Rapier

Re: Non-"adventuring" Metahumans

Re: So, why is longevity so expensive? I'm a little stressed about the general flavour of a lot of the responses. It appears that a number of people are IMO overly concerned with the combat and/or direct effects of LS: Aging. I'm not trying to flame or start some kind of heated verbal fisticuffs, but could I ask that we take a step back and consider these: 1) As a GM, it is my responsibility to tell a story (or perhaps I should say, to set the stage for the characters to act out) in genre fashion. Part and parcel of this responsibility is to use the characters skills, talents, perks and powers. If a character has the ability to turn other Desol, I should create a situation where that power is used (someone just posted a rules question about a UBO Desol character rescuing people trapped inside a bank vault). It is these interactions that bring the players back for more. Characters are more than combat stats. A player gives a character certain powers because they WANT to use them. How can we, as GMs, ignore such pleas from our players? If you have a character with LS: Aging...USE IT! 2) There is a tendency (especially in newer players) to focus all their concept around combat. How many times has a new player presented you with a character without a single KS, AK or language...as if the character dropped out of some Ultimate Fighting Championship in the sky? Characters are more than combat stats (well, unless you are an ArenaBot or something ). Characters were born, grew up, skinned knees, climbed trees, went to school, learned to drive, had their first kiss, read a book. A well rounded character has many, many aspects (represented by Perks, Talents and Skills) that have no relation to combat or day to day life. This does not in any way invalidate the powers. I am very knowledgeable (probably at 14-) in the Bataan Death March (having done quite a bit of research and written a few papers on it). With the exception of this post, the last time I said the words Bataan Death March was 2002, before that...probably 1994. Not all of our character's skills, stats, perks, talents or powers need to come up all the time to be valid. Shouldn't a well rounded character have odds and ends (LS: Aging, KS: Bataan Death March, PS: Beautician, PS: Tax Law) that hardly come up at all? The whole point of background skills, powers, talents and perks is that they are just that...background. We should be rewarding players for developing their characters to such a level that they have dimension, depth and character. Longevity is primarily a background aspect. At 5 pts, at 10 pts, at 50 pts, its "value" isn't placed so much as combat potential as it is the players ability to complete the character. I love to see characters come over with Bump of Direction, Lightsleep or a Contact at the UN. It shows that the player has thought out his character and spent the time and effort to flesh out the 2d into 3d. Isn't that why we do this in the first place?

Re: No Humans?

Re: So, why is longevity so expensive? The problem is that even an immortal character was once 20 years old, and hung around with 20 year old people. Simply because you are immortal doesn't necessarily mean you have benn around forever. What's to stop someone from just becoming immortal?

Re: question about normal damage Nonono! Resistant defense most certainly do protect against normal attacks. I think you are getting confused because of the way Killing Attacks handle damage. Oh wait. Looking down, I see this has been handled. Ta!

Re: No Frameworks?

Re: Desolid Munchkin Question Ouch. Affects Real World on 60 STR? Cheaper just to dump the Desol and buy lots of EB or AP for STR. I would also be curious about the SFX around Desol Affected by Human Flesh. What about weasel flesh? What about fish scales or snake skin boots? Yuck. I have visions of whole teams of villains running around in (oh what was his name, the girl-suit-guy in Silence of the Lambs) people-suits doing Move Thrus on this guy. Something I would disallow just so nobody went there. Eiiiiiiw.

Re: slots with different limitations Even if the Rules FAQ didn't cry "NAY, NAY I SAY!" I would. Its just to end-runny for my taste. I can understand someone looking at the Pool cost and sucking air in through his teeth. I've done it myself (85 points! OUCH!). However, thats the nature of the beast. I would also raise an eyebrow or three (maybe raise one twice), as such a construct. Regardless of what the actual rules state (too lazy to reach over for the book), I would rule that all MPs must be linked somehow (similar to how ECs are handled). A weapons system MP on a powered armour character, a magic MP on a mage, an energy blast MP on a projector etc. Because all slots are spells I would have a huge problem with Slot 1 (the Flight Staff) since it seems more to be equipment than spell. Since this is a magic MP (which I'm reading as Spell MP), then all the slots should have similar spelly lims (Gestures, Incantations, Foci Components, etc). Again, not sure about what the rules state, but I would even allow a character to buy the MP with a short version of a limitation (1/2 DCV Concentrate) and then buy a slot with a longer version (0 DCV Concentrate) and only get the bonus from the difference in the limitation on the slot cost. Yes, sometimes those Pool costs are killers...but consider what you would be spending on each individual slot without the pool. Still well worth the time to cohese (a new verb?) them into a common theme.

Re: No Frameworks? Ok, took a nap and grabbed a quickshower and had this thought: Someone made the argument that it is impossible to know if the concept warranted the EC or if the EC warranted the concept. To some degree I agree. However, there are occassions (apple powers, as above), where you could just look at the character and raise your eyebrow and they'll be "yeah, sorry." I have always looked at ECs like this (and we will ignore concept for the moment): Cosider a character with an HKA (OAF Sword), EGO Attack (natural power), a +6d6 HTH Attack (with linked 2" Stretching, linked 6d6 Electric EB, OAF Extending Shock-Staff) and an RKA (.72 caliber hand-cannon). All powers are bought straight out without any frameworks. This guy is pretty much ALWAYS going to be running around with a full load of powers. Maybe one or two of these powers might get shut down through environment, enemy action etc, but he will just move to another attack and keep on truckin. Now consider Flamey McHotty. Flamey is your proto-typical flame guy. Flame Blast EB, Flame Wings Flight, Flame Field FF, Flame Barrir FW, Flare Flash. All of these powers are built through an EC. Dr Meany LaReau sees the heroes coming and turns on the fire suppression systems in his Not-So-Secret-Hideout. The place is flooded with Halon (a fire suppression gas). Suddenly, Flamey McHotty is wandering around and can't so much as toast a marshmallow. In my mind, Flamey is taking a risk by having "all of his eggs in one basket" (eg in the EC). I believe that this warrants a break in cost. This could be represented by a common limitation, but that is 6 of 1. The EC concept was problematic in the BBB. I saw a number of characters cross my screen with a "Xantronian BattleMaster EC," "Movement Mania EC," etc. It was sometimes difficult to reason why EC A is allowed and EC B is not. I believe that Steve has done us a great service by further quantifying WHY EC A is allowed and EC B is not. It gives me something to hang a cloak on and work through certain character concepts with a little more "evenness." Does this mean my judgement is foolproof? Heck NO! But it gives me a leg up. ECs can be abused, no doubt about it. They are probably THE most power/framework to be abused. EDM can also be abused. Does that maked EDM an less valid? I don't think it does. The open-ended, cookie-cutterness of Hero leaves a lot of room for abuse. That is part of the reason I'm here. To help my players navigate the gauntlet of abuse and design/concept that will create a character that is not only enjoyable for them to play, but enjoyable for me to GM and enjoyable for the other players/characters to game with. Ok, so it was a looooooong shower.

Re: What is up with falling? Actually, for the type of fall they are designed to protect against a good suit of leathers works exactly like it is supposed to. In a sliding fall, a good suit of leathers means you walk away with a few bruises instead of having the flesh torn off down to the bone. +10 rPD, only vs sliding fall damage (-1)?

Re: What is up with falling?

Re: What is up with falling?

Re: What is up with falling? Cmon! Aren't you paying attention the sidebars in my head!?! SHEESH! Actually, that was my intention...to include the bit about SFX. It just somehow never made it past the fingers. Naturally, any game is not going to reflect reality TOO closely. It just becomes too cumbersome, to the point where something simple like a punch involves calculating the intertia of the punch and whether the punch is an elastic or inelastic collision. Way too much effort. You think combat is slow now!?!

Re: No Frameworks? I think we are pretty much playing the same side of the court! Instead of using a chit system, I would allow a limited SFX drift for dramatic license without a thought. In this case flame guy is going to suck up all the oxygen in the room by concentrating a flame burst around himself (maybe pushing his EB with an additional x2 END). First time something like this happens, you let it go. Then you give the character (in addition/in lieau) of his regular XP you toss the character a Familiarity (or perhaps a full on) Power Skill. Now he doesn't need to spend chits. Or worry that he won't have a chit when he REALLY needs one. One of the things I really like about FREd is the quantification of the Power Skill. We had been tinkering with Brick Trick skills for a while, but we were inconsistent across characters and campaigns. The Power Skill replaces the need for those 10pt VPPs.

Re: No Frameworks? I'm not saying that there are no circumstances that would allow an HKA and an EGO Attack to exist in the same EC. In this case, the little soldier guys are an SFX. While you are not using Summon, all the little guys are being summoned. The EC can now be effected by Suppress Summons. I would rule it doesn't work in Water or Vacuums (regardless if you bought those as limitations) since the little guys have lungs. I understand that ECs have a great potential for abuse. We are totally in agreement there. I also agree with you that there are a number of "suspect" ECs out there. I would wager that each and every one of these is the result of an inexperienced GM (or perhaps one without a good player/GM relationship. ECs are around to provide a benefit for those characters whose powers have a weakness from common SFX. If you've got a character with a non-EC HKA and EGO Attack defined as separate SFX they can only be drained/suppressed/etc one at a time. If you've got the same character with a telekinetc HKA and EGO Attack suppress/drain/etc telekinesis totally wipes out this characters effectiveness. This is why ECs provide a bonus.

Re: Possession I'm not quite sure I understand. The Transform would move your mental stats (EGO, INT) and any PsychLims to your target. I think you are overthinking this. Just rule it as SFX of the transform. After all, if someone uses a Transform on you to turn you into a rabbit will you need some kind of memory Transform to remember your bunny-life? This is also gonna be ruled by SFX. Demonic possession will require an exorcism. The prototypical brain-switcher machine possession will require the subjects to go back through the brain-switcher. A possession-amulet may only require the amulet to be removed. Etc. Possessions can be lots of fun as plot devices. Nothing better than a player looking around and screaming "YOU DID WHAT WITH MY BODY!?! I DON'T WEAR SPEEDOS AND I DON'T EAT SQUID!"

Re: No Frameworks? That being my point exactly, "Apple Powers" is not a SFX. Its a pathetic end-run around the SFX stipulation and any player offering up such an obvious point-grabbing excuse for an EC deserves to get a smack on his Density Increase. Now if your Apple Powers EC was a CE: Make me Red, FF: Make me Crunchy and Shape Shift: Make me juicy...now that might work. Not quite sure why you would want to be an apple though.

Re: No Frameworks? Nope, nope and nope. The sword and armour could not be in an EC together. Two different SFX (one sword, one armour). Secondly, I would take a good REALLY REALLY hard look at an EC built through a focus. If anything the Sword (EGO Attack/HKA) should be built as an MP. This is what the discussion about a common SFX is talking about. While you COULD pretend to come up with a justification (as above), any casual glance shows that the justicifcation is a lot of smoke.

Re: No Frameworks?

Re: What is up with falling? You would be well within reason to announce to your players that only natural defenses protect from falling damage. So only natural characteristic PD and Damage Resistance (and non-foci based Redux). We never really spend too much time falling so it doesn't come up that often, but I believe I'll let my players know I'm gonna do this from now on. It makes a lot more sense, and doesn't have any serious math/figuring required to make the edit for falling. In lots of cases I go with the quick standard rule instead of adding realism, simply because realism takes too long and distracts from the game. But this isn't one of those times.

Re: My Player Betrayed Humanity. Now What? Sit him down non-confrontationally. Go grab a cup o' joe and talk it over. I would wager that there is something about the campaign that the player is just not liking. Maybe he would like to have a greater role in world politics or believes that the earth has betrayed him or something. Maybe the player doesn't dig the combat so much and would like to see more RP and less combat. At least, lets hope that it is something campaign universe related. Unfortunatley, I have the sneaking suspicion that there may be some OOC reason for this. It sounds like the player may have an issue with another player. That makes things a little more tricky. Talk to your friend and see if maybe you can't engineer some kind of reconciliation. Maybe you as a group need to step outside of gaming for a while. Go bowling, mini-golfing, go catch a movie. Hang out as a group. Maybe once the two players get to know each other a little better they will understand each other and get along more. Assuming that everything DOES get worked out (and we all cross our fingers, knock on wood and light a candle for you), take a quick/cheap way out. You want to move past this as quickly and quiety as possible. Run a quick adventure about how the character was actually mind controlled/replaced with a doppleganger/cloned and was not actually himself. This quickly and non-confrontationally allows you (and the player and the rest of the team) an out without retiring the character etc. It also provides a fabulous opportunity for the player to do some quality role-playing (which sounds like his preference anyway). I wish you the best of luck, and as always, we are here for ya.

Re: Appropriateness of "Automaton" advantages for a PC I think there is also a distinction we are rolling over. 1) Being an automaton. 2) Having some automaton powers While all chihuahuas are dogs, not all dogs are chihuahuas. I would never allow a true automaton (god i hate that word. its hard to type) as a PC. A true automaton, as others have pointed out would have no EGO and would require some kind of computer to act as a "brain." It would have to have a whole bunch of "programs" that would allow it to act. The PC would be very limited in scope of actions and difficult to play (and most likely not a whole lot of fun for anyone involved) However, a few of the automaton powers are very appropriate for some PCs. I am not promoting a rash of players with automaton powers, but for some concepts No Hit Locations, Does Not Bleed and even Cannot Be Stunned are extremely appropriate. You could functionally reproduce these powers with standard defenses and with a load of limitations (Body with a limitation "Only to Offset Bleeding", CON with a limitation "Only to avoid being stunned" or a rash of PD/Redux/DCV with a limitation "Only to remove hit locations"). But why go to all the trouble and the fromage? Automaton powers on PCs are at least implicitly (if not explicitly) among those "Get GM Approval" powers anyway. Even if they are not, any GM that is so out of touch with his players that he is unaware that a player has created an automaton (or has a character with automaton powers) is not worth his salt. As a GM it is our duty to approve characters so that they fit in with our campaign ideals and are not out of balance. Gaming is a cooperative effort.

Re: ... until it becomes... a Thing of Iron! Colour me intrigued. IF is pretty much before my time. I didn't catch the bug until the late, late 80s, and even then I was an X-Men junky (please no Claremont comments, I actually liked that stretch) and Spider-Freak. I was aware of IF but that was about it (I could pick him out of a poster, knew he was some martial arts dude). But now I'm interested. Hmmmmm. SO many comics...so little money...er...time...no...money.

Re: Really Quick Question I think I peed. Oh god. That beats the dad with the "pregnant hamster." Good heavens. Oh I hurt.

Re: Protection from own movement damage.