Daltwisney

Re: Pinning a Limb To The Wall Pinning Limbs usually falls into one of 2 Categories: 1) The limb is pinned indirectly (via clothing or being 'surrounded' by the pinning weapon) 2) The limb is pinned directly (Knife through the palm, for example) The Entangle seems to represent the pinning portion of #2 reasonably (if the Backlash is limited by the weapon's DC, plus possibly the Entangle character's STR), but is missing the Damage portion of ramming the weapon through the limb to begins with. It could be used this way as part of a Combined Attack with the weapon.

Re: Naked Power Advantages Thanks for all the input up to this point. I'm evaluating the suggestions and comments made so far, and preparing to update my document sometime soon. Some of the issues addressed will be: Clarity: Terminology - What I mean when I use a certain term, to lessen potential confusion. Especially for terms that are extensions or variations of "Standard" Hero-speak. Clarity: Purpose - What I intend the change to accomplish, and why. Game Balance - The initial document provided no increase in cost for increase in utility, which is a game-balancing staple of Hero. Once I get the revision finished, I will post it for evaluation and comment.

Re: Multiple Suits of Power Armor Apparently the Armor didn't leave room for his personal GPS system.

Re: Multiple Suits of Power Armor

Re: Naked Power Advantages From the book (6E1, p314): The effect is backwards limiting. Although the costing does not change, it restricts the ability to add the Advantage to already Advantaged Powers, although an advantage applied directly to a Power adds the same Active Cost regardless of any other Advantages on the power. I'm not saying the system is wrong, I'm saying I don't like the premise, therefore I'm changing it. For example: I have a "Power" similar to the one shown in the book to fire any non-AF gun rapidly. Naked Advantage: Autofire 3 (+1/4) on any non-AF RKA up to 30 pts. By the book, I could use this to fire my gun, Betsy (2d6 RKA) as AF 3. But, if I replaced Betsy's bullets with AP rounds, I could not fire it with this "Power" (as the Active Point Cost is now 37). My entire premise is that I should (physically) be able to fire ANY 2d6 RKA (excepting those that add a +1 to the cost of Auto-fire). It is obviously SFX dependent as to whether a given situation should be allowed, with a generous dose of Common Sense added, but that is the case for all applications of Naked Advantages anyways. (If it were listed in the books as a Standalone Power, as opposed to paragraphs in the Buying Power Advantages section, it would definitely be a Stop Sign Power, IMO)

Re: Naked Power Advantages "All these are built in accordance with the PDF I posted." If you read further down, you'll see that I listed the RAW version of that same construct: 40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active) 15 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing for up to 60 Active Points of Blast (15 Active) (8d6 AP. possibly PEN) 25 Naked Advantage: Penetrating for up to 50 points of Blast (25 Active) (8d6 PEN, possibly AP) Total 80 points.

Re: Naked Power Advantages

Re: Naked Power Advantages I realize that it can be problematic and requires GM monitoring to avoid abuse. All uses of Naked Modifiers fall into that category, although the ones in the book (Group and Multiple) inflate the cost to make that a less attractive proposition. I did look at a couple different scenarios: 70 8d6 Blast, Armor-Piercing, Penetrating (70 Active) Total 70 pts. 40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active) 20 Naked Advantage: Penetrating on 8d6 Blast (20 Active) 10 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing on 8d6 Blast (10 Active) Total 70 pts. 70 Multipower: Blast 4f) 8d6 Blast (40 Active) 5f) 8d6 Blast, AP (50 Active) 6f) 8d6 Blast, Pen (60 Active) 7f) 8d6 Blast, AP, Pen (70 Active) Total 92 pts. Of the three, the last 2 have the most versatility, yet the second one costs the same as the base 'fixed advantage power". The Multipower is by far less efficient. Regarding the multipower, Most players would tweak it to the Active Point Limit, resulting in: 70 Multpower: Blast 7f) 14d6 Blast (70 Active) 7f) 11d6 Blast, AP (69 Active) 7f) 9d6 Blast, Pen (67 Active) 7f) 8d6 Blast, AP, Pen (70 Active) 98 Total Same versatility, more damage, slightly higher cost. To build that with NA, you might get: 70 Blast 14d6 (70 Active) 14 Naked Advantage: Armor Piercing on up to 11d6 Blast (14 Active) 22 Naked Advantage: Penetrating on up to 9d6 Blast (22 Active) 106 Total Same effect, more points. If you want to use them together, it still only allows an 8d6 AP, PEN Blast if there is a hard cap of 70 Active. If it's a soft cap, it would be 9d6 (the max that can be affected by both advantages) All these are built in accordance with the PDF I posted. According the RAW, the second construct would be: 40 Blast 8d6 (40 Active) 15 Naked Advantage: Armor-Piercing for up to 60 Active Points of Blast (15 Active) (8d6 AP. possibly PEN) 25 Naked Advantage: Penetrating for up to 50 points of Blast (25 Active) (8d6 PEN, possibly AP) Total 80 points. This would allow them to be used simultaneously, but to do so would exceed a 70 Active Point Cap. As far as Group Advantages go, that can definetaly be problematic, as they are also defined occasionally by SFX: (Example credit goes to Armitage in the Hero System 6E Rules Questions) 12 Ring of Wizardry: Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) for up to 60 Active Points of Magic Spells (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OIF (Magic Ring; -1/2) This looks perfectly sane to me, however, it is possibly raising (justifiably to some) the Cost of the Advantage based on Active Points, depending on whether the Magic Spell in question is Advantaged already. Under my PDF, this would be: 12 ring of Wizardry: Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) for up to 60 Base Points of Magic Spells (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OIF (Magic Ring; -1/2) More versatility, same cost. Since 60 Base points is high for many Fantasy games, I would probably reduce it to 40, changing the overall item cost to 8 Real Points. It's a cool utility item, and probably not too unbalancing in most cases. I do like the Adder Idea for Group Advantages, something like 'Can affect any Power of a chosen SFX", I'll have to see what I can make of that. It does make a certain amount of sense for the NA to cost more based on versatility (as most things in Hero do) without resulting in multiplicative trickery.

Re: Boomerang Orangutan-arang: Flings Poo at opponents and answers to the name "Clyde"

Re: Multiple Suits of Power Armor The modular VPP idea has merit, though from your description, it may be too customizable for your initial concept. If you can build a few standard sets of modules - Armor modules, Defense Modules, Weapons Modules, Sensor and Targeting Modules, Movement Modules, Options Modules (Life Support or Adjustment Powers) you could mix and match them to create a variety of different Armors, especially if you can finagle the costs of each subclass of module so that they are literally interchangeable. (All Armor Modules cost 19-20 Real Points, etc.)

Re: Naked Power Advantages Could you post an example from the file of what you mean, I can't see any mis-used terminology. If you are referring to the use of Base Cost in the NA descriptions, remember that a Naked Advantage is considered to be a Power in and of itself, and thus has a Base Cost, even if that cost is derived from an outside value. (A Naked Advantage of (+1/2) on 40 points of Blast has a Base Cost of 20 pts).

Re: Multiple Suits of Power Armor I've usually found using Vehicles to simulate Powered Armor to be unsatisfactory at best. My solution would likely to be to build the "Joe Normal" version of the character (which would still retain the skills, Mental stats and most complications), and build the sets of Armor as Multiform versions of that character. "Joe Normal" plus whatever powers and boosts the Armor gives him. The Multiform ability could take "requires a trip to the lab" or whatever Limitations you feel appropriate. As long as each set of Armor fits into the Campaign Limits, it should work out fine. Each set of Armor could then also include the "Modifications" pool you referred to, where he could apply minor tweaks to each set.

Re: Naked Power Advantages I shouldn't have abbreviated. The 20 Base Points in the NA refers to the Base Cost of the Blast (40) * the value of the Advantage (.5). It's same calculation normally used, I just did not fully write it out. In fact the only real change I used was to use the maximum Base Cost in all circumstances, as opposed to the maximum Active Cost, which is what the book states to use for Group and Multiple Naked Advantages. Since the value (in Active points) that any one advantage adds to a power is independent of any other advantages, I did not feel they should increase the cost, or count towards the point limit for effect. HD will calculate everything in there correctly, since the formula is unchanged, all I've done is change the derivation of the initial variable.

Re: Bad character design or broken rules ?

Re: Boomerang Attach a line to it, circle it around your opponent a few times before it returns to you, and you have an Entangle.

Re: Bad character design or broken rules ? There is a mention of this under the entry for Vehicles and Bases in Perks (6E1, p 107). It doesn't mention Multipowers, but in the discussion under Power Frameworks, it suggests that IF a GM allows a Character to put a Vehicle into a Power Framework (a VPP is specifically mentioned) that it Cost the full amount of points, and not Cost/5, as it would if you built it separately. I doubt I would ever allow a Vehicle in a MP myself, but I can see the logic of someone allowing it in a VPP, for the right reasons.

Re: Impact of Figured Characteristics Slow but accurate. The kind of guy you don't ask to juggle chainsaws, but might trust to throw knives at your ex-wife while blind-folded. (Heck, for that, you might not want high OCV - unless he's trying to miss).

Re: Naked Power Advantages

Re: Teleporter - Only

Attached is a PDF file with the initial version of a House Rule I'm looking to use in my upcoming 6E Supers game. The basic rationale for the change is that the method of calculating costs for Naked Advantages as stated in the 6E rulebook inflates the costs for Group and Multiple Naked Advantages by basing them on the Active Cost (essentially making the advantage cost multiplicative), while the Single Power version uses the Base Cost of the Power (not explained that way in the text, but the mathematical effect is the same). The formula remains the same, but the value of the initial variable changes. I'd prefer it to be the same across the board, as well as consistent with the rest of the Advantage structure in the game. What I'm looking for are constructive comments or critiques on this method. What problems could it cause? Do you see an inherent issue with calculating things this way? Do you object to the use of the Wand of Naughty Touching as the name of a Magic Item? If you do see a problem, do you see a way to fix it? EDIT: Math Error in Quick Shots II write-up. Base is 56 points, not 101.

Re: Placed shots effective? For one thing, the hit charts more accurately reflect HTH Combat than Ranged. Assuming the target is aware, he is likely to attempt to keep you from hitting him in the head, thus the hits to arms, hands and shoulders. Why no chest? Because they had to stop somewhere, and with 1d6+3, you can't roll a 10.

Re: adding floor and ceiling to characteristics & removing characteristics Since END is cheap in 6E, I would just ignore it if you don't want to use it (just make it dormant). As for OMCV and DMCV, most characters only significant increase one set of CV values anyways, but removing the mental ones, you are not really giving most players points they would be spending anyways, so I would just make those dormant as well. As for the other stats you might consider lowering the available points IF you are getting rid of a significant number of characteristics. Say for argument's sake, your Heroic game removes 20% of the Characteristics, and you expect players to spend between 30-50% of their points on Characteristics. So, you could lower the total points by 6-10% if you feel the need. I'm not sure what you are referring to as WILL (unless you mean PRE or INT), but your example is then only removing one significant characteristic, and I wouldn't worry much about lowering the points. As for Maxima, while there are rules for exceeding the NCM by doubling, you are certainly free to restrict that in any way you feel necessary. Set a 'hard ceiling' - Gul can buy their STR up to 25 for normal cost, and up to 30 Max for double; or Gul can buy their STR up to 25 for normal cost, up to 30 for double, and up to 35 for double again. Or just say that 25 is the absolute ceiling. It really depends on how you want your campaign to go. Each Characteristic can have a different ceiling, maybe EGO for the Gul starts at 8, and has a maximum of 15, or 20 with doubling. And different Races can have different maximums as well as different starting values.

Re: Regeneration Costs I played around with some numbers over the last 24 hrs, and pretty much came to the same conclusions as most of the posters here. Because the time chart is NOT a linear progression, there really isn't a fair and simple pricing schedule that doesn't involve some fancy algebra. The closest I could come to a 'reasonable and simple cost' structure involved something on the order of "REC + 10" pts. - gives you REC/Week instead of REC/Month, with a (+1/4) advantage for every step down the time chart. This simulated the multiple BODY/Time period purchase (higher REC meant a higher Base Cost), and made the progression a little less exponential. Still, I think the optimum solution is simply to use the time chart with a single BODY of Regen, with possible exceptions on the order of 2 or 3 BODY if flavor demands it. A note to name-tamer: The Advanced Players Guide provides costs for Regen faster than 'per Turn', breaking it into 'per phase' and 'per segment' values. I won't post the values here (the book is well worth the asking price, it has some amazing stuff in it), but I will say your values are way off.

Re: Herb that heals 'Impairing Effects' or 'Disabling Effects' I still love Rolemaster, and although it has gotten simpler in more recent editions/incarnations, convincing players to try it is near impossible. For all the often-heard (and unjustified) complaints I hear about how 'complex' Hero is, It's got nothing on RM.

Re: Regeneration Costs No argument there. It just does not explain the cost differential, especially when the less flexible power costs more.