secretID

Re: easy 5e succor build...? Hmm...Is this what you're saying? If the focus is unavailable, you can only use 30 AP of powers, for 30 real points (assuming for the sake of example no other mods on the VPPs). If the focus is available, you can build a 60 AP power, but since to do so requires the focused portion of the VPP, the whole power has OAF, so costs only 30 real points. You can therefore build another 60 AP power. I haven't crunched all the numbers, but something seems cheap about that. What if you want to build multiple 30 AP powers? If you define them one way each has the OAF, and you can therefore have four at once. On the other hand, you could also say that one power comes from the unfocused VPP, and therefore costs 30 real points, so that you could only build one total, though one wouldn't have the OAF. To build it so that you have four devalues the OAF, in much the same way it does to use focus within a variable lim. (There's a FAQ about that.) You lose the focus, and you just redefine (granted, with a full-phase action and a skill roll) your powers such that you still get to keep one. And in light of recent events, I must say: Don't call me Bob. ( : Huh. That's interesting. I'll play around with that.

Re: easy 5e succor build...? Ah - I see the succor problem now. You can boost the pool right off, but each time a slot is switched the new power has to be boosted. I was a little confused by your last line - you mean two 30-point powers, no? Actually, I guess it's one 60-pt. power and one 30-pt. power (see below). If I understood you both, I would have two VPPs, one with a common mod of OAF and one without. Arguably, the one with the OAF would also have linked. This is a little funny b/c each VPP has different mods. E.g., to build a 12 DC EB, I would use all 30 points of the first VPP, but only 15 points of the second. Then I could take another 30-AP power with the OAF VPP with the other 15 pool points. Would this violate the rule about one framework modifying another? I guess that's why I might need to ask for GM permission...

At least I think it's succor - I'm not great with adjustment powers. Magic VPP, 42 total cost (30 base + 15 control, with lims). When the character holds his staff, his VPP is twice as big. That's it. I can live with having to use an attack action to activate the boost, if that saves from having to buy trigger. He'll have the staff most of the time. Thanks for any help.

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack" Huh. Found the section in 5e and a question in the FAQs as well. That part of the rules sure did need a rewrite - I had no clue that's what was meant. Anyway, I'm going to stick with the 1/2 facing penalty. It just fits well with all of the other DCV modifiers.

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack" Thanks for the very interesting responses. They've made me think about the nature of DCV. I'm thinking (in flux) that DCV is a combination of: 1) flitting about to generally avoid anything, like a boxer moving in the ring; and 2) little, specific dodges that aren't quite Dodges. The 1/2 (as opposed to none, or total) loss of DCV from facing and similar seems to fit that. Applied here, let's see... 1) if B is totally unaware, then he has a 1/2 DCV penalty anyway; 2) if B is aware (and wants to be hit), he can keep flitting about, but decline to specifically avoid A's attack - in game terms, he can drop his DCV to 1/2 vs. A, without using any action, and without any lingering effects; 3) if B is aware (and wants to be hit) he can make himself completely still - in game terms, he drops his DCV to 0, a 0-phase action which would drop his DCV until his next full phase. B's awareness and the timing of it all is more complicated, but I think I'd rather leave that fuzzy than work out an approach with rolls. The shorter and clearer the communication the better - "Go limp" is a great example - and prior practice with the maneuver would be a factor. Regardless, though, I think I'll only apply that to situation #3 above, dropping the DCV to 0. Using the existing example, B sees that Enemy is loading up this haymaker, then he sees his teammate A trying to do something to him (. I guess B might reflexively flinch away from that, but with regular teammates I'm inclined to say that B just knows that A is trying to help him, so he doesn't duck or similar, and he drops his DCV to 1/2 vs. that "attack."

I know I've come across this, but I can't find it anywhere in the (5e) rules. Character A is doing something beneficial to teammate B, but an attack roll is required. 1) What can B do voluntarily do to his DCV to help? 2) Can B do "it" (some kind of voluntary DCV lowering, I guess) between his phases? 3) If B does "it," does the effect last until his next phase - i.e., do enemies get easy shots as well? 4) Is there anything official limiting B's options if he isn't aware that A is trying to do something good to him? (Of course, I may limit it regardless.) In case it helps, the specific situation is that Enemy has started a Haymaker against B, and A, realizing this, wants to pull B away with telekinesis. Thanks for any help.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge If it becomes a problem, I'll probably do something close to this. I would simplify and just say that whenever FD is interrupting an attack, there's a DEX context to use the movement part of FD. There's a speedster in my campaign who uses FD to great effect. He holds every action until just before his next scheduled action, so he always has an action in his pocket to use for FD. He's virtually unhittable as a result, but it hasn't been a problem b/c he isn't an offensive powerhouse. As I think about it, it makes the team more powerful (b/c enemies waste actions) w/o making the character seem overpowering because he's not knocking enemies out left and right.

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge

Re: 5th Ed: Flying Dodge Why wouldn't desol break a haymaker - i.e., if it's activated between the start of the haymaker and when it lands? Desol generally completely prevents a ranged attack, while DFC and FD just add a range penalty - i.e., you're not allowed to use the movement portion to duck around a corner, IIRC. The problem with that is that aborting isn't as important as it seems. If you're willing to hold your first action in a fight, you essentially keep an action in your pocket the whole fight to use as a de facto abort instead of literally aborting.

Re: power usable once per hour Good ideas. I think I'll go with the END reserve. Thanks!

Re: power usable once per hour Yeah, I thought that it might just be recoverable, with no extra lim. At least an hour - he can stay in one form for as long as he likes.

5e. The character has Multiform, but once changed he has to stay in that form for at least an hour. I would think this would be very easy - charges and something else - but it doesn't seem to be. Recoverable charges says they can normally be recovered only out of combat, which is too soon, really. Maybe just a custom lim re the extra time to recover the charge?

Re: what should this hacking project require? Thanks for the suggestions. I went with this: 1) Their security is level 16-. They roll, and their success or failure modifies the PC's roll. 2) Base time for the task is one month. 3) The player makes a second roll for stealth, and that roll modifies the companies' roll to detect. They make their roll immediately, then weekly. 5) The player can announce before rolling that he will apply points to stealth. Every point thus applied gives him a penalty to the hacking roll but a bonus to the stealth roll.

Champions, standard power, setting very close to current reality (e.g., technology available to general public is the same). A character wants to do the following to track a teleporter. He will hack into cell tower transmissions to track when any cell phone "logs in" with one tower after having recently logged in with another tower too far away to be explained by normal transportation. Having researched the topic, the player believes that this is theoretically possible based on how cell phone transmission and billing work, and I'm willing to take his word on it. I also like the ingenuity of the idea, and I have no reason to forbid it for story reasons. This sounds like a huge task, as the player acknowledges. (He's a super hacker, so it's not necessarily impossible.) Aside from the size of the project, another issue is that, because he wants to monitor the data going forward, he can theoretically be traced back. I'm very weak on this question for multiple reasons. Any suggestions on the following are much appreciated: 1) How long should it take to get the unmodified skill roll for this project? 2) How do I factor in the ongoing nature of the monitoring and the danger of tracking? 3) Anything else I should be considering? Thanks for any suggestions.

Re: straw poll: Does a Shadow Demon have a "living body" Demons will not be common other than in this adventure. I'm only using the ones in the Bestiary, and making very few changes to those. That's why I mentioned the question of what would qualify as "non-living." Robots and zombies would likely already be automatons, so they wouldn't be affected anyway. Undead with minds would count, I guess. So, he's unlikely to encounter anything else with a "non-living body" for a long time, if ever. Anyway, I know which demons are going to be around, so I'm just going to categorize them now, as suggested, by overall impression. Of all the ones in the Bestiary, shadow demons seem the least alive in the usual sense.

Re: straw poll: Does a Shadow Demon have a "living body" "Zombie taser?" 5e. EB, NND at the +1 (standard) level, defended by LS: Radiation or "non-living body."

Champions. PC has a high-tech "pain inducer," NND EB, defense is LS: Radiation or "nonliving form." He uses it against a Shadow Demon, right out of the Bestiary. Does it work? I confess that, when approving the power, I never thought to ask what a "nonliving form" would be, given that a NND EB (i.e., STUN only) wouldn't work against automatons anyway. So...whadya think?

Re: rounding Armor Piercing

I only have 5th, unrevised, and I'm playing 5th, of course. When halving defenses for AP, how does one round it? E.g., does 11 become 5 or 6? For Damage Reduction, it rounds in favor of the target. I don't know whether that suggests that one rounds in favor of a defender or in favor of the one possessing the power... Thanks.

Re: Repricing CSLs The MP design is a great way to price it, in general. I think the problem is that there's a declining marginal return to adding attack types to a character's repertoire, and so a similar decline to broadening CSLs. Few characters can do ranged attacks, melee attacks, and mental attacks, so there's less use for "all combat." For supers, I would suggest determining the pricing much as you did, and then increasing the price of "related group of attacks," because that's what's most useful to players.

Re: looking for some opinions on Focus and Power Frameworks. When multiple powers use the same focus, I consider them to satisfy the "tight theme" requirement for Elemental Controls, even if they're very different powers. I realize that you said "no frameworks" for Character C, but I thought you may have only been thinking of MPs.

Re: Pondering Grab house rule; comments welcome I believe that's semi-endorsed in the FAQ. IIRC, someone had raised the issue that even a wimpy entangle hurts DCV until the entangled character's phase, so it's subject to abuse. Allowing the immediate break fixes that. But yes, good point about that other entangle advantage. BTW, I did suggest to the player in question in my game that he meta-game a little more in his tactical decisions, e.g. hold an action until just before his next phase, so that he could break the grab and then counter attack before being grabbed again. Given the DCV penalty to the grabber, that's a pretty effective counter, if you can withstand one phase of squeeze. It looks like this: A: strike B: grab & squeeze B: squeeze A: breakout A: strike etc.

Re: suggestions for OHID trigger? I basically meant less goofy and melodramatic, and possibly grimmer, if that word could make sense in the context of this question. You know - dark - since I was (apparently incorrectly) thinking of DC as being just that - Champions but darker.

Re: Pondering Grab house rule; comments welcome