Hugh Neilson

I can "make a half move and multi-attack with my rapier" or I can "spring forward, using the chandelier overhead to vault over the table, delivering a blinding flurry of strikes and ripostes against the miscreant - yield, false champion, or we will strike you down!". It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other. As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus. I can "give a speech to talk the guards into ignoring us" or I can "beseech the guards, who can see clearly that their liege is under the influence of an enchantress who seeks to lead the Barony into war and chaos, to simply allow us passage that we might prevent this horrific end". It should not change my likelihood of success, but one makes for a far better game than the other. As a GM, I may wish to encourage the latter, perhaps allowing a small bonus. If, as a GM, I award no bonus for the in-combat role playing, and in a social setting, I penalize the first character with a -6 to his 15- skill roll, but give the second a +2 bonus to his Everman 8-, what message does that send? If you want to adjudicate social interaction based on player skill, tell the players not to bother spending points on PRE or social skills, as you plan to just ignore them anyway. BINGO - denying the wallflower the choice of playing a glib con man or a Casanova is no better that telling a player "you can't play an agile rogue - you're too fat and klutzy". We don't play these games to run our own skill set in a funny hat. But undoubtedly there are players who are more or less physically fit, and some who have firearms experience and expertise, while others may have fenced. It does not mean they get free combat advantages over an asthmatic, obese couch potato.

Legion of Super Heroes - it's a long-time DC comic super group. They had a character who could split into three identical characters (Triplicate Girl) however when one of her duplicates was killed, she became Duo Damsel.

By the same token, when a player who is playing a character with no social/interaction skills and low social characteristics (PRE, COM in some editions) and the player makes eloquent oratories, or charming comments, that does not override the character's lack of social graces. Expecting player skill to overcome a lack of character skill is bad role playing.

I think there's a "chicken and the egg" issue here. If the game is built around combat, players build combat-capable characters. If the game were focused on athletics, social interaction or courtroom drama, players would build characters that can contribute to such areas. I'm not sure track & field would make for a great game - single-person sports would not be conducive to a game group. But fencing, judo and wrestling are "combat sports" we can better simulate with combat rules and we avoid one-on-one combats for the same reason. The physical combat system does not require players to demonstrate exactly how they aim their bow, swing their sword or shoot fire from their eyes, nor how they will tough out that arrow in their shoulder, block that sharp metal with their shield or shrug off those flames. Most issues I see with social conflict "players aren't good at" comes from GM's who are fine with Big Barney, who needs two rest stops to haul his obese body up a flight of stairs, doing Kirk shoulder rolls as he nimby weaves through mook enemies to backflip over the Big Bad for an attack from behind with his rapier - stiletto combined attack, but insist on Walter Wallflower "role playing" his Casanova-level seduction skills in "social combat" with the Femme Fatale. Once we accept that the characters have skills that the players do not, so we should not base success or failure on the player's skills, that issue goes away.

It's poorly phrased, but can be read in context. To me, it means that you can apply Penetrating to an attack's damage where you add the points on the dice and apply that to a defense. You cannot apply it to an attack 's damage computed with the "normal damage BOD" system where you get 0 for a 1, 1 for a 2-5 and 2 for a 6. So you can't apply Penetrating to the BOD of a normal attack. Since Flash has no effect that sums the rolls on the dice, you can't apply Penetrating to a Flash. The 6e issue with Impenetrable is pretty simple. Way back in 1e, we had Armor Piercing. Hardened defended against it. Around Champions III/2e, we added Penetrating. It needed a defense. Well, we already had Hardened, so the simple approach was to allow Hardened to also defend against Penetrating. Given 2 Hardened DEF did little against AP, we just tack on that Hardened blocks Penetrating entirely. Fast forward to 6e, and the decision to carve "Impenetrable" off from Hardened. I see the issue there as "cut & paste" without assessing that this means any Impenetrable voids Penetrating entirely. The best response, to me, would have been 1 Impenetrable defense reduces 1 point of Penetrating damage. An 8d6 Penetrating Blast rolls average 28 STUN, 8 Penetrating. You have 30 defenses, 5 of which are Impenetrable? Then you take 28-30 = 0; or 8 - 5 = 3 Penetrating STUN. 3 STUN gets through. For some reason, Penetrating got various weird rulings. The "average roll" rule is a close second to "1 pip KA, Penetrating is always 1 Penetrating BOD" ruling.

To me, this depends on the campaign focus. For most games, resolving athletics (or medicine, or law, or research, or investigation, or social interaction) is not the primary source of success or failure - combat is the focus. That makes a more robust resolution system for combat, and a less robust resolution system for other matters (the skill rolls) appropriate. But if the desire is a game focused on something other than combat, then perhaps we need to toggle the switches and expand that focus area to a more robust system for determining success or failure in a manner that's more granular, like combat is now. That may even be accompanied by making physical combat resolution less robust. We're going to focus on athletic competition, so perhaps physical combat is resolved by opposed "Brawling" skill rolls. Maybe weapon proficiencies get expanded to add 3 point full skills and that replaces the more granular combat system - a fight is resolved quickly with skill rolls so we can get back to the focus of the campaign, whatever it may be. I could see having more than one robust resolution area in a game, and I could even see adopting one temporarily (those Sci Fi show episodes where a mysterious illness puts the focus on the doctor character, for example).

We tend to assign higher SPDs because the Supers games have conditioned us to "anyone remotely capable has at least SPD 4". The difference between a "normal" 2 and a 3 is pretty significant. We're probably too free with 15s, 18s and 20s as well.

If you let me switch MP points as often as I like in a phase, then I can always buy 1 meter of Flight outside the Multipower to remain in the air, even if I don't just land. 6 PSLs against Range is an amazingly potent ability for a flying blaster to deal with a Brick. Half move, some up and some over, and blast. It doesn't need a multipower or any ability to attack first and take my other half phase later.

Viewed another way, it allows movement to be used tactically. Movement also cost points. As well, I would stick to move by and strafe if you want to attack during a move. Failing that, if you attack and then move. you will have to close in to attack next phase, assuming your goal was to win the battle, not cut and run. So perhaps the problem is not whether we allow attacking first and then moving, but your choice to depart from the guidance of the rules and allow the multipower to be reallocated without restriction. So, assuming I started with all MP points allocated to an attack, I attack, shift to defenses and/or move away. Next phase, I need to move back in and reallocate my points to attack, then attack. Now my MP is allocated away from defenses and I am in close range. Good strategy? I could also simulate this now by delaying to the very end of a segment, reassigning the MP and closing in to attack, then Aborting to switch back to defenses (and even diving for cover) at the start of the next segment, or in response to anyone targeting me. Either way, this is holding me down to attacking every other phase. I ran a villain some years back with massive running, reliant on movebys. He zipped in, attacked and zipped out, frustrating the Brick immensely. Until he held his phase to attack when the speedster darted in. The speedster ended up out of the Brick's range anyway thanks to knockback, but he also took a lot of Stun in the process. His next action also involved a full move...but no Move By, as he didn't think sticking around with 3 STUN was his best tactical choice.

I'm not sure if the question was should the character be allowed to move a "quarter-move", then attack, then do another "quarter move" ? or should the character be able to attack and then move, rather than move and then attack? The two questions are pretty different. At one time, there was an optional (maybe even "beyond the rule books, from a Hero mailout optional) Strafe maneuver to allow a ranged attack during movement much like a move by. First, who says that you can reallocate your Multipower more than once in one phase? Or turn the same power on and off in the same phase? But I can simulate a lot of that now. SPD 6? Delay to the lowest possible negative DEX on Segment 5. Shift Multipower out of defenses into attacks (or become solid) and attack. Wait for my DEX on segment 6 and go back to defenses/Desolid (or just Abort my Phase 6 action to go defensive). d20 felt very "Hero" when it went to a move action and a standard action. It did not break because someone could attack first and then move. Hero wouldn't either. I'm sure I've played some games where we allowed that.

This would make a better Discussion Board question - this forum has very few people who can post responses, and is aimed at "what the rules say", not "how we might vary the rules". Maybe a moderator can move it.

Well, the rules require Fine Manipulation (which I forgot) and the Weapon Element. I don't think we disagree on that. Whether we need all the restrictions on Telekinesis in 6e rather than just allowing Range (and Indirect) on STR is a good question. But I never liked the early edition rule that TK couldn't punch either...

Now I'm curious where we disagree. Normally, Restrainable is used for things like wings that can be foiled by an Entangle, a Grab or maybe even confined spaces. I would envision the Summoning to be possible even if Zed is grabbed or entangled, but the ability to restrain or destroy his constructs, and their need to move from place to place instead of benefiting from the range of TK, seems to make a roughly equal limitation. Telekinesis would definitely be expensive. The ability seems powerful enough to justify it being expensive. A Summon or Duplication will not be cheap either, or will have to come with strings attached like unclevlad suggests - reducing Zed's DCV while he summons them, for example. Delayed Phase does not work - Summon already requires a full phase, so the next step is 2 phases, then a full turn. Amicable Slavish Summon, +1, is not a whole lot different from Duplication with fully altered duplicates, also +1, really.

For VPPs, I expect the player to be able to define what kinds of abilities the VPP can incorporate, and provide examples of what it cannot generate. For slots, a lot depends on how easy it is to change the slots. "Not in darkness" would be a lot more valid on a pool that requires days and lab facilities to change than in a Cosmic pool. The rules could do a much better job of opening with the expectation that players and the GM are mature individuals wanting to play an engaging game, and not point-whoring rules lawyers. It could then present ranges of advantages and limitations which work to assess the impact on the ability from that perspective. Recognize exactly what the temptations are and address resisting them in the best interests of everyone at the gaming table.

Now let's apply that to actual limitations that appear in-game. Will a power that "Only works in Darkness" be fully accessible to the character 2/3 of the time? I can believe that a power that "does not work in darkness" will be available 75% or more of the time. We've discussed "only versus fire" a lot above. Are two-thirds of attacks that target energy defense Fire, supporting -1/2? Even if half are, that indicates a -1 limitation. If "fire only" is -1/2, what about "only fire and electricity"? Is that -1/4 (75% of the time it's useful - baloney!) or do you pay 10 points for +15 ED only vs fire and 10 points for +15 ED only vs electricity? That's paying for what you get?? Many of the limitations in the book remind me of the constant d20 commentary about abilities being too situational to be worth a feat, a class skill, a whatever. Lowballed limitations makes the ability too pricy for its limited utility, and we pay far more than the value of what we get. It really reminds me of the Golden Age of Gaming - you know, where everything players tried to do had to be carefully scrutinized, because players were always trying to pull a fast one on their adversarial GM - if in doubt, say no or at least make it more expensive. There's a lot of that in the 6e rules - make the advantage as expensive as any possible use could be, and price the limitation as low as it could possibly limit; no, make it even lower than that just to be safe.

That seems to be the suggestion. It seems like a really complicated way to make the ability expensive, for the sole reason of avoiding the Shadows being Summons or Duplicates. Given they will typically be attacking separate people, in different locations, or doing other things different from the main character, they will need separate rolls anyway. That seems like it will focus as much time on this character as duplicates or summons would, so I'm not sure it really saves much. It's not Custom - it's on page 387 of the first volume of the 6e rules. The shadows get treated as a breakable focus (which means they have some defense, and 1 BOD per power, but as it's normally only on one power, that's 1 BOD). It is generally restricted to situations where the character can't just reactivate the power as a normal action, or is otherwise inconvenienced by the loss of the power between phases. For Telekinesis, I'd allow it as the destruction of a shadow means it drops anything it was holding, releases anyone it had grabbed, etc. I'm still not sure it's the best approach. Well, SP means I can't type as it should be SPD, for Speed. LOS is "Line of Sight" Martial Arts also need a Weapon Element (but it's only 1 point) to be usable with TK. I think restrainable at -1/2 would be reasonable in requiring the shadows move to their targets (that movement rate needs to be defined), could be grabbed (which I assume would mean Zed can't summon a new one until the old one has been dealt with) and can be destroyed by a 1 BOD hit. As it's a more limited version of Physical Manifestation, I'd leave it as Restrainable only. But does this meet the original goal? The first issue is defining exactly what they can do (which of Zed's abilities they have, at what power level, and which abilities they lack). Feels like you are well on the way there. These really sound like duplicates or summons, despite the reservations expressed by many posters. This sounds like the GM is expecting Summon or Duplication. Some further items to iron out would be whether he can create all three at once, or only one at a time, and how long he has to wait before re-creating one that has been killed. This could mean 1 BOD and no defenses (and could even mean automatons, but that complicates matters further), or it could simply mean a Complication on all Shadows that they are dispelled by taking any STUN or BODY damage, whether it would normally defeat them or not. This would just come down to the Summon or Duplication. Build a Shadow as a separate character. Its point total sets the price of the Summon or Duplication ability. They might have Distinctive Features for their appearance. Having no consciousness could mean they are automatons, or could simply be a Complication of the Shadows. Given that he has complete mental control, and they vanish if he's not around to control them, this could just as easily be ignored. They do what he wants as long as he's able to express that. I'd bundle their disappearance if he's KOd and any maximum distance into a Complication for the Shadows themselves. The Awareness sounds like a Mind Link, which is not a bad idea for the mental commands either. The swapping Teleport is trickier. Is it an Instant movement power? If so, you need enough Teleportation to cover any distance between them, which will be pricy. This could be mitigated with a short-distance Teleportation that works like normal movement, and either non-combat multiples or a minor Megascale advantage for longer distances, but that would require non-combat movement. This could be limited to require both characters to use their own Teleportation powers simultaneously, rather than building a "usable by others at range" construct. So Step 1 is to design the Shadow Forms themselves. Let's assume that they come in at 250 points (just guessing - they don't need a lot of Zed's abilities - no point having a lot of defenses, STUN, BOD, etc.; they won't have the Shadow power or as much damage - keep in mind that it's really damage after defenses that matters, so I would not drop them more than 2 or 3 damage classes - 1 damage class is 1d6 normal damage; 3 are 1d6 killing damage). Step 2 is deciding between Summon and Duplication. Summon costs END. The Shadows will show up adjacent to Zed. The base cost is 1/5 of the Shadow's points (not reduced by complications), so 50 assuming they come in at 250 points. +5 points doubles the number, so you need +10 to get to 3 (more than two; no more than 4). All three can be summoned as one full-phase action. The Shadows arrive stunned, so they will use their first phase recovering. They would be Slavishly Loyal (a +1 advantage) and will stick around long enough to perform a number of tasks equal to Zed's Ego (1 phase of combat is normally considered 1 task). That's 120 Active Points and 24 END. Duplication requires the duplicates to also have the Duplication power, which likely bumps up the total points on the sheet. Like Summon, the base cost is 1/5 the total points of the Duplicate, and each doubling adds 5 points to that cost. As long as the differences between Zed and the duplicates are limited to having lesser versions of the same abilities, no advantages are required. Significant differences require an advantage for "Altered Duplicates". I would allow the reduced abilities and additional Complications without requiring an Altered Duplicate advantage, but your GM may see it differently. Duplication does not cost END, but it takes a half phase to create each duplicate. You can double the number of duplicates created in an action with a 1/4 advantage, so all three at once requires +1/2. The Duplicate arrives adjacent, and gets no action that segment, but is not Stunned for its first phase (an advantage over Summoned). Normally, recombining with Duplicates requires a full phase, touching the duplicates, and being at 0 DCV. Advantages can make this easier and/or allow it at range. Injuries are shared between the base and duplicate characters. As was noted earlier, dead duplicates are gone (so a Regeneration/resurrection power for the duplicates, using the Altered Duplicates advantages, might be considered). Overall, I think what you are describing fits best as an Amicable Summon. That will be a pricy ability. The cost and END could be reduced by taking Charges. Maybe he can only Summon a few times per day. This does not require Continuing charges as Summon is an instant powers - the shadows would stick around, but can't be re-summoned without using a charge. You could also consider buying charges in clips of one charge with an "increased reloading time" - for example, if it takes 5 minutes to "change clips" (e.g. 5 minutes of meditation) before the Shadows can be summoned again, that's an additional -1 limitation. Charges and clips can be used to simulate the ability to summon the shadows only once or twice (clips of 2 charges) in a brief period, like combat, while having more uses daily (the total charges). There are a lot of in-game implications, and quite a bit of judgment required. Discussing all the details with your GM to ensure you both expect the power to work in the same way, and that the GM is comfortable with the approach taken (e.g. complications versus low defenses versus a limitation on the power; how often he can summon; etc.) is crucial in my opinion. As a GM, the other commitment I would want is that this ability not bog down play - that is, you need to be ready with your and the Shadows' actions when your phase comes up, not hem and haw over multiple possible actions, and "maybe I'll do this but no, wait, I could do that, and let's have that shadow do something else instead of what I first said, and where is my third shadow again". Often, players get "analysis paralysis" - a commitment to picking an action and moving the game forward (not analyzing every possibility to optimize effectiveness) is a much better simulation of the chaos of second-by-second combat anyway. That depends a lot on your group's play style - some groups are fine with one player's action that takes 2 - 3 seconds in game being a 15 minute round-table discussion of all the options. Other groups expect a much faster pace of play.

The players' lives are in no way at risk, nor do they have medals, wealth, championships or much else at stake. I'm not ashamed of my hobby, but it does not enjoy some inherent superiority over hobbies that others may enjoy.

Those seeking this level of granularity would seem to be the ones who would want to play an athletic competition-based game. You'd think those of us still playing "let's pretend" swordfighting, cowboys & indians, cops & robbers, war or superhero games into and beyond middle age might not look down their noses at what other people find a good use of their leisure time...

That's GENIUS!

Physical Manifestation seems like the relevant limitation. To limited SP, I've put activation rolls on SPD. Make the roll at PS 12 for the coming turn. This allows a character to gradually invest a point or two at a time into SPD.

If we wanted to design a game of major league baseball, I suspect we would have very different characteristics and maneuvers from the Hero System's combat resolution model. This is not all that different from trying to simulate a medical research scenario, a legal/courtroom drama or a police procedural - these are just "roll the skill" in a typical game, because they are not the focus of the challenges to the characters.

I would expect the analysis to come from both sides - "what is retained?" - what can it be used for? - "what is lost?" - what could normal Mind Control be used for, that this cannot? Answering these questions helps the player/GM frames out what the limitation actually means, and reduces friction in play, rather than discovering in mid-combat that the player and GM have very different interpretations of what the limitation actually means. Does the player envision: "OK, the hysterical crowd is calmed down; they are still all rushing the exit from the burning building because, calm or panicked, they are still in danger and are more concerned for their safety than anyone else's"; or "OK, the hysterical crowd is calmed down; the form orderly lines and file quietly to the exit without pushing, shoving or trying to get out more quickly than the people in front of them."? Those are both valid interpretations. One version seems much more useful than the other, based on this one limited example. I don't believe that "only to calm down the target" is necessarily a reciprocal to "not to calm the target down" - there are likely things that either power could accomplish, and either would have to pay for that overlap.

I thought this was a discussion board - that's what it says at the top of the page - not the "blindly apply whatever the rule books say and don't question the RAW" board. Activating 11- is a -1 limitation, but the power works 62.5% of the time. 8- is -2, but the power still works a quarter of the time. I believe it is reasonable for the limitation to save more points than strict likelihood of activating would dictate because the character cannot anticipate when the power will, or will not, work to mitigate the impact of the limitation. 16 charges is still a limitation since it comes bundled with 0 END for free. Tack on Costs END and it's really -1/2. Do people really run through 16 charges that rapidly? Those gradations are not always easy to apply. This Mind Control is a good example - if "calm down" can still achieve half or so things that full Mind Control would, then a -1 limitation is reasonable. If it can only achieve a quarter of what full Mind Control could accomplish, then -1 is inappropriate. I find that a lot of us, and the RAW, can be pretty tight-fisted around limitations, and overcharge for advantages. I prefer to seek a model where pricing is, at least roughly, commensurate with utility. If only 10% of energy damage comes from fire, then ED: Fire Only is massively overpriced with a -1/2 limitation, and ED - not fire is only worth a -1/4 limitation. To my mind, that says "I don't believe it's worthwhile to pursue characters getting what they pay for and paying for what they get".

"The whole equals the sum of the parts" is too complicated? I do recall one early in-rules suggestion to simplify the game was elimination of both END and limitations, so I suppose, in not doing so, we are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

The sum of the cost of "can only do x" and "can do anything but x" should equal the cost of "the unlimited ability". If the power retains half its benefit either way, we have two -1 limitations. 60 AP = 30 RP + 30 RP If it retains enough value for a -1/2 limitation, then losing everything else should be a -2 limitation. 60 AP = 40 RP + 20 RP If what is removed is almost trivial (-1/4) then only retaining that is almost valueless (-4). 48 RP + 12 RP = 60 RP