Netzilla

Fine Manipulation already accounts for that, IMO. After all, proper typing, lockpicking and many other things Fine Manipulation allows one to do are done by feel as well. I guess I'm not a sensible GM then. Careful with blanket statements like this.

As SW pointed out, TK is not invisible by default. You have to pay for an Advantage to get that. As for combining raw STR and TK, that's not normally allowed for the base maneuvers, so it shouldn't be allowed for TK Martial Arts either. At best, you can use STR and TK to make a Multi Attack with the requisite penalties but even that's questionable as Multi Attack has rules about not combining two instances of the same power or two maneuvers with the same "base".

When I've allowed this in the past, I've required Fine Manipulation (because Martial maneuvers all require more precision and finesse than the basic maneuvers) and TK as a Weapon Element. Adding in the Fine Manipulation, the overall package of TK + Martial Arts given by SW comes out to 60 points. One thing about that example is that it's getting a lot of mileage out of those +6 DCs. If those were dropped and 40 Strength TK is bought instead, the cost comes out different: TK 40 STR w/ Fine Manipulation (70 AP; 70 RC) Generic Martial Art * Martial Grab: -1 OCV; -1 DCV; 50 STR (3 AP; 3 RC) * Martial Strike: +0 OCV; +2 DCV; 10d6 (4 AP; 4 RC) * Martial Throw: +0 OCV; +1 DCV; 8d6 +v/10 Target Falls (3 AP; 3 RC) * Weapon Element: TK (1 AP; 1 RC) Total = 81 AP; 81 RP I'm not overly fond of buying high amounts of Martial Arts DCs with minimal STR on a regular martial artist build due to how efficient it is. So, I'm even less likely to allow it on a TK MA build.

I know Sting showed an inscription in the movie, but I don't recall it having one in the books. Also, the inscription you give doesn't seem right as Bilbo was the one who named it Sting and its powers are better related to fighting orcs and goblins rather than spiders. What's your source for the inscription?

I think Autonomous would be the more appropriate word (at least, its what I was thinking of originally). If you're interested, the first movie might be worth checking out if you're into retro-80s sci-fi. The sequel was pretty but full of even more plot issues than the original. To be fair, though, the Tron aesthetic has always been its greatest feature.

You could work off of the old Tron term, Derezzed. Autoderesolution? For a name, I'd suggest some cool-sounding acronym. Programming in general and computer security really love their acronyms and abbreviations. Something like A.C.E.S (Anthropomorphized Cybernetic Enforcer of Safety).

I am very much in the 'keep it simple' camp of must making it a custom Advantage. Easy to read on the character sheet and clear in what it's purpose actually is. The most annoying part is going to be tracking those wounds separately from other wounds without the Advantage. As for how much its worth, as others have pointed out, it really depends on how common and quick unnatural healing is in your campaign. If you're running something like Game of Thrones, where magical healing is practically non-existent, it wouldn't be worth much at all. If it's like Lord of the Rings, where some magical cures/healing aides exist but aren't super quick or powerful, maybe worth a +1/4 or +1/2. If it's like most D&D games, where spells, potions and scrolls abound, then a +1 seems fair.

I can only hope this actually gets carried out: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/robert-reichs-8-point-plan-for-a-new-democratic-party-w451713

The voters we're talking about are the third-party voters, not the Trump supporters. I've not seen any evidence of progressives having turned out for Trump.

My point remains that relying on voters to vote for you because the other guy is wosrse is a bad strategy. You can't take that for granted. Doing so cost this election the same as it has cost previous elections. Likewise, blaming the voters and accusing them of stupidity and apathy actively hurts your chances going forward because it alienates them. If the Dems want to win back Congress in 2018, and I hope they do, they need to figure out what they could have done different. They need to reach out to the voters they lost and ask why they lost them. Simply writing them off as not knowing what's in their best interest is simply asking to lose again.

[snip] My point is that the Clinton campaign seems more interested in deflecting blame than alayzing what they could have done differently. If they continue to do that, they will continue to lose. How does blaming the voters help the Democrats going forward?

If you think the more radical of the Trump supporters are bad winners, what do you think they'd be like if we threw out the EC now? I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm saying be ready for things to get really ugly.

Sure, Sanders should have reached more people. Did I ever say otherwise? Did I or anyone in the Sanders camp blame the voters for his failure to get the nomination? Once Clinton won the nomination it was the job of her campaign to get Bernie supporters to vote for her. They got some but not enough. Are you saying that's the voters' fault?

This, this right here is a big part of what I've been trying to say (in a far too verbose fashion). For the past couple months, the Democratic strategy seems to have been to treat Trump as a joke rather than try to play up Clinton's strengths. That, combined with a track record that's more centrist than progressive is what made Clinton look like the establishment candidate that the public has been claiming they hate for years now. Then, when they loose, they immediately start looking to blame the voters rather than look at how they failed to make their candidate appealing.

I did not duck any question. Part of my point this whole time is that voters are not part of a 'political coalition' unless they choose to be so. Acting otherwise is not a winning strategy. My point is that blaming Clinton's loss on the voters is counter-productive. Basically, I believe that you're starting from a flawed premise. Remember, you responded to a point I made about how the Democratic leaders and the media are trying to pin this loss on the voters rather than looking at themselves for why they failed to win over those voters. Do you really think that the Democrats can win over voters for the next election by calling those who failed to vote for Hillary stupid or apathetic? Democrats are already painted as intellectual elitists who don't care about the common voter. Dismissing those who failed to vote for Hillary as stupid or apathetic only reinforces this image. It would be better for the party to look at how the campaign failed to win over voters and improve on that for the next time.

If Clinton actively supports issues they don't like (take Fracking, for example), then if they vote for Clinton, they still get things they don't want (like accelerated greenhouse emissions and increased earthquakes in formerly geologically stable areas). It was a no-win situation for them and their friends and neighbors. So, they voted for those they felt were more in line with what they did want. What's hard to understand about that? Voters are under no obligation to vote for someone they don't like. Acting like they do is self-defeating. We elect people to represent us. We are not obligated to them. They are obligated to us. I knew Trump had a chance to win. I didn't think the odds were good, but I figured those giving him a 25-30% chance were probably closest to the mark. So that's why I voted Clinton. On the other hand, most media outlets were giving Trump a much smaller chance (some as low as 2 or 5%). Combine that with neither major party candidate looking like a good choice and of course voters went third party or stayed home. History does not support the idea of Democrats winning by putting up uninspiring candidates. It didn't work for Kerry, it didn't work in the 2010 midterms, it didn't work for congress in 2012 or 2014, and now it didn't work this time. So, why should Democrats continue to do this?

And if you don't think either major party candidate cares about your interests and priorities? That's how the people who went third party felt. You have to give people a reason to vote FOR you otherwise they'll look elsewhere. Expecting otherwise is a bad strategy. Look at how Obama ran his campaigns compared to the Clinton campaign. He made a concentrated effort to reach out to younger voters and to address issues that were important to them. Even if his subsequent performance was largely moderate, he ran on a campaign of progressive change and he didn't have enough of a track record to make people doubt it. Clinton had the appearance of an establishment candidate who would largely continue to do business as usual rather than being the candidate for change. In addition, her past record shows that she's pro fracking, supported the war in Iraq, supported the Wall Street bailout and so on. That's a record that runs counter to the interests of those who wanted Bernie.

You can't expect people to vote for you if you don't inspire them. Why should they? Politicians are supposed to EARN your vote. Expecting people to vote for you because the other guy sucks is ignoring the fact that voters can always stay home or vote third party. It's a bad strategy. It's been loosing Democrats seats in congress for 6 years now. As to the primary, even if you don't think the DNC had their thumb on the scale for Hillary, the appearance of that was damaging to her brand and she didn't do enough to reassure and win back Bernie supporters. As a result, they either didn't show up or they went third party. It's not their fault that they felt disenfranchised. Either they were disenfranchised or the Clinton campaign didn't do enough to convince them otherwise.

Yep, and they were principle drivers for Obama and Sanders as well. They can't just be waived away as apathetic. The idea that young voters don't turn out has been wrong for over a decade. They will turn out if inspired to do so.

That's why we need to make sure that the Democratic Party leadership doesn't get away with trying to spin the narrative that low voter turnout and 'millennial apathy' was why they lost. They lost because they didn't give people a valid alternative choice. The mood in this country has been that we're sick of establishment candidates, so running one was a terrible idea.

Yeah, that's not a fair assessment of the situation. Even if Trump had won the popular as well, it would have been by such a narrow margin that you can't blame this on the entirety of the U.S. voting population. We were given the choice between an establishment candidate and someone who gave the appearance of an outsider (even if a buffoonish one). He was so much the outsider that significant leaders in his own party refused to support him. You can't buy a better outsider image than that. So, while this result didn't seem likely, it's easily understandable.

Yep. I've been saying this since Wednesday morning, and this is why I'm so angry with the Democratic party right now. They, once again, put up a business-as-usual candidate that failed to inspire people to vote FOR her. Instead, they were banking on people voting against Trump and that's a terrible strategy. Voters want to be given a different choice, which is why Democrat voters either didn't show up or went 3rd party. The sad thing is, it's not the first time they've done this and I fear they still haven't learned their lesson. DNC leaders and pundits are already trying to blame the voters for not showing up rather than taking a hard look at themselves.

Well, I guess we've found one thing that California and Texas have in common: They'll both threaten to take their ball and leave if they don't get their way.

Mostly, if it comes up, it's handled via some technobabble or mystobabble. Often, a character's costume is tied to their origin in some way ("Wait, you've been naked this whole time?!). If someone needs a durable costume provided for them, I've got a "Inertial Weave/Thermastrand" (see technobabble) blend that can be used. It even provides up to 8 rPD and 8 rED for negligible mass). it's also the default material for many super-organization field agents and it can be made to look like almost any other material (handy if you're worried about assassins but want to look like you're wearing a normal business suit). Combine it with Duralloy plating, and you can get some real armor going (16 rPD & rED). There's actually a handful of wonder-materials available in the campaign (liberally stolen from various super-hero and sci-fi sources). TV Tropes is a great place to mine for such things: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Unobtainium?from=Main.Unobtanium

So, with a few players missing for various reasons, and a guest-player joining us, we decided to play a champions one-off. Our cast: Arsenal: Power-suited inventor Blaze - Indiscriminate thrower of fire Golden - Light-based energy beams Dr. Specter - Mystic Master Dragon's Hand - Martial Artist/Gadgeteer Sapphire: The one from the Champions team. *** [The scenario starts out with the GM explaining how we're a newly-founded superhero team. Since we're so new, we're a little short on resources.] GM [describing our base]: ... well, no it doesn't have any sleeping quarters or bedrooms. It's just got a couple rooms for meeting in; a small kitchenette with an mini-fridge, microwave and toaster oven; your 'monitor room' has a police scanner, a television and an out of date computer... Dr. Specter [OOC]: So, rather than a Hall of Justice, it's really more of a Clubhouse of Justice. GM: Pretty much. *** [We hear about a report of an armored car robbery over the police scanner.] Dr. Specter [OOC]: Quick! To the Freedom Jet... Oh, wait. Dragon's Hand [OOC]: Does anyone have a car? *** Dragon's Hand: The Dragon's Hand hopes that your gentleman friend at least purchased for you edible goods before physical intimacy. *** Blaze: Do we have a line to the police or the government? Dr. Specter: Yeah. It's called 9-1-1. *** Golden: You don't have any money. Dragon's Hand: The Dragon's Hand brought the cash from the swear jar. *** Dragon's Hand: The Dragon's Hand apologizes for not having an inside voice. *** [After investigating the crime scene, Arsenal cobbles together a device for tracking the energy signature of the bad guys' weapons.] Dr. Specter: Yay! We have a plasma detector. Unfortunately, we no longer have a toaster oven or stereo. *** [During a discussion of our not yet having named our team.] Blaze: We're not quite the Magnificent Seven. Arsenal: We're sufficient. Blaze: Yes! We're the Sufficient Six. *** Dragon's Hand: How many times does the Dragon's Hand have to speak in the third person before you remember his name?! *** Dragon's Hand: The Dragon's Hand is rubber... and you're glue!