Mr Reasonable

Re: EC's cannot have non-END powers!!!! I am inclined to wonder why ECs cannot have powers that do not inherently cost END too, given that the decision to charge END is somewhat arbitrary anyway; I'm not really discerning a pattern. I can't, for instance, have Aid in my fire EC to allow me to increase an existing fire, but I can have an EB or RKA that creates one. In any event it is an injunction that is easy enough to get around; 'costs END to activate': I have damage reduction that costs END to activate to simulate me having a rubber body that I, for some reason, have to switch on. It makes the power visible and non-persistent, but in superhero games - where ECs are most often used - it will be obvious you've got massive defences after the first time you are hit andway. I think the problem that some people have with the rule, myself occasionally included, is that it doesn't really make sense in some situations. I could see a lot more sense to it if all powers in an EC had to be visible in use and share the same sfx; the real disadvantage of an EC to me is that, once it becomes obvious to an opponent that your powers all come from a single source, they can hit you with a devastating drain, or work out some appropriate tactic; fire powers should, presumably, be dampened by an attack based on vacuum, or water. The rule is there, I think, to try and balance the usefulness of ECs - but to my mind if an EC is taken because it is in-concept, rather than because it is a cheap way to get a powerful character, then balance should be very much a background issue, because a properly thought through concept should create a high degree of balance anyway. To the original issue here, Fitzerific is concerned that you can't build an armoured hero with an EC containing life support, armour and characteristics. If I was running a game then i'd have no real problem with that, so long as the player could explain why it is that there things are linked (in the non-Hero sense), and draining one drains the rest. It doesn't make much sense to me that an armoured suit, for example, could have its armour drained in the same way as its strength, and draining LS is always problematic: if I have 45 points in LS and 15 points are drained does that have no effect (until all the points are gone) or have I lost my self contained breathing and immunity to heat, cold and high pressure? The way I visualise an EC is that it is a single power that has a lot of different uses. A lot of 'brick' concepts simply don't fit for me, and a lot of power armour concepts just seem daft in context, but some do work, and I can't see any good reason why the controlling factor should be END use. Of course that is my own take on ECs and how I like to play them and see them played, but it does pick up on, what to me is the single most important thing about ECs - the powers in an EC have to be related by common special effects. This might explain some of the logic of the rule - all powers in an EC have to have sfx - and therefore have to be visible - but it still does not explain the requirement to cost END. Of course Hero sfx require a visual component, and I can see why that is often important for ECs - if your powers were not obvious then it might be hard for an opponent to work out that they are in an EC and so you get additional utility from it. I can see that. It seems perfectly reasonable.

Here's something for you to consider. In a given campaign you can have a number of specific origin types. You could, for instance, have mutants, aliens, magical creatures, undead, highly trained humans and super science. One thing that always niggles me a little about Hero is the lack of consistency; magical creatures should have some things in common - perhaps they cannot pass magical barriers (even if they should be strong enough to break through) and can be banished (at least temporarily) by a dispel (summon). Mutants might all be light sensitive and have white eyes. The details are up to the GM. Now, the idea is simply this; create a set of parameters for each origin. This might include both in-game effects (all undead are susceptible to direct sun light, perhaps) and meta-game effects (highly trained humans cannot exceed 8DC of damage unless they purchase a focus, for example). Each new character is required to specify their campaign origin, and they take a 50 point disadvantage. This reflects the limitations that the character has both in build and play, which will be in part at least, game world knowledge - an opponent with the right KS who realises you are an alien will know that you are vulnerable to cold attacks, for example. Ideally all origins should be balanced to 50 points, but they could vary if that proved impractical. Disadvantages are rarely precisely point balanced anyway; this is basically a disadvantage package deal. This won't work for every campaign, but it might well inject a little structure into some games which will provide a framework for building characters, and also allow the players to make certain assumptions about characters they meet. It could be a lot of work to set up, and some people will rail against the restrictions on their liberty.

Re: Special Effects vs Rules I'd have thought that fire could be damaged like anything else. It probably has desolidification (vulnerable to water and vacuum) or 3/4 ph and en damage reduction against everything but water and vacuum attacks. As something you encounter in game, fire is an object just like a table or a vault door. Hit it hard enough or with the right sort of thing and you will destroy it. That gets rid of the rather artificial assumption that you need to drain some things. Sure drain works, but normal attacks should too, if of an appropriate nature. As for the entangle I think it does prevent movement (except teleport) but I would certainly allow movement powers to add to strength (as in the rules for flight adding to strength) for breakouts if the movement was not bought as restrainable. That sounds reasonable.

Re: this power Subject to GM approval in your individual game, I would allow you to take running with a custom advantage 'can be used in 3 dimensions'. A bit like 'second mode of movement' but slightly more useful and so slightly more expensive. I would charge you +1/2. It has the advantage of being reasonably straightforward: use the rules for running, but you can also move up at 1" per 2" used. It gets rid of the over complex patching you would otherwise need to do to take into account turn mode and KBR and whatever else you might have missed. On the face of it a second mode of movement with no turn mode whilst in the air and no increased KB is worth more than +1/2, but anything more seems simply too expensive. Whilst you specify that the character can fight in the air as if it were solid ground, there is no apparent suggestion that they stay up there if knocked out or stunned. If the character can then '0 END/persistent' and possibly as trigger on at least some of the movement should suffice to manage the effect. As a matter of personal preference, as it seems very much like a signature power, I would probably also include 'difficult to dispel'.

Re: Enhanced Drain Recovery Regeneration that affected all characteristics and powers below normal (including STUN and BODY) reduced by damage would costs 15 points per point. I've allowed people to buy 'increased drain recovery' at 1 point for 2cp like 'normal' REC before and not found it too unbalancing: It still tends to be cheaper/more efficient to buy power def!

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER Mutually Assured Destruction: heard of it? I mean that is a lot of squirrels, and they've got to eat something....

Re: Answers & Questions Q: If Crackerjack is on in 5 minutes, what time is it? A: There were three of them, a rounded one, one with a bend in the middle and a really strange looking one that needed batteries.

Re: Terminal Velocity You're quite right about there being an alternative in place but it is not quite the same as inches per turn/campaign average speed (CAS)(or a fixed divisor, say 4 or 5). The alternative sysytem in Hero as it stands doesn't differentiate, for example, between velocity damage for move throughs and move bys, whereas if you used your inches per turn/5 or whatever then you would be making it fairer on the speedsters, and could still use the normal calculation formula for damage. The Hero alternative system results in lower average damage for move through and higher for move by maneuvres for most characters. If you do use either system though, be aware that you will be reducing the damage most bricks do with move throughs and move bys as, and increasing the damage speedsters do - you will be making speed more useful and movement marginally less useful. To keep the post on track, the Hero alternative system suggests that the falling damage for someone on normal weight at terminal velocity should be 22d6 NOT 30d6. That will doubtless please some and not others...but it is still enough to kill a normal human outright on an average roll, which could be seen as a sort of benchmark.

Re: Weak/Fast tunneling?

Re: Terminal Velocity I like the entangle idea - it is far better than trying to do it with monkey mechanics. not sure you should have NND, which is an advantage, you should have a limitation - escapable by flight (you can already teleport out of entangles. Vs DEX not STR would definitely be an advantage, and it doesn't need to be continuous as entangle, whilst instant, doesn't go away if not maintained. As for the damage, the only legitimate way you can do it is to buy 30d6 of EB: you can't really rely on actually building up velocity - that would be meta gaming, surely. Darned expensive power. Cool effect but not worth it, and probably wouldn't be allowed in most games anyway. I'd want you to build it as a UAA teleport and you can teleport them straight up as high as you can afford to pay points for. No where near as deadly, as you won't be able to afford 105" straight up. I think terriblyuncreat got it pretty much right from the start and I for one have been ignoring him, so I think I'll rep him for reminding me of what I'm doing here. Cheers.

Re: Terminal Velocity The problem with 'just' teleport is that to get to terminal velocity you'd have to start a long way off the ground or have at least 58 inches of teleport: don't forget you fall between teleports. If the GM allows you to do it with a teleport gate with the exit above the entrance, more fool him or her. It would probably need to be pretty big to stop you grabbing onto the sides. Of course if the GM lets you get away with putting the exit over the entrance, what is to stop you putting them so close together that the poor schmuck will never get out? Or you could use munchkinscale....

Re: Breeding true...

Re: Hardened vs. AP A fair point, so long as the argument doesn't spread to reducing the cost of indirect and penetrating too, and advocates of those advantages might want to know why it is just armour piercing that gets the cost break... I can't really think of a good reason to buy multiple levels of AP anyway in most cases in the same way that I coud see a reason to do so with penetrating so that you can apply it to a small attack and guarantee some damage. Applied to 1 pip killing attack, at a cost of 5 points you can add six levels of penetrating and still only be paying 20 points on the current cost structure and that will go through anything. Perhaps we should all be buying six levels of hardening for the first five points of our force fields to head this off? It would fit neatly into adefensive multipower....

Re: Hardened vs. AP Tried Borg shields? 30 Multipower 30 point pool 6 m 30 pd force field 6 m 30 ed force field Total cost 42 points. Or, for a really abusive yet perfectly legal construct: 30 Multipower 30 point pool 1 u 15pd force field 1 u 15ed force field 1 u 10pd armour 1 u 10ed armour Total cost 34 (and you have more types of defence to use in case of NNDs.) Then you can tune your defences to the situation. Of course for the same cost you could have had a 21/21 force field (or a 17/17 using the abusive construct) - better against a balanced bevy of foes, but against foes who don't know what you are up to (naturally both flavours of FF have the same sfx), or a single foes that relies on a single type of attack, quite a cheap way of getting extra utility out of your defences: everything is a trade off. The other thing you can do with Borg Shields is have slots (not necessarily at full pool cost) for Flash Defence, Lack of Weakness, Power Defence and Mental Defence, so you can tune your defences to pretty much anything thrown at you. To make them cheaper, make them fixed slots as you'll either need them or not. ...extra slots 1 15 points of Lack of Weakness 2 25 points of Power Defence 1 15 points of Flash Defence 2 25 points of Mental Defence Total cost with new slots: 48 (or 40 using the ultra-abusive construct) points. To cap it all, have a couple of ultra slots with hardened defences like so: 1 10 points of hardened pd force field 1 10 points of hardened ed force field ...which should deal with penetrating and (to an extent) armour piercing attacks. Makes you wonder why you don't see more defensive MPs, doesn't it? On the hardening point if you do decrease the cost of + 1 level of armour piercing to +1/4 after the first, shouldn't you get two extra levels of hardening per +1/4 so the costs still balance?