Cantriped

On 6/27/2018 at 2:48 PM, JmOz said:

It's for a Street Level Champions game.  It will be vehicle based (a part of the characters vehicle)

 

The idea is the ability to track someone via the phone (either GPS or the signal)  and being able to listen in to the conversation more than actually "hacking" the phone

In my last campaign a player could use their Phone to hack other devices. Since it was a minor element of a champions character (and based on her justification), we simply bought her Computer Programming, Security Systems, and a 3-point Computer Link to "phones sold to criminals by my boss". Whether or not the target had a linked phone was entirely up to GM fiat (aka me deciding where he'd bought it). Otherwise she had to go through more realistic hacking steps (it was champions though... so "realistic comic book hacking" is still unrealistic at best).

Smart Phones were everyman equipment (per the ridiculously overbuilt document I have posted online),. The rest of her 'hacking equipment" were peripherals I ruled came free with having purchased the skill roll. Good equipment would have been Skill Levels via Focus

IIRC you combine all relevent CV modifiers as appropriate. In that regard, Multiple Attack functions more like a Combat Modifier (like Spreading An Attack) than a Combat Maneuver in that you are always performing another Combat Maneuver with it; even if that maneuver is just a simple Strike using Strength or Blast.

With a Multiple Move By using Strength and a CV of 6 to attack twice; the CV modifiers should be:

[OCV] + [Move-By] + [Multiple-Attack] =

6 + (-2) + (-2 × 1) = OCV 2.

([DCV] + [Move-by]) ÷ [Multiple Attack] =

(6 + (-2)) ÷ 2 =  DCV 2.

27 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

And I'm pretty sure that Steve Long has said (repeatedly) that he only answers questions on the products he has written, and it's not his place to answer questions for products he wasn't involved in. 

That is his official line yes, and I still say its hooey (a presumptous opinion I admit). I think he just doesn't like that they cut out all his 'carefully crafted' examples, corner-cases, optional rulings, etc... 

27 minutes ago, BoloOfEarth said:

I don't know if Derek or Michael ever offered to handle similarly exclusive rules threads for CC or FHC, or are even willing to do so.  (It would be a decent time commitment, so I wouldn't blame either one if they didn't want to do that.)  If they've offered to do so and Jason turned them down, well, that would be different. AFAIK that's not the case, but I admit I could be wrong.

I'm not sure if either would have been made such an offer, when Derek wrote CC my understanding was that it really was intended be just a shorter version of 6e. So why have them also answer questions (and risk them not matching) when in theory all of Steve's 6e1&2 answers should have been universally applicable... Also not sure they would have accepted, neither posts very often, and I imagine Derek and Michael feel much the same way; neither wants to speak for the system because their work was based on the work of those who came before them.

But... CC/FHC just aren't the same as 6th was... and while it is generally an improvement (to me), it does have its flaws (*shakes his fist at the nonexistant Wind Levels Table*). Removing Classes Of Minds and Imploding Skills was... probably not the best decision in that regard. It makes compatability and adjudication an issue when you claim two rulebooks represent the same "edition", but they aren't actually interchangable.

Conversely I might have been happier if CC/FHC had been pushed even farther. So that they could stand definitively as their own editions, instead of occupying the ackward position of being treated like Sixth Edition's bastard children by its own community.

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

If by "support" you mean that he won't answer questions related to the content of CC / FHC, shouldn't that be the prerogative of the people who wrote those books?  I mean, making pronouncements about what someone else meant when they wrote something seems... a bit presumptuous, don't you think?

It should be the preogative of those who wrote CC/FHC, or at least they should have an opportunity... But Hero Games doesn't put them up on a golden pedestal like it has Steve Long. Derek and Michael should have a similarly exclusive Rules Thread for questions related specifically to CC/FHC... or if Steve is the only one willing/able to answer FAQs in an official capacity; he should start supporting the most recent edition (and providing citations for it where available) and the company's flagship products before his refusal to adapt bankrupts the company even further.

Presumptuous maybe...but except where I provide quotes everything I write is, by defination, an opinion. Feel free to disagree with my opinions.

My opinion is that CC/FHC are an entirely seperate edition (albeit somewhat backwards compatible), given the number of important differences between CC/FHC, but I am well aware (and have been told personally) that this was not the author(s) intent, nor is it Hero Games offical position on the subject. Regardless, I believe that was the result.

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I suspect (and it’s only my opinion) that Steve Long won’t comment on  CC/FHC probably do to an undue amount of redundancy. I can see a lot of messages could be like this. Questioner “What about X?” , Reply by Steve “Well on pages xyz in 6th, it’s answered.”

That would be a logical reason (and the one I'd use publically), but its not a very good one... I provide citations from all three books regularly (and I really do hate the 6e1&2 books). In my experience most of the time I can arrive at the same conclusion using either version of the rules. The hardest part is the paper cuts from referencing three different PDFs...

It isn't that hard to note the differences and provide rulings for those using CC/FHC as their primary rules references either. There are only a few ommisions bad enough to deserve an answer specific to CC/FHC. Most of the real doozies were never covered in 6e1&2 either.

No... I fear it is more likely Steve would simply prefer to pretend that CC and FHC don't exist until they finally go away or Hero Games goes belly up. The latter is more likely now that CC is also available in POD.

Note: 

Avatar was a kids show... so people didn't usually suffer lethal injuries on screen. In a campaign simulating that trope, Killing Attacks might be prohibited.

In campaigns simply taking place in that world... Killing Attacks would be exceptionally common; especially amongst Earth Benders, but also Fire and Water. Martial weapons are extremely prevelant, though largely ineffective because the nature of the show prohibited them from being used effectively. The fact that Airbending techniques don't provide very many lethal maneuvers would also be so much more meaningful. I suggest finding out which campaign this is so you can tailor how you build your Bender accordingly.

You'll need a fairly large suite of powers for Earth Bending. At its highest levels of mastery you can justify a VPP...

But the basic techniques I would require as GM are:

Geokinesis + Martial Maneuvers: This is Fine Manipulation Telekinesis Limited to Only Affect Earth And Stone (or sometimes Earth, Stone, and Metal)* with a Martial Art bought for/through it (both to enhance damage and provide additional versatility). I suggest Martial Maneuvers such as Defensive Strike, Martial Block, Martial Grab and Martial Throw.

Given the SFX, source material, and the fact that I've suggested Martial Block through a pseudo-ranged power... as GM I would also require you purchase Deflection Linked to your Geokinesis**.

* I would rule that either form could still be used indirectly on other materials by "making a hand out of earth/stones" or some-such, but it would have half the maximum lift capacity while doing so (making it akin to carrying something one-handed). Other GMs might (very reasonably) reduce the value of being Limited to Only Earth and Stone, or require you buy a less limited version of TK, or even a second version of TK with Physical Manifestation instead of Limited Target.

** on the other hand every character in that world seems to be able to block projectiles one way or another... so in a World of the Avatar campaign deflection might be an Everyman power for PCs.

Dissmissable Earth Barriers & Entangles (pretty self explanatory, you can find the stats for generic dirt and stone in CC/FHC/6e2). Generally speaking earth and stone have very little rPD, but fair rED and lots of BODY (makes them strong against Fire Benders).

UAA Earth & Stone Tunneling:  Dirt walls have 0 rPD, Stone Walls generally go up to 8rPD, while Metal can reach 19 rPD. I suggest (and would allow) UAA so that the bender doesn't have to move down the tunnel to create it (this version wouldn't target characters, for the sake of game balance)

Everything else could be a Power Trick (at low levels of mastery) or a VPP slot (at high levels of mastery).

4 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

My google-fu is weak. I was trying to find the thread about CC when it was announced by Derek Hiemforth and he stated that CC would be subservient to 6th ed. in rules hierarchy. 

I don't think such was ever explicitly stated. What has been stated is that CC/FHC are still considered part of the 6th edition ruleset*, and that you should be able to use 6th edition supplements largely unmodified. with 6e1&2 being more exhaustive in its treatment of optional game elements.

* Making them the most recent printings of that edition. Despite sufficient purposeful changes to constitute a new edition. Either CC/FHC are the most recent printings of the HERO System 6th edition (and therefore are the most up-to-date), or they are a seperate edition (rendering all counter references to 6e moot). Hero Games can't have it both ways, and insisting on that 6e trumps CC/FHC is not only bad logic but bad for Hero Games buissness... why buy a product with no community or company support?

I am certain there is a lot of elitism regarding the validity of CC/FHC versus 6e1&2. But I blame that on Steve Long's childish refusal to support a product that logically out-dates his 'masterpiece'.

It has been publically announced by that the powers that be that CC/FHC are Hero Games flagship products.

9 hours ago, clnicholsusa said:

 

Pardon me, but this is incorrect.

6E1 pg 266:

"The character’s true form can have more points than his alternate forms, or his alternate forms can have more points than his true form (before or after accounting for the points the true form pays for Multiform)."

It is correct in the most recent printing of the rules.

Your quote is out of date (or context): "Alternate forms must be regular characters (not Vehicles, Bases, Computers, Automatons, or the like), and are built on the same Total CP (including Matching Complications) as the true form (or fewer CP, if desired)" (CC 81).

Considering that CC/FHC only purposfully omit optional rules, that must have been considered one too.

We are mostly in agreement. I was talking about the "unmodified characteristic roll" optional rules in the second paragraph above. Which my impression of is that it is still essentially a characteristic based roll, not an activation roll. You merely use your innate characteristic roll to determine the value as if it were an activation roll*

* Which technically bottoms out at -1/4 at a 12-, showing 13- and 14- just served to establish that the pattern continued past the point where you recieved diminished discounts for raising the roll... I'd argue 15- and above were only ommited to save line space; sure such an ommision would never spark confusion or debate.

I generally wouldn't allow a 15- Activation Roll... but I would allow an Unmodified CHAR Roll to be based on their 30 DEX (giving them a 15- for -1/4) and have it rise and fall if said DEX is Adjusted of subject to Change Environment.

18 minutes ago, steriaca said:

You want the abilities of a gargoyle? Do what every other player does. Buy each power with a limitation "Only In Alternate ID", or the limitation " Only Usable When Shapeshifted To An Appropriate Form". Do Not Use Transform To Do This! That, or Multiform into your Gargoyle body.

You misunderstand the core concept... the idea isn't to just turn yourself into a gargoyle like some odd lycanthrope.

The concept is a spell cast that turns "Anybody" into a "Gargoyle" (by adding the abilities and complications of being a gargoyle semi-permenently to the target). This is literally the 6e1 example of Adding Or Removing abilities (see page 307), although I mistakenly said it was Arkelos and not Kasdreven casting the spell.

My arguement is that there is no RAW reason he cannot cast it on himself (if he wants)*... however I doubt he would want to use the version I'd allow on himself... being stuck like that for weeks with no magic would suck (human magic being based on the human body means that a gargoyles just can't do it... or something).

*and presuming it isn't built primarially to simulate Multiform; such as by being easily reversed or Dispelled.

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

Sorry mate, to Transform yourself into a Gargoyle use Shape Shift or Images.

That cannot fly... literally cannot (as opposed to does not or should not). Neither Shape-Shift nor Images can grant any of the abilities of a Gargoyle, so it really hurts the credibility of your following statements when you lead with something so utterly wrong.

1 hour ago, ghost-angel said:

It's not a contradiction, its a condition. You can do whatever you want, but RAW is very clear on the topic: Transform cannot target the Self.

False. The section on Transform And Other Powers does contradict itself in 6e1 (but thankfully not in CC/FHC). The only part the RAW is clear on is that Transform shouldn't be built or used to simulate other powers. I presume because as written it easily could, producing countless corner cases in the process.

Nevertheless there isn't really another power that can turn a target semi-permenently into a gargoyle always built on more points than their original form. Note that Multiform expressly prohibits you from having a better alternate form than your base form, and Shape Shift cannot grant actual abilities so... Yeah my example is fine (which makes since since it's taken straight out of the rulebook).

That doesn't mean that I am suggesting you should allow players to buy cheap Constant Transforms to turn themselves into "Gods" just because its heavily discouraged instead of outright prohibited by the rules... what I am saying is that it a Character (but not necessarially a Player Character) can technically do so per RAW (and assuming a permissive GM). CC, FHC, and 6e are all in agreement that Transform has to be watched for Abuse, parricularly with regard to Adding or Removing Abilities.

Hrmm the idea of a villain using such a "God-Mode" spell as some slow, easily foiled ritual is basically the plot of a thousand fantasy novels and several anime... I think I might just use that for an adventure hook. The longer the heroes wait to take the villain on... the more powerful he is when they meet him.

On 6/4/2018 at 8:36 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Deconstructing the first level of growth on the chart, there's 25 points of stats (44 total points, with a -¼ linked, a -¼ perceivable and -¼ unified power limitation, I'm assuming) and it costs 25 points to be that big. 

 

Actually, all of the Growth levels should be priced by starting with "the appropriate Size Template, and applying Costs Endurance (-½), Unified Power (-¼), and Side Effects (-½) to" the elements it contains (CC 69 and elsewhere), ignoring Complications (which are imposed by the side effect).

In other words, if you divide the total costs of the various size templates by 2.25 (and round) you get their Active Point cost as a Growth level... loosely speaking... this doesn't have to be a size template per say. You could use the principle to create all sorts of fairly priced custom Body-Affecting powers.

59 minutes ago, clnicholsusa said:

What is it about Hand-to-Hand Attacks that suggests they don't benefit from the points added to STR when they are thrown?

Nothing, the prohibition is an arbitrary rule related to HAs pricing structure compared to STR and TK... mostly I blame it on STR and TK not being expensive enough. STR should cost 2 points (and TK 3), or else always cost twice as much END (Per Heroic rules)... if either were the case we could have had a Normal Attack power just like Killing Attack but priced at 1d6 per 5 points.

As a semantic note, it can be argued that HA is only prohibited from having standard Ranged in CC/FHC (given that the various range affecting modifiers are now described seperately, but HA only prohibits Ranged specifically); so presumably it is legal to build Throwing Clubs using Limited Range or Range Based On Strength like we've been doing for at least two editions anyway.

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

How about 6E1:307, as explicitly quoted by Lucius above:

Which looks really supportive of your point when quoted out of context... like when I quote from the exact same section: "Transform And Other Powers" where its opening thesis is "Characters should not use Transform to simulate other Powers." Making every statement that follows a supporting statement for that core principle.

Semi-permenently changing yourself or others (mostly others) into horrific Gargoyles (granting them some powers, but also imposing significant Complications) is not a breach of the spirit of that guideline because:

Multiform and Shape Shift would be terrible substitutes for Transform in this instance, as would any of the Adjustment Powers.

The alternative methods I would consider using are either a "Custom Growth Template", or a "Granted Power" (using Differing Modifiers); however neither of which have an appropriate duration or useability mechanics for this specific example.

However, building a Dismissable Constant Cosmetic Transform, Limited Target (Self Only), Improved Results (Anything) because you somehow made it cheaper than a similar level of Shape Shift is an obvious breach of that clause, and more likely the sort of situation it was included for.

Personally I'm glad CC/FHC omitted the internally contradictory parts you've quoted from 6e1 and clarified the language use.

1 hour ago, BoloOfEarth said:

"Cannot" is a far cry from "shouldn't."  So is "Don't."

Trying to equate "you should not do [blank]" and/or "do not do [blank]" with "you cannot do [blank]" is a poor arguement. "Don't" really is a far cry from "Can't"... for example, you don't have to tell me not to do something I can't do. The fact that the rules bother to tell me I shouldn't do something can only mean it is a thing that I can do... but shouldn't. As a GM I am free to take or leave their usage suggestions, but as a new player those suggestions serve to help teach me the system's principles and make the GM's job of auditing my sheet easier.

Likewise the table in CC/FHC doesn't give values for above 14-.

However if your GM is allowing you to base a Required Roll on a Characteristic (something the core rules do talk about doing) you price it as though it were an Activation Roll equal to your Characteristic Roll. If you are heavily invested in a Characteristic, a character with Requires A STR Roll could easily have a Roll of 15- or better for such powers, and as I mentioned above, Requires A STR Roll should still be worth -1/4 no matter how high it climbed; mostly because Drain/Suppress, and Change Environment can always be used by the GM to penalize the roll.

The "Item" only needs to buy powers if it has a sheet of its own (such as an automaton, computer controlled focus, or vehicle) in the form of a weapon.

Most simple "Returning Weapons" are built as lethal HtH Weapons with OIF (as mentioned above) and Range Based On STR. The focus returning to you after being thrown is simply the justification for it not taking Recoverable Charges like mundane thrown weapons.

A fair point, but the referenced section doesn't actually forbid anything. It is a list of things you shouldn't do. Not things you can't do.

In one of the 6e examples Arkelos has a Transform to turn people into Gargoyles. He probably shouldn't use it on himself... but he is technically allowed to. The GM can discourage abuse by imposing unintended consequences like Arkelos losing his spell-casting abilities while so Transformed (meaning he can't just turn it off like he could a Multiform).

The section applies much more I think to situations like trying to use Transform repeatedly (or assigning certain Heal Back conditions) to simulate the ephemeral and largely advantageous effects of Shape Shifting and Multiform.

Using Transform on yourself and others to impose semi-permenant powers boosts just needs to be checked for abuse like any other method of acquiring phantom points.

Per 6e2 pg 145 "The Effects Of Temperature" (and elsewhere in CC/FHC), a character "loses" REC and END every 20 Minutes they are exposed to a +1 or -1 Temperature Level. The relevent section defines the END loss as being LTE. However the REC Loss isn't defined beyond its short-term effects on your ability to Recover END.

What is lost REC, and how do I recover it?

For example:

I'm playing an Average Person (with 15 END and 4 REC) who was exposed to +1 Temperature Level for 2 Hours, but is no longer being exposed to it.

Maybe I was sitting on guard duty for a few hours on a balmy 89° evening, unable to avoid the heat until my replacement arrived.

Anyway, I know I've suffered 6 LTE (down to 9 END), and "lost" all 4 of my REC. I know I still have to pay small amounts of END (and then burn STUN) to do most anything, leaving me precious few turns worth of actions before I pass out from heat stroke. What I don't know is how long it takes for the REC to Recover (barring the use of Powers an Average Person like me won't have).

14 minutes ago, steriaca said:

I have to scan through my copy of Champions Complete to see exactly if it says "you cannot use Transform on yourself". If it is not there, I think that is an oversite on the writers part. Remember, Champions Complete is not meant to negate or replace Hero System 6ed.

Erroneous opinions regarding the purpose of CC/FHC aside for a moment.* 6e1 says the same thing: "The basic target of any Transform is “anything.”" (6e1 305). The section on Adding or Removing Abilities in 6e1 also includes the same warning as CC/FHC. Also see 6e1s Using Transform section which is where such a prohibition would be noted in either edition if they existed (it does not).

*  CC & FHC are literally replacements for 6e 1&2, created expressly for players daunted by the unaproachability of the original 6th edition core rulebooks. They are also the most recent printings of the 6th edition rules, which by common sense indicates that they are the most up-to-date and accurate versions of the core rules (aside from purposeful omisions like excluding optional rules and corner-case rulings for the sake of brevity). I do recognize that they have flaws... but it would be more condusive to a positive discussion if we didn't have to keep defending the credibility of Hero Games' flagship products on their own forums... 

Per the table in FHC, the minimum value of Requires A Roll is -1/4. Thus even a 17- Activation Roll is worth -1/4... despite the table otherwise indicating that a 14- (or better I presume) activation roll being a (-1/2) - (-3/4) = +1/4 modifier.

On 6/7/2018 at 8:02 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Transform doesn't work on yourself...

Except that it very explicitly does. "The basic target of any Transform is “anything.”" (CC 107). Anything includes yourself unless the rules explicitly state otherwise (which they do not). However while "A Transform can take away or alter a target’s Skills, Powers, Complications and/or other abilities, or grant a target Skills, Powers, Complications and/or other abilities it doesn’t have."... It remains a valid point that "The  GM  should  regulate  this  aspect of Transform carefully as well." (CC 109; bolded for emphesis).

Further, there are no general rules against using an Attack Power against yourself (besides it usually being stupid), and there are general rules explicitly stipulating that you may choose not to apply an appropriate defense against a power used against you. For example, you can but are not generally required to apply your Power Defense against any Healing you recieve, although a psychological complication might compel you too anyway (such as "Distrustful Of Magic" in a fantasy campaign). So by the same standard... you can lower your Power Defense in order to be Transformed (even by a power you activated, such as one that came from an elixir you drank).

16 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Actually one of the most overused lines in comic books is "how can something so big move so fast??"

Except big things really do tend to accellerate slower, ergo the surprise when a big monster bucks the trend and whips its tail around at lightning speed... which is not to say they actually move slower, limb length/engine power can still result in exceptional velocities.

That line certainly is overused though... it is a gimmick used to save production budget (in animation) or compensate for deficiencies in the the media (in narrative illustrations). 

Regardless, the "Big Slow" and "Big Fast" monsters both have very different uses in a narrative environment. The former is more commonly used against large weak groups (like modern soldiers in a military campaign fighting giant robots). Meanwhile the latter is typically used to challange small powerful groups like the classic party of adventurers versus the Kraken.

Heroes with Growth in cinima tend to fall into the former category. As they are effectively the big robot meant to occupy all of the mooks' attention (they typicaly don't need to take very many actions to fill that role). Elsewise they typically need the extra strength and durability that comes from increased mass to catch heavy objects (like buildings) and resist being knocked around by similarly large enemies.

On 6/5/2018 at 7:22 AM, Funk Thompson said:

Personally, I liked the 5E growth since it was more granular, and in 6E I am usually building it out as a custom power rather than using the default growth power, unless I'm just making a quick NPC or something.

This is more or less how I use Growth... not as the power suite itself, although for fantasy potions that works fine... but rather for the set of guidelines it includes for writing similar power suites myself (usually for Body Affecting powers less drastic than Multiform implies).

In that regard Growth/Shrinking are even more granular (just less obviously so) because they are not merely an example of how to abstractly purchase temporary size changes... rather they are an example of how to convert nearly any template into a Constant Special Power.

In that regard I would be much more supportive of developing more variations using the existing mechanics than I would in trying to reinvent a very nice wheel (one too nice for the cart they stuck it to perhaps).

For example, it should be fairly easy to convert Mass templates into a new Density Decrease power (increase already being covered, and the APG version being based on Desolidification). Likewise it shouldn't be too hard to create Inflation/Deflation Templates to convert into powers for all those Stretchy and Pufferfish like growers whose mass doesn't change.

On 6/9/2018 at 10:39 PM, unclevlad said:

I remember a game where this happened...the character had quite high DCV but no resistant defense. 

The "All Dodge, No Defense" guy is a trope that it is explicitly noted doesn't work in HERO. The GM shouldn't have let that corpse-to-be ever hit the table.

As Ninja-Bear mentions, simulating that trope is exactly why Combat Luck exists. It is practically a requirement for any Heroic or greater character to have a minimum of 3-6 rPD (regardless of its SFX, or their concept).

For transforming, one option is to use a Multipower with each slot representing one of it's forms. For lack of a mechanic, the Pipe form is worth 1 CP, and the stilletto is built more or less normally (save that one of its slots is a pipe-form).

For illusion... you can get really complicated with having the item use Shape-Shift on itself... However, a simple and cheap solution is just declaring that it is an IAF with a Minor Side Effect (becomes Obvious if subjected to any amount of Dispel Shape-Shift or Dispel Images; -1/4). To make the "illusion" better than an unmodified PER Roll: include SLs with Concealment Linked to the foci (and with Only To Conceal Focus)

Thus the letter option generally makes the weapon elements are very, very slightly more expensive than they were.

Transforming will increase the cost of the weapon by about 20% due to the nature of Multi-Powers.