Sean Waters

Re: Fellow GM's - help define spacial awareness

Spacial awareness is N-Ray plus: they are the same base build but SA has more bells and whistles. It has targetting and sense, so it makes little 'sense' to attach it to a sense group that already has them, like sight, or indeed to any of the normal senses, which have sense already.

If a character had an unusual detect, then you might want to attach SA to that, if not you'd need to add range to make it any use and define it as its own sense group. The big plus there is that flash,darkness, shapeshift, images just won't really work against the character.

You start by defining how it works though: if it is based on 'seeing through stuff' just buy N-Ray, or scratch build the power would be my advice.

Re: Character for Comment : Coldilocks

Like the character. Not sure if I'm off base here, but I don't think that your damage shield will get through your force wall, so it would only effect people who used cold powers to knock the wall down. I appreciate that it is transparent,but not to cold energy, so it will keep that safely locked up inside.

Re: Dimensional Hole and Symbiote

I take it your player is not familiar enough with the game system to design their own character?

Coming up with a concept that is practically all - powerful is easy. Design that is the trick...

With the dimensional character, if he exists across all dimensions he is going to have a real perception problem. I'd have a physical and/or psychological limitation that he has to make some sort of EGO roll to keep focussed on 'this' dimension - otherwise he just wanders off and does something apparently nonsensical, and will need to make PER rolls for even the most obvious things. Don't forget that designing a character involves designing the flaws too...

The symbiote...hmmm. Never likes this sort of thing as a concept, but how about using a mental transformation to change the 'possessed' character to his current mind, coupled with a...dunno,maybe dimensional travel to the 'mental realm' to simulate disappearing into their brain/body (the way we used to simulate the net). Limitation is that, becasue he is effectively an observer and it is not strictly his brain, he loses half the experience that he gained while in that body when he leaves it. In addition he is vulnerable to mental attacks (2x effect) when possessing another body as he has to keep mental channels open. He has a dependence on possessing another: he can not live long in his natural form.

I reckon those sorts of disadvantages will tell you whether you have a creative and interesting role player or a power gamer, and it gives you enough ways to balance the potentially devastating power if he does agree to play it...

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

Ah Worldmaker, sarcasm cancels sarcasm then.

Point is I was using it to make the point. Ineffectively, obviously. You can add whatever you like for not much more cost, and all you are doing is using summon as a mechanism for getting round paying for the powers.

I may be way off in the hinterlands here, but myonly real objection, to re-iterate, is the, I consider, very high DEF. As an effect, in principle, it is peachy.

Want something constructive to comment on, what do you think of the suggestion for simulating a homing missile using powers rather than buying it as a vehicle?

Re: What is up with falling?

No, absolutely. In fact if you start at 1d6, you get a ridiculously small amount of damage. I was proposing a more logical progression that still made falling a lomg way quite scary. When the Hero system is not logical it is usually for dramatic purposes: I just think they have gone too far this time!

Can someone explain...

You fall, it causes lots of damage. Fine. IMO too much damage. Why?

Damage, as I understand it,in the Hero system follows a (reverse) geometric progression: +5 STR is twice as strong, but you don't do twice the dice in damage, and it is my understanding that this is one of the underlying principles in the game design. I could be wrong in that, but that is what I always understood

Falling damage is an straight progression. If you double the velocity you are doubling the dice of damage.

I agree falling should be something to be avoided, but (as a suggestion) if 5" fall velocity does 5d6,then 10" should do 10d6, 20" should do 15d6 and you'd take 20d6 if you got up to 40". 30" velocity would be about 17d6,which is plenty.

One silly point to close,should you ever reach terminal velocity, well worth trying a move through on the Earth. You are not likely to miss and, assuming you don't add strength or achieve knockback, you'll only take 10d6. Funny old world...

Re: Is Force Feild Overpriced?

A number of good points all around.

IMO, FF is not overpriced: I have never been concerned about the cost in any kind of instinctive way (like I am about the cost of Damage Shield...).

I am surprised that 5th Ed didn't rationalise the defences though. The way they are at present, they are seperate powers and as Vorsch points out,that means the costs of advantages is less for FF but the points savings for limitations is greater for armour. All we really need is PD, ED and damage resistance, with appropriate advantages and limitations. We could probably roll force wall in there too, with a few more advantages and limitations.

Whilst all this is logical, I must say I don't really feel the need...it isn't something that really bugs me that much.

Re: Tricky Power Design

You might be better off with a mental transform to, in effect, put your mind into the wielder. Mind control, as has been pointed out, will almost inevitably get broken out of on a regular basis. Or I suppose you could buy the wielder as a loyal follower...

As for the damage,I think your original idea works, subject to you, presumably, not being able to withold permission to use the damage - for instance if someone that you don't want weilding you and you have not controlled grabs you and starts stabbing your mates. You could do this with a physical disadvantage rather than a limitation on the cost of the power though.

BTW very much like the idea. Very original - even though it has been done with, for instance Stormbringer, it is never told from the point of view of the sentient weapon. Nearest you probably get is Crang (I think that was the name) in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels.

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

It wouldn't be that much more expensive to go ahead and give the thing Flight.

...and laser cannons

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

The thing is' date=' if you wouldn't allow one to Summon a Vehicle as the mechanic for a cruise missile SFX, how would you do it? I'm not trying to derail the threat on theoretical write-ups, but I'm curious how'd you'd build an attack that, if it misses, will try again and again until it hits or dies trying. The only mechanic I've found that accurately accomplishes this is the Vehicle rules. The only way to pop a vehicle into existance is using Summon. As least as far as I know.[/quote']

 

Let's reason from effect...missile likely to cause physical damage. We'll leave out explosion/armour piercing etc at present, but you can add it in if you like. It is probably going to be a RKA. Say 4d6, so 60 active points.

 

First thought was making it continuous, to represent it's persisitent nature, with a limitation that it can only cause damage once, but that dosen't work wellwithout considerable fudging.

 

So...what is the 'advantage' of the homing missile (incidentally an older version of Champions had a 'homing' advantage,but that seems to be gone now...)? Well I suppose it is more likely to hit as it gets more goes, so we can simulate that with simple OCV levels, say 5 of them- that should be enough to hit most opponents unless they are doing a martial dodge...so that'll be 10 more points.

 

Now, the point about a missile is that takes some time to lock on and hit - no one is going to be sure how long - it depends, and it could be KO'd before it hits.

 

OK increased onset time seems appropriate: you fire it and then it takes extra time to cause damage. Bit of a fluff here: take it at the extra phase level (-3/4) but each time you launch a missile, roll 1d6: on a 1 it locks on quickly, so it hits at half your DEX on the same phase, on a 2 it hits on the next segment,on a 6 it takes a full turn (you can play with the numbers, or just allow a set time to assume it locks on and hits).

 

Aditional limitation: can be destroyed by a hit theat targets DVC 10 and does 5+ BODY (-1/4) - this may seem low but in effect, even if it is destroyed it has caused your opponent to lose a phase.

 

Your GM may make you buy some levelof indirect too. Finally you should really buy charges, say 16 (+0).

 

Special effects are that you launch a missile and it flies about trying to hit the target. Most of the time it succeeds due to the high OCV, but sometimes it crashes into the ground or some other piece of scenery. It takes a variable time to lock on, delivers it's damage and is done. The multiple attempts to attack is just a special effect: the actual effect is that it is more likely to hit. Once fired you can forget about it, but you can't stop it: to do that you'd need to buy a dispel as a 'killswitch' power.

 

Final cost: 60 active points, -1 limitations, 30 real points +10 for the OCV, 40 real points for 16 homing missiles.

 

Work for you?

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

You seem to have confused yourself with your own examples. We're not talking about a missile, we're talking about a force bubble. The force bubble doesn't spontaneously explode after it drops off passengers.

 

For the same points a character could buy an always present flying tank with higher defenses and armament. Since a tank is clearly a vehicle, I doubt anyone would bat an eye. The only reason, IMO, people are objecting to this is that it doesn't "look" like a Vehicle, even though it clearly acts like one.

No. You buy a flying tank,it gets trashed and then you have to go and build a new one. You summon a force bubble, it gets trashed, you summon a new one good as new: it doesn't have the limitations of a 'real' vehicle. Oh and if you summon it you don't need to worry about getting through the front door.

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

On 15 DEF: I figured for a game with 10-15 DC's as normal' date=' thus a normal attack will be able to bust it on a good roll[/quote']

 

I agree that it is a useful amount of DEF. If you were using less I'd be far less worried about the power being abused as a cheap substitute for Force Wall.

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

I'm offended. I don't drink beer.

 

Keep in mind that Summon isn't as cheep or efficient as you think it is. I couldn't care how killer the gnats are if they're only DEX 10 SPD 2 with no defenses. Sure, they look scary, but they're just bugs! Step on them! (or swat them....)

 

As per the DEF of the suggested bubble, it seems perfectly reasonable considering the bubbles own movement and CV. It's a guarenteed hit to attack it.

 

Another point.... Vehicle bubbles are easier to Dispel.

 

 

Every try to move one?

 

Though after you mention this, I'd add in Persistant Gliding to make them "weightless", with the Limitations for muscle powered movement (such as a drawn cart) from TUV.

OK,sorry about he beer thing.

If I add +10OCV to the gnats it it only another 4 points in a summon: the point is they would not be allowed in a reasonable game. Yes they are easy to kill, bu they are deadly andf there are lots of them. Think how you'd feel if your GM used them against you...lets assume you swat 3/4 of them,and only half of the remainder hit, that is still 8 major hits,probably enough to take you out in one phase. Seems too powerful.

Look, I like the force bubble summon idea: I have said so several times: my concern is that 15 DEF. Given that you drive the things from outside, if you stick an enemy in there it is a lot cheaper than a massive entangle. If you are sticking friends in there they are not going to be resisting the grab, so OCV is not really a concern: you can do them all at once, and whilst the vehicle may be 'stunned' when it first arrives that doesn't mean it isn't a useful defence if, for example, you summon it in front of you. It seems to be as powerful as a force wall, but isn't necessarily going down if breached (it has 40 STR,presumably to carry the load: not actually necessary if it is going to be moved by external means: I would have the STR bought back to zero).

I'm not arguing with the principle, I'm arguing with the execution. Summon is a STOP power, and should not be used to do things that you can simulate with powers. You could, for instance buy the vehicle tomove your mates around safely and then protect it with yout own force wall, bought as a power. I'm pretty confident that the force wall you could buy as a power would nto have 15 PD/15ED, 0END: you could not afford it (that would be 112 active points!).

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

OK, couple of things:

1. I don't mean to have a go at anyone, it is just the way I express myself. If anyone feels offended by the, admittedly, sharp to one of some of my responses, I'm sorry. Call me, we'll meet and I'll buy you a beer.

2. Summon is a STOP power. If you summon a swarm of 64 killer gnats from dimension X who are loyal and have the powers Flight 30" and 4d6HKA (killer proboscis), all for 81 points, you are abusing the system and you're not getting in my game. Actually you might, but you'll find yourself liquidised by a whole group of villains using broadly the same schtick. If the power is being used in a clearly abusive way, whether it is 'a perfectly legal build' or not, it clearly should not be allowed. That is my opinion, and I doubt whether the Hero glitterati would disagree. The point I so laboriously make is that it is a question of balance and IMO, harking back to the original point of the thread, 15 DEF is too much, unless you are playing in a game in which every charcter can dish out that kind of damage in which case 15 DEF is pointless, so I would not allow it.

3. Nothing to do with the original rant, but I doubt whether GL force bubbles weigh anything, let alone 6.4 tonnes...

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

Any vehicle you could buy with Summon you could buy cheaper by just buying it as a Vehicle, since Summon would require the Slavishly Loyal Advantage.

 

So I'm failing to see a balance issue here. The character is actually paying extra for his Force Bubble Vehicle just to get the special effect of creating it from nothing.

That was irony, Andrew, please tell me you see that?

Look, you've got a car. You park it in the garage. You don't carry it into space or into the villain's underground lair. How can you think that summoning it from nothing in not a major advantage? In fact you are not summoning the vehicle, you are summoning an identical vehicle with none of the disadvantages of a real vehicle,eg the damage it took last time you used it. I really shouldn't print what I'm thinking....

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

This might be true, but...The Omega Beam Effect from USPD is a summon. As are the missiles.

Gadgets and Gear feature Doc Ock style arms and senseor spheres bought as "Followers"

 

apparently, Steve thinks such constructs (given GM approval) are just fine.

 

But then again, GM approval might be needed for Energy Blast in some games, depends of the GM...

I haven't got USPD, so I have no idea what you are talking about. Mind you, ANYTHING, given a sufficiently drunk GM is 'just fine'. In this instance, if Steve thinks it is OK to summon a missile that does the same job as an EB or a RKA for a fifth of the points you'd normally have to spend on them if bought as powers, he is wrong, as I'm sure he would readily accept. We could ask him...

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

Any vehicle you could buy with Summon you could buy cheaper by just buying it as a Vehicle, since Summon would require the Slavishly Loyal Advantage.

 

So I'm failing to see a balance issue here. The character is actually paying extra for his Force Bubble Vehicle just to get the special effect of creating it from nothing.

Don't be daft: you buy a missile as a vehicle, use it and it is gone, you've lost the character points: buy it as a summon and use it again and again and again...

Re: "Anopheles" (Horror World) text online

Thank you.

Re: Skills Help: Entrepreneur?

You might want to have that 'fabulously wealthy' on an activation roll: it depends on the markets and what you have in liquid assets...

Re: Get out of that

I doubt KS is trying to tell you off (if nothing else' date=' he'd be clear about it). But you get more replies on the System board because Herophiles who don't play Champions [Heathens - I can say that on this board, right? ] read and post there.

It was Heather who told me off last time for posting on the Hero board after I realised that was the more appropriate forum...

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

I think the intention there is that you take the total points that vehicle is built on and divide it by 5 once for the Summon' date=' and not take the points and divide it by 5 for being a Vehicle and than again by 5 for the Summon.[/quote']

 

You are absolutely right, Caris. I'd just scanned the FAQ and my wife was on at me that the children needed picking up or something. I tried to tell her this was more important, but I guess I got distracted anyway: didn't think it through.

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

While most of these are good points' date=' the Specific Being advantage doesn't seem to really apply. If you leave your sunglasses in the bubble when it's "unsummoned", they will end up on the ground rather than remaining in the bubble (reasoning from special effect here). If a character had a vehicle that they brought from some dimensional pocket, then Specific Being would be appropriate, but the GL bubble is created anew each time.[/quote']

 

That is a direct quote fromthe official FAQ...but I agree: there would only be disadvantages to summoning a specific vehicle - damage would carry over, for example, whilst summoning a specific individualcan be very useful.

 

On there being summoned missiles in official products, I'm just telling you what it says in the FAQ: you can't get a cheap EB/RKA by summoning a missile, and quite right too; even if it wasn't official, you'd never get away with it in my game. I don't know what product it is in, but just because it is in a product doesn't necessarily mean that's the final word.

 

I'm just off to summon a skintight vehicle that doesn't do anything but provide 30 DEF, and a 20d6 EB, and all for 52 points. Bargain.

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

Oh I'm Mr Party Pooper today: also from the FAQ:

A: Yes, a character could summon such an object (e.g., a Base, Vehicle, or Computer), subject to the GM’s approval. The character must apply the Amicable Advantage at the Slavishly Loyal (+1) level, since he has full control over the object. Additionally, if he Summons the same specific Vehicle every time (or the like), he must pay for the Specific Being (+1) Advantage, unless the GM waives it. Derive the cost of Summon from the total cost of the object, not its cost divided by 5.

Which indicates that these might be a lot more expensive than first envisaged...

Re: Reasoning from effect/I think I have finaly done it/GL Bubbles

Yep, perfectly legal build.

 

Great idea by the way! I've been using the Summon rules for Vehicles for quite a while now (great for the Lightcycles from Tron) but it never occured to me to build those bubbles with them.

 

Other creative uses for Summon:

 

Cruise Missiles (a vehicle or automaton that seeks out it's targets and keeps trying until hit hits or is destroyed)

Magic Wards (a computer bought with senses and a Mind Link to the summoner)

I don't have Ultimate Vehicle, but I've now looked at the FAQ and noticed this:

A character may not use Summon in this way to substitute for another power. For example, a character cannot Summon a bunch of swords and hand them out to his friends; that’s HKA, Usable By Others. As always, common sense, dramatic sense, and the GM’s discretion apply.

It seems that the force bubbles, cruise missiles etc would clearly violate this injunction - it is a way to get around building the effect with powers, isn't it?

These force bubbles are a good idea,my concern is that they seem too powerful, and at lower level I'd certainly allow them in a game I ran, even if they are not, technically, a 'perfectly legal build'.

Re: Get out of that

I just can't seem to get which board to post on. Still,so long as there is always someone to put me right...

If I get told off for reposting this you'll back me up, yeah?