Jump to content

eepjr24

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    1,266
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About eepjr24

  • Rank
    3 XP

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    East Coast, USA
  • Occupation
    Data Geek

Recent Profile Visitors

767 profile views
  1. Yes, I was noodling how to make that work out. The Skills book says that taking a Full Phase does not give you a +1 for half phase actions, you have to go to a Turn. But I may house rule the full phase as a +1 as well. For large ritualistic type spells, this could take care of some of the penalties for sure. For combat type spells, a full turn is 2 or 3 phases of being attacked, which would render them fairly moot. The book(s) [6E1, pg 59, 6E Skills, pg 35] is not very specific on what the skill user can be doing otherwise during the time, if the time must be contiguous, and how lo
  2. Generally, the restrainable limitation and Foci are not used on the same power. A typical exception would be a wing harness, where you could interfere with the wings and take off the harness with two different methods. So either go Hugh's route and make it worth the -1 limitation or get rid of one. I'd want you to get more specific about changing the "nature" of a power. You mention some examples, but they are not consistent. In one you change one defense to another. Another changes a constant adjustment to an instant adjustment. A third changes an instant attack to a constant atta
  3. Two solutions come to mind. The first is that the "heat seeking" is just a special effect of a missile that is very accurate. It doesn't really matter that it is using IR as a targeting mechanism. So something like: +8 OCV, only versus targets with a heat signature (-0), OIF (-0), etc. 8 RP If the fact that it might not hit until a later phase become extremely important you could implement this as either a subset of Damage Over Time or Delayed Effect. You might have to house rule parts of it to make it fit your exact requirements. The second would be if the exact m
  4. I realize the complexity will be higher by having different requirements for different schools, but I view this as more of a "class" distinction. You seem familiar with D&D, so this would be the difference between how artificers, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, etc. cast. That said, there are no levels per se, a caster could have a 12 RP spell that is 50 AP to start the game. It's unlikely, but not restricted. I do like the idea of non-pass fail, I currently have some spells with scaling based on skill roll, I may move to a more lenient scaling as you suggest for some failin
  5. First off, apologies to the original poster as this is pretty far from your original question. I think that you have a point here, Duke, and I agree that everyone should do what works for them in their game. But I think the flip side here is that the official rules are there for a reason, so that everyone has a baseline to work from. Other official publications should hew to those rules, which then allows the local house rules to be applied in a consistent manner as well. If the "official" rules have 3 different ways to interpret something it gets very difficult to figure out which
  6. I'd say the IPE on Desolidification would not be required unless the player expected to be able to turn on the Desolidification when they are already invisible. Turning on Desolidification would (IMO) make them "flicker" for a moment as the invisibility covered it, as it does when an attack power is used. Otherwise I would say they would remain invisible. Note that Desolidification (and all other "obvious" powers) must be perceived by two sense groups (errr... 3 sense groups in 4e, I looked it up to make sure) when they are in use, so unless the invisibility covered all those sense groups they
  7. I am working on a setting and am encountering various scenarios that I'd like some outside opinions on as I go. Here is the latest one. One of the magic "schools" in this setting requires a skill roll on all spells at the -1 per 5 AP level. This is to represent that these spells require more study and practice to cast successfully. Because the spells can have AP's in the 50-60 range for some, I am trying to decide on the best way to show the study and practice. Right now I am leaning toward using PSL's, not because of the pricing, but because they allow granularity for the spell. So say the ca
  8. Yep, that agrees with what I was thinking, Chris, there was just not an even breakpoint for the large group versus single action. I am fine with her starting her turn at Dex+5 if she wants to move. To your question on whether LR allows attacks at the higher Dex, as far as I know it's the only thing that allows you to act faster besides buying up your DEX. Here is the definition at the back of 6E1:
  9. I am working on a setting and fleshing out some NPC's. One of them is a spell caster that tends to be very mobile but has a relatively low dexterity score. I would like for her to be able to move and cast (two things she has practiced extensively) before she would otherwise act. I have this bought as: 2 +6 Lightning Reflexes: Spells 1 +5 Lightning Reflexes: Running Basically, considering spells to be a large group and running to be a single action. Thoughts on this implementation? I think some people assume that if you have the LR and are using the attack t
  10. I'd go with something combining the above. Change Environment [4] -1 to DEX rolls and all rolls based on DEX [9] -3 to CON rolls [4] Long Lasting: 1 Turn [3] -1 PER rolls 20 points No Range (-1/2) No effect versus those with Acrobatics, Teleportation, EDM, FTL (-1/2) 10 RP AND Flash 3d6 Sight NND: Not versus those with Acrobatics, Teleportation, EDM, FTL (+0) [15 AP] No Range (-1/2) Linked to CE (-1/2) 7 RP Total: 17 RP Effect is that unless you have one of the stated defenses, you take a 3d6 Sight Flash and for the next turn yo
  11. I think that provides some further background to your responses. I don't make the same distinction, for me either way the GM gets to call what is going to happen. I see why some might make the distinction though, valid option, just not the one I would default to. - E
  12. Except, of course, link them (with all the sundry options available thereof). And there are some others that your GM will probably look funny at, like combined attacks with more than one attack power that requires gestures and / or incantations throughout. I am sure there are some other minor edge cases, but I would agree they are rare. And you did specify "attacks", which points out another thing you can do with linked: Add in non-attack powers. Another odd edge case that sometimes matters but mostly not. The thing that Linked does is help you define your powers. If it does not w
  13. Thanks, Thia. I am aware of all the rules you outline and my example includes Constant as an advantage. They specific question would be: If I do not wish the power to be persistent or persistent like (ala Time Limit or Continuing Charges), is there another set of limitations that provide similar functionality but do not stay on when the user is knocked out? I realize as the GM I can hand wave this or go with Continuing Charges with a "I get stunned or KO'd" as a stop condition for the power. I suspect I already know the answer and that there is no other standard rule for doing what
  14. I think unclevlad was pointing out that Block (and Deflection) are Attack Actions and end your turn, so the Teleport would not be able to happen. I don't think I agree with him on that one, since Damage Shield is generally also taken on other attack powers and does not end your phase and can happen multiple times both before and after you use an attack action in a phase. However, as a GM I would probably disallow it because Deflection is specifically designed for blocking Ranged Attacks. This is made pretty clear in the text of 6E1, 6E2 and the APG's. In an
  15. It sounds like your intent was to build something that allowed you to teleport away after the first hit in hand to hand (unless you went hog wild and adopted some of the APG II suggestions around ranged damage shields). I would say your implementation is not going to accomplish that under RAW. While "reality" would imply that nothing is truly instantaneous (look it up, chaos theory gets really interesting), we are talking about comic book physics here, which is more of a "you get what you pay for" reality. The AF has been paid for and barring a few interesting details will likely still hit.
×
×
  • Create New...