Jump to content

Hugh Neilson

HERO Member
  • Posts

    19,330
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Everything posted by Hugh Neilson

  1. Unquestionably the facilities do not want to choose who gets treatment, and who doesn't. The question here is the factors which should be considered making that choice. Run a search for "US vaccination rates poverty" and you'll see a link there as well. Rice & beans are low cost and healthier than high sugar or your ground beef choice. Some locations have certainly had better access than others, just as some have had more pollution than others. The causitive factors are complex - but that's also true for COVID. We know not being vaccinated increases the odds of a severe COVID case. We don't know whether the patient contracted COVID from a fully vaccinated individual who figures "no need for me to get checked out when I feel a bit under the weather - the vaccine should protect me: I stayed home and wore masks enough before I was vaccinated!". We know that smoking and obesity both carry health issues. Should this patient have exercised more? We know speeding increases the risk of collision, and seat belts reduce the probability of severe injury. Speeding is illegal, and seat belts are mandatory in most of North America, I believe. In fact, we have a lot more experience with those issues than we do with COVID. Choosing no vaccination is legal. So if access to medical care is to be assessed based on the individual's choice whether to be vaccinated today, it seems like a wedge in the door to assess access in future based on other personal choices. That is the slope we begin to slip down. The question of who gets care, and who does not, is of enough concern that guidelines existed long before COVID. I am not sold that COVID mandates a change in those guidelines to incorporate personal choices if personal choices were of no relevance in the past.
  2. I'm not sold that creating, say, the "matches pretty much every stereotype" Extrano back in 1988 was a better move than "outing" characters whose sexuality has never been a solid point in their prior appearances. I don't recall Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, Samurai and El Dorado being viewed as great examples of diversification in the Superhero genre when they appeared in Super Friends. Would you also criticize the decision that Black Manta was actually black (revealed in 1977; first appearance was 10 years prior, in 1967)? Aquaman was surprised. What about something less visible? The Thing was around a long time before 2002, when he was revealed to be Jewish. Colossal Boy was revealed to be Jewish in 1980, 20 years after he first appeared. Moon Knight retroactively became Jewish in #37 of his book, almost 10 years after he first appeared. Magneto became retroactively Jewish in the 1990's. Sexuality, like religion (or even race if you are always fully masked) is pretty easily invisible. We tend to assume "straight", but we also tend to assume some branch of Christian, and WASP until they unmask and prove us wrong. All of these were the standard in the Golden Age, not just "straight". Considering how many real people struggle with defining their sexuality, even denying or hiding it, the possibility that some existing characters whose sexuality has never really been a defining characteristic (much like religion may never have come up) being gay or bi (or Jewish) doesn't seem like it flies in the face of their character development. We might discover after many years of publication that a character came from an abusive home (Hulk), is of a specific faith (Thing) or has a non-straight sexual orientation (Tim Drake; maybe Jon Kent), or even is not white (Black Manta). Is the problem that the writers never disabused the assumption that they were straight WASPs from their very first appearance, or is the problem with readers who assumed one thing and are now uncomfortable with another being revealed?
  3. Funny...the objection to Tim Drake was that the character has been around for decades, and they should not "retcon" such a long-term character in this manner. I don't think Jon Kent has been around very long, has he? Well, six years, I suppose. I seem to recall a time when the writers were criticized for creating brand-new characters to fill "inclusivity" niches. Now we criticize discovery that existing characters may not be 100% straight. What is the suggested approach? I know one was that their sexuality is irrelevant so ignore it. But, to consistently implement that, we need to get rid of all romantic relationships - no "Superman's Girlfriend" or "Wedding of Reed and Sue", along with no "Tim Drake struggles with his sexuality". At the same time, I wonder how many fans of the current approach recall how long changes and trends typically last in the comic book world.
  4. I'm not in any way condoning the refusal to take the vaccine. As well, the most likely immediate reason for the health care system to be overloaded is COVID, and we know most cases (and especially most severe cases) are now unvaccinated patients. However, as I wrap my head around this, how does the "your personal choice lead to this consequence, so you are a lower priority case" logic get applied to other conditions? We've known for decades that smoking increases the risk of cancer. Obesity comes with a number of health consequences. If your injuries are more severe due to failure to wear a seat belt, or you were driving over the speed limit, does that impact the priority of your care? What about higher-risk sexual behaviour leading to health issues? Returning solely to the vaccine question, how do we take into account patients with conditions that may enhance their risks of adverse reactions to the vaccine? Do we also take into account the extent to which the patient did, or did not, reduce their COVID risk by self-isolation? Does someone who went back to work get lower priority over someone who stayed home? Does going to the grocery store move you down the priority chain over getting a friend or relative to shop for you (and does that kind act move them down the priority chain?) Add in the reality that these are not decisions that will be carefully analyzed ensuring all of the facts are considered, peer reviewed and subject to appeal processes - they will be made quickly, under high-stress conditions - and asking the medical staff to assess the extent to which the patient is the author of their own misfortune seems a bit scarier.
  5. I think this is the element of my post you're addressing, Duke. I was largely envisioning the desired power to be "I conjure up a sword. It just sits there unless actively used to attack, and at some point it just disappears". So, basically, all the ability does is let the character use a KA on his phase with an attack action - no real "Constant" involved, other that the non-mechanical English that the sword is constantly physically present and may be used to attack like any other attack as long as it sticks around. But one comment lead me to question whether there was a different power envisioned. D&D has a "Spiritual Weapon" spell that makes a good example. I cast the spell, with all the limitations on the power affecting that casting. A weapon, so the sword, appears, and attacks an opponent. On my next action (so my next phase, in HeroSpeak) the sword attacks again. Meanwhile, I can do whatever I want with my actions. The sword just keeps attacking that one opponent. I do have to spend some of action, IIRC, to direct the sword to a new target, but I don't need to re-cast the spell - the sword will stick around, attacking every phase (or not, if I give it no target or tell it to stop) until the fairly short spell duration expires. That sounds a lot more "Constant", as it is operating every phase. It does not use my Attack Action either. But, unlike Constant, it has to hit every phase. It might miss on its first attack, when I cast the spell, then try again next phase and hit. Just hitting next phase doesn't mean its next attack will hit automatically, though - it will have to roll again on the next phase. That sounds like it is Uncontrolled (even if I am KOd or killed, the sword will keep attacking away until the spell expires, although it won't change targets), but it's not quite Constant in that it does not keep hitting every phase - it has to roll to hit each phase. So that could be some lesser-costed Constant (removing the "hits automatically" element), a Limitation on the Constant advantage (which may as well just be a reduced advantage), with Uncontrolled tacked on (making it "fire and forget" instead of "fire and keep it going every subsequent phase). But it could also be a Summoned Automaton that follows my commands and attacks whoever I last designated until I spend the time to direct it to another opponent. It feels more like the Summon to me, under Hero mechanics, than trying to simulate a flying sword that attacks on its own by a modified Constant, Uncontrolled, Physical Manifestation, Time Limit attack power.
  6. A "personal choice". Kind of like whether to wear a seatbelt, smoke tobacco, smoke marijuana, drink alcohol, drive 55, urinate in the street, yell "fire" in a crowded restaurant or wear a shirt and shoes to the restaurant? Clearly we would never DREAM of restricting those rights to personal choice, so how can we possibly mandate mask-wearing?
  7. I don't believe the writers ever said "well, this one is mainstream continuity" so much as there was nothing that precluded them being mainstream continuity. Although the 1950s Avengers were being watched by five current Avengers who aligned with them (Thor/Venus; Beast/GorillaMan; Vision/Living Robot; Iron Man/Marvel Boy; Cap/3D Man). From https://marvel.fandom.com/wiki/What_If%3F_Vol_1_9 Agents of Atlas would have likely been easier if they had left it in mainstream continuity, though.
  8. Looks like I am the outlier in wondering just how T'Challa could talk a bunch of amoral pirates over to the Greater Good, much less convince Thanos to abandon his plans. To the broader "recalling the old comics", the other thing I recall was a mix of re-telling classic Marvel history with a slight twist (which Captain Carter did) and telling a wild story with familiar looking characters but pretty much entirely unrelated to "mainstream marvel" continuity, almost like a single issue of an alternative universe Marvel comics (which is definitely T'Challa as StarLord). But there were also a few that were actually "untold stories" of the main MCU (I recall "...the Invaders remained together after WW II" and "...the Avengers formed in the 1950s").
  9. While true, making spells something you buy, and purchase Spell Familiarity and skill levels with, just like other gear, also means that any character can buy magic. Maybe it costs more wealth. Perhaps the penalties for a lack of Spell Familiarity are greater, or it is more expensive to be familiar with a broad array of spells than the what, 4 point, cost to be familiar with pretty much all weapons. But every character must pony up the same amount of limited resources (CP, money or both) to have the same abilities, and the same skill with them.
  10. Why would it be the assumed default? The comics did not present characters as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transexual for 50 - 80 years. It basically presented them as asexual. Sexuality was simply a topic which was not addressed, beyond some characters having (or pining over) boyfriends/girlfriends, and a few being married. I recall a letter to one book some years back complaining that, even in a line that targeted "mature readers", the characters were presented in, as I recall, some mystic mindscape as lacking genitalia. The letter writer indicated that, in his view, "real people have genitals". The statement that the characters' sexuality is "not relevant" suggests that one should not care whether Tim Drake is heterosexual, bisexual or whateversexual. If it's not relevant, it does not matter - regardless of whether he is straight or not. The level of complaint indicates the extent of relevance to the person making the complaint.
  11. I am still waiting for the canon evidence that Tim is clearly 100% straight. Show me how his sexuality (as an unshakably straight male with zero uncertainties) has been a part of his "core identity" at any time in his three decades of history. He's had a few opposite-sex relationships which basically went nowhere, and which he didn't really seem to focus on, much less prioritize. That could indicate a greater dedication to other aspects of his life (much like a career-focused individual), but it could also indicate that he wasn't so romantically inclined to the female gender. How was Tony Stark's alcoholism different? We saw no indications for many years of Iron Man's history, then ZAP, he's an alcoholic. Oh wait, he always was, it was just never prominent. The Hulk's core was Jekyll & Hyde. But wait, no, we can integrate his personalities. No, surprise, they weren't integrated - a third personality was created to protect the public. Oh look, rampaging Hulk who does not realize he is also Banner is back. Bucky is dead. Dead, dead, dead. He and Uncle Ben are the only Marvel characters that stay dead. Oh wait, he's actually alive and has been alive and working behind the scenes all these years. Thor is a persona Dr. Don Blake takes on when he "possesses the power of Thor" because he is Worthy. No, wait, he really is Thor and switches identities with Dn Blake. Oh, fooled you - there is no Don Blake, he's just a construct created by Odin to humble Thor. Oh, but it turns out ANYONE worthy can still wield the hammer and be granted powers like Thor's - but they aren't Thor's because he does not -de-power. Well, until another writer changes that. For some inexplicable reason, Tim Drake's sexuality is considered more canon than a lot of other canon, despite being far less central to the character's portrayal over the years than many elements of other characters that have simply changed over time. Clearly I was fooled by the fan fiction in the 1960s and 1970s, wherein he was not depicted as superhumanly strong. Although I will admit the Golden Age examples are less fair as "canon" was not really valued all that much. Although the Spectre was the ghost of Jim Corrigan for a long time. Until he wasn't, but instead was the Wrath of God, affixed to a mortal soul. Remember when Swamp Thing was really Alec Holland? Until it was revealed that he wasn't in the '80's? Until he was again in the 2000's? Which version is true canon, and which are just fanfic gone wild?
  12. Exactly. Few long-term comic book characters are controlled by their creators. Many of their creators are retired or even deceased. Was it FanFic when Roy Thomas wrote the Invaders and the All-Star Squadron? He was a fan in the 1940s who became a writer in the 1960s. What's with Batman hating guns? Originaly he carried a gun and even machine gunned a crowd from his plane. Superman did not start out so squeamish around killing either, nor could he fly or see through walls. He gained a lot of powers we now consider canon over time. That may not be the story you want to read. Maybe you don't want to see Superman and Lois sharing a bath either. But that does not invalidate the story. Tony Stark was not an alcoholic in Tales of Suspense. Or was he, but we just did not KNOW he was an alcoholic? By #128 of his own book, he was most definitely an alcoholic. The creator of Wolverine envisioned him having claws in his gloves,not embedded in his body, and his adamantium skeleton only showed up around #126 of X-Men, when he's been around since #94 (plus the Giant-Size and Hulk appearances before) so that's also fanfic. So is Peter Parker's appearance. Stan Lee once noted that the only thing Romita could not draw was Peter Parker, "the little nebbish". Stan noted he ultimately accepted that Peter grew up from nerdy, awkward teen to a pretty good-looking guy. Someone once wrote to the Justice League book in the 1970s suggesting Aquaman have "the strength of a whale". In later years, it developed that, due to evolution to deal with the ocean pressures, Atlanteans were much stronger and more durable than surface men. Fanfic? It wasn't part of the character for decades. I recall an issue where Aquaman was hunted through Seattle by an assassin. The assassin had clearly won - he's kept Aquaman out of the water for well over an hour, and we all knew by canon that he needed to go underwater at least every hour. Only he didn't - it depended on his environment, and in heavy rain in Seattle, he could last a lot longer than an hour. Pure fanfic, right? For years, we criticized comic book movies because they were not true to the characters - the writers weren't fans. We still see that in the criticisms of many DCU movies, not so much Marvel. But when writers are fans, and they develop the characters, now fan fiction is a bad thing instead? [EDIT: Sorry for the thread drift towards the title of the thread itself 😇] How many long-term romances has he had, making it clear that he is most definitely straight and this is a complete, jarring change? High schoolers go with the crowd. Have kids grown out of mocking, bullying or ostracizing those who are different? Do the football teams welcome homosexual guys? Are a couple of trans cheerleaders the norm? Were any of those nine alternate future Tim's married with kids, much less clearly straight and not, say, bisexual? People struggling with understanding their sexuality are hardly unusual. Show me the character history that says "for sure he is straight". Or any issue of Tales of Suspense that suggests Tony Stark has a serious drinking problem, rather than being a casual or social drinker. Having not read the story, I'm not clear how this "big reveal" comes out, so I'm not prepared to pass judgment on the writer quite yet. But we do not see every minute of any comic character's life. I have no great desire to see them in the bathroom, for example, and while Reed and Sue have a child, I don't recall ever seeing them engaged in more than a pretty chaste kiss. I do know they have been in a long-term straight relationship. But I have not seen Tim Drake's long-term relationship with any romantic partner, really. Maybe he just has not had enough interest in the various girls he has had shorter-term relationships with?
  13. At this point, aren't many characters limited to fanfiction? The original authors/creators are not writing Superman, Batman or Wonder Woman any more, and Stan Lee isn't overseeing the classic Marvel characters.
  14. OK, now I think I at least get the issue. I don't agree with your perspective on it, but I get the issue. Starting with a 12d6 Blast, no frills, I can use the Blast at any time. If I do not use it, nothing happens and I spend no END. In any phase, I can select any target I want for the Blast, spend END, make an attack roll and, assuming I hit, do damage. Then it's done until I use it again. Now, let's add Constant. Same starting point - I can use it whenever I want, but if I hit, it locks on and, as long as I keep pumping END into it, it stays on. It damages that target, and that target only, every phase. But if I add your new "advantage", I paid +1/4 for precisely nothing. The power is available to be used whenever I want to use it, just like it was before I applied the advantage. Now, let's tack on some limitations to the basic Blast. It requires a full minute to kick up (-1 1/2), during which I can do nothing else (-1/4). While activating, I am at 0 DCV (-1), must Gesture (-1/2) and Incant (-1/2). This is a super-limited power, dropping the cost to 13 points. Is it useful in combat? Not really - it takes a full five turns to make it available and I can do nothing else during that time. Add Constant and it costs 19 points. What did the extra 6 points get me? Well, if I ever do manage that full minute of preparation, and hit, I can keep damaging that one target as long as I keep pumping END in. That is quite advantageous...but if that target is KOd, or I just want to change targets for other reasons, or if I get stunned and the power stops, I need another minute to be able to use the power again. Now, as I understand your proposal, I can instead take "Constantly available" for +1/4 instead of Constant for +1/2. Now my power costs 16 points. For 3 points, instead of needing a full minute of uselessness whenever I want to kick the power in, all I need to do is spend a minute gesturing, incanting and concentrating in the shower in the morning, and now the Blast is available any time I want, just like the No Frills blast. That is, effectively, a -2 3/4 limitation for "has to spend a minute maintaining this power once a day". You don't have to do it again if you want to change targets, or if you have to shut the power down (since it was never "up" in the first place). Applied to my basic 12d6 Blast, it is in no way advantageous. It changes nothing. It means I can use the power normally, just like I could before. Applied to a power with a pile of "before I can use it, I have to..." limitations, it is hugely advantageous, not because it is an Advantage, but because it mitigates the Limitations on the power. Extra Time is halved when it is only required to activate a power, not to maintain it. Concentration, Gestures and Incantations are doubled if they must be maintained throughout the use of a constant power. Why not? The rules discuss taking Physical Manifestation on "a Power like HKA if it’s defined as creating claws or a weapon — the claws “remain in existence” between Phases even if the character can’t use them." They then suggest a look at Time Limit, which has already been noted upthread. OK, there is something I am unclear on, but we'll come back to that. At its base, I would say RKA, Physical Manifestation. In a fantasy game, I would likely pop on the usual spellcasting limitations and add "Time Limit", the rules mechanic specifically created for allowing the use of an Instant power to extend outward over longer than the Instant action it would normally require. If Time Limit + the various limitations equals or exceeds the cost with no limitations and no Time Limit, I would simply drop both the advantage and the limitations, and apply a smaller limitation for the need to re-create the Sword at some later time. If it's fairly easy to break the sword and require you to use all those limitations to get it back, that limitation could be higher, but I don't see it ever being more than -1, as an OAF could be broken or taken away, and could not be conjured back up again with a minute of inconvenience between combats. It feels like the ease of recovery makes it more comparable to an OIF, or a variant of Restrainable, so -1/2 instead of Extra Timne, gesture, incant, concentrate, etc. That one unclarity - my model above means that attacking with the sword requires you use an attack action each phase. If the sword just attacks every phase on its own, without the need for any action on your part, this is starting to seem a lot more like Summoning an Automoton or, alternatively, making it Constant and Uncontrolled, with a cost reduction for the requirement to make an attack roll each phase in order to hit. I'd look to "Requires a Roll" for guidance in pricing that out. Here I would not allow Physical Manifestation, instead treating "break the sword" as the "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances that will turn it off or negate it." But the more the sword can function independent of any Actions on your part, the more it feels like it is a separate character, whether a Follower or a Summoned Automaton. Now, if you are still hooked on a (pretty low cost) advantage for "turn it on and off at will once all conditions to activate are met once" model, tell me how you would apply it to a defensive spell or movement spell? Start with +10/+10 rDEF with the same 1 minute "casting time", but now once he casts it, he can switch the mystic shield on and off so he can pay no END between combats.
  15. He's also a teenager whose "canonical" time frame is a lot less than 32 years. I am pretty sure a lot of teens acted as, and believed they were, heterosexual in high school before realizing that they were not straight, whether bisexual or homosexual. The source article is actually a pretty balanced discussion of why this makes at least a modicum of sense given the character's history. ACK: forgot I did not first see the issue on the Boards. https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026482411/batmans-sidekick-robin-comes-out-it-makes-sense-if-you-were-paying-attention?utm_source=pocket-newtab
  16. The problem with both this and Time Limit is that they are less an advantage than a limitation on a limitation. All those "I have to do this every time I want to use the power" limitations are made much less problematic by "I only have to do this once and then I can pretty much use the power whenever I want". If the power has no such limitations (it's just a 12d6 Blast, say), then this is a worthless advantage - I can already Blast in each phase that I choose to, so why should I pay another 15 points for the privilege? I could see allowing you to halve the various limitations in the vein of "only to activate" if that means you have to spend END every phase, whether you use the power or not, or let it shut down and have to do all those preparations again. But any "advantage" on the power will be a bargain if it has a lot of limitations to fire it up, and be overpriced if it has few or none. If it takes a minute to charge up, throughout which you have to Concentrate at 0 DCV, unaware of your surroundings, Gesturing and Incanting all the while, unable to take any other actions, the point savings from all those limitations are vastly excessive if you can slap a +1/4 advantage on the power to just activate it every morning while you're in the shower and BANG - good for the whole day.
  17. Maybe I am just obtuse, but I do not see why "time limit" is not the answer. So Cosmic Energy Fist: +xd6 Hand Attack, Extra Time (full phase), Concentration, Incantations, Time Limit. You take a phase to get ready, concentrating and muttering a prayer. From 6e v1 p346, you now have a Cosmic Fist that will until the time limit expires. If you want it to stick around for an hour, Time Limit will be more expensive. Once it reaches the point that the Time Limit and all those Limitations result in a real cost greater than leaving Time Limit and all those limitations off, you chalk it up to SFX and get rid of the advantage and limitations. Or you agree with your GM that having to do all that stuff in the morning and then have the power all day is a -1/4 limitation on the power. Is there some specific mechanic that this does not provide which you are looking for? Can you articulate it?
  18. I'd be OK with the EDM provided the Base was paid for. As a GM, I'd be looking at the -2 (or higher) limitation for those END costs and expect it to have a commensurate in-game effect. The only way that happens is if there are reasons for you to switch to other slots, so you either have to decide to live without those other slots or pay a huge END cost to switch.
  19. Or just wait wait for you to pass out from exhaustion after spending 40 of your 50 END to activate it. DEMON needs to field a team armed with mystic rings that provide a bit of Teleportation, Invisibility and Gaseous Form (Desolid), ideally with a mix of AP and mental attacks or adjustment powers. And a power that swaps OCV with OMCV (maybe also vice versa) in an area. Maybe a CE (penalizes OCV down to match OMCV and vice versa) would simulate that adequately. Otherwise it's the kludge of EDM. Why isn't ExtraDimensional Home a base with EDM to get there?
  20. The control cost base (before advantages to change with no skill roll in a zero phase) is half the maximum AP of any single power in the VPP. Since your highest single AP power is 26, your control cost is 13 x 3 = 39/1.25 for UP = 31. The pool itself is the total real points of slots the pool can hold at one time. As the RP cost of each power depends on its limitations, that's more a moving target.
  21. That being the case, you only need a control cost adequate for 26 AP, so 13 x 3 (no skill roll; 0 phase)/1.25 (unified power on all powers) = 31. If I am adding the 3 Multipowers correctly, they total 52 points, which leaves a 21 Real Point pool. If all the powers have Incantations and 2-handed gestures as well, the Control Cost is 13 x 3/2 = 19. which leaves enough for a 33 real point pool - enough to run a few 26 (or less) AP powers with -1 limitations at the same time.
  22. Am I missing something (probably!)? The biggest AP power I saw was 45, so a 23 point control cost would be enough. The rest goes to the pool. With a 60 (or so) point pool, and at least -1 in limitations on every power, you can fit several 45 AP powers in at a time.
  23. On the broader "cinema vs streaming", we saw BW at the new theatre that was just about ready to open when COVID hit. Their concessions are largely self-serve (excuse me, "touchless"), so you pick up your own snacks and go to cashiers on your way into the theatres. [I note they still control the butter dispensers, though.] Lovely reclining pre-booked seats were nice. In the pre-show, I lost count of how many times I heard some variation of how great it was to be back in the theatre seeing movies in the only way they were really meant to be seen. I think the industry gets just how precarious its current situation is. But I can also remember the theatres and the screens getting smaller and smaller in the late '80s and early '90s, until they figured out people stopped going, and just waited for the VHS/DVD to watch at home, on a slightly smaller screen without sticking to the floor or having some kid kicking your seat or yapping all through the movie, with their home-purchased snacks. The industry reinvented itself to make going to the movies more of an event then. I expect they'll have to do it again now.
  24. Just glancing through, I'd be wary of "massive multipliers to END costs, but only once when I activate it". It's not very limiting when you can Activate all of the powers as part of the morning routine and have them available for the remainder of the day (i.e. basically whenever they are actually relevant). For a net -2 limitation (e.g. Tongues spell), the ability should be losing most of its effectiveness. It does not seem to lose much effectiveness at all. It's at least a bit more limiting when the abilities can't be maintained in perpetuity, like the Lockout ones, especially if I make sure most teams include a Mentalist, someone with Armor Piercing attacks, a Teleporter and a Desolidifier. Actyually, if the Mentalist is subtle and keeps suggesting you switch targets, or that the guy you are fighting might be able to teleport, that 50 END could run out pretty fast. Of course, "sauce for the goose" - every NPC can do the same thing. Say a suite of Limitations on some Triggered powers like "1 charge (-2;), OAF Potion (-1), Costs END (only to activate; -1/4); 8x END (-1 3/4) [it's EXHAUSTING to prepare that potion]; Extra Time, 1 hour (-3) [it takes FOREVER to prepare that potion] [I could toss on Concentration and 2 handed gestures while activating as well, I suppose] Total of -8 Limitations for some one-shot potions (drink, or throw) DEMON teaches all its low-grade agents to make. Maybe a single Drain of one magical effect, with a 4 meter radius, perhaps with Damage over Time and reduced recovery rate? That would certainly reflect the fact that they are more powerful, and make getting that walking magical artifact easier to subdue and haul back to the Morbanes. Maybe make them all Usable By Others - the Potion Master who never leaves the base makes them, and gives them to the agents so they don't even spend their own points! I also agree with Nekkidcarpenter's reservations on coupling Power Defense and Unified Power, although the wonders of limitation stacking mean UP isn't having much impact. I suppose it would not take much for a Morbane to develop some Drains that are AVAD Flash Defense (pick any sense desired), though. We'll call it the Limburger Death of Magic.
  25. I have no problem rolling 1d6 every phase to average 3.5, especially if I'm otherwise paying the same price for 2 per phase. I don't believe there is an official "1d6+1" Healing as it's 10 points per 1d6. The biggest issue with allowing a greater frequency than 1/turn is that the character's SPD now has a significant impact on the pace of recovery, which is an issue for any Constant ability, less so for one requiring phases. If, instead, we priced from 1 turn down to every 3rd segment, SPD would not matter. Of course, the pace of regeneration/healing also matches the pace of END use - REC is less useful to a high SPD character outside the rare occasions when he can sacrifice phases to take recoveries.
×
×
  • Create New...