Hugh Neilson

This would seem a reasonable means of differntiation between HKA, no SR add and RKA, no Range. The former can be blocked. The latter cannot be blocked, but can be missile deflected. Examples? HKA no STR Add: a lightsaber. It is an HKA, but no matter how hard you swing it, you don't add any damage. RKA no range: a welding torch. You fire a beam of flame - it is an RKA, but its range is so short, it only operates within HTH distance. Now let's get abusive. Let's say I want a damage aura of Laser Light. If I make it a BOD drain (no range by default), I get no limitations, but pay no advantage. If I make it an RKA, I get no limitation for "no range". I guess I should make it an HKA with no STR add, so I get a -1/2 limitation, right? Yet in my campaign, I would be reluctant to allow this last construct, because a no range RKA would better suit the structure. Just like I wouldn't allow a Hand Attack damage aura.

This comes down largely to taste. If you want 2 handed weapons to be a common selection by lower STR/skill characters, make them more attractive. If you want Weapon and Shield to be a more common choice, leave it as is or even make the 2 handed weapons weaker. The big advantage of a 2 handed weapon is that the STR min is lower than would be the case for a one handed weapon with the same DC's. If you add more damage, don't forget to refigure the STR min. The weapon will now be out of reach for all but the strongest of characters anyway, but some one tweaked (aid spells, high STR, massive skill levels) for 2 handed weapon use will do even greater amounts of damage.

I thought you could buy Megascale at +1/4 and define an inch as some smaller increment than 1 km. Maybe you just need a few more Multipower slots, one with Megascale 1" = 100 meters, one with 1" = 10 meters. With a 10" non-megascale slot, that should cover all conceivable distances. [Or take a +1/4 Variable Advantage at the low end so you can redefine your +1/4 megascale to be 1" = 10", 100", 1 km at our discretion.]

That oh so common "-1/4 - Magic Only" limitation needs a definition. It could even vary character by character, but it should be clearly defined what restrictions it imposes. IMC, it means the only special effect these powers can have is "Magic". Magic flames do not trigger vulmnerability to fire, for example, and Variable Special Effects is a construct unavailable in such VPP's. Duplicating technology is also off limits. In my opinion, anyone with a VPP should have a detailed summary of things the character can and cannot do. That listing should be used to assess what, if any, limitation should be applied to the control cost.

Back in or about Avengers #210, IIRC

I've seen characters build AP flash attacks. It's very effective since virtually no one hardens flash defense. Chicken or the egg?

Cage in existing base: Ben hits the nail right on the head. Cage I can call up at will: Summon a Base. Cage I have to drag around with me: The Entangle construct with a Bulky OAF. Cage with wheels: Less bulky (or I suppose you could make it a vehicle...)

I wonder if melessqr might provide a bit more detail. There seem to be two schools of thought, one that you want to have a cage in an existing sructure, and the other that you want to conjure a cage up from thin air. The latter then is uncertain whether you want the cage to form around an occupant.

hmmm...how about a Transform - Air to Cage I woud let them Summon the base, with the caaveat that the "5:1" applies only once, and that the base arrives in the nearest clear space, just like any other Summon. Congrats - you now have a 10 DEF, 10 BOD cage. getting someone to go inside is YOUR problem! Agreed. Given all the Entangle now does is prevent the target leaving, I'd give them a -2, but I could be persuadewd to reduce that.

If you want a cel in the base, just buy extra DEF and BOD for that small area in the base. "Summon" a cage seems like an innovative power - I'm not sure how practical it is. I doubt I'd let the Summoner call the cage up around an opponent. 0 END persistent??? The BOD on entangle dice is counted, so it's 8 DEF, 4 BOD. "Only to form barriers" requires you to have an awfully thick cell wall. What about 10d6 Entangle, Standard Effect, takes no damage from attacks, does not restrict target's movement within Entangle, does not prevent attacks on targets outside Entangle, 1 hex area? That's a 10 BOD, 10 DEF barred cage that springs up around the target hex. The trapped individual (s) can move freely within the cage, and even fire attacks out at people outside the cage, but he can't get out unless he breaks the cage. High AP (200 points - 20 END!), but the limitations will get the real cost down quite a bit. I'd call those a -2 in total, so 67 real points. That comes out very close to the Cell, except it has no Body (quicker to breach) and can't be fired out of. I'd go with the Entangle so the cage doesn't disappear if the creator is knocked out.

It's not the NCM chart. Up near the front of FREd, there's a chart that suggests ranges for many items for different types of campaign. These are pretty reasonable as starting points for your campaign. For example, I believe it suggests Heroic characters have Speeds of 2 - 4, which is a reasonable spread (I rarely see a 2 though). For Supers, I think it's something like 4-7 or 4-8. It also indicates what damage class range and defense range is reasonable for each type of character.

I haven't seen MegaScale in much use, but I see the use of the abilities. It does require some GM discretion, but what doesn't? Hey, "Teleport, megascale, increased mass" ismore a plot device than anything else - now we can get the heroes where they need to be. Is it worth a greater advantage to make things easy on the GM? Definitely it can be abused. That's the danger of any point-based system, and it's not restricted to megascale, or even to abilities flagged with cautions. Hero's not as simple as "It's book-klegal so it must be allowed".

I'm not sure you can, actually. Leap is the only movement ability in the bestiary that's sold back as a disadvantage rather than a straight reduction in points paid for other items. You get the same points, but since points gained from disadvantages are capped, you may not get the same benefit. EDIT: Questioned on the rules board and Steve confirms it's safe to assume that's official, although some GM's may apply different rules. But Leap is certainly an issue. If we make "does not enhance leap" a -1/4 limitation (just like "no figured" if we reduce the figureds to PD only), we get STR no leap, no figured to equal the cost of a hand attack. Seems reasonable (the only issue to resolve is carying capacity, but that can be counted as the "special effect" of extra STR, as opposed to a Fire HA which lights combustibles). I think you're right on that one (although the FAQ is unclear in that "negative END" has a defined effect). But if all your END is gone after the first phase of combat, what will you be doing for the rest of the battle (assuming your powers aren't 0 END). And that END drain is likely in a multipower of effects, or simply added in with the "affects multipole characteristics simultaneously" advantage. No, I need to watch buyup of STUN more closely. Damage Reduction is always a "watch out for" anyway. If purchased for someone with high defenses and/or high Stun, it will be an issue. Damage Reduction is also a very effective means of avoiding Con Stun, and making a low def chatacrer with a bit of regeneration more likely to survive. How much END can you spend with no REC? Hey, let's add it to that "drain multiple characteristics" power! With no END, many characters have the happy choice of standing still or knocking themselves out. No REC means that END won't be back any time soon (although you'll get a big 10 back every PS 12, assuming no delay in the fade rate). And I see many combats go past a turn, so PS 12 recoveries are reasonably common.

This one comes from the Bestiary, but it's more a "correct approach" question. In the Bestiary, many creatures sell back stats of all shapes and sizes. These come directly off their points, often resulting in negative points paid for stats. Of course, selling back senses has always been a disadvantage, and doesn't offset points spent in other aeas. A few creatures do that. A lot sell back Running and Swimming, which are treated as negative powers. But Leaping seems to be the odd man out. Unlike Running and Swimming, cannot leap (see the elephant, for example) is treated as a Physical Limitation, weith a val;ue equal to the cost of that many inches of leaping. My question is whether a disadvantage is the official "right way" to sell back leaping (as opposed to selling back stats or running, swimming, etc.). To me, getting the points as a disadvantage is less beneficial than a straight offset to other abilities, since coming up with enough disad's for the campaign max is generally not a big problem.

They have the choice of voluntyarily lowering SPD to as low as 1 to reduce the END loss, provided they're also willing to reduce their actions. Higher metabolism/activity = more oxygen use = drowns faster. Relax, slow down and you'll slow your oxygen usage and drown slower. And, from a game balance perspective, END usage makes people think twice about exceptionally high Speed.

They have the choice of voluntyarily lowering SPD to as low as 1 to reduce the END loss, provided they're also willing to reduce their actions. Higher metabolism/activity = more oxygen use = drowns faster. Relax, slow down and you'll slow your oxygen usage and drown slower.

On DEX, CON and STR costs, I think we have to agree to disagree. Even with Leap and Casual STR, I don't see 5 pts STR, no figured, as equivalent to 1d6 EB. On CON and STR, we're pretty close (1 point vs 0.8 points). On DEX, we're further apart. Which is why bone must come to the conclusion that a -1/2 limitation is not sufficient - the character loses far more. Therefore, the limitation should be higher. My "rewrite", above, would result in CON for stunning purposes costing 0.8 points per +1. The additional 1.2 points is realized in REC, ED and END. 60 pt END drain = 6d6 = 18d6 of END with END repriced to 3:1. That would average 63 END. Every 2 END below zero = 14d6 STUN with no defense. A character with 50 END loses all his END and (on average) 23 STUN in one average shot. This assumes he has no power defense, and has used no END. To me, that's too much. Hence, END as a "defensive power". [Even the current system makes it 12d6 of END drained which will average 42 END, most or all of many characters' END totals.] This is why damage reduction is effective now. The only solution is judicious review of characters, and assessing the impact of damage reduction before allowing it. This is the case whether the system is changed or not. Make that REC drain long term. For 60 points, 3d6 REC drain, recover once per hour. At a revised cost of 1 for REC, the typical target will have all his REC wiped out in two hits (21+ REC is pretty rare in my experience). Many will see it all gone in one hit (especially with a good roll). It's not commonly taken because it's a support power. It won't take a target out alone, but it has a devestating effect, especially in longer combats. If the cost is halved, I would double the cost of draining it to cmpensate. It remains powerful. [hmmm...REC Suppress, Selective Area, Continuous, only unconscious targets...OUCH!!!] Costs END is the only problematic limitation I can see. I would suggest the character benefits from the figured CHAR only if he spends the END for the STR. Problem solved - getting 2 PD for a cost of 10 END per phase seems like much less of a bargain. Alternatively, simply mandate that this character MUST take "no figured". 10/5 = 2. 10/5.25 = 2. And buying +10 STR at x10 END expecting to access extra PD is simply not reasonable in any case, so I have no compunctions about shutting it down either way.

90 point attack, 60 for DEX, 80 for SPD = 230. Not very versatile, is he? But I agree such a character could easily be a gamebreaker. He has 70 points left for movement and defense, so his defenses can't be too huge. Is the character a Brick (lots of figureds) or focus character (or otherwise limited on virtually every ability?) That's the only way I can see to buy all that, plus good DEF and decent movement.

It is generally more costly to cherry pick, as it should be. The question then comes down to how much more expensive it should be to "assemble" DEX from its component benefits. This is another option. It basically makes all characters more expensive (absent pricing changes, of course), since virtually all characters benefit from pricing adjustments in some way - I see very few characters with 10 (or less) STR, DEX, CON and BOD. Looking at individual prices you propose, I note the following: "Str 1" This is obviously the big one. STR and EB are the two basic attack powers. Let's compare. STR gives you 1d6 per 5 points, a "multipower" with an Entangle that is not targeted automatically (Grab), a limited Ranged attack (objects of opportunity, and aerodynamics issues) and lifting/carrying capacity. It also grants Figureds, but not in this model. EB gets the same 1d6 per 5 points. It also grants range, and a "multipower" allowing each d6 to be swapped for +1 OCV (normally 1d6 costs 2 OCV levels) or 1 hex of Selective Area. Absent figured characteristics, I would say STR is the loser here. The EB has greater versatility than STR. But what's the next breakpoint? STR definitely should not be 1/2 point each! Maybe it should be 4 CP per 5 STR. "Dex 3" I'm not unhappy with DEX as is, so I'd price it at 2. "DEX no figured" would be -1/2 - breakeven. "Con 1" This is probably about right. It implies that, at present, CON w/o figureds is overpriced. That's probably true, actually. Have you ever seen anyone buy "CON no figured" at -1/2? Maybe it should even be cheaper - all it does is provide the occasional CON roll, and defend against STUN results. Maybe CON should have "no figured" as a -1 1/2, such that every 5 points of CON costs 4 points without figureds, and generates 6 points worth of figureds. "Body 1" No arguments here. And BOD - no figured should be a -1 limitation. Again, pure break even. "Int 1 Ego 2 Pre 1 Com (irrelevant) PD 1 ED 1 Spd 10" No changes from the present model, and I agree. "Rec 1 End 1/3 Stun 1/2" Again, agree. I could go to 1/4 for END, but that's minor. I would add END. END drains are extremely effective. Gary, would you reprice END batteries? I'd be inclined to halve their REC cost, but leave END the same as a large break is already achieved here, and END in a battery has some advantages (most notably still being there when you wake up with 1 STUN). Damage reduction for Bricks is pretty effective now, especially if the Brick has a high CON. So, assume we want to keep some measure of Figured Char, and want a "10 everything" character to be equivalent. All stats keep the same cost, except REC, STUN and END which are repriced as set out above. What figureds should stats provide on this basis? DEX is fine as 1/10 SPD (or reprice it as 2 per DEX and divorce it from SPD entirely). BOD - let's make STUN 2x BOD. Thus, 2 CP spent on BOD grants +1 BOD (1 point) and +2 STUN (1 point). BOD no figured is -1, or BOD becomes a 1 point stat that grants no figured's. STR: For now, let's keep the link to PD only, and make "No Figured" -1/4. Each 5 STR grants 1 PD, and you save 1 point per 5 STR taking "no figured". That leaves CON. Well, we've already linked STUN to BOD, so that's dealt with. We'll use 15 CON as our base for illustration. The cost is 30 points, and should be 12 with no figureds based on my analysis above. We need 18 points of Figured's. Leave ED at CON/5 for consistency. That's 3 points. Leave END 2x CON - that's 10 points at our new value for END. hmmm...make REC CON/2.5 (so it still starts at 4) and 15 CON adds 6 REC. That's 19 figured, a bit higher than I want (but probably liveable). Make it CON/3 and define it to always round up (so we still base at 4 for normals; or normals drop to a 3 - how often do we let them recover anyway?) and we get 5 REC from +15. That's 18. OK, PROPOSED REBALANCING: STR: Cost 1 point; grants +1 PD/5 points; -1/4 for "no figured" DEX: Cost 3 points; grants +1 SPD/10 points; -1/2 for "no figured" (no one ever takes this now, by the way) CON: Cost 2 points; grants +1 ED/5 points, +1 REC/3 points and +2 END per point; -1 1/2 for No Figured. BOD: Cost 2 points; grants +2 STUN per point; -1 for "no figured" REC costs 1 point, STUN 1/2 point and END 1/3 point. I see some advantages to this approach. First, each Figured now feeds from only one stat. BOD makes one harder to KO. STR and CON do not (at least not directly). Why should they? You can have a 30 STR fighter with a glass jaw! CON grants END and REC - healthier people can exert themselves longer and recover faster, which delays KO indirectly, but not directly by feeding STUN. Each stat provides a cost savings for "no figureds" equal to the figured's granted, so no more "cheaper to buy the stat than the figureds" dilemma. STR provides much less in the way of figured, both because it's fairly cheap and because it's got a lot of other uses. Stamina now links directly to CON and has nothing to do with STR, which seems appropriate. Non-Bricks can now have a higher STUN, REC or END at lower cost, which will change the balance across the board. OK, people won't tire out as fast and may be motivated to raise STUN instead of defenses - that's not, overall, a bad change. Coming back to your model, Gary, I think you're overpricing STR, DEX and CON. STR and CON would be hard to fix without using figured's, since I think you'd need fractional costs (4/5 per point). I would define STUN, REC and END as defensive powers. I leave CON and BOD out because, due to figured's, their cost is double in my model over yours. STUN and REC now cost exactly the same to Drain or AID as before. END costs a bit more, making it a bit less costly to change COM than END - which feels right to me! Finally, with this change, I would say characteristics with limitations should either grant figured's or get the added limitation.

This is also exacerbated by the need to spend END 9 times per turn. It's great to say "Oh, with all that extra Speed, I can take extra recoveries", but try it when people are paying attention. Your DCV drops, all defense powers that require END shut down and you don't even GET the recovery if someone hits you before your next phase. One guy with a reserved phase, and notonly do you not get any END back, your STUN drops.

These threads always focus on STR and CON. But not DEX or BOD. Dex, it seems, is balanced. And it is. DEX costs 2 points each, plus one point for figured characteristics, Speed. At -1/2 for "no figured". DEX falls to 2 points and you lose 1 point in Fig Char. BOD isn't. It gets 1 point figured per 2 points spent. It should get 2 points per 6 points spent. Why do we assume it is STR and CON that are wrongly priced? Perhaps we should look at the pricing of figured Characteristics. 30 points buys +30 STR. 10 of that should be for figured characteristics. After all, a -1/2 limit will save 10 points. CON is the same - 60 points = +30 CON should buy 20 points of Figured Characteristics. Right now, STR gets 33 points of figured, and CON gets 63. With this basic premise, how can we reprice the figured characteristics to make it work? I don't think it's prudent to tinker with the cost of PD or ED. Defense powers are pretty consistent (just like STR at 5 points per 1d6 HTH is a staple). We won't mess with this. We still need a lot of changes to make this workable. Let's change the cost of REC from 2 to 1. And let's divorce it from STR and CON a bit - we'll make it 2 + 1/10 STR + 1/10 CON. What about STUN? Well, I'm going to suggest a reduction to the cost of STUN - to 3 STUN per character point. We're constantly admonished to buy up STUN, rather than Defenses, right? So let's make that a more appealing alternative. Besides, it takes 3 or more hits to take the average Super down, so 1 point of PD is worth more than a point of Stun. Now, we still need to fix BOD's balance somehow, so let's make STUN = 2x BOD + 1/10 STR + 1/10 STR. This makes BOD the primary determinant of Stun, with STR and CON having only minimal impact. Now 30 points of BOD buys 60 points of STUN, worth 20 CP - the -1/2 limitation for "no figured char" is perfect. That leaves END, and I'm again going to suggest a major change - 3 points of END per character point, just like STUN. And you get 10 + CON END (so less END derived from CON). So where would that leave us? Well... 30 pts STR gets 6 PD (6 points), 3 REC (3 points) and 3 STUN (1 point) for a total of 10character points worth of figured characteristics. 30 pts CON gets 6 ED (6 points), 3 REC (3 points) 3 STUN (1 point) and 30 END (10 points) for a total of 20 character points worth of figured characteristics. Perfectly balanced with "No Figured" to be -1/2. So what happens to our Brick friends under this model? They lose some STUN and REC. But it's a lot cheaper to buy more!, isn't it? High CON no longer grants as large a free ride for END or STUN either. Now, we'll need a few more adjustments to come to grips with this. First, END Batteries - there's still a good discount on END, but we should halve the cost of REC, so it's 2 REC per point for END batteries. Next, adjustment powers. We can fix these readily by defining REC, END and STUN as "defense powers" affected only half by adjustment powers. There's probably some other items that will need to change. But this option for "fixing" the various stats never seems to be looked at, so what do those who think there's a problem think of making the fix through figured characteristics, rather than through repricing CON and STR? The next question, to me, would be whether CON is worth 1 1/3 points (the base cost, net of figureds). EDIT: I have no real problem with the current state of affairs. But we seem to see this "STR and CON are too cheap" thread on a fairly regular basis, so let's look at solving the underlying problem - that 1/3 of these points should come from figured CHAR's, based on the value of the limitation, and that figured are WAY too expensive for that to happen.

Actually,m the whole PM/Giganto gets at the "free points for master villains" issue. If Giganto is fanatically loyal to PM, how come PM doesn't have to pay for him as a follower? If my character wants a fanatically loyal rock monster, I have to pay for him! A lot of "Master Villains" seem to have followers (or entire villain teams) they paid no points for, don't they? Obviously, it makes little difference - as a GM, I would just add the points and add XP to offset, but it is a dichotomy when one character on the team is essentially a slave to another. Binder and Plasmoid, pre 4e, was another example. Maybe Steve has made a conscious effort to weed out cases where the team members should be paid for as followers.

Since when does that stop us? If you don't want to pay the 60 points (including the +1 advantage) or 75 (including the +1 1/2 advantage), you need to look for another way. Personally, I wouldn't lket damage reduction apply before defenses in any case. What about buying Mental Defense with a limitation that it can't exceed half the Mental attack? You culd buy 60 points' mental defense with (I'd say) a -1 limitation, since it's pretty rare for a mental attack to hit 60 points, much less double it. Probably a -1/2 for 30 points' mental defense. And given the effect, I'd say it's fair to just make it Area Effect.

Actually, since the character already has some REC, he would be paying 8 points (the +4 naked advantage) for making 1 point of recovery act 1/turn for purposes of recovering BOD. While the current rule is admittedly somewhat cumbersome, at the end of the day one need only know 1 point of regeneration costs 8 points. I don't see the advantage on REC being significantly more intuitive to someone not familiar with Hero, and the current Regen isn't too ugly for someone who is. Of curse, just setting it at 8 points for 1 point of regeneration would be even more intuitive, but that changes the math on the time scale a lot. For me, a better question is why the advantage "no maximum" was left off of the computations for Regeneration. Unlike most healing, Regen doesn't cap out based on the number of dice. Regen also heals 2 CP/die , instead of the usual 3 "standard roll", so an advantage has clearly been applied. Working the math, it is a +1 advantage, which makes sense. So why not allow that (with an appropriate Stop Sign) for Heal, Absorb and Transfer?

Re: Re: ER Agreed. As well, there's always a hole in the group somewhere. A lower ER character with Drains and Transfers will likely prevail against a higher ER character with no power defense, for example. A Flash can turn the tables, as can Darkness, but both are useless if the opponent has an ability to target which negates them. Mathematical ratings only carry you so far.