Hugh Neilson

As I said, the advantage is with the rapid attack power if you have bought enough levels to cancel out all of the penalties. But that's a comparable expenditure of points at a 23 DEX. It may not hold true at higher levels. At lower DEX, you can get rapid attack cheaper. Like most choices, each is better for certain characters. Try and make a 35 DEX martial artist with 6 DCV levels use Rapid Attack as effectively as Autofire! He needs +9 DCV levels with Rapid Attack (27 points), plus Rapid Fire (5 points) plus those 15 points of OCV penalty levels. Of course, he's a much more extreme example - and he can more afford to suck up the OCV penalty rather than buy it off. Umm...I can spread whether I use Autofire or Rapid Attack, so I don't see this differentiating. Now, what is a "DC" is a good question. Do you sacrifice 1d6 EB since that's the base power, regardless of whether it's an NND, or what advantages are on it? This isn't in the FAQ as near as I can tell. "How many points it costs" is not conceptual, as I use the term. The differing combat maneuvers is. I'm not saying you can't change it, but I would challenge you to find a fair and balanced change to correct the problem you perceive without swinging the pendulum too far the other way.

Re: Re: Re: Rapid Fire Absent the surcharge, I can make my 4d6 NND Autofire - 5 shots for 10 points. So I see the need for an extra advantage. With the extra +1, making my NND Autofire - 5 shots costs 30 more points. Let's compare this to using Rapid Fire. Rapid Attack costs me 5 points. Now I can "autofire" in a half phase with no penalty to OCV or DCV. Let's assume I have a 23 DEX and 2 levels, so I'm OCV 10, DCV 8. Rapid Attack with the same five shots makes me OCV 0, DCV 4. I need +4 DCV (only with Rapid Attack) which would cost 13. So far, I'm paying 28 points, which is comparable to the 30 I'd pay with the extra +1 advantage and way less than the 10 I'd pay without that rule. Let's boost the attack to 6d6. Now autofire - 5 shots costs me 45 points, so I have 17 left. That will buy enough penalty skill levels to offset the OCV penalty with 2 left over (assuming they're only for this one attack - maybe my GM won't let me be so good at Rapid Attack with only that one attack, but that's another story). Now, I have the advantage of a separate roll to hit, unmodified, for each shot fired, where Autofire just lets me hit once more for each 2 more I hit by. Rapid Fire is now superior to Autofire. So there's a difference - and I acknowledge that. But I don't think it's as severe as the one you perceive. This is the same tradeoff as NND vs Normal Attack. A 6d6 NND will do 21 damage on average. A 12d6 EB will do 42 - 35 = 7. Of course, if the big guy happens to have the defense against my NND, Normal EB Guy is quite a bit better off. And the defense must be fairly common, remember? As a GM, I'll just buy Big Guy the defense, or maybe Damage Reduction only vs NND's. I do agree it's open to abuse, but NND's in general are open to abuse, as are Rapid Attack and Sweep. Combining two such items leads to a greater potential for abuse. This is where I have an opposing concern. "You can't do that with NND's" begs the question "Why not?" It doesn't make logical sense to me that FireGuy's flamebolt can be Rapid Fired but his Intense Heat Burst cannot. Similarly, I see no in game reason one should take a penalty and the other should not. From a game mechaniocs perspective, I'm not convinced the imbalance is as significant as you seem to think, but I haven't seen it in use. Anyone out there seen someone abuse this construct? If so, was it someone who doesn't readily abuse other constructs (ie a weasel player) or just fell into this abuse (ie a weasel power)?

Now I'm falling prey to Must Continue Rules Analyses to the Ultimate Extreme Comparable to a naked advantage on Sight, can a character buy a naked Megascale on Running (just his base 6") and use Megascale at his discretion? Another question, this one on megascaled senses. Assume a character has a Detect bought Megascale. The item he wishes to detect is located 10 feet away, but he has 1" = 1km. Does he: (a) Fail to perceive it - it needs to be at least 1 km away ( Perceive that there is something within 1" (ie 1km) of his present location, but not know where within the 1 km? ( makes the most sense to me. [Actually, putting your MegaPower in a multi with a normally scaled power makes the most sense to me, but there you go. Variable Advantage is even better since you can scale to 1" = 10", etc.]

A lot of that can be avoided if the power can be shut off, or when such effects are undertaken out of combat. "Come here, and I'll heal you." Stretch out hand and look the other way Unless the power is LOS, I don't HAVE to look at you to use it, but it becomes much tougher if you're avoiding me rather than helping me target you. It is an immensely powerful effect. The self-resetting trigger would, IMO, be the best approach. Get Digital Hero #11 or see if you can work something out with your GM. [Maybe if Steve's feeling especially generous he'll pop in and tell you what that would cost...]

Re: Rapid Fire Whether one is needed comes down to interpretation, I suppose. The character paid for the advantage of these unusual attacks, after all. The +1 advantage eliminates the application of most defenses, regardless of how many times he hits. Having not worked with it, I can't say whether it's hugely unbalancing, but it is another of those "whatever you can do, so can they" issues. These maneuvers present a pretty hefty advantage to high OCV characters whether the attack is unusual or not, especially against very slow, or very large, targets. "Well, if he hits me I'm out anyway. He has DCV -1 thanks to Growth and my OCV is 17. hmmm...Rapid Fire for 7 shots - I still hit on 17 or less, and I can do that twice before I'll run out of END." Rapid Fire allows the potential for more hits, each of which will do more or less the same damage. Extra scary due to the likely OCV/DCV difference highlighted above meshing with the lack of normal defenses. As I say, I'm uncertain how unbalancing this would be (Menton's ego blast, for example, doesn't need many hits to take out most characters anyway!). Did you have a suggestion for fixing the problem (beyond just saying "Oh, you can't use those maneuvers with those attacks")? The disadvantages of maneuvers aren't always comparable in any case. Returning to the "Big Enemy" example, what's his penalty for using Sweep/Rapid Fire? Defenses apply to each attack, but he doesn't suffer from the DCV penalty at all. A 38 DEX Martial Artist sure does!

Consider three possible constructs for an area effect or explosive Flash: (a) As constructed, no advantages or limitations on who is affected. Everyone within 3 hexes takes some level of Flash on every one of the character's phases. Absent Flash Def, this is pretty painful. ( Add in "Selective Area" - now the character chooses who will or won't be blinded (this is well ouitside the concept as presented) © It only affects those looking at/targeting him. Now far fewer people are affected. Anyone not attacking him is fine. Anyone attacking him would (as I would rule it) get the shot off and be blinded at the same time, so no OCXV penalty to that shot. As well, anyone with an area effect power can simply fire towards the light without looking directly at the character specifically, and avoid the flash. I think © is sufficiently differentiated from (a) that some form of limitation is reasonable. YMMV. The Darkness ultimately becomes a matter of taste (and of cost). Although I like the construct, I don't see it as essential.

OK, I read the FAQ (sorry; I should have started there), but I'm still confused. [Phys Lim - Doesn't Get It 11-], so I'll rephrase the question [Psych Lim: Stubbornly Tenacious] The FAQ on megamovement indicates: A: A character can stop “in between,†but the minimum distance he has to move is equal to 1â€, whatever his MegaScale defines 1†as equalling. In the 1†= 10 km example above, he’d have to move a minimum of 10 kilometers. He could move 11, or 20, or 34, but not 5 or 8. That's inconsistent with the discussion of the Teleport Booth which stimulated my prior question. I'm guessing the FAQ is correct (and there's a lot of technician overtime hours logged to make the Teleport Booth useful on smaller bodies ). The FAQ also makes frequent reference to the need for megascale senses to make most effective use of megamovement. I understand the logic, and the mechanics of buying a naked advantage on, say, my 25 point Everyman Sight Power. Technically, shouldn't mean the character needs to buy Sight - Megascaled (+1/2, say) at 38 points, rather than just the 13 point advantage, to also be able to see at non-mega ranges? Maybe this extra cost has been handwaved for simplicity? [Of course there are lots of examples where the character has the movement, but not the senses - the Hulk's megaleap comes to mind.]

But the Mordru who fought the LSH has 1,000 years of extra xp... Aren't these comparisons fun

Cap beat Thor in DC vs Marvel a few years ago...amazing what magic lightning can do...

Yes, Flash is only 5 points per die in 5e, but it blinds for segments, rather than phases, so 3d6 will have a very short impact. Whether you need Persistent is debateable - does it stay on when he's unconscious? If it does, you might sub out OIHID for Always On. There should also be some limitation for only affecting people looking directly at him. I'm inclined to set that at -1/2. -1 is arguable since the opposition can control whether they look at him, but since your choice is look at him or don't target him, a lower total seems appropriate. I'd scrap Darkness, however, Just buy some bonus DCV levels, Linked to the Flash, and limited to -1 in HTH and 1/2 opponent's OCV at range.

In the Teleport Megascale question below, you note that, if the power has Megascale 1" = 1,000 km, it can teleport someone 7,000 km or 8,000 km, but nothing in betwen (ie you must teleport in 1" increments, however large that inch has been scaled to). To get around this requires the additional +1/4 advantage to make it scaleable. Am I correct that, applying scalable, the power can now: (a) teleport anywhere up to maximum range (let's say that's 30" so 30,000 km) ( but no less than 1" (ie at least 1,000km)? Extrapolating on this, isn't a Megascaled attack pretty much worthless without scalable? As I read the above, it could select a target exactly 1,000 km away, or exactly 2,000 km away, but not in between. Thanks Hugh

That's letting them off easy. How about a dozen zombies in those stolen backup suits of Steel Man's armor?

Re: starting again That's always an ugly one. We had a player that fit the mold some time ago, and we adopted a policy that new characters generally start with 1/2 the XP of the retired character (this was a D&D game, but the concept is similar). The reduction would erode the more sessions the prior character was played (we never formularized that), and was generaly waived if the character retired from logical in-game occurences (eg he was killed; he found his long-lost family). For players who run characters long-term, no biggie - they get to start a new character at a comparable power level. For the guy who changes every session or two to get a "more powerful" character, it's amazing how fast he would become de-powered.

First off, has anyone read the old Champions comic where a gamer creates a techno-suit and attacks their Ice character? He's beaten when the ice guy attacks him, then jumps out of his way. The gamer never anticipated such a strategy because, in the game, you can't attack and then move. Why not indeed? As another approach, why not adopt the 3rd Edition d20 approach (OK, I didn't sontaneously combust for typing that on the Hero board ) Simply consider the terms "move equivalent" and "half phase" action to be the same, and "standard" and "attack" action are equivalent. In either system, a character may take one half phase and one attack action, or take two half phase actions (plus any number of free/zero phase actions). The only difference here is that Hero prescribes an order - once you take a standard action, your turn ends - while d20 allows you to take your move equivalent after the standard action. Now, to strech out the analogy, d20 has the "full attack" option - merge your attack and half phase action into one and take a full attack sequence. But this doesn't alow two attacks - it only allows you to use extra attacks you may be entitled to. So the octopus can half move and make one attack, or stay still and attack with al 8 tentacles, since he has both options. The low level character still only attacks once with a full atack action. Champions already has full attack actions - Sweep, Rapid Fire, etc. So, in both games, I can make a full attack action (full phase action), or a move equivalent and attack (half move and attack). But in Hero, I can't attack and then move equivalent, where in d20 I can. I've never deviated from the "attack ends your move" structure, but I don't think it would necessarily be fatal to the game. It might force some different thinking - when our group (all experienced with D&D and Hero) started a 3rd Ed campaign, we recognized the concept of different action types, but it took us several sessions, and some time with the rulebooks, to realize we could take our "half move" after we attacked! Would this give some characters an advantage? You bet! Can these be countered? Probably - use a little forethought and planning. The biggest adsvantage argued is that a character with high movement can attack and then zip back out. Move bys accomplish more or less the same thing, and they've been with us from the start. And it seems reasonably consistent with the genre. "He just darts in, hits me, then darts out before I can draw a bead on him - how can I beat this guy?" Maybe OUr Hero will have to use his brain and figure out how to beat this strange opponent - just like he had to figure out how to take down a guy with a 15 DCV when he has an 8 OCV, or how to beat the desolid character when his attacks can't affect the desolid.

Lots of good stuff already posted. Let's consider another approach. You didn't pay points for the Freeze Ring, and you haven't taken a course on using it, so you should have (at least) the minue 3 Nonproficiency Penalty. Take 3 off your OCV, please. Now, you also lack the Science: Cryonics skill, which Dr. Icicle likely has (ie he can maintain the thing). Just make up a 0 point "dependence" that gradually weakens the ring. Perhaps it's dependent on daily (or even weekly) maintenance which includes making a Cryonics roll. Finally, since you didn't pay the points, you didn't get the free "operate Freeze Ring" skill. You need to make an 8- "everyman" skill each time you want to use the ring. Failure carries side effects. Dr. Icicle didn't get the limitation - he paid points for the ring, so he has a 25- "Operate Freeze Ring" skill. He's not limited. Oh, and let's not forget that, unless it's independent or Unique, Dr. Icicle can eventually whip himself up another Freeze Ring. After all, he paid the points.

As to the actual question, a point based system is open to abuses (similar to those noted above). There have been some decent systems for rating characters overall, rating their offense and defense separately, etc. Some caps should be imposed, whether formal of "GM eyeballing" caps. For example, I expect a high DCV character (virtually impossible to hit) to have low defenses (likely one punched if he is hit). I do know where you're coming from. I had a player once who created a martial artist with substantial armor (sort of the converse to your example). Pretty high DCV and brick-level defenses. The player had the attitude that he could pay whatever points he wanted for whatever character he wanted. Normally, I find players willing to tone down the character for reasonableness. When they won't, one must invoke Plan B. Plan B is the Easy solution. Most/alll villains ended up with abilities which could hit and injure him. A multipower with a 12d6 EB, 0 END and a 12d6 EB, 1 hex area, works nicely. He'll normally take his chances and avoid spending the END, but if he must use the broad beam to hit, I guess he will. No sens using it against the "reasonable" characters. Damage auras (especially Drain auras), mental attacks, etc. also worked nicely. "Every Defense Man" - well, show me the character and I'll find something that affects him. Hey, a double penetrating drain to all defenses at once, uncontrolled, continuous, 1 hex accurate should do the trick if need be.

Re: lack of limits Seems a fairly basic decision. Hmmm...since it's -1/2, it should be something he has control over. Since he's abusing the system, why not an equal abuse to put him in check. How about "Only in Agent Form"? So, in Brick form, they don't work, since he has the limitation. In Agent form they would work, but he didn't buy them. Too bad! Or maybe "Act 14-" - now he's invulnerable 75% of the time and has no defenses 25% of the time (or use burnout - it works the first time, and once the roll fails, it's gone). Perhaps his next character (this one isn't likely to survive long) will be more reasonable.

If you go to Edit, you can delete a post. Double posted before? No, not me - why do you ask?

No, I mean what would be the point of placing limits on the Summon? In many VPP's, I may consider putting limitations on the powers. For example, if I have an 80 point VPP, I can have 2 60 point powers if I put -1/2 limits on them (60/1.5 = 40 x 2 = 80). With Summon, who cares? Summon your creatures and, if you want something else, reconfigure the points and summon something else. Taking the old Summon power out doesn't the creatures you already summoned away.

In fairnes, "Summon Only" is a terrible VPP to limit anyway. The real benefit of limiting VPP powers is having more powers active at the same time. With Summon, who cares? Call them up and move along!

First, Gary says: He adds some discussion about variable special effects on attack powers. Then he says: Gary, first you say you DO have a problem with Change Envronment and they should have the +1 advantage, then you say Change Environment is not a concern. Do you mean that you would not impose the +1 advantage requirement if the VPP can onl;y have Change Environments? If so, wouldn't this logically also apply to the "summon only" VPP you were saying ewas too cheap without such a restriction in the first place? Maybe I'm reading too fast - does anyone else out there see this inconsistency?

Which is why many of us view the VPP as the ultimate evolution of the Multipower. At some point, it becomes equal to have a VPP (infinite flexibility) rather than a multipower. At lower than "cosmic", you trade off flexiobility (number of options) for flexibility (ease of switching between options).

If the character had a 28 STR, the naked advantage would add 21 for a total of 49 - no problem.

Man this exchange looks familiar. My take is that Gary likes absolutes. Either the power is allowed in any form the player wishes (subject to character conception) or the power must be banned outright (or changed in some fashion to change the point cost). Agent X, on the other hand, is a "holistic character" type of guy. Look at the character as a whole, then look at the team as a whole, to assess whether there's a problem, or whether we can allow this particular character construct. As an example, assume that we have a campaign where damage is expected to range from 12d6 to 15d6, Defenses will be in the 25/25 range, and a 12" movement rate is the norm. Player X presents us with his character, a Brick with 60 STR, average defenses, and +30 STR which costs 2x END. His STR doesn't contribute to Leaping - he jumps like a normal human and has 7" total running. Reactions? GARY: I expect Gary will just say "NO. The campaign max is 15 DC, so bring your STR maximum down to 75. Oh, and you better buy up your movement or you'll never be able to attack anyone anyway." AGENT X, like me, is probably going to look at the character and say "OK, he's way over on damage. Is it workable?" How much can he use it with that 2x END? Will that make it rare? We'll compare him to the Energy Projector with the 75 point attacks multipower and 6 different attacks and think "well, the Brick has sacrificed versatility for higher power on one attack. Plus, he has no range and a slow movement rate, which mitigates his potential somewhat." Then, we'll make a decision one way or the other whether to allow him as is or require some changes. Maybe the change is to tone him down to 80 STR max. Maybe it's to require a higher END multiple on that extra STR. Either style can work. But I obviously agree with Agent X - I'd rather stick to a review of the character than impose blanket rules. Sometimes, those blanket rules veto a reasonable character. Sometimes, they let an overpowered character slip through, as he's within the hard and fast rules. I'd rather assess each character for reasonableness. Some GM's may not be comfortable with that approach. If a GM imposes a host of restrictions, I may decide it's not worth it and he can find players who prefer the more mechanical approach. Or I may just build a character that works under his model. or maybe I negotiate with the GM to get the concept I'm looking for to work under his rules set.

Man this exchange looks familiar. My take is that Gary likes absolutes. Either the power is allowed in any form the player wishes (subject to character conception) or the power must be banned outright (or changed in some fashion to change the point cost). Agent X, on the other hand, is a "holistic character" type of guy. Look at the character as a whole, then look at the team as a whole, to assess whether there's a problem, or whether we can allow this particular character construct. As an example, assume that we have a campaign where damage is expected to range from 12d6 to 15d6, Defenses will be in the 25/25 range, and a 12" movement rate is the norm. Player X presents us with his character, a Brick with 60 STR, average defenses, and +30 STR which costs 2x END. His STR doesn't contribute to Leaping - he jumps like a normal human and has 7" total running. Reactions? GARY: I expect Gary will just say "NO. The campaign max is 15 DC, so bring your STR maximum down to 75. Oh, and you better buy up your movement or you'll never be able to attack anyone anyway." AGENT X, like me, is probably going to look at the character and say "OK, he's way over on damage. Is it workable?" How much can he use it with that 2x END? Will that make it rare? We'll compare him to the Energy Projector with the 75 point attacks multipower and 6 different attacks and think "well, the Brick has sacrificed versatility for higher power on one attack. Plus, he has no range and a slow movement rate, which mitigates his potential somewhat." Then, we'll make a decision one way or the other whether to allow him as is or require some changes. Maybe the change is to tone him down to 80 STR max. Maybe it's to require a higher END multiple on that extra STR. Either style can work. But I obviously agree with Agent X - I'd rather stick to a review of the character than impose blanket rules. Sometimes, those blanket rules veto a reasonable character. Sometimes, they let an overpowered character slip through, as he's within the hard and fast rules. I'd rather assess each character for reasonableness. Some GM's may not be comfortable with that approach. If a GM imposes a host of restrictions, I may decide it's not worth it and he can find players who prefer the more mechanical approach. Or I may just build a character that works under his model. or maybe I negotiate with the GM to get the concept I'm looking for to work under his rules set.