CTaylor

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace Nope, you simply roll against what they hit, it doesn't matter what the subtraction is. He rolls to hit, you have to hit what he did. The location is irrelevant. I think the problem is I tend to look at the effect of locations backward compared to most. I add the modifier to the DCV of the target. So trying to hit a DCV 5 target in the head = DCV 13. Thusly: Bob announces an attack Joe announces a block Bob targets Bob's head. He rolls to hit Joe's DCV of 5, (with a -8 adjustment for the head) and he hits the 13 DCV! Joe has to roll to hit a 13 DCV to block that attack.

Re: What rule don't people know? Thanks, guys! I'm still gonna stick with the stunned and KO'd rule: represents a really colossal hit that takes longer to wake up from.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace What I mean is it doesn't matter if they are attacking hit locations or not, they have to roll well to hit the location, that's no different than rolling well to hit you just any place: both are equally difficult to block.

Re: What rule don't people know? correct, I wrote that poorly; you can sweep any attack and haymaker any attack, they are like exclusive maneuver addons - the way I wrote it it sounded like you can do both. Hmm, can't find anywhere in the rules that specifies this but its probably there: its a house rule for me then Related: a stun drain or suppress can stun you if it exceeds your CON in one roll. Another oddity: Suppress with continuous bought on it builds up each phase, suppressing more each time (at least it did in the first printing of the big black book)

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace Yes. And against hit locations there's no change, if they roll well to hit, they roll well to hit. Against autofire it works like this in the rules: if you make your block roll, you block one attack of the autofire. For each 2 you make the roll by, you block 1 more. I've not had it come up in the game with the changed block rules, and I'm not sure at this point. At present I'm inclined to have you block as many hits as you managed to roll the block roll against. For example: The speedster announces an attack The Dragon announces a block Speedster rolls to hit with his blur attack, an autofire hand to hand attack. He rolls well enough to hit The Dragon's considerable DCV (9), and 4 over it for 3 total attacks. The Dragon rolls to block, and hits a DCV of 11. That means he blocks the original hit (9 OCV) and 1 more hit (+2).

Re: What rule don't people know? That you can sweep and haymaker any attack - even ranged attacks, somehow. That you can make as many attacks as you have attack powers. That you can be both stunned and knocked out with the same blow - and have to recover from being stunned first.

Re: Bag of Holding...How Would You Do It? I just built it as a focus, not a vehicle. It has Defense and Body like everything else does except the extremely rare indestructible items in the game - ones I wouldn't allow PCs to make.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace The thing is, it's not based on his hearing. I specifically am thinking of an issue in the 200s where his radar sense was jammed because the boat captain turned on their radar and he was overwhelmed, it stopped working. Daredevil then had to rely on his hearing to spot the bad guys. It's what the writers say it is.

Re: Bag of Holding...How Would You Do It? I build it as a shrinking device: put things in, it shrinks on others.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace It's whatever the writer says it is. Sometimes it's more like radar, sometimes its more like sonar, sometimes it's something else. Right, what he said. When someone rolls to hit me, I have to beat what they hit to block them. Here's an example: Orc attacks warrior, warrior aborts to block Orc rolls to hit, and hits a 9 DCV Warrior tries to block, to succeed he must now hit a 9 or better DCV. Been using this system for years and it works great.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace While I understand your logic with this, the game already treats PCs differently than Hexes. If you want to hit a prone, unconscious, unmoving PC, he's DCV 0. An entire Hex is DCV 3. So the change to Shrinking need not mean a change to mechanics elsewhere. That said, I wouldn't oppose such changes - the hit locations for example are absurdly restrictive. Lets say you and I get into a fight. How many times out of 10 do you think I could hit you in the head? Not with you blocking me, but with you just trying to move your head out of the way? I guarantee it would be more than the present hero system makes feasible.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace Incidentally, while we're talking about Shrinking, I'd change that too, to be more in line with Growth and Density Increase. The present cost structure is an attempt to make it more like Growth: 15 points to double your size. The problem is, it's only 10 points per level of shrinking, which negates that aspect by 1/3rd the cost. It just doesn't fit. In real game terms, becoming half as big just isn't worth 10 points - heck its not worth 5 points - so the power was stacked with bonuses to make it seem worthwhile. Here's what I'd do: dump the growth momentum attack. If you want to hit harder, buy more dice. Then I'd cut the DCV and PER roll bonuses in half: -1 PER to be seen and +1 DCV per level of Shrinking. Then I'd cut the price of shrinking in half, 5 points per level. This would bring the cost of being tiny down to a rational level while not being overpowered. In any case, being half as big is not worth 2 more DCV. Look at how every small, spry creature is built in the rules: lots of Dex. That's why they are hard to hit, not because they are just small.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace Flight's special effect of restrainable wings that look like a hawk's have a minor combat effect of being able to block off sight. That's a pretty different area of rules than being able to have shrinking without buying the power, in my book.

Re: New Mechanic: Grant/Bestow Yeah I'm not real happy with how some advantages are dual use, like armor piercing to ignore levels of hardened. Seems like there should be a "ignores hardened" for +1/4 rather than buying AP over and over. That way you could have an AP/Penetrating attack without being confusing what it's supposed to be doing.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace I think maybe a compromise fix for shape shift would work: cut the sense based cost down considerably and reintroduce the complexity of change rules from BBB. So like 5 for a sense group (targeting) 3 for a sense group (non targeting) and 2 for a single sense, plus 5 for simple, 10 for complex and 15 for any, in addition to number of shapes. I think that would fit better what people have in mind, maybe?

Re: First-aid kit, physicians bag Generally you can get away with just a bonus to paramedic skill like Phill suggests. Think of a med kit as being good tools to use a skill more than a set of powers, although you could put a dispel on poison in it for an antidote.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace I agree overall that the "only vs x special effect" limitation standard in the new edition of -1/2 is too limiting, I tend to make it -1 or more in my games. I tend to look at it in terms of how often you're likely to run into it; even in a game with a lot of fire magic, you'll still be facing guys without fire attacks most of the time. This is the case for any abilities with limitations placed in these frameworks. We could argue that Desolid, for example, should also be on a sliding scale for various limited versions, or that a Hand Attack should cost 3 points per DC, rather than being 5 points per DC and then limited (to pick a common issue in an older edition) so the limitations have more meaning in a framework True, but Hand to Hand attacks have an absolute power: you're actually doing 1D6 more regardless of the limitations on the power. With missile deflection, you're losing real power by not being able to deflect most of the attacks in the game. That's why the active cost for HTA is reasonable at 5 points per D6 but 20 active points to only deflect a spear is a pretty lousy deal.

Re: New Mechanic: Grant/Bestow There are a lot of abilities that you can Aid that seem like new powers. For instance: Life Support has several abilities that seem like new powers. Going without air or food or water or sleep are all increases now rather than new abilities. So you can aid someone to hold their breath longer now, instead of needing an entirely new power: it just lets them extend their existing ability.

Re: resist being stunned by EGO attack with EGO not CON? Sure, Only against Mental attacks not physical can you use your EGO if it's higher, that's the house rule I'll be adding to my game.

Re: resist being stunned by EGO attack with EGO not CON? I'd just treat it like presence attacks: whichever is higher, that's what defends against being stunned. Egoists will tend to use their Ego, others their CON.

Re: New Mechanic: Transformation I don't know, I doubt there's any game that would think taking almost a minute to complete a task that required 20+ attack rolls be successful and not be interrupted or stopped at any time, with the target staying in range. I'd call that a pretty lousy power.

Re: Rules to ignore, or replace You bring up good points, but powers are typically staged to be more expensive based on how much more effective and how much utility they have. With this change you'd have a flat cost for Missile Deflection and the chance to succeed would be the primary change to cost for it's power. That works out OK and I wouldn't throw a fit if it was changed, but my primary objection have to consider active cost in all this. Let's say someone has a Multipower for their martial arts abilities, one of the slots being Missile Deflection. If you put a flat cost on the power, then you'd have to have a Multipower at least of that power, even if he put a hefty limitation on it to reduce the power to only work on arrows, the power still requires that active cost to use. Same deal with power pools. And when you look at limitations, what would the base cost for Missile Deflection be? The present max of 20? How much of a limitation would you allow for someone who can only deflect thrown objects - would it be enough to get it down to the present cost of 5? Most GMs would laugh if a character said his ability to only deflect thrown objects is worth a -3 limitation, but that's what it would take. Yet is it worth more than 5 points to deflect a spear? In effect, what this power does is to give you "built in" limitations to the max level, big enough ones that they fit the utility of the power with cost, and give you a break on active cost. In other words, if the cost levels are problematic for your game, consider the power to be a 20 active cost power with appropriate limitations to narrow what you're able to deflect. Say you want to deflect only bullets, that costs 15, you got the 20 point power with a limitation to make it cost 5 points less.

Re: resist being stunned by EGO attack with EGO not CON? Sure, I'd allow that in my campaign, although I'd let characters use whichever was highest: Ego or CON. Either you shrug off the effects by strength of will or are just that tough.

Re: New Mechanic: Grant/Bestow I can't add much to what Phil has already said. In comparing Aid to UBO, you seem to consider none of the negative aspects of Aid, including the need for multiple attack actions to affect multiple targets (or even to maximize the effect on two targets) and the fade rate. Actually I factored those in later and it still ended up cheaper to Aid someone than use UOO on someone for the same power, with roughly the same utility. I was never interested in an exact comparison, just to make the point that it's more expensive in the rules to give someone an entirely new ability than to Aid them. Which it is. And yes, the rules clearly state you have to stay within x range even without the LOS limitation.

Re: New Mechanic: Grant/Bestow I hope that's a good thing :/