secretID

Re: Describers I think of all of them, the ________ Man and _______ Boy, etc. names are the corniest - "Jungle Man," "Fire Man," and for that matter, "Aquaman" and one that always struck me as possibly ironic, "Elongated Man." "Superman" would sound pretty stupid if we weren't used to it. Basically, the entire Legion roster sounded ridiculous until the 70s, with Wildfire and Dawnstar. The Dr., Mr., Baron, etc. titles can work for me, but for the most part, they still sound a little campy - which can be OK for heroes. Black _______, for an African American character, is now campy in its own way, but otherwise colors don't hit my ear in any particular way. As someone else said, I put things like "Invincible" and "Amazing" in a different category. I don't think the characters actually use those, except perhaps occasionally in an ironic self-referential way - "Haven't you heard? I'm the Amazing Spider-Man." To me, that's the same as, say, "Zephyr, Mistress of the Winds" or something. Nobody would use that part of the name except in the title of a biography or - y'know - a comic book.

Re: Describers

Re: Alchemist This was well pretty well covered by the other posts. Now I get why you mentioned Summon - as a way to allow for variety. This kind of build is EXACTLY what VPP is for, so long as it's OK that the number of potions in existence at any one time is limited - that's a little conceptually strange for some builds, but commonly accepted nonetheless for characters like super-inventors. You could shoehorn this concept into Summon, I guess, but Summon is really designed for bringing in an entity that acts with some independence - basically, a short-term NPC follower. There are some other uses, but this one would be a very big stretch.

Re: combat luck when grabbed Steve's response: "I don't think bright lines are particularly helpful in this situation. The text provides some general guidelines, and using those and his common/dramatic sense the GM can interpret things appropriately for his campaign." (Sigh.) I'm going with the line I defined.

Re: The patriot I'm a little late on this, but I'll just note that in 5e, ECs and STR are two of the top handful of best deals - it's no coincidence that ECs and figured characteristics are the biggest changes in 6e. One half his points in an EC and another 1/4 in STR pretty much guarantees he'll be overpowered. That very ugly EC tells me that he was intended to be.

Re: Breaking News! 6e exposes 5e min-maxing! Sounds more like just taking advantage of figured stats. I think the 3s - 23, 33, 43 - are/were optimal for STR. For DEX, 23 is great, obviously. I assume that bricks and high-DEXers will take the biggest hits under 6e.

Re: Alchemist

Re: Alchemist Cross-posts. The trigger is another way (and in the book) - I've never gotten it, myself.

Re: Alchemist I think you're off on the wrong track. I would assume a VPP. The potions are foci, usable on others, and they may have other appropriate limitations (e.g., gradual effect). The time and location necessary to make the potions are limitations on the VPP (NOT IIF, BTW). I wouldn't do the Summons - that's something completely different. If you give an example of a potion, we can write it up for you. If you say more about exactly what is necessary to create a potion, we can write that up.

Re: combat luck when grabbed

Re: combat luck when grabbed ? - The rules explicitly say that's it's Nonpersistent - i.e., when they walk through the build, it's Armor, Nonpersistent (-1/4), Luck-based (-1/2).

Re: combat luck when grabbed The rules actually do define it better than that: "depends on a character's ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage." That says to me that "Luck-based" is really a misnomer - "Dodge-based" would make more sense. As I think you were saying, "luck-based," with no clearer definition, could cover just about anything. I would certainly allow a player to by DEF with no lim, with a sfx that he doesn't get cleanly hit b/c he's magically lucky. All kinds of weird things would then happen. I also agree - and I think it's an important point - that most of what's listed in the rules and FAQ is part of Nonpersistent. If we take out that portion, we're left with the move-based maneuvers, and the case of jumping in front of a bullet, which I would sum up as "self-inflicted." I wouldn't call that -1/2. What do you think of my proposed line, based on the rules description, that it only operates when Dodge, Block, Missile Defection, or Dive for Cover theoretically could?

Re: combat luck when grabbed At first there is, but then the fire spreads or is extinguished. I'd be more inclined to say that the hit was just a grazing hit, so that the fire went out on its own, but then it occurred to me that if he goes unconscious for unrelated reasons, the CL stops working, so...he suddenly bursts into flames? Either the degree to which he's burning is dependent upon his state of consciousness, or he has somehow been avoiding the fire from hurting him.

Re: combat luck when grabbed

Re: combat luck when grabbed Wait - you mean you include them in the coverage, or include them in the exception/limitation? I just asked Steve whether the list in the rules of when the lim applies is meant to be exhaustive. How about this as a bright line: Combat Luck applies whenever Dodge, Block, Missile Deflection, or Dive for Cover could theoretically apply?

Is the rules' list of instances in which Combat Luck doesn't work meant to be exhaustive, or is "depends on the character's ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage" broader than that? If it is broader, could you clarify a little further? For example: 1) The character is tied tightly to table and shot in the chest, point blank. That doesn't fit on the list, but I think I'd have to say the Combat Luck doesn't apply. 2) An AOE attack. I think most GMs would apply the Combat Luck, but maybe we're wrong. 3) Standing on an empty salt plain, at ground zero of a 1-mile radius AOE. 4) A current question in my campaign: Damage after the first phase from an Uncontrolled RKA with a fire sfx (i.e., the character is on fire). A bright line would be that Combat Luck applies against any attack that could normally be affected by Dodge, Block/Missile Deflection, or Dive for Cover. That would cover my examples 1 and 2, but not 3 or 4.

Re: combat luck when grabbed Hmm. Combat Luck isn't perfectly dependable, and it doesn't always apply. You seem to be looking at the list in the rules of when it doesn't apply as an exhaustive list. That's a reasonable interpretation, but I'm not sure I agree. Restrainable, a limitation similar to Luck-based, is usually pretty clearly defined: the power is restrained by grabs and entangled, and when the particular limb or whatever is disabled. Luck-based is a lot fuzzier, to me. The examples of jumping in front of an attack is clear cut, but it doesn't seem exhaustive to me, because I don't think that would be worth -1/2. (The examples of asleep and unconscious are part of Nonpersistent, not Luck-based.) It makes sense to me that grabs wouldn't usually be an issue, b/c if they were, then Luck-based would be be Restrainable plus more, at the cost of Restrainable. So...what else is there? I don't think Combat Luck was designed, e.g., to protect a character who is strapped to a table and then shot in the center of the chest point blank. I think if you want something that works there, you should get Armor, or for that matter Luck, which might make the gun jam or something. From the general idea of Combat Luck - e.g., Batman and Daredevil's ability to dodge bullets all day - I'm inclined to apply Combat Luck wherever the character's DCV is an issue. I would also apply it to AOE attacks, because otherwise -1/2 would be too small, and Combat Luck would be too limited. I don't have a great sfx justification for it in AOE situations, but I guess it's something like finding a bit of cover or something. So..."attacks where DCV is an issue, and AOE attacks" works for me...I think...

Re: combat luck when grabbed I think that was a Shakespearean aside. OK...now I've got another one. (I hate making sfx-based calls!) Uncontrolled Continuous (fire) EB. Assume that there's no question that the Combat Luck would apply if the attack were not Continuous - just missed him, blah, blah. I ruled that the Combat Luck applied to the first hit, just cuz. But now he's on fire, by the sfx, and the sfx are particularly important here, since the sfx tell you how to stop the Uncontrolled fire - extinguish in the usual ways. I saw this as an easy call for Combat Luck not applying, but the player suggested that the same thing that had protected him from the first hit (say, "only your jacket is burning") would protect him from the later hits. Of course, the nature of fire is that if you start with your clothes burning, well, things progress. Thoughts? I'm definitely going to discourage Combat Luck in the future. I don't like mechanic generally, and I hate making calls like these.

Re: combat luck when grabbed Dunno - I'd say he's got an awful lot of BOD along with whatever combat luck. "Dodge Well" probably wouldn't be as catchy a name.

Re: combat luck when grabbed Yeah - I'd be more inclined to make the combat luck ineffective against the squeeze. I don't know if my players can take another house rule, but I'm thinking about alternatives: - combat luck charges, each of which can be spent re-rolling a hit or granting an immediate defensive action (e.g., dive for cover) - the ability to obtain the same effect, but only by paying each time with 1 pt. of BOD plus some STUN (you avoided the incendiary grenade, but only with a desperate dive that hurt a bit) - an ability to trade BOD damage for STUN I should probably check that great house rules list.

Re: Question about Combat skill levels and damage (Emphasis mine.) But something bought mainly as damage is not less effective as CV. Via Spread, you give up 1 DC and get 1 OCV. If it cost 2 to get 1 each way, it would make more sense to me. (Hmm...unless you look at it as 1 OCV = .75 or so DC, so that you get penalized whichever way you trade.)

Re: combat luck when grabbed Wow - Steve is on the ball now that he's done writing. He answered my Q in minutes - the default is that combat luck still works when grabbed.

I don't think anything relevant changed in 6e, but if it did, please consider this a 5e question: Does Combat Luck work when the character is grabbed? It's not a listed exception in the rules, but it doesn't seem like that list is exhaustive. I'm hoping that the answer isn't sfx dependent, but FYI, it's a TK grab, w/o any special adders, and it's an evasion-type Combat Luck. Thanks.

Re: combat luck when grabbed It sounds like you would still apply it, but FYI, in this case the bigger issue by far is the attacks after the grab & squeeze.

Re: combat luck when grabbed I'm really not a big fan of the mechanic, though I think there needs to be something there to fit Batman, etc. I don't like the idea of having any portion of it be automatic, so that you're guaranteed bulletproof in those circumstances - that just raises all of the questions about 2x Piercing and AoE and stuff. Maybe in the future I'll just make it entirely roll-based, with results ranging from a total miss to limited damage. That seems to be what you're saying, but I'll have to read it over a few times. As applied to this situation, the player might use the luck to avoid the grab in the first place. It could act like an extra action for use only for defensive action, which is of course very close to the sfx.