secretID

Re: Basic: OCV combat mods? I agree. I was a little surprised that I didn't find defaults OCV penalties for different situations, but I guess there really aren't that many like this.

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression And you call yourself a salesman? Interesting points, though. Same here. I'm not a fan of the current color scheme. The 5E design said "serious" to me, which was appealing. I understand the need for new colors, but the flashy colors with simple graphics say "lazy" or "cheap" to me, though I know that's not the root.

Re: A Storeowner's First Impression Those are pretty powerful arguments. I'm glad Hero is here as a serious system. It's probably worth something to market it that way - less flashy cover, thick book - but I wouldn't be surprised if they're losing more customers than they're gaining with that approach (assuming it was deliberate). The size is a very different issue than the cover art, of course - though I can understand how it could be intimidating, I prefer more content for the dollar. When I first saw the size of the rules, I liked the fact that there's so much. The comments about a universal system are interesting. I've been skeptical about that since I first looked at Hero, but that wasn't from the marketing perspective. Maybe the best way to go for all purposes would be to publish "Champions," which would include core rules and Champions stuff, and then "Fantasy Champions," etc.

Re: Basic: OCV combat mods? I would think that both would be harder, but the effect on OCV from poor footing would be greater. If someone were trying to shoot me, I think I'd rather we both be standing on boat in a storm than in an empty parking lot. Cramped conditions, like in a plane, would certainly be a bigger DCV problem, but that's a separate factor.

I'm a little embarrassed to have this question, but I've just encountered it for the first time. There's a ranged fight inside a plane that is accelerating and at a steep incline. I'm applying DCV negatives for the combat environment. It seems to me that there should be some OCV negative as well, so I look for that...and don't find it. Am I missing something obvious, or is this just not really part of the system*, or...? Thanks for any help. * I.e., any theoretical OCV mod could already be part of the applicable DCV mod, if you get me.

The HD pack is is supposed to contain "[a]ll...package deals." It contains a few (e.g., Heavy Weapons Specialist) as character files, which is fine. The others (e.g., Scarlet Serpent) aren't characters or actual Package Deals. Instead, they're Prefabs. Prefabs are a little annoying, because you have to actually add each item from the Prefab list. What's worse, though, is that the Prefab doesn't actually include the specs, just the name (e.g., "Viper helmet"), which is nearly useless. In other words, in order to build, e.g., a Scarlet Serpent, you have to start with a General Combat Specialist or something, pull up the SS Prefab list, THEN pull up various other Prefab lists (weapons, etc.), then cross-reference and add each of the items individually. That's missing the whole point of Package Deals, as I understand it. Am I missing something? If so, thanks for any help. If not, please consider this a complaint about a false product description.

Re: How to balance the heavy brick ? What most others said, plus: Note that the Spread maneuver allows him to trade DCs for OCV, so he can balance himself as needed, if he has that many DCs. You get a big range. It sounds like this guy needs a bit more than many. When someone is off to a rough start - however well intentioned - I'll sometimes just send them a suggested draft, which the player can then edit. It's almost always appreciated.

Re: AI with remote "puppet" body Sounds like perfect Follower or Summon, depending on whether the physical body is always around. Duplication always seems clunky for this kind of thing. I definitely think that everything, including skills, will have to be paid for for the body, if that was your question. Since the AI character is already getting the huge 1/5 benefit of Follower or Summon, I don't think it gets to do the skill (or characteristic) "transfer" for free. Using one of those constructs implies to me a separation such that everything would be bought separately. That doesn't mean that the body would have to have everything that the AI has, though. If the Mind Link can be jammed (Flashed, etc.), then that's a physical disad (er..."complication?"). If not, well, Dispel might still apply, so there should be some accounting for that. If a direct, immediate sensory link is part of the character, then I guess it would be Clairsentience. Might Transmit for the senses work? I've never looked much at that. It's probably more expensive.

Re: complex gestures and incantations Cool - thanks.

Re: complex gestures and incantations It's in Hero Designer, though I can't find it in 5e.

What's the effective difference? I know what Gestures does. I know what 2-handed (an issue independent of "complex") Gestures does. I know what Incantations does. What does "complex" do, in practice? One thought I have is requiring a DEX roll and/or INT roll under certain circumstances, but I hate fuzzy stuff like that. This is a supers game. Thanks for any ideas.

Re: dive for cover and mental attacks Grr...that line isn't in the unrevised... Sounds like it works like I was saying it should - if the DFC interferes with the ability to hit, then it works against a non-AOE. Thanks.

Re: dive for cover and mental attacks Why not? The rules (5e, anyway) don't indicate that DFC is only for physical attacks, and I don't see a good reason for distinguishing, though it does seem intuitively funny. There's also nothing saying or suggesting that DFC only affects mental attacks if it breaks LOS. Right, but that's a different issue. DFC causes the attacker to waste the attack action. The semi-targeting wouldn't be an issue until the attacker's next phase. I'm not sure if anyone was saying that; I wasn't. My question was whether it's necessary to break LOS for the DFC to work on a mental attack. I concluded that it's not, under the RAW.

Re: dive for cover and mental attacks I don't think you necessarily move to somewhere from which you cannot be hit - the DFC interrupts the mental attack and causes a miss, just as it would with a bullet or, for that matter, a laser. There's really no reason to distinguish between a mental attack and laser beams from the eyes. There's no reason to think that the mental attack moves at greater than the speed of light (which in game terms is the same as the speed of a bullet, arrow, or thrown car for these purposes anyway), and neither requires anything more than eye movement for targeting. The problem is just DFC, period. I like this solution: 1) DFC works against AoE as normal; 2) DFC only works against non-AoE to the degree that the move messes up targeting (e.g., by breaking LoS, in most cases); 3) DFC works no differently for mental and physical attacks except as it relates to #2. I'm not about to house rule it, though - I have enough of those. In the end, in this case I went with allowing the DFC to apply, since the rules don't say otherwise. I like to default to that to minimize the griping.

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack? Somewhere I got the idea that 6e was going to contain a revised system for using PRE and for interaction skills. Was that just a dream?

Re: Haymaker a PRE attack? I'm guessing that it looks like the application of the silliest rule you've ever seen. It was in the FAQ for 5th. Won't be happening in any game of mine.

Re: Adjudicating Force Wall (5ed) Unless the FW is minimal, I'd rule that the arrow explodes on contact. I would not give the arrow default damage to get through - certainly not default damage on the level of a regular arrow, since the head is designed to be fragile in a sense. The rules make clear that a FW with PD is just like a solid object (though not necessarily opaque). We wouldn't wonder whether someone could shoot an explosive-tip arrow through a stone or wood wall. However, we might wonder whether he could put it through, say, a shoji screen. You could probably stat that out, but I assume it's not a close call, and that the FW is at least as strong as a thin wood wall, so I would say it explodes on contact.

Re: The patriot Huh - didn't know that, obviously. That's seems pretty arbitrary - you can buy 0 END, but you have to take Costs END if you start w/o and END cost? My house rule is that every EC power must cost END at least per turn.

Re: The patriot I don't know if I'd call the 0 END force field "legal." It is if you allow it, but so is anything. If you're looking just to make him legal, I'd say change the force field to have it cost END, and he's fine by the rules.

Re: Online RPG character generator from Champions online?

So... 1) Does DFC work against mental attacks? The rules don't say otherwise, though they do talk about the attacker getting +2 OCV if the DFC doesn't work. 2) If so, does it only work if the target can dive out of LOS? Thanks in advance.

Re: The patriot (Thought I had responded to this...) 1) I wouldn't allow the 0 END force field in an EC. He's overpaying relative to armor, if that matters. 2) The skills are virtually nonexistent, obviously. 3) I didn't check the disads. Otherwise, that's MUCH better. He still looks overpowered to me for that point level. I'd think about at least 15 pts. in cuts to the STR and the EC, to be exchanged for skills, talents, whatever. Personally, I require a certain amount of non-combat skills, talents, perks, or powers, but you may not want to get that specific.

Re: 1755 My reaction, too. Lots of the published characters have inefficient builds. I've been using published villains in my campaign, but rewriting the important ones. They end up being a lot more powerful on the same points. I'm conscious of making builds efficient, but even players who aren't may have been intuitively using higher DEX because it made the character work better (i.e., freed up points). I'd say that's highly likely if you have high-STR characters.

Re: 1755 Uh...I only see one person here questioning the accuracy of the analysis - and it was just a question. If/when I convert my campaign, I think I'll just ask everyone to do a rough conversion, then take the average of the points needed (or maybe the max?) and allow everyone that much.

Re: 1755 STR and DEX were huge bargains in 5e - roughly 2:1 and 1.5:1 values, respectively, so any character with alot of points in STR and/or DEX will be creamed. If there's an EC too, all the worse. In Steve's character conversion pdf, he talks about grandfathering. I don't know how I feel about it. Obviously, some characters will take a much bigger hit than will others, but weren't the changes based on the idea (right or wrong) that the old costs were no good? That would mean that any change to the price of characters is a correction. If and when I convert my campaign, I think I'll require rewrites from scratch. On the other hand, maybe I'll just leave all the figured stats, but change the pricing of STR and DEX a bit. Is there any big problem with house ruling in figured stats while adopting the rest of 6e?