bigdamnhero

1" (or 1.5") hexes = 2m is roughly in scale with most miniatures. But I agree you don't have to use that: call them 4m hexes, or 8m hexes, or whatever fits the scenario and available gaming space. Doesn't make the "problem" go away.

Yeah, and any of the three are probably fine, but when I caught myself using all three on the same character, that felt a bit munchkiny. I think I like the Distinctive Features route, plus a "Always On When Powers Are Active" Lim on the Images. Thanks for helping me think it through.

I figure the hexes are there to help measure distance. It's not a war game or board game where they matter as discrete spaces. So if someone's 5m move puts them on the edge of a hex instead of the center, so what?

Personally I don't like using HAPs to "soak" damage or shake off being Stunned - makes them too powerful in my book. I've played too many Savage Worlds games where combats are decided less by skill or even luck, but by how many Bennies are left.

Yeah, we use an extremely simplified version.

Not looking to have her cause damage; just be highly visible. Yes, tho it's now called Perceivable; -1/4 to make an Inobvious Power Obvious. That's actually what I meant in the 3rd bullet about making all her Powers Obvious. Sorry if that was confusing. I thought about that too, but she can change forms/activate her powers quickly and without restriction, so I didn't feel like OIAD fit. I guess my real question is: is it appropriate to have both a Complication and Power Limitation/Side Effect to reflect essentially the same thing? At what point does that become double-dipping?

I'm creating an energy blaster PC with Light Powers. Part of the concept is that she glows brightly all the time, which can be both a help and a hindrance. She can turn her powers off, so it's not Always On, but if she wants to have her powers active, she's gotta glow. How best to reflect this? Physical Complication: Bright, +3 to Sight PER Rolls Sight Group Images - Light Only, with No Conscious Control Make all her Powers Obvious (those that aren't already) Or some combination? I ask because on my first draft I wound up with all of the above, which seems a bit excessive. (I must've been more tired than I thought.)

Same guy. I don't have that book, so I'm quoting from a list reproduced in Steven Pinker's Better Angels Of Our Nature. Looks like it's from a 2010 article White wrote. There's also a footnote saying that the death toll from the Lushan Revolt is highly controversial & debated among scholars. [shrug] White specifically includes events that took place over a long period of time, because otherwise some seriously awful shit would get overlooked. He also includes the Mideast & Atlantic slave trades, to which he ascribes 19M and 18M dead respectively. Granted it doesn't make for an easy one-for-one comparison.

Those are really good objections. Movement UAA doesn't leave them prone. And the targets' weight has to matter for the effect to make any rational sense.

I did just notice that 6e1 p244 says: ...with the implied "unless you really want to and the GM says it's okay" caveat, of course.

Per 6e1 p296: So the mass of individual characters matters, but they don't add together. Or you could just use Blast 6d6, Personal Immunity (+1/4), Double Knockback (+1/2), Area Of Effect (10m Radius; +3/4) (75 Active Points); Only to do Knockback (-1), No Range (-1/2) I'm just always a little leery of Movement Powers UAA, as they can get munchkiney. If the goal is to throw people around, there are already Powers that do that. And using the KB mechanism means things like "do they take damage?" and "how does mass/KBR come into effect?" are already built in. YMMV of course.

Neat idea. Tho it seems like you could accomplish the same thing with TK, AOE, 2x KB, Only to do KB, for a lot less than 75 AP.

There was a good thread a few months back on different ways to use HAPs.

We actually just had a fundraiser game day Saturday to help a local gamer with some medical bills. (Raised over $10K!) One of the things they did was that you could buy tokens for $1 a piece, that you can use as HAPs/Bennies/whatever else the GM allows. One Pathfinder GM let players use them to buy additional Talents/magic items for their characters. I had one player in my game burn through 10-15 in a 4-hour slot, partly to dodge bad rolls but mostly to make minor plot changes or just have something funny happen. Obviously that's a lot more than I would normally allow, but we all had a lot of fun and it was for a good cause. Even GMs could buy/use them, which was nice - let's be honest, most GMs cheat now and then, but rarely do we raise money by doing so!

I use Hero Points in all my games, and have for years. Everyone starts 1d6 per session. For my convention/demo games - which tend to run fast & furious - everyone gets 2d6. Plus I hand out a few in-game for good roleplaying, playing up Complications and such; in practice each player probably gets an additional 1 HAP per 2-3 sessions. But the most anyone can carry at one time 3, which keeps them from overpowering the game. (As they do in some systems, like Savage Worlds.) As noted above, they keep One Bad Roll from ruining the game. (Tho as mentioned above, I don't allow rerolls for 18s.) Players can also reroll a mediocre roll if they think maybe they can do better, but the limited number of rerolls available means they have to be careful about when they do that. We also use them as "plot points" to make minor changes in the plot, scenery, etc, subject to GM approval. For example: the armor you found just happens to fit you, or there just happens to be something soft under the window you fell out of. This is actually my favorite use for them, as it gives the players more agency to help create the story, rather than just reacting to it, while also providing a mechanism for doing so to keep things from going completely freeform "story game." Luck-based characters get additional HAPs for every 1d6 of Luck, which is a great way to let them use their Luck while also quantifying/limiting it so that their luck eventually runs out. We've similarly incorporated them into other character concepts. For example in my current FH game, HAPs represent Divine Favor rather than Luck. The Priest has a Talent that lets him bank unused HAPs as "Grace" which he can then use to Aid his Miracles VPP. So there are lots of ways you can use them. You can also have fun with how they're "narrated" in game. I like having the players describe "OK, so your shot would've missed, but...?" and they come up with some funny reason like it missed the character but hit some piece of scenery which falls on them (conveniently doing the same amount of damage). I know one GM who treats them as the Director yelling "Cut! The stunt man missed his mark, let's try that one again."

Right, that was the 1990s movie. I had forgotten they had made two of the 70s TV movies tho. (Honestly, I wish I could forget they made even one...)

All I can say is if most of your ECs had "tighter" concepts than that, especially in a comic book supers game, then my hat's off to you.

Me neither.

Just the one IIRC. And yes, let's forget it.

Um, not trying to "convince" you of anything - just explaining my opinion. And I feel that giving a significant point discount for something as vague and subjective as "GM Likes Your Concept" but which has no mechanical effect did lack significant merit, especially when compared to MPs & VPPs. If you don't agree, fine. But either way, once the change was made to 5ed EC rules, the subsequent change from there to 6ed Unified Power totally made sense. Skill Enhancers do have a tight concept: "I'm a Scholar" or "I'm a Scientist." Being a Traveler doesn't give you a discount on PSes or LSes; Scholar doesn't help you with AKs, CKs or CuKs. If they had one "Mad Skillz" Enhancer that gives a discount on anything you wanted, that'd be different. And given how often Background Skills come in as an afterthought for so many Champions player, I'm all for anything that encourages taking them. By contrast I find players rarely need an incentive to take Powers. Edit: Skill Enhancers also have the benefit of actually making sense in the real world: learning a new language is much easier for someone who already knows several vs someone who is an American only knows one. Traveling a lot does make it easier to pick up and retain cultural knowledge and find your way around new places.

IIRC there was a thread a few months back about what in-game advantages Longevity actually provides, and whether or not it was overpriced. Several of us endorsed treating it as a kindof VPP for marginally-useful Background Skills. Fair point. But even assuming no physical loss or cognitive decline, knowledge and skills only stay fresh if reinforced regularly. That's why "Mr. I Was A Professor Of X For 30 Years" makes such a regular ass of himself in the comments section: not only has he not added any new knowledge since he retired 20 years ago, but he's lost much of what he once had. (And yeah, I realize this is a gross overgeneralization, but we've all heard from That Guy.)

As someone for whom 50 is officially in the rear view mirror...yeah, I hear ya. Knowledge fades to make room (sometimes) for other things; there are subjects I knew a lot about 20-30 years ago that I barely have superficial knowledge of now because I haven't kept up. Similarly, I can point to a number of Skills I used to be proficient at back in my military & law enforcement days. Take Land Navigation: 20 years ago I was pretty damn good at it (if I do say so myself). But scratch off 2 decades of rust and what's left today? Maybe an 8-, tops. Now if all the GPSes fail, does Mr. Old School have an advantage over someone who's always had that tech to rely on?* Maybe. But even then it's more Less Bad than More Good. Similarly, I was a damn good shot once. But I haven't pulled a trigger in 10+ years and am probably down to basic WF. Give me a decent Training Montage (set to the 80s power ballad of your choice) and could I get it back? Probably. But even then I'm not quickly going to surpass someone who's been shooting consistently for years. What you knew/did decades ago doesn't matters nearly as much as what you've done regularly, recently. * I assume the Army still teaches old school map-&-compass work, but I don't know how much time they spend on it? Right. Even if those skill were to come up in game, if the character hasn't kept up with the field, good luck making shoes with modern tools that look nothing like what you used 600 years ago. In my last time travel game, anything that was "mostly useless" outside of the player's home time period was free or at least sharply discounted. One player wanted his PC to be an expert in military fortifications, circa 1000 BC. Nice bit of background color, but I'm not going to charge you for that. Later, as the character's knowledge base modernized and became more useful, he threw a few points into it. Outside of time travel games: I love it when players take things things like PS: Gourmet Chef and KS: Beatles Music, and I'll try to work them into the story once in awhile. But I'm not going to make them pay as much for those as the next PC pays for something like PS: Detective or KS: Arcane Lore that comes up every other session. Ultimate Skill is a great book, but it by design it kindof leans towards increased granularity, if you want it. I've seen games where folks like getting into the nitty gritty detail of specialized fields of study. (SS: Particle Physics vs PS: Theoretical Physics and so on.) In a game like that, a -5 for a different specialization might be appropriate. These days I tend towards more broad skills (PS: Physics and call it good), so -5 would definitely be over the top. Just depends on the style of game you're playing.

I was thinking about this point some more. I think I actually agree with most of your reasoning, but it takes me to a different conclusion. I agree there's nothing wrong with a Framework rewarding a player for a strong concept. But all Frameworks are inherently limited in some way or another. MPs & VPPs limit how many slots you can have active at one time and so forth. It's a trade-off. But prior to 5ed, ECs didn't really have much of a downside mechanically - it was only a way to save points. So I thought the 5ed change to how Adjustment Powers affect ECs was a good and logical change. But then if that's going to be the trade-off, there's no reason you need an elaborate Framework structure for what is, essentially, just a Limitation. Plus, there's no reason that Limitation can't be applied to other Frameworks, or non-Frameworked Powers. So the addition of the Unified Power Limitation was also a good and logical move IMO. And then when you pull that out of ECs, it turns out there's not much point to having them around.

In addition to looking for a new Director for The (non-Lego) Batman movie, now they're looking to bring in a new writer to make "substantial changes" to the script, which is usually code for "starting over from scratch." The signs are not promising on one. I wonder if the feedback they're getting on advance screenings of Wonder Woman are a factor? But at least it's not a last-minute re-shoot scramble like they did with Suicide Squad after BvS got panned.

When that simple Limitation accomplishes the exact same goal - rewarding players for adhering to a central power concept - with a fraction of the complexity, I consider that extremely elegant.