minute compared to the number of powers that affect a single or a few SFX. This is not to say that such powers shouldn't be buildable, but I think it should follow the General Rule. Therefore, for my games you must automatically specify what SFX an Adjustment Power targets within the game mechanic. If you want to expand to include more SFX and eventually all SFX of a game mechanic, then you take the appropriate Advantage to expand the scope. I can think of no reason that Physical/Energy/Power/Flash Defenses couldn't be made consistent also. Just My Humble Opinion Continue on... (8^D) - Christopher Mullins

For those GMs that allow Mental Defense to be a Figured Characteristic, even for normals, what Maximum value do you assign to it for normals? PD and ED have Normal Characteristic Maximum of 8. Does age also factor into it similar to PD and ED? Do you even bother having an NCM value for normals? Thanks. - Christopher Mullins

Re: Power Defence... Ugg Yes, it is, but it's and All or Nothing type of attack whereas Power Defense and others subtract from the effect of the attack. Just A Clarification - Christopher Mullins