Daltwisney

Re: A Suppress that constantly triggers so long as someone is in AOE (6E) In 6E, "Suppress" is defined as Drain with Costs Endurance to Maintain (-1/2). It is considered a Constant Power, so adding Constant is indeed redundant. One issue I would point out, is that a 2d6 Suppress is unlikely to accomplish much with a single application. Suppress (and Drain) are considered cumulative with themselves, but require multiple applications of the power to do so, with each application costing END separately. So you may need to 'cast' the Suppress repeatedly over several successive phases to get the effect level you want, and maintaining that for an hour with only Post-12 recoveries could become problematic. I would suggest reworking the Entangle as well, replacing the "1 charge which never recovers" with an Expendable Focus. As written, you can only EVER use the Entangle once, while I think you mean for it to be only used once for any particular Summoning Circle. Since the Summing Circle takes a day to activate, you could go with 1 charge/day, with an Expendable Focus OTHER than the Summoning Circle itself (Powdered Ruby, Holy Water, Used Kleenex), representing that you COULD perform the Summoning without the Restraining Ritual (though that is generally considered unwise), but can only use it once per Circle. The reasoning behind this would be that since an Expendable Focus is gone once you use it, you would no longer be able to 'cast' the Suppress (or at the least would only be able to cast it once), since the Circle would be gone. Another issue with putting it on a Trigger like that is that it will continue to 'cast' each phase for that hour. Even if the caster does not maintain every casting (all powers are completely Suppressed), because he does not control the activation of the Trigger, he will pay END to activate an extra time every phase (equivalent to saying that if it takes 5 maintained applications of the Suppress to fully reduce the Spirit's powers, he'll be paying for 6 applications every phase for an hour). You should probably make it a 0 Phase Action that he DOES control, so he can choose to add more Suppress if needed.

Re: Wyvern's Sting I imagine you could do this, however, it will be tough to scale. If I allowed it, I would suggest Very Common for a Defense of CON, perhaps Common for CON/2, but this also depends on the relative power of the ability in the campaign.

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken? I would have to say no. A Killing attack with Reduced Penetration will do less damage than one without with 2 exceptions: 1) 0 Resistant Defense - thus damage is equal in both cases. 2) a KA with Reduced Penetration AND Penetrating that has a base value of 1d6 or 1/2d6. (This takes advantage of the note in the Penetrating rules that a 1 pip Penetrating attack does a minimum of 1 Penetrating BODY) A KA with Reduced Penetration and Penetrating does less than one with only Penetrating except as noted above. I've attached a table with the results for a 4d6 KA with average rolls (3,4,3,4) vs rDef for the various combinations. Other than Note 2 above, I don't see anything that strikes me as broken. [ATTACH=CONFIG]34472[/ATTACH]

Re: Penetrating + Reduced Penetration = Broken? Following up on the above: 1) 1d6 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage. 2) 2 x 1pip Penetrating deals 2 Penetrating damage. or 1) 1d6+1 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage. 2) 2 x 1/2d6 Penetrating deals an average of 1 Penetrating damage. The first application is 'broken' because you are applying Reduced Penetration in a manner, which while legal by the RAW, is not the intended application (Breaking a larger attack into 2 smaller attacks to represent Armor/Defense being MORE effective at stopping BODY damage). Good choice, since you are in the area defined above, and adding Personal Immunity would only increase the cost further.

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness

Re: Alternate Blindness/Deafness You probably want to bump the UaA advantage up to (+1 1/2), the 'book' version requires you to maintain LoS, which lowers the advantage by 1/4. As built it also requires you to be in melee range to inflict Blindness/Deafness, so you might want Limited Range (+1/4) or Standard Range (+1/2).

Re: Selective AoE is an advantage? This is addressed in the APG, there is an advantage modifier for AoE called Accurate Selective which does precisely that.

Re: Invisible Armor

Re: Invisible Armor His idea I believe was based on something from an old 'The Destroyer' novel. An assassin sees Chen meditating across the street, but is unable to target him to fire off a killing shot, because although the assassin does not realize it, Chen is invisible. In other words, he wanted to interact normally with the world, yet still have the benefits of Invisibility. The super-stealth ability is a perfect example of how I would think something like that would work, what the player was trying to justify is not.

Re: AOE and DCV weirdness

Re: "wearable mecha" writeup question The 'passenger' thing pretty much screams Vehicle. Without that, you could build the Mecha as the character, with Duplication to 'create' the pilot when he exits it. The pilot re-enters the vehicle - recombining. Maybe EDM to 'put' passengers inside the Mecha. But then you most likely need to make those powers you want to use Transdimensional and assign them to the Mecha, limited to affecting those in it's EDM space... then give the Duplicate similar powers without the transdimensional or EDM properties... Seems like a messy proposition outside the vehicle route. Sorry if this seems unfocused... damn cold medicine.....

Re: A way to fend off attackers Actually, paraphrasing the original post, it 'prevents the enemies from approaching him'. Sounds a lot like Barrier to me.

Re: "wearable mecha" writeup question

Re: AOE and DCV weirdness ALRIGHT! Rocking with the double post! Anyways, look at it from another angle: 5d6 Entangle, AoE (+1/4) (62 AP, would pass in most 60 AP games solely on an AP basis. Now, you've lost your DCV, and your velocity based defenses. I know you can argue about concept and make it fit (Glue grenade, grasping plants, et al), but at low levels of AoE, the counter is more expensive than the attack, something Hero tries to avoid. My point is not about saying AoE is a bad thing, and it certainly does make attacks more 'powerful', but that it is conceptually abused more than pretty much any other game element when a minimal amount of an advantage can make a lot of 'defensive constructs' moot.

Re: AOE and DCV weirdness It could also be argued that if the target is moving really fast, it is easy to predict where they will be. BUT: The real issue with this sort of this is the way that many Players AND GMs use AoE (1 hex). For many years, I've seen it used solely for the purpose of overcoming or sidestepping another character's schtick.

Re: AOE and DCV weirdness It could also be argued that if the target is moving really fast, it is easy to predict where they will be. BUT: The real issue with this is the way that many Players AND GMs use AoE (1 hex). For many years, I've seen it used solely for the purpose of overcoming or sidestepping another character's schtick. Characters with abnormally higher DCVs often substitute 'not getting hit' for significant defenses. Suddenly, their DCV doesn't matter, and they are left fighting in a totally defensive manner, simply because I can just target where they are standing.

Re: Cellular Shapeshift It depends on how you build your DNA detectors. If I were building a 'medical' version, I'd probably go with an Enhanced Sense (Detect) with Analyze and place it in the Unusual Sense group. If you have some sort of Vampiric Sense where you can find such things by tasting the blood, I would go with Taste/Smell.

Re: Invisible Armor

Re: Invisible Armor I think you are arguing the same side that I am. If someone was that adamant about having it look like they took lots of damage from an attack that was not particularly affecting them, I'd suggest they buy some sort of Mental Illusions Damage Shield, set effect, even possibly with IPE (so even once the victim broke free, he wouldn't realise he'd been duped, just that the 'damage' had disappeared).

Re: Invisible Armor Unless it has been made obvious in some way, no. For Example: RP, basic - no RP, visible (Rock skin) - yes RP, Costs End (Force field) - yes RP, Focused (Armor) - yes/maybe (Obvious or Inobvious Focus) For basic RP, if you are attacked, then the fact you took less damage is most likely obvious, but could be due to RP, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction. It wouldn't necessarily reveal why you took less damage, just that it was somehow reduced.

Re: Invisible Armor

Re: Invisible Armor Although IPE allows you to buy an Attack Power and make the target not perceive the results of an attack (something I would consider to be a very rare ability), I'm not sure I'd allow a Defense Power to conceal the fact that the Character didn't take damage. For one, although a Player knows how much damage he rolled, the Character doesn't. At best, he'd have an estimate of "a glancing blow", "a pretty solid hit", etc.

Re: Brand new to the system If doesn't provide a measurable in game benefit to the player (it's more a a flavor ability), Change Environment is possibly OK, though I might add the Long Lasting Adder so the plant doesn't instantly 'un-grow' when the character stops paying END for the spell. If he intends to use it to provide a tangible benefit, such as providing food for a party of adventurers, I'd go with Transform. (He turns the plant into the same plant, only a year older)

Re: Too Transform Technically, it would have to be: VPP: 1 point, Cosmic, UAA. so 1 pt for the pool, control cost = 1 (1+ 2) (1 + 1.25) = 4, total 5 pts , since you cannot apply Advantages or Limitations to the pool itself, only the control cost or the powers built with the pool. (6e1, p 409) The other issue with this is that YOU pay END for any powers granted this way, the power only remains in effect as long as you have LOS to the target. Technically, you could define the SFX of a drain this way, but Drain removes Characteristics or Powers, and legs are neither. But then again, I could define a Blast as pulling the moon out of orbit and smacking you over the head with it. In practicality, though it looked like I used the moon, it would be pretty obvious I didn't, since that would have all sorts of other consequences I hadn't paid for. Albeit in a limited fashion (subject to the order given), and subject to Breakout rolls, so it would usually last a far shorter time than Transform. This is specifically disallowed under the rules for Shapeshift (6e1 p 280). I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to bend or break the rules to substitute those abilities for Transform. Since Transform is capable of doing Physical, Mental and Characteristic/Power modifications in one go, my conclusion would be yes.

Re: 4 Rules questions 6E. Dive for Cover is a defensive movement maneuver. It's only benefit is to move you from point X to point Y. One of the things not clearly stated in the text is that if you Dive for Cover, and chose a target point that is still within the Area affected by an AoE, it still hits you, even if your roll succeeded. In your example above: Opponent A lobs his grenade. You abort and Dive for Cover. You are now Prone (or disoriented) at the spot you Dove to. Opponent B fires his AoE laser. Unless he is firing so close to the same instant that the grenade was thrown that the GM rules otherwise, it targets your current position, not the point you dove from. An somewhat amusing complication from this is that should your GM be using Scatter rules (A grenade has to go off somewhere, unless it's a dud), should your opponent miss his target point, you could theoretically still be hit if the 'miss' landed in or near the place you dove to.