prestidigitator

Re: Infrared Perception (Hearing Group)

Admittedly' date=' Infrared Hearing would have limited utility, since (as Ockham's Spoon pointed out) one could more easily sense the ambient temperature by Touch. But if one also has special abilities with the Hearing Sense Group -- like, say, Tracking -- then one could apply such abilities to this Power, but not to the Touch-based Sense.[/quote']

Yeah. Hmm. Well, I guess I could imagine hearing hot things (and maybe cold things, to make it interesting) as loud noises. It would certainly be an interesting challenge for the GM. I suppose cold could sound like a chill, blowing wind and hot could sound like a roaring fire or sizzling oil....

Re: Infrared Perception (Hearing Group)

The real world scenario? Bulls**t. You'd hear your own breathing and imagine phantom sounds far before you'd be able to hear variances due to temperature variation/brownian noise. Our built-in perceptive equipment's own noise is great enough; I'd be quite willing to place a wager that it is higher than that of the natural background noise.

As for power builds and comic book/rubber physics? Sure, why not?

Re: Can you move backward?

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant, but there's nothing that explicitly correlates it to heading (direction of travel). As Sean's video shows, there are more issues than just perception, at least for realistic humans (not that we necessarily have to restrict ourselves to that case, but it's usually a good point from which to start). We can run pretty quickly backwards (or sideways for that matter), but our bodies aren't mechanically built to be able to do it at full speed (sprinting). Our knee, ankle, and toe joints just aren't setup for it.

Re: Can you move backward?

Hmm. However, we don't really want normal cars that drive sideways (though most ground vehicles have some form of reverse). Should that be worth an extra Limitation on their Running, or is it just a SFX wash?

Re: Cause vomit power...

I've used is as the SFX of Drain Speed in the past, too.

Re: A level of confusion

Yeah' date=' our ruling is that 3 and 5 point levels may only contain one "class" (range/melee/mental), period. Otherwise it is just flat-out superior to DCV.[/quote']

Hmm. Well, I'm not sure about that. First those CSLs are not considered Persistent without Defense Maneuver IV. Second they only apply when using a particular (set of) weapon or attack. That means that even if they were Persistent, it's unlikely the character is going to be walking around all the time carrying his sword or with his Energy Blast charged up and ready to ignite. Even if he did, there are situations where those levels can be denied to him, like when he's been Disarmed or stripped of his gear/powers by something.

 

Huh. Which makes me reconsider weapon-based CSLs. It used to be you couldn't apply Limitations in general to CSLs under 5 points. Now there's just a note that a GM can place restrictions on what kind of CSLs can take Limitations. But it strikes me that weapon-based CSLs already basically have at least OIF (weapon of opportunity) on them, plus possibly a bit more limitation based on the fact that most of them can't be just any old type of weapon, but are limited to a more or less narrow class of weapons. So it seems like any kind of Focus Limitation applied to (weapon-based) CSLs is redundant and should be worth at most the difference between Obvious Inaccessible and Obvious Accessible (-1/2). If the Focus is Inaccessible, it should be worth a maximum of -0.

On 6E1 p. 300 it says:

A character can Teleport to any location he can perceive with a Targeting Sense.... If it’s difficult to perceive the location, the GM may require a PER Roll.... If the PER Roll fails, the character must make an Attack Roll (against DCV 3) at -1 for every point he missed the roll by to Teleport to the proper location.... If a Teleporter cannot perceive his target location at all and is simply guessing where it is, he must make an Attack Roll (against DCV 3) at -5 to move to his target Area successfully. The character uses his standard OCV to make this roll, unless some other circumstance (like being Flashed or in Darkness) affects him. The Range Modifier applies, and the GM may also apply any other additional modifier he wants....

Whereas on 6E2 p. 29 under "Teleporting Blind" it says:

When a character cannot see his target location and doesn’t have it memorized, any attempt to Teleport is considered “blind.” The character makes an Attack Roll to hit the target point (DCV 3), with a normal Range Modifier. If the roll misses, he ends up at a different point (use the standard rules for attacks that miss a target point to determine where he goes). If the target point is occupied, the character takes damage.

These statements seem to be contradictory. The former gives a penalty of -5 (a maximum, I assume, to the attack roll penalty due to missing a Targetting Sense Perception roll as described earlier in 6E1) to the attack roll. The latter implies there is no penalty at all to the attack roll. Which is correct, or am I missing some kind of context that makes the two descriptions apply to different situations?

Thank you!

Re: A level of confusion

Well, a GM could always decide to just keep things simple and make DCV DCV; don't worry about the type of the incoming attack.

Re: A level of confusion

Touché! LOL.

Re: The Future of Food Technology

Finally' date=' fast food and portable food will change. Some of it is not wide spread now but possible in the future. Self heating meal packs exist today but are not widely used. Could self cooling packs exist in the future?[/quote']

Certainly. We have ice packs for first aid that'll, "self-cool." But it wouldn't be for long-term preservation; more like a cool beverage or dessert. However, the question is always whether or not it is cost-effective, which would be the reason we don't use self-heating meal packs much now. If we found huge amounts of cheaply available materials that would easily store chemical energy on a long-term basis like that, maybe it would be worth it, or if we get to the point where we are so energy-rich that we can waste plenty of it obtaining such materials....

Re: A level of confusion

Blue Suede Shoes: 5-point CSLs with all Elvis paraphernalia; OIF (-1/2) [real cost: 3 points each]

Re: A level of confusion

Actually' date=' it sounds like you would, since I was talking about 3 pt levels and you offer it for an 8 pt level... which is just shy of an Overall level. Of course the higher value CSLs can do more.[/quote']

Right. I would allow it with 8-point CSLs because they can apply to all HTH combat, including unarmed combat. You can use them when wielding a knife. You can use them when unarmed. You can use them when you pick up an Elvis statue. I'd allow that to be limited to just the cases where you are wielding a knife or defending against one, which is less of a limitation than only the case where you are wielding a knife (with that last being the equivalent of a 3-point level).

Re: Balancing Duplication

Just consider the team to be that many characters bigger when considering challenges. It's not like Duplication can really give you anything that additional PCs wouldn't. In fact, it generally gives you more of the same, whereas more PCs would broaden the diversity of powers. So in a sense it's easier to deal with than more PCs would be (not to mention the fact that you don't have to actually put up with more snot-nosed players ).

Re: A level of confusion

Well, if they character had +4 3 pt levels with swords.... would you allow them to have those levels blocking people with swords using their bare hands? Even if you impose a penalty for blocking an armed opponent while you are unarmed... I'm dubious.

 

I have a tendency to view fighting unarmed, even against a weapon you are very familiar with, as sufficient different enough so as to merit different CSLs.

I wouldn't. If you wanted levels like that I'd allow you to take 8-point levels with HTH combat and Limit them to Only when using or defending against knives (-1) (or maybe -3/4).

Re: How are magic items (equipment) created in your setting?

I generally base the actual creation on a Transform with Extra Time, and often it Requires a Skill Roll of some sort plus plenty of expensive expendable Foci. The actual monetary cost of creation is usually pretty high for permanent items. I do require Character Points to be spent on it, but usually apply Independent, or (and lately I'm swaying more and more to this approach) just divide the Real Cost by 5 in a manner similar to Followers, Vehicles, Bases, etc. One thing I do that's not very standard at all is allow special difficult-to-obtain objects or materials (e.g. the griffin feather mentioned in the OP) to contribute (some of) the "Character Points" toward the creation of a specific kind of magical item. So if you create something particularly appropriate to quests that you've undergone, you might have to spend few or no actual Character Points.

Other aspects of the actual mechanics vary from game to game, and I haven't really settled on any kind of "standard system", though it's something I ponder frequently.

Re: Creatures disappearing after death of creator - how to make?

For powers I'd call it a -0 Limitation (e.g. Mind Control or Mental Illusions) or simply part of the construct (e.g. part of the situation that can turn off an Uncontrolled Power/Continuing Charge or part of the reversion conditions for Transform). For creatures I'd either make it a -0 Limitation on Summon (though I'd probably only allow it to actually happen if the summoned creature is still under your control--i.e. owes you favors--when you die) or a fully impairing Physical Complication on the creature itself, depending both on how things are being modeled (e.g. Summon vs. Followers) and, honestly, on what seems to feel right.

Re: 6e Question Power on Conditional Power Modifier

Hmm. Sure. I suppose you could also model it as a Susceptibility that does a Drain rather than causing damage, but it doesn't quite feel right to me as it applies pretty specifically to one power rather than the character as a whole.

Re: A level of confusion

Technically you can only apply a CSL with a weapon on a Phase where you use that weapon, and if applied to DCV it applies to either HTH DCV (if it is a HTH weapon) or Ranged DCV (if it is a Ranged weapon). My own view on that is that you know how to use the weapon itself to defend. So with a knife you might be guarding and maybe even feinting with the knife to try to prevent a successful attack from landing. I can rationalize it less for a ranged weapon, which is why I guess there is the optional rule that says you cannot increase your Ranged DCV without Overall (Combat) Levels. When I don't use that optional rule (most of the time I don't), I just kinda skip over trying to rationalize why the weapon must be in your hand (!), though I do picture whether your defensive perception is focused on close attackers or incoming projectiles and such. So my own criterion for whether or not you can apply your weapon-based CSL to DCV is whether you have the weapon in your hand and can reasonably use it to defend yourself. It has little to do with what kind of weapon is in the opponent's hand except for the HTH/Ranged split.

An interesting corner case arises for HTH weapons that can be thrown. A knife is a good example of such a weapon, actually. Personally I allow levels that can apply to knives (specifically, not something like "blades", or "common melee weapons" if such a CSL were allowed) to apply to HTH DCV if you are holding the knife, or Ranged DCV (in games where it is permitted) in a Phase where you throw (have thrown) a knife. I do not allow the CSL to apply against HTH DCV in a Phase where you throw a knife (use it as a Ranged weapon).

I'll admit some of that is a little difficult to really justify in terms of common/dramatic sense. Sometimes strange situations just have to be judged on a situational basis, but most of the time I just close my eyes and pretend it's just the way things work because that's how the game was designed. It leaves a little bit of a scummy taste, but I can generally live with it.

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO

Oh definitely. Can't disagree with any of that. Be honest and open about your expectations, and let people know the type of game you wish to run before hand.

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO

Ouch. Yeah, I feel your pain.

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

And I very clearly expressed my personal experiences in dealing with more than one opponent. Though that was in the part of my post that you cut out.

Yep. And I didn't really see anything to disagree with there (that being why I cut it out), though I'm still contemplating whether and how it supports the idea that attacks from behind should only be considered different if they catch an opponent by surprise. Knowing that someone has circled around behind you to attack doesn't help much unless you manage to very proactively change the situation so you are no longer at such a clear disadvantage. Pretending that you can just stand there and still fight with people behind you (that you are completely aware of and that you expect to attack you) just as effectively as you could if your back was to a wall and the opponents weren't behind you seems pretty silly to me, both conceptually and from personal experience.

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO

True enough, but some players want their character to be the hero of the story, and some players want to see how much misery they can pile on top of their characters and how the character looks after.

 

Always remember; when there are a GM and five players around a table, that's at least six stories that people are waiting to hear.

Oh, absolutely. And there should be some challenge in there, too. Not all stories have a happy ending for that matter. But despite all that it should be friends, around a table, cooperating (in an out-of-character sense) to create a story in which everyone can participate and contribute.

As an aside, that's why I got really, really disgusted when people at my local gaming store basically decided to make a wargame out of roleplaying. They just did round after round after round of player vs. player skirmishes with D&D 3E, with completely mechanical rules for what you could "buy" outside the arena and change on your character sheet between fights and such. It was all about power-gaming, competing, and there was zero actual "roleplaying" involved. It completely turned my stomach and made me fearful of any new "gamers" they turned out into the roleplaying community. (It also turned me off even more from the system, because I truly blame to some degree the "standardization" of magical item pricing/creation, level wealth guidelines, "challenge rating/encounter level" and all of that for encouraging that kind of crap. Taking the humanity out of adventuring and roleplaying and deciding how to put a game together is far from a good thing.)

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

In times that I've fought single opponents I've never needed to particularly worry about them getting behind me' date=' and I've certainly never needed "careful and proactive attention and planning" to stop it.[/quote']

I was very, very clearly talking about situations with more than one opponent. I've already very clearly stated what I do when there is only one and both are free to move.

Re: Defense Maneuver IV

Yeah' date=' I think when people talk about Hero not addressing "from behind", what they often mean is that there isn't a set in stone "you are at -x DCV if someone is on your flank, and -y if they are behind you" kind of thing. The examples you give are examples of what someone I used to game with refers to as "GM negotiation". Which is to say that rather than having a rule in the book that the Ref can fall back on, he actually has to make a ruling himself as to whether the situation calls for any modifier, and if it does, frequently how big that modifier is.[/quote']

Oh. Yeah, certainly. At least on the, "when a modifier applies," part. Often it is decided how big a bonus is--the best contrary example I can think of is the OCV bonus for a surprise maneuver. But it does take the application of common/dramatic sense and a bit of imagination to decide when some modifiers should be applied, and whatever kind of, "from behind," modifier you use is a good example of that.

 

I just disagree that the only time some kind of, "from behind," modifier should apply is when you are completely unaware of the attack. You could argue that anything else is covered under the Multiple Attacker bonus, but I just don't buy that; I know it takes careful and proactive attention and planning to keep yourself from that crucial vulnerability, and I also know that simply keeping your back to a wall doesn't negate the difficulty of dealing with multiple attackers either. And I do wonder at the proliferation of situations that cause you to be at 1/2 DCV; I'd rather there be a few more shades of gray, so to speak. That's why I'm considering a flat penalty like -2 DCV from behind, not to emulate AD&D's behind/flank penalties. Where it makes sense, use it, even if it happens to look like an aspect of a game system for which you don't generally have much respect.

Re: Handling social stuff in HERO

I guess it also helps that for the most part I've always gamed with people who are very much capable of separating what they and their character know' date=' what their goals are and what their character's goals are, etc. I have for the most part always been able to depend on my players to, if handed a note saying "your character has been mind controlled to think that your teammates are bad guys" or even "your character has been replaced by a bad guy" to do a great job of role playing their part correctly. With generally no worries that the rest of the players will react with anything other than "cool, great job, you really nailed us!". I think a lot of that comes down to not only not having the "Players vs the Ref" mindset, but also the "we're here to have fun, and while our characters succeeding is fun, overcoming setbacks can be fun too" mindset.[/quote']

Nice. Yeah, having a good group of roleplayers like that really helps. You're authoring a collaborative story, not trying to beat each other in a, "game."