bigdamnhero

I think most tranq rifles use compressed air rather than gunpowder. But good catch on the other ones.

Agreed. Tho I don't have a problem with raising Characteristics, as long as it's done incrementally and justified in story. One thing I also tell my players is that background skills are much harder to justify picking up "in game." If they have to scrimp at start on a Skill here or a point of DEX or whatever, fine, they can always buy that up with XP. But "I just suddenly became an expert in [KS]" or "Now I'm fluent in [LS]" or whatever is much harder to justify in mid-game.

Thing is the cost benefit of the EC wasn't actually that much more than what you save from slapping Unified Power on the same powers. The other thing I like about Unified Power is I can throw it on an MP or VPP or whatever if it fits.

Three things about 6ed that actually simplified things: Replacing the entire Elemental Control structure with a simple -1/4 Unified Power Limitation. (Genius!) Combining Sweep and Rapid Fire into one Multiple Attack Maneuver (Obvious in hindsight) Yes, getting rid of Figured Characteristics. Not just because it simplifies character creation, but because of how it simplifies & balances Adjustment Powers. Or, given how rarely he does it, maybe he just has Power Skill: Brick Tricks and a lenient GM. I like the change that Block as a free Maneuver can now apply to Ranged Attacks "where appropriate." I do think they could've provided a little more guidance for GMs on what constitutes "appropriate," but I always feel churlish when I complain that Steve didn't include enough explanation for a thing... And I agree the change left Deflection & Reflection a little clunky as written, but that feels like a minor issue to me.

Getting the player out of D&D is hard; taking the D&D out of the player can be even harder. Stuff like that is one of the reasons I quit playing fantasy altogether for about 10 years, and have only recently dipped my toe back in: I got tired of playing the same D&D tropes over and over, regardless of system.

That means you're doing it right IMO. Also, that you have good players.

I was thinking Expanded Effect too, but I can't think of any gunpowder-powered firearms that aren't built as RKAs, so it might not be necessary. In fact if you go with Dispel RKA, then Only vs Gunpowder Weapons" probably qualifies as a Limitation. Dispel vs Transform: The rules for Dispelling Foci (6e2 p195) says that Dispel can be used to "break" items that then need some minor repairs. In this case, the ammo itself isn't repairable, but the weapon clearly is ("Hey Bob, throw me a fresh clip!") so I think Dispel would be kosher here. I also think it makes more sense for the attack to work against the weapon's AP (which reflects, among other things, how much powder is there); Transform would work against the BODY of the weapon, which feels less relevant to me. You're completely removing the primary attacks of everyone in the Area of Effect - that should be expensive IMO.

Ditto. I like to play actual heroes - not necessarily the Most Powerful People, but competent people whose actions make a real difference in the world. I get enough Ineffectual Normal in real life [rimshot]. For heroic games, I like starting at 200 or 225 (+50). I find, at least with my players, that giving them a few more points leads to more well-rounded characters rather than just more powerful characters. Less compromising of character concept because the player can't afford decent combat skills and [fun background bit]. I do think a lot depends on how long you envision the campaign to run. I used to like those long drawn out campaigns where you'd run the same character for years and years and have time to see them advance from zero to hero, and there's a certain satisfaction to that. But our games these days tend to be more self-contained with a planned endpoint - all subject to change of course, but the overall story has a destination. Our last campaign ran 50 game sessions; the one before that only 38. At 1-2 XP per session, that's barely enough XP to get you from Competent Normal to Standard Heroic. I also wonder if part of it comes down to how much emphasis is placed on story vs character, and how much is placed on character advancement (ie XP) vs character growth? No a right or wrong answer, and of course the two aren't mutually exclusive. But I do feel like some players I've known get focused on XP advancement as a substitute for meaningful character growth.

I think there's also the issue that we like to see rich characters because they're glamorous and can afford cool toys and can travel to cool places where they can look cool and glamorous. Plus, in the words of PS238's The Revenant: "Access to large amounts of cash is the greatest superpower of all." But we don't necessarily like rich kids, because we associate that with being spoiled and having everything handed to you. So having someone who was born rich, but raised poor, struggled etc, and then had a big company handed to them lets you have it both ways.

Heh, yeah I guess that shoulda been "sentient plant" or something like that.

Can you elaborate on "troop play?" I think I have an idea what you mean, but I'd like to hear you describe how it works for you. Yeah, I can see where rotating GMs would make that necessary.

I think my favorite PC I've ever created is Pebbles, who could turn her body into Living Gravel - think Sandman powers. She was a former villain who did a face-turn and was trying to make up for her past crimes. Also being Hunted by her super-stalked ex-boyfriend Bam Bam. A fun personality and a great power build if I do say so myself. Sadly, I've never actually gotten to play her: she's one of the pre-gen PCs for the convention/demo games I run. My first Champions character IIRC was some kind of living plant whose only power was the ability to steal other supers' powers ala Rogue. That was a lot of fun too - until we realized just how badly we'd misunderstood the Transfer rules and that it wasn't actually possible to do what I was doing in the allotted points. Ah well...

Never used one in 40 years of GMing. Frankly never understood the point. I create the game world, outline the plots, and direct the actions of literally every character in that world except for 5. That's enough control and "voice" in the story for me. That's not to say there aren't recurring NPC allies that pop up now and again when the plot needs them to. But they're not "my PCs" any more than any other NPC. On the other side of the screen, I've only played in a couple games where the GM introduced GMPCs, which had a strong tendency towards Mary Sue-ism and mainly served to distract the GM's attention from GMing in my experience.

Encumbrance is tied to STR tho, which means the impact of, say, a 75kg load would do +4d6 to someone with 10 STR, but only 1d6 to someone with 20 STR. Doesn't make much sense. Besides, the whole point of riding a horse is that the horse is usually the one carrying the excess weight, which means most of mounted characters' Encumbrance is going to be in the form of armor. I'm okay saying armor doesn't subtract from fall damage, but having it add to damage seems a bit too much.

DC's Character Problem. I think this guy hits the nail on the head. I could overlook most of their other problems if I gave a shit about any of the characters.

OK seriously, who eats cupcakes with a fork? I mean come on...

I still feel like if you change the names you're still left with an incoherent plot full of characters I don't care about competing to be who can be the biggest, dumbest asshole, followed by a contrived resolution followed by an even-more-climatic battle that wasn't properly established, all badly acted and shot through an Ugly Filter. But y'know, YMMV and all. Fair enough, although IIRC Moore only used Charleton knockoffs because they wouldn't let him use the real ones.

Now there's a devil's bargain if ever I heard one...

That's actually a fair point: we as fans naturally want to measure them against how we know Superman and Batman would "really" act in that situation. But this was Super-Snyder and Bat-Snyder, neither of whom had given each other (or the audience) any reason to suspect they give a shit about anything. I still think it was handled poorly (like everything else in the damn trainwreck), but within Snyderverse continuity it's not exactly out of character for them to each assume the other is a complete asshole.

Granted, tho he usually at least gives lip service to "we only kill when there's no other way." It made it feel more than a little off for him to give the "Don't kill him; you're better than that" speech right after blowing up the helicopter, not mention all the mooks Dinah just gunned down.

I think the new Canary has potential: both actress and character. We'll see. And having Talia give Ollie his first Arrow suit actually explains why it's so similar to the League of Assassins outfits, so that's a nice post-hoc explanation. Tho someone really needs to explain to Berlanti & Co. that when you blow up aircraft, you just killed all the people inside. Last week Supergirl, this week Arrow...

Southside With You, a film about Barack & Michelle Obama's first date. A nice, very small, well-acted character-driven movie, not interested in making any political statements, and because we all already know The Rest Of The Story, the film can just focus on these two people and who they were at that precise moment in time. Great date movie.

Nothing in Ultimate Vehicle or Vehicle Sourcebook. Although Champions Villains Vol 1 has stats for the Warlord's Flying Fortress, which is basically the same idea. (It doesn't look like a helicarrier, but the stats & systems are probably close enough.) Generally yes. Ultimate Base does include rules for mobile Bases, but it says something like if it moves quickly and regularly then it's probably a vehicle regardless of size. Which now that you mention it does kinda make the Helicarrier pic an odd choice for cover art for that particular book... I could argue it either way. Yes the Helicarrier moves, but its primary narrative function in most games is as a Base to operate from, rather than a Vehicle that takes you places. My usual rule of thumb is: if it's in combat, it's probably a vehicle, if combat is in it (ie characters running around inside it) it's probably a base. Those aren't mutually exclusive of course ("Boarding parties away!"), but I find it a useful way to consider its function in the story.

FWIW the cost structure in Hero Designer is 0 points for Airman, 1 point for Corporal/Senior Airman*, 2 points for Sergeant, and 3+ for the officer ranks. For Master Sergeants I'd go with 4 or 5 points, as they generally have a lot more practical authority than your average Lieutenant. But as noted above, it really depends on when & how you think it's going to come up. If it's just a bit of color or background, it's probably not worth more than a point or two. If he wants to be able whistle up a drone strike when needed, it might be more useful to build that as a Contact, Access or even Resource Points. * As an Army guy, I'm not sure if Senior Airman counts as an NCO the way Corporal does in the ground services?

Thanks, but I can't take much of the credit - Gamers Giving is a terrific group and manages to do a lot of good while having a lot of fun. We did one a few months ago for a good friend whose 11-year old daughter has cancer, and managed to raise something like $10 grand to help them with medical bills and other expenses.