JeffreyWKramer

Well, two ideas come to mind. 1) Character concept - someone's concept may be that the character is *the* world expert in something - electronics, gadgeteering, chess, hopscotch, whatever. 2) That other 10%. Sucks to blow the roll when you really, really need it, and Murphy's Law will sometimes come into play. I once played a character who was filthy rich due to his intuitive business acumen. One problem is, I personally know crap-all about business and finances, so I bought his relevant skills up into the 21+ range and defined it as he'd just know what to do in those circumstances. In a long-ago DANGER INTERNATIONAL game, my Bond-esque character had Seduction at 19-, which of course had its in-game uses.

Look at it this way - if you know enough about marksmanship to warrant levels, you also know how to move in such a way as to present a lower profile, make it hard for someone to draw a bead on you and otherwise be a bit harder to hit.

Your game, your call, but I greatly prefer the 5E Multiform rules to the 4E ones. For many character types, the base form should not be the most powerful one. Using your ruling, the base form for Beast Boy (of Teen Titans) would be a blue whale or something like that - a form he rarely takes, and not at all the human being he normally is. Your way of doing it may work well for some Multiform concepts, but it doesn't really reflect how many of those sorts of characters are presented in the comics. Keep in mind the fact that if someone's Multiforms are worth more than the base form, that just means those alternate forms will have a pile of extra Disadvantages - which, if done right, means the potential benefits are self-limiting. Make sure the Disadvantages are actually disadvantageous and you shouldn't have a problem. Personally, I think the current Multiform rules are among the very best changes from 4E to 5E.

I'm pretty sure I have seen it stated somewhere in the Big Black Book or in ULTIMATE MARTIAL ARTIST, but I'm not 100% sure. If I run across it, I'll post it. In reality (for what that matters in a superhero game), using good form on a martial maneuver won't do much to keep you from getting shot, but doing something that puts you off-balance or reduces your ability to react to things (i.e., a DCV penalty, such as you gain from all-out attacks like haymakers and jump kicks) probably makes you easier to shoot.

One of the player characters in my campaign *is* a god - Horus-Re. Essentially, he's a Thor-like character with a sun theme. In terms of power level, think Apollo from THE AUTHORITY. It's a high-powered campaign, but he's built on a bit higher point total than the other PCs. In exchange for that, he gets all the cosmic Hunteds and such. Really, it all depends on how you define a god. Thor is awesomely powerful, but there are Marvel Universe characters who can beat him - including some rare mortals.

Really, there are tons of potential special effect justifications for characteristics. A speedster's heightened SPD and DEX can be regarded as part of his or her "superspeed powers". The same stats for a mutant or chemically-enhanced super could reflect "mutant powers" or "miraclo-pill powers." Many energy-projectors will have high ED, attributed to their bodies being energized. Bionic/cybernetic enhancements could be an explanation for high BODY, STR, CON, PD and several other characteristics, such that all could be termed "cyborg powers." Heck, a guy who gets lots of heightened characteristics Hero ID Only and who takes hero form by yelling out "Kazowie" might term them all "magic powers," whereas the avatar of a deity might have heightened characteristics might classify these as "divine manifestation powers" or simply "god powers."

A suit that has crablike laws and provides an extra limb also provides good rationale for providing Combat Skill Levels as a Power. Since it's generally proper to apply Limitations only to 5-point or larger CSVs, a few levels in HTH sounds good - that should improve the character's chance to hit with Grab, as well as simply smack people around with the tail and such.

In my old campaigns, people always feared a villain called Frenzy, a totally insane and sadistically psychopathic speedster-martial artist. I'm about to unleash him (rebuilt for 5E and boosted significantly) against my current group, which is in an extremely high-point campaign, so we'll see if he has any of that old mystique. In 5E, Menton, Dr. Destroyer and Istvatha V'Han are just plain terrifying.

I've always found it obscenely easy to spend large numbers of points on virtually any character, martial artist or otherwise. It's particulary easy in the case of martial artists - one can always use more noncombat skills (KS: Specific art, Chinese Healing, etc), weapon familiarities, overall skill levels, etc. If one's trying to mimic anything even remotely resembling reality, martial arts characters eventually reach a point where buying up their attacks starts to become ridiculous (the point when they can kick through Abrams tank armor), but they can still always use some Sleight of Hand or some new ch'i abilities.

Actually, he has replied since you posted this. The FAQ includes two statements that are in conflict, and he says that will be changed. The official ruling is that the modifers from HTH combat maneuvers apply only in HTH combat - with the exception of Dodge, Martial Dodge and any maneuver built with Dodge as a base (the DCV mods from those maneuvers apply to all attacks). So, it turns out my initial statement was correct for 5E as well as for previous editions. I was pretty sure I'd read that somewhere in 5E, but couldn't find it at the moment.

Well, the FAQ pretty clearly states it that in 5E as a default, the DCV modifiers - penalties and bonuses - from combat maneuvers apply to all combat, unless the GM decides otherwise. Dodge and Martial Dodge have always functioned vs. all attacks - the only thing that seems different here is that in the past, the bonuses from, say, Martial Block, didn't make one harder to hit with a gun. Actually - and I may be off on this one - wasn't the old rule that maneuver DCV bonuses (other than for Dodge/Martial Dodge) only applied in HTH, but that penalties applied vs. all attacks?

Ah, this seems to be a change from previous editions (still learning all the wrinkles of 5E). I guess the language of the maneuvers still carries over from the old interpretation, which is why Dodge and Martial Dodge state they provide a DCV bonus to all attacks (as opposed to just HTH)

Villain Campaign I thought it might be interesting to note that I once played in a campaign in which all the PCs were supervillains, and overt ones at that. The campaign lasted about 4 months, during which time we found ourselves fighting other villains, and among ourselves, more often than we fought cops and superheroes. The other villains we encountered were generally even worse sorts than us - we were mostly into it for thrill of fighting, to make a buck, or in the case of my character, Marauder, to fund his plans to take over the world for mutantkind. We found ourselves fighting the Champions - the 4E version - which was fun largely because Marauder kept Missile Reflecting everything tossed at him right at Seeker , going up against Genocide and various hitmen they'd hired (Mechassassin and Laser, among others) and just causing a lot of mayhem. It was sort of fun, but eventually got old, in part because we couldn't find any trustworthy allies.

I'm with Chuck on this one. I suppose that's one reason he and I get along well as player and GM. If these guys are going rogue, then slam it to them, hard. If you feel at all inclined to be lenient, at very most run a "what if" or "days of future past" style of adventure to show them where they're headed, and if that doesn't get them to pull their crap together, they've earned the upcoming thrash-down. Some have mentioned the possibility that they may be reacting to some frustration within the campaign, and I would certainly give that some thought, and ask. If they're feeling jerked around unfairly, address that, but if they just decided it would be easier and cooler to be the bad guys, then let them see what it's like to be hunted by the police, PRIMUS, UNTIL and every hero on earth, have the snot pounded out of them, then be assigned to be Grond's cellmate.

Keep in mind that most bonuses for combat maneuvers don't have any impact on DCV vs. Ranged Attacks - in fact, none of them do unless they specifically say they do. Thus, of the standard/martial maneuvers, Dodge and Martial Dodge do lend their bonuses to DCV vs. All Attacks, but most of the rest do not. That right there tells you that levels with three maneuvers/attacks, or a tight group of attacks, should not benefit DCV vs. ranged attacks unless the maneuvers in question provide their bons vs. ranged attacks. I believe the rules state that in general, the lowest-value CSL that improves DCV vs. all attacks is a 5-point DCV level, and that 2- and 3-point CSVs are almost always OCV-only. The obvious exception to that would be putting a 3-point level in, say, Aikido, on Martial Dodge or some other maneuver that specifically says it provides its bonus to all attacks. Say Aikido Lad has a 3-point level in Aikido. He could gain an extra +1 DCV by putting that level onto Martial Dodge on a given phase, but if he was doing a throw the next phase, there's no way that level could benefit his DCV vs. Ranged Attacks. Catgirl's 3-point CSV with claw, bite and grab should *never* benefit her DCV vs. Ranged Attacks, because none of those maneuvers apply a DCV bonus against all attacks.

Yeah, that would be the easier route.

I'll dig out my 1st ed book later and check, but I'm not sure it was covered. I know many of the powers this ruling was meant to affect didn't even *exist* then - Damage Reduction was introduced in the CHAMPIONS III rules supplement.

I'd probably give it +1/2, same value as "can origniate anywhere, but still can only be aimed at or fired away from the villain." In this case, that would be turned around, to "originates from the villain but can approach the target from any direction." Thus, the attack could still be stopped by some effects that target the person firing it... a large enough Force Wall, for example. It's not quite good enough to warrant the +3/4 "can originate anywhere/fire any direction."

That could be, I suppose, which would explain why I though it was in 4. I started Champs with the original book.

The GM was a dork. The theme in Ultra Boy's case *is* one big superpower at a time.

I don't *own* the program. I make characters all the time. I'm sure the program would be helpful, and I do plan to get the new version when its out, assuming the reviews are positive, but I've been playing Champions for a long, long time now and have never needed a program to make a character.

I pulled out my well-battered copy of the BBB and it turns out you are right. I stand corrected. Strange, though. For some reason, I thought that rule was in place in 4E also.

I'm astounded to see so many have used the Monster in their campaigns. In over 20 years now playing and running Champions, I have never used that critter, nor seen him used. I've actually been perplexed as to why he keeps coming back in edition after edition of the game. Y'all have come up with some good ideas for using him, though - ones that make him a lot more interesting than just a generic boogeyman. Shows that with some thought, just about any idea can be a goldmine.

Ultra Boy is really what a Multipower is all about. Heck, the "u" or "ultra" slot for a MP is *named* for him, as he is the archetype of the character who can do a lot of different things, but only one at a time. Why did the GM discussion turn into a headache? How hard can it be to understand "This guy can either be real, real strong, or invulnerable, or fly really fast, or shoot these beams outta his eyes, but he can only do one of them at a time"????

Just to remind.. in 4th Edition, the EC rules also didn't allow you to normally put Powers that normally cost no END into ECs either... and Steve didn't write the Big Blue Book.