Manic Typist

Except several of the examples he provided are either of of races that nobody even knows about or thinks are gone/the stuff of legend (frex, the Shadows in B5), who, upon returning to the galactic scene, kick ass... Or are currently known/recognized but also mysterious/inscrutable/detached (the Vorlons, other Ancients from the series) who are viewed as terrifyingly powerful and not to be trifled with. The only reason other species even live is because the precursors simply have no interest in what the young races HAVE...and on those rare occasions where that isn't the case, it doesn't go well for the less advanced civ.

I like the user of the Power skill and the ability to invoke multiple deities. Have you considered allowing divine casters to forcibly draw upon the power of a deities? Either through by calling upon the favors of other deities of equal or greater power but lacks a particular aspect that the caster wants to invoke at a certain time (a greater god of shadow forcing a god of war to grant a boon, etc.)... or... Through an exceptional capacity for a person to engage in cognitive dissonance and genuinely believe in something even as he or she knowingly acts against the will of that deity. Someone who is capable of forcing their mind to engage in the act of belief but detach themselves from it at the same time. I would suggest this person would make an exceptional and startling villain encounter.

Do Bracing and Concentration entail doing fundamentally different things that actually merit a halving of DCV for separate, distinct circumstances on oneself? Put it another way: could you tell a difference between a character who was Braced and Concentrating vs. a character who was just Braced, just by looking at them? If Concentration halves my DCV because I can't move as well in response to potential attacks because I've dedicated my energy into an activity that is contradictory to easy, responsive movement, then Bracing wouldn't seem like it adds any new limits on my movement. I can't be "quick on my feet" when Braced and easily adjust my position to avoid an incoming attack.

........what RL circumstances led to you getting an AXE KICK to the neck?!?

If it would be DCV 0 for physical attacks, why not DMCV 0? Am I mentally more on guard than physically? If I willingly accept and drink something offered by my server, I assume I'm at DCV 0 for the physical aspect of the poison in the drink because I trusted the server and just took it. Why would I mentally not be as trusting/vulnerable?

From the first post, I thought "That sounds like its from Hellraiser; as a PC I would want nothing to do with it." It would be tough to be gamebreaking with this since you have so much control over it, and it depends on how it works. Can they summon things through the portal? Force things through the portals? Are they big portals? Could I drop the box in a body of water and drain it? Etc.

All of this is great advice. I'd also point out that HERO is only as granular as you make it; you can dial it up or down by invoking or leaving out rules. Something I like to do is farm out GMing responsibilities to players. When fighting mooks, tell them the CVs and have them help you track those combatants (I've even put players in charge of making their tactical decisions against the party!). Rely on player knowledge of the rules - if someone wants to become an expert on X rule, ask them what they recall and then revisit the ruling after play.

I know that as a mage in this system I'd operate a bit like Mechwarrior - if I'm going to sling a lot of spells, it'd be great to be standing in a cool body of water (although that carries other risks). So look for "heat sinks" and other countermeasures that could be abused for fun or abused for ruining fun.

And here the fault is entirely mine - I don't mean you were being dismissive in an INSULTING, belittling way, but in simply the most reserved sense of not considering the original, more expansive nature of the prompt. It was not an accusation that you were rude but rather a "Hey, you're smart, but in this case I don't think your using those smarts but rather relying upon common knowledge/assumptions instead of applying those smarts to THIS question instead of the question you already know." I'll agree that they're common, and to the extent that they're ubiquitous I find it unfortunate that we so often pass on the opportunity to come up with something a touch more novel, rather than SameFantasyEverywherev.2000321 You don't have to reinvent everything, but when we are asked to consider how to make Armor Familiarities work in an interesting way, I'd just want us to try to focus on efforts that answer that question rather than suggest the question isn't worth the effort and instead you should rely on the Book of Fantasy Canon. Sure, I agree. But you could have a setting where magic is so common that it's just like clubs and rocks and... etc. The important point is to simply speak to your earlier question as to why bother? It is easy to imagine, and it has been done in both fiction and gaming, to have settings that emphasize "grit" and whathaveyou and the point of how you spend points is to specialize characters. Light fighters and Heavy fighters could be made very different through decision points such as highly distinct Armor Familiarities, among others. I guess my objections came across stronger than I intended simply because I keep running into instances where people are suggesting "Instead of pursuing this new idea you're interested in, why don't you just use this Pathfinder/DnD/Tolkien idea that everyone knows?" I still can't get over the time that on these boards someone tried to invoke "law of diminishing returns" when I was outlining the magical process by which orcs are generated in my campaign... smh.

Optionally, you could allow the LS: Heat to deal with the heat effects up to a certain point...but that if you abuse it, you run an increasing risk of exploding. The heat goes to a point where it passes from ambient temperature that is extremely uncomfortable to being capable of igniting nearby items - your clothes, your hair, etc. This is very intriguing, and I encourage you not to ditch the limitations. I think magic systems are more interesting when they have clear limits, and therefore people have to engage with them and think around them to accomplish their goals.

I'm interested, and look forward to hearing about the in-game explanation that drives these decisions (such as the LS: Heat and Cold exclusions at the end).

Says you. Says you. Says you – and if not, perhaps it’s just next door at Ye Old Magik Shoppe I didn’t – but you dismissed the validity of the line of questioning with phrases like “force the player to spend points” and “inconvenience the character,” etc. That same reasoning would apply to offensive powers just as much as defensive, using your reasoning. Actually, it does, but you seem to be missing it because you’re not acknowledging the assumptions that underline all your previous posts – which is what I was pointing out in previous posts. That’s something that Someone Else decided, and for you (and me!) it makes sense. But we could just as easily have WF: Swords and WF: Spears and shorten the list to probably 5-6 total WFs for all conceivable weapons, from Stone Age to Sci-Fi I agree- I think if you’re going to go this route, you should keep it interesting and keep it as granular (or nearly so) as WFs in your campaign. You can be snarky, but all I did was point out that you were relying on assumptions (many of which I employ in my own games because I like them!) rather than arguments (for the most part).

Guess what will be the first thing I buy at the next XP dump? So all you've done is inconvenience the character for a session or two and forced them to spend a few more points to use a piece of equipment you gave them? I'd prefer to control force escalation by not giving them the damn suit of magic armor in the first place. Says you. Mk II Elven Arcana Armor can be a tricky system- if you don't know the right phrases and ways to activate its features, you'd be better off not wearing it at all. (A way to make magic armor more interesting than just +X defense) Guess you'll be feeling sheepish when I point out that you don't know anyone who's qualified to train you to use the armor, since the Elves fled the land 300 years ago. Of course, you could always make it a point to track down the lost knowledge, and that sounds like an adventure hook. We don't level up in this here campaign. Me, I control force escalation by not engaging in force escalation at all. I do however encourage character differentiation/specialization, and creating different decision points for how to spend your points. By your reasoning, fireballs are standard in fantasy fare. Why make anyone pay for it? Because HERO uses these methods to provide a rough method of comparing characters, and you can turn up (or down) the granularity. If you don't want Armor Familiarity (or Weapon!) that's fine. Follow your bliss. But if someone is running a campaign where there is added value from certain elements added in, don't try to rain on their parade. Maybe it makes sense that the Roman centurion transported to feudal Japan has to take time and effort (and points!) to figure out how to properly wear Japanese samurai armor to achieve maximum efficacy and comfort, and that can add to the group story being told.

And it's still present in 6th.

Um, if they spend points on Armor Familiarity (especially if they have to buy multiple kinds to cover different kinds of armor), then they have less points on other things, and this helps distinguish dedicated fighters from other concepts? That's what it's accomplished. Plus if you get really granular you can slow PC force escalation when they can't just find a new shiny suit of +X magic armor in a dungeon and slip it on right away, good to go!

OP= Original Post/Original Poster, which can be confusing. Just slap a limitation on Combat Luck that says it doesn't stack with other rPD - you're done. Why don't they stack? Because you, as GM, said so. If you feel you need to invoke a certain rule, or limit a certain rule (or eliminate a Power entirely!) in the name of game balance, that is absolutely your prerogative, and no player could reasonably balk at that. It is absolutely NOT penalizing not to let it stack, especially if you put a Limitation on it that reduces its cost. They get to walk around with rPD and yet to the naked eye they look vulnerable. It's invisible armor, the dream of powergamers everywhere. You aren't punishing players by ensuring game balance so that you all have fun- you're doing your job as GM to make sure the game can actually work!

Also, it sounds like the issue is the players and not so much the points. They have abused your trust and there isn't a healthy dynamic for cooperative storytelling. You could design all their characters for them and simply not let them have anything you didn't specifically approve, but that creates more work on the front end for you. Would you be able to post an example character? I suspect that some of the excesses you saw stemmed from an imperfect understanding of the rules, or a lack of use of optional rules (or both). However, fundamentally, this might be an issue of "Do I want to play with these people? Is there any of them who maybe is worse than the others, whereas others might be amenable to a game I could run if it was just them and not the entire group?"

Of course- I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm sure you're right about the history of when the issue arose, and your explanation makes perfect sense. For amusing example of this problem which I am well aware of: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0216.html However, my response remains valid. It's a bad idea instituted by people who obviously hadn't ever been in a fight, or at least did not care about how little narrative/mechanical sense it made. If in fixing one bug you create a NEW bug, it's a poor fix and you're not likely to deserve a pat on the back. Especially when you create hundreds of people who subsequently think that AoAs make sense because turning your back on someone means you somehow speed up the opponent's reaction time so they can attack you (and just you). The necessary fix would be to change the rules to avoid the nonsensical situation in the first place - although a lot of melee fights do turn into "I attack you while backing away while you pursue me," with mixed results.

Jinto, please feel free to follow up with additional questions or requests for clarification. I would say Christopher's answer is the best - I completely failed to account for the fact that the PC in question has superstrength and wants to literally just rip the weapon out of its mount - that is a different scenario, and why the Focus rules might not be appropriate for this scenario (because even Superman can't remove my OIF: suit of platemail in just a Phase - although he could certainly kill me, with a narrated SFX of that being that he ripped it open and tore out my torso and threw it across the room in just a Phase).

AoOs - a bad idea that was obviously invented by someone who'd never been in a fight. If a player wants a special ability like this, they could purchase an attack with a Trigger, with a potential defense involving a DEX roll off or somesuch.

I see what you're saying, but I also see that most every cinematic action movie involves the heroes running from most fights.

I'm assuming it's OP's 2nd or third language, combined with a lack of spell checking software. Not that it matters when someone with a total of 4 posts to the boards shows up asking for help, suggesting that we are dealing with someone who is new to HERO or at least not an established part of this community, and therefore it would be wise to put forth an extra effort to be helpful and welcoming so as to further strengthen the hobby which is our passion.

Interesting playstyle you encourage.

The answer would be "it depends." I've never had to build a vehicle, so I won't speak to the durability question. With respect to Inaccessibility of a weapon of in a ship - without any further details, 6Ev1 p.377 says very clearly that an OIF requires a full Turn of out of combat time to remove - so it would be essentially impossible to do it during combat. Perhaps if you gave us more detail we could be more helpful. For instance, if the character is trying to remove a ship's cannon mounted to the wing to carry it around and shoot people - well, first that's not a focus. It's a part of the ship, and it is nested within that construct from a rules perspective. You can't just treat it like a Focus because it isn't one. Second, from a technical perspective, that will just ruin the weapon unless you have some careful engineering/tech rolls that would allow the character to carefully, over the course of several hours probably, jury rig a way of removing the weapon and turning it into an emplaced weapon/mount it to another vehicle - or some sort of extensive heavy weapon rig that could be used briefly before it ran out of ammo.

I see no utility in hexes; I actually find them needlessly confusing and constraining. I just use a ruler and a flat space - 1 inch = 1 hex, etc. I do, however, use a mixture of figurines, dice, and coins to model the position of characters, environment, etc. Whatever's at hand and makes sense.