Max Faraday

Re: Grabbing multiple foes I think that was a reference in 5th Ed., not 5ER.

Re: Why the heck not? I agree with this 100%. If my character has a 23 EGO and a 15 DEX, there is no doubt that he gets added value out of using OECV rather than OCV to target his attacks. The rules say that EBs are targeted with OCV by default. If by changing that default my character gets an advantage (which is the case), I should have to pay something for it.

Re: Grabbing multiple foes I'd probably rule that a character can grab one target per arm (or other limb capable of grabbing) but that they can only use casual strength to maintain the grabs. I seem to recall that UMA had something to say about the number of limbs used in a grab but I don't think of the details at this point.

Re: Why the heck not? It seems to be just a difference in philosophy, I guess. IMO, even if you use a mental ability to throw a brick at someone, you are still aiming via physics, which says OCV rather than EOCV to me. If the target of the brick is standing behind cover, he would be harder to hit. Whereas cover doesn't matter with OECV (IIRC). I'm not saying I'd disallow as a GM if the player came up with a good SFX justification, but it would definitely be an exception rather than a rule.

Re: Why the heck not? I agree with Just A Guy. OECV targets DECV and OCV targets DCV. In the pure sense of cost/benefit, the +0 advantage makes sense for all the reasons mentioned above. However, I don't really like the idea of something targetted with the character's mind being able to be dodged. It doesn't make sense to me philosophically.

Re: End cost on MA

Re: Something to think about: Gliding The special effects of the power would determine whether or not gliding worked in a vacuum (i.e. an airless space). Wing-based gliding probably wouldn't work in a vacuum but other SFX might. However, vacuum and Zero-G aren't the same thing (to address Lightray as well). It seems like everyone can 'glide' in Zero-G since no gravity is pulling them in any direction. However, the character would probably have to have some means of propulsion while floating in Zero-G in order for any kind of controlled movement.

Re: Cheesy diceroll advantages I wouldn't allow this either. IMO roll for a number between 1 or 6 or use the standard effects rule for a 3. If you want a power that does a lot of damage even on a glancing blow, just add more dice are make it AP.

Re: Defensive VPP -- would you allow this? I would allow it as a reactionary change--as others have suggested. Very Borg-like

Re: Temporarily and Voluntarily Reducing Characteritics I agree with Neil. You can limit how much of a characteristic you apply to a specific action, but that doesn't actually lower the characteristic itself. In order for a High PRE character to draw less attention I would require an acting or disguise roll. As for Superman, he's got a hell of a disguise skill in order for a new hairstyle and a pair of glasses to fool anyone.

Re: Metric HERO My only two reasons for hesitancy with this are 1) I'm used to 2 meter hexes and it would take a bit of effort to adjust (lazy) and 2) I'd need to get a new hex map with smaller hexes--people would be moving twice as far as they used (solely in the number of hexes moved). While I'd probably not make the change personally, I don't see anything wrong with the way you are handling things.

Re: Alternate speed charts There's also the issue with changing the time structure of the Turn. Those two charts have 4 and 6 segments (respectively) in a Turn, screwing up things that happen per segment or some of the Extra Time limitations.

Re: Multiform Confusion The way that I have always approached multiforms is to have the most powerful form be the base form and buy Multiform for the weaker forms. As an example, my build of the Hulk would have 5 or 10 points in Multiform for Bruce Banner (Skill or Competent Normal, respectively, assuming max disads).

Re: Killing attack optioal damage IIRC the target always take 1 STUN for each point of BODY. That means that you are basically saying that all killing attacks automatically do minimum STUN, which seems to me like it should be a limitation rather than the standard. Back to the original post, it makes plenty of sense to me that someone would take STUN damage from a killing attack even if all of the killing damage was negated by resisted defenses. Consider bullet proof vests: they stop the bullet (and therefore the killing damage) but the impact still passes plenty of kinetic energy to the target and can result in significant pain and bruising (STUN damage).