Hugh Neilson

I'm not referring to what they're designed for. I'm referring to points spent on things they aren't designed for. Your examples are a bit tough to work with, as they aren't "well rounded humans". But perhaps a crow might have bonus perception rolls, only to find shiny things. PS: Worm Hunter for a bird doesn't make it a better scout, only a better bird. What about some extra COM ("Pretty Bird!") None of these make it a better scout (ie more useful to you) but they all cost points. And if the +1 advantage meant "Summon any cop within your point total, specific or random", I would agree this is a +1 advantage. But it doesn't. It means "Summon only Lt. Briggs of Homicide and lose the ability to summon any other cop". Steve has confirmed this. So I'd better know up front which cop will be assigned to cases of interest (and which one will die in the first adventure) or my power loses its utility very quickly. A slavishly loyal follower is far from automatic. The rules allow for followers who would generally be slavishly loyal. As a GM, however, I'm going to consider that one pretty carefully. If the creature is alive, it has its own quirks, fears and survival instinct. If not (a zombie, golem or robot, perhaps), I will likely rule that the character is slavishly loyal, but lacks any independent thought process. It does whatever you say, but you must say it. So, if the flames are approaching your unconscious character, Lassie might well drag you to safety. Your robot just stands there, impassively, waiting for orders. You cold buy him an on board computer and automatic programs - but that costs more points. Nothing comes free. This is the tough call, but the rules are pretty clear the ability to exceed the point limit is intended specifically because concepts like T Rex Man are impossible without it. While he's got more raw power, he must also have more drawbacks - you need to balance the form using only your base points so it needs more disads. Would I allow a 400 point T Rex as a form? Maybe. Would I allow a Multiform that steps on the toes of other players' specialties? Probably not. Would I allow a VPP Multiform only to pick up the powers and drawbacks of one or more other characters (ie a true mimic pool)? Possibly. It's always a judgement call. I find Mutants and Masterminds had an interesting paragraph. They discuss "Saying Yes to players". Noting that a lot of the book (like a lot of Hero) discusses saying No, they also talk about saying Yes whereever possible. After all, you don't want a bunch of frustrated players, you want players with characters that fit their concept. So, no, a 30d6 EB is not allowed. But maybe a 400 point T Rex form is - if I can conclude it won't be unbalancing

43 DEX 9 SPD - who WOULDN'T be too slow?

Just buy Time Powers and make everyone a speedster. I find M & M much "coarser" than Champions - the gradations aren't as fine. I also find a lot of powers are just combinations of other powers. Mind you, a lot of the phrases in M & M sound awfully familiar to this Champions vet. I consider the book an admission that Hero handles supers way better than d20 - it basically moves the system about as close to Hero as you can without getting dinged for copyright infringement. Hero was the first system to do a good job modelling supers, and they're still the best.

I've seen 25 every so often. Mainly because 23 is so popular, so some characters buy 24 to move first, leading to occasional 25's to beat the 24's. Rare, though. If it bugs you for DEX, what about CON and STR? And when's the last time you saw an odd numbered COM or END? INT almost always is "rounded" because it only hits skill rolls. EGO gets rolls and CV's so it has DEX type breakpoints. PRE generates dice and CHAR rolls, so same thing - 5's, 3's, 8's and 10's. Of the primary stats, only BOD is bought one point at a time. I've considered a structure where, if you miss a CHAR roll (skills included) by one, and your stat exceeds the breakpoint, you get a 1 in 6 chance of success per extra point (eg. DEX 21 rolls a 14 DEX check - just missed; 3 in 6 chance of success after all). I worked damage in 1 point increments as well (+1 point; +1-2 pts; 1/2 die; d6-1; d6). But the marginal gradations don't make up for all the extra die rolling.

There has been a lot of rebalancing over the years. The "must cost END is a 5th Ed change, however - 4th uses a werewolf example with Damage Reduction. Frankly, I just don't see the abuvse. I haven't looked at the CU characters, although Icicle in the example lost her armor in favour of a 0 END force field. It would violate MY campaign defense limits, as I look at total defenses. It would also violate my "common sense" limit. I wouldn;t allow it outside an EC either, however. If your conception and special effect justified both armor and force field, I would have no problem having them in the EC. But it's not going to take your overall defenses over my limits - if it will, you'll have to reduce them. Fair enough, and I would allow that as well. Note, however, that you are breaking a different rule now. Skills as a power are "special powers", which aren't allowed in ANY power framework without GM permission. As they aren't allowed in any framework, it follows they are ven more abusive than powers costing no END, which are only banned from EC's. And that's a legit way to build him. Equally legit, however, would be an EC with Running, Armor and perhaps Force Wall, a change environment related to his ice powers or what have you. Attack powers are more effectively placed in an MP, especially with the rule that EC powers can't multiple power attack. [isn't the EC ineffective enough for buying multiple attacks? May get too effective if mutiple power attacks are allowed.] I built an homage once for a game I was running with a WWII time travel scenario. He got a hand attack (gloves on), an explosion w/ personal immunity and a big explosion w/ pers immun, and a number of limitations, if the suit was off. EC would have been extra-costly. This just highlights the absurdity of the whole issue. If considered as a separate power (and it is - Healing has a cap on how much can be healed in a time period), Regeneration is ineligible because it costs no END. If it's considered an advantaged/limited Heal, now it can go in an EC. What if it had been built as an AID construct with an advantage "No fade of points up to character's base" and a limit " only to restore lost points"? Now it's ineligible again. But it's exactly the same power! I can see the racial EC, with FREd's caveats, but I think the limitations are more appropriate. These are also "natural state" powers in many cases which should be inherent and, given the big drawback of an EC is the adjustment powers impact, it seems reasonable to ban Inherent powers from EC's anyway. Besides, I really don't see the link between Multiform (3 animal forms), Desolid, Transform and Mind Control subject to range penalties. Just because they are traditional Vampire powers doesn't mean they should carry a cost break. Strength, Flight, EB and Damage Resistance (or Armor) are traditional Superman powers, and that shouldn't be an EC either! "He's an alien" or "he's a werewolf" is how he got his powers, not a special effect. EC is about special effects.

Funny...you list lots of good examples of EC's, but what I see is: Weather Witches - Isn't missile defelection using the wind a logical power in that EC? Iceman - say, doesn't he have Armor? Armor that doesn't melt on knockout, too? Say, those are both illegal in an EC, aren't they? Nuclearman - sorry, never heard of him. Human Bomb - not sure he would have an EC (if we're both thinking of the Golden Age/Freedom Fighter character). What about EC: Luck Powers? Well, you can have one, but you can't put Luck in it! Healing is OK for your EC, but not Aid, by the way. Something's wrong with this picture... If a power has "no flaws", it should not cost the same as "an inherently equal value" power which does have flaws, should it?

This is the problem I have with the whole issue of certain powers not being allowed in an EC. If the power is "too cheap", why don't we make it more expensive for ALL characters, not just for those who have an EC it would reasonably fit in? If Armor or Damage Resistance are "too useful to allow in an EC", but force field is not "too useful to allow in an EC", this seems to imply that Force Field is "too overpriced to buy outside an EC" and it would be better to buy armor. In other words, force field is overpriced (or armor is underpriced). Yet no one is suggesting we change the costs of the powers outside an EC, only prohibit the cost break in an EC. Why is saving half the cost of a force field by including it in an EC not a problem, but saving half the cost of armor by having that power in an EC is unbalancing?

WAAAYYYY back, Hero had a newsletter they sent to members (I think this even predated Adventurers' Club). One of them had point costs for "funny dice". They went up to d100, IIRC, and each one was "0 BOD on a 1, 12 BOD on max roll, 1 BOD otherwise". Don't want to kill your opponent? Buy d100 damage!

I like that approach, and I'm pretty sure I've seen it in historical products. I fall squarely in the camp that says "If I wanted the villains' writeup, I'd buy the book it was published in." Given the quick description i not in CB, perhaps this might be provided on the site as an errata?

Then again, maybe everything works fine...until "real mechanon" shows up and reasserts control over his old body. Thanks for giving mne Duplication for free! Afer all, fighting just ONE was too easy, right?

This depends on what the GM will or won't allow. Just as easily, one can take a Follower who is designed as a well-rounded human being, and spends points on skills, abilities and stats (eg. comeliness) which will not be hugely combat effective, and the other builds a BattleDroid 100% directed at combat. Assuming equal base points and equal disad's, both pay the same costs but oe gets a more efficient construct than the other. That's not to say I believe the current structure is perfect. I have "difficulties" with the Specific Person is always +1 rule. Again referring to our hypothetical two guys, one takes Summon Police Officer (generic). The other Summons a Specific Police Officer (+1 advantage) with similar/identical stats. If both are badly injured today in a skirmish, the guy who paid half the points gets a fresh one when he Summons tomorrow, and the guy who paid twice as much gets a badly wounded person. Refresh my memory - who had an advantage? Well, first off your Summon is slavishly loyal (eg. will commit suicide on command) and I don't see followers coming with the same loyalty. But even if we say the Summoned being has no Amicable at all (we have to control him by force) it costs more. Twice as much if we summon the follower you use as an example; 4 times as much if we make him a "specific person". Let's ignore "Specific Person" for the moment on the assumption that you don't gain an advantage, so you don't pay an Advantage. But we'll make him "Friendly" for +1/4, so the Summon costs 2.5x the Follower. The Follower, as you say, may not always be around. If we send him out to do surveillance, he can't get back when combat starts. Perhaps the character should have to pay a bonus for the follower to have a "Hopelessly Devoted" disadvantage. As for the consecrated ground, if it's fairly common, your Summon should have a limitation ("NOt on consecrated Ground") reducing the cost somewhat. To some extent, this is a matter of SFX. If your follower is a demon, maybe it won't enter consecrated ground either. If it's not common enough to Limit the SUmmon, it's also not comon enough to be a disadvantage for the follower. Duplication or Multiform? Probably not me. I say probably because I hate to shut out a reasonable construct I may not have considered (eg. Multiform into a T Rex). Summon? Well, maybe. Sumoning a 400 point being costs you 8 END. Since he's not amicable at that level, you need an Ego vs Ego contest for control - and your roll is -8, so you'll have to persuade him somehow. But I still believe that much of the problem lies in the lack of playtesting of these abilities, so their costs may not perfectly align. For example: - why isn't Duplicate a form of Summon? All it does is Summon another you. - why are Multiform and Duplicate generally worth the same amount? One puts two characters on the battlefield and one changes an existing character. Maybe it's reasonable - Multiform builds in a complete change to the character where Duplicsate requires a +1 advantage for this. - what about the "twice as many for +5 points" rule? Consider Summoning 8 100 point creatures (no advantages) costs 35 points. Or I could Summon a 175 point creature which spends 75 points buying 128 duplicates which Cannot Recombine and each have 100 points (and only the base form has Duplication) - why isn't Follower a variation on Summon, or Summon an advantage for Follower? They both serve the same purpose - give me a helper. All of these merit a pretty close examination under the GM microscope to ensure they're reasonable. That includes both not overpowered for their cost, and not overpriced for their power. Maybe. I'm just not enamoured of vehicles not bought as Vehicles. It would be interesting to do the math - with the 5:1 break, but the need to buy off turn modes, etc., I wonder whether the cost would vary materially.

What if someone snaps a picture for the evening news and your nosy DNPC happens to notice it's about the time of your telephone discussion... "Promise me you'll keep your cell phone handy in case I need to reach you." "Yes Dear!" When you see the super (and you KNOW you will - after all, you're the DNPC), call the cell. How many times can he make an excuse convincing?

Re: Champions Battlegrounds So what IS the limitation on PD, only vs dice bags? I can use some Armour for that too! I think the longer you've been playing, the more likely you'll still call it Champions. Up until 3e, it WAS Champions, and even the Big Blue Book from 4th had that title.

I'm curious what a warrior would look like in a campaign that allows a mage like this. He's getting 50 points for free (the multipower base) plus access to a huge array of spells at the very low slot costs. He pays 2 points for a 2d6 RKA (with a +1 Stun Multiple). The warrior will have to pay 1 point just to be able to fire a bow, and another point to have familiarity with a sword. How does this balance out? Sure, he has to make his magic skill roll - that means his magic bolt "only" activates on a 14- (or an 18- if he puts his magic spell skill levels to work). If the concept is that everyone will be a spellcaster, constructs like this will definitely do it!

OK, in answer to the question posed, i'd have to say "As an NPC". I like both the VPP approach and the Luck/Unluck approach, but I think a character like this is likely to be frustrating for both player and GM. It's one of those constructs that works better in fiction than in play. Why? Because fiction has one "writer" and games have several. This character forces the GM to do a lot of the work running your character's powers, which also removes a lot of control from you. How much can the character vary? Look at how powerful/weak the Scarlet Witch has been over the years as writers come and go. You're likely to be frustrated because your abilities don't work the way you want, or as often as you want, or as effectively as you want. You sacrifice a lot of control of your character. Meanwhile, the GM is frustrated that, each phase, you're asking him to interpret how your powers work to do this effect you've just decided you want. One more thing for the GM to look after. Effectively, it's a communal character. If you and your GM are both happy with this "shared character" structure, go for it. But I'd consider it carefully, and talk it over with the GM, before putting a lot of work into it.

Re: Re: Follower Vs Summon Sociotard is correct - the cost of a duplicate, multiform, etc. is not reduced by its disadvantages. ie if I have a 300 point multiform, or summon a 300 point creature, it costs 60 points regardless of whether it has no disadvantages, 100 points of disadvantages or 300 points of disadvantages. Adding another 50 points of disadvantages adds 10 points to the cost of the power, because it is now a 350 point character. Multiforms (I think) and duplicates are specifically designed using the same base points as the base character, so if you want more than your own base points, you have to balance the form with disad's. The FAQ suggests that, if the base pays extra for a duplicate to have more than his own points, these extra points should not also require disadvantages. The FAQ discusses disadvantages in these instances, generally like this (stolen from FAQ on Multiform): "That being said, it’s important to remember that the primary purpose of Disadvantages is to define the character, make him more interesting, and give the GM plot hooks to work with — not to rack up extra Character Points. So, you should probably define some Disadvantages for the character, for 0 points, as part of the character development process. Similarly, as described in the HERO System Bestiary, many animals have certain Disadvantages that help define them as animals (e.g., the Limited Manipulation Physical Limitation), and you shouldn’t take an animal form that doesn’t have those Disadvantages without good reason." Why the difference is a good question. Since the basic summon power summons a "generic" construct, if your summoned motorcycle is stolen or destroyed, you should be able to just Summon another. Your "real" motorcycle would be stolen/destroyed - you need to get it replaced/fixed before you get a new one. Plus, it stays where it was left rather than coming to you through an exertion of the Summon power. As to whether the mnotorcycle is SFX for running, I prefer the Summon approach - that way, it behaves like a real vehicle (turn modes; subject to damage separately; etc.). Same with a follower. Now this begs the question why "Summon a specific motorcycle which could be stolen or destroyed" is a +1 advantage, but there's a whole 'nother thread on that, so let's not reopen that issue. Truth be told, I'd say some of the discrepancy relates to the fact that these powers aren't "mature". They haven't been around as long as, say, Energy Blast or HKA. They're also much more versatile, used for a lot more effects. As such, they haven't had the same years of experience to be fine tuned. Summon, in particular, changed radically between 4th and 5th Ed, and was only introduced prior to 4e in Fantasy Hero. Hey, under 4e rules, you had to pay 30 points at the start just to Summon a base human with NO character points! The ability to Summon a vehicle isn't even in the rules - it's in the FAQ (maybe some supplements), so field testing is pretty limited.. Summon, Multiform and Duplication (to a lesser extent) also permit you to to attract a character more powerful than you are. I don't believe your "follower" can have more points than you do. There are also other issues between the three - a Multiform is you, so it does what you want. A duplicate is you, and is around at the same time as the base, so it does what you want. A Summon can be forced to do what you want (base ego vs ego, or amicable disad). A follower acts of its own volition - you exert a certain control over it, but your actions can cause it to become less loyal. Bases and vehciles can be broken/stolen. The small point break perhaps makes up, in part, for this difference between Powers and Perks.

Re: Re: Re: Save How This is dead on. The VPP suffers two disadvantages in Fantasy Hero. First, there is no way to get a break on the pool cost, so the pool will always be expensive. This is an issue in any campagn, but with the base points in a typical Fantasy Hero campaign (say 75+75), getting a high active point total is too expensive. Second, a Fantasy Hero spell with less than -1 in limitations is virtually unheard of. In a multipower, that means at least a -1/2 limitation on the base (Variable Limit -1/2) and more likely -1, or even more, if all your spells have certain de minimis limitations (eg. Gestures, Incantations, RSR). In a multi, this reduces the "pool cost". A VPP just gets to have more spells in it at one time. If you would have had no limitations, and a 50 point pool, the VPP costs 75 points. Make the VPP cosmic and it costs 125 - now you can change it as fast as the multi (and can you really afford to waste a lot of phases changing your pool when you have a 3 or 4 Speed?). You need 15 full-power ultra slots to have an equal cost, so say 10 spells on the assumption some don't use the full reserve, but many are not Ultras. But if you have a -1 limitation, the VPP costs 88 points, while the Multi base costs only 25. Equalizing requires 63 points worth of slots - 21 full power ultras with no limitations, or over 30 full power ultras with another +1/4 limitation. Assume a mix similar to that discussed above, and we're talking over 20 spells that draw on the power pool. Spells I plan on having up pretty much all the time might not go in the VPP (eg. that force field since my wizard likely wears no armor). More limitations makes the multipower more cost-effective comparatively. About the only big advantage to the VPP is that you could have two or more attack powers and use them as a multi-power attack (your limitations do reduce the cost to the pool). But how many spells with Incantations and Gestures can reasonably be cast simultaneously anyway, and just how much END have you got to power them?

Indeed it does. An older issue (27 IIRC) has X-Men and Magneto. They're pretty old (2nd Ed at best), however. X-Men would be 1st Ed, since the same issue had comments from the designers on the upcoming Champions Second Edition. [introducing such innovations as DEF for objects and spreading energy blasts!]

I do see one issue that hasn't been raised here - is it common CHARACTER knowledge that Mechanon uses radio signals to transmit a self-destruct signal? If not, how do you know to be looking for a frequency when Mechanon drops? If so, surely he would have taken precautions against this - he's got a 25 INT, as someone pointed out. I suppose you could take a PER roll on the basis that there was a transmission (like a hearing roll because you may have heard SOMETHING) - some penalties may be appropriate on the basis the character, in the midst of battle with Mechanon, likely isn't scanning the radio channels, but you could still succeed. It shouldn't be any tougher than a sight PER roll to see that one agent slinking away during the fight, or the hearing roll to notice the guy coming up behind you. And you'd certainly have a reason to pay more attention next time, so this would delay the character at worst. On the other hand, how much retribution would the character face if he did succeed? How does Mechanon even know WHICH annoying organic sent the radio signal? Same issue - he should get a PER roll, but likely with some penalties (aexacerbated by the fact he's not very perceptive to begin with once he's down).. Now, that doesn't stop him going after the same group with a half dozen killer 'bots set to activate when that frequency goes off again, and annihilate the source. But would Mechanon bother with that, or just be comfortable in the knowledge that, when his latest plan succeeds and annihilates all organic life, whoever pulled that stunt with the radio will die like all the rest. Revenge seems a very emotional goal, after all.

It's a general hallmark of the system that defense costs less than attack. It just means you don't spend the same amount on defense as offense. Try this: "I wouldn't let you have a 65 PD or a 65 ED. Why would you think I'll allow 65 Mental Defense?" Hey, if you can buy a 65 Mental Defense, why shouldn't other characters get to buy DEF 65 against YOUR attacks? That tends to result in a much more reasonable character rewrite.

Re: Question Haven't looked at the character recently. Is she Overconfident? How many people take that disadvantage like it's free points, and think still take every available tactical advantage? "It's not worth the effort to avoid you."

Well, it makes full (50 base) Life Support worth 100 points, or 67 if you accept that "always on" is a limitation (not sure why you would for life support...). If your EC already has 100 point powers in it, you pay the same for life support inside or outside. I think I'd take it outside and avoid the extra impact of drains. Essentially, this comes back to just another way to make the cost higher if it goes in an EC. My question is, if Life Support is worth 50 points and 10d6 Energy Blast is worth 50 points, why is it OK to reduce the cost of Energy Blast by having it in an EC, but not OK to reduce the cost of Life Support? Is EB overpriced, or life support underpriced, to justify this differing treatment? If so, change the price. If not, why is it (and other o END powers) singled out for special treatment in this regard? On the one hand, I'm inclined to agree that justification for 20+ points in any of those defenses needs to be pretty good, EC or not. On the other hand, if you want to waste ANOTHER 20 points on flash defense, who am I to tell you "no"? When's the last time you saw a 20 BOD flash attack anyway? There's always AVLD, but a 6d6 (75 AB) AVLD will be getting 1 stun a shot on someone with 20 flash defense. Personally, I'll pay 10 points for Flash Defense outside my EC. I don't need 50 points' flash defense, my 50 point EX doesn't support any less and I'm not spending 15 more points for DEF I'll never use. Power and Mental defenses have a bit more value at the high end, of course. I can't think of many valid special effects for power defense in an EC. Mental defense for mental powers makes sense, I suppose, but again not many other effects. There's always the "Android Body" effect, but that's a racial EC to me, and I have to accept all androids have that much power defense or I won't allow it in the EC. I don't often see EC's small enough that 10 or 20 point powers fit effectively anywa. Maybe my players are especially reasonable, as they've never asked for an EC of this nature. Maybe I'm not aggressive enough since I've never tried to set one up for my character (thought about it once or twice...) As for changing the rules, I believe we have the standard intro that the GM is the final arbitrator of what the rules are. In challenging my rules calls, the munchkins are breaking the rules anyway. Personally, if I depart from the rules, I'll tell people up front "Yep, I'm changing them". Generally, I think I'm pretty lenient, but then I also don't use canned characters "as written", and they get the same benefits the players do. Something to remember - if you can have an "EC: Exotic Defenses", bet on a lot of your opponents having the same thing. Or having extra dice with some limit or other that gelds your excessive defenses, while not being worth using on the other opponents. Hey, I'll tell you once, maybe twice, if I think the ability (or character) is unreasonable. After that, it's not worth the hassle - I'll just make sure the opposition gets equalized in a manner that negates your unfair advantage withut punishing those who chose to heed the voice of reason.

Probably fair - the hearing sense dopesn't become targetting, but the ability to block (most) spellcasting is as good as the ability to blind (most) targets. It's not a big cost increase, of course.

Either the cost of darkness vs sound needs to increase, or you need to give a greater limitation for Incantations if the Darkness will be common. Depends which way you look at it. Dispel is much more common in fantasy games, since Magic will be so common and I can target magical effects rather than a specific power. No one talks about increasing the cost of dispelling magic in Fantasy Hero, but it is much more useful.

No, I started off saying that simply having powers which do not normally cost END prohibited from being in an EC is excessive. In the right case, I could see any of characteristics, unusual defenses, life support, Aid or enhanced senses fitting the special effects of an EC. I do not see "Characteristics" or "Defenses" (however you sugar coat it) being a valid EC. However, a Light Powers EC could appropriately have Flash Defense. Perhaps a Darkness EC could as well (block the flash w/ darkness). It would not logically provide power defense or mental defense. A heat EC might logically hold Infrared Vision (though I can't see the point setting the base of an EC so low). Many EC's might reasonably hold an Enhanced Sense - Steve alludes to this when he notes a typical EC might have a sensory power. A Speedster's EC may well appropriately include enhanced Speed and/or Dex (DEX gets expensive, since characteristics in a power construct generally provide no figured). Many might properly include Damage Reduction against their special effect, and/or an opposing special effect. Is it improper for Spider-Man's Spider Powers EC to include his "spider sense"? Maybe - you may think it's a strech for spider powers. But it should not be disallowed solely because Danger Sense costs no END (or because it may be a special power; I don't recall if it is). Are these powers truly so overpowered that they should not qualify for the point breaks available to other powers? If they are, maybe their pricing overall should be fixed. I don't believe they are.