Vanguard

You get a like for the Greatest American Hero reference.

If the pilot has a different speed than the starship then he has a choice to make. If the ship has a greater SPD than he does, he has to decide if he should operate it at it's full SPD or reduce the ship's SPD to his own. If he does, then there's no real issue. If he doesn't, then the ship does what Netzilla said. It will also automatically crash, or have something else bad happen, if a Control roll is needed on a phases that doesn't correspond with the pilots. But again, this is only if the ship is operating on a different SPD. It doesn't matter what the crew's SPD is as they are operating independently of the ship. They can fire weapon systems, control repair terminals etc. The ship can make a full move and the gunners till fire. After all, they aren't moving, the ship is. Now the pilot might not be able to do anything as he's controlling the ship. Gunners can still fire if the ship is moving and NCM but they will suffer the penalties. And with the speeds that some ships travel when moving NCM, the chance of them hitting their target is pretty much nil. I can't recall what the RAW state, but for ships with multiple weapons, if they're individually fired by (N)PCs, I don't count them as Multiple Attacks. If the ship's Computer is firing them, then I do. As for the vehicle book that was mentioned, it's already been said that it was the last part of the "core" 6e books that never made it to print. The Ultimate Vehicle. while a 5e book, is still very useful and doesn't take much if any, modification to be used with 6e.

Sounds like some of the swords in the Sword-Dancer (by Jennifer Roberson) series. Good read by the way. At least they were several years ago. Haven't re-read them in a bit . . .

Yup. We typically did it in our Superheroic games because while we might be able to use OUR sword, with out penalty, because we purchased it with points. We still wanted to be able to disarm our opponent and use HIS sword . . . .

True.

1/2 hr if your lucky. Everytime I try to start playing SWTOR again, the patcher goes into "verifying files" (or something to that extent) and I give up after about 45m. I wouldn't mind it too much if it was only the one time. But it seems to want to do it every time I launch the patcher.

Fair enough. Although RwP doesn't incur DCV penalties your point is well taken. Being able to declare an action after the to-hit roll is done is a plus but I'm not thinking it's enough of one to make it a staple in our game. Again, situationally it might crop up and it's good to know it exists but I doubt it will see much mileage.

Well massey did say "like". But that's where the original question game from. With the maneuver being something that you lost your next action with, we really couldn't see the advantages for using it when you could just abort to dodge or block. There by avoiding, possibly, all damage altogether. Couple that with the fact that it also has a CV penalty (at least in Hero System 6th) and we just couldn't see why it would be a choice. Which, to me, just further puts it into the "extremely situational" category that massey said. That's weird. In our games, Aborting to dodge usually works. Of course there are those rare exceptions where we would still get hit but those were few and far between.

Oh most certainly. And even if it's not used all the time, there's that one time when a player might remember it and it saves their bacon.

That is true too. And unless the GM rules otherwise, I don't see why it wouldn't stack as well. I wasn't planning on removing the ability to RWP, was just trying to figure out why/when someone would use it instead of some of the other defensive options that seem "better".

Thanks guys. Didn't notice it could be used after a successful hit (although it makes sense that it would). I can see where it would have its use but like Christopher Taylor said, it's effect is now usually modeled with other powers.

So Roll with Punch . . . Have you guys ever used it and if you do/did, did you make it take an action? The wording on the maneuver makes it sound like it could either take an action, or you just need to have an action to be able to do it. Problem being, as my wife pointed out, if it takes an action, why would you ever Roll with Punch instead of just out right dodging. By dodging, you don't get any modifiers to your roll and you don't take any damage AT all. So are we missing something? Thanks for the assist Van

Something else to consider is using the expanded Focus rules in one of the APGs. It allows you to give foci, Body, Int, etc as well as allowing them to operate independently of the user.

Well . . yeah, there is that.

Not sure if you're discounting the prequels but in there, Jedi deflected LOTS of blaster bolts. And reflected them too. It wasn't until they were caught by surprise during Order 66 that they fell under massed blaster assault.

I have to agree with Surrealone and Lucius. We also had this exact same scenario happen in our Gatecrashers game. I mean almost the exact same thing. Only difference was the character's where 21st century medics and commandos. Anyway, our GM just pretty much hand waved the effect. He did what you did and asked the player what effect they wanted (which was, eerily the exact same effect your players are going for). And then just based the effect on the results of the roll. The effect also didn't happen immediately but over time. Not sure if this helps or not but there ya go.

I think NSG hit on this already but be aware that a vehicles dex/spd can/is limited to that of a the pilot. If you have a lower Dex/Spd pilot in a high SPD/DEX vehicle then the vehicle can be too responsive for the character to control. That tiny issue can be overcome as NSG, again, pointed out with special talents and/or limited characteristics. I also agree with writing up the character and then have the Veritechs and other types of Robotechnology being created as equipment/vehicles. I've never been a fan of creating vehicles with powers instead of actual vehicles.. Again, for some of the same reasons as above. (Note: Even if I do find Hero a bit lacking in the vehicle combat/rules department).

I concur here. In my game I don't even bother to track End usage that's accrued while using a firearm.

I'm trying something a bit different in my new Heroic Star Hero campaign. (So this might not work for you or give you the type of campaign you're looking for. But, like BDM said, things vary from campaign to campaign). I told my players that while the CV limits where from 3-6, I didn't want to see a raw CV value higher than 4. Although if the player had a good enough concept/reason, we could probably work something out. I wanted them to use Combat Skill levels to reach the limit. I also, at the start of the game, wanted to include CV gained from Martials but not those imparted by equipment. So far its worked out. I've got some decent characters that aren't pushing, in my opinion, ungodly combat values yet are still fairly competent. As for Penalty Skill levels, since those are fairly cheep and I've seen what can happen when they go unchecked, I've instituted a sort of "NCM" on them. First two are regular price, next two are double, next two are double that. So no +8 vs Head with THIS pistol for 8 points. Now, we haven't actually gotten to the point where we've actually tested this. So while it, to me, looks good on paper it is definitely subject to change if I find it's too clunky and/or TOO expensive for the characters. Edit: I'm not sure if this answers your question or not but I'm leaving it just in case the information might prove useful.

Yeah, I'm thinking that that may have been/may be my biggest problem. I think I need to write out a story so i wind up choking when all I need to really do is just the the bullet points. . .

Thanks Tasha. I think I've seen a list similar to that one before. Answered the questions isn't the hard part. For me it's trying to organize them into the story that tells my background. I'm just not good at it.

Why do they have to write it though? If you're willing to do the ghost-writing for them, why can't they just tell you those few interesting things and then you go to town?

Gotcha. And that I can fully understand.

5/day? That's outrageous. We should organize a march!

Sorry, don't fully understand the whole "straw man" reference. I looked into it but still don't fully understand it. Anyway, I don't see how turning the arrow around changes things. Other than pointing it right back at the player. Who again, may or may not be as you described. Which is what I was trying to get out. Automatically ascribing personality traits to that player doesn't seem right. I'm not trying to be pig-headed here. Honest . . . Edit: Wait I think I got it. It's the NFI part that is the key portion correct? If they just want to say "Hey, I'm a mutant" and leave it at that, that's when it might be apparent that they just don't want to deal with background stuff and/or are just not interested. Correct?