massey

Exactly where the line is drawn may be questionable, but certain things are definitely on one side or the other. CvK is obviously a complication. Batman's life would be a lot easier if he just beat the Joker to death. But even Batman's CvK is subject to interpretation. It didn't exist at all in the Tim Burton movies (the Batmobile had machine guns on it). In Batman Begins he explicitely tells Liam Neeson that he doesn't have to save him. Sometimes he'll go out of his way to save a villain who is about to get killed by some bomb or something. So not every CvK is the same. Again, if you punish players for taking genre-appropriate disadvantages, they won't take them. If you make CvK too extreme, then you'll get guys taking "reckless" and "overconfident" instead. Or maybe "underconfident". "This guy looks really tough. I'd better hit him with my full power." Or you'll just get players who quit. My basic rule of thumb is that if you're wearing a costume, then you're someone the police can't handle (that's why we need superheroes). If you're someone the police can't handle, then they can take a campaign standard attack.

I haven't read it. Are you sure it's not guilt? Throwing a bus down the street is more than 8D6. And if Takofanes is rampaging through the city, throwing buses is entirely appropriate. The evil genius who brainwashes the innocent is not in the 4 color genre. It's a screw you move that jerk GMs pull on players. Years ago, I'd start making characters with no CvK and just kill the bad guy. Nowadays I'd just quit the game. I haven't seen the adventure, but I would agree. It makes the campaign adversarial between the players and GM. You can talk about this stuff in the abstract all you want, but this really comes down to a relationship between players and GMs. I can tell you 100% that if any GM ever introduced Professor Executioner, floating down on the battlefield glowing with ominous power, who turns his gaze towards a nearby building and causes it to disintegrate, and I shoot that guy with my 12D6 EB and he dies, and the GM tries to make me feel bad about violating a CvK, then I'm quitting the game right then. I would never play in another one of his hairbrained games again. And those characters who don't match up physically are clearly defined. When Lex is wearing a business suit, everyone knows he's a normal with single-digit PD. Superman, with his 100+ STR, knows that he could kill Lex casually. The GM isn't hiding the ball with that character. When Lex puts on his green battlesuit, it's also clear that he's now in Supes' weight class, or at least close to it. -- Completely honestly, I'm getting a very strong "screw the players" vibe from this thread. Too many people are talking about ways to make the players "pay" for taking a CvK and trying to behave in genre. I wouldn't play in a game like that. Using a player's desire to stay in genre as a way to get in some cheap shots and beat him up is pretty dirty. The characters who are known for holding back in comics are the ones who are usually far more powerful than their opposition. Superman holds back because he's much more powerful than 99% of the villains he encounters. Despite being a "normal human", Batman can do BODY damage to guys like the Riddler and the Joker, and he knows it. Those villains aren't combat opponents, they're scheme opponents. It's about solving the Riddler's puzzles, not whether you can break his jaw, and that is clear to Batman (and his player) from the beginning. Occasionally you might get the Condiment King, but even then it's clear that the guy is a nutcase and not really dangerous.

Sounds more like shapeshift with a limitation.

http://giltcomplexonline.com/ ???

But we aren't really talking about shooting at normals, are we? Let's say you have two different campaign styles. In the first campaign, people develop Wildcard-style abilities. It is very possible for a person to have a 5D6 RKA and nothing else. He's a 75 point character, with baseline human abilities. 2 PD and ED, 10 Dex, etc. In the second campaign people develop sets of powers, like they do in basically every single published Champions book. In this world, if you have superpowers, you have a decent amount of defense. In the first situation, it's appropriate for a CvK character to pull his punches when he first encounters a villain. Given that there are probably numerous examples of guys with powers getting hit by someone else and popping like a zit, your character should be careful. In the second situation, it's not appropriate to require a CvK character to pull his punches. He doesn't know anything about "PD" or "ED". Those are game terms, and he can't see his character sheet. What he does know is that every single time he's shot someone in costume with his cosmic blast, the worst that's ever happened is that the guy fell down unconscious. Oh sure, a totally normal person (not in a costume) might be killed. But even when he shot that guy who just had wings and flew around, that guy turned out okay too. He didn't have a force field, he didn't wear obvious armor, he just had a yellow bodysuit, an ugly bird mask, and some wings that he strapped on his arms. Cosmic blast knocked him out cold, but he just had some bumps and bruises. It's all about the expected level of harm. If your character has good reason to believe that his blast could kill a supervillain (good reason meaning seeing the effects of his blast in battle, or seeing great harm coming to villains from the actions of other heroes), then sure he should hold back. If every combat with supervillains involves your character barely winning the fight by the skin of his teeth, then he should haymaker and push on his opening attacks.

Double post

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=arnold+i+lied&fr=iphone&.tsrc=apple&pcarrier=Verizon&pmcc=311&pmnc=480

I think slashing a throat would also count as hitting vitals, so x2 body. Doing 7 body from a cut throat with a box knife seems pretty reasonable to me. Most people don't actually die from a single knife wound.

I prefer a 4 color game. I take disads appropriate to the style of game I want to play. You can be a heroic character and still kill people. Captain America killed bunches of Nazis. I remember laughing during his movie when he hurled a Nazi out of an airplane. They're Nazis, it's okay to kill them. Except, of course, if you have Code Against Killing. It would be perfectly appropriate in a game for (say) Viper agents to be total scumbags who will kill your grandmother for a nickel. And then your Wolverine knock-off comes in and stabs them with his claws, and throws them off buildings, etc. That happens in comics all the time. It's not inappropriate for a character like that to decide it's time to put down a character like Blowtorch. Taking a CvK means you won't do that. In my view, good roleplaying means that psych lims should very rarely come up. If you are "in love with Sarah", then that should be how you play the character. Your GM should never make you roll for something because you should be doing it anyway. CvK isn't something that the GM should have to hit you over the head with. When the Viper agent falls off the roof, you fly after him to save him. You don't take the opportunity to gut a downed opponent. The GM shouldn't be looking for ways to penalize you in combat for it. And yes, I've played with a lot of bloodthirsty players. My FLGS has kind of a rep for that. Bloodthirsty players and bloodthirsty GMs abound.

That's true, but 10 STR and 3D6+1 HKA doesn't really address the issue. The 10 STR guy is nowhere close to hitting the old damage doubling threshold, and that's what this thread was originally talking about. I'm pretty sure that a 10 STR and 50 points of HKA will give you a 4D6 killing attack in every edition of the game. What we're talking about is the guy with a 55 STR and 1 pip HKA. Compare him to the man with 30 STR and 2D6 HKA, or the classic brick with just a 60 STR. Ol' Sabre-Lobo is far more effective than either of the other two, and it's because they removed the doubling limit on HKA.

I'd say that's a good thing. I've played in enough games where players were willing to murder people in a back alley because "I didn't take code vs killing". Someone finds out your secret identity? Kill them. A thug snatches a purse? Kill them. You finally defeat Dr. Destroyer? Time to use that 2D6 double Penetrating HKA and chop him in the skull until he's at negative BODY. Watch as players shoot autofire explosion RKAs at Viper teams. "My character is Automatic Grenade Launcher Lad."

Looks pretty good so far. I might add a small multipower of serial killer powers. You could put the HKA in it to find the points.

It should be a character-by-character decision. Robin has CvK, but I don't think he's ever felt the need to pull his punch. Robin does not believe that he is in any danger of killing someone when he punches them. Superman, on the other hand, not only has CvK, but probably also "protective of innocents", "really nice guy", and "galactically overconfident". Unless it's a known threat like Darkseid or a clear cosmic-level entity, Superman's psych lims all kick in together and he pulls his punch. That's because Superman, in his heart, believes that he could easily kill someone if he's not careful. You can have a CvK and also be wildly enthusiastic and completely careless. There are plenty of teenagers who would never willingly harm someone who nonetheless drive 80 mph down residential streets because it's fun. There are plenty of drunk rednecks who shoot each other during hunting season because Billy Bob wasn't wearing orange and Jimbo thought he saw a deer. I mean, technically Arnold had a total CvK in Terminator 2. "I swear I will not kill anyone." He then shot a bunch of cops in the legs with a minigun. "They'll live."

We started talking about Indirect because people wanted to re-price STR, and then re-price TK, which led to Indirect. The simplest solution for HKA is to reinstitute the way the rules used to be, which is that you can do no more than double the base attack. So a 1 pip HKA backed up by a 60 STR gives you a 1/2D6 HKA. That X-Acto knife is only gonna do so much damage no matter how hard you swing it.

Actually he planned on interrogating the unknown woman, who turned out to be as strong as Wonder Woman.

For the most part, players may freely define what their powers look and sound like. “Perceivable” can mean many things, from the perceptibility of the actual power itself (for example, a blue energy beam that projects from the character’s hands and hits the target) to just the source of the Power being visible or obvious (for example, few characters can perceive a bullet in flight, but they can all see the gun, hear the shot, and smell the gunpowder). The special effects of a power can take any form, as long as it’s clear that the power comes from the character. -5th Ed revised, pg. 98

There is something to indicate it though (arguably, at least). Vader makes some kind of gesture or nods his head. Thing happens. Let me put it this way. Let's say that power is NOT telekinesis. Let's say it's Indirect Energy Blast with the limitation "requires object" (only -1/4 in this case, because he can grab things that are actually attached to the scenery). Then people can certainly see what is happening and there would be no argument that it was invisible. My argument is that shifts in body language, subtle movements, and other people "just knowing" who did it are enough to fit the requirements of visibility.

3:34 -- Vader nods his head and dips his lightsaber, metal things on the wall start to tear free. 3:38 -- metal thing starts to fly towards Luke 3:40 -- Luke uses Missile Deflection on the object (not Invisible) 3:48 -- Luke strikes at Vader, Vader blocks, Vader stares at Luke 3:49 -- object flies at Luke 3:50 -- object hits Luke (maybe Invisible? or maybe Luke's phase is delayed after Vader blocks his attack at 3:48) 3:54 -- Vader looks at object 3:56 -- Luke fails Missile Deflection roll 3:57 -- Vader lowers lightsaber, sending object at Luke, who continues to fail deflection rolls and is occasionally Stunned by attacks 3:02 pm -- massey realizes how nerdy this is and starts to cry...

There does come a point like that, yes. But we are not there yet. The other issue that needs to be taken into account is the amount of power needed to break through the Force Wall/Barrier (and again, I don't have 6th edition so please correct me if I misstate something). If I can break through the Force Wall with my traditional attack (12 Body vs 10/10 FW or 8/8/2 Barrier) then the opponent gets +10 pts of defense against my attack. If I can't break through it, then I do no damage. The value of Indirect must be weighed against the likelihood of my normal attack breaking through the FW/Barrier. A villain with 20 Def and a 10/10 FW will, on average, be more vulnerable to a 12D6 EB than he will to a 6D6 Indirect EB. (12 Body breaking through the FW, meaning he has 30 Def against the 42 STUN, taking 12 -- as opposed to 21 STUN that ignores the FW, doing a total of 1 STUN past defenses). But a villain with 15 Def and a 15/15 FW will be more susceptible to the Indirect attack (taking 6 STUN from the Indirect as opposed to zero). I've explained in detail why it is overpriced. By that I don't mean that it was a misprint. I mean the game designer overvalued it. I disagree with a lot of the costs that were changed from 4th to 5th, and now apparently from 5th to 6th as well.

On Cloud City, Vader stared at Luke and moved his light saber back and forth when he sent a piece of equipment into him. Vader doesn't have Gestures because he could still use the Force if we was handcuffed or tied up. You said yourself, attacks don't have to have a visible attack trail. Vader doesn't have to buy IPE because everyone automatically knows it's him. The effects are visible in that you can identify what is happening and you know who is responsible.

That's a fantastic point. I've seen too many GMs eager to give players some sort of disadvantage in combat. In fact, even in this thread, the prevailing tone appeared to be "if the player didn't want to get hurt in combat, he shouldn't have taken this disadvantage". It doesn't take much to turn the relationship between player and GM into an adversarial one. Superman has the advantage that he is more powerful than most of his foes. Superman's player can afford to take OCV penalties, punch for fewer dice, pull his punch, etc., because he is more powerful. This is also a legitimate reason for him to hold back most of the time -- Superman knows that if he hits with full power he has a good chance of putting BODY on his opponent. The average character is not in the same position. The average player knows that his character is built on 250/350/400, whatever the campaign average is. And the average player has looked through the books and knows how tough the villains are. And he knows that if he spends the first turn of combat "feeling out" his opponent, using less dice, that he's going to get beaten into the dirt because Morningstar is going to hit him with a 16D6 thwack. Games aren't played in a vacuum. Players and GMs bring their history into the game.

There's nothing in the written game rules that would indicate that Absorption or Aid stop when they hit the campaign caps. So the question becomes will the GM vary from those rules, or will he allow the character in the first place. There are a lot of things in Champions that you can build, but probably shouldn't.

Except it is overpriced, even if people are using cover.

My point is not how Vader was built (though I'd argue that Vader didn't buy Invisible Power Effects -- despite the absence of flashing lights, everybody knew it was Vader doing it, nobody was looking around going "who did that?" -- the only instance of IPE in those movies was Luke lifting 3PO to impress the Ewoks). My point is that Indirect does not give you IPE. People still know where it came from. And the entire argument about whether something is overpriced is entirely about whether it gives you the most bang for your buck. Of course it doesn't need CSLs. But they can be used in place of Indirect. CSLs can be had for 2 points apiece. Indirect is between a +1/4 (which doesn't give you the "from behind" effect) up to +1. Far far more expensive. No, it doesn't require the GM to decide an appropriate surface. So that's the question. Is that small difference worth the very large difference in price? And remember, CSLs can just be applied to hitting the opponent if you choose. +5 OCV can give you 5 bounces. Or it can just give you +5 OCV.

What are you looking for man? A previously unrevealed chaper of Genesis, with an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not price Indirect to be more than +1/2 Advantage?" What kind of proof do you need? There are two benefits to indirect: bypassing obstacles and giving combat modifiers. Combat modifiers are the less beneficial -- they can be simulated much more consistently and more inexpensively with combat levels. Indirect is virtually always overpriced for that. It is generally much cheaper to buy +4 to hit for 8 points. That leaves you with getting around obstacles. Again, combat levels allow you to bounce ranged attacks, giving you much of the ability that Indirect gives you for far fewer points. Limited stretching can also give you the same ability for a fixed cost, not a percentage of the total power. I can shoot around a wall very easily with stretching. In 5ER, Indirect specifically does not obscure the source of the power. Everyone knows it's Darth Vader doing the force choke. You can see him doing that thing with his hand. It does not give Invisible for free. The only occasions where Indirect cannot be simulated by combat levels are when someone is in a totally enclosed room, or when there is nothing to bounce an attack off of. Those are very specific circumstances that rarely seem to occur in my games. Perhaps my games are the oddity and most games involve using your n-ray vision to shoot someone in the next room without opening the door. The downside to Indirect is not just in the fact that most of its abilities are easily reproduced elsewhere for far fewer points, there's also the fact that it is stopped by hardened defenses. You must buy indirect multiple times to get through hardened (unless hardened is also bought multiple times). You also have the fact that Indirect's high active point cost results in attacks that are significantly lower powered than they would be otherwise. A +1 (I completely do not understand why 6th raised points costs on something already too expensive) advantage that does not affect damage brings you into the range where the average roll will inflict significantly less damage through defenses, to the point of often doing none at all. It's quite telling that virtually everyone in this thread has steadfastly refused to answer my question -- which do you pick, a 12D6 EB or a 6D6 fully indirect EB? That's because the answer is clearly apparent. People have suggested very unusual circumstances (trapped in a jail cell where i must shoot the inside of the lock out, etc) to try and create a situation in which the lower powered attack is somehow useful. Hyper-Man tried his hand at creating a "really powerful" construct using indirect that spent 150 points to get a small set of 10 damage class attacks. Now I may not have a stone tablet carved by the fiery finger of God, but I think the "Indirect is fine" crowd needs to step up their game.