bigdamnhero

I'm currently playing in a SW game using Fantasy Flight's Edge of Empire rules. I'd much rather be playing it in Hero, but I'm not the GM. One way that system handled the disparity in power levels between Jedi and non-Jedi is by making characters start out so incompetent that just to fly a ship without crashing regularly requires almost as high an investment of XP as Force Mastery. I am not recommending this as a best practice...

I generally regard CV guidelines as referring to the highest CV a character can normally get, not counting Maneuvers that are available to everyone. But PSLs don't actually add towards to CV, they just reduce how much you subtract from CV under certain circumstances. So if I had a 5 OCV, 2 CSLs, and 2 PSLs vs Range, I would call that OCV 7 for purposes of meeting the guidelines, not 9. It really does vary from campaign to campaign, but I generally try not to let them rise more than 1-2 above the original character creation guidelines. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, but remember that a difference in CVs of 3 or 4 makes a much bigger difference on the 3d6 bell curve than it does in a lot of RPGs, so runaway inflation can really break a game if you're not careful.

Fantasy Hero has a Follow-Through Attack Talent, where killing one opponent in melee Triggers a "free" attack on the next mook in line. You could do something similar here, but to have multiple Triggers so that you get more than one follow-through would get dicey and expensive. I agree that just calling it AOE Line, Selective with a Limitation for "Attacks each target in turn, effect stops when it misses a target" or something.

Ah, thanks. But I read Rhodey's response as being completely sarcastic. "Anyone remember when I carried a nuke through a wormhole?" "Nope. It's never come up." "Saved New York?" "Never heard that." Especially accompanied by Natashsh's eye-roll, I think that was pretty clearly meant as "Oh, here he goes again, dude will NOT shut up about that damn nuke..." If that was actually the first Rhodey had heard about a nuke being fired at New York, I think his reaction would've been a tad stronger. Point taken tho about ATC being a bit overwhelmed that day.

Huh, I have no memory of that conversation. When was it? (Don't have time to go rewatch the whole movie right now...) Well the missile itself would've been pretty clearly visible, not to mention showing up on every air traffic control radar in the state. It would likely have shown up on some news crew's video. But of course it wouldn't be obvious it was a nuke. In fact it would probably just look like the military was attacking the aliens. They could even have claimed that sending it through the wormhole was the plan all along. So yeah, not impossible, especially given it was almost certainly a HYDRA Agent who fired it in the first place.

A fair point, and one I had forgotten.

About 546 pages. [rimshot] Jokes aside, CC is a great book and covers all the core rules, but if you want more guidance on how things work and how X interacts with Y, then the 6ed Core Books are the graduate-level course in Heroing. Depends on how much crunch you want/need in your games. Personally I wouldn't bother with the APGs until/unless you've read and digested the Core Books and still want more. As far as other Champions books, others have already mentioned Champions Villains, which will save you hours of creating NPCs. I rarely use them as written, but just as starting points they're invaluable, especially if you use Hero Designer. The Equipment Guide and Bestiary are similarly great time-savers. Champions Universe is a good setting book, again whether or not you use it as written. And Champions Beyond is a great look at outer space adventuring. Some 5ed books to consider (minimal conversion required): definitely grab Villainy Amok, a terrific book that explores some common genre adventures from simple bank robberies up to alien invasions. I would also recommend VIPER: Coils of the Serpent and/or DEMON: Servants of Darkness if you have an interest in either of those organizations. I really like Mystic World as well. And I thought Hidden Lands had some great ideas. I wasn't crazy about Millennium City frankly, but Vibora Bay has some good material if you want something with a New Orleans-flavor. And even tho it's billed for Dark Champions, Hudson City is a terrifically detailed city book you can use bits from regardless of what city(s) your campaign is set in.

Yeah, whether or not the World Security Council's "stupid-ass decision" is publicly known is an interesting question; I don't think we've ever heard anyone outside of SHIELD or the Avengers mention it. In the real world something that big would be near-impossible to cover up, but in the MCU (and comics in general) SHIELD has covered up far worse. Yeah Stark likes to talk, but he couldn't have lasted all those years as a defense contractor if he wasn't capable of protecting classified information. OTOH, if it wasn't public before Natasha Widowleaked all of SHIELD's secrets onto the Internet ("...and it's trending!"), then presumably it is now. Which may help explain why no one is in any hurry to rebuild the Council or SHIELD. It does seem like the Avengers should be getting a little more credit for stopping a nuke in the middle of stopping an alien invasion than they are. But maybe the public sees that as something Stark did, rather than something the Avengers did? Tony is hugely popular on his own, and he doesn't actually have "abilities" so he's not subject to that particular skepticism. Either way, "The Incident" clearly refers to the entire battle. In DD they talk about The Incident destroying Hell's Kitchen. In JJ, we meet a couple whose kid was killed in The Incident. In LC, street vendors are selling videos of The Incident, specifically talking about "the Dude With The Hammer," "The Green Dude" and so on.

And how would you handle a rider getting unhorsed, or having their horse knocked out from underneath them? 6e2 talks about it in terms of Knockback, but most FH games don't use KB and most heroic-level Fantasy attacks don't do a significant amount of KB anyway, especially when we're talking about Killing Attack weapons like lances. Plus horses have KBR.

Assuming both rider and mount are trained for combat, when do you think a Riding Roll (or other Sill Roll) should be required? My initial thoughts: Horse makes a Half or Full Move: No Horse & rider first join melee fight: Maybe? Rider makes an attack from horseback: No Horse makes an attack at rider's direction: Yes Rider takes BODY damage: No Horse takes BODY damage: Yes Rider uses horse's STR or Move to add to damage (lance charge, Move By/Thru, etc): Yes Your thoughts?

Yeah, the FHC rules are much simpler and I think make more sense to me. And I definitely agree with the concept of distinguishing between those who are trained to fight mounted and those who aren't. My problem with the -2 OCV is that historically-speaking I don't think anyone has ever found fighting from horseback against someone on foot to be a disadvantage - far from it. PSLs to offset the modifier are fine and a great way for PCs to distinguish themselves. But it still assumes that as a baseline the mook on horseback is at a disadvantage in trying to hit the mook on foot, and I'm not sure I buy that. We are using Hit Locations in this game, so the cavalryman gets to roll for Head Shot or High Shot, while the infantryman can only roll Low Shot or Leg Shot in return, so there's potentially a damage bonus there. But you still have to hit first. The 5ed & 6ed mounted combat rules explicitly treat mounts as vehicles. Which is part of the problem IMO. Yeah, I like the SPD Chart normally, but it does complicate things here. As GM I usually dodge it by making sure mount and rider have the same SPD. I think for mounted mooks that's the simplest way to handle it, with a little more crunch for PCs. And of course it's a Heroic game, not paying points for the horse, so the exact point-modelling is less important.

I'm halfway through Luke Cage and really enjoying it. Honestly my only complaint has nothing to do with anything, but it annoys me that the Netflix MCU keeps presenting this 1980s picture of the inner city as crime-filled ghetto, rather than some of the most expensive over-gentrified real estate in the world. Do you have any idea what houses go for in Harlem these days? DD at least nodded in that direction by saying Hell's Kitchen had been severely impacted by "the Incident"* but that excuse doesn't really work Uptown. None of which detracts from the story. Just bugs me a little. * And am I the only one tired of everyone calling it that?

I just started a new 6ed FH game. As I haven't actually run a fantasy campaign since probably 4ed, I've been brushing up on a number of rules & situations that don't tend to come up much in other genres. Like fighting from horseback. The 5ed/6ed rules on mounted combat (6e2 p30, 5er p368) seem awfully convoluted to me. Multiple Riding Rolls even with a trained mount seems like it would really slow things down. And the idea that mounted characters always have at least a -2 OCV disadvantage and no DCV modifier seems counterintuitive to me. I dug out my old 3ed copy of FH, and there they treat the horse much more as an extension of the rider than a separate character: you use the horse's Movement, no OCV penalty, but use the DCV of horse or rider whichever is lower. That might be a tad oversimplified for PCs, but it might make mounted mooks simpler. How do you handle mounted combat in your games? Do you follow RAW pretty closely? If so, what works well and what don't you like? Or do you have your own approach or house rules, and what works well/poorly about that for you? Basically looking for different ideas & opinions. Thanks!

I've run/played in several dragon fights...but ironically never in a fantasy game. We actually just fought a krayt dragon in last week's Star Wars game. But I literally can't remember fighting one in a fantasy game since my early D&D days.

I never watched Smallville - it seemed too Soap Opera-ey for me. Which I'll grant is not without irony coming from the guy who loves CW's superhero shows... [shrug]

Um, I don't think anyone disagrees on what RAW says here; everyone has acknowledged RAW says the sword becomes visible. Heck, most of us have even explicitly said we understand why the rule is there. We're talking about whether or not we like it, and if there are other ways to meet the mechanical intent of the rule that don't violate narrative sense.

SFX were certainly a problem. But I think the main problem was that the networks and the show runners saw them as being kid stuff, basically one step up from Bugs Bunny. I remember several quotes in various magazines and so forth where the people behind the shows I was trying to love publicly dissed them and me. I particularly remember one quote about Wonder Woman (in TV Guide I think) that there were only two things keeping the show on the air, and they were the same two things that were holding up her costume. I have no problem with comedy, or even camp* as long as it's done well, or even if they're at least trying to do a decent job rather than just saying "Screw it, kids will watch anything." * At least in theory; personally I have a pretty low camp threshold, but I recognize some people enjoy it. Oh dude! I'm tempted to report this post on general principle.

I agree it all depends on how the player & GM see it playing out. The point is how often it comes up and how inconvenient it is, not strictly speaking how unique it is.

Politics is typically more reactive than proactive, and is mainly driven by public perception. So the pace at which laws, etc would change is going to depend on how scared the public is: Is it instantly well known that superpowers are now a thing? Or is there a period of Urban Legend and We Can Neither Confirm Nor Deny...? How quickly do people with powers emerge? If it's only a couple at first, the reaction is going to depends largely on how those individuals present themselves. But if you go from zero to hundreds overnight, that's going to scare a lot of people. How active are people with superpowers? If they're relatively few and/or they mostly keep a low profile, then there'll be more time for debates over civil liberties, etc. But if supers are smashing up Manhattan on a weekly basis, you'll get some sort of Patriot Act-esque response within weeks-to-months, tho the implications of that response will likely take years to sort out. How common are supervillains compared to superheroes? And which came first? If you start out with Classic Superman rescuing kittens out of trees and so forth, and supervillains only show up later, that will drive one sort of response: people may still mistrust the heroes and seek to limit them, but ironically there may be less rush to do so. But if the first people know about supers is Grond smashing up NYC, then the government response will likely be quicker, but when heroes show up they may(?) be seen more as part of the solution than the problem. (Especially if conventional forces have been shown to be painfully inadequate.) What power level are we talking about? Captain America is one thing. Superman is a whole `nother matter. Meanwhile, each Federal agency from DHS to DOJ to etc would organize their own office to address the new threat/challenge/opportunity/whatever that supers represent. Expect a lot of duplication and not a lot of coordination, at least initially; if the perceived need is high, a decisive President could easily issue an XO centralizing all authority for metahuman affairs under a new DHS Undersecretary or whatever. As far as forming new organizations like PRIMUS/UNTIL, that won't happen overnight. More likely the FBI organizes a series of interagency task forces modeled on the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. Only after a year or two if folks felt that approach wasn't working would there be talk of building a completely new organization, and it would take years more to appropriate funds, recruit and train personnel, etc. As for Super Advanced Tech being developed, it depends on if Stark Brain is something that people get as a result of whatever caused powers - in other words, the ability to develop super tech is itself a super power. In that case, it develops as fast as you want it to based on how fast other powers are developing. But if Advanced Tech continues to follow the laws of our world, then power armor isn't suddenly going to become technologically feasible (or affordable) just because Bob now has laser eyes. Of course that's all skewing towards realism; in comics, and indeed in most genres lit, things move much faster. So really it can happen as fast or as slow as the game requires. Overall I think it's safe to say that the sudden emergence of superpowers in 2016 would be greeted VERY differently than if it had happened in say 1956. Tho people have less trust in government today, ironically I think you'd be more likely to see demand for government certification, training, and control of supers, rather than more traditional independent heroes and teams.

Late to the thread, but I'm with Lucius on this. LTE isn't a separate Characteristic that can be Adjusted; its a specific way of spending/losing END that recovers more slowly than normal. In some ways it makes sense to think of LTE as a Drain END with a slow REC rate that also happens to be modified by activity level. Seems much easier to build Drain END with an Advantage (Recovers as per LTE).

My usual take on Distinctive Features is that it's generally not enough to be identifiable as belonging to a certain nationality/race/group/whatever, it should be something that identifies you as an individual. Of course that's heavily campaign-specific, as others have noted. And if the character is going to be the only person from that group in the campaign, that's another story. But "sounds like any one of several million Irishmen" isn't normally going to be worth a lot of points in most modern games. re Nuclear Wessels: as hysterical as that scene was, it also drove me nuts at the time because Russian doesn't have a W sound! In fact anything with a W they pronounce as a V, so Checkov had things exactly backwards...at least based on 20th/21st Century Russian.

Agreed. Tho RAW specifically says that an attacker's fists don't become visible when attacking - which would make even less sense than a sword suddenly becoming visible. So does that mean I don't have a way to fight back against the brick or martial artist that just hit me? I think the key is that the attack becomes visible in some way and that the defender (at least) has a chance to retaliate. But that doesn't have to mean the weapon itself becomes visible. I'm making this up as I go because honestly I don't remember this coming up much in game, but I think the way I'd prefer to handle this is to narratively describe some sfx-appropriate way that the defender can tell where the attack came from. For example, maybe the sword doesn't suddenly become visible, but the blood on it is. Or the gun doesn't become visible, but the muzzle flash is clear. Or the Energy Blast leaves a clear trail to its originator. Essentially you narrate a way that makes more sense, while mechanically still allowing a counterattack. Does that make sense?

Hmmm...this is a really interesting question. I think RAW is actually fairly ambiguous here and I can see how each of you are interpreting it the way you are. 6e1 p239 talks about Targeting Sense Groups vs Nontargeting Sense Groups. But there's not really any such thing as Sense Groups being Targeting or Nontargeting - those are defined/bought by individual Senses. So it doesn't really make any sense to talk about Targeting/Nontargeting Sense Groups, only Targeting/Nontargeting Senses. That said, 90% of the time most Sight Group Senses are Targeting Senses, while most other Sense Group Senses tend to be mainly Nontargeting. Obviously there are odd effects around the periphery, but for most human characters that's the way it usually breaks down. Tasha's interpretation is that if you buy Invisibility vs Hearing for 10 points, then it applies to all Hearing Sense that are Nontargeting, but any Hearing Senses bought as Targeting would be able to hear you. That actually seems to make the most sense as written, but it gets into some wonkiness in that buying Invis vs Targeting Hearing Senses costs the same as Invis vs Targeting Sight Senses, even tho the latter are a thousand times more common. CT's interpretation is that what Steve meant to say was that since Sight Group Senses are usually Targeting, then Invisibility vs Sight Group costs 20 points, and that since Hearing Group Senses are usually Nontargeting, then Invisibility vs Hearing Group costs 10 points; and further that the latter would work even against Hearing Group Senses that happen to be Targeting. I think Tasha's interpretation is closer to the letter of RAW - tho someone would have to Ask Steve if that's what he meant or not. But personally I feel like CT's interpretation is better balanced, makes more sense, and is less likely to create confusion.

5 episodes into Luke Cage and enjoying it. Early episodes didn't quite grab me right off the way Jessica Jones did, or even Daredevil. But those are high bars.

And I don't think "took themselves too seriously" was a problem with any early superhero TV show I can think of; most of them had the exact opposite problem. 70s Wonder Woman came close at times, mainly because Linda Carter always insisted on taking her character seriously even when the writers put her in a skateboarding-variant costume or have her investigating a haunted roller coaster that would've had the Scooby Do gang rolling their eyes. And I agree about Greatest American Hero, but even that show was more "fun" than "good" per se.