Kristopher

Any thoughts you can offer as to why you prefer B?

I didn't read Teen Titans, so I have to ask, is this for real? Geez, what has Cartoon Network gotten themselves into? Who "taught" Starfire English

No. I don't believe in "The Best."

I suppose. It's just that being a good shot doesn't really make you harder to hit.

I'm creating an NPC with a VPP that allows her to use powers that she has "sampled" from other mutants in the past. In keeping with the nature of the limitation on the VPP, I'm keeping track of the characters she has taken those samples from. I'm trying to decide between two layouts for the list of available powers within the VPP: A) Technical - organized by mechanics, with alphabetical sorting within Attacks, Defenses, Other Powers, and Characteristics. This makes them easy to find during play. Thematic - organized by which mutant they came from. This has a better feel in terms of concetrating on story and atmosphere over mechanics, something I feel is important when using the very mechanically-oriented HERO system. Which would you use, and why?

T'Shenk Kennet - It would depend on the NPC in question. He doesn't trust authority and cares more about justice than the law, having been a victim of corrupted legal and religious authority once already*, so he'd never expect them to just turn themselves in. The more severe the shift in the NPC's personality, the more he'd be suspicious of them, and of the Deacon. If the NPC had been of the "honorable villain" sort, he'd pay attention but give them a chance. If the NPC in question had been some kind of sociopath, he'd blow the change off as a trick.

What boggles my mind is the idea that a 3-pt CSL with a pistol can be used to improve your DCV against ranged attacks. That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

Personally, I don't mind a modern tank being something for most supers to fear.

I'm having a "duh" moment. Does DEX w/NFC still affect CVs? I'm thinking it does, but I'm so fried right now I'm not sure. If someone could give me an answer and a FRED page reference (so I can read it again and hopefully not forget in the future no matter how fried), I would appreciate it. Thank you. (So fried that I had to edit the request to make sense.)

Check out the Hero Designer forum.

There was an NPC in one of my campaigns named Scanner, who had the inate ability to sense "weaknesses". He had a focus called a Paradox Gun, which was an EB with full variable FX.

I see. That works. It would probably be a pain in the arse to program it to work directly.

Really? Has he said why it won't? I mean, he seems pretty big on the whole "implementing the rules of HERO system as stated by Steve Long" thing.

HeroMaker allowed Limitations to be placed on Advantages, and it was an acceptable thing to do among the players I was in contact with during my college days. However, as far as I can tell, Hero Designer does not allow this. Is this against the rules as they exist in 5th edition? I'm also interested in hearing the opinions of others on this matter (as opposed to the "legality").

Except, of course, when that admin decides that he will have the last word, and closes the thread to futher responses after he gets his last comment in.

It's the difference between "should not" and "can not", then. I'm fine with a little note in the EC rules warning GMs to watch out for min-maxing constructions using ECs. What bugs me is the new text that makes it a hard-and-fast rule against putting most powers in an EC.

You know, he does have a pretty good point there. Several, really.

I actually like HERO. It's one of two published game systems I can play where the system does not detract from my enjoyment of the game (unlike, say, d20). I've even given money to the cause by purchasing all this stuff... 4th Edition: Champions/BBB, Ninja Hero, Fantasy Hero Companion, Viper Sourcebook 5th Edition: FRED, Champions, USPD, Ultimate Martial Artist, Star Hero, Terran Empire, Hero System Bestiary, Hero Designer v1 (I'm currently using the HD v2 upgrade.) None of which means I'm going to refrain from pointing out things that are screwed up. ... Simon...you're missing the point about customer service. You can argue all you want that you're not a "customer service representative," and it won't change anything. Not because you're wrong on that point, but because it's entirely irrelevent to the real point. Anyone who interacts with the customers is providing customer service. Every time you take a call, post to a message board, respond to an email, or whatever, you're doing customer service work. Yes, you're a contractor, and technically aren't part of DOJ. So what? My job title says nothing about customer service, and I'm definately _not_ a CSR. So what? My interaction with the public, with customers, still has an impact on the company I work for. That wouldn't change if I were a temp, a contractor, or an owner of the business. If you think you're not "doing" customer service, and that you're not a representative of DOJ, because your title isn't Customer Service Representative, then, well, you're wrong.

If I recall correctly, somewhere along the line someone claimed that it had always been intended the way that Steve is now ruling on it. Personally, I can't find any reference in 4th to indicate either way, and I would be interested in knowing what the original creators of the game thought.

I concur.

Let's see...the nerve signals that trigger muscle contraction are electrical in nature...

Go back and read my statement. I did NOT suggest that anyone should be fired. I was making a sarcastic comment about Simon's position.

Liar.

Are you sure you want to use D&D as an example of how to do things? This whole "that's how it was always supposed to be done" claim reminds me of when Justin Achilli had just taken over the Vampire product line at White Wolf, and changed the way that experience was spent, and tried to claim that "it was always supposed to be done the way I like it." As for the "griping" and "work-around" issues, well, the wordarounds are inelegant kludges, and I happen to disagree with the actual ruling (_regardless_ of who made it), AND with what's being presented to back it up. And I'm still waiting to find out why the character examples in the back of FRED sell off fractional SPD. If it's clear and unambigous, and it's "always been illegal to sell off fractional SPD," who exactly made the aggregious error of doing so in FRED, and why wasn't it immediately caught by the rest of the staff? Hell, the way Simon makes it sound, it's so clear and simple and consistant with the past that the person responsible should be fired for gross incompetence, along with all the editors.

There's nothing in FRED which advocates in either direction. It's entirely vague. The example, again, isn't anything like conclusive. It only states that SPD can be sold back. It NEVER says anything about fractional SPD, one way or the other. There's nothing in FRED, or in 4th IIRC, to base your position on. As for the sample characters in the back of FRED, well, who wrote those up? Because whoever wrote them up certainly seemed to think that fractional SPD could be sold back.