Phil

Anyone here use segmented instead of phased movement? I.e. SPD4, 12" running gives you 4" running per segment, with you changing direction, stopping and starting on your relevant phases as usual. Dont do so myself, though have often thought about taking it up. Under such a system, how might you handle half-move and attacks? Two solutions that come to mind are: (1) half-move and attack now only allows half segmented movement. So, in the example above, only 2". (2) attack following half-move occurs when the half-move is complete. In the case above, it would occur in the segment following the phase in which the movement began: Phase - move 4". Following segment - move 2" and attack. Another alternative is to overturn the usual ruling and allow attack followed by half-move, which is less abusive in this context, but still less than ideal. Then again, I'm also toying with random phases. .And seeing how randomised initiative and segmented movement could interlock is a horrible spaghetti-like tangle barely worth thinking about. Except for the enjoyable and very real potential of an unlucky run of initiative leading to speedsters running into the sides of buildings, with hilarious consequences for all. Well, maybe except the player. But who worries about them?

Re: Why the heck not?

Re: First-time GM questions Regarding the immunity question, if I understand it correctly, Char 1 is immune to ONE INDIVIDUAL unless THAT INDIVIDUAL attacks. In which case, another way to model it is to make it a Physical Disadvantage for THAT INDIVIDUAL, rather than a power for Char 1? Just a thought. Phil

Re: Initiative... I love those card drawing alternatives to the speed chart. Anyone considered going a step further and having additional special effects on the cards, a la Torg / Masterbook (and probably other games as well). In such a deck, you could separate out post-12 recoveries for heroes and villains (or even for each individual PC). That could create a really cinematic ebb and flow effect to combats that is currently lacking, with everyone recovering at the same point. You could have cards in there that signify bonus actions (e.g. extra movement phase), or mandatory actions (e.g. Villain must run away, or Heroes must dodge/block). Seems to me this sort of innovation can take the existing Hero System and add on some of the cinematic edge that at present it doesnt replicate so well. Rule options like this are ideal for supplementing GM style in trying to different genre idioms.

Re: At a stretch Stretching as is, IMHO, violates the Special effects approach of Hero system. Get rid of it. And TK. They're both merely Str applied at range. And fine work shouldnt be an adder, it's just Dex applied at range. The direct aspect of stretching is then just a disadvantage. Want to stretch in front of an attack to defend someone else? That's Running. Everything else is SFX. Just a light snack to start the forums off on this morning

Re: Is Daredevil 'Phys Disad: Blind' or just 'blind'?

Re: Is Daredevil 'Phys Disad: Blind' or just 'blind'? I've often thought this should be the standard approach. As you say, you can use this to sell off STR or Running, why not senses. This then removes senses entirely from the realms of physical limitation - as well as Cant Walk and other physical lims that can be better replicated through the power / characteristic mechanics. Put an extra space on the character sheet for senses, to make this quite explicit. Removes any hassle and any queries.

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans There are 12 people in a jury to minimise the risk of them being corrupted or dishonest. You want to replace this with just 2 telepaths? Which raises questions of delusion, interpretation, subconscious memory construction, hypnotism and so forth. This also potentially falls foul of current restrictions on 'hearsay' evidence - rather than A accusing B, Z says that A's mind accuses B. My, what a friendly person you are. I was merely commenting that the issues of telepaths in court rooms was a further illustration of how existing rights, such as the right to jury trial/trial of your peers, right to privacy/private life, as well as previously discussed rights such as the american right to bear arms are challenged when you dramatically change what is meant by human. You, on the other hand, were merely being rude. Which reminds me of a comic - cant recall which, may have been the Joker on trial - where the defendant claimed he couldnt be tried because it would be impossible to get a jury of peers.

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans Maybe. I'm not so concerned about "this law applies _______", where that status is an imperical fact, and armed with that knowledge the checks and balances of democratic society can more easily come into play. I'm more concerned about "this law applies to people the government consider to be terrorists", because of the subjective judgement involved in this.

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans Not a contradiction, as the party on the right of american politics is not necessarily reflective of the entirity of right wing thought, but I admit the mistake of associating gun-control with left-right political axis.

Re: If you could add one more... what questions... 1. Characteristic - Tough. Only one? Maybe Agility. Or perhaps Intuition / Perception. MD is uncontroversial. However, I think I'll avoid the obvious answers and plump for 'Wealth'. 2. Skill - Way I see it, the skill list is flexible anyway. PS and the like allow all sort of variance as a built-in. No comment here. 3. Power - I like Steal. However, I'd add the power of 'Movement' (and then scrap Running, Flight, Leaping, Swinging, Swimming and Tunnelling) 4. Advantage - Just one. Minmaxer +1/4. GM imposed advantage that makes everything cost a little bit more 5. Limitation - None. And reduce the values of additional limitations beyond the first.

Re: Jane's Superhumans Absolutely. However, much of the discussion is about applying an existing law. I can see attorneys across the world with flashing before their eyes! Take an interesting parallel. How would a mutant child born with a highly infectious disease with a high mortality rate, but personally immune to it be treated? OK, that's an extreme case, because that will automatically affect people. But it could happen in the real world. As a straw man it may help us apply current policies to superhumans. Now that child only spreads it if it touches someone. Less extreme - an unconscious effect, but controllable. Now that child only spreads it if it coughs directly into someone's mouth. Less extreme still - needs to take quite specific action, which is controllable, but can possibly happen by chance. Now make that disease non-infectious, aside from the child passing it on. I cant say I have an answer, but I'm not convinced that governments would allow the child to move around unsupervised entirely, even once it was grown up. And I think here we hit the EB/Superstrength parallel, assuming that powers are not 100% controllable (which in Hero terms they are, but comic books have precedents of accidental activation when under stress or extreme emotion).

Re: Jane's Superhumans And please dont misunderstand, as too often seems to happen, a person's own view and a thread that is trying to hypothetically discuss what the reaction of a government might be to a situation. This discussion is - or at least, was - the latter.

Re: Jane's Superhumans We legislate against all weapons that have no reasonable alternative use. We legislate to restrict the use of other items that could be used as weapons but have alternative uses. Cars require licenses and road taxes and to be logged according to unique identity numbers. In return, they increase productivity, spread wealth and promote leisure. Poisonous substances are allowed, but they must be clearly labelled and are usually required to be scented and/or coloured to ensure that they cannot be easily mistaken for harmless equivalents. In return, they keep our houses clean and kill pests. If I have a knife surgically attached to my knuckle bones, it doesnt cease to be a weapon. It is a peculiar definition of weapon that it needs to be separable from the human body - some jurisdictions count any assault by trained combatants such as boxers as assault with a deadly weapon. The difference is that people are potentially born with these deadly weapons. Certainly, it is harsh to treat them the same as people who intentionally carry arms. But the law is there because of the potential harm someone could cause using weapons - it's not only convicted criminals who are banned from carrying assault weapons in public, is it? Which is my mind makes it all the more likely that they'd be treated within existing legislation and possibly quite harshly. It would be harder to generate a body of resistance if the laws only affected one in a million people. Also, I've thrown LaserLad out as a specific example of how someone with an EB might be treated, not of how super-powers generally might be treated. I think it's incorrect to assume that all powers would be treated the same, and that you were either super or not-super.

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans No, he's potentially being harassed because he breaches existing arms legislation. It's harsh, because he doesnt choose to be armed, but the fact is that he is armed and I wouldnt be surprised if a government treated him as such. Because most people dont want people with weapons walking around the place. Besides, even western governments have precedents of treating 'difficult' groups harshly. From British internment of Irish terrorist suspects in the 1970s, to the holding of afghan fighters in guantanemo bay; to the indefinite holding of the mentally-ill to criminalising drugs. These are laws that foresake individual human rights for the 'greater good' and for preventing possible crime in the future. I think attitudes and laws might evolve - although this would depend on how many supers there were and how powerful - but I think early attitudes to supers would err on the side of the potential threat, on a cost-benefit analysis of the scale of the threat if it becomes actual, and how well equipped the government is to deal with it. If it was known that LaserLad could emit a high-frequency beam from his eyes that looked cool at raves but could temporarily blind small mammals, no problem. If that beam was as powerful as a taser, self-regulation and "watch your step, sonny". If that beam was a 12d6 EB, there aint no way they're going to let him wander around unsupervised. Phil

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans But you miss the point. Most schizophrenics do not have the intrinsic capacity to fire laser beams from their eyes (or equivalent)! The parallel in this instance is surely not "How we treat the mentally ill" vs. "How we treat superhumans", it is "How we treat bearing concealed and deadly arms" vs. "How we treat superhumans".

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans And still the obsession with casinos! If you want to make money gambling, you dont play games, you bet on events. Major events that precog doesnt need to be fine tuned to pick up. Doesnt even need to be sport. Outcomes of elections, wars, trade agreements. You know you can bet on anything nowadays? A few of these in an accumulator, and you're set up comfortably. Lay a few down for the future. 15 years ago, what odds would you have got for Arnie to be governor of California?! However, I agree that precog is not the most common power and unless there are lots of them, this is an area that is likely to remain unchanged - so long as casinos and bookies make money.

Re: Jane's Superhumans

Re: Jane's Superhumans Think it may be the USA bias, but I dont understand the hang-up on Casinos. Pre-cog wants to win some money? Simple. On-line gambling. I could go off now and in just a few hours place numerous bets using various different user IDs at different websites that could accumulate to give me enough money to make me comfortable for life. The problem seems to me to be much wider than most people in this discussion have considered. Superhumans would change EVERYTHING. Every aspect of society, every law regulating human existence would be redundant. Either society, politics and the way we regulate our lives would dramatically change, or supers would be eradicated (the most obvious way of so doing being by early detection and either neutering powers or death). Having said, i dont think any modern government is capable of doing this with 100% accuracy, let alone capable of doing this without word escaping to the public. And the public wouldnt stand it. There would be huge investment in technology that might neutralise super powers, probably above and beyond any drive to hire supers. In an Aberrant world where powers are fuelled from a single source, this might be feasible. In a standard Champions magic-mutant-chemical-divine-robot-alien-demon type setting, it would be impossible.