Lupus

HERO's selling real well down in Australia. That's what I hear from one of the mainwholesalers here, anyway. Apparently, they can get 30 books in and sell out inside of a week - that's a lot better than any other line. I thought for ages that they just weren't stocking books, because I could never find a copy of Champions. Then I found out they /were/ getting in copies, they were just selling out.

Dogs rock. What breed is Buster, if you don't mind me asking?

It's also how the TORG pulp hero powers worked. I think the rules were mostly in the Terra sourcebook. Some were in the Nile Empire book too, but mainly they were in Terra. It encouraged people to take limitations that totally killed their powers (like Superman).

Also, in Torg, the rewards were Possibility points, which were essentially like Luck crossed with Character Points (ie, they could be spent in-game to improve rolls, but they were also what you used to improve your character. So a really limited superhero who never used his powers would suck, but would get real good real fast at everything else

I never played with it, so I'm not sure how it really would have worked in gameplay. Just thought it might be handy to check out the suggestions in that book, if you know anyone with a copy. Torg's well out of print, so isn't available at many places.

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

I personally dont think everybody should be assumed to have a CvK at all.

 

For starters, just considering game balance and mathematics, its only a disadvantage if it inconveniences or impairs a character. Most people are not impaired by a CvK, even if they have one, bcs they are not in a position where it applies often enough to make it a worthwhile disadvantage. Is it valid for Ms. Spinster the elderly librarian to take CvK, when she will probably NEVER be in a situation where it matters? I would say, no. Its not really a Disadvantage for her, its just flavor.

Well, her being an NPC, her disadvantages don't matter. The 'default reluctance to kill' is something that, for me, only affects mainline characters. In other words, those characters who will be faced with that decision.

Further, if EVERYBODY, or even almost everybody had CvK, then the points all balance out and you might as well just remove them from all characters; its always better to reduce an equation when possible. In stead of rating a unilateral CvK as points for any who take it, instead assume that everyone has it at the Moderate level for 0 points and assess variations of having a more severe version of CvK or not having it at all as Disadvantages. Otherwise, if almost everyone is assumed to have it by default you are just giving points away on a freebie "disadvantage".

Well, that's something that should be handled campaign-by-campaign. But I think that's why 'reluctance to kill' is zero points, at least in many campaigns. In a vigilante or Image-inspired game, I'd make 'reluctance to kill' a disad.

Im also a veteran (USMC, 5 years), and I personally dont have any real compunctions about killing other than the fact that its socially unacceptible, and a really extreme way to make a point. Im not a "Casual Killer" obviously, but if I were in a situation where I was in a violent conflict (such as a mugging or a robbery) and I had the means, I would kill the assailants without hesitation, eliminating any threats to the well being of myself and any innocent bystanders. I was like that before I joined the Corps, but that environment certainly reenforced the mentality.

 

As far as cops are concerned, personally I think most cops would not have any real code vs killing; particularly not hardened street cops. When its your life on the line, the nicities tend to go out the window. Desk types and rookies might start off "Reluctant" to kill, but I think they'd either get over it, get a new line of work, or get killed in fairly short order. Detectives and other higher ranked individuals might be a little different/more individualized, but still Id err on the side of 'practicality' over 'mercy'.

For me, the difference is twofold: genre and capabilities. The first one is simple. In high superheroic games, killing is bad. There are ones where this is different, but a bit of it usually leaks in anyway.

The other point is about what people are capable of doing. Superheroes have weapons and attacks by which they can knock people out almost as easily as they can kill them. A normal human with a gun, however, often has no choice other than to kill. At least, you have to expect that killing is a likely result of shooting the target. Superheroes are also more able to expect that the target won't be able to kill them in one hit - they can spend some time at it.

A normal cop or soldier, however, has to a) realise that their only way of taking someone out, often, will likely kill them, and if they don't do it in one go, they may well get shot and killed themselves. Fair enough for the real work, but it's a lot harsher than just about any superhero game, and therefore not (in my opinion) a good basis for figuring out how superheroes work - unless you're playing a much darker, more 'realistic' game.

Of course, even in superhero games, a human cop walks around with an RKA pistol most of the time. For the cop, same as real life. For the hero, different story. They live in a different world, they're subject to much tighter moral rules.

Originally posted by Enforcer84

"No Troga! You cook elf over open flame! Boiling makes the meat rubbery."

*grins* It's not quite "Pass me another elf, sergeant," but it's up there.

Hex

I got another one! I got another one! Magical power - unluck, ranged. This is another one from my early days. I came up with it, as a GM, 'cause the girl who was playing the character was cool and... well, you get the idea. Ended up with 13 dice of unluck, with which she regularly caused enemy groups to suffer hideous penalties.

Originally posted by white peregrine

there have been multiple point that have been brought up that are quite valid in regards to the use and viewing of lethal force. I agree with many of them in principle but then when I look at these attacks "in game" I begin to wonder. The time that a character actually "pulls their punch" seems extremely rare to me, and this includes going against normals. mechanically I think we need to look at a "breaking point" which determines what is and is not lethal force.

In my games, as regards characters with CAKs, they shouldn't even take a chance at killing the opposition (unless provoked or otherwise decide to use lethal force). This is especially so for 20-pointers. You don't even /risk/ killing anyone. That means doing less damage than normal, pulling punches, because if you do accidentally kill someone...

with all the previous in mind, would you find it unacceptable for a character based agent to use a KA as their primary attack mode? would this violate a 10pt CAK? I would think not given that a lower powered KA is not going to kill anyone, even an agent type.

Sure. But only against people who the character knows can take it This means, among other things, voluntarily hitting armour (in the case of armour with an activation roll). A high roll against an unarmoured target can kill, even with a 2d6K attack. And, of course, the BODY rules only really apply to PCs... NPCs, especially grunts, can die long before they reach 0 BODY. This is usually a factor of hit locations, but the GM can rule it any time. And if someone really wants to be careful about not killing, they should take that into account - even if the GM NEVER rules such. It /is/ possible, and only in the most four-colour of four-colour games should it be ignored. And even then, you probably shouldn't be using KAs.

Anyway... for me, a CAK not only includes 'killing,' but also a reluctance to harm innocents. In my games, it goes hand in hand. Some other people may prefer multiple disads. Even Grifter (Image comics), a hardened killer, felt incredibly guilty when a woman got injured by ricochets in a fight that he was involved in. Guilty to the point where he nearly blew the mission to rescue her, take her to hospital, and give her all the money he was getting from the mission. If Superman accidentally injures someone, then the bad guy's getting away - 'cause Supes has to fly someone to the hospital.

A properly responsible hero will take these things into account. If there's any chance of an attack killing someone, they won't use it. Unless, of course, they have a weaker CAK and decide they're gonna kill someone. If there are civilians around, they won't use guns for fear of missing and hitting said bystanders. They won't go 'well, there isn't much chance of me missing, and even if I do miss, they'll only take 7 BODY on average... they'll likely live!' They simply won't take the chance. 'Cause even a 2d6RKA /can/ kill someone... a 6d6EB will hardly ever kill anyone. Even a normal. That's why KAs are KAs - they won't necessarily kill anyone, but, in general, they're much more likely to.

Now, that's not to mean that all heroes will think the same way. Those who don't, though, will often develop a reputation for being a loose cannon, or even dangerous. And, naturally, this is the way I run it in my games - a kind of high superhero, but not all the way to four-colour. Other games will have different moral attitudes. It's one thing that's important to spell out to your players as the game begins.

Australian characters

The absolute best thing 5e Champs did, in my opinion, is get rid of the embarrasingly Crocodile-Dundee-Australian characters. They were terrible. I live in Australia, and I very, very rarely meet anyone who talks like that. When I do, it's usually because they're making a joke. Heck, Crocodile Dundee was a huge joke, which it seems most people didn't quite get.

So, I'm glad to see Seeker gone. Well, actually, I'd perhaps have liked to have seen him updated and be a little less stupid. The old version matched old comics - it was impossible to have someone who was different without playing up that difference. Your German character has to say 'Unglaublich!' every other panel, and the Russians had to talk stupid and say 'Bozhe Moi!' The funny characters had to be really funny, and the serious characters ended up being funny because they were /so/ serious. In other words, there was no middle point.

The modern characters have a much finer granularity. They can be complex. Ironclad is serious, but is also a genuine human being, for instance. Personalities aren't defined by a handful of psych lims. Yes, the old champions were simple for a simple ruleset and a simple world (to paraphrase a previous post). The new characters are more complex, and not just talking about points. I like to see that. So I really do kinda like the new characters.

(Yes, the old characters were often fleshed out by players. But that's an individual thing, and can be done with ANY character, no matter how poor or two-dimensional. Doesn't mean the characters themselves were complex, just that the people fleshing them out were creative.)

That said, I really enjoyed Team Defender. It was a really cool quirk, as well as a useful example of what can be done with the points.

(Oh, as for updated versions of the old champions... didn't many of the Ultimate books do that? I remember a 500-point Solitaire in the Ultimate Mentalist, anyway, although I don't have my books handy to check.)

Nuclear holocaust?

Well, if the earth only needs 86 body to be blown up... I think we proved the nuclear winter theory wrong. 'CAuse if two of those 20d6K puppies goes off (using 4E figures, anyway - HSA2), the whole world gets blown up!

This would seem to me to be a problem in scaling... or perhaps more a problem of applying rules without thinking about effects.

(Heck, it wouldn't take Dr Destroyer long)

Should the BODY figure be revisited?

On the topic of how to build a planet killer... a continuous uncontrolled attack (mentioned at least twice earlier) could also be used to simulate the other suggestion of a chain reaction going off. Massive explosions setting off other massive explosions setting off tectonic breakdown as more and more mass turns into energy, until the planet blows itself apart. Not terribly scientific, but it's satisfying. The summon mentioned in the last post sounds like the ideal delivery vehicle for this to me.

These ones, I'm sorry to say, were mine. I apologise profusely.

'Touch' sense, ranged, armor-piercing. Touch is, I reasoned, 360 degrees and targetting by its nature. so by buying it ranged, I had cheap spatial awareness. And armor-piercing meant it could see through walls in the same way that armor-piercing teleport could get through hardened walls! (4th ed)

'Accidental change' into martial posture.

'trigger' applied to 'defensive shot' ranged martial maneuver. Trigger defined as 'when I decide to shoot someone.' This was complete with 8 targetting skill levels. Naturally.

Normal Killing Attacks

Originally posted by white peregrine

]

 

due to this I wonder if they should rename KA to something else. calling it a KA while somewhat true seems a bit off, especially when brought forth into a 4Color campaign where it will more than likely not kill a thing unless used repeatedly against the target...

Well, yeah. Take Superman. If he punches a normal, with full strength, the normal is paste. So, he doesn't. If he's fighting thugs, he'll restrict damage, and pull his punch to boot. This is why the 'pulling a punch' maneuver is in there. In a game with CAKs, that maneuver should be used often. Really, it's great. Consider taking penalty skill levels to avoid the OCV penalty.

The reason why CAK is a big disadvantage comes out when he's fighting people who /look/ normal but are actually tough. Superman, Hulk, Rogue... they've all run into enemies who they went easy on at first, but then found out were actually super-strong. In effect, they lost a phase or two before they realised the foe could actually take more pounding.

I wonder if this could also be taken as a limitation on strength - 'only for foes who can take it.'