Jump to content

CBikle

HERO Member
  • Posts

    1,344
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CBikle

  1. Re: CHAMPIONS UNIVERSE II - What Do You Want To See?

     

    I like to have good tough NPCs too; the second idiocy that needs to be ignored are those people who essentially say that you give the PCs a blankie and milk and cookies and a teddy bear and no superior NPC heroes in their space, they can't be happy. However, do find to get PCs involved with NPC hero groups that won't make them feel like third rate incompetents next to shiny GM pets.

     

    Normally, I'm firmly in that "Second Idiocy" camp, but I think superior NPC heroes make sense for a book like CU2, especially since I've noticed a LOT of requests for write-ups for the Justice Squadron, et al, so give the people what they want. Or think they want.

  2. Re: Recharging Things?

     

    If he wants to recharge in the field, buy his charges as Recoverable Charges.

     

    Yeah, why not just buy it as a variant of that (but perhaps just -1 level on the charges chart instead of 2, to represent the fact that the charges are a little less recoverable.

  3. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    Perhaps that should mean his CON ought to be increased to the point he can shrug off those attacks you believe he should be able to shrug off. Alternatively' date=' some Damage reduction which only applies to real weapons (or only applies to KA's with certain STUN multiples) would do the trick quite nicely. In other words, I question whether the prolem is that the rules don't work properly, or thatvthe character has not been designed properly. [/quote']

     

    This isn't about one character; a few of the players (including the primary GM, but not me) want a universal rules change where the stun lotto winfall doesn't apply to a character who didn't receive any body damage from an attack, especially in cases where it seems unrealistic.

     

    They don't want to see the powered armor guy stunned/knocked-out from the swashbuckler-guy's rapier HKA that didn't do any body damage.

  4. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    Yet, as noted previously, a human being wearing a bulletproof vest may take not even 1 point of Body damage, but be stunned or even knocked out by the impact. I suggest that is "realism".

     

    While I agree there is a place for a rule which prevents the typical "real weapon" from achieving such extreme results, even there "no BOD = no STUN" seems excessive. Simply imposing a 3x, or 2.5x Multiple on such weapons due to their RW limitation would do the trick.

     

    And who says the Hulk analog should be unfazed by maximum damage from a heavy pistol. A lucky shot, directly to the face, which manages to faze the Hulk for a single segment seems very much in keeping with typical comic book writing. Good luck getting that lucky a second time before the Hulk deals with the matter!

     

    "Puny human! Do not shoot Hulk in eye again, or Hulk will SMASH!"

     

    You're preaching to the choir. I pretty much agree with you here.

  5. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    A Hulk analog...? I wouldn't call someone a Hulk analog unless they had at least a 60 STR and a 60 CON... Along with at least 20 rPD and 20 rED...

     

    A 2d6+1 RKA will do at most 13 Body, and at most 65 Stun... That would get no Body at all through his 20 rPD, and 33 Stun through his total PD... This will *not* stun someone with a 60 CON...

     

    A STR and CON of 60 will give you a REC of 24... Two phases later, the inflicted Stun is gone, although Hulk is likely still pissed, and smashing things...

     

    In my 20 + years in playing the game, I have yet to see a PC go beyond a 40 Con.

     

    In my example, I was figuring the Hulk analog would have a 30 rPD (that's including his regular PD) and a 30 con. So if the heavy pistol rolled max damage (13 body/65 stun), it would stun him by 5 pts. It's unlikely, but I have personally seen that exact type of situation occur on numerous occasions.

  6. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    If I wanted to reduce the STUN done by killing attacks in my games' date=' I would simply require all KA's to be purchased with a Stun Multiple limitation, whether -1, -2 or "1 Stun Multiple". That wouldn't give an unanticipated boost to certain builds (Penetrating KA's and hardened rDEF in this case), and would use established costing mechanisms rather than kludgy rule fixes.[/quote']

     

    Thrakazog and I are in the same game where this rule is being considered.

     

    The concerns are more over aesthetics/realism than the stun lotto.

     

    The players (who are for the rule change) don't like the idea of a 2d6+1 RKA heavy pistol doing a crapload of stun (and possibly stunning) a Hulk analog (just as an example) when he/it doesn't even take a pt. of body damage.

  7. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    Yo, Thrakazog... What's Mr. Brick's PD...? Not his rPD, just his PD...

     

    If you re-read the rules, you'll see that someone resists KA Body with rPD, but they resist KA Stun with rPD *and* PD... If Mr. Brick has at least 75 STR, for a PD of 15, then he takes *NO* Stun Damage in your example with no House Rule at all... If Mr. Brick's rPD plus his PD equals 60 or more, there is no way he can take *any* Stun from a 2d6 RKA...

     

    I think Thrakazog knew this but just provided the example above for simplicity.

     

    Assume that the character's natural PD of 10 is bought as resistant and that he has an additional +15 PD armor for a total of 25 rPD.

  8. Re: Melee Reflection

     

    A little expensive, but you could do it as a damage shield with a +1/4 variable SFX advantage.

     

    Thing is, it won't change the attack type (if you buy the DS as an eb, that's how it'll hurt the opponent, even if they bought their attack as an HKA.

  9. Re: How abusive is this?

     

    As a Gm i would want that represented as a phsyical lim with infrequently and totally limiting, not as a sell back all stats, especially body.

     

    that said, i tend to discourage "totally helpless" PC concepts. In practice, i tend to find a player with them tends to fall into to camps:

    1. One who hasn't thought thru what being totally helpless means and isn't prepared to be bored stiff when this comes up.

    2. a player trying to pull the "gun to his own head" extortion trick of taking a big point disad worked to be so debilitating the Gm won't ever really force him to pay the piper. "After all, the Gm won't kill me for it or make me sit too long doing nothing cuz "that wont be fun""

     

    neither of them work out well in practice.

     

    Right. As GM, I once had a player submit a character that had most of his points (characteristics/powers/etc) bought through a focus and then bought the Dependence disad, with the character being dependant on the focus (this is illegal now of course).

  10. Re: How should a Super-Power Suppression Field affect characteristics?

     

    Quite correct. It's well known that a super-power supression-field can only be constructed with the aid of a very rare mineral' date=' Potdevicium. Access by both players and villain should be strictly limited by the GM.[/quote']

     

    Right, I kind of figured that was the case, but things like the "Draino-Ray Projector" are the kinds of deals I stat out. As a GM and player, I don't care for plot devices that have huge, sweeping effects like that I prefer to go for a more subtle route.

  11. Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

     

    Sure, but then you break the 5pts/DC rule. KA is a metagame method of saying "I want this it be a more lethal attack."

    And really, since most player think in terms of how many dice they get to roll it's already 3x as expensive per Die In The Pile.

     

    We don't have to go make everything "perfectly balanced" - that way lies only madness.

     

    I agree 100 %. I think a flat X3 stun mult would solve the issue (and speed up combat), but have been unable to convince everyone of this.

×
×
  • Create New...