Hugh Neilson

The players' lives are in no way at risk, nor do they have medals, wealth, championships or much else at stake. I'm not ashamed of my hobby, but it does not enjoy some inherent superiority over hobbies that others may enjoy.

This would make a better Discussion Board question - this forum has very few people who can post responses, and is aimed at "what the rules say", not "how we might vary the rules".  Maybe a moderator can move it.

That seems to be the suggestion.  It seems like a really complicated way to make the ability expensive, for the sole reason of avoiding the Shadows being Summons or Duplicates.  Given they will typically be attacking separate people, in different locations, or doing other things different from the main character, they will need separate rolls anyway.  That seems like it will focus as much time on this character as duplicates or summons would, so I'm not sure it really saves much.
 
 
It's not Custom - it's on page 387 of the first volume of the 6e rules.  The shadows get treated as a breakable focus (which means they have some defense, and 1 BOD per power, but as it's normally only on one power, that's 1 BOD).  It is generally restricted to situations where the character can't just reactivate the power as a normal action, or is otherwise inconvenienced by the loss of the power between phases.  For Telekinesis, I'd allow it as the destruction of a shadow means it drops anything it was holding, releases anyone it had grabbed, etc.  I'm still not sure it's the best approach.
 
 
Well, SP means I can't type as it should be SPD, for Speed.
 
LOS is "Line of Sight"
 
 
 
Martial Arts also need a Weapon Element (but it's only 1 point) to be usable with TK. I think restrainable at -1/2 would be reasonable in requiring the shadows move to their targets (that movement rate needs to be defined), could be grabbed (which I assume would mean Zed can't summon a new one until the old one has been dealt with) and can be destroyed by a 1 BOD hit.  As it's a more limited version of Physical Manifestation, I'd leave it as Restrainable only.
 
But does this meet the original goal?
 
 
The first issue is defining exactly what they can do (which of Zed's abilities they have, at what power level, and which abilities they lack). Feels like you are well on the way there.  These really sound like duplicates or summons, despite the reservations expressed by many posters.
 
 
This sounds like the GM is expecting Summon or Duplication.  Some further items to iron out would be whether he can create all three at once, or only one at a time, and how long he has to wait before re-creating one that has been killed.
 
 
This could mean 1 BOD and no defenses (and could even mean automatons, but that complicates matters further), or it could simply mean a Complication on all Shadows that they are dispelled by taking any STUN or BODY damage, whether it would normally defeat them or not.
 
 
This would just come down to the Summon or Duplication.  Build a Shadow as a separate character. Its point total sets the price of the Summon or Duplication ability. They might have Distinctive Features for their appearance.
 
 
Having no consciousness could mean they are automatons, or could simply be a Complication of the Shadows.  Given that he has complete mental control, and they vanish if he's not around to control them, this could just as easily be ignored.  They do what he wants as long as he's able to express that.  I'd bundle their disappearance if he's KOd and any maximum distance into a Complication for the Shadows themselves.
 
 
The Awareness sounds like a Mind Link, which is not a bad idea for the mental commands either.
 
The swapping Teleport is trickier.  Is it an Instant movement power?   If so, you need enough Teleportation to cover any distance between them, which will be pricy.  This could be mitigated with a short-distance Teleportation that works like normal movement, and either non-combat multiples or a minor Megascale advantage for longer distances, but that would require non-combat movement. This could be limited to require both characters to use their own Teleportation powers simultaneously, rather than building a "usable by others at range" construct.
 
So Step 1 is to design the Shadow Forms themselves.  Let's assume that they come in at 250 points (just guessing - they don't need a lot of Zed's abilities - no point having a lot of defenses, STUN, BOD, etc.; they won't have the Shadow power or as much damage - keep in mind that it's really damage after defenses that matters, so I would not drop them more than 2  or 3 damage classes - 1 damage class is 1d6 normal damage; 3 are 1d6 killing damage).
 
Step 2 is deciding between Summon and Duplication.
 
Summon costs END. The Shadows will show up adjacent to Zed.  The base cost is 1/5 of the Shadow's points (not reduced by complications), so 50 assuming they come in at 250 points.   +5 points doubles the number, so you need +10 to get to 3 (more than two; no more than 4).  All three can be summoned as one full-phase action.  The Shadows arrive stunned, so they will use their first phase recovering.  They would be Slavishly Loyal (a +1 advantage) and will stick around long enough to perform a number of tasks equal to Zed's Ego (1 phase of combat is normally considered 1 task).  That's 120 Active Points and 24 END. 
 
Duplication requires the duplicates to also have the Duplication power, which likely bumps up the total points on the sheet.  Like Summon, the base cost is 1/5 the total points of the Duplicate, and each doubling adds 5 points to that cost. As long as the differences between Zed and the duplicates are limited to having lesser versions of the same abilities, no advantages are required.  Significant differences require an advantage for "Altered Duplicates".  I would allow the reduced abilities and additional Complications without requiring an Altered Duplicate advantage, but your GM may see it differently. Duplication does not cost END, but it takes a half phase to create each duplicate.  You can double the number of duplicates created in an action with a 1/4 advantage, so all three at once requires +1/2. The Duplicate arrives adjacent, and gets no action that segment, but is not Stunned for its first phase (an advantage over Summoned).  Normally, recombining with Duplicates requires a full phase, touching the duplicates, and being at 0 DCV. Advantages can make this easier and/or allow it at range.  Injuries are shared between the base and duplicate characters.  As was noted earlier, dead duplicates are gone (so a Regeneration/resurrection power for the duplicates, using the Altered Duplicates advantages, might be considered).
 
Overall, I think what you are describing fits best as an Amicable Summon.  That will be a pricy ability.  The cost and END could be reduced by taking Charges.  Maybe he can only Summon a few times per day. This does not require Continuing charges as Summon is an instant powers - the shadows would stick around, but can't be re-summoned without using a charge.  You could also consider buying charges in clips of one charge with an "increased reloading time" - for example, if it takes 5 minutes to "change clips" (e.g. 5 minutes of meditation) before the Shadows can be summoned again, that's an additional -1 limitation.  Charges and clips can be used to simulate the ability to summon the shadows only once or twice (clips of 2 charges) in a brief period, like combat, while having more uses daily (the total charges).
 
There are a lot of in-game implications, and quite a bit of judgment required.  Discussing all the details with your GM to ensure you both expect the power to work in the same way, and that the GM is comfortable with the approach taken (e.g. complications versus low defenses versus a limitation on the power; how often he can summon; etc.) is crucial in my opinion.
 
As a GM, the other commitment I would want is that this ability not bog down play - that is, you need to be ready with your and the Shadows' actions when your phase comes up, not hem and haw over multiple possible actions, and "maybe I'll do this but no, wait, I could do that, and let's have that shadow do something else instead of what I first said, and where is my third shadow again".  Often, players get "analysis paralysis" - a commitment to picking an action and moving the game forward (not analyzing every possibility to optimize effectiveness) is a much better simulation of the chaos of second-by-second combat anyway. That depends a lot on your group's play style - some groups are fine with one player's action that takes 2 - 3 seconds in game being a 15 minute round-table discussion of all the options.  Other groups expect a much faster pace of play.

Now let's apply that to actual limitations that appear in-game.  Will a power that "Only works in Darkness" be fully accessible to the character 2/3 of the time? I can believe that a power that "does not work in darkness" will be available 75% or more of the time.
 
We've discussed "only versus fire" a lot above.  Are two-thirds of attacks that target energy defense Fire, supporting -1/2?  Even if half are, that indicates a -1 limitation.
 
If "fire only" is -1/2, what about "only fire and electricity"?  Is that -1/4 (75% of the time it's useful - baloney!) or do you pay 10 points for +15 ED only vs fire and 10 points for +15 ED only vs electricity?  That's paying for what you get??
 
Many of the limitations in the book remind me of the constant d20 commentary about abilities being too situational to be worth a feat, a class skill, a whatever. Lowballed limitations makes the ability too pricy for its limited utility, and we pay far more than the value of what we get.  It really reminds me of the Golden Age of Gaming - you know, where everything players tried to do had to be carefully scrutinized, because players were always trying to pull a fast one on their adversarial GM - if in doubt, say no or at least make it more expensive.  There's a lot of that in the 6e rules - make the advantage as expensive as any possible use could be, and price the limitation as low as it could possibly limit; no, make it even lower than that just to be safe.

The players' lives are in no way at risk, nor do they have medals, wealth, championships or much else at stake. I'm not ashamed of my hobby, but it does not enjoy some inherent superiority over hobbies that others may enjoy.

That's GENIUS! 

That's GENIUS! 

That's GENIUS! 

Those seeking this level of granularity would seem to be the ones who would want to play an athletic competition-based game.  You'd think those of us still playing "let's pretend" swordfighting, cowboys & indians, cops & robbers, war or superhero games into and beyond middle age might not look down their noses at what other people find a good use of their leisure time...

If the target has 60 defenses, and the roll on the AP attack is 28 STUN, instead of halving the defenses (unlimited AP) to 30, the attack can only reduce them by the 28 damage rolled.
 
Under the current rules, halving the defenses, 28 - 30 = 0 STUN.  Under the new rules, 28 - [60-28 = 32] = 0 stun, but now the size of the attack sets a cap on the reduction in the target's defenses.
 
I'll just stick to "AP halves defenses".  That works fine for me.

I'll talk it over with another GM but I'm going to suggest -1 1/4, based on our campaign. Thanks all.

When the rules get in the way of the fun, change the rules.  The easiest approach feels like either allowing Continuous on Healing (the reduced re-use time cost will still keep the recovery rate down).
 
Alternatively, what about a "time delay" limitation on Power Defense? It doesn't take Extra Time to activate, just Extra Time to reduce the Adjustment taken. That relies on the attack applying against Power Defense, though.
 
If it were my game, I'd look for a way to keep the cost down, even if it's handwavy, as I don't think this would come up all that often.  If these effects could be avoided entirely with 25 points of power defense, recovering faster should cost less than the 25 point cost of full immunity.

THIS - 100%
 
It is neither easier nor more difficult to calm the same targets down with unlimited Mind Control.  This limitation removes other things that could be done.  The jailer won't unlock the door.  The henchman won't tell you Da Boss's plans.  Mind control can do a lot. This limited version can't do all that much.

I value limitations by looking at the mirror of it. If ‘only to calm people down’ is -1, then ‘for anything other than calming people down’ is also…-1.  If the first is -2, then the inverse is -1/2.  You get what you pay for.

So.. what would you charge this character, in this campaign, for mind control that can do anything *except* calm people down?
 

When the rules get in the way of the fun, change the rules.  The easiest approach feels like either allowing Continuous on Healing (the reduced re-use time cost will still keep the recovery rate down).
 
Alternatively, what about a "time delay" limitation on Power Defense? It doesn't take Extra Time to activate, just Extra Time to reduce the Adjustment taken. That relies on the attack applying against Power Defense, though.
 
If it were my game, I'd look for a way to keep the cost down, even if it's handwavy, as I don't think this would come up all that often.  If these effects could be avoided entirely with 25 points of power defense, recovering faster should cost less than the 25 point cost of full immunity.

I prefer the "pushing is not something anyone and everyone can do if they are willing to spend the END" model. It's a rare moment for especially heroic actions, not a quick way to tack on an extra 2 DCs in the hopes of ending the fight faster.

It may have been a bit more accurate, but I could have seen MoM appearing in Dr. Strange comics and QM showing up as an Ant-Man storyline. The challenge for movies is that we don't get three years of monthly comics - we get one movie.  So the movie wants the biggest story, with guest stars and impact on the broader universe.  And you can't leave out supporting cast favourites - no big deal if they miss one week on TV or one issue of the comic, but they're gone for 5 years or more if thy miss one movie.

The normal human maximum is the point that above this the character is getting into the superhuman range.  Characters with a high SPD that are supposed to be normal humans should consider buying down their movement unless they are supposed to be world class athletes. Part of the problem is that the SPD’s of most published characters are too high.  This is probably because the earlier editions of the game most of the opponents were written like that and it carried over into the later editions.  What people don’t seem to realize is that SPD is a relative stat.  
 
If you lower the SPD of all characters equally the end result is pretty much the same.   In fact, it often ends up better for the PC’s because it reduces a lot of problems like END usage and other long-term issues. Don’t forget that almost all actions cost at least 1 END including firing a gun or using a defensive action like dodge or block.  Movement also costs END, so a character needs 2 x their SPD in REC or they start losing END quickly.  If the character is using powers that require more END than 1 it is even worse.     
 

It may have been a bit more accurate, but I could have seen MoM appearing in Dr. Strange comics and QM showing up as an Ant-Man storyline. The challenge for movies is that we don't get three years of monthly comics - we get one movie.  So the movie wants the biggest story, with guest stars and impact on the broader universe.  And you can't leave out supporting cast favourites - no big deal if they miss one week on TV or one issue of the comic, but they're gone for 5 years or more if thy miss one movie.

I found Quantumania, in particular, to be very comic-booky. The ensemble cast (Hank, Janet, Hope, Cassie and Scott) all had relevant parts to play, they interacted with the setting (motivating the natives to join the fight) and the villain (a major character on his own). In prior Ant-Man movies, Hank and Hope were significant players, as was at least one of Scott's prison buddies. The characters don't live in a vacuum.
 
America was clearly a major player in MoM.  I wonder if an equally important role for Clea would have drawn as much ire, or been overlooked since she is already a big part of the lore.  No one griped about Wong, Mordo or the Ancient One having big roles in the first movie.  No one complained that the third Avengers movie was more about Thanos than the Avengers either - villains are allowed to be a major focus, but not other heroes (or supporting cast?).
 
I wonder if the issues of "other characters got focused attention" would have been as big a deal if Marvel had just removed "Ant-Man" and "Dr. Strange" from the movie titles.
 
I think what we are really seeing is that the growth of the MCU is making for a lot of different projects with different themes and different feels, as well as struggling with 21st century inclusivity issues - both very much like their source material.  One difference is that few of us would consume the entire Marvel publishing line every month, but 3 movies and half a dozen TV miniseries a year is a much smaller commitment.  Another is that, with fewer offerings, a lack of diversity/inclusivity in a single offering (or leaving a couple of characters out of this movie) feels like a much bigger gap.

It may have been a bit more accurate, but I could have seen MoM appearing in Dr. Strange comics and QM showing up as an Ant-Man storyline. The challenge for movies is that we don't get three years of monthly comics - we get one movie.  So the movie wants the biggest story, with guest stars and impact on the broader universe.  And you can't leave out supporting cast favourites - no big deal if they miss one week on TV or one issue of the comic, but they're gone for 5 years or more if thy miss one movie.

Think nothing of it, Sir.  It'a nice to have a chance to pull my own weight around here now and again, seeing as how I am _passignly_ familiat with 4e, and useless for anything after that. 
 
First edition- and even though I havent played 1e in decades, I will never forget this- said "ocaisionally."
 
That'a why I wont forget It!  Hey, GM, when can I do this?  Jim.. Ocaisionally.  Don't make it a habit.  If I recall there is only like two sentences of guidelines.  Wait; let me get my book....
 
Okay, 1e p35, right column, last entry.  Nope.  Only _one_ sentence of guidelines:
 
"Occasionally a character may need to exceed the normal limits if his powers to perform a heroic action."
 
That's it,  this is followed by two sentences of instruction and an example.
 
Now to be fair, that single sentence does imply both that this should nit be done routinely and that it is best reserved for not an action or an action taken by a HERO, but a heroic action-  something perhaps with the air of "either this works or I die trying."  Granted, that is all simole implication (when you craft a sentence properly, you can get enough information in it that you really don't need two thousand pages explaining it.  At least, so ling as your audience can _parse_ a sentence well.....
 
At any rate, the examole given if a HERO pyshing his STR to be just barely,avle to hild up a wall long enough that an old lady can escape-  again, it drives home that Hail Mary aspect of pushing.
 
Now I know 2e by heart, and without looking, I can tell you that it is the exact same thing with a few more words in each sentence (the HERO gets a name- "Golden Swordsman," if you were wondering), etc, but it is essentially the same exact rules and example.
 
I also know that Champions II, while it added some new wrinkles to combat, added nothing to Pushing, nor dis Champions III (I just double-checked C-3; I dont use it as much and wasn't certain)
 
3e is a little more detailed again, although the three-sentence rules (identical to 2e, and found on p78, last entry of the perfect bound softcover or same place in the saddlestitched rules book from the boxed set) and the same wall-on-an-old-lady example is punched up a bit and now features a HERO named Brick (in spite of the existence of a villain named Brick, or perhaps Brick's heel turn had reversed; I dont know).
 
It is interesting to note that two pages prior to this entry there is a whole new (for this edition) section called "adding damage," and that section mentions Pushing by name.  However, mostly it says Pushing, Martial Arts, Skill Levels, maneuvers, whatever might add to STR damage- cannot be used to morw than double "normal" STR damage.  (It also says that if your STR is bought Armor Piercing, then for every addition,an 1.5 DC of damage, you may add only 1 DC.  There is no mention of if this additional damage is AP or not, but given the dice reduction, I would assume so.  I consider this do be the first official statement that any added damage must have the same modifiers as the base damage.
 
I would like to note that all 3 of the old editions set a hard lumit of 10 points on Pushing.
 
4e I remember well enough to state that Pyshing was divided into "super" and "heroic," with Heroic requiring an EGO roll (with any modifiers the GM found appropriate).  The character could push by 5 pts if the EGO roll is successful, and may add one point for every point by which he made his EGO roll.  No; I am serious: there is no enforced upper limit beyond what the dice say (though with heroic characters, outlandishly high EGO scores arent terribly likely).  I will have to double-check, but I do not think it gives advice on skill levels for this roll, but I can tell you that I have had more than one player try to push his EGO and then try to push something else with his no-higher EGO.  no; I never allowed that.
 
okay, just pulled the book down and looked.  For rhose following along a5 home, it is BBB p 169: Pushing.
 
interesting things to note:
 
The first formal rule that characters must declare a push _before_ checking for success, and are kiable dor the END of the push regardless of success (keep 'em honest, Bruce!)
 
Gone are the suggestions of "occasionally" or noble sacrifice.  It simply says a character may push his STR.  It mentions the possibke inclusion of GM-assigned modifiers, and towars the end of the paragraph, it says essentially 'don't do this too muc' without guidqnce on what you much might be, though it suggests the GM assign negative modifiers should a character do it 'roo much", as defined by the GM apparently.
 
lots more mechanics and technicalities, but less actual advice.
 
for Super games, it states outeight that pushing is much more common, which is eather stealing a bit of the noble sacrifice angle or implying that any character you build should not be enough to face the world in which he lives; I cant say which.  Other than that, there is no EGO roll required, and it is capped at 10 additional points, with a final sentence stating that the GM may allow pushes of greater than 10 in "unusual circumstances, such as saving the universe," so maybe mundane pushing is pretty common after all.
 
Oh, and in the same,old wall / old lady example, the hero is now Jaguar.
 
 
hope something there helped.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I think it was always at least implied that it was up to GM discretion when you could push or not.  I use the 4th edition rule for heroic settings is 5 points if you make an Ego roll, then 1 more per point you make your roll by
 
 

 

 
 
I think the "only in proper situations" was always assumed but wasn't really written out in detail until 5th edition

I'm pretty sure it's always been in the rules somewhere - as I recall, an early edition used the "mom who lifts up a car" example - remove the stress and her endangered child and she could never do it again.
 
@Duke Bushido would know (sorry, leaning on you a lot lately, Duke!)

I'm pretty sure it's always been in the rules somewhere - as I recall, an early edition used the "mom who lifts up a car" example - remove the stress and her endangered child and she could never do it again.
 
@Duke Bushido would know (sorry, leaning on you a lot lately, Duke!)