Christopher

14 hours ago, Cygnia said:

New one up!

 

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1157.html

Tough setup for the OOTS to break.

I wonder if this will be the time, Belkar will draw his last breath?

7 hours ago, PamelaIsley said:

The source material is pretty clear.  You can't block it and if it's cast correctly (Order of the Phoenix talks about this), it will kill you on contact.  Harry's survival is an enormous plot point in the books.  No one else would survive one based on the HP material presented so far. 

If harry potter survived it, then it is not really a absolute!

Edit:

Okay, I read up on it. It appears to be mostly instant, unless there is a Sacrificial Charm on the target. In that case the spell rebounds (as well as other Effects like being unable to touch the beneficiary).

Killing Curse: High Amount of RKA, NND (Sacrifcial Charm), Does Body, Side Effect (If blocked hits the caster instead).

Sacrificial Charm: Damage Shield, only vs specific target, 0 END and Persistent.. This spell is "plot device" level.

36 minutes ago, John Desmarais said:

Nothing stops you from putting your Detect into the Sight group.

The advantage of putting any new Sense in a existing Sense Group, is that you get a ton of free adders.

The disadvantage of putting any new Sense in a Existing Group, is that "Sense Affecting Power: Specific Sense Group" works fully against them.

Putting "Detect Sight Invisible Creatures" into the Sight Group is thus self defeating.

On 2/23/2019 at 10:20 PM, Badger said:

Note:  I might have to find a way to write a LOTR/SW crossover. 

The one right creates a disturbance in the force and the jedi go to investigate it.

I mean who is to say that Middle Earth is not just a lost Human Colony?

Take a look at the game Endless Legends. It is a Fantasy planet set in the Space 4x Endless Space Series.

And there were plenty of Clone Wars Episodes that dealt with more Mystical stuff. Or giant monsters.

On 2/23/2019 at 10:16 PM, megaplayboy said:

Similarly, I think in canon, Batman is supposed to "know" 127 different martial arts, and there are people like Gamora, the Champion and Karate Kid who are supposed to know thousands.  Pretty sure that gets simulated with a broad, long list of maneuvers, extra levels, KS: Martial Arts 18+ and some hand-waving.   

I would just simulate it with CSL or plain old OCV, DCV and 0 END STR.

For me "Marital Arts the Rules construct" is first and foremost a way to save points. Not spending so much on CV and STR (and possibly END and REC).

I find it entierly acceptable to give a Constrictor Snake a 'Martial Art' that gives bonuses to the Grab, Choke and Crush maneuvers to simulate it being good at those.

There is a few unique things that currently only martial arts can do. But HSMA 6E has some ideas how to turn those things into normal Optional combat maneuvers.

On the mater of "not charging interest", this is actually a requirement in "Islamic Banking". For religious reason Interest are not allowed. So they had to become inventive to make a profit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_banking_and_finance

9 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Building See Invisible as a non-sight detect means the subject of See Invisible won't benefit from their sight adders which contradicts the SFX of seeing the invisible. 

Allowing you to use those adders would be against the Rules for Invisibility and Sense Groups.  So that ship has sailed centuries ago.

9 hours ago, BoloOfEarth said:

Detect Invisibility (Unusual Group), Sense, Range.  12 points, not horribly expensive.  Add Targeting, bumps it up to 22.

Normally such a sense would allow you to see and attack everyone and anything.

But in this case, it only works on people that are invisible to sight.

It does not work in Darkness, if your sight is Flashed or any of the other cases where you Sight targetting sense does not work.

So a limitation might be in order.

57 minutes ago, PamelaIsley said:

I like games that can simulate things that exist in genres and am not that concerned about balance (if you want a balanced combat game, play a miniatures game, in my opinion anyway).

That is a funny thing to say, considering RPG's in part started from the Tabletop/Minature game scene.

So balance in RPG has been a thing, since before the RPG concept was a thing.

47 minutes ago, PamelaIsley said:

There's simply no other way to model it and be true to an important part of the source material.

Is it? Translating between Mediums often has issues. It starts with you not properly getting the intetnion of why the Book writer made it work like this. Without that intention, you can not really transalte it to a P&P RPG.

1 hour ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

The invisibility topic got me thinking.  See Invisible is a pretty simple D&D spell.  Given that Sight can have a bunch of adders strapped to it, how do you do it in HERO as a one-size-fits-all spell? 

Whatever you built, it can not be put into the sight group.

Invisibiltiy like all Sense Affecting Powers (unless Limited) affect a whole Sense Group by default.

39 minutes ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Unusual Group Detect (Invisible things) doesn't conserve sight group adders.

That makes it both expensive and quite possible

That is the way you have to go.

Now if you asked for something like Fearie Fire, it would be actually hard to simulate.

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

  

On your first point, I'd agree except a lot of armor is considered on by default and OIF.  If that were the case, then putting on a ring of invisibility would make your sword disappear but not the armor.

  

The problem with obvious focuses and invisibility and the clarification(?) is made by Steve Long.  Here (link) I ask about using an area of effect invisibility to cover an obvious focus.  Short answer is no, unless the GM makes a house rule.  This statement about OIFs/OAFs has been long standing with him.  

  

I think i need some inventive interpretation to reconcile what the book and it's writer say here

The only way it might make some sense is:

- If you put the Obvious Focus Limitation on any Power, the Power itself becomes Perceivable. Defenses are normally Inobvious IIRC, but if you put them on a Obvious Focus "Armor" it becomes obvious that you got extra defenses.

- technically you aer "using" the Defenses power every second you wear the armor.

- " Invisibility doesn’t automatically make a character’s attacks or other powers Invisible as well (that requires the Advantage Invisible Power Effects; see 6E1 338). Using a perceivable power can expose an Invisible character’s position"

For me that mostly means that Superheroic Characters with Invisibility have to use a lesser version of Focus on ally their Persistent Powers.

And for heroic games this consideration either waived, all armors are declared inobvious (wich does not mater as they cost no points) or specific stealth armor is introduced (wich is build on Inobvious Focus). Consider using the Expanded Focus rules for the later to have some tradeoff even with the same Limitation values.

As for the Ring example:
Usually rings are a Inobvious Foci. They have to go out of their way (like glowing when in use) or be used for Perceivable Powers to become Obvious to begin with.

" If a Focus is Obvious, it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus — no PER Roll is necessary. This is important, because opponents know where the power comes from and can attempt to disable the Focus or take it away. Some examples include most weapons (whose lethal capabilities are easily perceived), a magic ring that glows whenever it’s used, or a shield"

"If a Focus is Inobvious, it’s not immediately clear where the power comes from. Examples include disguised or concealed weapons (such as a cane-gun or a blaster hidden inside an ordinary-looking glove) or a magic ring that gives no indications of its powers (it looks completely normal, doesn’t glow when its powers are used, and so forth)."

Things can also be obvious/perceivable in different ways.

It is obvious that a sword can hurt you, even when it is not in use.

It is obvious* a gun can hurt you, even when it is not in use.

The power of the gun/sword is also perceiveable while in use.

A cane gun/sword would be Inobvious when not used. It can still be idenfied as usual for Inobvious stuf - usually any form of examination . And if you use it in sight, it becomes obvious the power came from the cane gun/this is a cane gun. And hte can sword becomes obvious when drawn (when ready weapon is used?).

*Only campaign average without special knowledge/complication applies for Obviousness. So let us ignore cases of time travel. "If a character buys an Inobvious Focus and lots of people eventually learn about it, he cannot “redefine” it as Obvious or the like. Obviousness depends primarily on the nature of the object, not on campaign events like characters’ secrets being revealed to the world."

On 2/27/2019 at 5:13 PM, PamelaIsley said:

(underused in Champions adventures I think).  It's also very complicated. 

Despite being in different sentences, those two are very related

15 hours ago, specks said:

To me the +2 Cosmic represents three things:

The only +2 Advantage called "Cosmic" relates to changing Powers in a Variable Power Pool. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with what you want to do. And many people dislike what it is named for confusion like this.

15 hours ago, specks said:

1) Auto hit; target DCV will drop to 0 unless protected by cosmic defenses. 

A 1m AoE is a common way to drop the targets defenses. Effectively you attack against the are the target is in. Normal AoE defenses apply (like Dive for Cover and that AoE affects teh DC calculation, allowing less dice to be rolled).

For a similar reason, shifting the Defense Atribute to Mental DCV could work. Non-Mentalists generally leave it at 3.

The closest to a "can not defend attack" would be something like a Huge Area (100m Radius or so) AoE attack, that only affects a single target. Large enough that even a miss will still put he target in the Area. And the target is unlikely to get out via Dive for Cover (as that maneuver is more difficulty based on distance).

15 hours ago, specks said:

2) Attack goes right through target's defenses (normal, resistant, etc..) unless protected as per #1 

AVAD - including the NND variant - Cover this.

Overall both 1 and 2 run afoul of one core rule:
"Every attack should have a reasonably common defense".

The less likely the target is to escape, the more expensive this will get.

15 hours ago, specks said:

3) Attacker can choose the amount of damage to do (as per his attack damage) unless target is protected as per #1 

That is ... wierd.

I mean logically you would always pick maximum damage?

If you do not want to do Body damage, "Does no Body Damage, -0" is the Limitation you might be looking for.

I think remember an option to always do flat damage without rolling (something like 3 per dice?). Of course you would need a lot of extra Dice to get the same damage as a max roll. But do not ask me for the Rule in question. I think somewhere in Adjustment Power rules? Supress/Boost maybe?

14 hours ago, dsatow said:

But the rules currently say that obvious focuses are always visible despite being turned invisible

Except it does not say that at all?

" Invisibility to Sight Group covers a character’s fists when he punches someone (or the like) using just his STR (and related abilities, like Martial Arts). But it doesn’t make his weapons-based attacks Invisible — that requires the Invisible Power Effects Advantage. As long as the character just holds the weapon and doesn’t use it, his Invisibility covers it. "

The only thing even remotely like this is:
" If a character has an Obvious Focus that provides him with Invisibility, the Invisibility doesn’t cover the Focus. Only Inobvious Foci are covered by the Invisibility they generate."

And that only means "a focus on the Invisibiltiy Power should at tops be a inobvious one".

Everything else is how Perceivable Powers interact with Invisibility. And there is some overlap with Percievability of a Power and a Focus.

12 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

Group Naked Buyoff?  

 

Or if you want to be a right and proper rules-lawyer, Darkness, Personal Immunity, Invisible Power Effect. 

The rules that introduce hte Buyoff (APG 1 I think), explicitly exclude it for groups of powers.

2 hours ago, cptpatriot said:

How about buying off the Focus limitation as a power, linking it to the Invisibility power? 

That is a naked buyoff.

17 hours ago, L. Marcus said:

Just got back from Alita. Almost choked on the melodrama, but it is a very pretty movie. Weak three outta five.

If you want a drama, look at the 1993 OVA. The ending is a utter downer, with no hope or even a enemy left to fight.

8 hours ago, Old Man said:

Ironically, in supers games where 4d6Ks are being thrown around, Damage Reduction is affordable and easier to justify, and Combat Luck isn't really necessary. 

Combat luck is not nessesary, because nobody bats an eye if your bat armor is a decent amount of resistant protection.

And unless you bought it with a Limitation, you will propably have it always on.

I has actually been illegal to come "armed or armored" to the British Parlamaint since 1313:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_forbidding_Bearing_of_Armour

A literal case where you would have to leave your armor behind and rely on combat luck - or not being attack at all.

13 hours ago, dsatow said:

Wolverine seems to have danger sense and would constantly sniff out problems before hand.

The question is: Was it him literally sniffing propblems out, or figuratively sniffing problems out?

He has enhanced senses in his powerset. And his enhanced senses might just be something a enemy normally does not expect (so he does not use stealth against them).

7 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

and Green Lantern for about the fourth time.  No idea why people bag so hard on that movie: very human, and no grim dark anywhere.....  

I certainly see all the ingredients for a good movie. But the cooking was where they failed.

On 2/25/2019 at 10:25 PM, Tjack said:

    I don’t know if it qualifies as a monster, but real world appearance, build, personality and popular opinion of friends & loved ones put me pretty squarely as a Dwarf.

Huh, I did not even consider that as an option (too humanoid I guess?). But in every game I play, my first Character is a dwarf. It is a mater of tradition.

So, for want to be my answer is: Dwarf

What would be most fitting us trickier.
I like to stay at home, but am actually very good on feet once I get moving.

I am introverted.

The cold bothers me little

I eat almost exclusively meat.

For encapsulates me would say: The Snow Fox.

Unless there is a mythical creature that fits as well.

On 2/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Pariah said:

What limitations would be appropriate for the extra sets of 2d6? I was thinking -1/2, -1, -2, -3, etc. Is this appropriate? Or is there a better way to build it?

On 2/24/2019 at 1:46 PM, Doc Democracy said:

I think the limitation depends on how you see the combat in the game going.  If the character can always give himself distance in a half move before firing, then his only disadvantage is that he is having to take a range modifier due to range.  If he cannot regularly get distance, then there is some disadvantage in it.  Will also make a difference on what average damage is in the campaign - at 10D6 no great disadvantage, at 14D6, a bit more. To a quick look, I think it is over generous.

I can only agree with that. The value of the limitation is highly subject to the gaming circumstances. You even have to include the option of a ally moving the enemy farther away (Knockback, Shove, Grab or Telekinesis).

This Character sounds like a Blaster. And it is always beneficial for a blaster to be away from his enemy. Especially if the enemy is a melee oponent.

There is the range Modifier, but that might already be accounted for with defensive bonus. And/or Offensive Penalty Skill Levels.

On 2/24/2019 at 4:35 AM, Pariah said:

Thoughts?

Building it as a composite power is a acceptable way.

A "single power with limitation" approach has the advantage of clearly stating the total damage.

I do have a unique idea to add: Combat Maneuvers.

The "Haymaker" maneuver is defined as "taking extra time to do more damage".

Him flying away to deal more damage could be how he "takes extra time to do more damage" for this attack.

If you give the Character Ranged Martial Arts (HSMA 6E), this could be a maneuver with the "Half Move Required" Element added. I mean it is even allowed for Ranged Martial Arts, wich is something I did not expect.

Even the Velocity element might work (again allowed for ranged martial arts). Usually it is about running towards the enemy to get more force of impact (like throwing a spear from a run). But in this case it is about running away to do deal more damage. Of course consider what I said above about it being usually beneficial to be farther away.

11 hours ago, akrippler said:

well this thread took a turn.

You left us alone to argue for almost two weeks. Stuff like this happens

11 hours ago, akrippler said:

if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious.  which to a degree makes sense to me..

Total caps are a reliable, time proven approach.

Note that there is another relevant factor besides total defenses: Ratio of Resistant defenses to total defenses.

By math Killing attacks do barely any additional BODY damage. For 3 DC of attack it is on average:
3 BODY for Normal Damage
3.5 BODY Killing Damage

But the part where less defenses are resistant (and thus working against the Killing damage) are what makes Killing damage more ... killing.

7 hours ago, Steve said:

Perhaps, in addition to accepting a geas to repay their loan, the debtor must also take out an insurance policy with the church, both on themselves as well as on any business endeavors started using a loan. Since every debtor must have such a policy, the risk pool is lowered, and the church is receiving insurance premiums instead of interest.

Like you have to buy a full coverage insurance if you buy a car with the Banks money, except this time the bank is also the insurer?

10 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah me too, in fact I can't remember EVER having a character die before 5th edition came out except in deliberately extremely lethal games.  I was being sarcastic because Hugh made it sound like everyone needed resistant defenses or there would be characters strewn on the battlefield like harvested hay.

He has a point to a certain degree. The feasibility/unfeasibility of killing vs normal damage is in part enforced via amount of Resistant Defenses vs total defenses.

But there are better ways to make certain the game does not become lethal/stun heavy.

3 hours ago, Old Man said:

Of course it's not that bad.  But playing an unarmored character in a killing-damage heroic campaign is very all-or-nothing in a way that's not always fun.  Especially if hit locations are used.

That is a textbook definition of "Intentionally Lethal Game" if I ever saw one.

This is a entry on the Wiki I found:
https://gurps.fandom.com/wiki/Cosmic

"Cosmic, +50% to be exempt from any one of the limiting rules in Chapter 4. For instance, it could eliminate the FP cost for Abilities and Exertion (p. 159)."

FP seems to stand for Fatigue Points.

And Exertion seems to be a way to get FP, similar to the "Long Term Endurance" rules.

I can not quite tell if FP are STUN, END, Long Term Endurance or a hybrid of all 3. But as STUN can be burned instead of END if you run out, it sounds like that example talks about "applying 0 ENd (+1/2) to a power". Also the Energy Reserve reminds me of HERO's Enduance Reserve. So END seems a pretty good equivalent.

I mean technically "cost endurance" is a game rule, and 0 END allows you to override said rule. But we Heroites might not think of it that way, because Reduced Endurance is such a normal modifier.

We can also asume that "does not work on Desolidfied* targets" is a normal game rule for most GURPS and HERO powers. If so, "Affects Desolid (+1/2)" would be a fitting equivalent.

*It is worth noting that in Hero, some powers have a mandatory weakness. Every Desolid, Healing and Regeneration needs one special effect it is useless against. Just to prevent some stuff from becomming OP.

If that trends holds for  1 or 2 more examples, we could asume that a number of +1/2 advantages are equal to "Cosmic" in most cases. Wich would mean "Cosmic" is mostly split over multiple advantages.