secretID

Re: increased END - too much? Huh - I thought it was 1-for-1. He has 50 END, 40 STUN, so he'll actually knock himself out the large majority of times. I wonder if he realizes that...

Re: increased END - too much?

Assuming no AP or other relevant caps, what do y'all think of these two powers a player has proposed: Healing BODY 4d6, Can Heal Limbs, Decreased Re-use Duration (20 Minutes; +3/4) (79 Active Points) Increased Endurance Cost (x10 END; -4) Extra Time (1 Turn (Post-Segment 12), Character May Take No Other Actions, -1 1/2) OAF (-1) Activation Roll 14- (-1/2) Concentration (0 DCV; -1/2) Gradual Effect (1 Minute; -1/2) Real Cost: 9 Multiform (130 Character Points in the most expensive form) (26 Active Points) Increased Endurance Cost (x7 END; -3) Concentration (0 DCV; -1/2) Extra Time (Extra Segment, -1/2) Costs Endurance (Only To Change; -1/2) IIF (-1/4) Real Cost: 4 Thanks.

Re: STR Adding to HKA's I think the question is: Why are characteristics put into one category, when each has a very different game effect? There's a mechanic that gives a bonus to all HA, HKA, etc.; it happens to be called STR. There's another mechanic that gives a bonus to PER and to a certain class of skills. They're not really related in any way, so there's no real reason to ask why one can add damage and the other can't - one is designed to do that, and one isn't. We don't ask why there's no MA that allows that makes powers cost less END - that's just not what MAs are for. I see Skills, Powers, Characteristics, and MAs as mechanics that are related in different ways and to different degrees. They are organized in a way that someone found intuitively appealing, but there's no real reason to compare within those classifications any more than we would compare across those classifications. (Maybe MAs are an exception...) The two questions to me are: 1) Do we want a mechanic that does X (adds to all melee attacks, adds to all "mental" skills, works like a multipower)? That really amounts to a question of whether we want a discount for improving the value of "related" abilities. 2) What should that mechanic cost? And there's no way that the pricing is going to make sense in every application - sometimes a MP is better than an EC is better than MAs. Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with doing away with all primary characteristics, frameworks, and MAs - each of them is to some degree contrary to reasoning from effect. If a player wants to make Crazy Hodge-Podge Boy, and the GM approves of it, why should it cost more than Tight Theme Guy? A character is good or it isn't.

Re: IAF for concealed I don't think so. The sword blade is OAF if you can see it when it's in use. It's always OAF; popping it out of the cane is just power activation. If you had a sword that you could teleport into your hand as needed, it would still be OAF if, once you had it in your hand, it was obviously the source of the powers (Obvious), and it could be targeted and restrained (Accessible). The sfx you described sounds like OIF to me. When he's using the shield, it's Obvious, but I'm guessing it's effectively impossible to take out of his hands (Inaccessible). It might be OIF and Restrainable, if you can't take it from his hands, but an entangle or grab will make it ineffective (i.e., he can't defend himself with his shield when handcuffed). When it's folded up, it's just an OIF power that isn't currently activated.

Re: posting/distributing stuff for campaign use I suspected the answer might be something like that. Do you have any suggestions as to how I may share with the players the materials that are intended to be shared - e.g., maps, obviously, and the police reports in Shades of Black - the kind of thing that the GM would share with the players at the table? What about email direct to them?

Re: Blocking - What's the point? That's the one clearly good use of block/missile deflect that I can think of. The game really has to have a mechanic for it.

Re: Blocking - What's the point? I think this is the issue - block vs. dodge, not block vs. attack. Most (all?) of the justifications given here for block would apply to dodge, and I think dodge is better than block and missile deflect. I'm not saying there's no theoretical application, but I don't think they're nearly as useful as dodge/dive. The cumulative penalty is what really kills it for me. The martial blocks are better, of course, but I don't think they compare to flying dodge, which is awesome.

Hi. I will soon be running at least one module in a play-by-post game on Hero Central, and I'm looking for advice/permission/whatever for posting maps and other handouts designed for player viewing. I know nothing relevant about copyrights. So: Can I post such stuff w/in the campaign threads? If so, do I need to include some kind of statement? Do I need explicit permission first, and how would I get it? If none of that will work or it will be too cumbersome, what about just emailing it to the players? Thanks.

You can't have an obvious focus on invis. Can you have an accessible focus on desol.? By the reasoning of the first case, I would think not.

Re: portable computers - too much?

Re: portable computers - too much?

Re: Pain You could just look at a KO or a CON stunning as representing either stunning in the usual sense, or just severely distracting pain. To make it work better (and fit your RL example), you could have all DEF be ablative, which gives an effect like Doc's villain example.

Re: Pain Chris' idea looks like negative skill levels to me. I don't have the slightest expertise in pain and injury management or infliction, but... I think if you go in this direction, you might as well almost drop the idea of stun, as it's kind of silly if you're getting that realistic, IMO. IRL, it seems to me that pain and disability are much more salient than stunning. Stunning and unconsciousness certainly happen, but I think they're less commonly the big issue. Other than in boxing (wearing big padded gloves) and with drugs, if you've been knocked out or the equivalent of CON stunned, there's probably something else more important wrong with you - broken limbs, head wound, etc. If someone hits you in the head with a bat, you'll be stunned in many ways, but what's more likely to take you out of the fight is that you're bleeding all over, possibly brain damaged, etc. If they hit you with the bat in your arm, back, torso, etc., they'll eventually knock you out that way, but you'll probably have bigger problems of broken limbs and ruptured organs long before you're knocked out the fight by the equivalent of STUN damage. In those cases and many others, it looks to me like it's really the pain and the disability that stop someone from fighting more than the stunning. Very basically, the idea of being repeatedly knocked out is pretty silly - there's only so many concussions you can take. I haven't seen much ultimate fighting, but it seems to me that tapping out is much more common than knockouts - I assume that's because you can grapple and because you can strike with things that aren't heavily padded. I'd say that's closer to a real fight, and it looks to me like pain is a much bigger issue than stunning.

Champions, present day. I'm wondering what people think about portable computers (wrist unit, built into armor, palm top for that matter). These are computers that aren't attached to a base, vehicle, or automoton, and are almost always on the PCs person. There's one in the Champions book - a wristwatch model. But the first time I saw one in a PC, it seemed way too cheap to me. You buy a follower with a mess of talents and KS, and basically have free access to all that (b/c it's built into your helmet or whatever) at the 1/5 cost. I didn't think the player was trying to do anything abusive, but I said he should just buy all that stuff normally, but with an OIF. Now I'm making something with that sfx for a PC of mine - a bunch of KS and some other stuff in a computer built into his armor. So, of course now I'm wondering whether I was a little hasty in my negative view of the cheap build. What do you think? If the computer "follower" is on the PC at all times, like an OIF, should it just be bought with OIF and maybe other lims? Are there substantial disadvantages to having it as a follower that make the pricing more even than it seems? E.g., with the OIF, you still have instantaneous access to all the info from the KS - you know it all. With the follower, the follower must communicate the info to you case-by-case - you read the screen, it talks to you, whatever. Is that kind of thing enough to make it fair? Keep in mind that I may have 20-25 pts. to spend if I want - that can buy a whole lot of computer follower.

...e.g., Darkness, Mobile. Is the default speed 6" like for Clairsentience? Thanks.

Re: Dextracardial I thought the myth came from the fact that you can feel your heartbeat more on the left side, because of the placement of the aorta or the pulmonary artery or something...

Re: How to best represent this mechanically: Random Alchemy? I think it depends on whether she ever gets what she's looking for - or knows what she got - or if it's just all random. If random, then what Sean said, plus probably another custom lim b/c she doesn't even know what she has when she switches the VPP. If she does sometimes get it right, then I'd say activation roll plus side effects.

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? Great table. Just put that in the book, and players could learn how to do the proration so that they don't need the consult it, or could just check it. I see what you mean about STR - funny how much fallout there is from the STR pricing. I hope Steve consults something like this during the rewrite: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47440&highlight=thread I have my own slightly adjusted* version as a resource when I'm building characters, to determine which characteristics should be bought for that character regardless of the type of character. The short story is: - buy STR and CON for virtually any character - buy INT for any character with substantial INT skills - buy DEX for any character who relies primarily on non-mental, non-AOE attacks - only buy EGO for characters who rely largely on mental attacks *I reduced the value of lightning reflexes, which I think is overpriced and would never buy, and the value of OCV, since a more limited CSL is usually just as good.

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? That's an excellent point. We aren't using hit locations (I assume...we haven't actually started yet), so that is an easy explanation for ranged MA DCs. However, that still doesn't make sense of why they wouldn't be prorated. And...it would argue for adding DC to Flash, IMO, and not adding them at all - even prorated - to NND. I think the most simple and consistent thing would be to have them add to every advantaged attack on a prorated basis. I don't have much of an opinion on them adding to Flashes, etc., but right now it's very inconsistent that normal maneuvers modify those attacks but MAs don't.

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? That's always seemed to me the obvious way to do it, but I don't trust it when I think a system that has been around for a long time seems obviously flawed. Does anyone know why the damage adding rules are the way the are, when it seems that a lot (a majority?) of players do DC proration by house rule, or believe that the rules require proration?

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer?

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? From that plus Steve's answer, it looks like there's some kind of sfx lim on whether it adds. Of course, the sfx of ranged DCs is already questionable, so I'm not exactly sure with which things it would work. His answer indicates that it would work with autofire. I really hope they're rewriting adding damage in 6E.

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? If you look at the link I put in my first post, you'll see that it doesn't work that way for MA DCs and HA (as opposed to HKA). Anyway, Steve was particularly quick with this one: "The standard rules for Adding Damage would apply. But those are for adding damage, not 'increasing an attack's effects.' Martial Maneuvers, ranged or not, don't add to a weapon that's defined as a Flash or an Entangle, nor can I really see them adding to an NND-based weapon for the most part." I gotta say, I find that pretty strange. First, I don't know why they wouldn't add to a Flash, etc., given that the FAQ say you can Haymaker a PRE attack (which I wouldn't allow as a GM). Second, I'm not sure what to do with the last phrase about NND. I guess he's saying that die-for-die damage adding only applies where sfx fits, but I thought Steve usually stays out of that kind of commentary - i.e., I would think the answer would be, "The rules allow it technically, but only if the sfx fit, and I'm not sure how they would. So, as I see it, that's: 1) Yes 2) Probably no 3) No 4) No

Re: ranged MAs - beat Steve to the answer? So...is that b/c the rules are different for ranged MAs, or because they're different for autofire?