Hugh Neilson

I believe the 1 minute limitation means Troggy can only stink (or at least impact your CV) for 1 minute. If he dies, the effect would fade immediately. If you want the nausea to outlive Troggy, you need some kind of "continuous" advantage. Maybe give it continuing charges? Trog's in TOS aren't limited in number of uses per day, but how many times would thet get an opportunity? 6 charges of 1 minute (-0), or 1 fuel charge of 1 hour (also -0) would seem to do it. An hour per day would seem to be plenty, and you don't have to pay for reduced END! [Let's assume "doesn't affect Trogs" is a +0, shall we.]

It's generally hard to do any game on a straight conversion. I normally try to convert the feel of the system and characters more than the precise mechanics. If it's instant death for unarmored foes, 7d6 RKA probably does it.

I can recall a time when my group played three games: Champions, AD&D and Call of Cthulhu. One player summed up success and lethality something like this: Champions: Play well, and you have a good chance of succeeding at any adventure. Play poorly and the worst case is you'll be knocked out. Death is highly unlikely. D & D: Play well, and you have a decent chance of succeeding at any adventure. Death is a possibility, but low if you play well. Play poorly, and death is likely. C of C: Play extremely well, bordering on perfect, and you have even odds of surviving the adventure.

Refer to the FREd comments on "racial EC's". To me, all three of the above imply a racial abilities EC, so the most you could buy will be the minimum expected of all androids/golems/demons. So, unless ALL androids have 10 points flash defense, for example, it comes out of the EC. Personally, I don't associate "android" with "can't be blinded", so it doesn't fit. "EC: Superhuman Powers" and "EC: Alien Powers" would seem as (in)valid, to me, as the constructs you list above. There does not seem to be a link which explains why a single drain would logically affect all of these powers at once. Turning that around, I would have to accept it is legitimate to pay +1/4 to Drain any one Android Power, or +2 to drain them all at once. If it's a common special effect for an EC, it must also be a common special effect for adjustment powers, right? [ASIDE: Shouldn't all those powers pay for Inherent then? They should all be inherent, given they are standard abilities attributable to your physical form. I don't like Inherent much, and given the impact on the adjustment power rules for power frameworks, inherent powers clearly don't belong there. To light a further fire, don't we have Inherent running, and birds have Inherent flight? Aren't all our Characteristics Inherent?] Given most of us just look at having the DEF at all times, it's the same basic effect. It is probably more correct to say it makes no significant combat effect (although you will be affected by different NND's, and I think more use force field than armor as the defense). Inside or outside an EC, the bigger question is why a force field costs more points for the same defenses/SFX combination. Armor (or PD/ED + Damage Resistance) is already persistent, and does not require visible special effects. Since it is persistent, arguably it comes with Always On built in (with the same problem it's hard to get an innoculation). Although many of us assume a visible SFX, armor is not inherently Visible unless it Costs END according to the FAQ. An equivalent Force Field needs to be 0 END, persistent and Invisible to all sense groups. Although you get the always on point break, it's still more expensive. 10 DEF armor (or 10 resistant PD/ED): 15 points 10 DEF Force Field modified per above: 10 x 3/1.5 = 20 points. Why is a force field significantly more expensive for the same effects? Surely not for the sole reason that it can be placed in an elemental control! We don't have a special "costs more" energy blast so it can go in an EC? If only the powers that cost more can go in an EC, why not scrap both concepts?

This will depend on the campaign setting. How lethal is combat intended to be? With an average 16 rDef, a 4d6 KA inflicts no BOD damage unless it rolls above the average of 14, and 7d6 will average about 8.5 (24.5 average roll). However, they have the potential to do a lot of STUN. 40d6 KA is pretty much "kills whoever it hits", since it will do 140 average BOD, and that 16 DEF won't shave much off. Practically, it's a nuke. It's a 1,200 point attack, which is probably the best measure of raw power. Commonly, I see 60 point (12 DC) limits, and 75 point (15 DC) limits to avoid instant kill attacks, but it depends on the combat structure you're trying to create. If you want an "instant death" effect for unarmored targets, 6d6 or 7d6 RKA are about right.

The "get him before he gets me" theory may also come into play. "Well, we'll just try to distract Mighty Man - if he catches us, we go to the police. Oh well.. But we'd better hire someone to take out the CrookKiller. Run into him and it's all over." Actually, this helps out the original posted issue in a couple of ways. First, make this quid pro quo clear to the player up front. If you are killing the villains, they will come at you harder than after the others. And they're probably likely to target the killer first - after all, as long as he's down, they only get jail cells if they lose the battle overall. Second, make sure it happens if our black ops friend decides to save the state some trial expenses. One reason to show some restraint up front. If the enemies all fight to kill, it's a lot tougher for the heroes, or the players, to show similar restraint. "Judge Judy, we gots no means of support since he kilt off mah husband. Without him robbin' liquor stores, how's I sposed to send lil' Billy to college?"

Re: Hmm... You can buy partially limited powers - why not partially advantaged? The "partially limited powers" description on FREd p 180 is a good example of a character who has variable END costs on different levels of power. Just apply Reduced End to the first 4d6 in the example. Some advantages are clearly absolute, but a lot could work on the basis that you forego the advantage entirely if you choose to use the non-advantaged dice. So, like, AP is 0 END? Again, I can't see why not. Someone will doubtless show up to tell me exactly how I'm giving away the farm here, but let's say you had an 8d6 AP blast. That costs 60 points, of which 20 is the AP. It should cost 6 END, of which 2 is for AP. For 10 points, make AP cost 0 END and the entire attack costs 4 END. [Mind you, it would be more efficient to make the whole attack 1/2 END for 10 points, so it costs 3 END] A lot of advantages clearly need to apply to the power as a whole (eg. you can't Trigger just the AP portion of the attack).

Not looking at the book, but I bet they generally spend more than 60 AP on defenses as well. Especially if you consider Regeneration, DCV bonuses and DEX over some number to be "defensive powers".

ooo...how 4 color! I must have missed that one - I've certainly never seen it applied. Oh, I see it - it's supposed to be an average, not a maximum. I've still never seen average resistant defenses fall that low in a supers campaign (including the standard Hero characters). It's probably good for a gritty, street level structure, or even a structure closer to four color, but where combat is more oriented to death of combatants. Like any other restriction, it depends on the tone and structure of the campaign. 6-14 average DC's...4d6 KA vs 10 rDef...not pretty!

That abuse is much easier prevented - show me the tightly knit special effects that bind all these powers together. There's no such thing, for example, as "EC: Defenses". It is also noteworthy that I may only buy these powers if "they take the limitation costs END or the GM permits it". So? I can't buy any power if the GM doesn't permit it. Just hang a stop sign over the construct and be done with it! Enhanced senses, you say? Why, Steve's discussion on FREd 204 suggests an EC would commonly have a sensory power (but likely only one per EC). I wonder which ones he's referring to, since very few cost END. By the way, Flash, Power and Mental Defense, as well as Enhanced Senses, are all Special Powers that require GM permission in any power construct (just like powers costing no END in an EC). Note that power, mental and flash defense could all be purchased as part of a force field, which also grants resistant defenses, so no need for damage resistance. Make it 0 END (and maybe always on) and you have your special defenses. And forcing them all to cost END hardly seems the solution to this problem. So I make them cost END (maybe only to start up) and buy all my powers that would otherwise cost END to reduced/0 END to compensate. So Aid was legit if it cost END, but since it was changed to incorporate "0 END", it's no longer appropriate? Yet I can buy an EB and reduce it to 0 END. Maybe I should be allowed to buy Life Support Costs END, 0 END. It's a stupid construct, obviously. A force field with multiple extra defenses tossed in also gets around another issue with EC's - if you put in powers that are very low cost, you eliminate the benefit on higher cost items. An EC with 10 points flash defense, a 75 point attack power and a couple of 50 point powers [extreme example] is horribly inefficient. Total cost 5 + 5 + 70 + 45 + 45 = 170 points. Take out the Flash Defense and buy it separately, and pay 25 + 50 + 25 +25 + 10 = 135 points. And no, you can't have a slot for "10 Mental Defense, 10 Power Defense, 10 Flash Defense, 10 Lack of Weakness and 10/10 Damage Resistance" to force it to cost 50 points. No point putting multiple attacks in an EC either. Let's say you already have a 60 point power in your EC, and you want some attacks. Three attacks costs 90 points. A multipower with three Ultra attacks costs 78. Neither construct allows multiple power attacks (absent special GM permission - there's that "GM permits it" business again). You could mix & match if your multi uses regular slots, but that's 96 points (oooo...+6 to be allowed to mix & match - a +1/15 advantage!). Make it 5 attacks, and we get 150 in the EC, 90 in the multi or 120 in the multi with mix & match potential. And this ignores the fact the attack generally costs more than the other EC powers, so it generally does cost more than 50% its usual cost. The EC works best for non-attack powers, or where the character will only have one or two attack powers (and some big related powers). Funny you should mention life support, by the way. As a power costing as much as 50 points, it would be a nice one to get a point break on. Given its general utility as compared with, say, a 50 point attack power or a 50 point defensive power, it seems legit that you could get a point bvreak somewhere. Mind you, in my campaigns, players have generally purchased life support because they needed it for their character's conception, not sought out conceptions that justified life support. FTL travel is another, although it's less expensive. Can EC's be abused? Sure. Is putting a power that costs no END in an EC usually abusive? I don't believe so. Can they be abused with powers that DO cost END? Sure. So why put this special restriction in place for EC's only? Regeneration - that would be a persistent power that doesn't cost END, wouldn't it? Sure, it's constructed from a power that normally costs END, but the net effect is that I have a power which, by its nature in the rule books, never costs END. An always on force field is visible to three sense groups. So much for stealth - your crackly force field makes it very difficult to sneak up on people. Disguise yourselves to pass unnoticed? Sorry - you're down to the "trenchcoat and big hat" school of subtlety. And no, you don't get distinctive features for that, any more than anyone with a force field gets an "easily concealed" DF since he can shut it down. Hopefully, you also purchased Immune to Diseases - you're very difficult to innoculate with 15 Resistant PD you can't shut down. Secret ID? I think not! Just off the top of my head. Always On wouldn't be listed as a separate limitation if it didn't commonly cause problems to have powers it applies to unable to be shut down.

You mention already looking at END batteries, but this seems the most effective means of accomplishing what you're looking for. "Multiple charges" equate to higher END costs from the battery, it gradually recovers and you could use Aid, Absorb, Healing and/or Transfers to boost its END stealing points from others. If you also want to slap a limit on how many times a day the power(s) can be used, each power could have its own charges, or the END battery itself could be charged simulating a limit to the number of times per day you can draw on it. My general approach is not to try to duplicate other games' mechanics too precisely, especially when it gets exceptionally complicated under the Hero system. If I want to play a D&D wizard, I'll play D&D. In Hero, I look for something different from what I can play in whatever other game.

The owner of the phone number must be on file somewhere. If he can pay cash, then he should have no problem. Of course, he should consider where he leaves the phone while in secret ID - hard to explain why you don't answer it... If you can get by with local calling only, perhaps you can stay somewhat anonymous. I'm not a big fan of cellphones, so I wouldn't be familiar with anonymous phones. You have a number - there must be a name attached to it somewhere. At the end of the day, from a game perspective, it's no different from a car. If you want to use it in play, you pay the points for it (assuming the campaign as a whole doesn't allow equipment purchases with money).

If the SFX justify it, I'd permit armor in an AC. +10/+10 Force Field 0 End is the same cost, so there's no real cost break. If he wants to add Persistent, he has to add Always On first, so the force field winds up cheaper than armor anyway. Technically, if I buy my Armor (or any other defense) "costs End only to activate", it's legal in the EC. Personally, I don't see the huge abuse that requiring all EC powers to cost END is preventing. I can have an Aid, for example, in my EC if I make it cost END. I can have an EB reduced to 0 END. So why force the Aid to cost END? As for the DEF/Attack quandry, my experience is that players generally take the EC to the lower total (eg. their defenses and movement power) and spend extra for an attack power, if they have an attack power in the EC at all. Far more common is an EC with no attack powers and a multipower for attacks if the player wants some versatlity. Multiple attack powers in an EC are not cost effective.

Well, I suppose most characters have an address. How many have an address they wish to give out (for billing purposes)? "Sure Batman, we'll just send the bill to Wayne Manor. That Mr. Wayne sure is swell to take care of your bills like that." Certainly, there are ways around it, but hey - we pay points to justify those ways around things! hmmm...FoxBat disguises himself as each member of the supergroup and signs up for dozens of cell phone plans. And the bills start pouring in... "Crusaders won't pay their phone bills. Film at 11"

I'd allow it, with a pretty hefty limitation. Remember that you go to DCV 0 if you recover, and you don't get the recovery if you get hit/take damage before your next phase.

That's not "Invisible to one", it's "Invisible to all but one". Whether the orcs have the reaction you suggest depends on how aware they are of Magic, which in some part means how common is it. Now, if we talk about our character in a modern campaign pulling the same stunt on the Chairman of the Board, he'll be seeking psychiatric help before too long.

Better yet, set him up to destroy his killer first time. If you can come back as a ghost...

Dice rolling is easy to get rid of. Make it standard effect. 18d6 = 54 points, so I can get +20 (even the guy who's in a hurry stops), +10 (forget it happened) and get a 24 ego. The breakout roll will be the bigger issue. Even if evereyone has an 8 ego (do I'm 16 above what I needed), some of them will roll an 8- first try. A mental illusion that totally dissociates its target from reality would also do it, but you still have the breakout problem.

Re: It can't be linear Gotta call you on that one - It's not useless! I've been meaning to look fpor how far "earth orbit" is and you gave me a good number - THANKS! Now, any idea how many game inches = 1 light year?

To me, a necklace sounds Accesiible. Your comment about wanting the bonus without the drawbacks seems misplaced Seems to me this character is taking the drawbacks without the bonus. If it's easily grabbed, it SHOULD be accessible, which is a larger limitation. Perhaps the player might redefine the focus to be IAF - it can be grabbed but, since its only value seems to be ornamental, no one bothers.

I believe the golden age character had to wait an hour before taking another pill, consistent with your comments.

I can see where this would sometimes be advantageous - we're fighting Big Ugly Megavillain, so I'll be invisible only to him, and not to my teammates. But it seems to me it's generally limiting, as it's more common to encounter multiple foes. "Hmmm, my teammate FlameBoy acts like he can't see that guy. I'll help him out. " zzzaaap!! In a fantasy campaign, how often will it be as useful to be invisible to ONE orc, rather than to all the orcs? Only when just one orc is there!

Sounds like it's being used for abuysing PC's who are trying to metagame. Player: The only reason that the common substance I can't see through wuld ever be encountered is because the GM is trying to hide something. GM: No, you encounter a common substance fairly commonly because - guess what - it's common! If you think this substance isn't common, you should not have defined it as the common substance you can't perceive through, should you?

Well, each slot has "costs END", so that's -1/2 to the base. The multi as a total has 8 shots (with 8 slots), so that's -1/2. Tack on, say -1 on the pool cost for "no choice which slot to use each time" and the base costs 23 (90/4), leaving room for 3 more slots, so now we're up to 12 (which raises the base points, if course). UGH! The only catch is that he's out of luck after 12 shots - no more charges. Given the magnitude of limitations, I think I would look the other way and let the player have unlimited shots with the final slot, but that would be cheating Hmmm...let's look at this another way. The first slot has 1 charge (-2) and Costs END (-1/2). All the others have more limits due to increased END cost, and the last has at least 8x END (-3.5). What if the base has "Variable Limitation" for - 1 1/4 and "no choice which order to use slots and can't vary each slot's limitations" for -1 90/3.25 = 28 points for the base. We've got 17 points to spend on slots before we hit 45. Slot 1 costs 3 (1 ch; costs END - 90/3.5 = 2.57) Slots 2 to 7 cost 2 each Slot 8 is 12d6 AP EB, x8 END and costs 2 (90/4.5 = 20). 17 points spent on slots. Total cost - 45 points Once he hits x8 END, that's all it can take out of him. I guess he could buy only (say) 7 shots/slots, and spend his extra 2 points on 12d6 AP blast, only if MP slots all used (call it -1/2), x 88 END (-43 1/2 limit), but that seems excessive somehow At the end of the day, you're looking at "GM Fiat" to make this work. He could get 8 charges that cost 9 END each for 45 points. I don't think getting unlimited shots whose END cost increases by 9 each time should be more expensive, and the multipower construct makes it cost the same - it's going to be painful to use after even two or three of shots; forget 8. If he made the whole EB x 5 END (-3 limit), he'd get it for 30 points with unlimited usage, and pay 45 END per shot (OUCH!). Seems to me the "right" cost is somewhere between 30 and 45. I'd gut feel the END doubling as a +1 to +2 limitation (+1 = 45 points, and equates to 4 charges - using it after that will be crippling anyway; +2 means 30 points which equates to 5x END at the outset, which would be crippling from the start). I'm inclined to say +1 1/2 for a cost of 36, same as 4 charges that cost normal END. For six points, he gets a very few shots that are not prohibitively expensive to fire. [Maybe he could have 12x END from the outset and have a Linked Heal to END with charged dice having standard 6 END per die, but that's likely to drive me insane to try to compute, so let's go with the above...]

Or call it "one hex area", the basis being he's so accurate that, unless the target dives for cover out of the hex, he will hit. Crackshot or Deadshot are others with a bit of history, but these more connect with firearms. How about "50" (the point value of a double bullseye in darts) or "Sure Thing" (since we all know it can't miss if it's a sure thing). No brilliant name ideas here, obviously...