Hugh Neilson

20% is picked out of RAW which has survived since the mid-1980's. It is not objectively right, but neither is it objectively wrong, as you seem to believe not only is the case, but is blindingly obvious. I do not believe that utility can be measured with the same precision you seem to believe. If 5 extra meters of Flight allows me to close to have no range modifier, or fly up out of my opponent's reach, then being able to do so while still adding 3d6 of damage to my Blast, or a 3d6 Flash to blind my target, seems very useful indeed. Being able to divide the pool between PD and ED when facing off against an opponent with both physical and energy attacks also seems extremely valuable. After having fired off my attack with +3d6 while hovering in the air, and being fired on in return a segment later, the ability to Abort and increase my relevant defense by 19, while keeping 1 point in Flight so I do not drop like a rock also seems quite valuable. Is it worth 30 points, 20 points or 10 points? That measure of precision seems elusive at best. If I don't consider that extra versatility between Blast and Flash to be worth 12 points, I can certainly choose other builds. Is it worth 12 points to sometimes be able to bypass 10 points of Flash Defense with a 12d6 Flash, other times be able to hit with a full 12d6 of normal damage, and still other times hit for 10d6 of damage and a blinding flash? I don't think it is obviously worth 6 points, or 9 points, or 12 points. With no obvious superior cost, and 30+ years of history for a specific cost, I'm fine with the current 20% cost. Your model would save 6 points or 1/12 of the 72 point cost of having no flexibility. Do you think the system is so precise that every cost is correct in every situation within 8.33%? If so, I am very interested in seeing the analysis by which you computed those figures.

Normal darkness, sure. That is the kind of darkness CE, penalty to the sight sense would generate. Darkness power or CE with penalties to the entire Sight Group? Then IR vision or UV vision does not work as it is part of the sight group, but IR perception not using the simulated senses rule (and therefore not getting the range, etc. of sight for free) would work just fine. UV detects ulttraviolet light, so in a cave with no UV light, there is nothing to detect. It is as helpless as normal vision with no normal light to detect.

This is exactly why a Flexible multipower that allows you to get to the maximum is futile. You would be the only character who needs to sacrifice campaign-maximum defenses to have a campaign maximum attack. Obviously I am missing something, because I do not recall any occasion where you present this in any way other than a bunch of tiny fixed slots (whether in one Multipower or several) to simulate variable slots. First off, the Starburst "everything in one big pool" build is never going to be efficient. This is not because variable slots are, de facto, valueless, but because that 1 or 2 DC attack would not be worth paying 5 - 10 points for, whether within or outside the Multipower. Any premium on those first few DCs is wasted, whether Variable slots cost 20%, 18%, 15%, 12% or 10.1%. Build Starburst with a Blast, Defenses and Flight all in a fixed slot multipower and he will be just as useless. Ultra Boy would either run around being invulnerable and achieving nothing, or be a fine red mist within three game sessions, in a typical Hero campaign. This is a pretty common issue, really - many Supers in the comics have no obvious defensive powers, but they need decent defenses to survive in Hero. I can see three models for the Starburst character. One would see him as is - everything in variable slots in the MP. That's pretty inefficient. The second would have a base Blast (maybe 8d6 or 10d6) and perhaps some base defenses, with a Variable MP to fly, enhance his attack and/or enhance his defenses. The third would be a base +1d6 Blast, a Fixed slot of, say, +8d6 (no point Blasting for less than 9d6 in most cases) and Variable slots for further bonuses to Blast, defenses and/or Flight. Of course, the fourth is a plain vanilla Blast, Defenses and Flight with no MP (or a multi-attack MP). Like you, Phil, I have played since 1e. I expect 10% and 20% were selected as much or more to work nicely with 5 and 10 point increments as the game was even more based on that match initially than it is now, and not from a sense that these were the perfectly costed percentages. This is also much less an issue with non-attack powers such as movement or defenses. To me, you are picking 15% out of the air. I see nothing (other than the cheesy "buy a whole bunch of itty bitty slots instead of one big one" approach) to suggest the costing is wrong. If we accept that the "itty bitty" model is not cheesy, then there should be no additional cost for variable slots as they will always be more expensive than a pile of tiny fixed slots. You say "so far, 15% seems about right". Does that come from actual playtesting (i.e. you have used this, and now players use variable slots much more often, as it is now an effective choice for character construction) or from your gut feel that it would be better? You note you have not playtested it extensively - how much have you playtested it? Can you post a couple of real characters using this model so we can compare how they would cost differently under the old model? Like you, I am willing to hear arguments. Unlike you, I don't believe the lack of desire to buy variable slots stems entirely, or even primarily, from the 20% per slot cost instead of a 15% slot cost. A 6d6 Flash + 6d6 Blast allows the character to blind their target and do damage. Neither a 12d6 Flash nor a 12d6 Blast allows both. Having both is more flexible. I'd be more inclined to have a 10d6 Blast + 2d6 Flash, or a 6d6 Flash and an NND or AVAD Blast, as 6d6 against standard defenses in a 12 DC game is categorically useless, of course. But to state that "raw power is always more expensive than flexibility" with only one example does not indicate a thoroughly reasoned conclusion. I would much rather have a Multipower of 5 (Flex) or 10 (Fixed) 2 DC attacks than a single 4 DC attack in a game centered around 12DC attacks. Half the raw power has a shot, at least, of bypassing the target's defenses and achieving something. The answer is always "it depends". If those three slots are, say, +40 rPD, +40 rED and 60 meters of flight, I would greatly value the flexibility (especially if I expect a mixed bag of opponents, and can hover over them with modest Flight). If they are a 12d6 Blast, a 12d6 Sight Flash and a 12d6 STR Drain, perhaps I am less inclined to value flexibility, but it would be nice to be able to blind my target and knock him over or weaken him at the same time, so there is still value there. If they are a 6d6 NND, 12d6 Blast or 4d6 RKA, then the flexibility has much less practical value. You know what could be really sweet? An 8d6 Blast (40 points) and a Multipower with a 20 point pool including +4d6 Blast, 4d6 Sight Flash, +20 PD, +20 ED and +20 meters flight. That's 80 points, cheaper than your second choice and only a couple of points more than the first, if they are all Flex Slots. Tacking a bit of Sight Flash onto my Blast could be well worth a few less STUN past defenses, and higher defenses and/or movement could also be sweet, especially if I am fighting to delay or distract, or I am not attacking at all. Is there utility to the flexibility? Sure. Is it worth, to go back to your two choices, 18 points or the 9 points it would cost at a 15% premium? A much better question, and one with no objective answer.

Since that "ordinary darkness" applies only to the Sight sense, not the entire Sight Group, any sense in the Sight Group (like Infrared Vision, Ultraviolet Vision or even Nightvision) will be able to see in the Change Environment model. "Seeing in the dark" senses alter how the character interacts with his environment (specifically, how the character's ability to see interacts with darkness). CE to make it dark, or make it light, Changes that Environment, with all ramifications this may have. Just like Change Environment: full of water does not cause someone who can breathe water to suffocate.

Given this is what we have from the limited current rules, I think that makes the best starting point. I don't see how we get darker than the description given for "a dark night" and still have any light to make sight useful. As well, any further penalty makes Darkvision more expensive, which just starts "point inflation". "A complete absence of light" is as dark as it can reasonably get. This is my basis for the determination - 6e refers to Darkvision being constructed as "+4 PSLs to counter darkness penalties". If it could be dark enough to impose -5, that construction fails. This bonus is very easy to achieve - a SuperScientist will often have a 15- PER roll from INT alone. Such a character can effectively navigate in anything less than total darkness just as effectively as we navigate in ordinary light. Of course, that -4 penalty remains meaningful if there is some other penalty to overcome, and that character's visual acuity is still reduced - it simply started out far better. Again taking my cues from what we find in the rules, there are no bonuses for better lighting, so the base must be as good as it can get. That would be the default, and another reason for using CE - that power does not simulate a Dispel or Suppress. Darkness typically affects the entire Sight Group, and is by definition impenetrable. It also makes 20 points of Darkness (5 for Sight Group + 15 for extending the radius 3 meters to 4 meters) better than 4 meters of CE "complete darkness". "Twice as dark" seems inconsistent with your premise that "dark is the default". If we start from -5 is a complete absence of light (i.e. it is no longer a penalty - normal sight has nothing to see), then: -4 is "black as a dark night" -3 is probably "a moonless night" -2 is "night in the city and -1 is "dimly lit/twilight". Perhaps the better phrasing would have been "dark is not the in-game default - the in-game default is ordinary lighting such that there are no penalties to sight rolls".

I am seriously not clear how you think you have demonstrated the "relative value". I do apologize for "1 1/3" - I should have fixed that after I more closely reviewed your numbers (something from earlier lead me to 1 1/3). However, it does not change the reality that, if the comparable is "I buy a Multipower with many tiny slots to get similar effect to variable slots", then outside of rounding adjustments, the tiny-slots approach will be the cheaper approach because it will cost out based on the flexible slots cost. If there is ANY value to be placed on variable slots, and therefore they will cost more than fixed slots, then the "multiple micro-slots" cannot be allowed. How did you determine 20% is too high, but are unable to assess whether 18%, 15% or 12.5% would be more appropriate? The only comparison you have offered, to my knowledge, is the "mirco-slots", and if that argument is accepted, then there should be no premium price for variable slots because micro slots can avoid that cost. It strikes me as very odd to "know" that 20% is too high, but believe maybe it could be 18%, or 12.5%. How about 19.99999967%? You are moving my goalpost. A 12d6 Blast costs 60 points. A 12d6 Flash costs 60 points. A 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (not one at a time, both together) costs 60 points. The last has significantly less raw power than either of the first two, but the exact same cost. Why do they have exactly the same cost when they have far less raw power, and precious little added flexibility? The ability to choose between a 12d6 Blast or a 12d6 Flash costs 72 points, a 20% price increase for this flexibility. Or we can choose between a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash for 60 points, losing 1/6 the original of raw power for the same 60 points. Getting 60 points out of a Variable slots MP is mathematically problematic - closest I see is a 43 point pool with an 8 point slot (8d6 Blast, say) and a 9 point slot (8 1/2d6 Flash). What should he get? 9d6 in total? 45 + 9 + 9 = 63 points at present. Do you want it reduced to 60? Then the slots need to cost 7.5, or 1/6 of the accessible AP. For the difference between 1/5 and 1/6, I'll stick with what we have, thanks. How much more "should" it cost to be able to mix & match? An 11d6 Blast and a 1d6 Flash allows me to reduce the target's CV for all of my teammates for the most brief of times, and still knock the target over most of the time, at the cost of about 3.5 STUN past his defenses (compared to an "all or nothing" 12d6 Blast) or of him staying blind longer ("all or nothing" 12d6 Flash). That seems like a lot of value for the 12 points paid for that extra flexibility. If I accept the "micro Mini Multi" approach, I can buy 1d6 Blast and 1d6 Flash (10 of my 72 points) and 5 Multipowers with a 10 point pool and two fixed slots, one of +2d6 Blast and one of +2d6 Flash. I have 2 points left over, so let's make one MP with Flexible slots. 10 points for the base attacks, 4 x 12 = 48 for four Fixed MPs and 14 for one Variable MP = 72 points. I can have up to 11d6 Flash + 1d6 Blast, or 11d6 Blast + 1d6 Flash, or anything in between. That is way more flexible than having 2 fixed slots, and carries exactly the same cost. Reasonable? The reality is that campaign maximums are the reason that variable slot MPs have never been popular. Starburst-style multipowers trade off attack, defense and movement. How often have you seen a game, or published characters, who have a Multipower of lower-powered attacks, rather than a multipower of campaign-standard attacks in fixed slots? The practical reality is that, even if you price variable slots equal to fixed slots, you will never see a character in a 12 DC, 25 defense max game who buys a Multipower with a 12d6 attack and +20/+20 rDEF instead of buying both outside the Multipower. The player will want to be able to use campaign standard attacks at the same time he benefits from campaign standard defenses. I have toyed with a character with a 10d6 Blast and a Multipower with +2d6 Blast, 2d6 Sight Flash, 2d6 STUN Drain, 2d6 END Drain (pick a few more Drains). But there is no point running those as Variable slots. I have run a VPP-using character (in 5e IIRC) who routinely used below DC max Blasts and tacked on a small Flash, Drain, etc. More often, however, he would combine two or three small attack powers like an END drain, a STUN drain and a Flash. Not great at taking down opponents on his own, but very good at setting up a teammate for the KO blow. "How do we get to campaign maximum?" Outside a multipower so we can be at campaign maximum all the time. Then we move the attack power into a Swiss Army Attack Multiplier of campaign maximum attacks. Attacks are the Absolute Worst Powers to dip below campaign max. How useful is a 6d6 Blast in a typical Supers game? 8d6? 10d6? 12d6? How many players limp around with 9DC attacks in a 12DC "max" game? If they do, they are unlikely to be using normal attacks or KAs - it could work targeting less common exotic defenses. Even then, I think they will gravitate to the full 12 DCs. The only way I could see that Variable Slot MP that only gets you to campaign max would be in a game where the point totals and campaign max'es are such that you can't afford to be campaign max in all relevant categories. That, I think, is how Starburst was originally envisioned. He could get a 12d6 Blast if he sacrificed movement and defenses, in a game where attacks normally capped out at 8 - 10d6.

6e V2 provides us with a sight PER roll modifier for "Extremely high contrast (e.g., a lighted object in darkness) of +5; Night -2; Dark Night -4 (p 142 elaborates "such as might occur on a moonless night way out in the country, far from any of the lights of civilization"). It also indicates we can spend a full phase at half DCV to get +2, so those night modifiers seem pretty charitable. At least size modifiers are noted as generally applying only to things that are far away, or that someone is trying to conceal. From v1, we know that Darkvision is modeled on +4 Sight PER Rolls, only to eliminate penalties for darkness. With that in mind, I am starting from the presumption that anything below -4 from Darkness is "absolute lack of light". That alone does not fill me with confidence, but the fact that my pricing aligns with the pricing of Darkness makes me happier. What we don't have is any mechanic for lighting a dark (or semi-dark) area. To me, the Light we produce cannot do more than cancel penalties for Darkness, but I am starting from "enough to wipe them out". It's easy to build "dim light" that reduces the penalty by only 2 points, if desired. This is more a challenge of duplicating characters with a long publishing history and many examples of doing many different things. At some point, a Multipower is more expensive than a Cosmic VPP. That is the point at which I would transition to a VPP, even if one with only pre-defined slots and or limited SFX (which further reduces the cost of the VPP). With 6e decoupling max AP from pool size, this becomes more viable for, say, the Archers with an arrow for every occasion. The problem with VPP is that it opens up a world of possibilities, but that is the same world many other games open by allowing "but logically, my power/spell/whatever should be able to do X". That is really a VPP with a limited SFX. Once we cap the penalty at -4 and accept that anything " more dark" lacks any light and requires enhanced senses, that issue is markedly reduced. And as someone in the "math should be equal" camp, if I'm sold, many others probably can be as well. Dark is not the default condition. We assume as a base that you get normal PER rolls, so that assumes you are in the light. You want to make it dark, you buy an ability to do so. To say "dark is the default" because it is an absence of light implies that absolute zero in a vacuum is also the default.

BTW, Phil, as this thread has become heated at points, and as I know my own tone often is read as pretty confrontational, I wanted to state that I find this a good discussion of the issue. Your examples highlight where the RAW may be giving us a poor result. I think intuitively most of us would not have allowed the "tiny fixed slots" model, but an objective read of the RAW says the approach is rules-legal. I'm still waiting for Steve's comments on the rules question board, but that will clarify what he may have wanted to say, not what was published.

Halving or eliminating a target's DCV is also pretty effective if Multiple Attacks are in play. If I would hit that 10 DCV Villain on 11- before his DCV was halved, now it's a 16-, so two or three attacks as a Multiple Attack will cost be a lot of END, but he's not likely getting up in a hurry. Drop him to 0 and I can make 3 attacks that will miss only if I roll an 18...

My point exactly - the construct you suggested and the "multiple multipower" both fit within the RAW. It shows that, if we allow what I would suggest is an abusive application of a broadly stated concept regarding how framework slots can add to powers outside a framework, but not to slots in the same, or a different, framework, then similar flexibility can be achieved at a lower price. It does not demonstrate what the appropriate price is. If I were addressing that concept, I would change it in a very simple manner: (a) All powers work together. If the character has a framework with Growth, Density Increase and Hand Attack, and sufficient points to assign to all three slots, then they work together in exactly the same manner they would if every one were purchased outside a framework, or if some were in one or more frameworks and others were not. (b) The GM should disallow abusive constructs where multiple slots in one or more frameworks are used to simulate variable slots without paying the extra cost of variable slots. I maintain that it is campaign limits which have made variable slots unpopular. I have never seen anyone take the approach of multiple tiny fixed slots, in one or more frameworks, to get around the cost of variable slots. Mental Defense is a Special Power. Adding the advantage "resistant" does not change that. The Resistant Defense power is a standard power (as was Force Field before it), and both have been used to get special defenses into frameworks when this would otherwise not be allowed. To me, the simple answer would be to ditch Resistant Protection as a power, leaving PD and ED (resistant or otherwise) as a "Standard Power" of Characteristics, and Exotic defenses either standard powers that can be included in frameworks or special powers which cannot. Multipowers are Caution Sign and VPPs are Stop Sign already. We don't need a special category of powers that can't be in a framework. Let the GM apply judgement (and spell out some issues that should be vetted especially closely in the rules). You are basing that on your opinion of the relative value as absolute fact. If your concern is solely that flexible slots are only worth 1 1/3 x a fixed slot, perhaps the cost of a fixed slot should be AP/7 instead of AP/10. Determining an appropriate absolute price point for a Multipower slot is by no means an exact science. The best comparison, and it is a tough one, is "what would it cost to do the same thing with a VPP?" For every multipower, there comes a point where nit would be less costly to convert it to a VPP than to add another slot. Thanks for the example. I will tweak it just a bit to meet my objective, which was isolating the comparison to spending the same points on a similar construct. If I am reading you right, you are setting the cost of a flexible slot at 15% of max AP, as opposed to 10% of max AP for a fixed slot (and the RAW 20% cost of a variable slot). So... 70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight 2 2 meters flight (1 if we want to saw off the rounding benefit on the slots below) 75 point Multipower v 11(.25) +15d6 Blast v 11(.25) +25 rPD/+25rED v 11(.25) 75 meters of Flight So this fellow can get up to a 23d6 Blast, 35/35 defenses or 76 or 77 meters of flight. That is still less than the 24d6 or 45/41 defenses of my 7 multipower construct, albeit with a small loss in maximum flight speed, only 53 meters. As opposed to the third option, under current pricing, of 70 points for - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight 2 2 meters of flight 70 point Multipower v 14 +14d6 Blast v 13(13.2) +22 rPD/+22rED v 11 (10.8) 54 meters of Flight Adding decimal places for the same reason you did. This fellow can get up to a 22d6 Blast, up to 32 rDEF or up to 56 meters of flight. It does? Why does it cost me the exact same amount to have a 6d6 Blast and a 6d6 Flash (which I can use separately or apart as I see fit) or to have a 12d6 Blast, or a 12d6 Flash? The single attack has far more raw power than combing the Blast and the Flash, but their costs are identical. SUMMARY: There are really three issues here. The first is whether it should be possible to use multiple smaller fixed slots to simulate variable slots at a lower cost. To that, I say "No it should not". The second is what the price difference between a fixed and a variable slot should be. Here, I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me." The third is what the actual price of each type of slot should be, and again I say "The present system has not proven problematic to me." In my view, the reason variable slots have proven unpopular is not that they are too expensive, nor that the same effect can be gained with a "multiple fixed slot" alternative. It is that, at least in most games, they are not needed to hit campaign maxima in all areas and are not permitted to trade off exceeding campaign maxima in one or more areas by falling short in one or more other areas. I do not believe many, if any, GMs would allow any of our three builds, above, in a standard 12 DC, 25 rDEF game.

He did not say anyone downvoted his post. Dsatow's post on the prior page (suggesting a similar semantics issue between "every world" and "the default world") was downvoted.

The GM also begins with the Hero rules and defines how their game world differs, if at all. The GM can also make a game world where there is no gravity, but that is a departure from the Falling and Flying rules we currently have. He can change how fire works - perhaps it, too, is intelligent, and can choose what to burn and what not to burn. I think what many on this thread are suggesting is to define natural light and darkness, and how they are manipulated, for the default Hero System world. To me, the official rules do something in every world, subject to the ability of the GM to alter any and every rule. Why don't I just buy two skills - "know stuff" and "do stuff", write them on my character sheet and let the GM decide what they do, and how effective they are? One of Hero's hallmarks has been defining the rules - summarized as "you get what you pay for and you pay for what you get". This comments, from that perspectivem is "AntiHeroic". To me, the answer starts with defining how light works in general (we have some of that) and then defining how we can manipulate it. As a natural environmental element, such manipulation sounds a lot like Change Environment to me. It depends - over how large an area, is it ranged, etc. Change Environment sets the cost of a -1 penalty to PER rolls for one Sense Group is 3 points, so I will start with 9 points. Let's make it a 4 meter radius (+1/4 under Hero 1e) and No Range (-1/2). That's 11 AP, 7 real points. All of these natural traits of light are poorly simulated by the Images power, agreed. So I also agree that "you can't use CE and you have to us Images" is a poor rule decision, and should be changed. So how do we change it? To me, we already know how to price reduced light levels - we can do that easily with Change Environment. So let's base the pricing of enhancing the light level on that knowledge. We're not "using CE to provide bonuses". Rather, we are creating a new "noncombat effect of equal magnitude listed on the accompanying table, or which the GM permits" (6e v1 p 175) and determining its exact effects, as indicated on that page. We know that "The GM may limit how much of a negative modifier or other effect characters can create with Change Environment.", so let's limit the negative modifier which can be applied by Change Environment (suppress light). It costs 5 points to make a 1 meter radius impervious to the sight group using the Darkness power, and another 5 points for each +1 meter radius. That means a 4 meter radius would cost 20 points. A -4 penalty to Sight rolls costs 8 (note that this is one sense, not the sense group which includes Nightvision) and adding a 4 meter radius boosts that to 10. This seems like a reasonable cost - significantly less effective than the Darkness power, but also only half the price. It is eliminated by Nightvision. Since a -4 penalty still allows PER rolls, we need a greater "penalty" to eliminate all light so sight is useless. So what if we simply said "hey, that's awfully close to Darkness" and priced it at a 10 point base CE cost. Darkness would get the whole Sight Group, and this only gets Normal Sight, and needs AoE to affect an area, where Darkness starts with a 1 meter radius. It is cheaper to make our CE cover areas exceeding 4 meters radius, though. OK, so far we have not done much to create light, have we? Digging down further into CE, I note that, right after telling us you cannot use CE to create bonuses (yeah, it also says you can't create light, use images, but we've* already decided that's getting crossed out). It even goes on to say that (emphasis added) "GMs may wish to require characters to use Images instead of Change Environment to negate PER Roll penalties based on darkness, shadow, gloom, or the like, since Change Environment cannot be used to create light." I think that we have decided that we do not wish to require characters to use Images instead. So we will not. So that gives us a CE power that reduces these PER penalties. * "we", for this purpose, is defined as "those of us who have decided Images is irreparably flawed as a means of creating light". Unless otherwise stated, or context requires otherwise, this definition applies to the entire discussion. If you are not one of "we", consider yourself one of "them" instead. Well, if the creation of natural darkness costs 10 points as a base CE effect, then let's price the removal of natural darkness at the same 10 points. This creates enough ambient light for just the one character targeted by CE can see in a small area. It's an Attack Power, so it is perceivable by two senses, including sight. So what do we have? Maybe a tiny penlight flashlight, a small candle or those head-worn reading lights. But now we have something we can add Area of Effect to. If it's a four meter radius of natural light, then it illuminates an area in that 4 meter radius. People outside can see in, with no PER roll penalties other than range. They can see that there IS a light from a pretty fair distance - that's part of SFX. We can use AoE to give it a bigger radius, a line area or a cone if we want. Now, how do we get that Light that fades over a larger area? Well, there I like KS' Explosion. Normally an explosion loses 5 AP per two meters away from the source, but the possibility of buying a larger or smaller area and having it diminish slower or faster is in the RAW. So maybe our Light is purchased with a 16m Radius, Explosive (+1/4 net advantage). It needs to fade from full normal sight at the center to a -4 penalty at the fringe (a dark night rather than a complete absence of light), so five gradations. With that in mind, perhaps we simply rule that there is a 3 meter radius where there are no sight penalties, each further 3 meters imposes a -1 penalty, except the last two meters where a -4 penalty applies. That totals 16m radius. Thoughts? OK, that's a Line with a +1 advantage, and I assume 0 END, so 10 x 2.5 = 25 AP, with No Range since it always starts at the headlight, so real points. The cost should further be reduced by its limited arc, and any vehicle-specific rules.

The problem is in the inconsistent rules for "multiple slots" affecting the same power. If we take Phil's construct: 70 MP 4f +8d6 Blast 2f +4d6 Blast 1f +2d6 Blast 3f +10 rPD/+10 rED 2f +10 rPD/+3 rED 2f +3 rPD/+10 rED 4f +40 m Flight 2f +20 m Flight 1f +10 m Flight and 10 m of Flight outside the Multipower. remembering that the previous example compared one character with a 12d6 Blast (60 points) and +20 rPD/+20rED and 60 meters of flight to a second who had an 8d6 Blast, 10 rPD and 10 rED (so these slots are adding to powers outside the framework; let's also give him 3 PD and ED) and say "no way, can't have multiple slots with the same power", and spent 110 points on a Multipower. What stops the second character buying, for the same 110 points: 3 meters of Flight The following Multipower 5 times (70 points) 10 MP 1 f +2d6 Blast SLOT 1 1 f +4 rPD, +4 PD SLOT 2 1 f +4 rED, +4 ED SLOT 3 1 +10 m Flight SLOT 4 The following mutlipower 3 times (36 points) 10 MP 1 f +2d6 Blast SLOT 5 1 f +2 rPD, +2 PD, +2 rED, +2 ED SLOT 6 He can add up to 16d6 Blast, in 2d6 increments, capping out at 24d6 He can add up to +52 of either defense and +12 of the other, half Resistant, so 65 (36 resistant) and 15 (10 Resistant) or he can add +28 to one defense, +32 to the other, half resistant, for 41 and 45 (24 and 26 resistant) He can get up to 54m flight and still augment his defenses to 25/19 each or keep a 14d6 Blast (or vary between those two) He can typically assign 3 slots to Blast (adding to his base 6d6, he has 12d6), 3 SLOT 6, to add +12 PD and ED, half resistant (adding to the baseline character's +10 rPD/+10 rED for 22 defenses, 16 resistant, plus his base PD and ED, so he has 2 defenses more, but 4 rdef less than our base character) and 2 Slot 4's so he flies at 23 meters, slower than our 30 m base character, but not by a lot. This clearly games the system - he's using many tiny multipowers to avoid the added cost of variable slots. Phil, I remain of the view that your comparisons are invalid, mainly because using fixed slots to simulate variable slots is not in the "spirit of the rules". However, Phil's examples fit squarely within the letter of the rules - the character has a Blast, some PD and ED, some rPD and rED and some Flight outside any framework, so he can add multiple slots from the same MP, or slots from different MPs, to those powers. I do see value to flexibility, but Phil, let's look at your proposed revised cost of a Flexible slot - how would a character similar to the one we're toying with above be build under that model, with one slot per power (Blast, either PD and ED separate or together, and Flight), if we started with the same 8d6 Blast, no Flight, +10 rPD/rED and 3 PD/ED character, and built his flexi-slot MP with the remaining 110 points? I'm pretty happy that the "variable slot" character I scoped out above, without "many slots for the same power" shenanigans is pretty capable. How much more capable would he be under your model?

Even within the same genre, differences in how sight is treated exist. I don't believe I have ever seen a Supers comic suggest that a Super with really good eyesight, but no special senses, can see in total darkness. Way back when I was a kid, I remember picking up Avengers #115. They fought an unremarkable giant bug, and an equally unremarkable tribe of underground troglodyte humans. The former had no eyes and the latter could see in the dark (infrared, I believe). After they beat the bug in its pit, the Troglodytes poured water down to douse the lights. "Even my synthezoid eyes are useless in total darkness" was the phrase I recall. The only one on the team who could see (something must have been broken in Iron Man's armor...) was the Black Panther due to enhanced senses provided by the heart-shaped herb. Now, in Hero terms, he paid points to be capable of seeing in the dark. If his teammates paid for Enhanced Perception, or Enhanced Sight Perception, they got bonuses to see in every game session. Shouldn't the character who paid to be able to see in the dark be able, at least on occasion, to have an advantage as a result over his teammates who spent their points on other abilities, and do not possess such an enhanced sense?

What if your choice was to have either: - a 12d6 Blast (60 points) and +20 rPD/+20rED and 60 meters of flight, for 180 points, which would make you pretty much campaign standard attack and defenses OR - An 8d6 Blast, +10 rPD/+10 rED and no Flight (70 points) plus a 70 point Multipower with three variable slots, one for +14d6 Blast, one for +22 rPD/+22rED and one for 66 meters of Flight? You can designate +4d6 Blast (20), +10rPD/10rED (30) and have 20 meters of flight. Or you can have a 22d6 Blast, but you can't fly and your defenses are considerably lower than campaign standard. Or you can have a 10d6 Blast (a bit lower than campaign standard) and +30 rPD/rED, well above the campaign standard, with no flight? Or you can have +32 rPD/+32 rED, and Dodge (or just huddle down and take a recovery)? What if you went all out, and has a 120 point MP with three variable slots, a 20d6 Blast, +40 rPD/+40rED and 80 meters of flight? You can put 60 points in for a 12d6 Blast and 60 for +20rPD/+20rED most of the time, but when you need to move fast, you can sacrifice offense or defense to make it happen, if you turtle up you can have much higher defenses but no attack or flight, or you can land, drop your defenses to 6rPD/6rED and fire off a 20d6 Blast. Those seem pretty effective to me. The problem is that the GM won't care how low your defenses are, you aren't getting a 20d6 attack, and no way can you have +40/+40 resistant defenses even if it means you can't attack. The problem is not costing, but that few games will allow you to make real use of a Starburst type multipower, and you can afford campaign max DCs and defenses (which really means "campaign standard" as pretty much everyone will buy the max) without the savings of a multipower.

Yup. If a character could shift from "average campaign attack and defense" to "much higher attack (or defense) at the cost of well below campaign defense (or attack)", then there would be some tactics to motivate those variable slots. But if all you can do is have a campaign average attack or defense when the other is reduced below campaign norms, what's the point? You get to be less powerful at all times in one or both aspects.

On Monday, he picks up (or uses) the Greatsword Skullcleaver in Iceland. While using it, he Attacks the sword with his UAA Teleport. He has now hit the sword. He puts it back where he found it. On Tuesday, flies to Africa. On Wednesday, he Triggers (or ends the Delayed Effect) the Teleport, at which time Skullcleaver suffers the effect of being hit with that Teleport back on Monday and teleports to the character.

Well, if we move to the point that one can still see, even in a complete absence of light, I think we need to revisit Duke's proposal to assess the Hero qualities of the air our heroes breathe, because even someone with no Life Support should, with enough Skill Levels in Breathing, be able to keep right on going even when he has no breathable atmosphere at all. In complete darkness, sight does not work. Hearing fails entirely in a silence field. This is different from applying penalties due to reduced light, or ambient sound.

The problem is that they have reached a voting majority. Silly twits who run for office only win if enough other silly twits vote them in.

I think "three senses" was pretty early - I recall an old (comic book) w/u of Rose which detailed her Visible Ego powers being perceivable by sight, hearing and smell, in addition to Mental sense, and those w/u's were 1e/2e IIRC. 6e modified the "three senses" rule to two senses, one being sight absent specific GM permission. It also modified perceptibility to Obvious, Inobvious and Invisible.

I think this could be a reasonable add-on to Change Environment. Whether the price is right at a base 10 points, I don't know, but it does not seem unreasonable. Making it the user's space for 10 points, we can always make CE area effect.

In the days of Figured Characteristics the cost of those characteristics gained from +10 CON exceeded the 20 point cost of +10 CON. 2 ED (2 points) + 2 REC (4 points) +5 STUN (5 points) + 20 END (10 points) = 21 points of Figured for investing 20 points. Resistance to Stunning was an added bonus. Some of that came from Figured being overpriced, but some resulted because CON was discount priced when you incorporated the Figured's. However, in 6e, CON is basically a character tax. You have to buy enough to avoid being Stunned by an average, or slightly above average, hit in the game. Of course, the same could be said of CVs, defenses, STUN and many other attributes - as the campaign norm gets higher, you have to buy these up to stay competitive.

First off, I recall an automatic Casual Breakout roll as soon as an Entangle hit. That's only half Ego or half Con, of course. I get why a Mental Paralysis Hold Person does not defend the target. Why don't the Webs, Chains, etc. get in the sword's way? Why don't the bad guys use similar tactics? If these spells are so brutally effective surely people other than the PCs have figured that out! Often, having their own overpowered ability used against them makes players consider what is "fair" and "balanced" in a different light. One easy ruling would be that an Entangle that either does not block incoming attacks or is based on a stat other than STR must take the "no defenses" limitation. That makes it a lot easier to escape given a bit of time. A Freedom of Movement spell could simply enhance (m)DCV against entangles, or Suppress or Drain them - those spells need not be all or nothing either.

Actually, I thought the reveal that Leia had progressed in her own Jedi training to the point that she had crafted her own Lightsabre vindicated her little spacewalk in TLJ. One issue I have not seen raised - both Luke and Rey were extremely Force-strong. The Prequels established that the Jedi Order frowns on Jedi having romantic relationships. While it suggests they distract from the Jedi's duty, perhaps there is a more hidden reason that they knew that the offspring of those already "strong in the Force" were equally, or more, strong. Cloning is bad enough - imagine a Jedi/Sith breeding program over a few generations. Oh, and Ninja-Bear captures my experience in the theatre as well. Of the three, this was the best. With 20/20 hindsight, I think this trilogy tried to do too much, and as a result achieved too little. Trying to focus on both the Classic team and the New Team effectively pushed out the time needed to really develop the new team, especially in the first two films. While Carrie Fisher's death may have prevented some of this, reducing Leia's role, they did not make the mistake of excessive focus on Lando (or Luke or Han in ForceGhost form). Instead, the first trilogy main characters were treated as they probably should have been treated from the outset, as mentors with a limited role and not the stars of the show. Had FInn, Poe and Rey been the focus from the outset, instead of the first movie being "Han Solo Flies Again", perhaps we would have seen a better result. That huge cast also cost us something the first trilogy had - a Universe outside the Rebellion and the Empire/First Order. Comparing RoTJ to RoS, the former had the opener at Jabba's Palace. The latter had...a bit of backstory chat as we worked to stop the First Order.

Yes - dsatow is just pointing out the difference between a 60 point Variable slot of (say) +60 PD (cost 12 points), 6 fixed slots of +10 PD each (cost 6 points) and 5 fixed and one variable slot of +10 PD (cost 7 points). Of course, I could also build that Variable slot with +12 PD for the same 2 point slot cost, and buy the fixed slots in +15 PD increments for 1 point each (IIRC, up to .5 rounds down - maybe I need to go +14). selecting the appropriate amounts would need to consider how the other slots tie in. I am atill thinking "no, you want increments of the same ability, that is one variable slot, not multiple fixed slots" is the best answer, although the discussion remains interesting.