KA.

Re: Metamorphosis Just kidding Phil, and I actually do agree with what you posted. KA.

Re: Metamorphosis Did you guys hear anything? I thought someone said something. Anyway, Here is what I think: SS is not a sense-affecting power. It is a Body Affecting power. Defining it by sense groups is almost as bad an idea as defining other powers that way. What is an Energy Blast had to be defined by the senses it affects? Well, you can see fire, you can hear fire, and you can feel fire, so a Fire EB has to be bought to affect Sight, Hearing, and Touch (oh, and probably smell, too). Then we just handwave the part about doing damage to the target. That's exactly the approach Steve used here. You can see an orange, you can smell an orange, you can touch an orange. Therefore, you buy Shapeshift: Orange to affect Sight, Smell, and Touch. Then we just handwave the part about actually changing shape. And yes, SS *does* actually change your shape. It's not "fooling" any senses. You sense a different shape, because there actually is a different shape. I'm surprised no one posted something like this before. KA.

Re: Metamorphosis I really don't know. I posted a couple of times earlier in the thread, but I have mixed feelings. It sounds like 5ER actually allowed that with the right combination of Adders you could achieve what the 4th Ed Shapeshift did. The problem is, it still sounds like there is enough difference of opinion about what the rules 'really' mean, that someone would have trouble building a Shapeshifter that could move from one GM to another. I know there are always some considerations there, but this topic seems like it isn't really hashed out yet. I think my major sticking point is the individual sense adders. It makes this power 'feel' more like Invisibility or Images, rather than something that actually changes your character into something else. Even the "cellular" adder just seems to imply that you can 'fool' a higher degree of inspection, not that you really 'changed'. If Multiform is the only book-legal way to go, (which is pretty goofy when there is a power called Shapeshift) then I think we need to have an Official Adder/Limitation/Option. I was thinking along the lines of something like: "Unlimited Forms. All forms have the same Basic point distribution." Which means that you could turn into anything you wanted, but you could not redistribute the points. So you could be Bob, or Bob the Chair, or Bob the Puma, or Bob the Broom, but you would have the same character sheet as Bob. If Bob has: STR 10 DEX 15 CON 15 Then Bob the Puma does not get to have: STR 30 DEX 25 CON 20 However, to allow for things like turning into a Fish, or Bird, you could allow Bob to have a Small VPP, so that he could get minor things like a little Flight or Life Support appropriate to his new form. The VPP would be Limited by something like "Only Powers Appropriate to Form" and have some kind of hard limit on the points you could put into it. I am not saying this is a great solution, it is just the first thing I have come up with. I would really rather see the Current Shapeshift renamed as Illusionary Form or something like that, and have an actual Shapeshift power, but I don't see that happening. KA.

Re: Infinite Crisis For those of us who aren't going to buy this, how about some details? Or is there already a "spoiler" thread going somewhere? KA.

Re: Metamorphosis Believe it or not, I am still working on it, bit by bit (literally). I had some real-world interruptions along the way, but it will eventually see daylight. Of course, the Internet may be in 3-D Holographic form by then, but I refuse to give up on it. KA.

Re: Gadgeteering query Glad we helped. Actually, I am glad that someone helped. I don't know if I was one of the ones who did the helping or not. But I am glad that the helping was done. So speaks Mojo Jojo! KA.

Re: Metamorphosis

Re: Gadgeteering query Sorry, I was 'rolling'. Actually, while I didn't mean to exaggerate too much, it sounded like the original poster had already tried to explain to the Player in question why this was not a good idea, so I thought some more pointed arguments might be helpful. But, again, I would not want to discourage the Player's good intentions. Just the way they were trying to carry them out. KA.

Re: Gadgeteering query The way I read the Gadget pool rules, this is exactly what you are NOT supposed to do with a Gadget pool. But, I understand that what you need is a good way to explain it to your player. Reason 1: Bad for the team in the long run. According to the rules as I read them, if you make something with your Gadget pool and hand it over to a friend, then those points are locked-up until you get the item back. Which means that it would not take long to use up your entire pool. You make a Blast Cannon for your friend the Martial Artist. You go out on a mission. Despite the mighty Blast Cannon, he gets captured. You go back to the Base to try to come up with some Gadget to rescue him, but most of your points are still locked up in the Blast Cannon. After a while, you could eventually find yourself in the horrifying position of being a Gadgeteer with no Gadget points who is expected to rescue the entire team! Reason 2: Bad for your character. I know that points aren't currency, but let's think of them that way for a minute. Four Friends, Ann, Bob, Carol, and Dan are going to lunch. They each have 20 dollars. Ann is go generous that she gives $5 each to Bob, Carol, and Dan. Now Bob, Carol, and Dan want to go to a restaurant that costs $25, and poor Ann can't go, because she only has $5 left! That is basically what is going to happen in the campaign. Everyone starts out with 350 Character Points. Gadget Girl is going to reduce her Gadget Pool by giving free Powers to her Friends. Assuming a 100 pt Pool, she can quickly go through the available points by handing stuff out to her friends. Let's say she has Four Teammates and gives out items averaging 25 AP to each. Now, her friends are basically 375 point characters, because they are 350 point characters which have an added 25 points of stuff. She is now a 225 Point character (If her Gadget Pool cost her 125 points overall) because she no longer has access to her Gadget Points, since she gave them away. Now, her buffed up Teammates are going to be taking on 375 point villains. Which means she may as well stay home at the base or constantly dive for cover, because if one of those villains lands a solid hit on her, she may very well die. Now, of course, I am way over-simplifying the actual in-game value of points. If she put the rest of her points in Defenses, she might be able to withstand anything the villains could dish out, but the main point is, she is basically elevating her friends into a class that she can not really compete in. If she wants to be a totally self-sacrificing character that only exists to bolster the heroes, then she is more of an NPC than a PC. It would be a bit rude, but you could tell her you are just going to divide her character's points among the other players, and then her character can just cease to exist. I understand that a gadgeteer is a perfectly okay concept, but they are based on using their gadgets themselves, not being a hardware store for their friends. And if you allow her to just give foci away without it reducing her own gadget pool, then you may as well just give the rest of the players an extra 50-100 XP and let them spend it, with the 'SFX' being 'gadgets', because that is what you would be doing in the long run. At which point you again end up in the situation of having to create villains that will easily destroy the original player. I do not mean this as a slam against the player, because it sounds like she just wants to help her team, which is a good sentiment, but your job as GM is to keep the game balanced, and this is not going to help. Maybe you need to find other ways to make her feel like her abilities are helping the team. Have her be the one to find the cure for the mysterious illness affecting her teammates. Have her be the one to design the base. Let her spend some points building a Team Vehicle. Find ways for her to contribute that don't involve handing free points to the other players. KA.

Re: How do i Represent a Taunting skill? Not to be snarky, because I am just as guilty of forgetting this as anyone else, but there is always that role-playing thing I have heard about. You know, the part of the game that isn't expressly covered by the rules, where the characters are supposed to interact based on their personality and motivations? I am just saying that I am not really sure I would want this to be reduced to a Skill Roll in my game. Taunting is a fine art. For one thing, Spiderman doesn't get away with it all the time, even though he is the acknowledged master of it. He has to start out with basic schoolyard stuff: Make some goofy name out of opponent's name. "Hey Dr. Doofus!" Insult obvious physical stuff. "Hey Vulture, are you getting balder or did you polish your head?" Generic Insults: "You would think that someone with your brains could manage to cure his own bad breath." But, on some opponents, it basically has no effect. Or, he has to spend several encounters getting to know what works on a given Villain. In general I think this is more of a roleplaying thing. Based on: 1) Your character's personality. Is he a smart-aleck or not? 2) Your opponent's personality. Unless he has some appropriate Psych Lims or low INT or EGO, a well-run supervillain will not risk failing to achieve his goal and go chasing after someone who is not causing a problem, just because he was called a "stupid-head". 3) The situation. If Electro is robbing a bank because he is just plain bored, he might be drawn into acting stupidly by taunting. If he is trying to steal money to pay for his girlfriend's medical care, he may just do what he needs to do and leave. I just think this is a great role-playing opportunity for the overall campaign and I would not rush into reducing it down to a skill-roll. KA.

Re: Metamorphosis I just wanted to say that I don't own 5ER, and that if this has been changed in the current rules to allow for the previous version of Shapeshift then I am okay with it. KA.

Re: Metamorphosis Several people, including me, have specifically pointed out that we are NOT looking for extra powers from Shapeshift. We would just like to have a power that lets you actually change form, rather than let you pretend to change form, or fool others into thinking you changed your form. What if a character already has Flight, and uses the amount of Flight that they already bought, but wants to actually become a bird in the "Eat worms and Lay Eggs" sense? It is now, but it didn't used to be. Shapeshift, in previous editions, allowed you to actually become something else. From Champions III (c. 1984) : Shape Shift This power allows a character to change his outer form, but not change his Powers or other abilities. Here is a Summary of the cost Base 15 points to change form, look, and color. +10 points to change into other living things. +15 points to change into non-living things. +15 point to increase/decrease mass (each level allows you to increase/reduce mass, you can buy multiple levels). Decreasing one level gets you +2 DCV, +3 Knockback, 1/2 size, and 1/8 mass. Increasing one level gets you -2 DCV, +1 OCV HTH, -3 Knockback, x2 size, x8 mass. Which means that if you wanted a fairly wide range of things you could turn into, you could be spending: 15 +10 +15 +45 (three levels of reduce/increase) ---- 85 points total. Wow, players could really 'fool' the GM by buying this power instead of 15" of Flight, which costs, what 15 points? In 4th Ed. you had to buy Growth and Shrinking and DI separately, which is okay since the cost was the same. The point is, Shapeshift used to be "turn into many different things without getting their powers or abilities". Which is all many of us seem to be asking for. It wasn't "fool other people into thinking you were something else". I don't think anyone is looking for that. But you bring up a good reference. DnD used to make a distinction between Magic that actually changed things and Illusion that just made things look different. That is exactly what we are talking about here. Not "Can I make people think I am a frog?" but "Can I turn into a frog?" And the question is definitely not "Is there a cheap way for me to cheat the GM and get Superleap for free?" You may have encountered players that wanted to do just that, but to imply that everyone who sees this differently is trying to get away with something is insulting. Again, No! What we want is what we had. The ability to actually change form, without gaining any powers, but in a real sense. How would you propose we buy these Multiforms, anyway? Since we are not asking for any additional Powers or Abilities that the base character does not already possess, how much should each one cost? Let's try an example: Multiman Val Char Cost 20 STR 10 20 DEX 30 20 CON 20 15 BODY 10 15 INT 5 20 EGO 20 20 PRE 10 16 COM 3 4/15 PD 0 4/15 ED 0 4 SPD 10 8 REC 0 40 END 0 35 STUN 0 15" RUN 18 10" SWIM 8 10" LEAP 6 Characteristics Cost: 150 Cost Power END 33 Armor (11 PD/11 ED) 0 50 Energy Blast 10d6 5 30 Flight 15" 3 75 Multiform (275 Character Points in the most expensive form) (Instant Change, x8 Number Of Forms) 0 Powers Cost: 188 Cost Skill 3 Acrobatics 13- 3 Climbing 13- 3 Electronics 12- 3 Stealth 13- Skills Cost: 12 Total Character Cost: 350 Base Points: 200 Experience Required: 150 Total Experience Available: 0 Experience Unspent: 0 Is it actually worth 75 Points just to be able to turn into another character that is exactly the same in powers and abilites but has the physical form of a frog? Also, note that the build above allows for only 8 forms. You could barely even call that a shapeshifter. If you wanted to be a true shapeshifter, you would spend 100 points if you wanted to be able to turn into 256 'different' forms. All with the exact same abilities and powers you started with. KA.

Re: Metamorphosis If you make the sound of a tree falling and there is no one there to hear you, did you really Shape Shift? I am part of the "Think the current way is fine for an 'illusion', but I would like there to be a real Shape Shift." group. There is just something that bothers me about the current rules. Imagine if there were a rule that all Superstrength had to actually be a form of No-range, must-touch-item, Telekinesis? Player : "I want to be able to lift 100 tons." GM : "No problem, just buy the TK STR, and you can do it." Player : "No, I mean I want my character to be able to do that with his own muscles. Not with his mind. I don't mind paying the exact same points for it. I don't even mind paying more points for it. I just want to do it with my own physical strength, not some form of TK." GM : "Well. You can buy the TK STR, and add a few points of COM, saying that you look really muscular." Player : "But . . ." GM : "Or you could buy a Multiform, where you change into a giant gorilla that is really strong from Growth!" Player : "But, I . . ." GM : "Or you could buy Flight, Useable as Attack, and use that power to make things lift up in the air!" Player : "Arrrrrgh! Never mind! I'll just play a wolverine clone again!" What difference does it make? Because if I want to play an actual ShapeShifting character, as opposed to some kind of Illusionist, I want to actually turn into things. And if the things I want to turn into don't have any actual powers that I don't already possess, I should not have to buy a Multiform to do it. I do not think that ShapeShift should give you something for nothing. But I do think there should be a power like ShapeShift where you actually turn into things instead of just fooling other people into thinking you turned into something. Anything else just feels like being a Furry. Here is an example: A goat can eat a tin can. A human, if they were careful, and really wanted to, could probably eat a tin can too. But a human wouldn't. There is no in-game advantage to eating a tin can, as far as I know. But if a ShapeShifting character actually turned into a goat, they could eat one. If I was playing a character that was just good at pretending to be a goat, even if that pretense could fool everyone else, I still would not eat a tin can. Because people don't do that, even if they have a convincing goat-suit on. Another example: Let's say that for some unknown reason, the future of the world depended on someone having 'relations' with a female dog. (I don't know why! Maybe it is Assistant Editor Month at Marvel and there is some lonely female dog that wants puppies and she manages to get ahold of The Ultimate Nullifier!) If you had a shapeshifting character that could actually become a dog, things could work out. If you had a character that was just good at pretending to be a dog, it would seem like beastiality. I know that it may seem like silly semantics, but I just wish there was an actual 'turn into things' power in the game. And I don't mean Multiform! If someone wants to play a Shapeshifter, they should not have to buy 3000 different forms just to be able to actually turn into: Ann the Receptionist Bob the Plumber Charlie the Carpenter Donna the Dishwasher Ellen the Electrician etc. etc. etc. if they already possess the proper skills and powers to do what those people do! I understand that you should not get POWERS for free, but as it stands you may as well just cast Darkness to all senses and pretend to yourself that you turned into something else. KA.

Re: Steering A New Player Towards The Superheroic Sorry for quoting myself, but here is something I posted to a thread about starting a new campaign. Some of the points apply more to a Wolverine type, but the basic idea is still sound. If a player wants a character that does not "fit in" with the group, then what are they doing in the group? If you get the player to come up with his own strong motivations that cause his character to want to be part of the group and play by their rules, you should not have as much in-game conflict, just good role-playing opportunities. 5) The Inevitable "Loner" Anyone who, during the creation process, starts down the "moody psychotic loner" path, should be asked: a) Why is your character on this team? What does it mean to him? Since he hates all authority figures and won't work with anyone, what in his personality is so overwhelming that he puts up with being on a team? Why did he join in the first place? Expect this to come up in play, often. When your character wants to stalk off into the night, there should be a hook that pulls him back before he is out the door. What is it? Because I am not going to run an individual campaign for you while everyone else sits around and stares at the wall for three hours. You can have that "type" of personality, but there must be a strong reason why, even though you don't like it, you stay with the team and follow orders. Otherwise, come up with a concept that is more of a team player. Why would the other team members put up with you? If you are such a foul-tempered, uncontrollable, individualist, why would rational people with powers of their own put up with your crap? Are you just crusty on the outside, with a "heart of gold"? Do you bravely throw your body in the way of attacks that might kill other team members? Are you the guy who "will not leave a team-mate behind" even if you die in the rescue attempt? Why weren't you kicked off the team the first time you opened your mouth? The other players aren't going to come up with reasons to put up with you, you have to come up with reasons you are worth putting up with, and then make sure you live up to them! You will find the rest of the thread here, and it contains some pretty good information: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=562514 KA.

Re: Old Soldier. What? He doesn't have Hawkeye Pierce as a Contact? Actually I wanted to chime in on the CVK question. One of the characters in my campaign is an ex-Special Forces guy with a very strong CVK. Why? During one of his assignments he ended up killing a person that he thought was a sniper. Actually it was a young girl who was trying to protect herself from bandits that had killed her family. (It was a set-up. He didn't just blindly do it without orders, but he did do it.) After he realized what he had done he knew that he could never take another human life. He ended up going AWOL, and leaving the military once and for all. (Well, he would have had to anyway. Like I said, he was being set up.) Anyway, just putting forth the idea that it would not be impossible for a former soldier to have a CVK. It all depends on what he went through in the war. Not that he has to be some kind of hippy peacenik. He might just prefer punching someone in the face to shooting them. KA.

Re: Wanted! Sorry to keep picking at this, but I actually find this conversation interesting. I think Trencher may have hit upon the problem, it is sort of a cross-genre thing. In an action movie, I expect the Hero to run through a hail of bullets without a scratch, because that is what happens in action movies. If the hero got gunned down in the first reel and the rest of the film was spent showing the endless suffering of those he failed to save, it would not be in genre. That is okay. Everything does not have to be in genre. But, if you start out in a genre, and then throw away the basic premises of that genre without any explanation of how this happened, then it makes no sense. For example: If you wanted to make an "action" movie about a rookie cop who goes out on his first patrol, tries some dangerous stunt like leaping from rooftop to rooftop, and dies in the process, no problem. You could then examine all sorts of issues like myth vs. reality, the irresponsibility of foolish heroics, etc. But, if you make an action movie about a character like Dirty Harry, who has supposedly been in hundreds of gunfights over the years and is still alive and well, having him get taken out by a stray bullet in the first reel makes no sense. The pre-existing world is built on the idea that Dirty Harry does not get taken out by a stray bullet, because if he did, he would have died a long time ago. If you set up a world with a bunch of non-bulletproof supers (heroes or villains) who have presumably been shot at by police, criminals, panicky shopkeepers, etc., and not been harmed, and then say that someone just picks up a gun and starts killing them with it, it makes no sense. You could even set up a situation where the first generation of supers were all bulletproof, so everyone just gave up on even trying to shoot them, and that the current generation actually can be killed by bullets, but no one has ever bothered to try. I guess it is the lack of internal consistency that bothers me. On the other hand, I haven't even read it, so I don't really care all that much about the work itself. I just like having an intelligent conversation with someone, that makes me think about what my position is, and why I believe it. Thanks, KA.

Re: Wanted!

Re: Wanted! First, I never read this and it doesn't sound like my sort of thing, but that isn't what I was going to comment on. However, in a world where there are no bulletproof superheroes, how would there be any superheroes at all? I mean, did the regular criminals of this place never try shooting them? As far as the "one special place", over the course of a career most superheroes have probably taken a bullet to every square inch of their body, it seems like someone would have lucked into it by now. Sorry for the interruption, it just sounds a bit silly. KA.

Re: Need help with my PC Greywolf2001ca, Welcome to the boards. I hope that your reception did not seem too rude. To put it in context, imagine if you walked into a busy law office and loudly demanded to know if a contract you had written was "legal", and should your neighbor sign it. The contract was a lease that allowed you to rent your next-door neighbor's back yard for your own personal use. You did not have a written copy of the contract, you just had a few basic things written down with a lot of details left out. Instead you went on for about an hour about how you wanted to use the yard to build some things or maybe sell stuff, or maybe have some sort of dance club, or maybe have all three at the same time. Any lawyer in his right mind would not tell you if your contract was legal without actually seeing it written. He would have to know all the details of how long you were going to lease the property, what the rent was going to be, what the other terms of the lease were, and most of all, exactly what you planned to do on the property. "Building things" could mean anything from making your own bookends to making your own explosives. "Selling stuff" could mean selling anything from strawberry jam to crack cocaine. And operating a dance club involves all sorts of safety and fire regulations, liquor licenses, permits, etc. And the final implied question of whether or not your neighbor should sign it, asks for an opinion that no ethical lawyer would give without knowing every possible detail. When you ask people if your Hero character is legal, you are asking for them to basically agree that if you showed up at their game with that character they would allow you to play it. You may not be trying to do anything "wrong", but you have to understand that people who have played the game a long time have usually had to fight with players at one time or another who were trying to take advantage of the system's flexibility to build characters that would ruin any campaign they appeared in. That is why we may seem hard-headed and defensive to you. Most Hero GM's end up like parents after a while. When we start out, we quickly agree to questions like: "Dad, can I have a few friends over while you and Mom are out of town?" After coming back and finding our house destroyed by a three-day keg party, we are a little more inquisitive when it comes to the details the next time we are asked a question. "Who, exactly, will be coming over?" "What, exactly, will you be doing?" "When, exactly, will they be leaving?" and mainly "Just because I say Danny can come over to watch a PG-13 video and leave at midnight on Friday, it does not mean it is okay for Danny to bring along his three Biker cousins, two kegs of beer, five strippers, and a bag of pot!" You can see the difference, right? When you ask: "Is my character legal?", but refuse to post all the exact numbers, and details about things like what your transfer does, it tends to make people suspicious, even if you aren't up to anything at all. Also, some of your statements make you sound like you might be trying to get away with something. For example: "Oh yeah, my DM says the character is too strong for the campaign he's running, originally, my character had more disadvantages and 8 of speed, but he said that was too strong. I think if he wanted to make super zeroes he should have limited players to 100 pts in disadvantages instead of 150pts lol. What do you think? Oh yeah, I think it's also because all but one player in his group of players have generic unimaginative character that sucks compared to my character lol. But if he wanted weaker characters, why did he give 350 points to build them anyways? A bit dumb don,t you think? If I would make a game in this system and wouldn't want the super heroes to be too strong I would reduce the amount of disadvantages one could have by 50 for example to have character of 300 points instead of 350. Bad DM, lol." Hero is not that simple, because it is so flexible. If you are entering a pinewood derby, and it says that you can use a piece of wood that is "Width: - 2-3/4" - Length - 7" - Weight - Not over 5 Ounces" that does not mean you are allowed to use that piece of wood to club all the other entrants unconscious and thereby win the race by default! Even though the rules may not specifically say that. The reason why Hero depends on the GM so much is that, like a piece of wood, you can do just about anything with the Hero System. Some of the things you can do are unfair to the other players, or can make the game stop being fun to play. The same way that there is no way to anticipate every possible thing that someone can do with a block of wood, there is no way to anticipate every possible thing someone can do with 350 points. You could say that if the Pinewood derby people did not want you to hurt people with the block of wood, they could just specify a smaller block of wood that would not make an effective club. Which would be fine until someone used the smaller piece to make bullets. The thing is, the choice was to either make Hero a game like D20 where every time you want to do something new you have to try to find a new book that has a rule sort of like what you want, or to make Hero very flexible but put the responsiblity for keeping things balanced on the GM and the players. We are all glad that Hero went for the second choice, but some people have trouble doing things that way. If there is not a rule that says it isn't okay to do something, they think they should be able to do it, even if it ruins the game for everyone, including, eventually, themselves. If the people here seem to be taking this way too seriously, it is because most of us have seen campaigns go straight to hell because someone would not back down on wanting to build and play their character the "right" way. Meaning the way that screwed everyone else in the game. We are just trying to head off future problems before that happens, not because we want to push people around, but because we want people to actually enjoy the game. KA.

Re: "Puny Humans" Powers This is a job . . . for a House Rule! How about something like Any weapon bought with the Real Weapon Limitation, (which would include pretty much anything that a Police Officer, Soldier, etc. would be using) cannot do damage to someone whose Resistant PD/ED is Twice or More than the Maximum Body the weapon can do? So, for example, if you use a "real" .38 Special (1d6+1 RKA) on Captain Hero with a RPD of 14 (6 +1 times 2) you just plain can't hurt him. Now if Gunslinger has a weapon that he has bought as a Focus for a 1d6+1 RKA, it may still do STUN damage, just like normal, because it is "special" (as in, it was paid for with points, not bought at the local gun shop), but the normal old .38 that is in the cash drawer is NOT going to Stun a Supervillain. (Or a Superhero under really bad circumstances.) I think this could give you the feel you want without having to add a bunch of stuff to every Super's character sheet. KA.

Re: Always On Limitation: I need a Variant The -1/4 sounds pretty reasonable to me. It is not really a huge disadvantage unless the character in question needs to do things like board airplanes at a moment's notice. Even at the -1/4 you are going to have to do some work to have situations come up in the game often enough to make it worth the points. KA.

Re: Batman Begins Good points, Zornwil, but what about the most distracting thing in the movie . . . The MOLE! http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=753445&postcount=49 KA.

Re: Liefeld's Titans When I ascend to godlike power, I will put Liefeld into the Inflato-Mangler. A machine that will force his body into the shape of one of his drawings, then hold it there so that he can feel what he has been doing to characters all these years. KA.

Re: Is a Jedi reasonable in a Marvel Avengers campaign? Agreed. I know that I responded right after your post, but I wasn't really aiming my response at you. There have been several posters in the thread who seemed to advocate the: "He must be delusional" concept. For me it mostly depends on genre. If someone wanted to play a Jedi in a hard-boiled, Pulp-era, detective campaign, I would say "No!" in a heartbeat. But I have always liked my Superhero stuff to be a bit more fanciful, sort of like a branch of light Science Fiction. When I am faced with something that seems a little too out there, I prefer the Twilight Zone approach. The guy who everyone thinks is crazy is the one who actually the only one who knows what is really going on. The thing I don't like is a lack of internal consistency. If Mega-Girl is a Former native of Kryptopolis, then she is! You don't say, that she is, but then she isn't, but then really she is an angel who wanted to pretend she was from there, but no, actually she is a clone of Mega-Man who was created to destroy him and inplanted with fake memories so she could make friends with him, but really is just a normal girl that everyone else thinks has powers, or maybe a robot . . . That kind of crap drives me nuts! If you can figure out a way that your Jedi somehow found his way into the campaign world, and it makes some sense, then fine. But you can't turn around six weeks later and say, "No, wait, I'm really a space-ninja who pretends to be a Jedi, because The Beyonder challenged The Grandmaster to a . . ." KA.

Re: Is a Jedi reasonable in a Marvel Avengers campaign? I don't see any reason why he has to be delusional, etc. Why not just do a Jedi/Superman homage? At some point in the past/future/far distant corner of the universe (wherever you imagine Star Wars as occurring), a small group of Jedi were afraid that they would be totally wiped out by the Empire/Sith. They took one infant candidate and put him into some type of time/space vehicle and sent him to our world, just to make sure that there would be one person alive with a link to the Light Side of the Force. He grows up during the trip, being taught along the way by something built into the ship. Either a computer, or a Droid if you want that. Because of the huge distance, in space as well as time, there are no other Jedi's , Wookies, Sith, etc, around. Just him. He is a unique individual who, as far as he knows, may be the last link to the Force. They build their own lightsabers anyway. And, if you want him to act like a 'pure' Jedi, no problem. After all, since he has no others to fall back on for advice, he is probably going to be very careful about anything that would lead him to the Dark Side. KA.