Zephrosyne

23 hours ago, Strand said:

I know this is late, but I come from a group of power games. (don't we all?) If our GM said we were having a Champions game, one would create an insane gadget pool. The rest would create their VPPs.  I don't think it's only up to the Player to be responsible to the player. You can have a player that can make the perfect VPP.  (I had friends make a character for me that had a Weather VPP and I had sticky notes for all the powers she could create)

Where the REAL responsibility lies is the GM. If that person doesn't know the rules backwards and forwards, they might as well ban the Variable Power Pool. Otherwise Chaos will reign.

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.  

7 hours ago, death tribble said:

From Marvel:

Birdbrain from the New Mutants

Cypher from New Mutants

Daredevil

Dazzler

Rick Jones

Jean DeWolff

 

From DC:

Commissioner Gordon 

The Red Bee

Stone Boy from Legion of Substitute Heroes

Infectious Lass from Legion of Substitute Heroes

Color Kid from Legion of Substitute Heroes

Johnny Thunder (cowboy)

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).

4 hours ago, massey said:

If he's got the Infinity Gauntlet, there's no combination of heroes that can stop him.  By himself, yeah any two big guys should be able to do it.

 

But if I've got six (and leaving out plot device characters like The Spectre), I'll go with:

 

Superman and Thor -- They've got the physical power to stand up to Thanos in a fair fight.

Doctor Strange and Mister Fantastic -- Because Thanos doesn't fight fair, and so you may need to counter unexpected traps.

Silver Surfer -- He knows Thanos, and has had to fight against him on his own.

Batman -- Because Thanos will 100% underestimate him, and sometimes you need to pull out the cheese.

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.

15 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I wouldn't use this idea but I would say probably a factor of the active point limits (if any) of the campaign, like 1/10th or 1/5th, something like that.  So if you have a 60 AP limit, it cuts by 6 or 12.

 

I miss the old Piercing advantage from Champions 3 which was a straight off the top reduction of defenses by a point value.  You bought levels of piercing, so 1 level reduced the target's resistant (appropriate defense) by 1

 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.

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Of course.  As long as it has a mind of any sort to connect with, you can connect with it.  Unless you buy a limitation that states otherwise.  You know, like Spock using mind meld on blobs of molten rock, computers, people, etc.

I see.  Thanks for the reply.

On 6/17/2019 at 5:16 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

The only thing I can think of is that they wisely jettisoned the "types of minds" bit for mental powers.

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?

1 hour ago, Surrealone said:

Does this also mean you'd allow someone who has no mental combat abilities to set OMCV to whatever they like … for 0 CP … since they can't do anything with it?

 

I ask to check for consistency -- because if having less OMCV has no bearing on the game (i.e. is not limiting) for a character who has no mental abilities … then having more of it also has no bearing on the game(i.e. is not beneficial) … and, thus, the player should be able to set it to whatever s/he likes for no cost since it's completely irrelevant window dressing.  (If a limitation that's not a limitation is worth no points, then an advantage that's not an advantage is also worth no points.  So, too, it is with characteristics that are neither limiting when bought down … or beneficial when bought up.  That's the logic … applied consistently.)

And if you WOULD let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost -- how is that fair to mentalists who must pay for the same stat?

And if you WOULD NOT let the person set it to whatever they like for 0 cost … why not … since, again, they have no mental abilities for which OMCV would matter?

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.

On 5/3/2019 at 1:54 AM, Doc Democracy said:

 

Then I guess I am lazy, shortsighted and biased, these are burdens I will have to bear because I think it is too late for me to change my spots....

 

I do challenge the equivalence of OCV and OMCV unless you are changing the fundamental basis of the world, a task too onerous for someone as time-poor as I.

 

Doc

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.

On 5/3/2019 at 12:53 PM, Toxxus said:

Let me preface by saying I like the HERO system handling of DEF vs. BOD more than any other system, but one thing that has always bothered me is DEF not being adjusted by thickness.

 

Ex:  If we're talking pine boards - it's a relatively soft wood and the defense would be low.  But in my daughter's TKD class the boards are so thin that the kids with 0 STR (or less) can blast through them with a single blow.

 

I can see at a standard thickness where additional thickness wouldn't add anything to the defense.  Such as a medium tree vs. a large tree vs. a chainsaw.  The thickness of the tree just makes it take longer to carve through.

 

But on the opposite end of the spectrum - if steel is thin enough - I can bend it with my old man strength (the real kind, not the mythical kind - STR 13 tops).

 

Block of glass vs. light bulb, etc.

 

Are there any rules for reducing DEF when materials are very thin?

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.

On 5/2/2019 at 2:58 PM, Steve said:

A CU Legion of Doom?

 

I think a pretty scary one could be put together pretty quickly by using some of the Master Villains like the following:

 

Baron Nihil

Gravitar

Interface

Invictus

Joseph Otanga

Menton

The Shadow Queen

The Warlord

Doctor Yin Wu

 

I think they could be willing to set aside their egos long enough to work together, if they saw the benefits of being a team. I could even see some of them having a more cordial relationship with each other, such as The Shadow Queen and Invictus or Gravitar and Menton.

 

I left out those with Megalomania or Casual Killer psychs. I just don't see them working very well with others.

 

 

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. 

On 4/3/2019 at 11:01 PM, Old Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tiger Hook Swords.  "Okay what I want is two swords, only with bladed pommels, and blades on the handguards, and blades on the blades, and hooks on the blades such that I can hook one blade on the other blade and swing all the blades around on the battlefield like a shrieking psycho."

 

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.

8 hours ago, Steve said:

I'm wondering if one could go the other way with this and what would be the ramifications.

 

Like building a version of Tony Stark, but his armor is treated as equipment instead of something costing character points on his sheet. He covers his ability to use the armor by means of buying additional equipment points to cover its real cost and picking up appropriate weapon and transport familiarities and a perk for higher active point equipment availability.

 

If a character in a fantasy campaign can use their equipment points for the magic items they found or acquired, it isn't much of a stretch to treat superhuman equipment as equipment.

 

I'm not really advocating this idea, but I'm wondering where the cutoff is for free equipment in a superhero world. Would acquiring a VIPER blaster be much harder than getting a regular handgun? You could buy it on the street with enough money or by having the right connections. How about a suit of body armor?

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.