Mike W

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks I wouldn't consider the physics to be purely special effects. The fact that we decided to use two arrows is the special effect. Logic usually dictates what happens when two powers come into conflict, and I also think that when we go about constructing a countershot of this nature that the relative difficulty IS important. After all, that's why we have all those modifiers on hit rolls and skill rolls.

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks I can see that to some extent. But I guess I and many of the people I've been around and gamed with are a bit too familiar with the "realsim" side of the situation. As for how to do it, why not just make it one heck of a hit roll, then apply the rules for breaking foci and hitting people behind cover respectively? You hit the arrow. Fine, roll to do damage to the arrow. If you do enough damage, your shot continues on and any remaining damage is applied to the opposing archer? That would be one attack action and accomplish what it needs. The reason you can do it with an arrow and not a fire blast is because of the focus limit on the arrow, which gives you something to break up.

Re: Science Skill for Spidey I don't think you need to take penalty levels against. Just give him broader skills. One of the thngs that makes a guy like Stark so versatile and cutting edge is that he doesn't just have Chemisty. He also has Mellaturgy.He doesn't just have Electronics, he has Electrical Engineering. Stark and Reed have whole hosts of complimentary skills. Pete doesn't. He has had neither the time nor the money. Unlike Reed and Tony, who have had not just the money but the TIME to do seemingly unlimited amounts of research, Pete never has. Even when he was a grad student at Empire State and had access to great research facilities and some decent funding, he was limited by the amount of time had. After all, he was also married(something that Stark has never had to take time out for), working as a photographer(neither Tony or Reed has ever had to do much work that didn't directly invovle their scientific research), and doing the Spiderman thing - and Spidey is probably the most active hero in the Marvel Universe. It has been pretty well established by now that Parker is a genius, probably only a notch or so below Tony Stark, but he has never had the time to do reasearch, nor the focus to stick to one field or a group of related ones. He has some chemistry, some physics, a bit of genetics, a bit of mechanical engineering, a bit of computer programming, whatever happens to interest him at the time is what he picks up.

Re: Grond, underpowered pansy? Getting back to the original thread idea: What is supposed to make Grond tough is that he has 90 STR, so he can CON stun just about any non-brick every time he hits them. And since a CON stunned character is a sitting duck, the way to make Grond effective is to force close quarters where knockback will get stopped by walls. One on one against anyone other than a mentalist or pyrokinetic and most supers are in trouble. He can outlast most bricks and literally ends most other fights with the first punch he lands because he does 63 STUN(so probably 35-38 through defenses) each hit. If that isn't enough STUN to knock you out, you should easily be CON stunned. And since he gets an average of 11 KB, you might just take a little extra damage from hitting a wall or something. That kind of "one punch to end a fight" power is going to give him a towering reputation. It also makes the fact that he can be whittled down much less relevent since in a one on one fight, you have to last long enough to whittle him down, which isn't easy given his raw power. And his base DEF plus hideous REC mean that he takes damage decently and regains STUN at a frightening rate. Best Grond moment in a campaign I played in: The martial artist got locked up in a one on one fight with Grond and basically spent all his time dodging and taunting Grond. Of course, since the martial artist was dodging behind agents on Grond's team, Grond was doing lots of damage to his own guys trying to get the little guy. While Grond was distracted, I snuck up behind him with my power armored character(who was "trying out" for the team as I was joining an established campaign) and I haymakered him, CON stunning Grond and making him easy pickings for everyone else to finish off. It got quite a reaction from the team(and got me a pretty quick acceptance, at least in terms of capability) from the rest of the team.

Re: Power build I like the CE idea better. It's more elegant and would better allow for people who have bought Resistance and the like to bite their tongue. You also wouldn't have to argue over what level of effect it is. To get a "trained spy" to do something that would give away his position during a stakeout could easily be a +20 effect because you're trying to get them to do soemthing they really don't want to do and are highly trained not to do. You could end up needing 10d6 Mind Control to consistently get such a person.

Re: System cap on creativity I think that, provided you have the points, you can do basically anything you want in HERO. The question is generally not whether you CAN do something(or allow it) but whether you SHOULD. This is both HERO's greatest strength and weakness as it requires the GM to keep a much tighter rein on things and can lead to disputes over how to best simulate something, to say nothing of whether or not a particular build is "legal" for the campaign. The fact that everything is so generic makes HERO very flexible, but it also makes it, ironically, more complicated and requires you to work much harder to figure out how to do something. Even something as simple as a "laser blast" has multiple builds(is it an EB or an RKA?). In most other systems, you have long lists of prewritten spells, equipment, and abilities that finely detail exactly what you can do. HERO has some examples, but by and large, the power list is infinitely long...and it's up to you to write it.

Re: Frameworks modifying frameworks I would argue that it isn't a "minor variation" though because by making the arrow both moving and oncoming you make the shot MUCH harder. For one, you have far less time to take the shot. It's also much harder to acquire the target. Moving targets are much more difficult to hit(grab a shotgun, go shoot stationary targets, then shoot skeet. If you hit 3 skeet the first time, you're doing well and those targets are going across your field of vision, which is much easier than an oncoming target because you have more time). Also, you now need to have a much stronger "pull" to your bow than the opposing archer because you have to generate enough velocity to overcome the incoming arrow's velocity AND have enough force to split the arrow AND have enough remaining speed to damage the target on the other side.

Re: SPD inflation obesrvation & solution

Re: What's with all the points I think that the big difference between 250 and 350 comes in the way you can flesh the character out. If the GM has firm control, the point caps on powers and such are the same, but you can add a couple more of the "extra" powers(for example, enhanced senses) to round the character's abilities out more. It also gives you room for more skills and perks. In 4th, we often had so much trouble rounding out the skills beyond a bare minimum 6 or 7 that we basically upped the starting characters to 275 and slapped on a requirement that the character spend at least 40 points on skills and perks, just so the characters would be more well rounded. I would also suspect that it is a reflection of the change in the comics themselves. Characters are more powerful, both beginning characters and more experienced ones have increased a lot in power. You need the extra points to keep up. Just compare, let's say, Iron Man and Steel when they first started. Iron Man had a suit with armor, a basic energy blast, and some enhanced STR(maybe 40). Skill wise, he was a playboy with a couple of technical skills(you really only needed mechanics, electronics and inventor to build the original Iron Man armor). When Steel came around, the power level was much higher. The guy started as a replacement for Superman and while he wasn't as powerful as Supes, his suit probably put him on par with the Iron Man of the time(whose armor, of course, was much more powerful than the original). Steel also had a far more sophisticated suit that required a lot more skills to build and maintain. 250 point champs characters felt like Silver Age heroes out of the 60s or maybe 70s. They were competent but beginners were almost always in need of developing their powers to flesh out what they could do and get the most out of it. Characters of the 1990s often burst onto the scene with fully developed power sets, as if they had been developing and practicing somewhere before getting turned loose on an unsuspecting world. That requires more points, hence the extra 100.

Re: SPD inflation obesrvation & solution In my campaigns, VIPER thugs have always been SPD 3(MAYBE a team leader with power armor gets a 4, but it's a rare thing). In the past, the scale you listed(4-7) was about right for my campaign with one or two people listed as having an 8 to represent the best of the best of the best. Part of the problem though is that many of the published characters in 4th edition had SPD ratings that broke the general rules you laid out, so if you tried to use them "as is" PCs inevitably felt(with some justification) that they needed to be faster than a "normal" character of their type in order to cope. I remember building a team full of martial artists once. They were all 250-275 point characters(4th edition). The player characters started at 300. My guys were not as powerful, by any stretch, but I mopped the floor with the PCs because all my guys had a 6 SPD and that translated into ton of extra actions. I also got lucky with one or two match ups but still, the extra SPD was amazingly effective. I think that's the key, keep the villain SPD down and it curtails the arms race a lot. Players don't notice their own lack of SPD as much if the villains aren't any faster. If the villains have an average SPD of 4, then a HERO with a 6 SPD gets 50% more actions. If the villains average a 5, that same speedster now needs a 7 or 8 SPD to get the same effect. Same thing with the martial artists, who generally want to have a +1 SPD to offset their lack of hitting power. The result I've found is to simply fit everyone into the framework and make SPD almost a default stat(though the character still has to pay points) based on archetype. Make characters that have an "extra" point of SPD for their archetype very rare, to the point that such characters(e.g. - Superman) really stand out. The scale I currently used, based on something a friend of mine(who occasionally posts to these boards used) is: 2 - normal human, beat cop, gang thug 3 - super agent(VIPER thug, PRIMUS operative), brick(Hulk, Thing) 4 - standard superhero(Green Lantern, Iron Man, Storm) 5 - martial artist or highly agile superhero(Batman, Capt. America, Spiderman) 6 - speedster(Quicksilver) 7 - among the fastest beings in existance(Flash) The list of non-cosmic exceptions is very small and many of them are on the highest end of the overall power scale. Probably less than 10% of the CU violates the above scale.

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab" Even if I grant everything you just said(and I could go with most of it), I still don't see a need to call a room a "lab" just because it is furnished better than another. I also think that by introducing another random roll into the equation, you increase the likelihood of anomalous results and any good scientific experiment not only needs to be reproduceable but it should produce similar results. This means controlling any "random" elements as much as possible. Giving a random Seduction roll to a room(or a car as someone else suggested) to me adds an unnecessary random element. The rules already allow you to assign bonuses to cover many such things without introducing an additional complimentary roll. To me the car and the room are merely equipment that fall into the same category has having, say a better set of lockpicks. They provide a bonus to the roll, but the bonus is finite, if you will, not random. Such an approach also makes it easy to decide on applying negatives(sorry the bearskin rug isn't a +2, it's a -2 this time because the target is an animal rights activist).

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab" Incredibl more or less hit it on the head in terms of why I found it offensive. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that IS how it came across to me and apparently I'm not the only one(and if you really want to have a discussion over the meaning of language, we can start another thread, without referring to this one, and have it out, I'm an English professor). But honestly, I'm over it. When you're dealing with an electronic mediums like this, these kinds of miscommunications are bound to happen from time to time. But enough of such talk, back to the issue at hand. I've played a LOT of hero over the years and GM'ed a lot. I've seen a lot of different types of hero players and one of the things that is both great(and occasionally frustrating) about the system is that there is so MUCH room for interpretation in how to do things. All you have to do is look at any of the "how to build X power" threads or "how to build X character" threads on the board and you can see an amazing difference in how people go about things. I've seen very good Superman builds, for instance, where he has 75 STR. I've also seen builds where he has 200 STR. It depends on the campaign. Now for this particular instance of building a seduction "lab", while yes I realize that a lab doesn't have to mean scientific equipment, I also think that some skills don't lend themselves well to such a thing. Principally, I think those are social skills because the variability of human nature and interaction just isn't necessarily going to let you pin down a formula that always works when it comes to what they find appealing. Not everyone goes to a museum and likes everything. In fact, most people probably don't, or they at least like certain things a lot more. Want a mega-hit TV show? Convince 25% of people to stay home and watch it every week. Want a hit record, sell it to 1% of the population and you've gone multiplatinum. But it isn't just taste in entertainment where this applies. Have you or any of your friends ever dated someone that the rest of your circle of friends couldn't stand? It happens a lot. I can think of more than one instance in my personal life where something similar has happened. I just don't think that you can put a lab together very easily to account for this variability. Again, like I said, for some people, many people maybe, low lights, candles, soft music and a nice meal make a great romantic setting. But others find it hokey or formulaic and don't really care for it...and that should be determined by the personality and taste of the person being seduced. Theoretically, if you knew the person well enough, you could change out all the furniture for something they would like better, but I'm a bit leery to allow a "lab" that requires you to do that much changing around of what it contains. And really, most of the setting material(candles, music, etc) are things that can be covered by the rules of "extra time, good equipment/preparation". You can give a bonus for them without making it into an actual "lab". A lab, to me is a fairly permanent set up and probably contains a lot of "equipment"(however loosely you care to interpret it) that is not readily available or portable. But most people can run to the store and buy some candles and a CD, turn the lights on the lowest setting, and download a couple recipes if they don't cook that well. There is no real need for a "lab" to do everything necessary to set the scene. There is, in short, nothing to separate the lab from most people's living rooms, if they take a little time to dress up the living room. Finally, yes, the "roll" ultimately determines success, but I think that since this is "role" playing, the talking still needs to count a bit, especially for personal interaction skills. I know that part of the point of roleplaying is to take on characters with traits you don't have, but there are still certain things you can say that help a lot(or that are simply going to fail miserably no matter how charming you are).

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab" If I don't agree with you, then I should play another game? That's just offensive.

Re: Idea on OIF/Side effect I don't think Side Effect applies here. Side Effect normally takes place whenever the power is used. Or at least, has a random chance. I don't think you should(or even can) place Side Effect on a power if the Side Effect has no chance of taking effect when the power is activated or at a predetermined time afterward. I mean, taking away an OIF is REALLY hard to do. The character would get the full use of the power for the combat with no chance of the Side Effect activating in combat. They could even scout around in small size for hours(if they have the END) and have no chance of the Side Effect taking effect. I think this might be worth a -1/4 limit(aside from the OIF), but no more, and I would not define it as a side effect. I'd just use the rule for a unique focus and consider the shrinking part of the special effect, the same way that losing Miolnir would rob Thor of most of his Asgardian Magic if he lost it.

Re: Help creating sentient-multi-powers (think Witchblade) In my campaign, it was built as a Watched: Sword Spirit. Spirit will depower. So you can wield the blade, but the spirit that has control of all the fun magical powers that go with it will not work if it doesn't like you. If it becomes necessary to have a test of wills, just assign the sword spirit mental characteristics(mainly EGO and Mental DEF) and figure out some sort of test of wills mechanic(opposed EGO rolls is what we used). It worked fairly well.

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running I don't see why the non-combat multiplier wouldn't apply when you're using it,. Is there anyplace it specifically says this? In comjbat, you aren't paying the END for the non-combat movement because you aren't using it. But if you aren't in combat you ARE using the movement, so why wouldn't you pay END for it?

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab" Romance is based as much on the individual relationship, how well you know the person..a lot of things that simply aren't tangible. I just think there are too many variable to make an actual lab. You can still do things to gain a bonus, but there are enough factors that I don't see you being able to get away with making it a lab. Seduction, you could have to change out the furniture a lot and it would depend on how well you knew the person and so on. A lot of people like candlelight, flowers, and soft music. Others think it hokey as all get out. On the other hand, interrogation often involves torture, and basically a hot poker in the eye is equally effective against everyone(unless they've bought resistance).

Re: The Seduction Skill as a "Lab" This one, I just can't see. Interrogation...maybe. But I think this is just stretching it too far.

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running ACtually, Joe Average CAN'T run a 3 hour marathon because the long term END rules(which I've never seen anyone use) would prevent him from finishing the race. According to the long term END rules, if your END used/REC = 1(which is what it is for Joe Average), then you burn 1 END per minute - so Joe Average can maintain his top running speed of 24" per turn for 20 minutes. At 5 turns per minute, he's covering 240m per minute which, which means he runs about 3 miles in those 20 minutes. That's a bit fast for Joe Average but just about everyone on my high school cross country team could do it - even the freshman who would naturally be slower. As far as sustained running speed goes, the average person at a brisk walk does 1 mile in 20 minutes and can probably keep it up for an hour or so. Anyone in good shape(say a high school athlete) can maintain 12kph - about 8 minute mile for about 3 miles. After that, it starts to drop off unless you're a runner. In high school, I could run 6 miles in about 40-45 minutes as an above average freshman distance runner. The top guys could do it in about 35 minutes. All in all, this is one of those things I'm prepared to live with. I've never been crazy about the way running speeds convert for most characters when you start factoring in SPD and the fact that almost every character needs 12-15 inches of combat movement. I mean, the average super doesn't really need to be able to run 150 inches(non-combat) in a turn. That translates out to 1500m in one minute, which is basically 55mph. But really, I just think that it's more trouble than it's worth to go to the hassle of converting the whole thing over since as various people have pointed out, you would have to decouple ALL of the movement powers, reassign their point values, devlop new rules for turning and for any combat maneuver that had a velocity or FMove element like move by, move through, or flying dodge. That's a LOT of work just to bring running speeds into line when most people don't know how fast they're actually going anyway.

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running Ok, I missed that. But it probably runs the risk of pushing the cost issue the other direction for supers an speedsters are expensive enough to build as it is. Let's say everyone gets 12" or running per turn. A good speedster has, bare minimum, 6 SPD and moves 20 inches per phase. Since that is almost always running, he now has to buy 120 inches of move; that's 108 points! Far too much. It also means that other movement powers like Flight become so dirt cheap by comparison that they become bargain basement powers everyone will try to afford. Unless, of course you decouple ALL movement powers, which suddenly runs the risk of making your movement at least as expensive as your main attack, which it never was before(unless you were supposed to be so highly mobile, like a speedster, that your movement was an integral part of your attack).

Re: Question on Multipowers and Special Effects It depends on how you look at it. They all have a unifying idea. The classic example is battlesuit weapons. They all have the same special effect of being technology based powers, but a flame thrower and a laser beam are totally different energy types.

Re: New Mechanic: Decoupling SPD from Running Well, I don't like the idea of Running only costing 1 point per inch because Running has the added benefit of no turn mode. It's much more power than leaping, which costs only 1 point per inch. The main advantage leaping has is that you can actually bypass things in between. But Running's no turn mode more than makes up for it. Plus you don't have to make a hit roll to end up where you want. I think this is one of those things where you just have to live with the results. Just like everyone gets a 10 STR even though I don't know that many people who could actually lift the 220 pounds a 10 STR lets you lift, so too with Running you can actually Run a bit faster than most people can. I think the way to keep running speed down would be to crack down on the END expenditure vs. recovery. And start by totaling the inches of move before calculating END expenditure. So the average person moves 24 inches per turn non-combat. That costs 5 END, not 4. And the average person recovers 4 END per turn. So that means the average person can maintain top speed for 20 turns or about 3 1/2 minutes. After that they are dead tired and have to stop to rest. As someone who ran track in high school, that sounds about right to me. The general consensus on the track team was that the half mile(which ran around 2 minutes for the top people and 2 1/2 for the rest of us) was about as long as anyone could maintain anything resembling a dead sprint. That means that the average person has to run at about 80% of top speed to maintain it for an extended period, which is also about right from my experience. I won't claim it's a perfect system, but I think it's as good as we can get. And just about every game system I've ever seen has given the average person credit for being in a bit better physical shape than they really are, especially in modern America, so I'm used to living with that kind of problem. But really, it doesn't come up all THAT often anyway because no one in the game is completely average. Everyone buys up stats so that their Running, CON, SPD, and REC are above the norm, even in a 150 point Heroic game. You like being that little bit faster and the CON is a good way to help all those figured stats. And you always find a way to justify a 3 SPD, for combat if nothing else. So the average person may be slightly faster in the game than in real life, but the important characters are always faster than the average person, so in the end it doesn't matter much.

Re: Big Blue in control: WWYD Proteus would probably tell he/she/them that the work so far is nice, but that trying to change the type of government a country has is simply beyond the realm of super powers - unless you have LOTS of mind control - and suggest he go do something useful.

Re: If they get better, is it actually murder? My take has always been that you can't do anything that could potentially kill an intelligent being. Of course, zombies, and many movie monsters don't count because they are not human(or more accurately lack humanity). Undead and anything that is both not human and irredeemably evil generally doesn't count. So you COULD kill a zombie.