Hugh Neilson

Lots of good suggestions above. Also, look at what happens in the comics. Do the people Our "Heroes" are killing/maiming have relatives or friends? Probably. How often, in the comics, does a revenge-crazed relation come after the hero? These guys are making it morally justifiable. What if someone with similar powers starts using these guys as cover for their own murders? Oh, it's a frame up is it? Seems like your typical behaviour, so the press will already have you convicted. Now, to REALLY punish the munchkins, let's use the classic comic staple: that which does not kill me (and somnetimes even that which does) makes me stronger. Foxbat with cyborg components, out for vengeance? The slain supervillain returns from the grave with powers far beyond those formerly possessed, seeking vengeance on her killer? NOw, I refer to this as realy puniushing the munchkins because it is their own actions which have made their enemies so much more powerful. During a police investigation, wouldn't the murder weapons (ie Omega Man's armor focus) be seized for the full duration of the investigation and trial? He gave them the right to take away his focus. Munchkins love having their toys taken away, right? In the end, though, it may be that these players just are not going to be happy playing in a Supers campaign. They should have the maturity to make that decision, and leave. If they don't, you may be fporced to ask them to sit out for the good of the campaign. Unfortunately, that means recruiting players of a more (super) heroic mindset. Many of my Champs players alkso play D&D, but our D&D campaigns don't include characters out to kill everything that moves either. Some players, however, are only in the game to be the toughest guy on the block. These power trippers aren't any good for any campaign unless powertripping is its focus.

While I sympathize to some extent with the posrters who note "the multipower is cheaper than one base p[ower", I think the point they miss is that the "one base power" can always be used, any time, with no delay. The Multipower points cannot. Your comments get at the crix of the problem with applying the limnitation only to the slots. The points saved un der such a structure are not commensurate with the drawbacks to the character. As a result, players taking this construct because it fits their character suffer a disadvantage they do not recover points for, and wind up with a less effective character than a "gamist" who simply comes yup with another concept because this one won't be point-effective. Amen, brother!

Well, I like all the suggestions to date...and I'm sure there are lots more to come. Hmmm...what about the "Everything you know is wrong" scenario - revelations of the hero's origin and background that contradict everything we already know. . ["The Vision is really the Android Human Torch" followed, years later by "The Vision isn't really the android Human Torch"] With the above, it looks like Villany Amok II could be planned out now.

OK, I'm with Doc 100% - we don't need "never misses" or "invulnerable" or "can't be hit" or "always does damage" or any other such absolute construct. But, if these did exist, I think we would have to apply some form of meta-rule. It looks like "Always hits" would be an advantage. I guess that means we need an "Immune to autohit" ability, perhaps an "advantage" on DCV, or another level of Defense Maneuver, to avoid this (much like hardened defenses avoid armor piercing). Then we get into layering - two levels of "always hits" means you need tow levels of "cannot be hit" to avoid it, and so on. This, to me, makes these absolutes even less desirable, as another layer of complex mechanics just makes them more of a pain to put into practice.

Hmmm...A DM so original he steals his characters from a movie. ONe whose scenario is so tightly driven that he can't skip the intro's even when everyone already KNOWS who he's introducing. And you're surprised that he couldn't allow you to take steps which could foil his ambush? That's definitely a "winner" in the Bad GM's contest!

GM Answer: OK, that's why your character would like to have these powers. NOw explain how he trains himself to make his Electric Blast affect desolid people, his Webs teleport-proof or himself more resistant to sedatives. How does he even know it will work if he doesn't have a teamate with similar powers to practice on? Gadgeteers are the notable exception - Reed Richards discovering a way to deal with an unusual opponent is his character concept. And you're right - it's normally a cunning plan, not "suddenly, Captain America develops the power to prevent his opponent from becoming desolid". Why not just buy a Transform - Superpowered People to Normal People? That will solve most problems, won't it? "Annoying player habits" - wanting and believing everything can be solved with force, magic and/or superpowers. "Oh no - we have to use our BRAINS!" I actually have more problems with people using *Experience* (defined as 'what you learned') to improve a part of their character that they didn't use during the adventure. This assumes the character has perfect control over which aspects of his abilities will improve. This is a lot easier to justify with skills than with powers. "FlameGuy has trained hard and long to make a fire attack that is Based on ECV. Why can't you just accept that?'" doesn't have the same ring as "FlameGuy has taken several courses on forensics at his local commuinity college." I had a player decide the group needed better investigative skils. Her character had no investigative background, but did feel a responsibility to help out the team. She took several courses, and spent 1 xp at a time buying familiarities, then 11- rolls, then full skills with various investigative skills. It actually looked like someone training and radually becoming more knowledgeable, rather than "Yesterday I couldn't even spell injunear and today I are one!" Better still "My character has been training with his EB for several months and only just discovered his investigative skills could be important. I'll spend this xp on skill levels with my EB. But my character is now registering for classes in forensics at his community college to develop his investigative skills, and I intend to spend xp on that in the future." It is nice to see players buy Contacts, say, based on the events in an adventure. But then don't forget about it. "I'm buying a minimal contact with that detective we met. My character will cultivate the relationship (help him out on some of-camera cases, take him for lunch, etc.) to justify me gradually buying up the Contact."

I believe the rules already suggest that, for such narrow effects, the "affects real world" advantage should not be required. An optional rule, but very easy to implement if you want the "narrow invulnerability" option.

Attacks that don't normally miss? Area Effect 1 hex accurate and Line of Sight means you only need to hit DCV 3 at any distance. An OCV 6 means you'll hit on 17- unless the target dodges, dives for cover, etc. Invulnerability? Desolid only to protect against damage and buy all your attacks "affects solid world". A big force wall can also do the trick quite nicely. Exoensive? You bet - but these are powerful abilities, so they shouldn't come cheap.

We had a player who ran characters who just weren't interested in being part of the group. When he changed characters in a fantasy game, we encountered his new character at the Inn. One of the party talked to him briefly, and discovered he wasn't interested in adventuring. So we decided to hire a town crier to put the word out we were looking for a new recruit, and would interview adventurers. The character doesn't have "PC" tattooed on his forehead, so we simply treated him like anyone else who didn't want to join our little band. He quickly got the message that it was up to him to come up with a reason to join the group, or his character would simply be left behind "not adventuring", as his personality dictated.

Ah yes...easy to laugh at now that we play more mature, sophisticated games... GM: He hit you Player: No he didnt. My levels were in DCV. GM: You have hand to hand levels. They don't add to DCV against ranged attacks. Besides, you didn't say you were putting your levels in DCV. Player: I dont care it missed me. Uh oh!

I think this depends on how you apply it. If you get to pick a slot which requires no extra time, and that's where your reserve starts, then the limitation doesn't apply to the reserve - it's available from the outset. If it will require a full phase when you first allocate the points, then I think the limitation is legitimate. Let's use the abusive example from above: 60 point reserve, with two ultra slots, a 12d6 EB and a 4d6 RKA. (A) If a full phase will be required to activate the EB or the KA, and then to change later, cost is 58 (reserve 60/1.25; each slot 6/1.25). ( If the power has a default - EB if we only wanted an EB anyway - so I can fire the EB whenever I want, with no requirement to spend a full phase the first time I use it (in each combat), then I pay 60 for the reserve (no limit), and 5 for each slot (6/1.25), for a total of 70. Compare this to just buying the EB.If I could use it whenever I want, no extra time, it costs 60 points. This is 2 points more than (A), but 10 points less than (. However, it does not have the full phase startup that (A) has. If we bought the EB Full Phase to Activate, it would only cost 48 (60/1.25), 10 points less than the multipower option. So, to me, the test comes back to whether activating any slot, even the first allocation where we aren't changing from one slot to another, require extra time.

YES - when you can't tell which character a player is playing without looking at the character sheet, that is extremely annoying. Personality carryover is, to me, far more annoying than ability carryover. Often, such players will also ask why other people never get along with their characters. Gosh, maybe it's because the personality you play all your characters with is grating. It seems these people never take a personality that's easy to get along with, or even inobtrusive.

I'm not sure if Derek's experience is separate or not, but there's a prior thred discussing this somewhere and the same issues were raised. I would use half the extra time, like Derek. However, this is based on the rule that, if you take time to activate it after which it can be used freely, you use 1/2 the limitation. In allowing this, I would also expect the character to accept that whatever slot he first wishes to activate will require the "Extra Time" to get it rolling (ie this is the same as putting that "extra time" limnitation on all of the slots). Depending on the construct, I might accept that there is always one slot set (eg. one cartridge in the gun), but which one that is would not always be "player's choice", but might be randomly determined. If the player wants to always have the EB set (to use Derek's example), and never uses anything else, his limitation should probably be applied only to the slot costs, and not to the multipower base. As I like to believe players will be reasonable, I'd probably allow it on the reserve and watch it in play for abuse. I suspect I'd be OK with Derek (sounds like he would switch slots fairly often) but a player with the mentality of Derek's icon would find the limit applied only to the slots pretty quickly.

SECONDED! The variant that annoys me is the character which always seems to be off alone somewhere, and no one ever notices them leave. "Well, let's move on" "Oh, you suddenly notice the thief isn't here" "Oh? When did he leave?" "You don't know. He must have snuck away." "Out of a room with one door, on which we presumably have guards posted, given we're deep in hostile territory? And no one noticed????" "Well, thieves are sneaky." Letting the player get away with doing obvious things undetected is, of course, also a bad GM habit. Best answer: "Well, since we didn't notice him leave, and we didn't notice all this time he's been missing, I'm not noticing now. Let's move on, and he'll either find us or not." [Poster wistfully recalls discussion he had with player who sent detailed series of secret notes describing preparation, consumption and clean up of his breakfast... ]

Today. D&D 3.5. Female spellcaster looking up a spell to find it has a range of "Touch" asks "Can I touch myself?"

Glass and smooth metallic surfaces and similar would probably crop up enough that I'd allow -1/4 for it. I don't expect it would show up 1 time in 4, but then a 15- activation roll only fails one time in 20.

I would consider it so uncommon as to merit no limitation at all. However,m perhaps your definition of "frictionless" and mine differ. If you provided some examples, you might persuade me that this would be common enough to merit a limitation.

One sided role players have to be the worst. These are the guys who justify anything their character does with "well, I'm role playing my character". This can include stealing from other group members, trying to kill party members, just being a general useless/lazy/whiny PITA or whatever. But anyone else who role plays what THEIR character would do as a result is being unfair. Similarly, players who play as if all player characters have PC tattooed across their foreheads, and therefore allow them free reign when they would react completely differently to an NPC taking similar actions.

Just to clarify, the player doesn't want an attack that does damage over and above the slow loss of END for the inability to breathe. The classic example (though not an entangle) would be Sue Richards englobing the Hulk (or just his head) and waiting for him to pass out. I think Ghost Angel may have the best construct - a Suppress effect against the target's "Can Breathe in Air" free power. Breathe in a medium is generally 5 points, so that's 1 1/2 dice Suppress at standard effect (8 points), NND (self-contained breathing), so 16 points. Probably reasonable - it's a powerful effect, but it will take a long time to have an overly serious impact on the target. Make it Fully Invisible and we have the Sue Richards version - 24 points. Make it 0 END (+1/2) and Uncontrolled (+1/2) and it's 24 AP. Link it to another larger power - the Entangle - (-1/2) and that makes it 16 points, added to the existing entangle. Any thoughts?

This is another example of the arbitrariness of the "must cost END" restriction on EC powers - but that'a juat my opinion... If your GM is sticking to that rule, then the power will have to cost END every phase, or be purchased outside the EC, perhaps with a -1/4 limit that it is affected by adjustment powers as though it is in the EC. Note that powers which cost no END "require GM permission", so your GM could choose to allow the power (whether with no END, or costing END only to activate, or only per use) if he feels that it is an appropriate power for this EC and would not be unbalancing.

I'm sure I recall there's a Force Wall impermeable to air adder somewhere, though I forget where. What about an Entangle which prevents the target from breathing? If you can point me in the right direction, I expect I'll find it eventually. Thanks Hugh

Excessive limitation of concepts, powers, abilities, etc. It's a superhero game. The characters are SUPPOSED to be powerful. The other edge of the sword: poor review of characters so that they're vastly out of balance with each other and/or the campaign.

How about Stupid Dice Tricks? Players who bring dice so small they need a magnifying glass to see them. Players who bring big dice that roll forever until they fal off the table, at which poiint it's a "mis-roll" and we go again... Players who can't do simple math - GROUP THE DICE IN SETS THAT ADD TO 10!!!

OK, I didn't see it in the FAQ... A Force Wall with no exotic defenses is transparent to exotic attacks. A force wall with only exotic defenses is transparent to non-exotic attacks. What category do NND's fall into? Obviously, SFX will sometimes matter - it's hard to envision an anesthetic dart or knockout gas arrow penetrating a PD Force Wall, and if the defense is Flash Defense, it won't pass through a Force Wall with Flash Defense. [i also view "force field" and "force wall" as analogous for this purpose.] But if the NND itself is not subject to any of the five norma;l defenses, will it pass through all force walls? A further item: I assume that a Force Wall which is Opaque to Sight wuld not stop a Sight Flash Defense attack. Otherwise this becomes a very cheap means of blocking every "bright light" attack. However, this implies some light can pass through an opaque to signt force wall. Is there an official ruling on this?

Steve, let's take an example following up on the prior post. FlyGuy is flying high in the air, not expecting any trouble. On Segment 12, Blaster zips out from behind a cloud, ambushing FlyGuy with an energy blast. He hits, rolls 35 damage. FlyGuy was completely surprised out of combat, so damage is doubled to 70. FlyGuy has 25 ED and 30 STUN, so he's at -15 Stun. FlyGuy takes 20" knockback (it's a Double Knockback attack), but there's nothing up here for him to run into. Blaster flies off giggling to himself. I would see this working as fllows: Ph 12 - FlyGuy flies back 10" (we'll assume Blaster was level with him) and starts to fall. There's nothing up here for him to hit. He also falls 5". PS 12, FlyGuy gets a recovery, so he's -5 Stun. Ph 1: Flyguy falls another 10". Ph 2: Flyguy has a 6 SPD. He recovers from being stunned, and falls another 15" Ph3: Flyguy falls another 20" (50" in total so far...if he hits the ground this phase, he takes 20d6 damage, bit he's still far above the ground). Ph4: FlyGuy can now use his flight to slow his fall, and can make a turn. He's now at 25" velocity. Assume he has 20" flight. He makes a 60 degree turn after 5" (1/5 of his move), and another 30 degree turn 5" later. He's now flying parallel to the ground (albeit almost 60" down from where he started) I don't apply any knockback damage on the basis that FlyGuy didn't hit an object, nor did he hit the ground, since he was too high up to fall al that way. Given knockback damage is from impact with an object or scraping along the ground, would this be considered the appropriate approach? Assuming this makes sense, it would also seem reasonable that, if FlyGuy was only a few inches off the ground (less than 5), he woud have hit the ground in Seg 12, for 10d6 (regular knockback damage for hitting the ground). If he hit in Segment 3, he would have takjen 20d6 faling damage, since gravity has taken over. Do I sense an extensive FAQ entry coming up? Perhaps also something for FREd revised?