Sean Waters

There doesn't appear to be any time limit on how long a summoned being will stay. Obviously if they are angry and uncontrolled the answer is not long, but if you buy your summoned creatures as 'slavishly loyal' then will they stay with you indefinitely unless you send them away?

Re: Animate

Sounds like you've got some powers that have Major Side Effects that occur automatically when the power is used and only affect the environment near your character.

 

Now, if I was your GM and you started using a side effect as a Power (e.g., using a Tunneling side effect to actually tunnel), then I'd make you buy the Tunneling power and link it.

 

If possible, I usually prefer to avoid Summon or Duplication, just because the addition of another character sheet slows down play a little. So I'd suggest the Entangle/Energy Blast/Telekinesis option. And unless you want your Force Wall to disappear when you stop paying END on it, I'd just use the barrier option for Entangle (so your walls of stone or earth stay around after you've made them).

Tunnelling to cause the environmental damage. Perfect. Thankyou.

Re: Summon Robots?

The FRED followers definition allows you to replace followers without paying more points, with GM permission. This seems like a perfect excuse for allowing that and would mean a greater degree of flexibilty - you could just role play the rebuild.

One question (and not a rules one): do you have a justification for only being able to build 4 robots? I mean, if you could build the whole thing from scratch you'd keep spare bodies about, surely? Perhaps the bodies can be rebuilt, but the cybernetic brains are experimental tech you didn't build and can't easily reproduce or replace...that could save you a few points in construction...

Re: Bulletproof

I think in general you have a good point' date=' however. I just can't see our team's brick or power armor guy being hurt by mere AK-74 bullets or some punk with a .38 revolver no matter how good the rolls are. My inclination would be to simply not even bother rolling damage, but rather inform those characters that the bullets are just bouncing off without any effect. Our martial artists and mentalist are another story. To me that suggests the best way to handle this dilemma is on a case by case basis based primarily on character concept rather than with some type of pre-determined house rule. It's only relevant if it advances the story. Spider-Man doesn't get hurt by mooks unless he's supposed to be at less than 100% when he fights the Kingpin. Otherwise mooks are just a way to get some flashy frames in to build tension.[/quote']

 

I think this is probably the best approach of all. As has been pointed out elsewhere, I tend to overthink these things...

Re: Charges on a Multipower's Reserve

I think the only way around it is to make your charcaters decide how the power works and model the effect from there. Charges on individual slots make more sense where you have clips of bullets with different effects, charges on the reserve work better for a laser with an adjustable beam type thing. I think both constructs have their place: if you've only bought 16 AP bullets then that is all you have, however many other bullets you might have brought with you.

You might, for balance reasons, want insist that slots taken with charges have to have the limitation 'Full phase to change slot' at -1/4 or even -0.

Because of the way the progression goes, doubling the number of charges for each level once it becomes an advantage, the numbers do get silly quickly, but I'd be inclined to call this one a ! WARNING ! than a system problem. The utility of having a huge number of charges is a diminishing returns thing - you are never going to use them all.

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

ah! Something I had not considered. I agree with your interpretation. If the RSR on the Indirect is "looking for a bounce point," failing the skill roll simply means he can't find a bounce point and he's got to make a straight on attack. While this is a great effect and one I am probably going to steal, this is not what Derek is looking for.

 

I am rather fond of this little tidbit, Derek. I had not considered a naked Indirect advantage for my archer guy. This is a great construct. It was always bothersome that he couldn't bounce and entangle or such...a fresh pair of eyes, eh?

 

Don't let these guys poo-poo you! I love the RSR with the SE. It describes exactly the effect you are looking for, is without cheese of any sort and is completely by-the-book legal.

...but of course, if it is looking for a bounce point, it doesn't make sense for the -12OCV: failing to spot a bounce point doesn't make the base shot any harder, unless you define it as throwing a hissy fit if he can't find anything to bounce off. Still reckon SE need to have more of an effect on the character than a reduced hit chance (however much it is reduced by!). It should entail some damage or more lasting effect, I believe. I'm not suggesting there was any intentional cheese: Derek was striving for an effect, I just don't think that the SE was bad enough.

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

This is actually close to the way my character has it. He has a Multipower that consists entirely of Powers with range (either inherently or because they have the Ranged Advantage), and the Multipower has the Limitations, "OAF Arrows (-1)" and "Only Ranged When Used In Combination With A Bow (-1/4)."

 

Ultimately, I talked to the GM about it, and he said he'd allow the character to use the Bouncing An Attack rules for any of his arrows due to their SFX, even though some of the Powers the arrows represent aren't normally ones you'd consider "bounceable" (Drain, Entangle, etc.). So I just bought 5-point Combat Skill Levels with RSR and "Only For Bouncing Attacks (-1)"

Sweet reason, eh? Like the idea for the bow and arrow combination. Appearing soon in a game I'm in...

Couple of linked (-1/2) questions...

1. If you buy a Drain vs END can it automatically be used to drain END from an END reserve or would that require a variable effect advantage?

2. If you use a drain against the END in an END reserve and roll, say 10 points of effect, does that drain 20END (based on the normal END cost of 2 for 1 point) or 100END (based on the END reserve cost of 10 for 1 point)?

Thank you.

Building a character of earth control type who can, amongst other things, animate things made of stone or earth or similar. For example he could make a brick wall grab someone, or make a statue walk over and pound someone, or make the ground rear up into a wall. He can re-shape stone or earth.

I am after suggestions as to how to best accomplish this. I approciate that you can build most of this stuff with powers with individual limitations (in order, entangle, energy blast, force wall), but the was I picture it is the actual animation of the material: creating the entangle would actually use stuff from the wall, damaging it. Now I could link in an attack (possibly a BODY drain...) to the individual attacks to simulate this but that gets expensive for a power that will only occasionally be of any use and is, more often than not, a SFX. Mind you it seems too potentially useful to handwave it for free as a SFX.

I was thinking of using TK (requires earth/stone type material (IIF, -1/4), only if TK strength roll exceeds the BODY+DEF of the material being animated (to simulate the stuff being ripped out of the wall/ground/whatever) (-1/4), extra time to activate, only what the construct can reach at a 10" move (-1/2)). Basically you actually 'animate' the ground/wall/mountain, or a bit of it, and it goes clumping around. Logically it could get in the way of attacks, so some sort of linked force wall to give it defences?

The other way I thought of doing it was to use transform to create a sort of guided automata (which would automatically leave a hole in the ground...), or possibly summon, maybe with a linked body drain against the surface I'm animating.

Comments on these approaches, or suggestions of your own most welcome.

Re: Metamorph Med Student Skills

SS: diagnosis, KS: diseases, at least familiarity with electronics or systems operation to use all that nifty medical equipment that goes 'bing'. OK this is stuff he might develop in med school, but if he is INT 30, he'll be way ahead of the game.

Oh, yeah, then you need to know the health and safety stuff, how to operate fire extinguishers, avoid malpractice suits...

Re: Schmucks?

Guys, we're on PAGE 29.

There are obviously a number of raw nerves exposed here.

Page 29, guys...

Can't we just agree that characters built on points totals other than the ones we use, or in styles other than the ones we favour are abusive and wrong, and should be excommunicated from the superhero community?

Page 29...

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

Rules FAQ:

 

A Multipower of different arrows is essentially similar to a Multipower of different guns.

 

However, it's irrelevant now, because I decided not to do it this way.

Interesting topic, though. Pre FRED I always liked the bow and arrow idea using a multipower for arrows (all bought at zero range, so you could stab people with them if you liked), then a naked focussed power advantage to provide range (the bow). It was a bit potentially munchkinistic, in that it was cheaper to do than just buying the powers with range in the MP, but I liked it because it more accurately modelled the feel of a bow being a seperate bit of kit that could be taken away or broken, and arrows still being nasty pointy sticks even if you didn't have a muscle multiplier to hurl then vast distances.

I'm always a bit ware of naked advantages, but thanks for drawing my attention to the FAQ. GM fiat rules (or whatever it is s/he's driving...).

BTW my take would have been to buy penalty skill levels to negate cover. Not technically upping your OCV...

Re: Bulletproof

Those numbers are just too low, TRL. 17/7 PD/rPD is something many martial artists have, and if any character archtype in fiction/comics is supposed to be vulnerable to bullets it would be MAs.

 

...if you check the start of the post, the thread is talking about 'normal' guns. We've strayed at times into more general discussions on modelling Killing Attacks, but what we are basically after is dealing with Killing Attacks using the 'real' limitation.

If your MAs are resistant to killing damage, then fine - they'll be resitant or 'invulnerable' to bullets, you can always build them without resistant defences or make an exclusion, as you very sensibly suggest, for Combat Luck, if that is how they rack up the resistance, or just make it clear that if they are not trying to avoid the damage, combat luck isn't going to help (which is the way I understand it does work).

Generic 'real' guns are something that virtually every street punk will have, and any 'hero' could have for a few dollars, the looting of the unconsious, or a couple of character points if you make players buy everything with points (I don't, but then 'real' equipment is pretty rubbish compared to stuff you have spent points on, which is the point of this thread...)

I am not trying to re-model all Killing Attacks, just this specific class of them, to meet a comic book imperative: superheroes rarely if ever get damaged by normal weapons. Even if they are supposed to be vulnerable to bullets, bullets never seem to be a major problem (unless it is a major villain holding the gun, in which case it will inevitably have been souped up and points will have been paid, it won't be 'real' and none of this will apply).

From the point of view of gameplay, there are also substantial advantages to using average damage for (and apologies to all you low level followers of supervillains out there...) cannon fodder using real world weapons, and doing it this way makes the better class of agent who buy their own equipment with points comparatively more dangerous (finally - a reason why they are toting 6-8d6 high tech blasters rather than cheap and cheerful Magnum revolvers).

One final point. You don't have to tell your players you are using the system...

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

My take on this is that I wouldn't allow the Side Effects limitation at all. The definition in FRED says side effects have to be disastrous or harmful, and being likely to miss on this one shot if you fail a skill roll is can not properly be defined as either.

Can you still hit if you fail the skill roll? Depends. If the target is under full cover and you were trying to bounce the attack off a post behind them, no: you couldn't have hit if you did not have the indirect and had not spend skill levels to bounce. If you were just trying to avoid an OCV penalty, yes, you can hit if you would have done with the penalty applied.

Also I take it the arrows are in a multipower? Well in that case you can't apply the naked power advantage to more than one slot, if you look at the rules for multipowers as a naked advantage is considered to be a seperate special power (FRED208)

The naked power advantage example in FRED is misleading: I always read it that would apply in a heroic game where you were not paying points for the firearms, just picking them up and using them, not so much when you are buying your powers. I usually don't allow naked advantages if they would, in effect, allow a character to exceed the active point campaign limit.

Re: No Frameworks?

Swingeing objection, I know, but you can't summon the bomb without paying full points for it according to the FAQ.

The transform to blow out the Sun has problems too. The Sun heard about you and bought a point of Power Defence.

Re: Bulletproof

Blimey, how about this: all real weapons do set damage. This would only really work for a superheroic campaign, but...

We've looked at a set STUN multiplier, but what if all the damage is set?

1 point: 1 BODY and 3 STUN

1/2 dice: 2 BODY and 5 STUN

1 dice: 3 BODY 7 STUN

- just multiply and add, so a DC7, 2d6+1 'real' kill attack does 7 BODY and 17 STUN, so a rPD/PD of 7/17 would make you 'real' bullet proof.

'Real' normal attacks would also do average damage:

1 point: 0 BODY and 1 Stun

1/2 dice: 0 BODY and 2 STUN

1 dice: 1 BODY 3 STUN

- so a DC7, 7d6 'real' normal attack will do 7 BODY and 18 STUN

If an attack adds strength, it still does average damage if you are using a 'real' weapon. You may want to apply this to bricks or others grabbing and using improvised weapons (like semi trucks...), or you may not.

You can still calculate knockback, if you like, but bullets are very unlikely to cause any unless you have shrinking. You could just rule average KB: killing attacks do (DC-11)" and normal attacks do (DC-7)".

This makes 'real' attacks easy enough to defend against, but stuff you have paid for is still dangerous. The users of real weapons will mainly be NPC goons, and rolling damage for a horde or mooks just slows the game down. Agent level characters with guns they have paid for will be far more dangerous.

Metaphysician mentioned trying to find a balancing downside for real armour. I'd suggest that 'non-real' damage can destroy 'real' armour if it lets BODY through after being hit it is functionally destroyed: the DEF is set to zero and you are at -1 DCV because the thing is hanging off. You can remove it as a full phase action during which you are 1/2 DCV. In most superheroic games it would be a one hit protection, then a minor hinderance. Real armour would always be the first defence hit, unless you had a Force Wall up.

Re: Bulletproof

Well so long as I have your permission...

...like that ever mattered...

I don't argue your figures, or the fact that it makes (some) characters bullet proof. Trouble is it makes some charcters kill attack proof, certainly at higher damage levels - where you are using more dice you tend toward the average far more, which means a 4 dice killing attack is unlikely to 20 BODY, so 20 rPD will make you invulnerable to that level of damage. The equivalent normal attack (12 d6 against 30 pd - more becasue no resistant cost) would mean, on average, 12 Stun getting through.

Hero is not set up to provide invulnerability (well, at least not without spending HUGE points), and that is what your system does.

My suggestion would also make Superdude relatively invulnerable to 2d6 RKAs (he would have to have another 2 points of resistant defence, for 1 more character point), but then such attacks would be doing 6d6 normal, which might get a few points through of STUN on a high roll.

Re: Summon Robots?

As was recently popinted out to me, the FAQ allows summoning of vehicles and automata - check it out - so I would say the idea is perfectly legal.

I agree with the comments on the HUGE limitation you are applying for extra time. I would also point out that you can't have OAF if you are summoning - just wrong. An OAF can be taken away and access to the powers prevented with a grab. Now you could grab a 300 point robot wolf, but that doesn't stop it working....

Also it seems to me that you are buying followers, not summoned creatures, as, from your description, they are basically there all the time, and it seems to fir the concept better. Check FRED58. It may or may not be more expensive, but you are getting quite a lot of utility there. What level of points is the base character?

Re: Diceless Hero?

Tried it ages ago, and decided not to adopt it generally.

It is a very well written and considered article and worth a go. My main problem with it is that all the players would need to be pretty familiar with HERO and it turns combat into a bit of a chess game rather where you don't take some of the extreme chances that come up in combat because you know they won't work: example your OCV has to be within 4 points of the opponents DCV to hit.

Damage is based on the degree by which you hit from glancing blow for a near miss and up from there.

It would possibly work better for solo games and for characters who are so competent that combat is no longer an art, it is a science, but I'd be inclined to avoid it for larger groups and sluggers.

Can't remember how hit location works, but I do recall that it covered just about everything - like I say it was well thought out. Give it a go, you might love it.

Re: New Power: Damage Shield Construction

Yes I've read this before, but it doesn't make it true for how some powers actually work. (8^D)

 

But let's say it was intended the way that you say. Shouldn't Suppress, a Continuouse Damage Inflicting Attack Power in the book, be as expensive or more expensive than equivalent level of other powers? Actually, it's cheaper. Again this might be due to the fact that Suppress is not really balanced.

 

Ok, let's look at some other Constant, Attack Powers.

 

Darkness is a Constant Attack Power, does it reflect the Continuous value of +1?

 

But here's another question, based on your interpretation, Continuous's value would seem to have been built with Damage Causing Powers in mind. However, it can be applied to Non-Damage Causeing Powers as well. Does the value of Continuous reflect the benefit gained when applied to Instant Attack Powers and Instant Non-Attack Powers equally?

 

There is a subtle difference when it is applied to Attack Powers vs Non-Attack Powers. And I would quantify that difference between them by breaking it into two parts.

 

1) Constant Advantage (+1/2): Turns any Instant Powers into a Constant Power.

2) Attack Lock Advantage (+1/2): Allows a constant attack power to do damage to a target each phase without any additional attack rolls after the first successful attack.

 

Just My Humble Opinion

 

Anyway, to get back on track. What are your comments about the Damage Shield, as I've defined it? (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

It isn't my interpretation, Christopher, I was quoting from FRED verbatim. Having said that I think your analysis is correct, and FRED isn't properly definfing terms.

Darkness doesn't cause damage, so you can't roll again each segment you have a phase. Supress is different: it does cause 'damage' of a sort, but is specifically excluded from continuing to cause it by the FRED power description. +1/2 to make an instant power continue as long as you pay END and +1/2 to make a continuing power that causes damage cause more damage each phasee it is maintaioned after an initial hit seems right.

What I'm saying is this.

Take the basic effect you want to use as a damage shield. Apply +1/2 for the damage shield +1/2 to make costant, if not already (as defined above at the +1/2 level) and advantages and/or limitations as needed to make it zero range and costs END, and I'm pretty sure the costs work out just as you have put them in the table. What you are doing is modifying the advantage cost for Damage Shield then just applying advantages and limitations. Whilst it clarifies the cost, IMO you don't need a new power as you can do it with existing rules (subject to modification of the DS not requiring 'continuing')

SO 1d6 EB damage shield would cost 5 +1/2 (DS) +1/2 (constant) -1/2 zero range : 7 points

1d6 supress 5 points +1/2 (DS) -1/2 zero range : 5 points

1d6 RKA 15 points +1/2 (DS) +1/2 (constant) -1/2 zero range : 20 points

You see? Same costs you worked out and done with existing (broadly) advantages and limitations so I don't think a new power is needed.

I would adopt the +1/4 can be used as an attack with manoeuvres other than grab.

What do you think of the idea of not making it compulsary to get rid of ranged and allowing the power to be used as an attack at range (but still only on contact as a 'defence)?

Re: How to build...

I agree with the other posters. The God character: here's an idea. Get your GM to decide broadly or more specifically what your charcter can do, but don't tell you. Rather than buying a huge VPP, leave all of your points 'unassigned' bar the powers you know he has got and assign them as you come across situations where his powers manifest. Every 'God/ess' will have a mainly defined powers with IF NECESSARY a VPP limited to their portfolio. This approach will probably need an experienced GM to agree to run it, but if you really want the challenge of running a character you know nothing about, this would be a lot more interesting than the VPP plan and not so open to inadvertant abuse. If you create a power that you later realise doesn't fuit the concept.

I like the FS idea but I'd reconsider the nuke gun. It would have to be a pretty off the wall (or off the planet) camaign where a hero character ever got to use that sort of attack simply becasue you are bound to kill some innocent bystander, or worse, destroy some fine art. If I were you I'd build into your background that you removed 'The Final Solution Gun' when you decided not to destroy humanity. That always leaves open the possibilty you could put it back together later if you felt the need.

Re: New Power: Damage Shield Construction

Now I'm looking at your new power...

OK, bit confused: are you using adders to modify the damage type/defences it works against (bad idea, grossly unbalancing, IMO) or am I doing the brick/thick thing now?

The powers list seems to be basically applying a +1/2 advantage to the power for the damage shield, requiring 0 END if it is not a 0 END power and requiring a no range limitation if it has range.

Seems you can therefore do it by introducing an amended advantage cost and description for Damage Shield rather than wriing a whole new power, or am I missing something? (as usual...)

Re: New Power: Damage Shield Construction

 

Have I understood your points, or am I being 'smart as a brick' again. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

I fear it was my startling lack of clarity...I was commenting on the build in the book, what is wrong with it and how I'd fix it rather than on your new power construction. Hopefully it will make more sense now...

BTW FRED 165 indicates a continuous power is an instant one made constant, and FRED 69 is where I got the stuff about if a Constant Power works against a target, once you hit it, "From then on the target takes damage in every segment in which hte attacker has a phase." Inverted commas stuff is a direct quote. Supress doesn't work that way bnecasue the rules specifically say it doesn't, but eveything else does, which is why the 'continuous' advantage is so very expensive.

Re: Bulletproof

Ahh, but the bulletproof vest also takes the Real Armor limitation, so it wouldn't be subject to that rule, right?

I like LordLiaden's and Mr. Lemming's ideas best out of the ones I've seen on this post, but both add an unneccesary step to combat. Instead I prefer removing one. Instead of using a random stun multiplier, in superheroic games I just assign all KA a STUNx of 3 (not 2 (3-1), as it suggests in the book, because ANY bullet is going to hurt a hell of a lot more than an average persons best shot, which is 12 stun).

This eliminates that extra roll, which isn't a big deal but does occasionally slow down combat, and makes supers with high levels of defense virtually (but not totally, which is important to me) immune to small arms.

This works, no question about it but my objection to it is that there is then very little difference in practice between a normal and a killing attack, in fact it slightly favours the killing attack as you are rounding the multiplier up - a 6DC normal attack averages 6 BODY and 21 STUN and rolls max damage 1 time in 46656, a 6DC KA averages 7 BODY and 21 STUN and you roll max damage 1 time in 36. With a random STUN multiplier you are rolling more dice, and would only exceed the average STUN of an equal DC normal attack about 1/3 of the time. With a 3x standard multiplier you exceed it over half the time. Mind you I agree that rounding the multiplier down to 2 as suggested in the book effectively neuters the power.

Maybe Killing Attacks should be 1d6+1 BODY per attack (maximum 6 BODY - like the STUN multiplier in reverse) , with a standard multiplier of x2: on average the 6DC killing attack would then do 9 BODY and 18 STUN. Whilst that would still favour the Killing Attack, at least it would be different to, not just better than a normal attack.

Mind you, maybe the STUN lottery is the best option. We've all had characters taken down or seriously damaged by a lucky KA roll, but we've probably also had Wolverine clones cutting on us time after time and have the high STUN multiplier rolls coincide with the low damage rolls and vice versa. It is a lottery: sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

My problem here, though, is not so much what is wrong with killing attacks as such attacks from conventional personal weapons still being able to affect defences that should outclass them.

Thank you all for the input and debate so far. Has anyone playtested any of the ideas mentioned here, or would those of you in regular Champions games be willing to?

Re: Bulletproof

My House Rule for KA is:

Killing Attacks are applied differently than standard HERO System rules. The BODY portion of the damage is handled the same, however rather than multiplying the total BODY by the STUN modifier and then applying that result to the characters rDEF + DEF, instead multiply the number of BODY that got thru the target's defenses and they take that much STUN with no defenses applied.

 

EXAMPLE: Attacker "A" hits Defender "D" with a HKA for 12 BODY with a x3 STUN Multiple. Defender "D" has 9 rDEF, so "D" takes 3 BODY. Multiplying 3 BODY by x3 STUN = 9 STUN, and "D" takes 9 STUN without applying any defenses at all.

 

 

This has the net effect of making Resistant Defenses more effective vs Killing Attacks, while not affecting Normal Damage resistance or the effect of not having any Resistant DEF.

 

On the downside this has the side effect of removing any damage from Killing attacks that are completely stopped.

 

This would be a problem in a more gritty/heroic setting, but in superheroic settings I dont have a problem with that.

Problem with this one is that it is a major change to the effectiveness of Killing Attacks, for example, a 10DC Normal attack against a character with 20 PD, all resistant, would cause (on average) 15 STUN. A 10DC killing attack (3d6+1) wouldn't get through any damage at all as the maximum roll is 19 BODY. In effect you are making a killing attack act against anyone with resistant defences as if they had a Force Wall up linked to a force field twice as big (Example: someone with 10 resistant pd gets hit for 13 BODY, and takes 3 BODY and 9 STUN (30 STUN stopped, like a 10PD ForceWall with a linked 20PD force field). Using average damage instead they would have taken 3 BODY and 29 STUN (10 STUN stopped).

If the idea is to discourage people from using Killing Attacks or encourage people to buy at least some resistant defence it is probably just easier to do it at character creation time.

To balance out I think you would really have to reduce the cost of 1DC of killing attack to maybe 10 points, maybe less.

I have playtested this system and the chap with the HKA just got ticked off he couldn't hurt anything: very few characters have no resistant defence.

It would however certainly work to make 'real' firearms ineffective against armoured supers, and if you limited the house rule to 'real' weapons, I would say fine.