Cantriped

Every skill that has an opposed roll describes what rolls to use when. For example: Acting is opposed by an INT roll, Charm is opposed by EGO, Concealment is opposed by Perception or Concealment, Disguise is opposed by Perception, Forgery is opposed by Forgery, etc.

41 minutes ago, Lucius said:

I believe you have a typo here and meant to say "senses the character possess" that is, senses belonging to the character buying the Trigger Power.

Yes.

41 minutes ago, Lucius said:

I am not sure about this. If I plant a mine and walk away from it, I don't need "Indirect" for the eventual attack to originate from the mine.

The Mine is typically a no range triggered attack, it is originating from where you were positioned when the trigger was set (i.e. when you planted the mine).

The homing attack needs Indirect because when triggered the attack doesn't originate from where the character set it, but from some arbitrary position, usually behind the target and any Barriers they made to protect themselves.

41 minutes ago, Lucius said:

If I place a spell on a wand that activates by command word and leave it on a table and walk across the room and shout the command word when someone is between me and the wand, I don't think I need Indirect.

I think that wand needs Indirect (Origin Is Wand; +1/4) and Incantations to be activated (usefully) from across the room. especially since you could abuse that to hide behide a barrier. Wands in D&D typically have to be held, pointed, and then spoken at to activate.

On 5/24/2018 at 8:27 AM, ashuramarsh said:

I am working on an idea but not sure how to go about it...

I'd build it as a Vehicle with an A.I. Computer integrated into it. Or, if cheaper, as a Character with vehicle-like properties (such as Defenses that Protect Carried Objects). However either way you'll be paying 1/5th of the total points used to create the Mecha.

On 5/25/2018 at 5:38 AM, Sveta said:

Follower

This is the first one that came to mind first actually. By describing the Mech as a Follower, it allows you to design them in the 5 to 1 XP manner, have their own personality, and be Sentient. This also places them more under the GM's control though when not "Piloted." The confusing part to me would be how to treat damage there, but lest something crazy happened, I'd just treat the Piloting Human to have Resistance 50% to damage types, or have attacks require Indirect to Directly Harm them without a Targeted Attack. Easy Power limitations of Only Usable when being Piloted, ect... Perhaps Arbitrary limitations on the Follower's ability to do things without being Piloted. 

Pros: Sapient Mech that exists even when the Pilot does not.

Cons: It's actions are more Dictated by the GM. Piloting is a status then that must be made adhoc with the GM. 

 

That's it for now. Will update as I can think of things.

Riding a Follower is the same as riding any other Character or Automaton, there are already rules for it (they are mostly the same as for Vehicles), for how to make the Automaton's Defenses protect you, and for how to make it take damage like a vehicle.

Blind and sleepy, I'm on a roll. Speaking of rolls... the Skills section should include the skill rolls to save you having to recalculate them over and over.

Your layouts should include PRE and EGO.

PRE is used for presence attacks (the mechanic used to frighten, inspire, and persuade others through raw charisma), and EGO sets the bar for resisting mental powers.

41 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

Can anyone upload and share their conversions?

Yes!  You can even find a few of my write-ups there.

I like the simplistic "+1/4 per additional attempt" that doesn't require maintainance (it makes missile builds much simpler), and stacks nicely with duration and other modifiers. All it needs is the standard "you must define a reasonably common method of evasion" clause.

You calculate each element of a compound power seperately. For example:

Powered Armor: Compound Power All Slots (39 APs); OIF (-1/2), Real Armor (-1/4)...

1)  Resistant Protection (5 rPD/5 rED), Hardened (+1/4) (19 APs). Cost: 11 points.

2)  Life Support (Self-Contained Breathing) (10 APs); 1 Fuel Charge Lasting 1 Day (-0), Linked (Slot 1; -1/4). Cost: 5 points.

Total Cost:  16 points.

EDIT: The total cost was wrong... so sleepy.

1 hour ago, Lucius said:

Homing Attack:  (Total: 26 Active Cost, 26 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6, Trigger (Activating the Trigger is an Action that takes no time, Trigger resets automatically, immediately after it activates, Trigger can expire (it has a time limit), Two activation conditions apply simultaneously, Misfire; Trigger Conditions: "at will" and "when an attack has just missed last phase"; +3/4) (26 Active Points) (Real Cost: 26)

If at first it doesn't succeed, it will try, try again.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says that when Lucius wrote "an attack has just missed" he means to imply, "With this Power specifically"

"At-Will" isn't a legal trigger condition, as it must be easily verifiable and needing to use an expensive and unreliable mental power like Telepathy to detect the trigger condition is not "easy". A similar, but legal conditions are "Snapping Your Fingers" or saying "Go Go Magic Bullet" (conditions I would also include Gestures or Incantations to simulate)

Also the trigger relies on senses the target possesses, so it cannot Hone In on Hidden or Invisible enemies. You also need Indirect, since the subsequent "activations" don't originate from the Character.

Personally that is a lot of modifiers to represent what is essentially a single modifier that is strictly worse than the power being either Constant or Indirect.

*Both Constant and Homing powers cost END to maintain; but the former lets you deal damage across multiple phases with one attack roll, while the latter only allows you to make multiple consecutive attempts to damage the target once.

An Indirect (Origin Varies; +1/2) Attack has all the actual advantages of a Homing Attack, but without any of the limitations (like costing END or Continuing Charges to maintain, being dispellable, and easily suckered, etc).

2 hours ago, IndianaJoe3 said:

Has anyone tried the Self-Controlled Focus rules from APG2?

I have, while they are great on paper, because they give Foci a full suite of characteristics (most importantly Size, Mass, and BODY). In practice they are way, way too complicated, and can significantly reduce the value of Foci without any real return in usability. It was a great idea that was very poorly executed.

There are also notation and support issues. Hero Designer does not support expanded Foci, meaning you have to use custom modifiers (which just discourages me from using that crutch anyway). Also, including all the elements Expanded Foci includes bloats even simple objects into full character sheets (or unreadable blocks of text that need extensive annotation).

I like the idea enough that I spent months working up a fairer (and easier to adopt) version of Expanded Foci. The main changes (from normal foci) is that my rules treat Foci almost exactly like any other Object (meaning using this system any Hero System Object can be converted into a focus). In use this means you  have to define and note the Foci's Size and Mass (in addition to extant traits like Obviousness). Mass is used to determine the Foci's starting BODY (DEF calculation remains unchanged). Note that Objects don't lose powers when damaged, they work like Objects and are nonfunctional at zero BODY, and destroyed at their negative BODY.

Under this system a converted Foci's value rarely changes. The value goes down if the Foci is very large (as that makes it easier to see and hit), very heavy (as that eats into your encumbrance and affects moving the item), or very Fragile (has half the BODY and DEF it should, or less) or Complex (acquires an Activation Roll when damaged, just like Complex Objects). The value only rises if the Foci is very Durable (twice the DEF amd BODY).

For Persistant powers like Resistant Protection and Knockback Resistance, yes. But not for powers like Flight or STR, that cost END to use.

1 minute ago, knasser2 said:

 

Okay. So it's not as bad as I thought. Looking at the charts on 6E1,pg.368/9, I'd build it with 1 charge but move it down 8 levels for a 1 day Continuing Charge. Meaning it would be +¼ Advantage. Is that right? And I should increase that advantage by a further +¼ to make it a Fuel Charge, representing it can be turned on and off? The Power Armour can't (reasonably) be used without power (you could just about move in the Light version), but you could take it off and put it back on again.

Note the special rules regarding Continuing and Fuel Charges when applied to Persistent Powers. Basically if the power it normally always on, even if you are unconsious, than Charges is Never an Advantage (its value remains -0 regardless of how long the charge lasts.

Personally I would use the Fuel Charge because it would allow the user to conserve power (it also includes submodifiers for how hard the fuel is to obtain compared to having it recover automatically each day).

There are very advanced (and granular) rules fir constructing and representing powered armor in the Hero System Equipment Guide. It might be worth researching. HSEG also has the most comprehensive set of equipment tables for 6th edition currently extant. Useful reference for such a equipment heavy campaign type.

15 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

Okay. That makes a LOT more sense. I can't figure out how it's calculated before deducting Defence by the wording in the book because it reads to me as if it's the BODY damage that's actually taken by the target. Which is why I've been stuck on this. I thought it must be the amount dealt initially.

You use the BODY Damage rolled on the dice; before any modifications have taken place (so before Hit Locations, Defenses, Damage Reduction), with one odd exception:

Damage Negation actually reduces the damage rolled (you literally roll fewer d6s), therefore it also reduces Knockback. Note that I hate DN because of all the corner cases it created, and I almost never use it.

Anyway the point is you don't do more Knockback with a headshot, or less against an armored target. The user's Attack, and the target's Mass and Position are the primary factors in determining Knockback/down.

Don't reduce her effectiveness, she paid 70+ points for the advantage of being able to do what she does.

If you need to challange her, use enemies that don't care if they are grabbed, or that can easily escape. Bricks, Mentalists and Martial Artists.

Any Brick worth their salt will have more STR than she has TK, making escape a matter of time. Mental Illusions can be used to make her accidently attack teammates much more easily than Mind Control, and in her case effectively knocks out both her and teammate automatically. Martial Escape and Contortionist give a huge bonuses to STR to escape. Also don't forget that Mental Powers (like EGO Blast), and lots of other powers (laser eye beams, frost breath, molten skin) can still be used on the character while the target is grabbed.

31 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

 

Got it. Yes, that's the source of my confusion. Plus I had missed that it was specific to Killing Attacks.

 

So... there's quite the difference between Knockdown and Knockback. The former of which is the default for Hero level settings like WH40K. I can see Knockdown making sense on any killing attack. A knife may not have the force to knock you down in and of itself, but if you get stabbed, stumbling back 2m is a pretty instinctive response. But in practice, I'm not sure how much difference it's going to make. If it only triggers when you take more than half your Body in damage, it's only going to come up in cases where the character is blown half to Hell already. Whereas it might be nice to have someone knocked flat by the impact but their armour prevents any actual damage.

With the default Knockdown rules a knife can cause knockdown without the target taking any BODY damage.

Presuming a standard knife (a 1/2d6 HKA, STR Min 6) and a character with 16 STR or more.

If he hits the target the knife can do up to 7 BODY (on 1d6+1), On average this will result in no Knockdown/back, but if you rolled a 6 or less on the Knockback/down modifier (on 3d6) the attack will cause Knockdown (or 2-8m Knockback). This remains true even if the target wears Armor providing 7 or more rPD (enough to stop the knife from doing BODY).

Note, Space Marine armor looks crazy heavy, and probably provides Knockback Resistance (use the Mass templates for guidelines as to how much). Because they are determined the same way, Knockback Resistance also protects the character from Knockdown (unless it is caused by an Impairing or Disabling Wound, as those are described as being automatic).

44 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

 

I'm a bit confused why it's a limitation. That implies everything does Knockback by default and this is a downgrade to Knockdown. And that is actually how I read the rules but earlier you said weapons don't do Knockback/Knockdown by default. Should it not be a +¼ Advantage to bolt weapons of Does Knockdown?

Any Attack Power which causes BODY damage also automatically causes Knockdown/back as appropriate to the campaign (which is default depends upon the campaign). Killing Attacks cause 1d6 (3.5 on average) less BODY worth of Knockdown/back (due to rolling 3d6 to determine Knock' instead of 2d6).

Part of your confusion may have come from the fact that I argue for giving almost all weapons the limitation No Knockdown/back... So that swords and pistols don't send people flying regardless of rolls. No Knockback and No Knockdown are -1/4 regardless of campaign type.

So the values of Does Knockdown and Does Knockback are circumstantial.

If attacks cause Knockback by default than Does Knockdown is a limitation for those that would have caused Knockback instead (like Blast), and an advantage for those that would not (like Flash).

If attacks cause Knockdown by default, than Does Knockdown is still an advantage for some powers, but is never a limitation. Does Knockback becomes an advantage for all such powers.

5 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Cantriped if you get a chance to look at Champion Powrs for 6th, Steve Long bought the Nega-beam as a character.

I'm not sure how Nega-Beam is relevent, besides being highly illegal and abusive. It is the second most terribly written power I've ever seen (the first being Captain Chronos in general and his NND Entangle specifically). Nega-Beam uses Summon to create a "Character" that represents an Attack.

HERO System should have long since included an Advantage for representing Homing attacks... so that we did not require such an atrociously built construct to represent a fairly common trope. For Example:

Homing (+1/4): Allows the Attack to function similarly to a heat-seeking missile. If a Homing Attack misses its target, it will bank around and attempt to attack the target again next phase (using the same OCV it initially attacked with). A character must normally pay END to maintain a Homing Attack (but needn't take any further action to maintain it). A Homing Attack is considered to have a number of meters of Flight equal to its maximum range. Homing Attacks have a normal Turn Mode (unless it takes No Turn Mode) and must obey all of the standard rules for acceleration/deceleration; meaning that it is fairly easy to block homing attacks (compared to other ranged attacks) or trick them into hitting something else (a Sucker Attack).

6 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

For the rest though, this is honestly sounding too complex to be fun in play. I appreciate the effort at verisimilitude but when players get their hands on one of these, they're going to want to just blast somebody. I'm just trying to add a little extra to them to separate them from bullets.

For a KISS approach an extra level of Armor Piercing or a few extra DCs for its tier will be sufficient.

Another idea that comes to mind is to apply Area Of Effect (1m Radius) to part of the damage (say half) to represent that a close bystander (not to mention all of the target's accessible equipment) might catch shrapnel from the explosion, but wouldn't suffer the full effect of the explosion. On paper it looks complex (the nature of writing out partially advantaged weapons), but in practice you can simply note it as a Splash Weapon on the weapon tables (indicating the spash damage and radius in parentheses so it can vary from weapon to weapon) and include a defination of that property in the table notes.

1 minute ago, knasser2 said:

 

Very small rockets, but yes, they are rockets. I'd kind of like an effect that knocked people back a bit but I honestly find the Knockback / Knockdown rules some of the most confusing in the book (next to Multiform). For Knockdown it only kicks in with Impairing and Disabling wounds. Both of these are also optional rules but by implication you can't not include them if you include Knockdown.

You misunderstand a couple points. Knockdown and Knockback trigger in exactly the same circumstances, the primary difference is tjat the effect of Knockdown is very limited. Knock Back is the default rule in "Superheroic" campaigns, Knock Down is the default rule in "Heroic" campaigns like yours appears to be (other differences include whether you pay for equipment with points, and the use of optional combat rules like Hit Locations).

Impairing & Disabling wounds also cause Knockdown, but that is unrelated.

9 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

I couldn't find a limitation called "Does Knockdown" but there is a reference in 6E2 to converting the Does Knockback advantage into Does Knockdown (+¼) which means it automatically does Knockdown without requiring an Impairing Wound. Is this what you meant?

Does Knockdown as an advantage is simply the "Heroic equivalent" of Does Knockback in campaigns where it is inappropriate to send people flying all over the place. As a limitation it falls under the umbrella of the catch-all Limited Power (the RAW legal version of "I pulled it out of my ass"). I gave it a value of -1/4 because while it is objectively worse than a power that does Knockback (and is therefore worth some discount), doing neither Knockback or Knockdown is even worse and still only worth -1/4 (so it shouldn't be any higher either).

With GM permission, there isn't anything truely stopping a character from having an Attack Power that causes Double Knockback in a Heroic Campaign (using Knockdown by default)... or one that causes Double Knockdown in a campaign where Knockback is the default rule. The default is most important because of how it affects Strength (which causes Normal Damage and swiftly builds to levels that can cause Knock Down/Back.

For a Rocket that relies on actually penetrating armor to be effective I have two ideas.

The first is a higher than normal DC RKA with Reduced Penetration. So that the Bolts can do a lot of extra damage if they can just punch through the armor.

The second is a few extra DCs with the Limitation that they only apply to targets with less than a given amount of PD (based on how much of the rocket's damage is from penetration, and how much comes from the explosion.

Either results in liquifying unarmored opponents. If that isn't a desired side effect... for example because the rockets are designed to explode inside powered armor, and thus punch through an unarmored human so fast they explode behind the target instead of inside... if the warhead detonates at all; is human flesh even resistant enough to trigger the warhead?

The third idea is to buy extra DCs as in idea two, but with harsher limitations: the target must have at least X rPD, or at most Y rPD in order for the additional DCs to apply.

PS: Bolter Rockets as described most certainly should be able to blow holes in walls (i.e. they aren't Beams). Logically it would penetrate part way into the surface before exploding, fracturing the entire surface and sending a shower of debries in all directions.

If the Bolters fire rockets than it would make sense for them to be able to cause Knockback, but the described detonation delay would reduce that potential significantly, so I would still suggest either removing Double Knockback, or adding a -1/4 limitation "Does Knockdown" to represent that the weapon is highly likely to knock you off your feet, but not likely to send you flying all over the map.

14 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

Secondly, I don't know how to switch the new forum editor to markup and I can't split the quote up into bits so I've just highlighted the parts I'm replying to.

I don't know how to either... I quote the whole post, delete the unneeded section(s), comment below the quote box, rinse and repeat.

16 minutes ago, knasser2 said:

 

Like so...

I think it is very, very odd that you've given Double Knockback to the bolt weapons.

The first reason is inefficiency, the threshold for causing knockback is 50% higher for Killing Damage than Normal Damage, and KAs only cause 1/6th more BODY per DC (the target's applicable defenses are irrelevent to the Knockback calculation, so it does not matter that the KA will tend to inflict more serious injuries. Attacks intended to cause Knockback usually use Normal Damage instead.

The second has to do with the compatibility of the mechanical and special effects. Double Knockback is typically reserved for torrential attacks (I.E. those made with a powerful, but diffuse force, like a gust of wind or wave of water.

As I understand it the Bolt Guns are essentially standard firearms (in that they are ballistic weapons that fire reasonably small, high velocity physical projectiles). Such weapons simply don't cause Knockback, the projectile is moving too fast for the force to be distributed evenly. It is far more reasonable to assume those bullets are going to core out or blow off part of whatever they hit. At most, ballistic weapons cause Knockdown (a limited version of Knockback with a flat push distance of 1 hex/2m).

A Bolt Gun certainly shouldn't be causing an average of 8m Knockback per shot (meaning a single bullet will consistantly hurl a normal human more than 20 feet backwards), nor should it have a maximum of 42m Knockback.

Almost all of these powers should (per RAW) have the Beam modifier as well... Although Beam bundles several minor restrictions that I sometimes choose to seperate. For example, a Lasgun can probably be Spread (if it is a coherent beam as opposed to a energy bolt), while a Bolt Gun could not. Meanwhile a lader is not much use for blowing open a hole in something but an exploding projectile might be.

On 5/8/2018 at 10:50 AM, HeroicTaco said:

 

Sorry to necro this thread but happened to bump into it. Recently managed to get my hands on quite a few Champions sourcebooks (notably Champions Universe, Beyond, the 3 Villains, Book of the Destroyer, Book of the Empress, Mystic World and a few more) and I've been loving them. Really cool setting (that I first bumped into in Champions Online). 

 

What books were planned for the setting? And where can one find the mentioned publication schedules?

I think the only supplement for the Champions Universe still slated for publication is the organizations book. But I could be wrong.

This is a genre simulation problem, and such problems are often more easily fixed with design conceit than by changing the rules (in other words... just change how you use the mechanics, not the mechanics themselves. Remember that you have final say on anything players might want to build, and a responsibility to audit such material to ensure it is appropriate to your campaign. No amount of rules-text can prevent abuse and user error.

Sure... 15m of Flight has the same cost regardless of user size... except that a vehicle has already paid for its Size as a characteristic, making it pay an added fee based on size for movement powers is double-dipping and contrary to system principles. Given two otherwise identical vehicles the larger (or faster) one should be the more expensive one, and amongst two "equal vehicles" one migut be larger and slower than the other (as points spent on Size don't improve Flight).

As for the reason why one ship may buy more less movement than another, there is only one reason that actually matters. Because you said so (and/or because that is what is appropriate to the campaign). If you need your Carriers to be slower than your Fighters, simply don't let the Carrier buy more flight than you let Fighters have.

13 hours ago, tiger said:

Don't know if it's been mentioned but you could make it a multi-form. Basic form is the sword and the multi-form would be an automation

Technically, Foci aren't legal Forms for Multiform. Even as a house rule it has to deal with a lot of problems... Foci don't have a SPD score, and therefore have no phases with which to activate Multiform. Nor do they have a BODY score so you'd need to adjudicate how damage transfers.