esampson

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill No. While Ozymandius was manipulating lots of things and there is a possibility he manipulated the timing he started the whole plot because he realized the inevitability of a nuclear exchange after a comment by the Comedian. Yeah, but this was after being a superhero had already messed him up pretty well. True, but given that his thing was being 'the smartest man alive' and he was a re-imagining of Thunderbolt it seems likely that he did not start off overly violent. (Rorschach on the other hand was based on the Question who was fairly violent in his Charleston Comics incarnation). All of that are examples of how messed up they become at the end because of their lives of superheros. Whether or not the lies are about the be exposed is purposely left ambiguous so it isn't possible to say it was all for naught.

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill I didn't say it was the only way. I said it was the only way he could see.

Re: Why Your Heroes Shouldn't Kill Not sure I quite agree with that. The story really centers around Dan Dreiberg and Laurie Juspeczyk, neither of whom seem to kill anyone that I can recall. Ozymandius doesn't every seem to exhibit 'Punisher' type behavior and he turns out to be a mass-murderer because it was the only way he could see to prevent nuclear war. I think Watchmen was much more about how being a superhero messed up the heads of normal human beings.

Re: And Now for Something Slightly Different: Mis-Spelled and Reimagined Supers Yeah. I thought about providing that as the background behind the team name.

Re: And Now for Something Slightly Different: Mis-Spelled and Reimagined Supers The Black Pantser Caredevil The Ex-Men, consisting of Niceman, Angle, Best, and Marble Girl (can't seem to really come up with a good name for Cyclops).

Re: And Now for Something Slightly Different: Mis-Spelled and Reimagined Supers Huggernaut

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule" Well, my first impression is that setting a point limit is a bad idea. This is based on my own personal experiences. All it really does is reward people who min-max while doing little to actually limit the amount of power that characters have. I think you'll be better off setting things such as DC, Defense, movement and characteristic ranges. If you're worried about people loading up too much on power and not having enough in skills you might want to institute some minimum requirements but I would probably stay away from a point cap.

Re: Create a Villain Theme Team!

Re: Thoughts on new "house rule" First question would be 'what is the intent of this rule?' It looks like you're trying to go for a street level feel but it would help if you could specify.

Re: Things That Exist in a Superhero Universe I know. That's why I included it even though it exists in the real world. It's just one of those things that sounds like it comes from a comic book despite really happening.

Re: You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Superhero, but it Helps!

Re: Things That Exist in a Superhero Universe Egyptian tombs with intact burial chambers containing sealed sarcophagi that are mysteriously empty. Oh, wait. Those do exist.

Re: Football Fu 5th or 6th edition and are we limited to maneuvers from the core rulebook or can we use manuevers from books such as Hero Systems Martial Arts?

Re: Things That Exist in a Superhero Universe Of course not. Then you would know how to find my secret base.

Re: Things That Exist in a Superhero Universe

Re: Things That Exist in a Superhero Universe People who can be knocked unconscious again and again and again without suffering brain damage. People who will create a device worth billions who then use said device to rob banks.

Re: Do you consider Batman to be a Gadgeteer or something else? I think for most people a gadgeteer is someone who primarily depends upon their gadgets, not simply someone who has a gadget or three. Modern Batman to me seems to be largely an ambush expert style of martial artists. He's got some gadgets that he uses from time to time but he doesn't really "rely" upon them (IMO). Batman back in the late 60's/early 70's was probably a lot more dependent upon the devices he carried on his utility belt and back then probably fell more into the 'gadgeteer' category than martial artist (again, IMO). Look at it this way, back then when Batman lost his utility belt it was a big deal. For the more modern Batman it is more of an inconvenience.

Re: Do you consider Batman to be a Gadgetee or something else? Even if the character is constrained to a character sheet you don't have to label someone with an archetype. Archetypes are just convenient shorthand for talking about characters. They aren't suppose to be formal classes that people have to abide by.

Re: Are Thanos and Darkseid the Same Person? Actually, the similarities between Green Arrow and Batman back in the Silver Age (millionaire playboys without powers who both fought crime using an array of gizmos and vehicles based around a central theme) were probably a lot stronger. I've always thought that was part of the reason for Green Arrow moving to the left like he did.

Re: Would you allow this?

Re: Would you allow this?

Re: You Don't Have to be Crazy to be a Superhero, but it Helps! I agree that on one level our culture has improved regarding racism. For the most part someone who shows racism against an ethnic group based on old prejudices tends to be viewed as being behind the times and a throwback. The backlash that occurred against Muslims in the time immediately following 9/11 however should be enough to illustrate that as a society we still have a long way to go. Recall that time in the Marvel universe moves much slower than it does in the real world, so for the people of the Marvel universe it has only been a few short years since Onslaught wiped out the majority of non-mutant heroes (who granted, came back), that the Legacy virus was ravaging the mutant population (which various people called an act of God while many others were worried about it jumping from mutants to humans), and the last time Magneto threatened to take over the world. Adding onto all of that it should be remembered that a lot of these mutants actually are dangerous. There have been plenty of stories written about young mutants wiping out their families and friends and even entire communities when their powers emerge. Is it lazy writing that people in the Marvel universe are afraid of mutants? I don't really think so. I'm a very progressive and tolerant person but I think that even I would be somewhat worried living in a world with a people where several times a year there is a massive loss of life laid at their feet, whether by the intent of their terrorists or simply by accident.

Re: Limit to HTH weapon power damage? Two things, however. First is that this rule is meant for a Heroic campaign. It doesn't quite seem like your Reaper character is playing in a standard Heroic campaign (on the other hand it doesn't seem like he is playing in a standard Superheroic campaign, either, if you have Normal Characteristic Maximums or are using things such as the Two Handed limitation). The second is that this rule is actually the reverse of what your GM is looking for. Rather than saying there is a limit to the amount of damage that can be added to a given strength it says that there is a limit to the amount of strength that can be used to increase a given amount of damage. By the rule a +12d6 weapon is perfectly fine and with strength it can be raised to a maximum of 24d6 but no higher, even if the character should have a 150 Strength. Such a weapon would typically have a very high strength minimum in a Heroic campaign (think something along the lines of a giant's club) and so probably could not be wielded by someone with only a 20 strength without penalty (and subsequently wouldn't get any additional damage for the users Strength) but those rules don't tend to be applied in the Superhero genre. Even when they are applied it is a limitation applied to the power similar to the two handed limitation so it is entirely possible to make the weapon with a low strength minimum. You simply don't get as much of a limitation.

Re: Would you allow this? I would still have allowed the character. I just would have said no when he asked to purchase autofire.