Max Faraday

Re: Grabbing multiple foes

Yep. Here's p. 254, column 2, para 6, in its entirety:

 

*snip*

 

Now, if someone wants to provide a 5ER reference that actually has something to do with Grabs, go crazy.

I think that was a reference in 5th Ed., not 5ER.

As to the grabbing with one hand: fred pg.254 col2 para6.

-Jason

Re: Why the heck not?

FWIW, i think that the value of "this attack uses trait A instead of trait B for my attack CV but keeps the normal DV trait for the enemy" will be an advantage or limitation for a CHARACTER based on that characters's traits.

 

The relative cost of DEX and EGO is not the determining factor, what it does to the character's abilities is.

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

IIRC' date=' MA manoeuvres cost no END. You pay END for the STR you use to make the attack, and any bonuses due to MA manoeuvres and/or MA DC cost no END. I think the same will apply to damage-increasing talents, unless the talent description says otherwise. [/quote']

 

The only exception to this is MA manuvers that don't have an inherent use of strength (like martial dodge), which cost 1 END. Unfortunately, my book isn't handy or I'd give a page ref.

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

This is one of those hotly argued subjects that never seems to quite die. I've long disliked the Stun Lottery for exactly the reasons you've listed' date=' but I've never really found a solution I like. I've discussed with my fellow GMs the following idea for our campaign: All Killing Attacks have a Stun Multiple of 1 (Unless the Multiple is bought up as an Advantage), but [i']only[/i] Resistant defenses count versus the Stun damage. Advantages such as Armor Piercing or Penetrating work as before.

 

Example: KillMan shoots HeroLad with his 3d6 RKA, and rolls 11 for damage. HeroLad has 20 total PD but only 8 rPD, so he takes 3 BODY and 3 Stun.

 

This (at least in theory) makes Killing attacks better at what they should be: Killing. We haven't tested this out in actual combat yet, but I think it has potential.

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).