Sean Waters

No, I think you'll find he lowered it, so that he could reach his pint. Now you see, that, arguably....

Then there's this: https://www.maxim.com/news/gal-gadot-stephen-hawking-2018-3 Some people will say anything to hear the sound of their own (virtual) voices. Nothing in the Gadot tweet was 'ablist' or suggestive that the 'disabled' would be better off dead. It is just appalling that a sentiment that is so innocuous is twisted like that. There was clearly no intention to give offence and I daresay that Stephen Hawking made the best of things, but I doubt he greeted the news of his illness with absolute equanimity or that he would have turned down a cure had one been offered. Of course he had physical constraints and he, very much a realist, would be the first to accept that. I despair, sometimes....

Lovely idea. I like that a lot. Limit the REC to 'only when recovering negative STUN'

Yeah, him and Ken Dodd within days of each other, supporting my hypothesis that they were a gestalt creature. https://inews.co.uk/light-relief/humour/ken-dodd-jokes/

I agree entirely but would argue that we need to be able to represent that mechanically rather than relying on individual DM interpretation, otherwise certain SFX are 'inherently' more powerful than others without there being cost consequences. We all seem to agree that there needs to be a logical connection between the SFX and how the power works mechanically and vice versa.

The problem with allowing points to be more efficient if you pick the 'right' SFX is, well, I think the answer is obvious. There appears to be a repeated issue with the RAW that rules are made for balance rather than consistency or accuracy. Whilst I appreciate the ridiculousness of either of those things in the context of superheroes it seems to me that the strength of Hero is the ability to build what you like, so we need a mechanic to build this effect: bear in mind that most times a SFX would 'allow' you to keep moving if you are grabbed the same would logically allow you to keep moving if you were entangled but the entangle was not anchored to something solid: do we ignore the rule there too, or change the rules?

Part of the problem with grabs stopping movement is that it makes sense in some cases (I grab your legs, you can not run) but not in others (I grab your arms you can not run). Obviously being grabbed should have an effect but not necessarily stopping you entirely. Even more obvious is the situation where one party has flight. If you have restrainable wings and they are grabbed, you can not fly, I think we would all agree, but if you have anti-gravity flight, why should, in effect, carrying someone else stop you? I don’t see that you can really do this without making a rules change because the rules are inconsistent. There are various treatments we could give this, but let us start by reviewing a couple of existing rules: The base rule is that: 6.2.64 Typically a Grabbed character cannot use any form of movement to keep moving while Grabbed. He may be able to use his movement to improve his STR to break free (see 6E2 25), but that’s all… and 6.2.25 As an optional rule, the GM can allow characters to use their Flight or Leaping to enhance their ability to lift or push. (He can allow them to use other forms of movement in appropriate circumstances; for example, a character who’s underwater might be able to augment his STR with Swimming.) Every 4m of Combat Movement becomes +1 point of STR. Seems a bit stingy to me, but that means 40m of flight is +10 STR for a break out of escape, if you allow this rule. In fact, because you can only use Casual Strength, that means 40m of flight (which is 30mph) only adds 5 STR. Hmm. Anyway. Another problem is that you can use your strength while flying normally to apply the same STR as if you were braced on the ground. This is a bit wrong, IMO: we really ought to break flight into movement and flight STR, because otherwise there is a clear lacuna in the rules. Here is my proposal. Flight allows you to lift your own weight, and only your own weight (including equipment and small & light handheld items). Flight differs from most other forms of combat movement in that you have nothing to brace against but your own powers. When flying you can apply additional STR if you pay for it for lifting carrying and throwing. It costs a +1/4 advantage on your STR (or part of it) to be able to apply that STR while flying for lifting and carrying. You can still use normal STR for move throughs and such. You can also buy additional STR just for flying : Does not add to normal STR* (-1) and Only when flying (-1/2) This would make 10 Flight STR cost 3 points. Buying it as an advantage on STR is more efficient: it would cost 2. The GM may want to set a limit on the amount of ‘Flight lifting STR’ you can buy, say twice your normal STR, or some other proportion of it, or may rule you can not lift more in the air than you could on the ground, but that is style rather than anything else. To carry a single person when you are flying will cost 2 points, if you have 10 STR. It is not much but it adds needed granularity and makes the rules consistent. If you are grabbed while flying your casual STR to break out is based on your normal casual STR or your flying casual STR, whichever you like but not both. Also resisting flying KB would be based on Flying STR only. Thoughts?

Wings can be angled to stabilise the character in flight, or make a sudden change of direction toward the attack. I can make up explanations all day. I don;t see how it is imbalancing or why we have the injunction against special powers: we just need GM oversight. Also I'm pretty sure I've seen many characters posted on these boards (or referenced) with MP slots that cost surprisingly little after limitations and are much more powerful than reducing KB. Also if you look at the notes in the post I'd probably have reduced it to 10m KBR. Not that the amount should matter as such.

The problem is that we have a rule that makes sense for game balance, otherwise it would be mad to grab a flier as they are likely to eventually break free and you will fall, which is one of the biggest damage hits you can take in Hero in most games. I agree that it makes no 'real' sense. What is the alternative though?

Not in Hero he couldn't.

Aren't Superman's powers drained by Kryptonite? Can't your ability to breathe be taken away, for example if you are in a vacuum, or get punched in the solar plexus? Can't your sight be taken away with a blindfold or smoke? Is a strength-reducing drug cocktail going to work on someone whose strength works by touch telekinesis? So, in this one game I ran superpowers were an interaction between your genetic code and your ability to draw zero point energy from the Universal Matrix (the structure underlying all reality). Thousands of years ago our planet was dosed with a virus that removed the cell bodies that could channel the zero point energy and replaced them with Mitochondria – sufficient to power the processes of life but not enough to manifest powers by gene interaction. Recently the virtochondria have been reintroduced to some individuals, allowing them to manifest powers. Their powers can be weakened by anything capable of disrupting their link between the Universal Matrix and their genetic code (or boosted by anything strengthening that link - do not forget an inherent power can not be Aided either). I’ve long argued that all Adjustment powers should be required to have a well defined SFX that explains how they work. You could build a Friction Field that logically reduces all movement, but if another character’s powers are based on negating friction they might be unaffected. You would certainly get a cost break for this, but the point is it would be mandatory to have.

Just trying to inject some humour . I rarely venture outside the rules discussions and this is probably why. The Coalition would probably be funny enough to someone who is British, less so to anyone else. As for the military commanders, I checked and the examples you gave are real, but there is no stipulation they be real historical figures, just famous and military commanders so fiction is not precluded. Abe Lincoln was a Captain it the military before he was President and is famous so he does count. He was also CiC later on according Article Two of the the Constitution. Rules are my thing, when it suits me MissTery: A villain with the power to appear and then disappear, leaving behind a sense of confusion and debate as to whether she existed at all. She is the last known descendant of Sun Tzu. ...and we're out...

First of all, I know that the KBR should not be in a framework, but it seems to fit well and is not unbalancing so I would seek GM permission. Anyway, you could activate the Fly and go fast, or the fly and missile deflect and approach more cautiously or the fly and resistant defence and approach even more cautiously (or just stay hovering in the air...). I might even increase the active points to 60 and reduce the KBR to 10 so you could turn off the flight completely and go full defensive. You could add 'Swan Strike' and use the wings as a weapon - oh so much you could do. I have not added much subtlety because: 1. I'm not sure it is needed and 2. This will be a superhero game, so reality is not necessary I have not included 'restrainable as flight stops if you are grabbed or entangled anyway so it would not apply.

I think the way I think about it, I think, is that even the 'basic human template' is something that is an addition to the 'zero state' character. That is why (for example) running can be drained, even though they have legs and (if they have Life Support) then Life Support can be drained because it is something that can be taken away and will have an effect if it is taken away. Mind you, why should a basic template have limbs? I don't know. A limb is inherent: what you do with it is not. You can not aid limbs, you can not drain them. You can aid or drain what limbs do. To be honest, it is a term of art, which is why what I said above is contradictory. You will have to decide what makes sense to you, I suppose.

MissPlaced is someone who is always in the wrong place at the wrong time. She is distantly related to Lee Adama.

In an ideal version of Hero we would not have any 'inherent' assumptions about the characters, but that might be difficult to build because people tend to make natural assumptions. You would probably have to build some sort of assumptions into the design of the scenario, ven if the rules did not make that assumption automatically. I think...

Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent. An Inherent Power is one that reflects a character’s natural state of being. 6e1.128 So, this is one of those situations where Mr Long and I agree. ...it’s a natural, inherent part of the character’s being. As such, it cannot be Aided, Dispelled, Drained, or the like. 6.1.334 Inherent, you will note, is a Duration Advantage. That means that this Angel in the example, with their Angel Wings can not be aided even by God herself to make their wings more efficient, which seems odd, all things considered. That makes no sense to me.

True but it would probably cost more and is all-or-nothing.

Thankyou.

Bear in mind any character with flight will be defying gravity. The question is whether 'inherent' makes sense for that sort of power (well, the question is how I interpret 'inherent', but we can consider that to be the same thing ) and I think it does not. Demonic Angel Power Draining probably works just fine against Angel Flight, but Inherent would mean it does not. The point is that whatever reason for not being able to drain something you do you can come up with, I can find a counter, except in certain limited circumstances, as outlined above. It was not my concern about something being so powerful it can not be drained - read dsatow's post above. I'm just making the point there is not an 'ultimate power' in Hero - whatever you want to 'define' then someone can 'define' something even 'better'. I also did not mention Power Defence, and was not thinking of that anyway. The point is that SFX are explanations, what matters is the build. A build with 'inherent' means it can not be affected by adjustment powers. Hero characters are assumed to be human PLUS (whatever). If you want the base character to be something other than that, Inherent may (note MAY) make sense.

Hero does not really do 'directional', but the ideas above are good. I like the 'Missile Deflection' suggestion. One other issue is that if they are wings of steel, you won't be able to see through them while you are using them for defence, so there's that... You can drive yourself crazy with exceptions but steel wings would be poor at protecting against, for example, electricity. You might be able (depending on where the attack comes from) to keep flying whilst using your wings for defence. If your wings are restrainable then then defences they provide should be too. I would probably go with a multipower, if only so that the flight could be bought as a multi slot (do we still call them that?) and you could have enough reserve points to maintain some flight when defending.

I would consider Inherent is an advantage that should rarely be used. It should not be used, for example, to simply make a power undrainable. I use it almost exclusively when a situation simply does not apply to a character: for example 1. RoboDog is a robot dog. RoboDog does not have lungs or require oxygen. RoboDog has LS(Does not breathe) that is Inherent. It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make RoboDog need to breathe. 2. Confusus has a weirdly wired brain that is hard to read because it is complex. Confusus has Mental Defence (vs Telepathy) that is Inherent. It would be ridiculous for a drain to suddenly make Confusus' brain less complicated. I'm not so keen on the Angel/flight example because you could define your Drain as a gravity field preventing flight. That would work, wings or not. I'm also not keen on defining something as 'so powerful it cannot be drained' because someone might have a really powerful drain. "My Invulnerability is God Given!", "Well, my Drain is God's Dad Given." Basically if it is not something you do, it is something you are then you can have Inherent, otherwise probably not, at least in my tiny little world. It does come down, to an extent, to SFX making sense, but the system places mechanics over SFX - there is nothing preventing you buying Inherent for any power other than common sense, which, in practice, rarely stops anyone doing anything they want to do anyway; I do like to ask players why their powers work as they are built though, and if I don't like the answers, I beat them to within an inch of their lives, so that rarely happens twice.

You are right, I did not mention that MisUnderstanding was a descendant of Abraham Lincoln, but I did record MisQuote's familial relationship to Boromir. MissIonImpossible: able to accelerate to lightspeed, but only very slowly. Related to Tom Cruise in Edge of Tomorrow.