Rapier

Re: So, why is longevity so expensive?

One thing I would have to say' date=' is that the Perk [b']has[/b] to be "used" before the beginning of the campaign, meaning the character has to be a lot older then the rest of the party, and should have skills and/or powers to support a character of that age. The reason I say this is, if your character is as young as the rest of the group, and has nothing that differentiate him/her from the rest, then he has no reason to actually buy the Perk. You could just write "he is long lived" on the character sheet, and only pay for point for it if he attains great age through his life experiences. This could be as a recurring character in more then one campaign, or if there is some attack that could age the character (like the Ghost's ability in D&D use to do), or something else like that.

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

Here is the way it should work:

 

A normal attack (non-killing, non-AVLD, non-penetrating, etc, etc) would only use the PD of the target against the damage. Damage would be multiplied after the attack. rPD has nothing to do with Normal attacks, it is a resistant defense against Killing Attacks anf the like, it does not add to the defense at all, only enhances it.

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?

Agreed. It's also frustrating to be in a game with a GM who has not communicated clearly or thought things through' date=' or to play in a game world where the designers have failed to think things through in terms of their own game's mechanics. Not much you can do there other than try to talk it out.[/quote']

Not to toot my own bugle or anything, but not everyone can GM. The same way that, at work, I see people in management that should NEVER EVER be allowed to manage people. Not everyone can manage others. Its not even necessarily a bad thing. Who says everyone has to be equal?

 

There are bad GMs, bad players, great players that make bad GMs and great GMs that make bad players. Sometimes all you need is experience. If you have a good group with good communication and are able to keep the egos out of it (eg "because I'm the GM and I said so, that's why!") even a not-bad/not-great GM can improve his skills and everyone can have fun.

 

Heck, there are times when one of us has bought a new game and we give it a go. In each and every one of those situations, even the GM didn't know the rules inside out. We still had fun, even though we had to pause every once and again and challenge the GM ("you sure about that?").

 

Even after all these years of GMing I am still hit every once in a while with something I didn't plan on. You have to make a snap judgement. Sometimes I'm wrong, and correct it on the spot. Sometimes it gets corrected after the game (usually with a bonus XP or three for the offended party). At the end of the day, we all still love each other and are best of friends. I mean, its only a game right?

Re: Desolid Munchkin Question

Having desolidification that is affected by human flesh gives you a rationale for buying STR that can affect solid and bypass defenses. But it doesn't give it to you for free.

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

The rules FAQ specifically disallows using Variable Limitations to get around the restriction that all slots in a MP must have the exact same Limitation in order to put the Limitation on the reserve.

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?

The leather suits worn by bikers and racers also provide protection (usually in the form of producing a bag of broken bones instead of road rash).

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?

So' date=' if armor doesn't help in a fall, why do skydivers wear helmets? [/quote']

Well, certainly not to protect against a fall from 10k feet!! I believe it has more to do with a bad landing. Trip on a squirrel as you hit the ground and knock yer noggin.

Re: What is up with falling?

The gaming conundrum here is that falling is not a heroic way to die or get hurt. We don't want falling characters' date=' in all but the most realistic games, to die. And we don't even want them "too" messed up. We're emulating heroic fiction, not reality, to begin with, in the game system. I think that's the source of the issue.[/quote']

Ach! You are quite right. Sometimes the physicist in me runs away with the rest in tow.

Re: What is up with falling?

Unless I have force field whose SFX is "inertial dampening" or some such. I would allow appropriate SFX to work against 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?

At the risk of taking this off on further tangents (hey... that is what thread are for, I'm sure...) this bit out "mini-VPPs" is something I take care of with my "Luck Chit" rules... the fate system. It's a matter of taste, I realize, but tacking on a mini-VPP to every character just to offer flexibility is too cumbersome for me. My chit system allows certain chits to be thrown to do SFX appropriate things as a one time action, even if you didn't buy the power. Example: Flame guy wants to try and douse a boiler fire to save a trapped kid, but doens't have "suppress"... if he has the right chit, he turns the Active Points of say his EB into a "Suppress flame" or whatever for one round, and does it.

 

Now... if someone wants a character with more reliable flexibility... they use their powers in a myriad of ways ALL THE TIME and not just special occasions... heck yeah... VPP or every expanding Multi-power is the way to go. It's just with my luck chit/hero point system, I've found that most characters who only need that flexibility once in a while, can get away without them.

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?

How about I create thousands of little soldiers and adventurers who are spiritual manifestations of my subconscious. The shieldsmen automatically interpose their shields between my foes and myself while I can order the wizards to cast sleep spells or the swordsmen to slash at my foes.

 

These subconscious manifestations take no time to appear and can be activated instantly, so duplication or summon aren't valid.

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

FRED suggests using a mental transformation to do 'Mind Transference' (p.154). How would you build this?

Couple of specific problems:

 

1. You almost certainly have different mental stats from the target - how do you make sure you are in there?

I'm not quite sure I understand. The Transform would move your mental stats (EGO, INT) and any PsychLims to your target.

2. How do you transfer memories back from the target that you acquired while possessing it?

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?

3. What would you define the healing method as?

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?

Elemental control: apple powers

 

1. Transform air to apples (3d6 major transform)

2. Hypervelocity apples (3d6 RKA)

 

Your point being....?

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?

I was given the Arms and Armour of Rightousness by the Wizard McNair, to battle for good and truth. They were forged in the deep past by demi-gods to protect the innocent. The sword can not only strike at the flesh of the ungodly, but even at their minds, turning their lies and hatred into pain, the better to cast them down...the armour girds me against their mightiest blows so that I can continue the battle...

 

Point is, you can justify about any combination of powers. You're just handing out points to slick talkers.

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?

That's too bad because you are missing out. When Scott Bennie was play-testing his VIPER book' date=' he allowed our 150 point VIPER agents with only 40 points of powers using no frameworks and we all had loads of fun.[/quote']

Well, there are times when no frameworks are appropriate. In normal or heroic games it works very, very well. Must norms, heroes aren't dumping enough points into powers to bother, if they have enough powers to warrant an EC to begin with.

 

You're comparing Apples and Killing Attacks!

Re: What is up with falling?

Think about it: the reason you take the damage is because you go from 130mph to zero in a fraction of a second and momentum squishes your internal organs all over the place- what you are wearing makes no odds (unless you are wearing a giant inflatable matress...). In fact it is arguable that only damage reduction and defences with the appropriate special effects (I'm made of metal: the armour goes right through!) should apply.

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 don't know how many people have already read this, but for those who haven't...

 

 

The Killer Death Squirrel

 

(http://cuagain.manilasites.com/discuss/msgReader$287)

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.

I think JMHammer has it about right. The other thing that strikes me is that if the extra PD renders the character essentially immune to the damage from the move by/through attacks' date=' then its value is so much the greater. Based on what you've told us so far, I'd still be of the opinion that -1 is about right. So I'd suggest applying other limitations to it if you still wanted to make it cheaper. An activation roll or costs END strike me as 2 options off of the top of my head. [/quote']

One of my favouritist archetypes (and one I think is grossly underutilised) is the Move-Thru Artist. I just love 'em. As a GM is see no problem with a player buying enough PD to protect himself from his own move-thru. As far as I'm considered its the same as buying Personal Immunity for an Explosive/AOE attack.

 

I suppose if it was really bothersome you COULD just buy personal immunity for the AP of the move thru.

 

6 of 1....

Re: New Power: Damage Shield Construction

That's the way I handle it in my games.

Me too, continuous shmntinuous. I always kind of considered it in my head as continuous being part of the cost of the DS.

Shrug. I still don't see what all the fuss is about.

Re: Hindu Teen Avatar

Ushas might be a good chioce: She's the goddess of the dawn' date=' of light (I think) and of rebirth.[/quote']

Ya beat me to it!! I had an NPC I ran for a couple of adventures. She sounds exactly like this character. She was part of TeenTitans type group. Can't recall her name off hand but it was the Hindi word for 'Quiet.' She was a light-powered martial artist that concentrated on soft combat styles and light powers. She was lots of fun to play. I think I'll bring her back.

Re: Appropriateness of "Automaton" advantages for a PC

I checked the FAQ, and failed to find an answer to this question: how appropriate is it for a Cyborg player character to have the Automaton advantage "Takes No STUN" and its ilk?

 

I am currently working on a Multiform cyborg character with various combat modes, and coming up really short on points.

I'd have to be really convinced to allow a Take No Stun PC. I have found that most of the PCs who want Automaton (god that work is hard to type...whats wrong with ROBOT?...Domo Arigato!) advantages are really only looking for a cost effective/cheap defense. Their Concept doesn't really warrant the power and its rationalisation is a little suspect.

Taken no Stun is a lot neater and more effective than 20 rDEF. But is it appropriate for the character? In this case, with a cyborg, I would say no. Cyborgs have biological parts (most especially the brain), all of which can be "stunned." Also, a player would have to REALLY do that hard sell to convince me that the bio-mechanical interface (which I would argue is a rather chancey interface at best) cannot be "Stunned." (and by all those "Stunned" im referring to taking stun)

Now, have said all that...Cannot Be Stunned (an adrenaline freak), Does Not Bleed (various and sundry undead) and No Hit Locations (alien physiology). I have allowed a few characters to take those. They are all good powers but doesn't make things too difficult to work around. But I've still made them really come up with a good solid concept that warrants it and given it a SERIOUS think before letting it through.

No matter what you eventually decide, be sure you give it lots of thought and consider how it will impact the campaign and battles (maybe do a couple battle dry-runs in your head). Best of luck!