badger3k

While the technology is probably out there (i'd heard of similar things, mainly the gps/car theft thing, and the sensor to keep cars at certain distances) think of the cost and necessity of putting the sensors everywhere. The government still has trouble with street lights staying on, but these sensors will work? I'll wait 'till something other than the Sun has the story to start looking at it seriously (maybe the weekly world news?)

Appreciate the reply. My point on that is that it's the wrong use of the word - the definition requires a solid (i.e. something having the capacity to hae pores or to be able to absorb liquids). From my background and training I tend to try to be exact in writing (speech is another matter, at least common usage among friends). Like I said, a minor point, but one that I'm curious about. Again, thanks for the response.

Here's an idea I "borrowed" from one of the games systems I used to play (don't ask which one, there's been too many). Use the SPD stat straight. If the character has a 3.3 speed, multiply by 10. That gets him a 33. Moves/actions go on 10 counts. The 33 score would mean he would move on 33, 23, 13, and 3 (yeah, he'd get one extra action, but there's other ways to do it too). A character with 30 would go on 30, 20, and 10 (add 0 if you want). For ties, highest DEX goes first. Add in some die roll for randomness too, if you want. A slightly harder way is to divide DEX by SPD - an 18 DEX character with 3 SPD would go on the count of 6, 12, and 18. A 20 DEX, 4 SPD character would go on 5, 10, 15, and 20. Each "round/phase/segment/combat turn" would last however long you wanted it to be. I haven't used this system, but I remember similar types of things being done. This way you'd keep DEX and SPD as usable stats (just gets rid of the SPD chart). It's probably not exactly what you're looking for, but I figured I'd shoot it out there.

From the UNTIL Superpowers database - put here since I think the modifier will be used in all genres. Two questions: The first is a minor point, but how does anyone get porous - (1. Full of or having pores. 2. Admitting the passage of gas or liquid through pores or interstices. 3. Easily crossed or penetrated. [Middle English, from Old French poreux, poros, from Medieval Latin por?sus, from Latin porus, passage. See pore2.]po?rous·ly adv. po?rous·ness n. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.) as being able to contain liquids or gasses? The closest I might find is "able to absorb fluids" from Wordnet 1.6 at Princeton University. To my mind a porous power would either not hold liquid or gas (having pores), or have some kind of permeable effect - it can hold a certain amount then more would get through, or it would stop something for a limited time. That might make interesting affects (look - it's SpongeBoy!) - maybe an ablative style force-field effect? Affects porous sounds like it can only affect something that has holes in it, such as a gas attack that can't penetrate sealed chambers or systems. Like I said, a minor point that just is confusing to me, and doing a search turned up no reason for the usage, other than (perhaps) trying to tie liquids and gasses under the same advantage, while not wanting to use "liquids and gasses". Is it just that it sounds ok? Second question: Why is it one +10 adder for liquids and gasses? The USPD says (pg 10) that "characters cannot ordinarily use telekinesis to pick up liquids", but p 147 pf FRED has water manipulation in the sidebar for Telekinesis. According to one of the FAQs this is not the case, as it says the +10 adder only affects liquids (references the ultimate mentalist) while gasses are different (since I haven't seen the ultimate mentalist, I'm not sure if this is a 5th ed rule or not - it contradicts the USPD though). If TK can't affect liquids, shouldn't it be put into the errata (since it's a rule correction)? If it can, why a +10 for basically just getting to control gasses? Hmm - started out questioning the English-usage, but ended up with an actual point of confusion here. I have read all the (few) threads I can find, but since they were at least 1-2 months old, I wondered if anything "official" has come down. I am not looking to start up the previous threads again, just looking for new insight. And for the record - I was looking at using a modifier called "impermeable" to make TK (or force wall, or whatever) affect gasses. Not sure if it'd be an advantage or adder though.

From my experience low healing games can be an eye-opener for players. If you have (for example) D&D players used to mega-healing, their attitudes towards combat are really different. When they switch to low healing the learning curve can be sharp - usually in character deaths. After that, while combat is an option, it takes back place to alternative methods. Depending on the power level, combat is still possible (so barbarians and the like are still very playable), but it doesn't take the forefront of the game as in other systems or worlds. I was going to suggest something else for the power, but I think the armor mentioned before isn't too bad.

You don't like the Batusi? How about 2 supervillains who looked good who were frontmen for two powerful villains who didn't look good. The good looking ones had no powers themselves...

more input I think I understand better what you're looking for. Why not use the basic system, but done this way: 1) For 1 point you can get a skill at 8- 2) For 2 points get a skill at 11- 3) For 3 points get a skill at 9+CHA/5 This would allow characters to purchase low levels of skills without having doctorates immediately. If you wanted more "realism" you could impose limits on study time - say, the character can get an 8- immediately. An 11- takes 4 months of game time (or more), while the characteristic roll takes 1 year. Or 8- immediate, 11- 1 additional adventure, CHA roll 2 or more adventures. That way you could simulate the time it takes to gain a new skill and integrate it properly. Adding bonuses to skills could take similar times, the length depending on the bonus. Of course, you could also do this as having the player state that he's studying a skill several adventures before spending the points, or pay and then spend the time. To me that would add some of what I think you're looking for. Hope that helps.

fred? Thanks for the reply - just spent all evening looking the boards over and appreciate the help.

If you go with a separate cave, then I'd definitely use another medic than Alfred - he'd be too easy to connect to Bruce Wayne. If he still has a secret ID then it'd have to be someone else.

Ditto on that - I've been playing Champions off and on for 20+years. This system is the best that I've found for superheroes. The only thing I can add is to look here often - and ask for advice. Given that most people seem to have extensive experience with the system, you may get more advice than you need, but thats better than the alternative:D . It is different than the d20 system (currently playing a 3e/3.5 game for the last year or so after 20+ years away from D&D, and have/played M&M and SAS also). If you (and your players) have trouble with the system, give it a chance - or if someone nearby games champs (or online as I do with voice chat) see if you can game with somebody experienced. Just some ideas - and as the others said, welcome aboard.

What I've found is similar to most. At lower point costs, martial arts maneuvers are effective. Add 2-4 DC to an attack is a big bonus, added with OCV/DCV bonuses too. The maneuvers can make a heroic character powerful. When you go to higher levels, they aren't effective. I've made a standard 350 point martial arts superhero. Bought lots of maneuvers but no extra DCs, bought heightened attributes and not a lot of skills. The character was effective vs normals or lower powered characters. Put him up against a superpowered character and he was less effective. Which to me is the way it should be. The old martial artists of comics (shang-chi, iron fist, karate kid, karnak of the inhumans) could be tough but no match for super-powered characters (without a special power, such as iron fists' chi power, or the find weakness ability I'd seen used by karate kid or karnak). Keep maneuvers for lower-level, heroic characters and make martial arts as a multipower or vpp for the super-heroic characters. To reflect high-powered martial artists or the fantastic abilities often ascribed to them, I'd go ahead with the vpp or multipower. I haven't tried using the rules in the uma on ading advantages to martial arts, so I can't say how effective those make the maneuvers. Finally, as personal opinion, I like the generic way that maneuvers cover multiple actions. A black belt may know many hand strikes, but do we need a different maneuver becuase one strike is done with the palm, another with a knife-hand, etc. To me, while that would add variety (which can be done when describing the strike), it would also make the system more complex than necessary. To reflect a black belts expertise, I'd buy skill levels or extra DCs (or chi powers) rather than have 200 different maneuvers. Buying +2 with strike or +3 with dodge would reflect getting better with a maneuver better than buying another one, IMO.

Although to me its mainly a game balance issue, most of the advantages costing END makes can make sense to me. Let's look at an Energy Blast for example. Doesn't it make sense that a straight energy blast would cost one thing (in terms of personal energy), an explosive blast that spreads more energy out, and an energy blast in which you spend some energy to shield yourself (personal immunity) cost more. That assumes the same base d6 in effects, of course. Now as to 'is it actually balanced', that is tricky. I think the END cost of advantages was used to keep people from buying powers with lots of advantages and using them wildly (i.e. buying an area effect EB and paying the same in END terms as one without the advantage). On the one hand, the extra cost of the advantage in character points works to keep the overall character balanced, while the END is used as an in-game balancer. At least thats my view. Does it work out that way? That all depends on who you ask - everyone has a view on that. As a player and GM, I've often disliked the active cost/END rules, but I've basically followed them. Reduced END is cheap enough that I normally don't worry about it.

Re: If it aint broke why fix it? A few questions: What is an "intermediate" skill? For one point you can buy familiarity with a skill at 8-. To me this, or the base 11-, might be considered intermediate. The other question is why? All that you seem to be doing is removing the 3 points it takes to buy a skill. Everything else is still by the rules. Basically you could achieve a similar result by making all skills Everyman. As for heroes in movies and such having all sorts of skills, maybe they do. The characters in most movies would be fairly high-powered and high-skill characters. As for superheroes figuring things out, Superman, for example, the early comics had superman being a fairly smart and knowledgeable individual (he had learned all the knowledge from Krypton, after all). Most of the things that superheroes can do are pretty much untrained abilities - using straight stat rolls can simulate that, possibly with several levels in characteristic rolls (although as a GM I'd make that the 5 or 10-point level). That way you can simulate a character who is adept at a lot of skills without having a lot of training. Thus spider-man might be able to land a plane, he wouldn't be able to fly one, or build one. In the comics, most characters with powers don't get into situations where skills are needed, unless they are skill-based (batman for one). When they do, they tend to be in skills they have (science for Reed Richards, chemistry for Peter Parker, etc). You'll rarely see a character without a skill attempt to use it, but that's strictly comic conventions and plot. No one wants to read about Captain America attempt to decipher alien science and fail, not while Iron Man (or whoever) can do it. The only problem with the system I outlined above (if you can view it that way) is deciding a trained vs untrained limit. That is, if you want to make them a difference - if you want training in skills to be merely a case of skill level, you can do that as well. To represent movie and comic skills you can also buy luck usable only with/as skills - giving characters a chance to be lucky and achieve the desired result. Anyway, just some thoughts on the concept.

Too Many stats? Hero showing its age? Maybe, but I see that as a sign of its Strength. I've played Champions since 83 (at least), played the precursers of GURPS (The Fantasy Trip as well as Melee and Wizard), Chivalry and Sorcery, Runequest, etc, etc etc (I lost count after 40 or so). Given my experiences, and in my opinion, Hero has a good combination of stats. Adding more can add to the complexity of the game (or might not), while removing stats and bunching them together takes away some of the distinctions. To me to few stats end up with everyone feeling like they're the same character (despite disads and all). Also, remember that GURPS really started out with just Strength and Dexterity, then added Intelligence, and that was in the late 70s. Today they basically have the same stats. A sign of age or something that works? To me it's an okay system, but is too basic for my taste. Mutants and Masterminds, while a credible effort for a basically bad system for superheroes (d20 does not form a good base for a superhero game), it is basically Champions for d20. It's not a bad system, but after playing it I'll stick with the original system. Why do the change though. For one point of the new Body you just made STR cost 2 points, and INT and EGO stats cast 1.5 point each. Getting rid of SPD would do what? While the initiative system used in 3e (and 3.5) is workable, it is vastly different than the SPD system (that's assuming you'd use a system like that, or else just use DEX). You'd also change all the rules that work on phases or turn (or post 12 recovery) - basically you redo the whole time system as well. Hmm - although I suppose you can just use 1 phase = 1 round translation with everybody moving the same. Where's the advantage there? I (and the others I know who play) have never had any problems with the system as it stands, so I can't see any need to change things. Still, I'm interested to hear how you work the SPD thing.

I can see some use if you want different types of mages without making the spells more cost efficient. Buying a disadvantage would make elven mages or warrior-mages (say the lowest disadvantage) different from human wizards (the highest), or make clerics different than wizards. If you make the armor usage a limitation on the actual spell, all the spells are limited while costing less. Doing it as a disadvantage doesn't change the costs of the spells, but still limits them (and the character gets a few points for what is basically a ground rule). It all depends on how you want things done.

Complete agreement on that point. Has anyone tried to put together a "balanced" spell in another non-universal system (i.e. 3e maybe). Spells for a fantasy campaign are usually better defined in terms of limits than powers in a superhero game, and I've found that players generally have an easier time making spells than powers because of that. The biggest difference with other systems (such as Pendragon, D&D, etc) is that they are designed with specific rules already built in. The Hero System does not have that - the rules allow virtually any system to be built. The biggest reason I've found that people prefer other systems for fantasy are all the "setting" details - tell another gamer you have a 5th level wizard and he has a pretty good idea about power, etc - say you have a 175 point wizard and that means - what? How many points to spells, what active point cost, etc. Many people prefer to play without all those details, so they play other games. A D&D spellcaster is basically the same no matter what setting you use (even given the variations the OGL intrduces), a FH mage can vary depending on the particular GM and players. For me, the flexibility of the rules, and the ability to create anything I want within the rules, makes FH a great game. After playing 40+ game systems, the Hero system is one I keep playing, mainly because of that flexibility. That said, the very same flexibility lets you design a magic system that can be similar to another game system, but without having to use the other rules (say you don't like the combat or skill system, or atributes, etc). Some of those systems can be best replicated by a VPP. I've used all 3 (straight purchase, VPP and MP) at different times. I'm currently looking at using a VPP to make magic work similar to the Wheel of Time magic - the pcs learn elements and mix them to make magic (similar to what somebody already posted). However, thats still in the planning stages. I'd also considered using prewritten spells, possibly learned with a skill or paid with cps (1 per spell maybe) - I haven't actually got into detail with it yet - I'm still trying to learn the changes in 5th ed. Just wanted to toss a couple of ideas out there, and one question. What's FREd? I see it all over and can't figure out what it refers to. Since the FAQ doesn't have anything on abbreviations just thought I'd ask.

Here's an idea I thought of when reading this thread - the SPD increase doesn't change particular phases - it's actually changing the whole turn. It wouldn't add any phases since its really changing all the phases that the character would move (or act) on. So it would make sense that the END would be paid for the whole turn (8 phases worth for SPD 8) - to my mind you should pay for it all at once at the powers activation (use the -1/4 limitation). However, what about using continuing charges that last one turn - the speed increase would be temporary and limited in uses. For being really draining, you can add costs END (or causes STUN damage when used). Just a thought.