Jump to content

Duke Bushido

HERO Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Duke Bushido last won the day on June 23

Duke Bushido had the most liked content!


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.rebel250.com is dead and gone. 2o years. What a ride.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Biography
    Hero fan since my mimeograph of 1st ed! Thought 2nd ed was perfect. Still do ;)

    You know, I'm just going to put this right here where I can find it:


    (I like reading it, and I have the Devil's own time trying to find it)
  • Occupation
    inane and boring. Thank God I have a family!

Recent Profile Visitors

2,695 profile views

Duke Bushido's Achievements

  1. Isnt this all the potential problems that saw cities all over the country dumping redlight cameras?
  2. Vivisect. Mostly knives, but slicing up for analysis covers the mind hacks, too. And it plays well with Avi.
  3. Gotta level with you: Just because you were asking about putting them in an EC, I had assumed that this was precisely what you had done to meet the END requirement.
  4. Still out of town (family emergency), but I will double-check when I get back. As far as I recall, you can sort of do that in 3e, _maybe_. Here we go: Unless you are building either a really expensive Enhanced Sense or a very small EC (such as in your example), there's not going to be a lot of value in doing it. Remember that in the pre-4 editions, there are a lot of rules covering the-- for lack of a better term- "sameness" of the costs of the powers in the ECs. While Multipowers-- to take advantage of the discount created by the Control Cost (Pool Cost in older editions) tend to naturally get built with similar Powers costs, ECs don't offer points efficiency in that same way. Well, they _do_, but it's not as obvious, and there is no real "loss" for choosing not to do that; the only thing that happens is that your EC gets smaller. You can still put large powers in small ECs; you simply pay full price for the overflow. In that way, even though the rules focus on your most expensive power, it is your least expensive power in the pool that sets the cost and discount for the EC: you have to spend the same(ish, anyway) on all the powers in the EC. If you spend less on one, then that caps the discount, and you pay full price on any points over that cap. That makes Enhanced Senses sort of kick in the teeth, since you can build a seriously tiny Enhanced Sense --say, Radio Hearing for 3 pts (Oh, please keep in mind that I am pulling prices from 2e, as that's the only rules set I keep in my phone. It may not jibe with 3e, but as examples, they should do fine). If you job that into an EC, your max discount now applies only to 3 pts worth of each power in the EC. Everything after that-- what I term "the overflow" when I am coaching new builders-- you will pay full price on. You can also build some seriously massive Enhanced Senses: say a 60 pt Telescopic Vision. If you've got a lesser-expensive power in your EC-- say Instant Change for 5 pts (general rule of thumb: don't put IC in an EC; it really screws you up. I'm not Goodman, and I'm certainly not Hugh, but some "efficiencies" _are_ self-evident, even to me), the your discount is only going to cover 5 points worth of your Tele-vision (sorry 😧 ) and the other 55 pts are full price. Then there is another issue with Enhanced Senses: Do I have Enhanced (+5) Vision, Telescopic (1/1000) Vision, and X-Ray Vision? That is, do I have EV (15 pts) TV (15 pts) (again: sorry) X-Ray Vision (20 pts) If I have that list of three powers, then no; they cannot be put them into a Framework. Why? Because the first 3 editions have a default Framework for Enhanced Senses. They don't really call it that, so as a GM, you (or your GM, if you are making this for use in someone else's game) may rule differently. The first two most expensive Senses are full price; the next two are half-price; any further Sense are quarter-priced. Every edition has rules against putting one framework inside another. _However_, as I noted, nothing in any of these early books calls this out specifically as a Framework (I don't know about 3e off the top of my head, but I know that 1 and 2e call them "Power Modifiers" instead of Frameworks. Check for that term, too, just in case). Since it's not called out as a Framework (or PM), your GM may rule differently. _Also_, your GM _may_ allow you to "pick-and-choose:" Do you want to use the default framework, or do you want to put these powers at full price into your EC, and use the discount that this provides? For what it's worth, I have found that this option-- while perfectly valid and rules-legal, leads to a lot of Goodman-like number crunching and min-maxing------ which, I want to be clear, is _fine_. There is no rule against maximum points exploitation, and many, many people enjoy it, so knock yourself out: figure it all up twice and then pick the one you like best. Now here's where the problem gets really wierd: Or do I have Enhanced Telescopic N-Ray Vision (+5, 1/1000), a single power totaling 55 pts? It _does_ make a difference, in both gameplay and costing. It seems like a goofy question, but none of the editions up to and including 4e really discuss this _at all_ (having not read either of the other editions since the first go-through, I really don't remember about them), and it _does_ make a difference: If I have Telescoping _and_ X-ray, can I use them together? That is, can I use my X-ray vision to check on the guys in the Space Station without having to actually fly up to the space station? (unrelated side note: I _love_ watching the ISS fly over on a winter morning. ) Or do I have to notice the space station acting erratically with my Tele-vision, then fly up close enough to use my X-ray? Can I see the wave of X-ray energy traveling from Venus, or do I have to wait until I could see with without benefit of either Telescopic or Enhanced? If I am using the X-ray vision to scope out the interior of the secret government moon base, do I still get my +5 to Perception Checks, or does that bonus apply only to things in my "normal" vision? Seriously: this has bugged me for _decades_!! It didn't bother me at all for the longest time. Then I sat down to play with a group that did it "the other way." Suddenly I was nine kinds of confused about which was correct. Crap! Scott was _there_! Crap! crap, crap, crap, crappity-crippity crap on a crutch! All this time, and it never occurred to me to ask Scott! Scott: if you're following along, you will have a PM coming shortly. Over the years, I have seen both variants from multiple groups: if you buy multiple variants of a sense, then they work together or not at your whim. If you want them to work separately, you buy them separately. If you want them to work together, you buy them together as a sense. If you want both, then you buy twice. Now because- at least in the 4-and-back sets, both of these _are_ "book-legal," simply because the book doesn't address it _at all_. It's sort of like asking if mandating a snack break every thirty minutes is book-legal: it just ain't there. Even the examples in the book demonstrate buying Microwave buying Telescopic Vision, UV Vision, and IR Vision, there is nothing in the text-- example or otherwise-- clarifying if one works with the other, or if they are exclusive. And please notice that I am going to great lengths to avoid declaring one to be "obviously more correct" or any other thing like that, because my own experience with multiple groups has demonstrated that there isn't even a real consensus of what is "common-sense and logical." If you are using the "buy it all as one sense to use it as one sense," and that's the only "Enhanced Sense" you are buying, then it _cannot_ be put into the existing "Enhanced Senses Framework," so you're good to go with jobbing it into your Elemental Control. Actually, if you're only buying _one_ Enhanced Sense, even if it's just a five-point +1 to your Vision PER Check, you're good to go. So the shortest answer I can give you: You can legally put ONE Enhanced Sense into a Framework with absolutely no question about the rules legality. I understand the temptation to put up to TWO enhanced Senses into a Framework, as the discount for the "Enhanced Senses Framework," and honestly, I have allowed it in the past, even though it will discount at least one of them sooner than the built-in Enhanced Senses discount should kick in. I have allowed it because in all cases I judged it to not be problematic to the game at hand, etc. Keep in mind that this is going to be a GM call either way, as the rules don't really cover "sneaking around and picking and choosing your best cost-effectiveness option." However, we all know that the culture around this game very much supports it, so I doubt you will get any blowback from doing it. You can't put three or more into a Famework because the rules automatically drop them into their own unique Framework at that point. UNLESS-- and this is big-- your GM has ruled that this discount is _not_ a Framework (or Power Modifier) simply because it isn't called one by name. Before putting them into any framework, however, you have to determine what is the correct way to build for compound use: Do you buy them separately and use them together? If you, you're going to cripple the upper limits of your EC with three-to-ten point Enhanced Senses, making it an unattractive prospect to the savvy builder. Do you buy it as one big compound power if you want to use them all as a single compound power? If so, then as your Duke if EC is right for you. And obviously, it would be: it would be one very expensive power (Super Hearing, Super Vision (sorry), etc) with little danger of dropping your discount level in your EC. In fact, you'd likely have to pay quite a bit of full-price points over the EC cap if the Character isn't one of those "three really strong powers and done" type Characters. Now for those who are wondering-- with the caveat that I am _not_ saying that this is more correct or less correct than any other possible interpretation: _Personally_, if a Character has Enhanced, Telescopic, N-Ray vision, then yes: I will let him stand on the ground and look inside the ISS as it goes by. Assuming he has enough telescopic to get a reasonable view and enough Enhanced to nail the PER roll after the penalties, of course. But again: I am not saying it's the "rightest" way to do things.
  5. I am sticking with my "I have no intention of creating any sort of backhanded insult toward any edition or any author" stance of earlier, and my "I am not calling out any change as a good / bad idea" position as well. Now that we know that, I want to say that I love your choice of Tunneling as an example, because this one has been _the_ glaring example of muddying the distinction between SFX and mechanics since the very first edition. 4e _kind_ of solved it, but in what will most likely be seen by new players as a nonsensical way. I don't know if you have any early rules editions or not, but take _any_ edition and look at Tunneling: It's a Movement Power that allows movement on a ratio of distance to density. That is, you can move X inches through Y DEF of material (DEF may have been changed to BODY later on; I can't recall, and I'm out of town and working from a phone, so I can't run to the book shelf right now). IF you can move 10" through 5 DEF, then you can move 5" through 10 DEF, or 50" through 1 DEF; you see how that goes. That's fine. That's a perfectly workable mechanic. Then you have the "leaves no tunnel" option. That's Desolidification. You walked through solid matter, and popped out with no hole. The rules don't state that it's obvious where you popped out of the cliff face, or that you have disturbed the matter through which you walked in any way, so you have passed through solid matter with your Movement Power and left it completely unchanged in the process. In the early editions, swap out "DEF" for "BODY," and boom-- that's Desolidification. To the Players over the years that give me "but-but-but-but--- he has to dig the tunnel and fill it back in behind him..." I say "No; he does not _have_ to do that. The mechanic is movement through solid matter. To assume he is digging is to assume a special effect for that movement. He may stretch into an infinite noodle and thread his way between the molecules for all we know. That would be a possible SFX, and totally up to the Player to decide." But once you determine that he leaves no hole, you are in Desolidification country....... The mechanical difference is DEF versus BODY (for what it's worth, if you allow both Desolid and Tunneling: no tunnel, that really is the only difference), period. Easier to say "Tunneling leaves a hole, period" and allow Players to determine if their Desolid works versus DEF or BODY, or to pick one as Mandatory. Or.... Decide they _both_ work versus the same one, and the difference is the Tunnel, period. Then you don't really need a separate mechanic, though, do you? You make the hole optional..... Eventually, you arrive at the 4e decision, where Desolid stops being a movement power and becomes "invincible with exceptions" to grandfather in the need for "affects desolid" and "affects solid." You have to provide your own movement, though. As you say, though: the name _implies_ certain things to new players, meaning that I may be the only person on earth who uses Tunneling for "desolidification with difficulty passing through dense matter." I say that based on the number of times "porous" or "gelatinous" power builds have been posted to this very board with the goal of "solving" the problem of "how do I create a Power that allows me to slip through a chainlink fence but not walk through solid walls?" Tunneling. Tunneling is how you do that. The finer the hole, the more mass exists around and between the holes, right? Buy Tunneling with a relatively low amount of DEF (or BODY, depending on what's been changed or hasn't been changed via official or house rules) through which you can "Tunnel." You can easily pass through a chainlink fence, but it's going to be a lot harder to pass through a shadowbox fence or a drainpipe. (remember the infinite noodle SFX? It's viable if you don't start thinking in terms of shovels or scoop-like clawed hands because the name is "tunneling.") No; I'm not going anywhere with that. I just wanted to be reasonably balanced with my comments, being as how I was quite sincere that it was not my intent to bash the Long Editions in any way whatsoever: While he rearranged the problem, and may or may not have exacerbated it in places, he most emphatically did _not_ create the problem all by himself, and I thank you for the opportunity to address that in a fair and objective way. Totally get it: the name implies things; there is zero argument from me there. Considering what I have seen of the Flash in the scant handful of comics my son has read over the years (I bought them comics when they were kids because hey: _I_ am not a comic guy (and am most _certainly_ not a "let's watch a bunch of grown men chase a ball!" guy, either), it was important to me not to make up their minds for them: let them try this stuff, and if it sticks, great. If it doesn't, also great), were I to attempt to build the Flash, I would go straight to "Teleport." I mean, the one thing that sticks out to me from the few I've read is an issue where (and comic book guys, feel free to correct me if I am wrong here) the Flash raced-- on foot, mind you-- raced ACROSS THE FREAKIN' UNIVERSE against an honest-to-God teleporter and _won_! Caveat: Comic book guys, correct me if I am wrong. Do not bother correcting me with random nitpicks about how or why this did or didn't work because of this or that, because I absolutely do not care. Correct me if I misunderstood "raced across the universe on foot and beat a teleporter." That is the core statement here. The only way I can think of to do that is to have teleport, period. Which comes to another problem, mechanically: Why is instant teleportation slower than any other form of movement? Running: Extra speed with your feet. Flight: all-new ability for the human body; grants truly 3-dimensional movement with no barriers present. Teleport: wink out of existence in one place and reappear in another. 50" running: run 25" in half phase. 50" Flight run 25" in half phase. 50" teleport: pop 25" in half phase All of these do 50" in a full phase, too. T-port is, without adding limitations, instant. But if the above want to make full-moves, the T-port isn't quite as instant as it was. if the T-port guy only has 25", it's going to take him (assuming the same SPD) _twice as long_ as the other two guys move 25." Now perhaps I am just assuming an SFX: just assuming that "instant" is a requirement for Teleport. I'm not immune to shaping my interpretations based on previous experience; I never claimed to be immune to it. I do, because of my love of this game, try to be very cognizant of what I think and why when creating things for this game (neat, hunh? I developed better science skills from a recreational activity than I ever learned in school! ), but I am not immune to the sort of missteps that lead to things like "Growth means Growth Momentum" any more than is anyone else. To address that, let me add this: the rules don't specifically state (at least not up to 3e) that T-port is instant. They also mention "preparing a half-phase for longer transits" or words to that effect (again: not at home; not near the bookshelf, and really, _really_ tired of proofing this for typos-- what can I say? I don't usually have this kind of time when I'm working from a phone ) So it seems that I may well be reading something into that, doesn't it? (full disclosure: I realized this _decades_ ago, but like Tunneling/ Desolid, it's a beautiful example to work with). Still, I had a certain expectation, and Players had a certain expectation, so this particular one, I _did_ address: I have a house rule that says Teleporters "land" first. It happens without regard for DEX or SPD (though their next actions, etc, are still subject to them). Briefly: T-porter says "I teleport to the top of that piece of equipment over there!" and poof-- he moves to that location. If it's a half-move, he still has a half-phase, but he can't use it until all other movement is resolved. if it's a full move, he still moves there, instantly, before all non-t-port movement is resolved, and while he has no other action until his next Phase, he is still sitting there for second half-phase, during which he can be shot at, or what-have you. Effectively, it has zero affect on the game (save once in a while making a teleporter easier or harder to target owing to distance modifiers, of course), but it solves a problem of _feel_ that we have. An erroneous problem, to be sure, as nothing in the rules says T-port is instant (unless it does now), but one of, as you note, reading too much into the power because of the name. See? I am not going to pretend to be the perfect rules lawyer for the old stuff, either! I have advocated for either of these options over the years: 1) TK should, by default, move things at a distance, period. Everything else has an existing mechanic: Grab at distance: Entangle Punch: Energy Blast Throw: any sort of increased KB ability (caveat: I also argue for more than one doubling of increased KB) Squeeze: Well, that's really another sort of blast, or some sort of lethal entangle You can keep running down the list, and except for move things at a distance, there is nothing unique to TK. 2) TK should be priced by default as STR: Ranged. Using TK against more than 2 targets should require "extra limbs." Anything you can do with STR you can do with TK: it _is_ STR. Either of these options would make me much happier with TK.
  6. Was that the one where he was voiced by Hoss Delgato from Billy and Mandy? All that show ever did was make me really miss Hoss Delgato from Billy and Mandy.....
  7. Dude! I _love_ ECs! They got a bad wrap over the years as being super-gimme (and honestly, in 4e, they may have; I really don't remember as I haven't done much in 4e save Sci-Fi and Western over the years. Not a lot of EC opportunities there), but if you really pay attention the costing and the rules on minimums, overflows, etc-- it works out that you are not getting the same discount you could get with a multipower, but you get a broader utility. Frankly, that seems reasonable to me.
  8. Dude: Seaplanes. That is all. Though I have a soft spot for the particular PT Cruiser in your link. Chevy: Let's make an electric Corvette! Ford: Let's make an Electric family car, and maybe look at an electric Mustang! Chrysler: Let's stick a rocket engine in a micro van! (the engine that van was originally equipped with; not the hellcat conversion the current owner did) There is little doubt that Iococa's alleged cocaine parties are still a thing at Chrysler.....
  9. It has. I recall noting the change when my original GM got the 4e book. None of us liked it, simply because it kind of flew in the face of separating SFX from mechanics: if you already have a mechanic for doing damage at range, then you use that mechanic; you don't need to create a new mechanic that does that thing _plus_ some other thing. Disclaimer: I don't mean this to be any kind of malicious, hateful, insulting, snide, purist or anything else: it is stating a personal opinion. Like all opinions, it's based on perceived facts, but filtered through personal experience and emotion. That being said: It's why I don't like the Long editions. While on the one hand there is splitting out some things that I agree-- one mechanic should do one thing, period-- but then turns around and folds different things together: the exact opposite thing. Like "Growth Momentum" (used only as a well-discussed, and therefore well-known, example; as before: no malice.) I recognize that a lot of folks believe that a lot of problems were resolved (and the changes to Characteristics in 6e really did fix a lot of problems; even a curmudgeon like me can see that), the end result-- again, _in my opinion_, period-- is that the mechanics problems ultimately weren't solved; they were just rearranged and shuffled. Second disclaimer: I don't say that to start a discussion about the changes; that's just going to lead to an argument, hurt feelings, etc. Right now, I'm the only guy at risk because I'm the only guy who has posted an unpopular opinion. As a person who has endured a suspension or two, I highly encourage anyone thinking about turning this into a discussion to re-think it until it doesn't seem like a good idea anymore. I said it for one purpose: to explain this next statement: I really think that some of the minor changes in 4e and the increasingly larger ones in the subsequent editions have made learning the system more difficult for the new player simply by maintaining the idea of the SFX / mechanics split while increasingly blurring the lines between what is a mechanic and what is a special effect. I selected Growth Momentum simply because this idea being folded into part of Growth or Shrinking _mandates_ a special effect whereby a Character grows-- physically goes through a process of increasing enlargement, and does so at such a rate as to inflict physical damage caused by the kinetic speed imparted to his outer surface. Yes: You can take a Limitation: No Growth Momentum, which removes this aspect. However, it doesn't change the fact that there is a default SFX assigned to this power as of 5e. The power is Growth; the mechanic is "becomes bigger," and there are a few Characteristics necessary to support the increased size, etc. I have had four Growth characters over the years (I tend to go all-in on Growth, making those characters grossly overpowered, if only briefly, so I don't do them often). None of them have had this effect. Tree was a plant / man (actually an homage to the Thing, but everyone assumed "Swamp Thing" because "Tree." His Growth power was literally walking into a tree. He would merge with it and it would form itself to a larger version of him. He shrank back down the same way: he would re-root the tree (or trees) he was bonded with, then simply walk back out of the last one. Fakir was a mystic (whose secret ID was a con-man fake mystic at an amusement park. Yeah; for some reason, I thought that was a great idea thirty-odd years ago). His Growth was summoning an astral version of himself-- essentially his spiritual strength made physical, a man inside, for lack of a better word, a gigantic "suit of armor" made entirely of his aura. To un-Grow (sorry), he simply dispelled the the physical aspect of his aura. Fracture was a multi-dimensional alien being whose Growth was simply unfolding himself-- twisting and turning those aspects of himself that were in higher dimensions until they were three dimensional, which caused them to fold out of his many dimensional creases (looking at him was like looking into a mirror with several cracks: there was a guy there, but none of his bits fit together just right, and when he moved, people got queasy). He didn't have any way to grow fist-first; he didn't even get bigger per se; he just shifted more of himself to the place it was needed. Feral (yes: the one from the youth campaign: the kids started the game with old characters from a campaign in the 80s) has Growth, but the SFX there is becoming a large animal. It's not really American Werewolf in London style, bones cracking and stretching, etc, so much as he rushes forward, becoming briefly amorphous and re-solidifying in the chose shape. I had a Shrinking character once, way back when. He had the "Growth Momentum" punch. It was bought as extra dice of damage and labeled "Grow-Up Punch." It wasn't just assumed to be folded into Growth or Shrinking because that would imply a specific Special Effect as being the "acceptable" or "Desirable" effect over all others, and that just flew in the face of SFX =/= mechanic; mechanic =/= SFX. I am terribly sorry..... I no longer know where I was going with this-- the flood of memories, you see. Sorry about that. 😕 At any rate, it's something I've wanted to get off of my chest since 4e..... Thank you for your patience. :oops:
  10. Dean has good points, but I tend to approach it from the Scott angle: Magic is another tool. Why did we develop tools? Start there. Fiest for hunting, most likely, then to defend against others od our ilk who were armed with hunting tools. Then to help provide safety and security. Eventually to restore and then after to maintain health, and then as our societies became larger and more complex, to preserve food, increase protection, and enhanve prosperity. We probabl my start with wards of protection and warp thise into curses for our enemies. As everything else. They get more complex as time goes by. But we still have to take care of ourselves. To that end; Snare: magical means of catching tasty game. Fire: means of starting fiees to cook game, stay warm, and frighten large animals Bait: magical way to draw game towards capture. Spear: for taking game on the hoof. Stealth spells of various stripe, all for hunting originally, now for whatever needs be. Barriers: defend against weather, large predators, and other folks with spear. Dowsing: locating water where there seems,to be none. Spring: summoning water from dowsed sources without all the digging. Eventually it can grow to spwlls for creating water seemingly from thin air. Sometime in the middle,of all this, we will have deviswd spells,to increase the chance of rain or to chase excessive rains away. Heal self. Statts simple and gets better and more powerful as we gain the luxury of study time. Heal others. Same as above. Variius new things That could be used as attacks come along, leading to a need to see them coming: Detect,magic. Once we can detect rhings (water, magic). Why shousldnt we look for the good stuff? Detect precious items and materials, potential mates, etc. Now we arw very social, havinf become a thousand tribes, and we still either want to breed or at least spy on potential soear wielderss, so we get translation spells, etc. As we begin to travel, ways to preserve and transport sufficient food is reasonable- magic for that. Waya to keep our wagons rolling, our mukes strong, and our ships afloat would really come,into their own, as would ways to do the opposite for our rivals (because humans are like that). Ultimately, its like Scott said: magic is a tool. If it is something that has aleays been available, it makes sense that the ways it was uswd developed along similar lines.
  11. Any time; the old stuff is really the only place I _can_ help, rules-wise, Juat for kicks, though: is it not that way any longer? Dont get me wrong: I have always allowed TK to be built as X STR: Ranged, which alowed essentially doing anything you normally xould do with X STR, but at Range. anyway, does 6e build an EB into TK the way 5e built a ln Hth attack into size powers?
  12. It's the rule. If you want to punch someone, that is not TK. That is a PD Energy Blast. "Telekinetic punch" is the SFX for the blast.
  13. What the hell, Activision?! You used to be _cool_.....! Not that I doubted you, but I had to check a couple of other sources. I haven't trusted PC gamer since their part in spreading the Polybius myth....
  14. I've enjoyed this thread immensely, but I have to say-- cowboys, trenchcoats, mobsters in pinstripes and fedoras.... Nothing-- and I mean _nothing_ _screams_ pulp adventure like a Cord:
  15. I have no one to add. I just want to thank everyone who contributed to this for starting me down a wikipedia rabbit hole that took _days_ to get out of. Thanks. Heaps.
  • Create New...