badger3k

Again, you seem to miss my point. Senses that are subconscious are a different matter than consciously sending something out. There are other problems I have with lariats power concept, though, as I thought I explained. Its not a matter of information overload. In my campaign people have great powers but are still human. They cannot do two things that require a lot of attention at once. Subconscious actions are another issue. Try to type your reply while you are playing a video game (use one hand for each). If you can do that, then we'll see about the rest. Catching a baseball without looking, just reaching up, from a seated position, is made of millions of bits of info. But I've done it. Does that mean that I can write a book while doing it? Or sing a song while thinking the lyrics of another - at the same time. I don't mean sing then think, or sing while you "play" lyrics in your head - concentrate on the words of the one in your head, while singing - try to do both without shifting your focus back and forth. Of course, since I can't show what I mean, that may be a hideous example. I believe in superhumans who are still human. No cosmic-powered omniprescience power in my game. I would not allow it, efficient or not, because it violates the spirit of the EC, as well as is looking for too much at once. Your whole rationale is a completely subjective interpretation of a piece of fiction. My rational is the same. So who's right? Again - using a completely subjective argument is like using none. How many phases is a panel? It's all subjective (to repeat myself ad nauseum). Damn - that stung. I'm so hurt I'm gonna cry. I thought I made it clear that I've never seen any sense or purpose to use them. I've found a MP does the overall job much better. I guess you're right though - I have no experience so I have no idea what I'm talking about . I've given two completely separate reasons why I do not use them. You have no problems trying to have a character do muliple things in a second. Do you allow a character who can pick a lock, read a book, blast somebody behind him with a blast pistol, and shave his beard. All at once. I prefer to go to a little less make-believe. Even Grond can only make one attack at a time (never mind the multi-power attack fiasco). And before anyone asks - I do think the one-second phase is silly, but it's a lesser annoyance that can be ignored most of the time). On what do you base that? I'd rather not get bogged down in point-think when playing the game. A powers value comes from more than just the points in it - it's how often its used, how useful it is when it's used, how the GM and player make use of situations where it is or isn't useful, heck - I'm probably missing more than I can remember. Trying to reduce it to number is irrational - is a 10d6 EB worth more than a 5d6 Entangle? Accorcing to math they're equal. But player A uses his EB 100% of the time - so it is really valued more - but player B uses the opposite - so the EB is worthless to him. But that can't be right - they are worth the same number of points! It's like statistics - worthless, except when you want to 'prove' something. Game balance comes from more than numbers. If you feel differently after playing so long, then we'll never see eye to eye on that. Here's another example. One guy uses one slot 90% of the time. He loves it. So the rest are devalued in your opinion. Then he uses one of those 10% slots, poor little useless point drain, to stop the world-destroying machine. He saved the world. Is that power only good for 10% then? How about if he uses another slot to save someones life, which in the end nets him a free contact for life - (no points spent, so none to add up for a value - its all GM fiat). How much is that worth? How about another slot that is only used once in 10 adventures, then results in the downfall of Dr Destroyer. Only worth 10%? If that ends up all I can do after 6 adventures, while my buddy with the multipower can now do 5 more things with his power, then yeah - the tradeoff of one aspect (combat superiority with equal powers) over usefulness in an adventure is not worth it. I can fly and fire a full strength EB at my opponent, while my buddy can't do that, the entangle he has sure came in handy when my EB didn't have any effect. His force wall saved the innocent bystanders. I could only stand and watch. Yep - being able to fly and fire sure is important and worth more. Its all in how its used. If your game is strictly combat, then that's fine for you. Combat isn't the only thing in mine, though. If ECs were so useful for everything, then why doesn't everybody have one? Mechanon doesn't have one - neither does Dr Destroyer. If Ultron and Dr Doom aren't effective characters (since an EC would be much more effective), then who is? Pardon me for not laughing. Don't teach your grandpa how to suck eggs, son . I never said I didn't understand - I just have different values. You equate points saved on combat utility over all the other factors (it seems to me that all your arguments are based on MP vs EC in straight out fight). I think that one aspect is overshadowed by the others. Points are useful,but in no case reflect "balance" or anything related to it. But like I said, that's my opinion. You have yours. We'll "ne'er the twain shall meet" as they say (although who 'they' are is open to debate and cause for concern in the halls of power). Sorry to anybody who is tired of this issue - may or may not post its like again unless its something new.

Good reply Treb. I can recall lots of hostages in the older comics - villains were always grabbing someone. Look at the old superman black and whites. Hostages are part of the tradition. Without knowing the powers of the other characters, what they could have done is hard to say. Surprise moves to grab the innocent, distract Fiacho with illusions or mental attack, magnetize the knife (use TK), use speed to get behind him, talk to him? If nothing else, the characters still had an obligation to try to save the non-powered people. With Eurostars casual killing history, the heroes had an obligation to free all the innocents (and remember - they are all innocent until proven guilty), once combat seemed to be inevitable (although it may have not been). For every Swat team there is a hostage negotiator to defuse situations like that. Just because a man can fly doesn't mean he can ignore the victims of a criminal or terrorist - super-powered or no.

My response would be that he suffers for it - his body is stretched further and further, making the whole weaker. Batman and Cap fighting multiple villains is completely irrelevant. Defender can fight many people at once. Does he have an EC - the number of characters around you and how many are attacked in one second is not similar to knowing everything in a 10' radius (ex - forgot the range), while blocking missiles, while attacking someone else, while shielding yourself with the force tendrils. {edit for clarity} - sensing someone behind you, relying on reactions and skills built up is a lot different than sending out a multitude of force tendrils that feel the surroundings. Buy radar or sonar if you want it active like that. Batman isn't going to feel up the guy behind him - he might sense somebody, duck, then belt him - he doesn't have to process the man's waist size while he does it. Even radar sense sends out a pulse, then the mind interprets what comes back - its a subconscious power - the tendrils does not sound like that to me. It's an interpretation of a non-game situation. There is no basis to say how long or how short a time span is covered in one panel, or even several. You can use anything in a comic book to justify any position you want. It is really completely irrelevant in my mind to any translation into a game. As for getting more bang for the buck, in my campaign I'm the arms dealer and banker - guess its a recession. Getting a bang for the buck is great. How many bangs and bucks is the question. Is reed a 350, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, ad infinitum character? It's whatever you say. You make him with 500 and several ECs. I'll use a multipower, or even no framework, and won't worry about the cost. Why should I? Mainly because the human torches abilities are a result of one aspect - the flame sheath/body. Lariat's powers are all extensions of her power - which may sound the same, but to me they are miles apart. If her mind created a non-directional force field around her that negated gravity, and provided her with some protection - that I can see. Add in the attention-taking missile deflection, the sensory awareness (I didn't catch if the tendrils that sense the area are physical, as would seem to imply since they can block attacks and missiles at the same time). Again - it looks like the player is trying to have his cake and eat it too. I can see Lariat having a MP (or not even that) - the MP would reduce the effects of the others while she focuses on one task, while the no-framework writeup would limit her to the same number of actions, but without the power loss. Probably - its the all at once nature that really makes it highly selective and restricted. That and, as said before, I never found the cost savings you imply and work so hard to show, make up for the lack of versatility. The few points saved aren't worth it. That and most players did not play characters that used ECs. Most conceptions didn't come close to that, and our group pretty much subscribed to the same theory - MPs were favorite. My current group has me as the expert with the rest pretty new to the system, so they pick up my biases. Actually, no I don't agree with your analysis. I thought I had answered that, bt with all the postings I might have missed it. You can show that the EC saves points. So what - that's what it's designed to do. Your math just shows that to me - I look at all the other factors that I've posted and I say that the EC is the one that's hurting. To me they really are a waste or points. The 4 points in that MP can also be the power he uses 90% of the time. As for the point costs, I took those off someone elses post - I have no idea where they were derived from, but I'm sure such a situation can arise, so the numbers are as good as any other. Generally, as well, such "logic" constructs are ill-regarded. Its like the old fish can swim, fish have scales, therefore everything that swims has scales argument (although I like Monty Pythons argument much better - more colorful). Just because ECM>SPD in one instance, doesn't show that ECM>MP, even if you believe that SPD=MP. The trade-offs are entirely subjective, and the one concrete example you can give - the "same power" argument is true only in that context. But that's just my opinion. Hope that answers your questions. Appreciate your response.

Since I was mentioned in a later post I thought I'd answer this one - we haven't done it as a game mechanic (other than the usual vulnerabilities and susceptibilities) - fire extinguishers can be built as supress/drain fire if you want. We did use some SFX rules though - The character with flight as a jetpack couldn't fly in a vacuum (didn't buy with points limitation, but made sense), or the electical character (villian) who was stopped by a rubber carpet (or something like it - it was insulated and prevented the electricity from connecting/groudning/whatever - it was a while back and forget exactly what happened). I think a lot is assumed - if your character is fire based, do you need limitations on every thing that can stop/suppress/dispell your powers. Even Icicle in CKC has something similar - her powers only work where the humidty is high (like the early iceman), but she has no points for this limitation. A lot depends on (as Steve says) common and dramatic sense. I agree with your realism issue. It's pretty tough to throw out "realism" in a game where human beings can toss aircraft around, turn no corporeal, return from the dead and generate electrical energy. I already covered that, although I don't think I ever used the dreaded r-word. If that word is bad, use in-game realism or internal consistency, if you prefer. I already covered the comic issue. Which does point to the fact that everybody has different ideas on what an EC is. Your last quote does some it up nicely: It is an interesting exercise.

Just a note on your reply - my problem isn't that the character isn't like Medusa - it's that I can't buy the TK Hair, especially the way it was written - too much all at once. If the Tendrils can feel things, then they can suffer damage too - maybe feedback on the FF if you want them all active at once. Otherwise you need to concentrate and change them from "strong but numb" to "weak but sensitive" - but not at the same time. As for more limitations of the theme than are required - that's the way I learned it, and that's the way I play. I see no reason to change, not unless there's a good reason. I could say how you can possibly explain, based on the special effects and character (origin, stats, theme, etc) how the construct can be justified. As to your last comment. I'd probably assume (and I may be wrong) that you go by the DC type of powers and characters - people can pick up the moon and all. I prefer a more reduced scale - people can do fantastic things, but some are impossible. Try to pick up the Baxter Building and it will fall apart on you, unless you have some TK or FF for support. Pick up a battleship and it will probably crack, or at least be very, very stressed at the point of the grab. I try to maintain an internal logic and consistency in my campaign. The same as you would in most other genres. Here's some from an earlier version: EC Ego Power: Ego Attack, Mental Illusions, Mind Control EC TK Powers: Telekinesis, TK shield (FF), TK Fist (EB) EC Weather Powers: Fog (darkness), Whirlwinds (EB area), Wind riding (Flight) EC: Ice Powers: Ice Ram (EB), Ice Armor (Armor), Ice Slide (running) Any problems with any of these? Ignore the rules about 0 END and all that - anything wrong with the concepts? Ice maybe - all three at once isn't more than most can have or do. Weather stretches it - fog can be maintained with a slight bit of concentration, but manipulating winds for self-support and striking enemies - iffy, but possible. TK - no - like I said before - just does not feel right - focus your mind and pick up the rock, while hitting someone else, while protecting yourself. Real big stretch. If you drop the TK or EB, then maybe, but its still a stretch for me. Ego powers - ROFLMAOPP - attack, keep up illusions, control minions - all at once . Without even looking at FRED, I'm pretty sure they dropped the ego powers one in a later edition. My two biggest points are the elemental nature - something so fundamental that it is almost inherent. And one second. That said - your hair elemental control is more acceptable - it doesn't violate my 'focus' or 'attention' rules any more than having a force field and hitting someone. It's still iffy to me for concept, but the magnitude is less. If that makes any sense.

I'd disagree on the mental or luck (and others) - it would have to be rationalized/explained real well for me. Str and Dex in an EC would be very hard to justify as well (Str maybe - indirect or something like an ice support), but not DEX.

Thanks for the reply. Now here's the difference that I see - Normal sight is one thing - Try to fight, lets say, two people. At once. One behind you, one in front. And feel your surroundings at the same time. And block the baseballs someone is throwing at you. In one second. Looking at something is a lot different than mutliple inputs and multiple attention-focusing bits. Sorry, I just cannot buy all that being done in one second of time. Daredevil's radar sense is different, because it is just a sense - it replaces his sight. Take one away, add one. No change in the basics. Again, based upon my memory, they have never done everything all at once. Obviously I haven't an encyclopedic knowlege of either in every situation they have been in. But all the instances that I can recall, I've never seen Mr Fantastic stretching out, entagling somebody, striking someone else, while gliding through the air (to put together some of the abilities that would be in an EC for him). Medusa has entangled a lot of people (area effect entangle), fanned air/gas/sand (EB maybe), lowered or lifted herself or others or objects (clinging/Tk maybe). Never all in one panel. Of course, here's where the comic book rationale falls completely apart. I'd say 99% of the characters in books are based on someones ideas and are not made from a game system. Did the designers of the Fantastic Four look up the marvel superheroes game and make sure their characters were in line with some mechanic? Do they do that now? Or does somebody decide - hey, I'd like that power (or whatever) for my character, and then try to put it into game mechanics? And, given the way the Hero system is designed, most people will try to make the character for the least amount of points. Who says that Mr Fantastic or Medusa even have power frameworks? Has Stan Lee provided his input? Has any comic creator/writer/editor posted stats that give the official view? Who says that Mr Fantastic isn't a 1000 point character? Also, how many seconds/phases/turns is one panel of a comic? How do you relate it - one panel equals one phase? Then sometimes a character can't run 10' in a phase. How about the fact that dramatic license and the plotting determine how a power is used. Sure, they have guidelines to follow, but (especially in the early days), the guidelines were tossed aside for the story. Translating characters into a game system are absurd. The standard you use is different than mine and different than anybody else. Told you So I disregard FRED on the TK. I thought I posted it (although one of my pre-post edits may have removed it) that fire is acceptible. (actually looking back, I didn't make it real clear). I started out when elemental controls really meant elemental. I'd say the human torch has an EC for the following reason. He sheaths his body in flames (plasma/whatever it may currently be). The heat/energy protects him from some damage (FF), provides lift that a small concentration (similar to walking) allows the flight (hover would be mostly automatic IMO), and he can project fire blasts (EB) - that's where his focus is. Look to the early ones - he could barely do all three at once. Maybe he started as an MP, then changed with experience, or maybe his EC was small. I'm going to join in on the apologizing. Sorry, but can you at least even say yes or no to the following question: Is the fact that EC man pays 28 XP for a new power while MP man pays 4 XP for his still indicative that the EC is better off? If you can answer that question please, I'll leave the rest alone - as I said before, I can't buy that argument on more power at the same time. You don't even need to explain why. I just don't see how buying powers at character creation relates to the experience issue - anybody help me if you read this before Gary - there seems to be a lot of people reading this - if you can relate the two - I just can't.

If the heroes decided to kill a few to save many, then they definitely don't belong in the 4-color genre, or even being called "hero" in my book. If you are playing some special forces campaign that may be acceptable, but not in a super-heroic game. Also, superpowers are not super-powered people. If a superhero is a collection of millions of people in some super-gestalt, then maybe your view might hold true. But different genre again. A group of elected (or whatever) officials making a policy decision are not super-heroes (and not really heroes either, just button pushers - the real heroes are the ones putting their lives on the line, not sending others to kill or die). Look at the comics - especially the ones involving war. Just finished re-reading the avengers/kang story arc. Only two incidents that can be pinned down as killing - and then the ones who die by the heroes hands are combatants themselves - not innocents. Look at Captain America in Avengers 54 (if you have/can find it) - definitely not a "it's only a few lives" type character. You earlier referred to Eurostar as each having the power of an army (or similar). Apparently the 700+ point (I believe that was the amount quoted) player character is in the same book. He had no other option than the one he took? I'm curious about the teleport though - if he's only used it twice, is that a normal side effect or something special (i.e. an intended side-effect of using the power a certain way). That also has a part in the whole story. Like the villain angle (reading the current Thor storyline ).

After reading the 4 or 5 pages of posts since I left, eek! Just a few comments - even though it was covered neatly, I rarely use ECs because I don't see a benefit to them for the cost - I'm the exact opposite of you. Second, I am way way stricter than you. I would not allow Lariat Girl to have the EC - pure and simple. I can see it now - Me: "What's your reason - what are they based on?" Player: "Force power - telekinetic force "hair', like Medusa." M: "Uh - huh. What can you do?" P: "I can wrap myself up in them (the FF), while strecthing and attacking (stretch), Plus reach around corners (SA), deflect missiles and leap." M: "And your mind is sufficient to maintail subconscious and conscious control of these presumably thousands of tendrils, processing everything, enabling you to be pretty much a battle-globe and master of your little sphere of reach?" P: "Sure - I got a high Int" M: "Your character does - you, however..." Sorry - Medusa and Mr Fantastic are MPs in my book. I do not see medusa or Reed doing multiple things like that (please don't respond to that as a justification - we know comics and the game are two wildly different animals, re the Batman issue). Personal opinion, the character and player is reaching for too much - the concept does not justify the EC in my campaign. You have to have a better justification than that. As for any champs characters that have an EC, I haven't gone through CKC and the rest in detailed look at the abilities, nor does that bother me if every one has an EC and an MP. If I use such a character I may rewrite them, or leave them as is, depending on how they're going to be used. Said I was stricter. Now if after a long time playing, we decided to rework the character, I may be tempted to allow the EC. May. I wouldn't say no, but I haven't seen any reason to do so in the past. Anyway, another post has: Mainly for the EC Telekinesis - nope. Why not? Easy - they all require more concentration and awareness. I just stuck with the elemental part - a fire character may have an EB, FF (with or without damage shield), and flight because having a body surrounded by a flaming field could provide the last two, with the EB requiring the characters attention. Sorry - its how I learned and how I've always played. Telekinesis just doesn't "feel" right. The rest already covered. I'd generally have problems with movement on charges, but I'd need the concept as well as the construction. I don't see a problem with the 0 END powers - If needed, they can buy costs END. If the player had good enough justification, then I would let the power in. Like Steve keeps saying - "based on special effects, common sense, and dramatic sense" along with GM is the final arbiter (sp?)... Looking for something I saw a while back...Here it is! Had to go back several pages - That line just struck me as funny. If you're trying to compare a straight EC and multipower for which is better for the exact same power, why should EC guy need a multipower? Here was Hugh's originsl post that you were responding to - I think the issue is that the flexibility is part of the multipower, expecially with experience. The last part is what you quoted when you responded (pg 15 I believe). How does EC guy with a superior EC, suddenly get experience and needs to buy a multipower? Hugh was posting that, limiting it like you were, to one EC in character 1, and 1 MP in character 2, character 2 can get a new power at 4 XP. Character 1 can buy the same power with 28 XP. Now, following the basis of your argument, EC guy is better off. Somehow. Apparently by buying a multipower. Supports that argument I guess. I do seem to be going after one point, since I haven't seen your answer, unless that is it. If I missed it, I apologize - there was a LOT to read. Again, how is EC guy advantaged in the experience point issue. Saying he'll buy a MP is weakening the argument - it's saying that an EC is not the best for everything. If you really don't see the experience issue as a factor, can you at least give your views on that? I'm trying to see where your coming from, but I'm sorry, I can't. Is the huge # of AP usable at once worth that much more than the non-combat functionality of many powers? If this seems really argumentative (or even personal), sorry, I really want your view on that. Anyway, like I said before, we play with different styles (and from reading people's posts, I think most don't play like I do). As long as you and yours have fun, that's what matters.

Just don't use m & m's! (Patty's Perps reference)

Re: Who do you Worship? Current Thor storylines - Spirals in Thor, Lord of Asgard, and Thor, Lord of Earth have an interesting twist on this. You need to go back a bit, otherwise the current issue will completely throw you.

Artfully done in grand 4-color tradition. But if it doesn't work then it doesn't - I think Patriot needs to know that some things have to be done for the good of the group. If this player, or his character, is the problem, and makes the game no fun for the other players, then (no matter who is at fault) he is the one who has to correct the problem. Talk to the player and see if you can get him to change characters or whatever (many people had suggestions, I won't repeat them here). Then make sure that the situation doesn't come up. My players can tell you that I am easygoing during play - I am fairly lenient in what I let the players do, as long as it is within the rules and the character concept. But there are ground rules that I have that there is no compromise on. Every GM has these. Its our responsibility to make sure the other players have fun, which includes policing members if need be. I'll end it here, cause I could make it long. Good luck Patriot. Hope things work out.

Just because they haven't been used in my games doesn't mean I think they're broken - I just am strict on what they can do and how they're themed. Just personal preference. The limitation of drain one drain all is just a version of linked, IMO. No big deal - to me, if you drain the SFX of an MP or EC, you'll probably lose all, depends on the SFX. END - rookie mistake - I counted the Red END into the active points when I figured it out. Long day. Anyway, I really am curious about my other comments. Everything keeps getting focused on a straight fight. Any comments on this: Is that an advantage of Elemental Control Man? Or too big an advantage to the Multipower Guy (even over Straight Dude - hmm, may need to change his name). What is your opinion on that? - I really am curious. You keep looking at the frameworks in one situation. Even my frameworks (especially my deliberately absurd first sample) get no mention? I feel depressed . Is it wrong to expand the concept to the game as a whole, or do we need to keep this in some kind of arena? Yes, combat is central to the game (as in all RPGs, to one degree or another), but we've had games with one combat, but lots or skill use or roleplaying (tracking down a runaway while in secret ID). To recap (sorta) - if EC Man has his three powers, making him the combat hog, then MP Guy has the versatility (say an 8 slot framework) to make him the pinch hitter, Skills Lad aces all the needed skill tests, while Straight Dude just kinda sits there. Maybe he can become Focus Dude next time! Kinda fits the different characters with different roles idea that seems an integral part of both comics and the genre. Look at Superman and (oh no!) Batman. Can they be built on the same # of points? Probably - depends on how wild you go with skills, and how much you want to give bats for his bases/toys/etc. Will they be the same power level? Hah - let's see Batman go toe to toe with Superman (what, no kryptonite! Holy Bat Sh@%!) Like the commercial says, think outside the bun. Why not design two characters. Put them in combat. Put them in a rescue situation. Put them in a "danger room" with multiple situations. Then compare. Others have posted to this same effect. As for having x number points up at once. Does a lot of good in a NND if he has no defenses for it. Every character or framework has advantages and flaws. Again, each is designed for different uses and conceptions. I have no problem leaving them as is (as I said, to me they need a strong justification concept-wise, because that's the way I feel they were designed, not because I think they are overpowered/underpriced). Just me thoughts.

Even though its sarcastic, for those who don't know - it doesn't apply to running since running has no visible effect other than your body moving (unless you take invisible power effect). The description only says that it does not make a character's attacks or other Powers invisible - and using visible Powers can expose an invisible character's position. Flight that is visible to sight (since I still think you can choose which three its visible to (p 71) - personally, I'd rule the regeneration as being visible as the healing of wounds (bending the rules, but it's my call in my campaign ). Force field would be visible, though. I think the FAQ has something on invisible running Sorry, just wanted to chime in on that with an interpretation. edited for content. How's this for a 100 point MP? 70 Pool 12 Drain flight, 4d6 ranged 4u 16" Flight 1/2 END 14 14d6 EB vs PD (gravity waves) 100 Probably lose right off the bat. Hmm - 60 pool 12 6d6 Ego attack 6u 2d6 Entangle, BOECV 12 3d6 Flash vs sight, BOECV 6u Mind Control 4u 26 STR TK 100 Strikes from hiding, may win. But its not the same thing! Yeah - that's the point I'm trying to make that isn't being addressed. I don't think anyone denies that in a straight up one-on-one fight between a man with an EC and one with a MP, assuming the exact same powers, that EC man has an advantage. So what. Tone down one of the mp slots and get points for another power, an entangle maybe. Or TK. Or whatever. That's the main benefit - for a few points you can get a lot of power. So you can't use it all at once. So what. Trade off. When mp man finishes 2 adventures he has 6 XP (for example) - he (with GMs approval) picks up an Entangle ultra slot. Mr EC lets them sit there - he'll need 5 more adventures before he can gain another slot. So who has the benefit there? According to what seems to be your default position, its still the EC guy. Mr EC has 3 powers - flight, force field, and EB. Mr MP has Flight, Force Field, EB, Entangle, Force Wall, Telekinesis, and Flight usable on others. Now Mr MP isn't as powerful in a straight up fight. But during the fight the bad guys start blasting away at the civilians nearby. Who has the advantage? I think a force wall beats flying in front of the bullets any day. Why not compare the rest as well? Add in a pure no-flight, no ranged attack brick. Taking your idea farther along (that ECs are overpowered and give the EC man the advantage) then the EC man should be better off. Let's do one punch. Or maybe compare the EC man to one who is entirely skills based. Open the safe, without leaving a trace, mr EC. Sure, you can make an EC for some of that. Is it better? Or just different? From what you posted, you apparently used ECs a lot. Out of the last 20 years, I think we've had one (a low power 'diety body' type thing) in all the campaigns I was in or ran. A lot different background there. Like I said, I've always found them too restrictive and costly - first, they need a very tight, focused reason for being combined in one framework (especially one where all powers can be used together, and second, because even if they can be explained, its a lot of points and END too - the one given above is 10 END per phase. The most your first mp example would use is 7. So with a SPD 5 character, thats 50 END to 35. Pump up mr ECs END and REC to compensate, or spend points on SPD. The MP guy can use those points elsewhere. If your whole argument is based on facing two characters against each other and saying that one is clearly better overall, then I just can't buy it. But that said, you can sure play it that way if you want. Since I don't know if I'll post again in this thread, let me say that it has been interesting. Have fun.

You forget - Batman has the power of Merchandising! And a huge fan base with lots of money. The old detective comics Batman was more believable than he is now - the writers take a lot of license. Maybe give him a huge luck pool to reflect his fan support, which crosses dimensions to the DC universe to keep him alive (Transdimensional Luck Reserve, only to win?)

Re: Ambush Bug You wouldn't happen to have any stats on them still, do ya? That sounds so hilarious to try and use.

Shields do that as well - they provide DCV bonuses vs attacks (p 334 FRED) - small size personal shields that is.

The regeneration takes 1 turn to get 1 BODY. I've never been in a situation where 1 BODY per turn had a serious effect on combat. And unless I read the rules wrong, both the powers in EC and MP would go out when the character is stunned or KO'd - the exception being the Regeneration, which is specifically bought as persistant. Anyone's FF goes down, they're pretty much a target of opportunity IMO. Unless both have big defenses, the regenerate body doesn't do much for negative stun. I may be wrong, but if a character attacks EC man, gets blinded, then maybe the brick grabs a car or telephone pole, the speedster grabs the metal frisbee he uses as an EB, the marksman gets his rifle out. I think I've only seen one character in the games I've played in who had no ranged attack. I think his point was that flying characters tend to get attacked by ranged attacks. The flash damage shield may be a neat one-use or limited use power, but since its obviously visible, it isn't that effective as a defensive countermeasure once word gets around. It can help as an offensive weapon, perhaps in a move-by or through, but in that caase why not by a regular flash attack. That limits is usefulness tremendously, IMO. Isn't this whole thread pretty subjective? I made the EC and an MP the same way as in the example. With the same points, I made a 58 pt multipower pool for the same powers (8 point multi-slots). For better use, I put the regen and flash in ultra slots (4 each), and got another 8 point slot (8d6 EB) - now MP doesn't have to let them come to him - he can take the fight to the enemy. As to who is more powerful that's completely subjective. If both characters slug it out, with no tactics, then the EC probably will win. If their is some flexibility, the odds are probably still in the favor of EC guy (since he can use all powers at full power). If you go with both characters going after a villain, then its more open, especially if you modify the MP as I did. We've rarely used ECs since they were always pretty restricted, and cost too much. MPs offered ease of expansion and use. Sure, the characters were not as powerful as the comic book heroes (like the oft-cited human torch example), but for a few points they can improve their power suite. ECs, as have been noted, can't do that. EC man still needs 20 CP to add a power (adjusted down in RP, of course). MP man needs 4 or 8 for full power. 8 points buys 40 active, opposed to 20 points for 40 active. The MP cost can also have limitations on it to lower the real cost as well (didn't want to imply it couldn't be done). To me its imposible to accurately 'prove' that one is better than the other - each one has benefits in certain situations. If you look at an EC and MP constructed in exactly the same way, the MP costs less, but the EC can do more at once. That's what its designed to do. Try to make an EC as flexible as an MP, for the same cost - can't be done to my knowledge. Trying to prove that just seems to be comparing batman to oranges (sorry - had to keep batman and fruits together in the thread somehow)

Re: Potions A lot of continuing charges will probably make the potion more expensive. [edit - missed the cost per dose specification] Plus you'd basically have a large potion bottle or one that you need only sip the potion to be affected. For multiple people to use the same potion, you'd need usable by others (simultaneously), along with trigger (drink potion) or gestures (depends on how you want to construct/rationalize it). I use potions with OAF, Independent, 1 non-recoverable charge as the base, Depending on what the potion does and costs in AP, the bulky (alchemists lab), expendable, costly/difficult to acquire mods for foci are used, as well as incantations, gestures, extra-time (1 day or week min), and required skill roll. I haven't worked up more than a couple for my campaig, but those are the ground rules I set up.

Re: Scrolls In a lot of low fantasy (Conan, et al) they tend to be more common - they are used in the casting of spells which are more ritual in aspect (long casting time, etc). Other than that I haven't seen a lot in fantasy literature except where its a major artifact-type spell ("the One Thing that Will Kill the Evil Overlord"), or it's a source for mages to learn spells. To make magic harder, you can require scrolls for all castings, but that doesn't sound like what you're looking for. Scrolls can have all the unique spells you want people to have and can be the focus of an adventure (i.e. this scroll has the spell needed to cure the king). Beyond that its tough - maybe have scrolls be a record of a lost civilization, with appropriate spells that can't be learned and must be translated, or that some magic requires writing the spells down before the magic can be used. A society of scribe-mages could be the result. Or maybe a certain type of magic can only be cast from scrolls (such as creation magic). Just a few thoughts.

Sorry if it wasn't clear - my confusion stemmed from the fact that I missed the movement limitations on pg 82. In the example given in the FAQ, would the character in question have +1" leaping since his points suddenly became worth half as much? I'm assuming that in a superheroic campaign, if a character buys NCM the character would pay 2x for movement just as if he's in a heroic campaign, correct?

I'm not sure if this belongs here or not: In the FAQ it says: Q:_ Suppose that a Heroic character has STR 10 and buys +3†Leaping for 3 points. He’s now at his maximum of 5â€, after which doubling applies. He then buys his STR up to 20. He now has 7†of Leaping. Since the 2†of that in excess of 5†are paid for outside of his STR, must he now pay another 2 Character Points to double their cost? _ A:_ Yes. Otherwise characters could easily avoid the Normal Characteristic Maxima rules for this sort of thing simply by claiming to have acquired some abilities before others. Elsewhere its been posted (and in FRED) that powers are not subjected to the NCM. Thus AID to STR that raises the score over 20 do not use the doubled cost. Same with characteristics. Why are movement powers different? Or in the form of a question - could you buy an AID to leaping without paying the doubled cost (as AID isn't affected by NCM - FRED 74)? How about absorption to running or leaping?

Re: Re: Magic Item Help After looking at it, your reduced limitation is more in line with the way its supposed to work, since using the extra time limitation implies that I'd need a full phase to swing the staff (etc). You're right about the KO and such, and I'd intended to handwave it too - it would stay in its last form. If it did matter, I could always put extra advantages on it, but it didn't seem worthwhile. I thought of that, but didn't think I could buy STR like that (I've never done it that way) - the way I look at it, any STR bought would add to the wearers STR, and the cloak has its own. I suppose it can be houseruled that way too (unless you know something in the new rules). It would also cost a little more, since the STR would need the Reduced END as well - not that thats a problem, just need to rework the pool to pay for it. As for the quarterstaff - I took the base cost of the quarterstaff from FH and added the 5 point CSL to it. I don't think it made a difference either, and maybe I'll look into it later when my head is better. Appreciate the responses.

Trying to replicate one of my D&D campaign players magic items in FH. Having trouble partly due to flu, but also wanted opinions on it - i.e. is it "legal", workable, is there a better way, etc? I'm not worried about point cost - I'm looking at effect. The item is a cloak of battle from the Magic of Faerun book. It's a relatively low power item that has two forms - in its base form, its a cloak that provides an armor bonus, and also, upon command, can attack an individual within 5 feet and try to disarm them (using the wearers attack bonus and action, so he can't attack and disarm unless he can do two standard actions at once). The other form is a quarterstaff that provides a +1 bonus to hit/damage but no other abilities. I tossed around several ideas, but came down to this: Cloak multipower: Independant (-2), OAF Cloak (-1), full phase to switch (-1/2) 60 point base (13 RP) 1u) Armor 4 PD/4 ED (12 pts) (3 RP for power) When worn as a cloak also has the following power: 20 STR TK, red END (0) (+1/2) Limited Range (1 hex)(-1/2), Only to Disarm opponents (-2), Only when cloak is in cloak form (version of linked to armor) (-1/4), requires command word (-0 since it can be said softly) (45 AP) (8 RP) - 11 RP for powers, 1 RP for slot cost 2u) +1 Quarterstaff - Quarterstaff (35 AP base) and +1 additional OCV (+2 total) (5 AP)[FH p 165] except no real weapon limitation (7 pts = 1 RP slot cost) - note, added the AP of the attack and the +OCV together, then took limitations. The staff has +4d6 HA, STR min (10) (-1/2) and 2h requiirement (-1/2) and the advantage of Red End 0 (+1/2). The staff has a total of 2 5pt levels for a +2 OCV. I've thought of STR and stretching for the disarm, but it needs its own STR rather than using the characters (the cloak was made for mages). I gave the extra time limitation to simulate the cloak changing forms. As I briefly described - the cloak doesn't get the incantations limitation because there is a command word, not something that needs to be spoken loudly and distinctly - it can be mixed in with regular speech to confuse people. I gave it the -0 just to record the need to say the command word. I also gave the cloak the OAF since it can get taken away with a grab maneuver - the price it pays for being able to slip off and change into a staff. If I figured it up, it has a real cost of 15 points. That looks right, but in my present condition I can't see anything wrong. Comments?

Some literary sources Here's a few books I recently read that has some good info on how medieval villages and manors were (well, English ones at least): Life in a Medieval Village, Frances and Joseph Gies, Harper Life in a Medieval Castle, same authors and publisher The books contain much that has been gone over already. Especially on the rights and responsibilities of both noble and villager. The serf had a lot more than movies (and most games) portray, as had been pointed out.