Cantriped

I am not sure why I would also need to buy Persistent? According to 6E1 346:

 

"Time Limit is also an Advantage for Constant Powers that cost 0 END or that only cost END to activate. As discussed below, it prevents the power from turning off during the defined Time Limit even if the character is Stunned, Knocked Out, or loses Line Of Sight to the power."

 

Time Limit already covers what Persistent does, and the next paragraph already makes that comparison.

You misunderstand. If you place Time Limit (1 Minute) on a Constant, Zero END​ Blast it is a +1/2 Advantage. However, if you place Time Limit (1 Minute) on Persistent, Zero END Blast it is a -2 Limitation instead. The power doesn't need ​to be persistent, but Time Limit is an advantage in all other applicable power constructs. This is explicitly spelled out in 6e1 346 on the Time Limit Table (which can also be found in CC on page 117), and again in the bullet-pointed list describing the modifier.

Time Limit becomes a limitation on persistent powers (and ONLY persistent powers) because all it does to such powers is reduce their maximum duration (from Indefinite to 1 Minute for example); there are no benefits to speak of.

One of the problems I have with the over-granulation of 5th and 6th editions is that it amplifies the problem faced by skill-heavy characters. Did we really need Survival to get broken down into a bunch of different sub-skills? (The correct answer to that question is "no").

That is one of the reasons I prefer CC/FHC. All those categorized skills were imploded, it helps the Skill-focused characters a lot not having to dump ~20ish points into skills like Animal Handler.

The Hero System Bestiary doesn't have any Angels.

There are the Nat (HSB 372), which apparently include "Nature Spirits" and "Devas". They could easily be converted into lesser Angels by giving them Flight.

There are some Fey that can be adapted, such as the Daoine Sidhi (HSB 320). Which is described as a "fallen angel of Ireland", and could easily be converted into a god-like angel.

Not saying anyone here is wrong, but Champions (6th edition) pegged the end of the Bronze Age in the mid-eighties... Which is a little before I was born. Per Champions, ​I grew up in the midst of the Iron Age. The first Superhero cartoon I remember watching was Spiderman and His Amazing Friends (1981). Of course by the time I saw it was probably almost a decade old. Spider-Man and Batman cartoons were a staple of the Saturday Morning block when I was growing up. 

Champions ​describes Cinema Superheros as being part of the Iron Age; which ostensibly continues to this day. However, it also mentions that Cinema Superheroes draw many elements from the Bronze and Silver Ages. Barring any massive revolution in storytelling, I expect that a "Retro Age" will follow the Iron Age. I think that the current rash of cinematic superheroes in the last decade have been a lead up to said age. The "Retro Age" is an age where writers will create stories that pay homage to past ages.

Nothing in the RAW prevents a Tiger from performing a normal Grab (which is a standard maneuver available to all), and following it with a Squeeze or Slam (which are sub-actions of the Grab Maneuver that deal STR-based Damage to the victim). I cannot find explicit rules support for it in CC/FHC, but I would probably allow the Tiger to perform the Squeeze action with their HA or HKA Bite​ (plus their strength) given the special effects involved.

However, I'm pretty sure you can also just purchase Martial Grab as part of an "Tiger Style" Martial Art (perhaps with Martial Escape and Defensive Strike), and define Claws and Bite​ as its weapon elements. Thus explicitly allowing you to perform a Martial Grab using an HA or HKA Claw or Bite​, and substitute your Strength with your HA/HKA (Which you may then add your STR back into because HA/HKA explicitly allows you to do so).

Correction: Per CC 117, Time Limit only applies to "Instant Powers, and Powers that cost no END to maintain". and it is only a Limitation when applied to Persistent Powers (such as Resistant Protection). When applied to a Constant Power that does not Cost END, Time Limit is still an Advantage (because it allows you to break line of sight, and be Stunned or knocked out without affecting the activation of the power). 

So in order to make a "Potion of Growth" using Time Limit (as a limitation) you must first apply Zero END (+1/2) and Persistent (+1/4) to the base Power (Growth).

I agree that if all you care about is immediate access to any given skill, than yeah, some permutation of Summon or Multiform is probably the cheapest way to go.

Yeah, for every skill in the game you're better off with Summon in a VPP.

 

40 Speed Dial: Variable Power Pool, 25 base + 50 control cost, Powers Can Be Changed As A Half-Phase Action (+1/2) (62 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Summon Only; -1); all slots IAF (Cell Phone; -1/2)   0

1) Outsource: Summon 200-point 200 point expert, Friendly (+1/4) (50 Active Points); Arrives Under Own Power (-1/2), IAF (Cell Phone; -1/2) Real Cost: 25

 

Bam. 200 point expert in whatever skill or skills you need for a half-phase action and a power roll   You know, as long as the GM doesn't say 'the closest expert of that skill that you know of is in London, England.  He'll arrive tomorrow." every single time you use the power.

 

(If so you'll have to ditch the cool 'arrives under own power' limitation and become a necromancer or something who summons ghosts with the skills directly to his location)

Just for fun, I built a character construct called "Amorphous Blob Man" as a Standard Superhero. He sold back EVERYTHING. (1s in all characteristics, no senses, etc), and bought an enormous Cosmic VPP (I think the Pool was around 450 points). Every phase he could simply "rebuild himself" into whatever the situation called for. Totally illegal by the way, but an interesting thought experiment.

You're lowballing that horribly, trust me I've tried to build the guy.  It gets ridiculous.  The language list alone is over 100, and he's got at least accented fluent in every single one.  Every martial arts style is like 400 points.

I'm not lowballing it, you misread my post.

The aforementioned character bought Linguist and EVERY language on CC 31 as Idiomatic + Literacy (sans the one they got for free) for 143 CP. Also I explicitly stated that the aforementioned character was not purchasing ANY Combat skills. I also ignored the 25+ different versions of Fast Draw they'd need...

However Lets price out the combat stuff too shall we?

Purchasing every Martial Maneuver in FHC (which has more than CC) costs 93 CP. Lets toss another 50 CP in Weapon Elements on top of that (twice as much as I spent on WF) so you can use Every Martial Maneuver with up to 50 appropriate 1-point Weapon Groups, such as Blades.

Add Defense Maneuver IV (10 CP), every Autofire Skill (20 CP), Rapid Attack (10 CP), and Two-Weapon Fighting (10 CP).

Add in 25+ different Versions of Fast Draw (because why the hell not "I'm Batman" it all the way) (75 CP). 

For a total of 268 more points. That is a far cry from spending 400 on Martial Arts alone.

Adding the above Game Elements to the previous "Super Everyman" described earlier results in a 718 point character that can do pretty much anything that doesn't require a Power... "I'm Batman" indeed. 

The most appropriate usage for Charges Which Never Recover is in game elements the PCs are not expected to pay CP for directly. For example: Normal Equipment, Wondrous Items created using the Alternate Magic Item Creation Rules (from Fantasy Hero), Equipment purchased through Resource Point Pools, and temporary McGuffin Powers* granted by the GM.

* (For example: NPC 032's 'heroic sacrifice' turns you into a God Amongst Men, but only long enough to win the battle against this adventure's BBEG.)

The same goes for most of the Perks in my opinion. But I have issues with the principle of taking away CP permanently. I simply refuse to do it, even when the RAW has indicated I should, such as for Followers.

As near as I can tell though... almost all language supporting the permanent loss of CP has been scrubbed from CC/FHC. Nothing in the rules actually says that a Game Elements CP value changes when it is "Used Up", "Killed", or "Destroyed". So although a Power with Charges Which Never Recover can never be used again, nothing actually prevents the character from selling the Power back for it's full value afterwards (or even using those points to buy an identical power next adventure... except a sensible GM of course). Likewise. even things like Duplicates and Followers can technically be sold back (and repurchased) if they die. Although in the case of Followers you do lose any Experience they've acquired while they adventured with you when they Die or are Sold Off.

I don't know, skills are already pretty damn cheap. Especially under CC/FHC which imploded categorized skills like Animal Handler into flat 3/2 rolls.

There are only about ~52 Skills in CC (if you exclude Combat Skills, Background and Skill Enhancers), so you can literally purchase every skill in the game for ~156 points. Add to that SS (All Sciences), PS (All Professions), CuK (All Cultures), AK (All Areas), and KS (All Topics) for 13 CP each (65 CP). And add to that all TFs and WFs (lets ball park those at 25 CP each), and all Languages (143 CP, including Linguist Enhancer).

And you Know Everything and can Do Anything (62.5% of the time...) for thereabouts of ~414 CP. If you also spend 36 CP on +3 Overall (as 12-point SLs), you've got a "Super Everyman" character can Do or Know anything 90% of the time for about 450 points.

Position Shift (a 5 CP Adder to Flight or Teleportation) (CC 112) allows a character to stand up (or otherwise regain their footing) as a Zero-Phase Action instead of a Half-Phase. A character can also attempt a Breakfall Roll (at no penalty) to stand up as a Zero-Phase Action. However, there is no way I know of to directly negate the 'target falls' Effect caused by Leg Sweep.

If they had named the maneuver Martial Trip, than by RAW (CC 154) it would automatically function as an improved version of Trip (and therefore allow the Acrobatics roll to resist), but since they did not, Leg Sweep doesn't inherit anything from Trip (it functions exactly and only as written). However, it isn't unreasonable to house-rule that Leg Sweep allows an Acrobatics Roll to resist just like Trip.

If my desolid character can choose whether to interact with a solid surface when falling, extending it to all collisions makes sense. But given I can choose to interact with those aspects of the solid world, why can't I choose to interact with a solid weapon, picking it up and attacking with it, or a solid target, hitting him with an attack? By the rules I need "Affects Solid World" on my STR to interact with the solid world. So why would I be able to choose whether I want to interact with some solid objects, but not others?

Note:​ CC is my primary rules reference, I generally only cite 6e1&2 for supplemental rules... but there are a few specific sentences here and there (and one table) which I really wish had made it into CC/FHC. Although technically unnecessary (see below) that clause is one of them.

Desolidification wasn't written to be 'realistic', or serve a broad mechanical purpose, it was written to simulate the abilities of specific extant characters. A Desolid character cannot (by default) choose to interact with a weapon to wield it, or perform a Move Through, or any of those other "logical extensions" of my previously cited interactions between Desolid and Solid objects because doing so explicitly violates the RAW. Under "The Drawbacks of Intangibility" (CC 57): "If he wants to attack, he must become solid (...), or have abilities bought with the Advantage ​Affects Physical World (page 96). So it doesn't matter if it makes sense, those are the rules as written.

If your character has sufficient control over their desolidification to be able to partially solidify to their benefit​* than they must pay the appropriate cost for such an ability, per "You Get What You Pay For" (CC 7). Almost all of the explicitly defined situations where you can be considered partially solid it is to your detriment (for example: Falling, Collisions, being exposed to Flashes or Gas Attacks).

Fair enough and the expanded text about falling IS in 6e but not in CC, which I was quoting from.  Sometimes they're farther apart than they seem.  

 

As Hugh notes, though, what's to stop a Desolid character, if you extend it to all collisions, from using Move Through without buying Affects Physical World (or turning it off, which is definitely a 'chooses to' condition, but one that technically they can't use off turn (such as when the bus is thrown at them while they have Desolidification on) ? 

Desolidification only grants immunity to some types of Attacks. So in the most technical sense, Desolidification never explicitly says it protects you Environmental Conditions (you generally need Life Support for that) such as Falling, Chemicals, Electricity, Fire, High Pressure, Lava, Low Pressure, Radiation, Sunburn, Temperature, etc (CC 139). Therefore you still suffer them unless a GM house-rules otherwise.

Collisions are not an Environment Condition (they are an aspect of the General Rules for Movement), although they do have an Environment trigger condition (attempting to move into a space occupied by a "large object"). Once again in the most technical sense, Desolidification makes one (just one) change to the general rules for Movement. It allows the character to pass through Solid Objects while using any Movement Power they possess. However it does not explicitly require them to do so, they can choose to forgo that benefit in order to purposefully collide with an object (taking damage normally).

Under this same logic (and inferable from the clause regarding Running that lets you choose not to sink into the floor), Falling could be considered to be like an Everyman Movement Power for the purposes of Desolidification. So while Desolidification does not grant you Immunity to Falling Damage (which is an Environmental Condition, not an Attack as defined above), it should allow (but not require) you to pass through Solid Objects (such as the ground) while Falling.

Time Limit as an Advantage can act as a kind of Delayed Effect in that one of it's permutations allows you to place lots of procedural limitations on the initial activation of a power, but than use it subsequently without limitation for the duration of the Time Limit. In that regard Delayed Effect, Trigger, and Time Limit are all similar in that they present ways to 'front-load' your limitations.

Time Limit allows you to establish a fixed duration for the Delayed/Triggered effect, especially useful if the effect is Persistent (such as Resistant Protection) or a Lingering Instant effect (such as a Barrier or Entangle) because than it is a limitation.

Swap the GM's seat with one of your Player's.

 

Recharges your batteries and makes the appreciate your GMing more.

This is what we're doing right now in my group. Once the current adventure is resolved (the GM is running a heavily modified version of Rollmaster using an old D&D module he's converted), I'll be taking over as GM for a little while, and running a street-level Champions game using CC.

I wouldn't use the same definition for virtual in a computer/internet context as I would for a philosophical one.  Context matters.  Words are defined by their use in context, not by absolute rules.

Context does matter. Every field of study (including game systems) have their own unique subsets of the language. But unless the field redefines a term, it is fair to assume the standard definition is in use. In that regard there are indeed absolute rules (to the degree that any human construct can be called absolute) for the defining and use of words.

Also note that I said pretty early on (post #16) that the term is fairly commonly misused. So much so it could be argued its definition has shifted (much like "literally" now officially means "figuratively" in some contexts, absolutely stupid as that is).

What I'm curious about is what on earth you define a non-campaign as.  What do you call a game where the same group with the same characters sit down and play the same game, with different and often unrelated adventures, lacking a story arc. What is the term for that?

Most commonly? If it is a Tabletop RPG we misuse the term and call it a Campaign. It isn't like were talking about a binary concept, we don't really need an antonym for campaign in this context, you simply need to refer to it by whichever broader terms it still qualifies for and which describe the concept sufficiently for your players to understand what it is (what it isn't is irrelevant). But if you want to define it accurately, you could call it any number of things: "a series of adventures/scenarios" or "a [system Name] game" (I.E. "a Fantasy Hero Game", a "Pathfinder Game"). You can also insert qualitative terms, such as "Weekly" if it is a game that happens regularly every week (I.E. "a weekly Champions game").

For example... I am playing in a weekly Rollmaster game right now. I don't call it a campaign because thus far we are simply playing through a single adventure (a module to be specific), and after it is finished we will be rotating GMs and I'll be running a Street-Level Champions game. My game probably won't be a campaign by my definition either

A while back I bought a product called Odyssey: The Complete Game Master's Guide to Campaign Management which describes the process of managing a campaign.  The material is genre and system neutral, which makes it very useful.

 

The definition they provide for a campaign is "A campaign is a series of gaming sessions focused on a group of characters which maintains a sense of continuity."  The book points out that there are four basic elements to a campaign:

• Characters : A group of characters who do things together.  Some will be at the beginning and last throughout the entire campaign and others will not.
• Game Sessions/Adventures : Stories/events/ actions that take place with the characters.  Change happens through the adventure - both to the characters and to their environment.
• Series of adventures : Characters are involved in multiple adventures and typically the adventures are linear.
• Continuity : Events that occur in one session can impact the next session or a later session.

This set of definitions largely meshes with what I understand to be the most common usage of the term in a gaming context; and it is published in a literary work on the subject I am willing to accept as a credible source for the definition of the term "campaign" (in lieu of the actual real-world definitions). This definition also happens to share the lynch-pin prerequisite and supports many (but not all) of my arguments above. Which is to say in order to qualify as a Campaign, it must be composed of a series of adventures/scenarios with continuity. A single adventure does not a campaign make (regardless of how many sessions are required to resolve the adventure).

Note: Stubborn though I am ​I try very hard to be the kind of person who can engage in true dialectic arguments. I am not trying to back peddle, I am trying to allow myself to be persuaded by the superior logic being presented.

And according to the definitions that Bluesguy quotes, what I participated in was a campaign.

Feel free to disagree but told try to tell me otherwise.

According to that definition (which I accepted the validity of above), yes you did. My disagreement hinged upon using the real-world definition of the term.

So pretty much yeah, we all had fun.

That matters way, way more than whether or not it was 'actually a campaign'.

Actually, at the end, that is really all that matters. What we call it is irrelevant as long as we can agree on terms amongst our own tables.

Yeah I have no dog in this hunt, people can define their games however they want I've just never run into this definition before and I'm trying to understand it and know how prevalent it is.  If I'm using the word in  manner that others are unfamiliar with, it might lead to confusion in my products.

Based on the fact that there is apparently a book (and most likely many books) on the subject using that definition: probably fairly prevalent. My 20ish years of studying game design aside... I am a person obsessed with technicalities and minutia, and prone to strongly held and unpopular opinions.

Sure but neither of those definitions are game-specific, and I've never actually heard or seen a game campaign be one that requires a single story arc or theme to qualify.  I see that more of a subset of campaign, something a campaign can consist of but need not be exclusively.

Barring a system-specific definition (such as how the game defines what terms like "Blast" and "Normal Damage" are), is it not reasonable to use the general, real-world definition?

Further, A story arc isn't required to qualify as a campaign under any definition I accept (including its usage in common gaming parlance). Not every scenario has a cohesive narrative (or story arc), therefore nor does every campaign. One could participate in a tabletop Campaign that had no roleplaying or narrative storytelling elements at all. Such a game would essentially just be a series of abstract tactical simulations, but so long as each scenario worked towards a particular goal, it qualifies as a campaign. The goal can be vague. But without one, it simply isn't, by definition, a campaign regardless of how many scenarios make it up. Conversely an adventure does not have to have a goal, and almost all scenarios and campaigns also qualify as adventures. Given that an adventure is simply "an unusual and exciting, typically hazardous, experience or activity".

I am not familiar with the example power (I don't own the source). However you could use Delayed Effect, Extra Time (To Prepare), and various other procedural modifiers on a Power Usable On Others (either inherently or through the modifier of the same name), probably bought through a VPP, in order to simulate the narrative elements you seem to be describing.

"Don't you know, you never split the party!"

There is also the classic anime cliche "I will be your opponent" scene where everyone pairs up against the enemy they are (usually worst) suited to fighting. Of course, that scene requires the appropriate combination of Complications (usually Hunted/Hunting), or a McGuffin that cannot be left alone long enough to engage in Focus Fire.

 

Nothing special.  If characters gang up on one guy and ignore everyone else, they get picked off by the rest of the team.  You cannot fight all offense in a Champions game, or you get slammed.  The reason that kind of tactic works in a computer game is that computer AI is stupid and designed to work with that strategy.  When you as a GM are running bad guys, they aren't being taunted and forced to fight one guy, they will take advantage of openings and being ignored.

 

Its not just a video-game mechanic, and its validity has nothing to do with Bad AI design. 

This tactic is perfectly valid in Tabletop and Computerized RPGs alike, and works just as well against groups of PCs as it does against groups of NPCs. The effectiveness of the tactic is due to the fact that in most games with abstract damage systems, there is no penalty for being injured, only incapacitated. The Stunning rules mildly discourage Tactic #1, but obviously not enough. Conversely the Coordinating Attacks and the Multiple Attackers bonus strongly encourage Tactic #1 if you can invest in Teamwork.

You can find literally dozens of threads on the Paizo forums which support, with exhaustive math I'm unwilling to reproduce, the general superiority of the Focus Fire tactic.

In the end it is almost always better for your team to Focus Fire and Incapacitate one enemy than it is for them to Spread Fire and injure two or more enemies, but leave them able to retaliate. The obvious exceptions are regarding Control powers and Stunning. If your team can Spread Control and Incapacitate or Stun two or more enemies at once, than it becomes a more efficient way to reduce the enemy encounter's Economy Of Action.

Of course, a properly built party can have their cake and eat it too. One Multi-Target Control character paired with two or more Single-Target Damage characters allow the party to use both Focus Fire to reduce remaining combatants, and Spread-Control to reduce the effectiveness of the remaining Combatants (effectively shaving away at their Economy Of Action from both sides

You say potato, I say potato

I disagree. As described, your so-called 'campaign' didn't have a "particular goal" nor were the characters working "in an organized and active way" towards said undefined goal. Perhaps your description was incomplete?

I was just looking at my much loved Edition 3 Champions book and it has a whole "Campaign" section

 

It doesn't really define what a campaign is but says "Adventures in Champions can be played on an individual basis, or may be linked together to form a campaign game. In a campaign the history and background for one adventure can be used as the basis for other adventures."

 

Draw from that what you will

They didn't have to define it explicitly, because we already have a actual real-world definitions of the term to draw from, ones that aren't merely my personal opinions*:

"Campaign"

1  |  "

"work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one."

* However, as I mentioned above (Post #5), in common gaming parlance, the term "campaign" simply refers to a chain of two or more (usually consecutive) "scenarios" with common or related goals. Scenarios are also referred to as "Adventures", especially for the purposes of awarding Experience.

By the way, the iconic Gygaxian D&D game qualifies as a campaign according to the second definition. Despite the lack of a cohesive narrative spurring their actions, or a shared cast (as in Gygaxian model characters frequently die and are replaced by their players), the party is acting as an organized force which performs militant operations to acquire personal wealth and power. Which explains why most such campaigns end when the characters have amassed enough wealth and power to retire (they've achieved their particular campaign's goal).

Players will almost always make the most efficient combat decisions they can. The advantage to focus fire is that it more quickly reduces incoming damage by reducing the number of combatants left on the battlefield in following Phases/Turns. In order to discourage Tactic #1, you have to engineer situations where it is no longer viable.  So in order to render the tactic ineffective or impossible: you have to create a situation where Focus Fire instead increases the incoming damage, negates its ability to reduce the number of combatants on the battlefield, or makes the opportunity cost higher in some other way.

Of course, if it is fair for PCs to do it, than it is fair for NPCs too. If PCs leave themselves open to Focus Fire, use the tactic against them.

For example:

What if there were a group of metahumans (like a small tribe or family unit) who all have small amounts of Usable By Other defenses which they can apply to others instantly via Triggers. In this situation Focus Fire becomes ineffective because the NPCs can similarly Focus all their Defences on whichever of them is being targeted. The values should be such that if all of the NPCs Focus Def on one of themselves, they are effectively immune to the PC's attacks. However, if the PCs spread out an attack each member individually, their own defenses (sans Focus Def) aren't enough to protect them.

What if you simply develop a single NPC specialized in combat against multiple opponents.  All of their defensive characteristics increase proportionally to the number of Attackers they face. Such as a character with Regeneration and Absorption As Defense to DCV and/or DMCV (as appropriate). Likewise, a character with bonuses to various CVs dependent upon facing multiple Attackers would also be effective at discouraging Focus Fire

What if the Villains/Agents the characters ignored are able to escape (and target their DNPCs next). Or worse, what if they take and threaten hostages immediately; thereby forcing characters with certain levels of Code Vs. Killing to make Ego Rolls to resist the compulsion to engage the hostage taker instead.

What if the first combatant on the scene is a Brick so tough the party can't hurt him, but can't really hurt them either beyond harrying (for whatever reason), and only after the heroes begin to Focus Fire on the Brick do the come out of the Woodwork to finish the PCs off, or accomplish their objective. For example, Brainchild could persuade Ogre to start a street brawl with the heroes to buy him time to perform some villainous act or another.

​Regarding Optional Rules: ​ I can think of two optional rules which discourage Tactic #1 as consequences of their function. The first is Wounding (CC 160), and the second are the Damage To Subject and Injury (HSS 34 & 35) rules (which are the same as the Significant Injury rules from Fantasy Hero ​5th Edition). Both optional rules in some way undermine the core principle that allows Tactic #1 to be so effective: The fact that it doesn't matter how much damage the defender has taken unless it results in their immediate incapacitation. Aside from the chance of being Stunned, there is no penalty assigned for having taken damage. In other words, by default, the first strike doesn't matter, only the last (which isn't very realistic).

The first, Wounding introduces a chance that taking damage will prevent the attacker from performing offensive actions (in addition to the chance of being Stunned); which means the more the attacker's spread out their attacks, the more defenders they can potentially Wound or Stun that phase (thereby reducing incoming damage without having to be able to reduce the number of remaining defenders).

The second, Injury, introduces a "death spiral" effect wherein the defenders are less able to retaliate as they become more and more wounded. Which again, means that spreading out the attacks allows them to potentially Injure more defenders (thereby reducing incoming damage without having to be able to reduce the number of remaining defenders).

Other Notes: In order to further ensure that Tactic #1 is discouraged, you mustn't let the PCs know when Tactic #1 is working. Don't report exactly how much damage is being taken beyond what is obviously visible. Otherwise once they realize a target isn't taking enough damage to drop them, the player will switch to a "softer" looking target even if there is no good reason for their character to want to do so.

I don't really consider the amount of damage taken by a attack to be obvious to the attacker unless it causes actual destruction (such as breaking an enemy's bones or putting a hole in a wall), so I describe my enemies status in vague terms so that the players cannot make decisions based on information their characters should not have.

I would not consider "surviving whatever was thrown at us" to be equivalent to "work(ing) in an organized and active way toward a particular goal". Quite the opposite, I consider that to be working in a disorganized and passive way towards no particular goal whatsoever. That is like the Champions equivalent of playing Murderhobos in D&D. Entertaining certainly, but does not a campaign make.

I'd allow Dive for Cover against most any attack. The opportunity costs of the maneuver are entirely appropriate to the benefits. I would also allow the common variant "Dive To Avoid Cover" where you dive to provide cover for someone else; automatically taking the hit instead of them (even if said attack would have missed the original target).

The only potential for abuse I can think of is if the player had a high Breakfall score and was trying to use DFC as some kind of free Abort To Move cheat code. Never seen anyone try to pull that tho.

People who simply want to be able to Abort To Move are much, much, better off purchasing Flying Dodge instead. It lacks the Automiss clause, but allows you to Abort to a full move with a DCV bonus without requiring a Roll of any kind. In that regard I am thankful Flying Dodge didn't make it into CC/FHC (although it originally made me sad).

But if you play, say, Danger, International with a group of international mercenaries who solve crimes (ala A-Team) with the same basic group of characters every week, its a campaign.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a campaign (although it could be organized as one). Such scenarios are essentially unrelated adventures which happen to have a shared cast. In order to qualify as a Campaign per the actual definition of the term, the characters must "work in an organized and active way toward a particular goal, typically a political or social one". A qualifying goal might be to 'wipe out a (particular) crime syndicate', or even 'end world hunger'. In order to qualify as a campaign per common gaming parlance, said goal must require a minimum of two or more related scenarios to accomplish.

Sharing a cast is ​​not​ one of the qualities a campaign must possess; because characters sometimes die or retire and are replaced during a campaign. Otherwise the moment a player dropped out or a character died; the campaign would, by definition, be over. This is obviously not the case as military campaigns are not typically disrupted by singular casualties.