Zephrosyne

While I agree that it isn't "only" up to the "Player" to be a responsible player, I think far too many players are far too willing to abdicate their part of the responsibility, which in all honesty should be mostly on them not them gm. There is nothing remotely hard about behaving like a reasonable and mature adult (or teenager) when creating and playing a character. An even modestly experienced player should not need the gm to hold his damn hand. You only have the one job for godsakes. I have always been fairly lenient with people who are new to roleplaying games; they usually don't know better. Hell, I think to a degree, the power geekery/munchkin phase is one of the growing pains of roleplaying. God knows, me and the group I started out with had our moments. They were positively cringe-worthy. However, when I know you know better, at best I will give you the business because of your bs and tell you to get your act together. At worst, I'll let you play the abusive character and then show you (in game on full display for everyone playing to watch) that no matter what you think you have and no matter what you think you can create or come up with, my point budget is unlimited so you need to act like you have some damn sense or get the hell away from our gaming table. Your behavior is not welcome. Your choice!

Similar to the Star Hero reference that Armitage mentioned, in the Advanced Player's Guide 2 (pg. 114) there is a section titled Attacking And Destroying Large Objects which covers destroying not just the Earth but large objects in general such as mountains. The section gives multiple options (in terms of rules) for attacking large objects that might be of interest.

I would not give a Limitation for this, certainly not just because of it being visible. This just isn't limiting enough to merit a -1/4 Limitation. In fact 6E1 pg. 388 specifically mentions reducing the Perceivable Limitation to 0 in the case of Defense Powers. Then again, I am a fairly strict gm when it comes to things like this.

I have found Variable Power Pools to be a bit too cheap. In my campaigns, the default cost assumes (and enforces) a relatively tight special effect (e.g. Fire Powers, Gravity Powers, etc.); if the player (or NPC) has a broader category special effect there is a surcharge applied to the Control Cost. The surcharge can be as little as +1/4 to as much as +1 in the case of extremely broad special effects such as Cosmic, Magic, Psionics etc. However, if the special effect is rather narrow, a Limitation may be called for. I am also very, very watchful of slots with Limitations. Some Limitations aren't all that limiting when you have a Variable Pool that you change slots every Phase such as Blast (Only Versus Orcs) which can be Blast (Only Versus Dragons) as a Zero Phase Action. Also, like other gms I only allow them in the hands of experienced players. Lastly, I don't allow the game to be slowed by someone with a Variable Power Pool. The player is required to make a nice list of prepared configurations to have on hand.

Thank you for the responses. One thing, PhilFleishmann, thought there isn't an option for "Any One power of ANY SFX," there is an Advantage in the Advanced Player's Guide (pg. 55) to let you affect multiple special effects with Adjustment Powers. You can affect up to 2 special effects for +1/4 Advantage. For a greater Advantage, more special effects can be adjusted. Steve accidentally named the new Advantage, Variable Special Effects; upon realizing that there was already an Advantage with the same name in the Character Creation book, he changed the name of the Advantage to Varying Special Effects (or something like that). Incidentally, there is also an Advantage, Multiple Special Effects, in 5th Edition Revised (pg. 112) that also does this. Thanks again.

There was something that I was curious about and I was hoping that those among you with greater system mastery than I have could enlighten me. The Advantage, Expanded Effect, allows an Adjustment Power to affect more than one game element at a time as a +1/2 Advantage. This is often paired with the Advantage, Variable Effect, also a +1/2 Advantage, used to vary which game element was adjusted. In 5th Edition, the Advantage, Variable Effect, roughly did the same thing as both 6th Edition Advantages: for +1/4, any one game element (Characteristics or Powers) of a designated special affect could be adjusted; for +1/2, any two game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted; for +1 any four game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted; and for +2, all game elements of a designated special effect could be adjusted. My curiosity is regarding the significant Advantage cost of increasing the number of game elements simultaneously affected by an Adjustment Power. 5th edition only costed (roughly) +1/4 Advantage to adjust an additional game element; whereas, 6th Edition, the cost is increased to a +1/2 Advantage to adjust an additional element. Why the price hike? Was there a significant balance issue that needed to be addressed? Just curious. Thank you.

This might be just what is needed. Thanos would see this level of opposition and laugh himself to death, Infinity Gauntlet or not...universe saved! I do think Daredevil is a bit too close to A-list for that Marvel roster; how bout switch him out for Nighthawk (former Defender).

Massey, you completely read my mind with you list. The exception was that I was thinking Scarlet Witch instead of Doctor Strange. While the good Doctor seems consistently more powerful and more versatile than the Witch day in and day out, she's the ultimate wild card when you need a total ass pull to save the day.

Ah, I need more information. What is Thanos bringing to the table in this fight? An army? The Infinity Guantlet? The Obsidian Order? If it is just Thanos by himself, six heroes shouldn't even be necessary: two heavy hitters from either DC (Superman and anybody) or Marvel (Thor and Silver Surfer) should dog walk his ass. Also, can we mix and match heroes from both Universes?

C&S? Do you mean Chivalry & Sorcery? If so, nice game.

Well, I don't really believe in "hard caps" per say but I do have very hard "soft caps." The base CV cap is 13 and up to 8 Combat Skill Levels are possible in my campaigns. So I guess the total would be 21. Note this is the absolute highest that any being would possess in any campaign that I would ever run. I would not let a character start with numbers near this high.

I think what you are looking for is in Hero System Martial Arts. Page 247 explains the different NNDs in detail. The numerical designations indicate what defense stops the NND. Using the examples you sited: NND1 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on vital areas, NND2 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on the neck or not having to breather, NND3 is stopped by Rigid Resistant PD on a specific Hit Location. That is the simplified version; that page has a lot more details.

Gnome Body, I have to admit that while I definitely prefer 6th Edition to any other Edition by far, the pricing change to Armor Piercing as well as Hardened no longer applying to Penetrating are questionable. Scottish Fox, that's an interesting spreadsheet. Thank you for sharing.

Actually, Piercing is in the Advanced Player's Guide (pg. 113) except that it is a Power not an Advantage. Although, by the description, it seems like more of an Adder than a Power. Although, I do think it is a bit overpriced when compared to Armor Piercing, at least as a +1/4 Advantage.

I was wondering about the Armor Piercing optional rule in the Advanced Player's Guide 1 (pgs. 136-137). Specifically, the option that alters the Advantage to where instead of reducing a target's defenses by half, each application of the Armor Piercing Advantage would reduce the target's defenses by a set amount of points (e.g. 5 or 8 or 10 or whatever). If you were using the optional rule, how many points of defense would you allow to be negated by a single application of the Armor Piercing Advantage? If your answer varies based on the power level or genre of the campaign, please feel free to elaborate. Thank you.

I see. Thanks for the reply.

I don't want to deviate too much from the original poster's question but i am really curious. If you don't use Class of Minds, do you let Telepaths use their powers on anything that would normally require a specific class of minds--robots for example?

The OMCV at 3 is neither an advantage nor is it a limitation if you don't have any mental powers because I don't envision any scenario where it would come into play. Sure I could let a person buy it down to 0 then create a scenario (a handy/needed/convenient Focus of opportunity?) where it would be limiting but frankly, I don't see any reason or have any inclination to bother. Even if I did, it certainly wouldn't come up more than once in a campaign and I honestly don't see that happening. I have often heard/seen/read the reasoning that a complication/disadvantage/limitation/etc. is the player's way of telling the gm that they want to see something in play and that is all well and good, but as gm, I get to decide whether that is something that I want to put into play. If I don't see it coming in to play, I would veto said complication/disadvantage/limitation just as I would tell a player not to select/pay for a benefit/advantage that would not come into play. That position is consistent. As for the player being able to "set" OMCV to what they would like if they have no mental powers, that is your opinion and I do not share it. If they see the "3" next to the Characteristic as "completely irrelevant window dressing" then so be it. They can stand and gawk at it or ignore and walk by it like any other window dressing. If the "3" is that painful to look at then I envy the player because life has been far too easy for him/her in general. Lastly, since I don't allow it to be "set" at whatever the player wants, my position is in no way inconsistent. For me it is simple, if something is not limiting in the campaign, you get no points for it...period and consistent.

I guess I can be lumped in with the other "lazy, shortsighted, and biased" gms because I wouldn't allow OMCV to be sold back either.

Yeah, I agree that thickness should have an effect on DEF as well as BODY. I just kinda adjust it as needed. One thing that could help is The Ultimate Brick, which has an Expanded Object Table on pages 107-112. For example it doesn't just have a DEF/BODY for a brick wall like the main rule book. It breaks it down to Thin/Small Brick Wall, Average Brick Wall, and Large Thick Brick Wall and they have different DEF as well as different BODY. It may not be as comprehensive as you would like but it does have a good number examples of various walls with DEF based on thickness in addition to BODY. I think it is a good guideline. Just note that if you use 6th Edition, The Ultimate Brick is a 5th Edition supplement but It is still quite serviceable for this matter.

I can't see Menton joining up. He seems to be insufferably arrogant to a degree that none those "egos" would put up with him. I have a hard time seeing Menton being convinced that he would need to be among "equals." He would insist on treating them more like the "help"; kinda like he was when he was dealing with PSI before his incarceration. Dude is a control freak! Ah, isn't Baron Nihil a Nazi and Joseph Otanga an African. Unless I have seriously misunderstood what it means to be a Nazi, there might be issues. Doctor Yin Wu is a luddite in the extreme. Dude has a Psychological Complication (Common, Strong) for his hatred of technology. He would probably have a hard time working with Warlord and Interface. There's also that despising Westerner's thing. It would be fun to watch the fireworks in that group. I think instead of fighting them, the good guys should grab some popcorn and coke and watch the show.

The Tiger Hook Swords may be awkward but Baron Juliet Chau was rockin em big time a couple of episodes ago on Into The Badlands. Then again, the Widow did cut off her head in that fight. Never mind...moving on.

I think the cutoff point may vary from campaign to campaign, more specifically, probably especially, from gm to gm. Speaking for myself, I don't have a long list of equipment that you can and can't have any more than I have a list of powers/power builds that you can and can't have. Once you know yourself as a gm and the campaign that you have built, you just know. For myself: yes, Tom, you can have that flashlight, cell phone, and Ferrari as equipment because you can afford it (can steal it or whatever); however, if you think you are going to have Iron Man's armor (or a facsimile of) without spending character points, you're out of your damn mind. The cutoff point is kinda like the definition of obscenity: you may not be able to exactly define it, but you'll know it when you see it. The important thing is being consistent with your judgement and making sure your players understand it. If you know yourself as a gm and your campaign, it isn't that difficult.

I really don't remember the most amount of points I have ever spent on a character but I seriously doubt that I have ever spent more than around 2000 points on any character even when just making characters for fun. I can't even imagine making a character with numbers high enough to need 5000 points let alone 20,000.

Yeah, I'm in the camp of allowing characters to have normal crap as long as they can justify it (buy it, steal it, whatever) be it a flash light, a cell phone, a blender, or a gun. However, it is treated as real world stuff and subject to real world rules. You didn't play for it with points so I am free to do with it as I see fit. Since you didn't buy it with points, it doesn't really belong to you, it belongs to the campaign world.