Duke Bushido

Thanks,for,bumping this, guys. Just ordered my paper copy of Island of Dr. D a few minutes ago. Shoddy work or not, I just prefer print.

Twisted Sister's Come Out and Play. I was still running 8-tracks in the truck and vinyl or open reels at home until the mid-80s. For what it's worth, 8-track stood the 'Georgia summer in a car' test better than cassettes; thats why I kept running them.

Sounds like youalready have it nailed, Sir.

It baffle me more that she told someone. Id have quietly sub-let until we got found out.

Pretty useful for Western, too: crashing your horse through a line of men, or leaping off a full-run mount onto a target. Though to be fair, that might be covered in 6e Fantasy HERO. I'm behind in reading it. I got about a hundred pages in, it seemed to be 5e Fantasy HERO with new dressing, so I tabled finishing it while I caught up on other things.

I have put exactly ten seconds of thought in to this (still at work), so forgive me if it's sloppy. There's a _lot_ of stuff that comes to mind, but the easiest thing I an think of is to add a sort of "side effect" to one or more aspects where the "user" takes any damage after the follower's DEF. Don't take it personally, but I probably wouldn't allow this specific build as a GM because, as you say, extreme discounting. I would accept a more traditional way of modeling it -- the character pays normally (with whatever framework) for the powers, but they only work when the follower is attached, etc. Gotta run!

Thanks, rravenwood, but I can't take credit for that. First, I don't remember who pointed it out specifically, but even arriving to the conclusion was the end result of input from several people.

Thank you for bumping this thread, guys. I had forgotten about it, even though I spent a lot of time thinking on it after one particular exchange: I didn't quote all that to try to bring that discussion back to life. I posted it because enough time has gone by I felt it would help explain why I am thanking dougmacd. How many years have gone by since the publication of 5e? I don't recall off the top of my head, and it's not really necessary to know, but it is the exact number of years that I have _hated_ the idea of Skip over Sprayfire," screaming on the inside that this was little more than the legitimizing and codification of powergaming: I can disgorge my full power into any crowd, without fear of having to suffer the consequences of hitting something I don't want to hit! Frankly, I _still_ hate it, and _still_ don't allow it. But at least, owing to that single exchange with dougmacd, I can see value to the idea behind it. Thanks, Doug.

Love it, Hugh! I think I'm just going to retcon all my multipower villains (all four of them) to "can't change slots for 25 years." Also, take your trophy, because you have done something I haven't seen in a long time: you have shown a whole new way to rules lawyer a power build I have never seen before. Not only has no one ever tried to present to me a character with a ridiculously long time limit and a build to ignore it at the same time, I don't think it has ever occurred to me as something that might be done at all. (whether we actually abuse them or not, I think we all play little exercises with the rules, if only to test them out and look for potential problems). That was a master stroke, and (with all a credit due-- see note on that later) I am going to save that for post-plague recovery (if such a day ever comes to the US, I mean) and drop it on one of my more experienced groups, solely for entertainment purposes Be aware that it's harder to footnote in conversation, and it will likely get reduced to "one of the cooler guys I like talking to on the Champions Boards tossed that out and when I was done howling with laughter, I saved it for your guys." If the pre-load of "Character's INT worth of slots" isn't something you just tossed out for the conversation, but is something I've overlooked from a later edition, could I trouble you for the specific book? I don't recall it specifically, at least not sitting here, but I _really_ like it and would like to read up on it. To be honest, with the multi-power pricing comparisons you offered right after that, I find that to be less limiting to the character-- ie, "more in line with -1/4,) but with the extremely important caveat that this value would be ultimately determined by the Character's INT score and the actual Change Condition being put forward. In the interest of complete disclosure, my agreement to Panpiper's suggested -1/4 was based on the rules sets I use ( [Skywalker] "The sacred texts! [/Skywalker] ). For anyone unfamiliar with the original "power pools" (you never know), and to avoid possible copyrighted material issues, here is the brief summation that I offered earlier, typed up, them promptly fell asleep at the keyboard for a couple of hours, pretty much wrecking everything I had type. : Champs II; "Gadget Points:" A Power Pool-like construct from which a character could create or modify foci. The original rules suggested that the character should only be able to change his load-out between adventures, but did allow that with GM permission, should there be unspent points in a particular load-out, the character may spend them "on the fly." Presumably, but not explicitly stated, these now-assigned points would follow the "changed between adventures" model. That same book presented the Skill: Gadgeteering, which specifically made it possible to change the Gadget Point load-out during the course of an adventure. By comparing the cost of 13- /14- Gadgeteering skill for a 50-pt pool to the cost of a 50 pt pool and assuming that would be the total of a "change it when I want to" pool, then repeating for a 25-pt and a 75-pt pool, it seemed that not being able to change on the fly was roughly a -1/4 to -1/2 Limitation (nearer to 1/3 at 25 point pool and just over 1/4 for 50-point pools to achieve 14- target rolls). Technically, I found a +1/4 Limitation, but like our friend Chris Goodwin, I find the more modern -x (as opposed to +x) used for Limitations helps to keep the conversation more clear . Panpiper was proposing a -1/4, so it looked to be rules-supported to me. Champs III, however, introduced Variable Power Pool (calling it Power Modifier, or as we would call those in later editions, "Frameworks"). Like Gadget Points, the cost structure is very multipower-y, with pool costs and control costs. Modifiers are not allowed to be applied to the Pool Cost, but may be applied to the Control costs. Individual powers built from the pool can be modified as any other power. A notable difference is that VPP allows the character by default to change the powers on the fly. It continues with the idea that modifiers are applied to the Control and not the pool. There is a nifty chart, though, covering, amongst other things, limitations to being able to change the load-out for the pool. "Only change between adventures" is listed as a +1/2 (-1/2 in the parlance we are more used to)," so again, Panpiper's proposal seemed rules supported. Once I had made it home and was able to verify all this, I was quite relieved: I know these conversations tend to move very quickly when they get a lot of participation, and I had wondered just a little if "this feels like it keeps with what I know" might have simply proven that I didn't know anything at all! All that said, I also say: However--- When compared to other Frameworks, and in particular Multipower, with which Power Pools share the bulk of their structure (which is to say that they are pretty much just a bottomless multipower) These values _do_ appear, as you pointed out, to be remarkably light in terms of discount versus actual hampering; there is no denying that. Now without re-hashing it all, keep in my some of my thoughts on Mind Control rulings that I shared with you: sometimes I rule a certain way because I feel it is "more just" to the players or because something could become truly game-breaking if used exactly as written and Something Goes Wrong with the dice, etc. I say keep that in mind, because I really believe that, no matter how much we would like it to be otherwise, sometimes bending the meta is the safest or most reasonable way to ensure that everyone gets what they want or at least what they paid for. I am not terribly bothered by the fact that the limitations offered for Power Pool have a much lower discount than a similar limitation for Multipower would have. It's meta, and I accept that, but ultimately, the Power Pool guy still gets far, far more than the Multipower guy can ever hope to get, at both identical AP and identical RP values, simply because he can get _anything_. Well, anything within reason of his SFX and GM consent, to be sure, but still: The Multipower guy gets _only_ what he specifically bought, slot-by-slot, and no more. Assuming that both characters have identical AP /RP expenditures, the VPP guy can exactly duplicate the MP guy's load-out. The MP guy is stuck with that _forever_. No matter what slot he chooses or what the conditions are, his Powers won't change. I find any condition that denies him access to a particular power is far more limiting for him than it is for the guy who can, under those same conditions, whip up something different that could still be effective. That's a bit harder to explain with regards to change-out time limits, etc, but consider that when MP guy has the limitation that only allows him to toggle a slot on after X amount of time. When he toggles that slot on, it is going to be whatever it was. If his slot is "Ice Blast," it's always going to be Ice Blast. So while he's fighting the Arctic Avenger, he will be waiting for his chance to activate his Ice Blast. The VPP guy with that same limitation can decide "I don't think I'm going to use my Ice Blast against this particular opponent. I'm pretty sure Nuclear Inferno is the way to go against an opponent with all these ice-based powers." And if it turns out he's wrong, when he can toggle a new power, he can try something completely different. MP guy is going to be lobbing Ice Blast again, even after he discover's the Arctic Avenger has Damage Reduction v. Cold-based Attacks. It's probably a rest-related issue, but I can't seem to summon a clear sentence structure to explain exactly what it is I am trying to state; I can only hope that this example helps to illustrate the line of thinking. You folks have a good day; I've got a lot of things I need to get done before I go to work.

Okay, I was going to do all this long-hand, but it's after two-AM my time (new blood pressure meds are screwing up my sleep rhythms), so I am going to do it this way: To help those folks still wrestling with the difference between what Panpiper is talking about and a house rule that says your powers have to be prebuilt, I offer this: I have a Pool with fifty points in it. I have the following pre-built powers because my GM doesn't want me to waste valuable table time building powers mid-game: Energy Blast: 50 pts Flight 25 pts Flight 50 pts Force Field 30 pts Force Field 25 pts Entangle: 25 pts Swimming 25 pts Desolidification 40 pts Enhanced senses 15 pts Images 25 pts What we have here a long, long list of things that totals a bit more than 50 points. However, they are all built and spec'ed out nicely, and the GM has approved them. At any point during the game, I can use some portion of my Phase to switch them around: I respond to the sirens dumping everything into Flight-- I take the 50 point built and run with it. As I approach, I decided I need to be careful about what I'm getting into, so I change to the 25 pts of flight and the 25 pts of Forcefield. As I survey the scene, I want make sure I get all my PER bonuses, so I find a perch and trade Flight for the Enhanced Senses, leaving the FF active. I see the bad guy, and decide to Entangle him. I don't want to drop the senses, but I have to drop something, so I switch the FF off, use the Entangle, and hope for the best. Should the need arise, I can keep doing this, through all three-hundred-and-one points of powers that I have pre-built per House Rule or, if you must, "mandatory -0 Limitation." This is _not_ what Panpiper is wanting get a discount for. The last bit of the discussion makes that more clear than ever. What Panpiper is proposing is that I leave my lair having selected up to my pool max in powers-- let's say I took Flight and Force Field, and that's all I have, no matter what I opt to turn off. There is nothing else for me to turn on until I have satisfied the condition of the Limitation-- say "returning to my lair." I can turn off the Flight and the FF, but I can't turn on the Desolidification because I "don't have it with me" for whatever SFX-appropriate reason. Even if I turn off Flight and Forcefield, the only thing I can turn on is Flight or Forcefield-- if I chose correctly, then Flight _and_ Forcefield. I must satisfy a condition of the Limitation to change my actual preloaded powers-- That's it! That should help keep this more understandable: we need to denote a difference between "prebuilt" and "preloaded." Personally, since I swear I have seen it more than once in the published material (and even if I hadn't, it's undeniably a limitation of the usefulness of the power pool, even if the powers it builds still work as perfectly as they were built to work), I can see zero problems with allowing such a limitation. Honestly, if the pool is particularly small and all the prebuilds are large (say the character would realistically be able to only use two or perhaps three on any loadout), I might even go lower than 1/4. At any rate, "must have powers pre-built" and must have powers "pre-loaded and can't change them until Condition X" are vastly different things. Good night, Amigos; I'm going to try the bed again.

I am not usually this pedantic, but I worked in this field for several years (DC electrical), and am compelled to point this out: That is a power _inverter_. Power _convertors_ go the other way. (sorry; I really, truly am...) I read this as "oversized word" last night, and found it positively uproarious.

Had a longer post last night; failed,to,post it. Short version: you can track the evolution of power pools from Gadget Pools in Champs II to Power Pools in Champs III. Personally, I would allow Panpiper's proposed limitation on the pool, simple because it does limit the usefulness of the pool by making it effectively unavailable and replacing it with whatever load-out the character has preselected. That, and it already exists as a vaild limitation aince the days of Gadget Pool, where it was "just the way it worked," and you spent extra points on a skill to make it changeable in game. I would not personally allow this limitation to apply to the powers built using the pool, because it does not affect them in any way. As an example, if a scenario called for Telepathy, the Hulk' strength is useless, but it hasnt been made any less effective than it was. I hope this helps. No long discussions when i am working off a touchscreen, I am afraid.

I believe Steriaca and eepjr24 have covered it already, but still: I am just skimming (still at work). I would allow this as a Limitation on the pool itself, as the _pool_ is what's limited. I wouldn't allow it on the individual powers as this particular Limitation doesn't limit those powers in any way. Certainly, you may end up with the complete wrong powers for the job, but that's really no different than the Human Torch showing answering a call only to find out they need someone who can put out a fire. The fact that his powers are wrong for the job doesn't reduce their effectiveness overall: he can still fly and shoot fire and whatever else he does (seriously; I have no idea what else he can do) without restriction; it's just not at all helpful here. The _pool_, however, _is_ being limited, as without the restriction, the character could always whip up a fire extinguisher or something. With the restriction, if he left the house with a flamethrower, it's going to be a flamethrower until he goes home to change it to something else. Again, this is just how my GM eyes see it; others may have different thoughts (and I sort of hope they do), but the only utility being limited is the loss of the ability to change the pool; the powers created by the pool remain unhindered in doing whatever it is they are intended to do. I know that may not be what you want to hear, but I hope it helps you get to something that works for you. later this evening, I will try to post the particulars of the original Gadget Pool.

Guys, I think I see what he is trying to say; he just hasnt gotten the point across. I am at work, and dont have time to detail it, but those of you with access, look at Champs III and Gadget Pools and the limitation "can only be changed between adventures" or "only changed in a lab" or whatever it was. I dont think this has anything to do with making it easier on the GM or any other meta reason. Panpiper: denounce me for a fool if i am wrong here.

Aye! T'were the her! T"were the ghost of Carmen Miranda herse'f!

You confuse children?

According to a quick Google (thanks foe the heads-up), it was Space Battleship Yamato, translated into English, French, and German at various points in time, and released in the US as Starblazers. Which lead to another thing that made me smile: both that show and my own arc of space were named for the Glory that was The Yamato.

Off topic, but my Space Opera features an arc of space by the very same name. Again, ofd topic, but it made me happy, so I wanted to share it. I'll be moving along now.....

You guys beat me to it: the danger of proactive is determining just whose version of "how the world should be" is ... Uh... "Correct." In much of the source material, proactive versus reactive is the I ly way to tell the heroes from the villains. 😕

I saw a banner hanging on the front of our local store while I was on the way home tonight: "TRADES ARE BACK!" I know that in the long run, it's a doomed company, and I stated up front that I didn't spend anything I couldn't afford to lose, because I'm going to ride it into the ground, but I couldn't help feeling a little giddy when I saw the sign.

That, my friend, is one of the many reasons I like the bank robbery as a very first adventure: it gets stuff like that out in the open right off the bat. Move from there to a friendly competition between players and weed out any PVP action early on as well. No one has said it yet-and yes; it is a little more involved than just a simple scenario, but it can be broken down quite easily-- Christopher (above) has recently published a wonderful reworking of the very first published Champions adventure: the Island of Dr Destroyer. It is much more detaiked than the original, and no where near as "tactical board game" as the original. I highly recommend it even if you just want to farm it for ideas. It is without question the best version of the Champions classic adventure.

For what its worth, there was zero animosity in anything I said, save my dislike for Combat Luck; that dislike was genuine. What was also genuine was my empathizing with your frustration. Thats why there was no animosity in anything I said. There still isn't. At this point I have been reminded why we dont generally agree: I have the ereoneous tendency to believe that you are looking for discussion more than an echo chamber. Before bowing out, I woukd like you to reconsider your reply, if only to save yourself a bit of dignity. As it stands, you are asking everyone reading this to absolutely believe that what you quoted was your actual takeaway from from all that effort to help evaluate your viewpoint. You want us all to accept that in spite of the number of us who have seen your work and your ideas, that you believe that what you replied above is what you one-hundred-percent believe I was saying. If you can live with that, so be it. I have very little time to share amongst my hobbies the past few months. The time I waste is my own problem, but I do know when to stop doing it. I do genuinely hope that you find the solution or whatever it is you are looking for, though, because despite your suggestions otherwise, I am a remarkably mellow person. You folks have fun.

It would have gone longer, save that one of the actors offed himself in a motorcycle accident.