Hugh Neilson

The +1/4 Amicable says that the Summons wants to help the Summoner akin to Moderate Psych Lim and +1/2 becomes a Strong Psych Lim. Requiring the +3/4 Total Psych Lim level to enter combat seems to be counter to that. It also discounts the possibility that the Summons might be inclined to do the requested task naturally. A PC with a similar Psych would need a good reason not to do take the action and you don't summon cowardly creatures to fight battles for you. The Summons may flee after a few setbacks but an Advantaged Summons should get better performance than  a basic one where you have to win a contest of wills. 

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

A very good question.
 
If even the possibility of change cannot be acknowledged, and the stains of one mistake remain forever, why do we have parole boards instead of life imprisonment for all found guilty?  Is rehabilitation impossible? Should no one who has ever committed a crime be employable for the rest of their lives?
 
Or is racism the sole crime that bears such a lifelong stigma for everyone who may ever have been guilty of even the most minor offense?

But that doesn't address Duke's point.
 
For how long is this a black mark for you?  How far back, before it at least shifts to a yellow flag...let's see if he still thinks that way before we pillory him?
 
 

I am _hugely_ in favor of forgiveness, and I understand that people cuange as they grow and as they learn.  I think all of those things are good things.  Case in point: I was raised by a racist (despite the fact that he was in his forties before he ever met someone who wasnt white.  Go figure.  I am no different from any other human being on the planet: I entered my adulthood with the "right" and "wrong" I was taught as a child.  Was I racist?  Yeah; probably.  I never hated anybody, but I "knew" from my training that there was an "us" and a "them."
 
But I met people and I grew and I changed.
 
My first wife (rest her soul), as I have said before, was Irish.  She wasn't white, though.  She was adopted as an infant and was, in fact, Ethiopian, at least genetically.
 
Like I said: as you experience the larger world, you grow- or at least, you _should_.   
 
I completely accept that there are certain things that are harder to forgive.  However, the article admits the photo is decades old; the man in question says it was a stupid thing he did in his twenties (you know: the age bracket in which I just confessed to accidentally having drunken sex with a Polish body builder and loosing an entire motorcycle in another thread).
 
The popular thing is now the same as it always has been: leap! Attack!  Crucify!
 
Has anyone looked at all into his life between then and now?  Was it, as he states, a dumb idea to dress up in referrence to Blazing Saddles that has aged very poorly and become an even dumber thing in today's climate?
 
I am more struck that he resigned, and as far as the article doesnt suggest otherwise, of his own volition and without argument.  It seems very much as an understanding and accepting the consequences of his decades-old bad judgement.  It suggests he has grown considerably, and I would guess- based only on what the "article" has to say (and tha's on quptes because with no other attaemots at fact finding or investigation, this is more gossip than news.  My own opinion, sure, but it really comes off more as "hey everybody!  Look what he did!" than it does any attempt to provide an underatanding of the situation.
 
 
Maybe he grew; maybe he changed.  We can find out by digging into him a little bit more, but until that happens, I am not foing to crucify him, because I _know_ a heart can change.  Mine did.  Though honestly, it's starting to go full-circle: without any attempt at humor I can honestly sat that the climate here in the US the last few years and suring the pandemic has me slowly starting to have a general dislike of white people. 
 
 

It's tough to provide much without knowing your group.  Their preferences will decide a lot (e.g. maps) and their familiarity with the system is as important as yours - sounds like it's new for everyone.
 
It may help to have two character sheets.  One is the full-costed abilities sheet used for character design.  The other is for running the character in-game - describe how it works and ignore all the points.
 
Especially if everyone is learning, only learn what's relevant to the PCs and avoid unfamiliar abilities for opponents early on. Unless a PC has adjustment powers, sensory powers or mental powers, neither do the early bad guys.  You can learn those abilities later, when you're comfortable with the basics.
 
Nothing wrong with letting players revise their characters, or with a revision if you make a mistake early on (including "turns out that ability is unbalancing") either.
 
For sure, take player feedback.  But remember they asked you to run - if they don't appreciate the efforts, one of them could always run a game!
 
Actually, if you can tell us what about Champions appealed to the group, I suspect many here could offer some suggestions to better emulate those elements, and de-emphasize elements that may be less helpful, or even counterproductive.

It's tough to provide much without knowing your group.  Their preferences will decide a lot (e.g. maps) and their familiarity with the system is as important as yours - sounds like it's new for everyone.
 
It may help to have two character sheets.  One is the full-costed abilities sheet used for character design.  The other is for running the character in-game - describe how it works and ignore all the points.
 
Especially if everyone is learning, only learn what's relevant to the PCs and avoid unfamiliar abilities for opponents early on. Unless a PC has adjustment powers, sensory powers or mental powers, neither do the early bad guys.  You can learn those abilities later, when you're comfortable with the basics.
 
Nothing wrong with letting players revise their characters, or with a revision if you make a mistake early on (including "turns out that ability is unbalancing") either.
 
For sure, take player feedback.  But remember they asked you to run - if they don't appreciate the efforts, one of them could always run a game!
 
Actually, if you can tell us what about Champions appealed to the group, I suspect many here could offer some suggestions to better emulate those elements, and de-emphasize elements that may be less helpful, or even counterproductive.

Yeah, you creatively come up with 200 new villains per year for 60 years and creatively try to keep your comic book world from seeming like a huge joke of idiots donning a costume for the express purpose of shortly thereafter dying at the hands of "heroes".
 
 
 

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"

Pretty sure "your ward Speedy is a junkie" pretty much came out of nowhere, and it was certainly not part of the superhero genre previously, due to the Comics Code.  Ditto Harry Osborn in the Marvel Universe, not too far from the same time.
 
Pretty much everything past straightforward narrative storytelling of solving a mystery or a punch-up, right down to continued stories had never been part of the genre until someone made it a part of the genre.

Ah, the old D&D question.
 
An intelligent person knows he should stop talking.
A wise person shuts up.

Since the vast majority of hospitalized COVID patients haven't been vaccinated, I see this as a moot point.  Here's the actual memo text:
 
 

Pretty sure "your ward Speedy is a junkie" pretty much came out of nowhere, and it was certainly not part of the superhero genre previously, due to the Comics Code.  Ditto Harry Osborn in the Marvel Universe, not too far from the same time.
 
Pretty much everything past straightforward narrative storytelling of solving a mystery or a punch-up, right down to continued stories had never been part of the genre until someone made it a part of the genre.

It will come down to whether she had a contractual right to an exclusive theatrical release, not whether anyone who made the decision to have a simultaneous streaming release read, or understood, her contract.  Then, of course, she will need to demonstrate the damages suffered (i.e. how well would the theatrical release have done with no streaming, to establish how much this cost her).   By the time this reaches an arbitrator or a court, there should be a lot more movies to argue are more or less comparable.
 
 
Strange and Stark were neck and neck for "most arrogant MCU hero".  The full scenes may be more telling, but it looks like Peter said "can you take away everyone knowing I'm Spider-man", which Strange assumed, without confirming, meant "remove that knowledge from everyone".  When that assumption slipped out, and Peter grasped its implications, the trouble started.

So, if we reveal that Ben Grimm is Jewish, it';s just hack writing.   Never mind that he grew up in an area with a high Jewish population, his name ("Benjamin Jacob Grimm") is quite consistent with being Jewish and his religion (Jewish or otherwise) has never cropped up, it's "hack writing"?  Ditto Colossal Boy, a character in an ensemble cast where we have never seen any indication of religion (especially being a thousand years in the future), turning out to be Jewish is "hack writing".
 
Would it have been better writing for everyone to be Anglican, or Roman Catholic, or agnostic, or atheist, because that is what you, one reader, imputed from the fact their religion had never been mentioned?  Maybe LSH should have assumed that religions which have already survived 2+ millennia would not make it another thousand years?  Black Manta should have been white because we'd never seen under  the helmet, and lots of people are white, so he must be white?
 
If a character is solidly straight (or Catholic) one issue, then securely bisexual (or Jewish) in the next, followed by being confidently homosexual (or an uncertain agnostic), and has been all his life, six months later, I'd call that hack writing.  Diving into character attributes that have never been solidly defined in past appearances?  Not so much.  Especially when a lot of that character's appearances have either been as a secondary character (Robin to Bruce's Batman) or part of an ensemble cast (the many Teen Titans books), not a solo star whose psyche and relationships have typically been front & center.
 
But we are back to the constant criticism of comics.  "Nothing ever changes - how boring!"  "You changed that?  YOU CAN'T CHANGE THAT!!!"

Pretty sure "your ward Speedy is a junkie" pretty much came out of nowhere, and it was certainly not part of the superhero genre previously, due to the Comics Code.  Ditto Harry Osborn in the Marvel Universe, not too far from the same time.
 
Pretty much everything past straightforward narrative storytelling of solving a mystery or a punch-up, right down to continued stories had never been part of the genre until someone made it a part of the genre.

I'm not sold that creating, say, the "matches pretty much every stereotype" Extrano back in 1988 was a better move than "outing" characters whose sexuality has never been a solid point in their prior appearances. I don't recall Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, Samurai and El Dorado being viewed as great examples of diversification in the Superhero genre when they appeared in Super Friends.
 
Would you also criticize the decision that Black Manta was actually black (revealed in 1977; first appearance was 10 years prior, in 1967)?  Aquaman was surprised.
 
What about something less visible?  The Thing was around a long time before 2002, when he was revealed to be Jewish.  Colossal Boy was revealed to be Jewish in 1980, 20 years after he first appeared.  Moon Knight retroactively became Jewish in #37 of his book, almost 10 years after he first appeared.  Magneto became retroactively Jewish in the 1990's. 
 
Sexuality, like religion (or even race if you are always fully masked) is pretty easily invisible.  We tend to assume "straight", but we also tend to assume some branch of Christian, and WASP until they unmask and prove us wrong.  All of these were the standard in the Golden Age, not just "straight".
 
Considering how many real people struggle with defining their sexuality, even denying or hiding it, the possibility that some existing characters whose sexuality has never really been a defining characteristic (much like religion may never have come up) being gay or bi (or Jewish) doesn't seem like it flies in the face of their character development.  We might discover after many years of publication that a character came from an abusive home (Hulk), is of a specific faith (Thing) or has a non-straight sexual orientation (Tim Drake; maybe Jon Kent), or even is not white (Black Manta).
 
Is the problem that the writers never disabused the assumption that they were straight WASPs from their very first appearance, or is the problem with readers who assumed one thing and are now uncomfortable with another being revealed?

Most if not all of the legal arguments fall in Disney's favor on this one. In addition to being free from any "plain" (i.e., real) breach of contract claim, as pointed out by Variety, Disney can also invoke force majeure and put the whole thing to rest. ScarJo's team wants it to remain public because shaming Disney through the trades and social media is really the only tactic available to them. When you don't have any real legal ground to stand on, you make shrill accusations of misogyny or sexism or racism or whatever, and then hope all the unions stand together and strike when the next contract renewals comes up.

I find the idea that there's something unrealistic or inappropriate about established characters being revealed to be gay or bi hilarious. I made it it to fifty years old without realizing that I'm trans. I was married with two kids. No one (including me) suspected that I was anything other than a straight, cisgender man. And I know a ton of people in the same (or a similar) boat.
 
As long as society keeps moving in the right direction, I think this will happen less and less, but it's not going  go away, at least not in my lifetime. People figure out they're different at their own pace. Or they just don't reveal certain aspects of themselves until they're ready. It's the world we live in. Even though comic book worlds aren't our world, there's no reason to expect them to be different in that particular regard.
 
Just because you don't want to see something doesn't make it unrealistic or inappropriate.

I'm not sold that creating, say, the "matches pretty much every stereotype" Extrano back in 1988 was a better move than "outing" characters whose sexuality has never been a solid point in their prior appearances. I don't recall Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, Samurai and El Dorado being viewed as great examples of diversification in the Superhero genre when they appeared in Super Friends.
 
Would you also criticize the decision that Black Manta was actually black (revealed in 1977; first appearance was 10 years prior, in 1967)?  Aquaman was surprised.
 
What about something less visible?  The Thing was around a long time before 2002, when he was revealed to be Jewish.  Colossal Boy was revealed to be Jewish in 1980, 20 years after he first appeared.  Moon Knight retroactively became Jewish in #37 of his book, almost 10 years after he first appeared.  Magneto became retroactively Jewish in the 1990's. 
 
Sexuality, like religion (or even race if you are always fully masked) is pretty easily invisible.  We tend to assume "straight", but we also tend to assume some branch of Christian, and WASP until they unmask and prove us wrong.  All of these were the standard in the Golden Age, not just "straight".
 
Considering how many real people struggle with defining their sexuality, even denying or hiding it, the possibility that some existing characters whose sexuality has never really been a defining characteristic (much like religion may never have come up) being gay or bi (or Jewish) doesn't seem like it flies in the face of their character development.  We might discover after many years of publication that a character came from an abusive home (Hulk), is of a specific faith (Thing) or has a non-straight sexual orientation (Tim Drake; maybe Jon Kent), or even is not white (Black Manta).
 
Is the problem that the writers never disabused the assumption that they were straight WASPs from their very first appearance, or is the problem with readers who assumed one thing and are now uncomfortable with another being revealed?

I'm not sold that creating, say, the "matches pretty much every stereotype" Extrano back in 1988 was a better move than "outing" characters whose sexuality has never been a solid point in their prior appearances. I don't recall Apache Chief, Black Vulcan, Samurai and El Dorado being viewed as great examples of diversification in the Superhero genre when they appeared in Super Friends.
 
Would you also criticize the decision that Black Manta was actually black (revealed in 1977; first appearance was 10 years prior, in 1967)?  Aquaman was surprised.
 
What about something less visible?  The Thing was around a long time before 2002, when he was revealed to be Jewish.  Colossal Boy was revealed to be Jewish in 1980, 20 years after he first appeared.  Moon Knight retroactively became Jewish in #37 of his book, almost 10 years after he first appeared.  Magneto became retroactively Jewish in the 1990's. 
 
Sexuality, like religion (or even race if you are always fully masked) is pretty easily invisible.  We tend to assume "straight", but we also tend to assume some branch of Christian, and WASP until they unmask and prove us wrong.  All of these were the standard in the Golden Age, not just "straight".
 
Considering how many real people struggle with defining their sexuality, even denying or hiding it, the possibility that some existing characters whose sexuality has never really been a defining characteristic (much like religion may never have come up) being gay or bi (or Jewish) doesn't seem like it flies in the face of their character development.  We might discover after many years of publication that a character came from an abusive home (Hulk), is of a specific faith (Thing) or has a non-straight sexual orientation (Tim Drake; maybe Jon Kent), or even is not white (Black Manta).
 
Is the problem that the writers never disabused the assumption that they were straight WASPs from their very first appearance, or is the problem with readers who assumed one thing and are now uncomfortable with another being revealed?

I think this is the element of my post you're addressing, Duke.
 
 
I was largely envisioning the desired power to be "I conjure up a sword.  It just sits there unless actively used to attack, and at some point it just disappears".  So, basically, all the ability does is let the character use a KA on his phase with an attack action - no real "Constant" involved, other that the non-mechanical English that the sword is constantly physically present and may be used to attack like any other attack as long as it sticks around.
 
But one comment lead me to question whether there was a different power envisioned.  D&D has a "Spiritual Weapon" spell that makes a good example.  I cast the spell, with all the limitations on the power affecting that casting.  A weapon, so the sword, appears, and attacks an opponent.  On my next action (so my next phase, in HeroSpeak) the sword attacks again.  Meanwhile, I can do whatever I want with my actions.  The sword just keeps attacking that one opponent.  I do have to spend some of action, IIRC, to direct the sword to a new target, but I don't need to re-cast the spell -  the sword will stick around, attacking every phase (or not, if I give it no target or tell it to stop) until the fairly short spell duration expires.
 
That sounds a lot more "Constant", as it is operating every phase.  It does not use my Attack Action either.  But, unlike Constant, it has to hit every phase.  It might miss on its first attack, when I cast the spell, then try again next phase and hit.  Just hitting next phase doesn't mean its next attack will hit automatically, though - it will have to roll again on the next phase.  That sounds like it is Uncontrolled (even if I am KOd or killed, the sword will keep attacking away until the spell expires, although it won't change targets), but it's not quite Constant in that it does not keep hitting every phase - it has to roll to hit each phase.
 
So that could be some lesser-costed Constant (removing the "hits automatically" element), a Limitation on the Constant advantage (which may as well just be a reduced advantage), with Uncontrolled tacked on (making it "fire and forget" instead of "fire and keep it going every subsequent phase).  But it could also be a Summoned Automaton that follows my commands and attacks whoever I last designated until I spend the time to direct it to another opponent.  It feels more like the Summon to me, under Hero mechanics, than trying to simulate a flying sword that attacks on its own by a modified Constant, Uncontrolled, Physical Manifestation, Time Limit attack power.

OK, now I think I at least get the issue.  I don't agree with your perspective on it, but I get the issue.
 
Starting with a 12d6 Blast, no frills, I can use the Blast at any time.  If I do not use it, nothing happens and I spend no END.  In any phase, I can select any target I want for the Blast, spend END, make an attack roll and, assuming I hit, do damage.  Then it's done until I use it again.
 
Now, let's add Constant.  Same starting point - I can use it whenever I want, but if I hit, it locks on and, as long as I keep pumping END into it, it stays on.  It damages that target, and that target only, every phase.
 
But if I add your new "advantage", I paid +1/4 for precisely nothing.  The power is available to be used whenever I want to use it, just like it was before I applied the advantage.
 
Now, let's tack on some limitations to the basic Blast.  It requires a full minute to kick up (-1 1/2), during which I can do nothing else (-1/4).  While activating, I am at 0 DCV (-1), must Gesture (-1/2) and Incant (-1/2).  This is a super-limited power, dropping the cost to 13 points.  Is it useful in combat?  Not really - it takes a full five turns to make it available and I can do nothing else during that time.
 
Add Constant and it costs 19 points.  What did the extra 6 points get me?  Well, if I ever do manage that full minute of preparation, and hit, I can keep damaging that one target as long as I keep pumping END in.  That is quite advantageous...but if that target is KOd, or I just want to change targets for other reasons, or if I get stunned and the power stops, I need another minute to be able to use the power again.
 
Now, as I understand your proposal, I can instead take "Constantly available" for +1/4 instead of Constant for +1/2.  Now my power costs 16 points.  For 3 points, instead of needing a full minute of uselessness whenever I want to kick the power in, all I need to do is spend a minute gesturing, incanting and concentrating in the shower in the morning, and now the Blast is available any time I want, just like the No Frills blast.  That is, effectively, a -2 3/4 limitation for "has to spend a minute maintaining this power once a day".  You don't have to do it again if you want to change targets, or if you have to shut the power down (since it was never "up" in the first place).
 
 
Applied to my basic 12d6 Blast, it is in no way advantageous.  It changes nothing.  It means I can use the power normally, just like I could before.  Applied to a power with a pile of "before I can use it, I have to..." limitations, it is hugely advantageous, not because it is an Advantage, but because it mitigates the Limitations on the power.  Extra Time is halved when it is only required to activate a power, not to maintain it.  Concentration, Gestures and Incantations are doubled if they must be maintained throughout the use of a constant power.
 
 
Why not?  The rules discuss taking Physical Manifestation on "a Power like HKA if it’s defined as creating claws or a weapon — the claws “remain in existence” between Phases even if the character can’t use them."  They then suggest a look at Time Limit, which has already been noted upthread.
 
 
OK, there is something I am unclear on, but we'll come back to that.
 
At its base, I would say RKA, Physical Manifestation.  In a fantasy game, I would likely pop on the usual spellcasting limitations and add "Time Limit", the rules mechanic specifically created for allowing the use of an Instant power to extend outward over longer than the Instant action it would normally require.  If Time Limit + the various limitations equals or exceeds the cost with no limitations and no Time Limit, I would simply drop both the advantage and the limitations, and apply a smaller limitation for the need to re-create the Sword at some later time.  If it's fairly easy to break the sword and require you to use all those limitations to get it back, that limitation could be higher, but I don't see it ever being more than -1, as an OAF could be broken or taken away, and could not be conjured back up again with a minute of inconvenience between combats.  It feels like the ease of recovery makes it more comparable to an OIF, or a variant of Restrainable, so -1/2 instead of Extra Timne, gesture, incant, concentrate, etc.
 
That one unclarity - my model above means that attacking with the sword requires you use an attack action each phase.  If the sword just attacks every phase on its own, without the need for any action on your part, this is starting to seem a lot more like Summoning an Automoton or, alternatively, making it Constant and Uncontrolled, with a cost reduction for the requirement to make an attack roll each phase in order to hit.  I'd look to "Requires a Roll" for guidance in pricing that out.  Here I would not allow Physical Manifestation, instead treating "break the sword" as the "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances that will turn it off or negate it."
 
But the more the sword can function independent of any Actions on your part, the more it feels like it is a separate character, whether a Follower or a Summoned Automaton.
 
Now, if you are still hooked on a (pretty low cost) advantage for "turn it on and off at will once all conditions to activate are met once" model, tell me how you would apply it to a defensive spell or movement spell?  Start with +10/+10 rDEF with the same 1 minute "casting time", but now once he casts it, he can switch the mystic shield on and off so he can pay no END between combats.