griffinman01

Re: Psiclone

If it's just memories and appearance, then Telepathy and shape shift would be all you would need. For skills and abilities, then you would need to use a mimic VPP as outlined by the book.

Re: Remote Control

I did something similar using Summon with the Slavish (+1) advantage so that they were 100% loyal. They could still be targeted via mind control (hacking) and dispel (EMP) which worked out pretty well.

Re: Armor (Clarification needed)

One thing I did to simulate partial armor in a more "realistic" setting (if you're using hit locations) was forcing people to specify what locations the armor protected. I gave them 6 locations for free (their choice) when they bought it so they could cover stuff like chest, shoulders, stomach, vitals, and thighs at base cost. By adding a +5 point modifier they were able to get 5 more locations and +10 gave it to all locations. The idea is if they get shot in a place with no armor protecting it, they got no benefit.

If you're using the activation roll, the 5th revised book has a coverage table:

Protects Limitation

Locations (Value) Example

12-13 8- (-2) Short Vest

11-13 9- (-1½) Standard Vest

10-13 10- (-1¼) Cap, Long Vest

4-5, 9-13 11- (-1) Helmet, Jacket

3-5, 9-14, 16-18 12- (-¾) Full Coverage Helmet, Long Jacket, High Boots

3-5, 7-14, 16-18 14- (-½) Full Coverage Helmet, Long Jacket with Sleeves, High Boots

3-14, 16-18 15- (-¼) Full Coverage Helmet, Long Jacket with Gauntlets, High Boots

Re: 5E (not 6, 5): adding damage and armed martial arts, the uselessness thereof

I'm not seeing the optional rule -- but then it seems that my copy of 5th ed. isn't revised; it doesn't have that many pages.

Yeah, that little mention isn't in the normal 5th edition book, just the revised. In any case I'll copy the rule below so you can take a look at it:

pg 405

As an optional rule, GMs for many campaigns, such as

most Ninja Hero games, allow the damage added by

the basic Martial Maneuver to count as base DCs

just like HA damage, which avoids the “doubling

damage” restriction for low-STR characters.

That's always how I've done it. It makes more sense that someone who has fencing experience can deal extra damage with a blade.

Re: 5e Rules question Forcewall and damage shield

I dunno how you would touch someone with a force wall since those are immobile. However, if you had a personal force field with a damage shield, anyone grabbed by you would suffer the effects. Plus you can buy it as an offensive damage shield for an additional +1/4 advantage to get the effects on any HTH attack. If we're talking a "touch" I think that anything longer than an instant (ie a punch/kick) would probably feel the effects of the shield without making it offensive. So if you had a damage shield up and then put your hand on someone's shoulder, they would feel the effects.

Re: 5E (not 6, 5): adding damage and armed martial arts, the uselessness thereof

I found something else that'll answer this question once and for all:

pg 406 5th edition revised (under the section for adding damage of unarmed martial maneuvers):

Extra DCs used to add damage to armed Mar-

tial Maneuvers are considered to be added damage,

not an increase to the base DCs. An HKA 1d6

sword used with a Martial Strike with 2 Extra DCs

(+4 DCs) does 1½d6 damage, but its base damage

is still just 1d6.

So, basically if you're using a 1d6 sword with 15 str, any martial maneuvers would be worthless for added damage since you're already at double the base (3 DC from the sword + 3 DC from the STR). If you increase the base damage from the sword, then you could add more damage. Now, even though wolf claws are "unarmed" in that they're not weapons, what the game considers as "unarmed martial arts" is anything that uses just strength with no added HA or HKA. You add damage to those by buying HTH DC for your martial maneuvers which alters the base damage. So, using the book example on the same page, a unarmed killing strike (1/2d6) with 2 DCs goes up to a 1d6, which is the new base damage.

Now, I've never ruled this way as a GM. I've always done it, in the case of HKAs with martial maneuvers, as taking the base damage (say 3 DC or a 1d6 sword as we've been using) plus the str (3DC from 15 str) and then add the martial maneuver effect on top of that. So in other words I only care about the doubling aspect for the strength component, not the maneuvers. So I would say that a 1d6 sword with 15 strength and a +2 DC martial maneuver does 7 DC for 2d6+1. If you had 30 strength and used the same sword and the same maneuver, it would do the same damage. It all depends on the campaign and what characters you have in there if you need to go with the RAW. I've never had any martial artists who wanted to abuse bladed weapons so it's always been simple.

Re: 5E (not 6, 5): adding damage and armed martial arts, the uselessness thereof

I think you had the base damage wrong since the sword is what's being used (4 DC from your example):

Martial strike with a 1d6+1 HKA and 15 str:

You would get 4 DC from the HKA, 3 DC from the 15 str, and then 1 DC from the strike (since DCs are halved with killing attacks) for 8 DC which equals 2 1/2d6 Killing damage, like you came up with. The base DC is 4 from your sword so 8 is the max you could do, meaning you'd be fine.

The rules also state that the GM can have the added DC for the martial maneuvers be added as part of the base (pg 405 of 5th rev under "determining Base damage").

Re: Maximizing Realism - what optional rules are essential?

One other thing to go with the hit location idea that I've been toying with in a sci-fi game (similar to firefly where most guns are still using bullets) is having locational armor. I ruled that when you bought armor it only covered 6 hit locations (you get to choose which locations when you buy it). You get shot in a place where there's no armor and you get no benefit from it. You could buy extra location protection at the cost of extra points (since we're doing normal humans I put the cost at 5 points for 5 extra locations). It's come into play a number of times in the few test fights I've run before the campaign begins. A number of times a weak shot would do serious damage to someone's hand simply because they didn't have armor there (or, even worse, someone took a shot to the face when he was just wearing a helmet). That also ups the realism because nothing short of something like Iron Man or Boba Fett would have full body armor and a lucky shot can always find the unprotected spots.

Re: No Consess Control At A -1/2 Or -1/4 Level

By the way' date=' I know 50% translates on a d6 as a roll of 1, 2, or 3. What does 33% translate on a d6? Or a 25%?[/quote']

 

33% is a 1 or a 2 but 25% is something you have to do by another means. If you have a d4 that works perfectly (or a d12), or using two d10s as I mentioned earlier. The closest I've seen on 3d6 is rolling an 8- (which is 28%). I'm sure there's an easy way of calculating it for 4d6 but I'm not that great in statistics so I'll have to let someone else take that.

Re: Maximizing Realism - what optional rules are essential?

Definitely use hit locations, bleeding, disabling, etc but also make sure you keep track of things over the long-term. Nothing takes away realism faster than having your guys fully recovered from that shotgun blast to the chest they got two days ago. Keeping track of long-term effects make it a lot more real in terms of damage since you can take up to months to recover fully from bad injuries.

Re: No Consess Control At A -1/2 Or -1/4 Level

When in doubt I always go with what's listed out under Limited Power.

At -1/4 you would expect the power to lose around a fourth of it's effectiveness while -1/2 loses a third. In a literal sense you can assign probabilities based on those percentages and use that as a determination of when/if your power fires out of context. So, similar to unluck, I would probably use a percentage roll when an appropriate situation arises where having your power fire off uncontrollably would be an issue (2 d10s serve this purpose very well). If you roll less than 25 or 33 respectively, then the power fires off without warning.

Re: Turning into a pack of wolves

EDIT: The aforementioned Elemental Man in the Duplication power description does the same thing. He's 350 points and has a 250-point Duplicate' date=' for which he pays 50 points (250/5 = 50).[/quote']

 

That's because there's an option where you can buy duplicates that are weaker than your base character and in that case you don't need to pay for duplication. The idea is that the duplicates are build on fewer points (ie are weaker) NOT factoring in having to pay for the duplicates:

 

Duplicates Built On Fewer Points than the

Base Character

A character may build Duplicates on less than

the base character’s full points if he wants. If a Dupli-

cate is built on less than the full Character Points

the base character is built on, the cost instead is 1

Character Point for every 5 Character Points the

Duplicate is built on, +5 Character Points for up to

two times the number of Duplicates.

Assuming the Duplicate is the same as the

base character, just with fewer abilities or less pow-

erful abilities, the Duplication does not require

an Advantage, and the GM typically should not

require the Duplicate to “pay for” the cost of

Duplication as outlined above. However, if the GM

believes the Duplicate is signifi cantly diff erent than

the base character, he should require the Duplica-

tion power to have the Altered Duplicates Advan-

tage. (In this case, calculate the percentage of points

that can diff er based on the Duplicate’s total points,

not the base character’s total points.)

 

So, based on what you said regarding your example of Elemental Man, he's built on 350 points (300 if you don't factor in his 50 point duplication) but he's building his duplicates on 250 points. That means that the duplicates are physically weaker since they're built on 50 points less. As such he would only pay the 250 points and the duplicates themselves wouldn't have to pay for the duplication cost since they're weaker than the base already. If they were AS powerful, then you would have to factor in the duplicate cost.

 

So, hypothetically, if you had your wolf pack idea where the multiform is for an "alpha wolf" that's physically built on a higher base cost (base cost of 250 points plus Duplication of 57 points (212/5 = 42 + 15 for x8 duplicates) for a total base cost of 307 points), then you could build the wolves as normal wolves built on 212 points without the need for the duplication cost. The stipulation is that the wolves also have to be similar to the original, just weaker. If they have abilities that don't exist on the base wolf, then you'd have to buy an "altered Duplicates" advantage on the duplication.

Re: Turning into a pack of wolves

To quote the 5th ed rulebook:

Duplicates do not have the Power Duplication

themselves, nor any ability to create other Dupli-

cates, unless they pay for it separately. However,

unless the GM permits otherwise, for ease of use all

Duplicates must “pay for” the cost of the base char-

acter’s Duplication ability. Otherwise, the Dupli-

cates would end up with more points to spend on

other abilities than the base character himself has.

So, based on your example, the wolves may only cost 212 points, but you still have to factor in the duplication cost. The cost for the ability would probably be around 72 points (assuming the base of 212 +72, you get 284 total cost for character points. Duplication cost is then 284/5 = 57 +15 points for 8x duplicates = 72). So you would then have to purchase the multiform for the wolves off of 284 points since that's the cost of the base wolf with the duplication. Now, the wolves themselves don't have the duplication power but they still have to pay for it as per the rules. So, even though the wolves are only 212 points, they still have the 72 point cost of the duplication as a 'fee'. That means that the copy wolves can't use it, but they still have to pay the points in order to properly balance them with the original. In other words, each duplicate is 100% identical to the original in abilities and cost, they just can't use the duplication ability (no copying copies).

Each example character follows this rule but the issue I think you had is that you did it kind of in reverse. When I make a character with duplication I set a point limit and buy the duplication first so that it's easy to calculate the cost. You built the wolves first and are trying to calculate the cost of the duplication afterwards, which makes it a bit tougher because the cost of the duplication increases as you have to budget more points to pay for it.

In any case, I think this will clear it up for you.

EDIT: Ghost-angel beat me to it but we both came up with the same cost so at least we know it's right.

Re: Passing Strike

Jousting lances also had a tendency to break' date=' which is why there were extras. Not sure about war lances. Differences between the two tended to be a blunt or a steel capped tip.[/quote']

 

Anything can break with enough applied force, it all depends on how much damage the lance takes from the move-by/through.

Re: Clone Drones

I think summon would be better than duplication simply because the original target isn't splitting. Duplication represents one guy turning into four with each one being a part of the whole (meaning that any damage suffered by one reflects on the user). Since you want them to be independent, Summon (or even followers possibly) would be the better option.

Re: Turning into a pack of wolves

"Original character" typically means whatever is using the duplication and thus being duplicated. So, in the case of your wolves, if you're doing a hypothetical situation where a 250 point guy has multiform (to change into a 150 wolf) and then have that 150 point wolf use duplicate, then you pay the cost for 150 points since the wolf is what is actually using the power and is being copied. If you did the reverse (where the 250 point man used duplication to split into 4 parts and then each part would multiform into a 150 point wolf) then you would have to pay for the duplication for 250 points.

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

Part of my issue with this is that, if it's too useful, the characters will do it by default; they will ALWAYS want to smash their opponents with something. Yes, it happens with some frequency in the comics, but I don't recall anybody ever seriously thinking 'I could just beat this guy if I had a car to swing'.

 

I rank Game Balance as more important than realism or genre simulation. Just the way I am.

There are plenty of ways to balance things if it really becomes an issue. Extra time, DCV penalties, etc, like I mentioned. It works for haymakers and it would work here as well. Or the other way to balance it is by not having a hundred cars for people to use. Give them one or two in an area and make them single-use objects. Most improvised weapons probably wouldn't last more than one good hit in reality and in the game so it's not unreasonable to rule that once you use it for an attack, the object gets wrecked. You could still have it leave rubble that could cause movement issues, but otherwise you assume that there aren't enough solid chunks to provide any real bonus.

Game balance is important but it shouldn't overshadow the fun of it. If throwing trucks around becomes more trouble than it's worth in a superhero game then I think you lose the point of it. Doing that kind of absurd stuff is fun and I don't want to rob that because the players throwing a few extra damage dice might cause a fight to end a phase or two faster. In the end, if everyone had fun, then that's all that really matters.

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

I've always felt that using an object should give you a few benefits at the cost of some penalties.

Benefits:

1) Chance for AoE on big objects.

2) Added damage. This is one where I disagree with the book because dense objects hurt more than fists alone. Otherwise brass knuckles would be worthless. If we're talking a normal fight between two guys in a park, are you telling me that one of them isn't going to try and pick up a rock to hit someone with it? If it doesn't do any extra damage, then why would you bother? Obviously you keep the maximum as written (ie, max DC is Def+Body of the object) but I figure you add the def of the object to the damage of an attack.

3) As Kirby mentioned above, the chance of incapacitating someone by forcing them to get back on their feet or lift a large object off of them.

Penalties:

1) DCV penalty. If you've got a big bulky object in your hands there's no way you can move nimbly, regardless of weight. Try picking up an empty cardboard box the size of a washing machine and tell me that you have the same capacity to dodge an attack as you just standing there.

2) OCV penalty. You get it for using unbalanced objects being thrown and, as far as I can remember, using them as melee attacks. Even if it's not the RAW I think it should be since, once again, using something that doesn't have any places to grip it is going to make it harder to hit with it. Any OCV boosts on these kind of objects should be granted by the fact that you typically get an AoE effect on them. It doesn't matter if you can't get a firm grip on a bus to throw it since it'll smear anything underneath it anyways.

3) Extra time. Not even the hulk can uproot a building instantly so you should have to take some time to rip something out of the ground (or pick it up if it's heavy/bulky) before using it to attack.

The idea of it is you should get more benefit from the object than penalties and I think using these ideas make for a better balance. You use up some extra time and might lower your chance to hit, as well as leave yourself open (no worse than you'd see when using a haymaker) for some extra damage, a chance for some AoE, and maybe even trap the guy underneath the object.

Keep in mind that not everyone is capable of doing this kind of maneuver and it's also highly dependent on the objects around the characters so it's very restrictive. It's not like a haymaker that anyone can use with any attack, only the strong (40+ STR) characters could probably pull it off and only if something happens to be nearby. So, having it be less useful than a haymaker kind of ruins the whole point of adding it in the game in the first place.

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

Yeah, it never seemed to unbalance the game since it took a bit more effort to uproot a lamppost and then swing it at an appropriate target than just punching them. As such I always felt that getting a bit of a damage boost did a good job for encouraging this kind of fun rather than discouraging it by making it do the same damage as something that takes half the time and effort. Lets be honest, who actually used objects as weapons when there was no benefit to doing so? I've always thought that if the Hulk smashed you with a car, then it should do more damage than if he just punched you.

Re: Rules You Didn't Know Until Champions Complete

2. Improvised weapons add to your Strength damage if their PD + BODY is greater than your base damage. This rule was introduced in 6e, but I completely missed it until I read Champions Complete. Previously, the only advantage to hitting someone with a chair, tree, or bus was reach or area effect. Now, there's a good reason for a soldier to butt stroke someone with his rifle (without needing to build the rifle with a separate Hand-to-Hand Attack).

I haven't used Champions Complete or 6e (still use 5th ed revised since that's what I have) but this was something that bugged the hell out of me since anyone can tell you that getting hit with a fist doesn't hurt as much as getting hit with a bottle. I used a house rule that basically added a damage class for each point of DEF the object had and still adhered to the max damage of Def+Body. That way someone could hit a guy with a light pole and have it mean something. Glad they fixed that rule.

Re: Enraged Strength "Hulk Up" ability, please examine

In the original Secret Wars Miniseries Hulk, Human Torch, Iron Man and Mr. Fantastic had a mountain dropped on them by the Beyonder.

Hulk was able to hold up a small cavity to keep them from being crushed. Mr. Fantastic was insulting Hulk/Banner almost continuously to make sure he was ANGRY enough to keep it up while he McGuyvered Iron Man's armor to accept Johnny's ability as a power source to his repulsers so they could blast out an escape hole.

The one fatal flaw with transitioning this into champions is that, assuming you have extra strength as part of being enraged, if you ever flub that enrage roll and break out of it you get a lot of super pancakes. Or the alternative is that those comments don't seem to piss you off and you don't actually enrage, resulting in the same pancakes. That's why I figured making it conditional off of a stat would be a bit more consistent since it never has that chance to fail and always triggers as soon as you reach the threshold. Considering that the lowest recovery rate is 8- (~28%) and the best enraged rate is 14- (~87%), you've got a fair chance of this happening. That could mean death for your heroes or 'performance' issues for your villains (pretty embarrassing).

Bottom line is, if you want consistency, remove rolling dice from the equation and stick to straight numbers. Odds are it's hard enough to trigger the enraged (not too many people willingly piss off the Hulk) and you don't want to make it worse by flubbing the roll a few times.

Re: When is it a Limitation?

Those are some excellent examples psyber624.

I think that's the main issue newcomers have to the game, figuring out if their effect is really considered a limitation or if you're just trying to get more bang for your buck. You also need to keep in mind that any one of these limitations can bite you in the ass should the GM decide to take advantage of it. Buying something as an OAF is a big discount but it doesn't mean much if someone kicks it out of your hands or breaks it. Same thing if someone grabs your hands to prevent you from using gestures and then keeps squeezing you until you drop. The whole point of getting a discount on the power is because you're giving yourself drawbacks on the power. A good GM will take advantage of the fact if you buy your magic VPP as an OAF staff. One quick disarm and all that goes away.

So while stacking limitations on things might sound like a cool way to score some discounts you really need to think about how it can bite you in the ass.

Re: Enraged Strength "Hulk Up" ability, please examine

With a 5d6 Aid its not much of a problem. You are only going to need 2 applications (generally) to hit max. at that point another application per turn is more than enough to keep you maxxed out whether the points fade at 5 (total) or 10 (2 applications resulting in 5 points each). My concern is with small Aid's with large IME's. A 2d6 AID with x4 IME is only 18 points' date=' Self Only makes it 9 points. And it can add 48 points of PRE (using your example). It also only costs 2 end per application. Now, it takes 8 applications to hit max (on average) but once you have hit max you take one action per turn, at 2 End, and can keep your +48 PRE going all day long if you like. At worst you might have to spend 2 turns (24 seconds) when you first wake up "powering it up" but then the rest of the day you only need 1 action a turn to keep it going. If the points fade at 5 per application then you cant use one application to keep yourself at max, staying at max actually requires you to KEEP popping out aid applications in order to keep your power from fading really fast. Which I feel is in line with keeping larger aids more powerful than small aids with large IME's.[/quote']

 

Part of the balance here sounds like the number of turns to hit said maximum. 8 applications is a LOT. If you tried this in a fight, odds are the bulk of the battle would be over by the time you finished boosting your stats. Once you get that high you can do what you were saying about reapplying it each turn, but getting there is almost not worth the effort. Plus, as a GM, I would probably rule that your aid would fade after that specific counter because I would imagine that nobody would keep using that ability every turn for the rest of the day to keep you juiced up. Could you imagine someone "hulking up" every 12 seconds for 8 hours in order to keep that kind of buff going just so you'll have it 'just in case'?

 

It seems to me that anything that takes more than 2 actions to apply is more trouble than it's worth.

Re: When is it a Limitation?

The key thing is that a limitation has to actually limit the use of a power. Most of the ones you listed seem okay but I've had some players really push the limits on them (someone wanted to put concentration on invisibility which isn't really much of a limitation). Basically a limitation has to have some kind of drawback, either by decreasing it's power (limited range, reduced penetration), restricting the use of the ability (activation roll, increased END), make it able to be lost (focus, restrainable), etc. It's the same thing with disadvantages. If you give someone no legs and then allow them to fly, it's not much of an impairment and the same goes for things like "doesn't work in a vacuum" for a campaign that solely takes place on Earth.

Re: Enraged Strength "Hulk Up" ability, please examine

I've always ruled it that multiple applications of the same aid/drain count as a single instance of the power and it fades at 5 points per turn and that different aids/drains fade independently of each other (ie both fade at 5 points per turn).

With regards to the Hulk out idea, on thing I did was conditional strength based on how much stun the guy has. ie +10 Str if below 60 stun, +10 if below 40, and +10 if below 20. I thought that was a bit more consistent than basing it on enraged rolls and it also helped with the idea of getting stronger the more you get hit.