Farkling

Focusses are designed to be broken. It's part of the discount you got for your power...if a munchkin complains have him put the damn thing in a milkshake and drink it and pony up the 75-150 points in savings that he took for his focus limitations... -1 = 50% of the CAMPAIGN with no focus....or in combat, say half his active phases where he wants to use it. Or break it every other combat. -1/2 = 33% of CAMPAIGN with no focus....or 1/3 of his combat phases...or every third combat. -1.4 = 25% of CAMPAIGN time....and 1/4 of his action phases, or every fourth combat. Smart villains get to learn faster than dumb ones. Also...rule of thumb....InAccessible Foci are 'inside' the character's defenses according to game gospel. For effects this does not make sense for, the dramatic interpretation would be the "shielding" of the foci by the character's reflexes/reactions. Accessible Foci are outside defenses (that they do not provide)....my house rule allows the "carried object" adder on force fields to extend the field protection to foci. Accessible foci are hit by Area Effect attacks automatically in my campaigns... it really does something for the characters with OAF's. One went for a field generator, one jacked his reflexes (+5/+5 Armor, Only for "OAF of choice"), and one thinks it's a great game effect. Come to think of it....InAccessible Foci should be protected by the characters inherent Power Defense by defintion...if your rule is no, you get what? 3 Power Defense per 1 point if it "only applies to Focus" ?? You want immunity, PAY for it. The same limitation can be put on the Hardened Defense Advantage if bought for the Focus defense.....what's the problem here? I think it works fine as is...although I am NOT handing out durable as a freebie...(but I apply it automatically to Frameworks....they're considered ONE power by the rule...and I think they are inherently STURDIIER powers) Now...villains should not load "foci drainers/penetrators" without appropriate special effects for usage. If the PC's are doing...well....all bets are off...villains learn fairly quickly and will be able to swap the Accessible limitation for something like Inaccessible, Delayed Segment rather easily, as all that is required is GM permission...and will get right on figuring out how to do it to the PC's.

it still looks like a -1/4 limitation.... Maybe it's a variant of cannot climb (-1/2).

Here's my observation on the Transform...instead of transforming air, by buy the Transform as "ice" or "my entangles" as the valid target...Now you throw the entangle (which creates a large amount of ice by special effects) and morph it "on the fly" with your transform. RSR for the Transform, defined as Ice Powers skill. Heck, now you even have a BODY/Active Points Total to affect with the Entangle. Fooey on the air modifier and the air transform. Of course, that is for the columns, artificial walls, igloos, etc that we construct with Ice Powers.... Freezing someone in a block of ice could be a Transform or an Entangle....Entangle mechanics seem better for a combat prison effect... Now OUTSIDE of combat....4D6 Major Transform, target into "corpsicle", Transform reversed by being submerged in warm ocean water for a sufficient period...

Clarification....the DCV levels were OUTSIDE the EC And after that thread on Force Walls, and Steve's observations, I would definitely build the walls as an Entangle... force walls are definitely meant ot be enery constructs. Entangles can be tunneled....force walls cannot.

When I pipcture speedsters running on water I picture the old Golden Age flash (the guy with the funny hat!). He explained to the old Green Lantern and his wife on seperate occasions that runnning on the water wasn't hard, it was turning and stopping quickly that he had trouble with. Lack of friction. That's why I liked flilght. I figured he used the flight levels to run on a real surface. He did make occasional 90 degre turns on land. Maybe he had both. I recall him SWIMMING at superpseeds also. Obviously this needs more thought. Is it a Movement Multipower?? He never really used Superspeed attacks while moving...unless you count major multiple move bys, and that could even be bought as an Area Effect attack... I bought my speedster Clinging and Running and never messed with water. He was electrically based...he used a plane to cross large bodies of water, or went around...I wanted something different. Socio:: It used to be that any 5pt or better level with FLIGHT specifically could be used to shift your Turn Mode !-Hex per level "burned" on that turn. Did I get that right veterans?

Hmmm....you know, thinking back to first edition...perhaps this is just a holdover rule? After all, much power rebalancing has happened. Does anyone on this thread have access to a large quantity of published characters? Do the stock characters from the Champions Universe violate the no END rule? This an interesting question to consider... Think of the abuse though, I can buy +20/+20 Armor in one slot, and then buy +20/+20 Force Field at 0 END on top of it. And I have NOT violated the campaign power limits, or the campaign defense limit. I can use them both. At once. If I can't, I get a FURTHER discount for the additional limitation... I'm invulnerable. Now you must crush me with the GM's Fiat. *sounds of engine starting in the distance* As to the weather witch....we ddin't go with missile deflection, we bought DCV levels that cost END, to special effect the fact that she had to maintain that tornado around her. Rolling a block was too fine of control for her...her hurricane force wind attack was a VERY crude TK effect. The effect IN the EC was a seperate Force Field slot. I've seen Iceman done with Armor and a Multipower. You can put Armor in a Multipower, thought the construction I saw had it outside. (Safety rule:: Never put movement, attack AND defense in a Multipower unless the reserve is far larger than campaign limits. Or your SPD is superb. Half Power attack/defense is not real effective). He pretty much has multiple cold attacks, runnning, and entangles. In light of the long discussion on Force Walls I got into, I would drop the force wall and just go with a barrier entangle as a seperate slot. Nuclearman was a cheap shot. It's from an in-house storyline. He wanted a few lifesupport powers in his EC. He instead bought them linked to his force field. Under the FREd rules he'd probably add the 'similar powers' limitation also...he was kind of a munchkin at times... The Human Bomb...yeah...it was the guy in the asbestos suit I was thinking of. The EC 'could' have an explosive attack with personal immunity, a BIG explosive attack dependent on his suit being destroyed (without personal immunity) and enough Regeneration to raise him from the dead afterwards...I think the cost break would be better on the seperate powers...why use an EC ?? Yes, regeneration can go in an EC, check the construction. It DOES cost END....it has simply been bought down to persistant. (winces at posting this in public for the munchkins to see) I am also against EC:: *Alien Race* Powers or EC:: *Monster* Powers. I'm the GM, I don't need Elemental Controls to justify the expenditures...and any character showing up with one of these needs to rethink his concept. I do allow "rider" limitations for effects like that...a block limitation for "vampiric powers" is more acceptable to me than an EC. The limitation makes the power vulnerable to the "Special Effect" modifier on the Power Atttacks. I also tend to shy away from EC:: Cybernetics. Again, I prefer a widely applied "cybernetic" or "restrainable" limitation instead (depending on the size of the "Shadowrun" feel I am searching for). It's personal taste and preference. I also only allow one Framework per character (in Supers level games)...and have yet to find a character with a justified exemption. (Though one of my PC's has a good oppurtunity for it)

I dunno. I picture EC's as being a cost break because of the the linked special effects...that's how it works in my head. In other words, everything is supposed to be a modification (modulation?) of the chosen form of energy expenditures. Weather witches, Iceman, Nuclearman, The Human Bomb... allowing powers that do NOT require inherent energy expenditure seems retro design concept to me. So I let people put what they please in an EC, and it costs END when it is put in there. They can proceed to buy it down, off, or persistant from there. I also personally feel that EC's should allow for reasonably common or discernable flaws to exist in the powers. The force field fails with stunning or unconsciousness (unless appropriate prices are paid)...having powers in an EC that are inherently equal value with no flaws...that's doesn't work for me. The convoluted logic being that the character should at least be required to 'set up' the power to run by itself. Armor and Damage Resistance "always are" regardless. A persistant power though, must be turned on. I do not allow Inherent in EC's...as of yet. ( I may someday see a good reason) However, Your Mileage May Vary.

I thought there was a power advantage to buy off the turn mode on flight now...perhaps I misremember. We had a draft for a rip off of Aurora and her brother around here somewhere...maybe it was custom advantages? The "Run on Water" is a nice effect, but it seems cheap. After all, my Speedster now is able to buy the abovelisted 6 pts of Clinging...so for less than a +10 adder, I can run up and down buildings...turning my running effectively into flight with no Turn Mode...usable on a surface. Though if knocked off the surface or the surfacee is destroyed, you can still fall to the ground with the debris. Come to think of it...if you stopped moving you would sink...Flight allows for hovering (mechanicalyl speaking), but clinging or running won't let you get back to the surface of the water...or stand in place if you stop...without the GMW (GameMaster Wave). Flight may have been the chosen mechanic for altitude control and the "hover" effect... but only Steve Long knows that. Perhaps the Knockback physics were also included in the consideration...eh. I prefer Flight...it seems less messy, AND less open to abuse. I like the Turn Mode. And I speak from the experience of recently playing a speedster using Running. I would buy Run on Water right alongside my 1/2 END...just to even out my power advantage. I'm pretty sure that Steve said if there is more than one way to do it, use the more expensive one. But it is your campaign. Do what you like.

IVAN!!! NOW I remember Perry Rhodan. From what I recall of the series at this late date, I'd skip on any books past FREd and Star Hero before you have digested them...but I'm a minimalist. I prefer to either build it myself or leave the details "soft" until I actually need a hard value in the campaign ("can I buy one of those to keep?"). I don't see any need to spend a lot of time building all the details. I'd be disappointed when the players didn't actually find or confront my carefully crafted object. Plot devices do not need to be built, and off the rack plot equipment does not need hard parameters...only character equipment and abilities need hard numbers at the beginning. Perry Rhodan didn't have that "hard heroic" feel to it from what I remember, it was more of a high heroic to low superhero environment. And as to package deals, they are normally only necessary (in my reasoning) to characters who want to "pick a character design out of a list" I'd rather work with those players. Truth is, every organization trains everyone a little differently, so I like the variations in competence level from open-ended design. On the other hand...if time is limited, or you are fairly new to HERO, the software is a great buy. If you are a veteran and tired of doing it all on paper, the software is a great buy.

The few times I have wanted realism in falling damage, I have rolled the damage as a move through and applied it to both targets. They can subtract their STR dice from the velocity before toting it up. (after all, STR allows compensation for the impact if we follow Champs logic)

me...I'd have drain all of them at once...that feels more like a life drain. I'd be tempted to include EGO too...

eh. Just warp the Gradual Effect limitation, add a custom and the previous construct is good to go.

I have seen !! I say!! I have SEEEEN the light!! And here I was foolishly WONDERING where the SuperAgents game could go... will the set up guy go for it? or should I create another one?

Hmm...I hadn't thought about the full Life Support package...ugh. I hate making exemptions. I guess I may have to re-examine my ruling. Where IS that copy of MetaCreator? My logic is that a 6d6 Energy Blast at 0 END with Armor Piercing or Penetrating is usually less useful (game impacting) than the "free EC" break of 65 Mental Defense for the same pricing. So I artificially infalte the cost instead of just saying "nope, against the rules." Players are usually happy to come and say "I'd like Mental Defense in my EC, but this is a little more than my concept" I have compromise material ready. The limitation applied outside the EC, or being inside the EC with the character neding to cope with END expenditure. Come to think of it, the Reserve using character thought it was neat that there was actually a "decision" as to how much Power Defense to have up out of the 40 points worth. The Power Defense backed up the opinion of "I'm a God...it is VERY difficult to Drain or Suppress a God's powers when he puts his mind overcoming adversity." It's a good schtick...our friendly God usually has 1-2 END of Powere Defense running.

Right. It's there in the details on page 69. A power that costs END may be bought to 0 END, and then you can buy persistant. If it is persistant, it will stay on even if you are KO'd.... I got some strange looks from a Champs 4 hero group when they blasted the mentalist Clinging to the wall with a large EB, and he passed out but didn't fall. Persistant Clinging...molecular bonding plates. The same trick works with flight. FREd ground shooter blew the villain further up and away, and was shocked when the villain sort of "floated" there, drifting Earthwards. The villain woke up before our hero could find a position to shoot from again. And flew away. Persistant Force Fields and Damage Shields have interesting effects also...persistant Damage Shields simulate "lava forms" or "energy cocoons" that need to be established, yet can be repressed. Let me clarify my EC position...My house rule is that anythings in an EC automatically costs END...there is no limitation. You may buy these powers to 0 END and persistant. Which defeats the purposes of the munchkin, but the concept people see to-may-toes and toe-ma-toes. On the subject of misc oddball defenses (Mental/Power/Flash), your special effects and justification for scores over 20 need to be bloody good in an EC. Concept people...no problem. Munchkins prefer to gnash their teeth at my "changeing the rules" Good Gaming.

Ah....Frameworks...the best Munchkin territory in HERO. Here's my personal rules for the accepted EC's:: 1) If you want to put a "Natural No END power" or Characteristics or Funky Defenses in an EC, they cost endurance. No limitation given, and no argument. You may buy reduced END normally, and even make them persistant. Most munchkins realize quickly that this defeats their original point trimming purposes. The additional "activation" necessary for the 0 END powers is a neat effect as far as I'm concerned. A "charging up" or "concentration" of minimal combat effect. This has been occasionally been waived in favor of "natural powers" with heftier limitations. 2) They also do NOT boost figured characteristics. You may put those in the EC also however... 3) Most of the munchkins have instead opted for Steve's published "affected by drains/suppresses as EC powers" limitation. I think that I have allowed that at a 1/2 level for running both ways... (In the FAQ? On the board? It's on the house rules list in my book, but the book isn't here...) TI've tinkered with his rule in action, and actually seems to work pretty well. MPower Characteristics are already not allowed to add to figured CHAR's and usually require a limitation of some sorts in my design picture. Depends on the character explanation.

Oh yes...that's the same as the Mentalist with Danger Sense/intuition defined as +5 DCV Persistant. He just uncannily 'knew' where the attack was going to hit. My brother's old Spider Man gimmick with a twist.

Police? I don't know. PErhaps they will impound the firearm as evidence. If the victim had lived, he woul dbe required to go to trial. The DA might be able to file "reckless endangerment" or "use of excessive force" charges in the public interest. However, without the priests cooperation and testimony, that would be difficult to complete. It would add some harrassment for the priest though. He was trrying to defend the priest, which will try pretty well in the papers ("Vigilante Enacts Old Testament Justice" "Defiler Struck Down by God's Wrath" "Church Defended By Warrioir of God")....talk shows may want him to come around... The police in my FICTIONAL opinion (I do not know in reality) will take the statement. If the DA decides not to hold him on manslaughter charges he'll be released and asked not to leave town while the investigation ensues. With a priest backing him up, I'm sure there will be little investigation. The police cannot do much about the fist attempt...they need a trend. The dead man's releatives can make a case in court for "use of excessive force", or if the victim was sole support of his family, they can sue your Beret in court for "deprivation of income" or some such nonsense....the laws on the books can be twisted that way. Suffice to say, if he's clean and aboveboard and is backed up by the other witness, then he may get away clean the first time. If he continues to do this, he will be observed more closely. My $ 0.02

Pteryx:: Just being "really good" at Missile Deflecting can alternately be a pile of skill levels or inherent bonuses... Why? System wise, if the character successfully blocks, he can continue blocking until his next action phase. IE: If I abort to missile deflect, I can continue to deflect misssiles until my next action.

Found the thread. Here you go. http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6474 The observation about force fields in here is completely valid, and should by all means be considered as an alternative to the force walls for point effectiveness. There's all my contributions....happy hunting.

The approach that more closley mimics your ideas is something that I think Killer Shrike might have posted...about "extra BODY" bought as a "field/screen" effect. Then there is a tangible number to manipulate. I think that approach would lend to the deflector generators granting Aid to the "intangible" BODY points...and allows for a better representation of "Shields at 30% Captain"

Somebody ahd this discussion earlier...I wa in part of it...but we were talking about "Doc" Smith Space Opera of the Skylark/Lensmen variety. I picture it more like "Layered" force walls, even in Star Trek's case. When that first wall (deflector) fails, the secondary soaks it up. Structural integrity fields are force fields or Aid overlaying the entire ship...or maybe even a low level regeneration (the original Voyager concept comes to mind) Then re-establishing the deflectors is an aspect of rebuilding/repairing/reactivating the force wall. Extra Time limitations, and "requires engineering skill roll"....or else the generators take BODY from feedback and need repaired...some mechanic of this nature is completely valid. Once those Star Trek deflectors go down there is always an activation time to fire them back up:: Lt Torres:: "Captain, the rear deflector shields can't absorb much more damage. The self-repair functions are already at their limit from the portside shield failure. The hull plating and structural integrity fields won't absorb that kind of punishment either." (my housemate likes Voyager. I like the Doctor) Geordi LaForge:: "It'll take me at least 15 minutes to get the port shield generators back online captain" (watched a lot of these when I was in England. We got them shipped to us.) Scotty:: "I canniblized the control circuits from the backup warp generator to rebuild the deflector controls. She canna take much more a this captain" (Dad raised us on these reruns)

toe-may-toe toe-ma-toe IAF, OIF, Restrainable, Object of Oppurtunity (I love that interpretation, always have)....all the same value. The hair splitting is over the description of the object. Wings USED to be OIF, now they are restrainable. An improvement by my light. Focus is THE longest limitation section in FREd. It's complicated. And a gold mine for character building. Here's my rules of thumb...YMMV:: 1) OAF is visible and obvious (a gun!!). It can be taken from the character with a Grab manuever in combat, or shot/knocked out of his hands. It is ALSO outside of any defenses it does not provide itself. (House Rule:: Force Fields with the +10 Adder for "carried objects" will shield it from damage, but roll STR at straight BODY to BODY to maintiain your grip like normal). 2) IAF cannot be spotted without an appropriate PER roll or sense. Once spotted, it is an OAF to the spotter. The lock will not be "magically lost" Some special effects may allow for that AFTER combat... 3) OIF is visible and obvious (powered armor). It cannot be taken by an opponent. It is also is INSIDE the character's defenses. The character can use his or the focus' defenses to protect it from damage, whichever is higher. The focus may STILL be targeted in combat...it is obvious after all. They are pretty hard to harm though, and cannot be knocked away or removed. (Houe Rule:: Inaccesible Foci which are not part of defenses are generally MORE difficult to target than Accessibles. On the fly we have used size modifers in addition to the -2 for targetting a focus, and it worked pretty well). 4) IIF can't be seen until spotted, then it acts as an OIF to the spotter.

Nemesis:: I am also momentarily confused...I thought that when one rolled a Block manuever, one was allowed to continue rolling Blocks until their next action....like missile deflection is designed. Did I miss something in the combat rules? OH !! An alternative varaint Stretching linked Extra Limbs, Object of Oppurtunity, only to restrain one's opponent Of course...it is very early and I am mathemagically challenged at the moment.

Entangle, Triggered by successful Block. Requires flexible focus of oppurtunity, Entangle DEF and BOD cannot exceed DEF and BOD of object, up to 2" combat Stretching, limited by focus of oppurtunity, focus is destroyed if Entangle is destroyed, Season limitations to fit. Alternatively, just ballpark a Martial Arts manuever at 4 DC's or so. A 2d6 NND is 20 Active Points, why can't a generic Martial Arts Entangle manuever be built off the 20 Active Points, requiring a "focus of oppurtunity" at hand as a special effect? It's no stranger than the existing Grab or NND or Flash attack existing in Martial Arts. GM fiat can allow it as abortable (since neither you nor I have a UMA to build it with) by comparing OCV/DCV with the block mods. It could keep your limb commited also, as you will need to maintain contact to support the "hold" manuever (as a Grab). There's no reason it SHOULD commit to a hold. Think Jackie Chan whipping the cloak around their arms and knotting it before pushing them to the groung. You can even Sweep with it if your weapon (GM) supports it. I imagine you should pay the point for some sort of Weapon Element "tangle weapons" also... Heh. I will have to get Hob (Jimmy Song) to test this for me in the CyberSpies game. I like the way it sounds.