Duke Bushido

That is correct: in the examples I listed, each character used it to create a gelatinous or semi-gelatinous form. Strain himself through a chain link fence or a chickenwire barrier; no problem. Through a solid object? No; not at all. The general rule of thumb I gave was "anywhere you can fit your eyeball through." No. I said as much above, but in fairness to everyone, I said _a lot_, so the details may have gotten lost. At least, no; not if he wants to be able to attack without buying the Affects Solid advantage. Of course, he is still free to buy conventional defenses that are only accessible in this form, but if he has declined the Invulnerable that comes with Desolid, he cannot then find a way to back into it. In the examples given? Yes; most definitely. Why? Two concurrent things: 1) the character defines this form as a super-pliable self due to whatever SFX they have chose. That is to say that they are still interacting with the "solid world" and are not truly intangible. 2) the character has voluntarily surrendered the invulnerability Desolid offers. The mindset here is that the invulnerability is derived from the idea that if you are not interacting with the physical world, then it should not be able to interact with you. If you remove that aspect, the power becomes just a new way for you to interact with the physical world. If you are interacting with the physical world, well, then it can interact back at you. As to why, in these cases, I allow "affects solid" as a default, we will need to first answer this: Yes, but I was not clear enough with my intent in that, given the way you appear to have understood it. Let my try to tidy up my path a bit, if you can bear with me: Even after I attempted to explain that in the cases I was seeing as permissible (and I did fudge for my own convenience by using cases of which I was already aware), the characters had voluntarily surrendered the invulnerability _and_ the pass through solid barriers aspect, so yes; I simply let them have "Affects Solid" as the default condition of this build: no advantage needed. This was met with at least one instance of "no; you shouldn't do that because that is a very expensive advantage and no one should have it for free." I took this to mean one of three things: Those of this position missed where I had said these characters opted out of invulnerable, Those of this position did not grasp why the Affects Solid advantage is so outrageously expensive, Or Those of this position expected that I was somehow gaining something worth a couple hundred points in this exchange. I say a couple hundred points because-- well, this doesn't sound like an unreasonable character: RKA: 60 pts Energy Blast: 60 pts. With no other modifiers, that is 120 points of offensive powers. Bought at +2, that is a 360 it expenditure, or 240 "extra points" required to make it "fair" for my character to have Desolid. So what kind of defenses can you get for that sort of pointage? 75 points of Damage Reduction still leaves a considerable bit of change to spend. More than enough to snag a hundred points of resistant defense. So if you are a "points equals fair" guy (and, without venom, I cannot fathom why, especially after years and years of discussions here, anyone can still seriously entertain this notion, but it is as entrenched as mitochondria in animal cells), then you should be expecting to gain a rough equivalent in defense due to your Desolid. You don't, though. You get so much _more_ than that! You get actual invulnerability to everything except a common SFX _or_ a handful of esoteric ones. You are still free to buy additional defenses for "only against x," but that is a different conversation, of course. Although it is worth noting that not only _can_ you do that, with a 240 point defense budget, you can certainly afford to so it, because _by the book_ (Desolid: cannot pass through walls: -1. ), that almost-perfect invulnerability is _20 points! Twenty! That's it! So on the surface, the argument is to balance 20 points of defense should cost 240 extra points on your offense (which, again, demonstrates that even the rules do not (and arguably never have) support the idea that equal points enforce equal balance). So if it isn't about points, then what is being balanced by this outrageous upcharge? The only other thing left is the superior defenses offered by the Desolidification. This seems fair, in a meta or narrative sense: if most enemies cannot touch you, it seems reasonably fair that either you cannot touch them or that you have precious few options, or a variety of weak options. Paying three times as much to touch your oponents will enforce at least one of those options. It should also be noted that the only way to enforce this balance / fairness is to make the character, in this example, pay six times as much for his two attacks as he paid for this single defense. Again, this is the rules openly demonstrating that actual play balance has _nothing_ to so with a points / points relationship. At higher power levels- with characters throwing around five or six offensive powers, this gets even more out of skew-- And as an aside, I am _not_ advocating for yet another conversation about how this must be "fixed" so that points equals points equals balance. I am advocating that everyone open their eyes and minds a bit and _stop trying to do that_, because not only is it not going to happen without regressing to two character abilities ("affect universe" and "resist universe"), but that every attempt to do so thus far has made things worse and more complicated. However, repeated attempts to sway that opinion have left me feeling like the only athiest at the Vatican, so I don't do it as much as I used to. The aside.... Well, aside, the entire goal I was pushing for with the defenses comparison was to make the two points that with the perfect defense offered by Desolid having been voluntarily surrendered, and that same defense having been the reason for the mandatory offensive upcharge, I saw absolutely no logical reason to make that to charge mandatory. I admit that the point got muddied somewhere along the way (it really is difficult to just "glance back upstream" on the phone and find my way back all while holding a train of thought), I attempted to go into it a bit more here. Again, sorry for any confusion. It's your turn, here. I don't understand what you are asking. I appreciate the example, but honestly (and it could be the lateness of the hour), but I am not getting it. To clarify the question I _think_ is being asked inside the example, though: His limitation is "doesn't actually desolidify" or, if it helps, "remains solid." Accordingly, yes; he can still hit an opponent. By the same token, he can also be hit by an opponent. Seems reasonable, as he has given up the feature that might sensibly mandate the extreme upcharge in the name of "fair play." I know this was for Doc; I hope you don't mind me tacking a swing at it, though: To answer the unquoted question first (for logic reasons): kind of..... You were buying a _ratio_ though: the ability to move X inches through Y BODY in a Phase. Thus, if you bought the ability to move 10" through 10" BODY in a Phase, you could move 20" through 5 BODY or 1" through 100 BODY. Because it was a ratio, you were always _garaunteed_ to be able to move through any object _eventually_ (barring hardening, etc.). There was never really a worry about buying enough to make it through. The only concern was life support (under most GMs I encountered, _especially_ after the drowning rules appeared in Coriolis Effect) and any senses to keep you from being surprised when you popped through (though, for whatever reason, very few people actually bought such senses unless they were in line with some other part of their character concept). In practice, most people bought enough to duplicate their normal rate of movement through a pet target number for BODY (usually somewhere between 10 and 20 BODY) and many took a minor custom disadvantage that prevented them from exceeding the speed of their normal-preferred movement.

Gonna level with you: I learned to think about that stuff here on this board (the responses to which you allude are my examples. ). Frankly, I was _much_ happier when when I didnt think at all! However, I was curious as to if there was a rule in 5e, so that I could prepare the character properly. Given what I have heard of and feom the GM, I do not expect him to add rules for it just because it is realistically possible. Yep; that is a common example I use when people suggest "there should be a rule X because of realism." Agreed. The added security of training wheels can be mocked, but it cannot be understated or undervalued. Thanks! Now I _have_ been playing In an on-and-off Traveller game, but I haven't been a Champions _Player_ in a very long time, so.... Looking forward to it! Agreed. Even after six editions, there are still people who have difficulty separating SFX from Mechanics. Once it clicks, though, you can do pretty much anything. My goal with the questions here was to be prepared to modify my build for any possible rules interpretation the GM might come up with. For the record, character submission has been delayed until next Sunday; the GM has had a family thing come up (evidently they lost some folks in 9/11, and have a reunion / memorial every year. That is nothing to fret about; given that I have no experience with this GM, it is entirely possible that I will be using Grab anyway. So, per the ideas generated in this thread, I have prepared for that, too. Thanks again.

It is a comfort thing for him, I think. As I understand it, he only bought the book a few months ago, read it a couple of times, and is five or six sessions into his first campaign. It isnt so much that he is a rules absolutist (I am told; i haven't actually played with them yet) as much as it is "we are sticking by the rules until I am comfortable making judgment calls." So I am not expecting _much_, but Dude! Forever GM since 88 or so? I will leap through a hoop or two (even uf I have to set them on fire myself!) To be _player_ once in a while.

I can only answer for me, and, given the lateness of the hour and all the drawbacks inherent to my mode of access to this site, I am reasonably certain that I can't do proper justice to the honest explanation I will try to make. Foremost, however, I wish to acknowledge that the author did something I never did: he got a product officially licensed and published by HERO Games (sort of; there was the ICE thing) and during what most fans remeber as the Golden Era of Champions. Well done, and my hat is off to you. I also want to say that if you are the author, it is vitally important to me that you understand I am not mad or disrespectful at or of _you_. Seriously: you have an official product to your name. HERO authors is a pretty small group, and you managed to get into it. I do not have any unkind thoughts _for you_. If you thought othwise, I want to apologize here, publically: I am sorry- really, truly, _deeply_ sorry that you wrote CLOWN. I strive every day to forgive you. One day, I am sure I almost will. So to start...... Well, they are clowns. Honestly, what else do you want? What else do you _need_?! According to the American Pychological Society, more people are uncomfortable around clowns that there are people who fear dogs. Let's make our main "villains" something that is going to immediately jade people into disliking the entire concept and having no interest in deeper pursuing the workings of these characters. Second off, they aren't super-powered. They can have gadgets and gizmos, but at the end of the day, they can't take even the slightest bit of "rough handling." They aren't villains because they aren't generally engaging in any sort of plot to defraud, steal, damage, or harm anything or anyone other than whatever hero or group is this week's infatuation. Careless fallout of slapstick gags can have accidental spill over into civilian casualties, or tie the heroes up so that they aren't available for some crisis or other, but they aren't likely to do more than immobilize a hero for a bit. Nothing you can do about it, again, because they are just normals. Let's see.... Irritating and vulnerable to accidental death.... So if I say "The Gilt Complex was the greatest Champions Adventure ever written!" I would-- quite rightfully-- get slapped so many times my grandkids would be born nauseous. Agreed? So why is it okay to cover them in greasepaint and try it again? We can say "oh but" this and "oh but" that, but at the end of the day, they are characters who are insanely easy to kill (believe me! I _know_!) who have decided to dedicate their themselves to making you want to do that very thing. Some of (maybe all; it never came up when I was exposed to them, and even though my collection includes that book, I have no interest in re-reading it for anything, ever; it is simply part of the collection) them are tech geniuses: like Tony Stark super-computer / "my tuxedo is a tank!" kind of genius inventors. What do you do with this incredible talent? Not make money. Not fight crime. Nope. We are going to be bullies. We are going to be bullies to people who who are doing their best to be _good people_, who are doing their best to help the helpless and answer the unwinnable challenge. They aren't villains; they're just dicks. Dicks! How super-HERO genre is _that_?! And in the paradigm of the game, we are to treat them as villains and take them seriously and take the game seriously while dealing with opponents who are not serious, nor taking the game terribly seriously. So Captain Justice and FireMan have King Konquer on the run after having just saved five hundred people from the sacrifice ritual meant to start a demonic takeover of the earth. Good luck, Lads! Bystander 1: Oh, thank you for saving my son from that crazed psycho, FireMan! If ever you need anything within my power.... Bystander 2: he went that way, behind that waterfall! Guy from CLOWN: Imma draw a penis on your back and take pictures.... I used to believe with all my heart that Lex Luthor had the absolute stupidest motivation for becoming a villain of all time: "He saved my life but it made me bald; the world must suffer!" That is just unbelievably dumb. (Yeah, I understand that there wasn't a lot of source material guidance back in the day, but _still_...) And what does Lex do along the way? Well he uses his incredible intellect to invent amazing things, build a megacorporations, gain fabulous wealth, travel to other planets and if my son is right, to become President of the US. Now he hasn't given up on trying to kill Superman; he has simply accepted that it is impossible to a be one-dimensional one-trick pony and actually resemble anything like character, and certainly such a lack of character development would make for a lack if audience interest. Our genius clowns build a car that- well, it forces the "clowns are funny! Hurr hurr hurr!" thing at you in an absolutely _painful_ cringefest of stereotypes and mechanized slapstick-- not even the good slapstick like the Stooges, but the "I am so embarrassed for you; maybe people won't remember that you actually tried this" slapstick of Dick Van Dyke (who then went on to try it over and over again anyway. Same vibe from the CLOWN car). It just crams it all down your throat: look! It's funny! It's classically funny!, it's traditionally,clown-related funny! Oh wow, this is funny! It isn't funny. It is predictable and stereotypical and embarrassing to watch unfold. If you were a big fan of I Love Lucy, you might feel different. I couldn't watch that, either, because of the overwhelming embarrasment I felt for the actors and writers for having to portray characters dumb enough to stumble helplessly into whatever easily-avoided antics were scheduled that week. I have that same embarrassment for whoever wrote CLOWN and _especially_ whoever came up the-- forgive me; I didnt name it!-- "Tee Hee" (get it?! Get it?! GET IT? GET IT?! "TEE HEE?!" Tee-hee?! Like a laugh? Like when someone laughs? Because it's funny?! And they're clowns?! Get it?! Get it?! Hunh? HUNH?!) The CLOWN car. I give "the CLOWN car" as an expression a pass because this tiny micropun actually kind of works, and would probably be respectable if someone handn't spent seven Sundays poring through the thesaurus to justify T.E.E. H.E.E. That is the same level of cringe for "Supreme Headquarters International Oh gives a crap, make it spell SHIELD!" But it is thematic and funny, see? Did you miss that? Did you miss how hillarious the whole thing is? It is like putting in your contact lenses with a ball peen hammer. Even this car- this crowning achievement of AI- comes off as a hardcore ripoff of Scatman Caruthers' short lived Rickety Rocket..... Anyway, we have guys capable of this level of genius and creativity, and who are given extensive and in some cases affluent backgrounds, and a range of talents and no small amount of intelligence-- potential Lex Luthors or Tony Starks or even straight up psychotic killers, and yet this is what they do: Interrupt busy people and beg to be killed, finding buttons and pushing them. Playing with emotions, icons, and dangerous situations, yet _somehow_, we are supposed to accept that this is supposed to embarrass _the heroes_: Oh, Dude! Oh, wow, Dude! You totally had him! You totally had the Masked Bomber and had almost saved the orphanage _and_ the children's hospital. But then that clown came out of nowhere and pantsed you, forcing you to trip and drop the bomber, who ran to the detonator that your sidekick was trying to dismantle, and then he pressed the button, and then-- well, they are all dead now, and it is your fault because you weren't wearing clown-proof longjohns, and aren't you totally embarrased, because this is obviously all on you... Oh no! Clown is all about embarrassment, not what you described! Shaving cream pie in the face? Okay, great. Why did it work? Was the HERO not expecting it? Why not? Because he was running somewhere? Chasing someone? So the villain gets away because some geniuses with six-year-old intellects went out of their way to make it happen, but somehow this is an embarrassment to the heroes.... How? Because it funny; hurr hurr hurr! Absolutely nothing about CLOWN works with any other part of it. Absolutely nothing about CLOWN is particularly sinister, or evil, or funny, of has any kind of actual point beyond being as annoying as possible, which can only continue to work because the GM has decided to press it-- tie your hands here, gag your voice there, and break impossible luck in their direction. Clown can only work the exact same way that the Gilt Complex can only work: fudge the entirety of the universe to give these guys success that actually looks bad on the heroes but not the guys the public sees _actually causing the problem_. It is the Gilt Complex with greasepaint, failed-yet-repeatedly-forced humor, characters who's 'thens' and 'nows' cannot be reconciled with anything short of repeated blows to the head, whose motivations don't hold water in a universe where characters have to feed themselves, and frankly, I think super-powered people beating them like concrete pinatas was ultimately far too kind, as it did in some way suggest this was worth reacting to at all. Again- i am sure I missed a lot, or failed to deliver in certain points, but doing this by phone doesn't lend well to formatting or re-scanning to see what has been covered and what hasn't.

Oh, by all means, continue! I just wanted to take a moment to express my gratitude for the double-check from those more up-to-speed on 5e than am I. And just to pick off some unaddressed things: The current build is 40 STR TK, AOE (special, to be hammered out with the GM, but currently pricing against "any area"), must be flying, must be touching. For what it is worth, in an older edition, we would not have required AOE to pick up several people; just repeated targeting rolls until you hit your weight limit. However, it is my recolllection that one or more of the Long editions _does_ require it to scoop up groups or large objects, so I am allowing for it in the build should the GM require it. If he does not, I will bump the build back up to fifty points and cut the END Cost a bit. The AOE is, with approval (should know tomorrow or shortly after; that is when I will submit the character sheet), to represent a sort of "chain of touch: five people holding hands? He touches one of them, and all are affected (up to his maximum carry). Why TK instead of Flight UAO? The very reason I asked about the grab by / damage relationship: if he is travelling at 40", when he touches them, they are also travelling at 40". There is no need to fuss with acceleration, skill levels UAO, or anything else, and I can fit that nicely into "my power protects them From the tidal and sheer forces that should rip them apart," aimply because the rules do not mandate that damage anyway. His power is "sharing his ability to fly through touch," but the _mechanics_ are TK because they better serve the needs of the build in this case. I dont have to purchase multiple instances of highly-limited shares flight or make sixteen attack rolls. Additionally, TK comes with added things that custom instances of Flight do not, such as a mass limit and the ability to "gift flight" to stones, rocks, pedestrian bridges, etc. I likes the idea or a mass limit, and I liked the idea of being able to scoop a car out of danger in a hurry without having to fuss with seatbelts, doors, etc. Grab maneuver / martial Arts / Skill Levels / maneuvers: There may have been a misunderstanding: he does not have to _grab_ them; he has to _touch_ them. Certainly there will be relevant attack rolls to "hit" then with the Telekinesis. I stated at some point that if the GM is more comfortable with it, I was willing to treat "touching someone on the fly" as a Grab Maneuver-- all the built- modifiers, etc. I am extremely flexible about this, and willing to work with him on how he thinks a drive-by touching should work. Sorry for the confusion. As to "an attack action ends your turn:" Yes; it does. But it does not stop your momentum. You no longer move your mini on the board, but you are still moving X meters per Phase. Someone wants to shoot at you, they have to overcome the movement penalties. Someone hits you head-on, they take damage that includes dice derived from your momentum. At the start of your next phase, the GM will want to know if you are "still moving at x speed," or if you would like to make some changes. Your movement does not actually stop; your mini's movement does.

Wow. That's just neat! Well done!

id you guys dont cause me to asphyxiate on my own laughter, I might have to start a church!

Getting around you understanding them, Sir. I either mis-read or quoted the wrong part of your post. Sorry about that.

Hold that thought. Now we know. According to 6e1, p192, it is exactly 20 points (assuming Desolid is still 40 pts in 6e). I am sorry you feel that way. Seriously; I am. Because I am making the case to me and to anyone willing to really think it over that this is just one more example that continuing to think that any sort of "points equal balance" equation idea exists anywhere in this game is utter nonsense to the non-believers and borderline religious fervor to those who can't let go in spite of the evidence. Six editions into it, and these "problems" and discussions about them haven't slowed down even minutely. "Desolid: can't pass through solid objects" should be worth a -1 as well, kind of checking the box of "yep. 20 points to be invulnerable to everything." I would skip straight over Damage Reduction and pick this up in a hurry. So far as I know, no one does that. There is a reason, no doubt, and I _suspect_-- as in I cannot confirm and have little data to go by but I _suspect_ that reason is "eh... I dont think the GM is going to let that fly...." And it is precisely that reason that I find discussions that legitimize edge and corner cases as real potential problems a bit baffling: in order to take them seriously, you have to accept either that GMs are drooling morons and as qualified to run a game as Ray Charles is to deal Blackjack, _or_ you weren't taking the discussion seriously from the outset and the whole thing is an exercise in wasting your own time. As I have recently run afoul of a poorly-chosen-words situation with someone I keep in the highest of esteem, I want to take a minute to remind folks that I do _not_ sarcasm, and that all of the above (and whatever brain flakes fall out below) are said with the _highest_ regard for everyone participating or following along quietly. I usually don't even chime into these things (because seriously: as someone who reads technical manuals for fun, it is entirely possible that I have bumped onto the spectrum a time or two; I don't really know), but I find the requirement to participate-- you either accept that these characters-from-a-vacuum _could_ appear and run wild at a table, _or_ that you are wasting your own time--- I find both positions unsettling and equally-difficult to adopt. The exceptions-- and I can't really help myself; I have _tried_-- is when Hugh participates, because not only are things going to get extra-super mathy (usually), but Hugh has a unique ability to discuss something for as long as you have unresolved issues, and never fails-- no matter how tedious it must get for him-- to be as absolutely civil to you as you are to him. It is a rare talent (I don't have it), and it adds a reward for thinking things through with him: an epiphany either way, even if you ultimately disagree with his position- that is extremely difficult to pass up. If you are really up to soliciting thoughts on the brokenness of Desolidification, my own thoughts are that it was considerably less problematic when it was a Movement Power. That regulated the ability to pass through various barriers, and even mandates some sort of concurrent life support if you intended to pass through something that was going to take longer than you could hold your breath (because that very much could happen). It made the way Desolid works now (I can fly through 30 meters of unobtanium in a mere Phase (or less, even!) way more expensive than 40 pts. Certainly, that in itself doesn't solve all the problems, but it means that someone passing through a formidible barrier was out of play for a phase or three. Sure, he wasn't getting shot, but he wasn't doing any shooting, either. As it is currently, using characters from the void, I have to pay- what is it currently? Someone above said +2, I think (sorry, but this really is tedious on a phone)- three times as much per power that I want to use on a target. Why does this apply to mental powers? There is zero physical component there: they aren't brain powers, so an extra-soft brain shouldn't affect them. Not only does it _not_ mean you can't presence attack (and why not? That is as valid an attack as a super-specific Mind Control: "Be impressed" or "cower before me!"), but it can even _aid_ a Presence attack! However, it does mean that you can't mental attack. Suppose my power is "gun." I have found a Judge Dredd Lawgiver (one of a very few comic books that I _am_ familiar with). If I buy five points of Telekinesis: Fine Manipulation, Affects Solid, can I use it to fire my gun? Why or why not? This is specifically a Judge Dredd gun: depending on the writer, it has between six and eight different kinds of attack. It's a genuine multipower full of Ultras. Do I buy the Focus as effects solids? Do I buy each slot as Affects Solid? What if I only buy two slots as effects solid? Moreover, if I bought it as a focus and I have also bought TK: STR 5, Fine manipulation, why do I have to pay anything extra on the focus? I can even kick in "real weapon" to make sure that we have a solid physical object. There comes a point where there are enough work-arounds for a rule that the rule loses relevance as anything other than a capistan around which the tape must be threaded to ensure it doesn't snag on its way out of the play/record head and into the receiving reel-- Good Lord! How old am I?! Anyway, again: for anyone who is a true believer that points have some meaning beyond slowing character progression, we have established that Ultimate Defense is 20 points, meaning all other defenses are grossly overpriced. Even so, does someone with a theoretical character with 150 pts rPD and rED have to pay extra for his attacks? Why or not? Does a guy with 100d6 of Damage Negation (yes; we already know that no such character would _ever_ land on a table and stay there except for some sort of goofy April Fools one-off, but that is exactly the sorts of characters we are discussing, ultimately) have to pay extra for his attacks? He is just as well-defended as is the guy with Desolidification, who _does_ have to pay extra. You are exactly correct: we could use a Power that lets you move through matter, and even possibly in a scaled way. We had that with Desolid, and at some point during 3e or the creation of 4e, it got "fixed" into what we have today. You are also correct that if we don't have exactly the right power for our needs, we can use existing elements to create that power. If we want a mud form, we can start with any power we want; I chose Desolid as it provided the closest thing to the final goal, and tweaked it. Since the character isn't exactly intangible, I selected "cannot move through solid objects." Why? Because the character is still solid; he's just able to assume an amorphous nature that lets him,slide through _some_ barriers. Sure- four or five editions too late (for me, at least), Steve bops along and creates tons of new rules and modifiers for stretching that suggest stretching might work, but well-- There is a separation of SFX and mechanics. To this day I prefer the desolid mechanics (I am using an older edition, where Desolid is still a movement power) to the stretching mechanics, and have built and GMed for stretching characters who gained their mud forms with the Desolid build. (One of the characters mentioned a couple of posts ago was a Plastic Man type). I have something that has worked for forty years. Without any intent of derision, I really don't care that the new guy in charge of the rules disagrees; he can run his game any way he wants to, the same as me or anyone else. (Given his creative output, does he actually have time to _enjoy_ the games?! That... That would kind of suck.....) Okay; disclosure first: I do not know if this rule still exist, but in all editions 4e and back there was a rule that specified that a power with a modifier was _not the original power_, but a whole new thing that worked within the bounds of the limitations and advantages and the agreement hammered out between GM and Player. We wanted mud form, and we started with Desolid and removed the diaphanous ephemeral intangibility aspect. The character was solid and squishy: jell-O, if you will; (if anyone is curious, it is medically and nutritionally considered a) liquid. If I have TK, and I scoop out the contents of a swimming pool, I do not have to buy affects solid to dump it on an opponent. If I have "water blast" for 12d6, I do not have to buy affects solid to hit them with it. I didn't figure - and still don't- that being tangible and one-hundred percent vulnerable to any attack from the "solid world" has any justification to mandate an upcharge to fight back. Or, and I am really, truly sorry for anyone who followed this all the way to the bottom, because it finally hit me how to sum this up much more concisely: If you have a total of 100 points of powers that you wish to use on a target while Desolid, at +2, they cost you 300 points. The extra 200 points you must pay is the "fair play" penalty you have to pay for what the rules have defined as a twenty point defensive power. I do not believe- and I am not certain that I could be persuaded to believe- that any character who has voluntarily given up that defense should still have to pay that penalty because it is somehow more fair. Unless, of course, points will never, _ever_ be any indicator of balance. That took over an hour on a phone screen (so I am not deleting it, in spite of having found a way to say it more concisely ), and my daughter has just beaten Horizon and is in a celebratory mood, so please forgive me; I am going to take a break from all this for a bit. Have fun!

Correct, bur you can get around that with "Telepathy, only to understand spoken words."

Man! Suddenly i don't want this power. I can't imagine having to repeat everything 7,151 times! That would be like having eight kids!

And here I am, paraphrasing the locals: If it ain't 2e, it ain't Bible. though I do spread some love onto Sidekick as well.

Thanks, Folks; I appreciate the help. I have the information need: there is no rule saying the grabbed target is required to take damage. That is all I needed; thank you.

Forgive the lack of quotes for relevant responses; multi-quote is difficult at best working from a phone. >:/ Anyway, let's go: What is the value of Invulnerable to All but a tiny handful of things? Given that you can spend 75 points on Damage Reduction and not get Invulnerable, a hundred points on Damage Reduction and not get invulnerable, or both an not actually be invulnerable-- "Well, Duke, there is simulated Invulnerable, and when get all meta and determine that there are campaign limits and as we approach or break through that cap--"-- Sure; you are right. Simulated hand-waved close-enough invulnerability, but it _isn't_ the actual Invulnerability you get with Desolid. So it must be- if we want to keep believing that points mean something in regard to balance, we can reasonably claim that the character givibg up his invulnerability is "giving up" one-hundred and seventy-five points or more worth perfect defense. I am not going to lose any sleep over not charging him an extra thirty points on his energy blast to be able to use it while he is semi-gelatinous. I am just not. As far as adding even more complexity with newer and newer advantages from newer and newer books- as absolutely politely as possible: No. Myself and still a few of my players have been building exactly the concepts we want to build for forty years or so, and so far, we have done it without a dazzling new array of hyper-specific advantages and limitations and hair-splitting. The time may come that only a new thing from the latest issue can address a problem with a desired build. I am not psychic; I can't say that won't happen. I can say it hasn't yet, so I haven't had reason to do it. I need a bit more "than a new thing exists" to be convinced that the new thing is necessary. It is just me and my way of looking at things. It works out well enough for me: it kept my from being one of the dozens of people all over the globe who bought a Zune.

You are the best kind of correct, Sir, but there is also the oft-repeated "common sense / dramatic sense" rule as well. I just call it a wash and dont adjust pricing: Desolid: no invulnerability; affects solid. +0.

If I don't recognize it, I answer it as fast as possible, with a vaguely-mechanical, incorrectly-inflected pseudo computer generated tenor: "Thank you for waiting. We are experiencing higher-than-normal call volume. Your call is very important to us. Please, stand by....." If they don't hang up before I finish, I repeat it every fifteen seconds until they do. It's the little things that bring me joy, really.

I have allowed it on several occasions, so I have to say that I don't have a problem with the idea. As Hugh points out, Desolid is often treated as "invulnerable," I can't make "I turn on my invulnerability" not seem like taking a defensive action. As to the overall question: Desolid: no invulnerability and affecting the solid world-- hypotheticals are as infinite the imagination, making trying to adress every single one of them an exercise in counting hydrogen atoms in the universe. To carry us in a different direction, I am going to offer some practicals: Golem, Muddd (sic), Abra Cadaver (sic), Plasma, and Resilient. These are, upon searching my memory, five (of many) characters who had this exact limitation on their Desolid. The entire character sheet is unnecessary; what is important here is that each one of these characters used this same power build to indicate a malleable or blob form- a mud form; that's a handy word for it. It meant they could strain themselves through chain link fences, ooze under doors, pour themselves down storm drains, etc: they could pass through small openings or reasonably porous surfaces (before anyone starts discussing the gaps between electron shells, etc, let me note that the general rule of thumb was that your eyeball had to fit through the opening. I preferred that your heart fit through, but absolutely nothing your eyeball couldn't fit through). Abra Cadaver was a 1e Charcter (mine, actually), as was Muddd (not mine). Golem was a construct for clay golems we used running fantasy games with 2e Champions, and the other two were 2e supers. Again, the important part here is that they had Desolid: does not protect from attack or damage. They wanted to be able to affect the solid world while in mud form. My 1e GM called it a wash; no discount, but free "affect solid." Muddd's GM did something similar. I have always done it as well. In practical use, I have never seen anyone want this construct and still want to become truly, ephemerally intangible. No one ever presented a character who was perfectly vulnerable but still able to phase into solid granite so they could somehow attack from within the wall targets that they can't actually percieve (or aim at) if they had, I likely would have dealt with along the lines of "dump your unspent EP toward the "affect solid" advantage, and no less than half of any earned EP goes into it until it is paid for, or we can rework something after the game. Your choice" because I am easy to get along with. Yes: hypothetically, it is possible to abuse this. Practically, I have never had anyone try. Realistically: I cannot imagine a GM let these hypothetical abuses stand long enough to be a problem. Characters that exist in a vacuum will never be a problem, and those that get to the table tend to be scrutinized. Not all abusive builds get spotted, but if they pop up in the game, the GM tends to handle it.

Telekinesis STR 50, only when flying, must be touching.

I hadnt considered looking there; thank you, Sir! So far as I know, the GM has only the one book, but still: it is importsnt to me to be as honest with him as I can, and to respect his boundaries. I shall have a look at it, but likely tomorrow.

Yep: linear campaigns are pretty common, as they are a great way to reach a system and /or introduce a world without any real,way for the players to knock things too far out of whack too soon. they atent my favorite, but they have their place, especially if you have a pre-planned start, middle, and end. Now, as to sci-fi treasure.... What kind of campaign is it? Firefly or Han Solo? Well that's simple enough: a large cash payoff. Rumors of an ore freighter from an abandoned mining operation that crashed but was _not_ destroyed completely as previously thought. The ore may be currency: gold or what not-- or just a high-demand, low danger, medium margin non-descript ore that can be easily sold, legally, without raising any suspicions. Actual _treasure_, like any beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. For the majority, it is a ridiculous amount of cash or nearly-cash that means instant wealth. Suppose the party is more politically-oriented? The "treasure" may be anything from proof that certain lands are not owned by the peoples assumed to own them, or certain families are less noble or more noble than once believed. For archeologists or, with a twist, scientists, "treasure" may be conclusive proof of the existence of a highly advanced star faring race that lived and died before the earth had cooled from spinning gases. For the generally adventurous? A new means of revel: a superior star drive, or a means to open teleportation gates at will. For the affluent or even the con man? An honest-to-goodness Fountain of Youth. Go nuts. Seriously, you might want to actively solicit player input into what might put an all-consuming "gold fever" into their characters. Now as for pitfalls-- well, the best advice I can give you is to review other linear treasure hunt adventure fiction. Specifically, watch One Piece. Start with the first episode, and watch every single episode. This should take about ten years. Notice when you are done that they party is not one bit closer to the treasure, and seem to be sailing through the same,chain of equatorial islands, one after another. Don't.... Don't do that. Your players wont hang around for it. Heck, I didnt even hang around for one piece. I didnt even make it to the big voice-over change. I left shortly after they took Chopper onto the crew. (just too stinking irritating). Plan some encounters; plan some clues; plan some puzzles and setbacks, but definitely include actual progress in your plans. You see, the problem with linear adventures is that rhe GM is in almost too much control. The party isnt one-hundred-percent free to mive about as they please, meaning they arent free to complicate things for themselves they way that they are prone to do, so you will have to do it for them. You will also have to keep in mind that your complications must be far more simple than what players usually do for themselves. Interestingly, when players decise to examine a gun by loading it, staring deeply down the barrel, and pulling the trigger, shooting themselves in the face-- twice, maybe three times- well, "of course I did! It was the only practical way to test the gun and be certain!" But if you put them on a path, and place a gun in the middle of the path, next to a few ammo clips, _that_ is railroading, see?

Thanks folks, and I appreciate that there are shades to everything, etc, but specifically, given the situatiin I am in, I am,wondering as to whether 5e (any version) has rules to cover this. The power: Flying speedster who has the ability to "share" his flight with anyone or anything he is touching. As I want them to instantly be at his velocity and direction, and because I want it to apply to more than just kiving breathing characters, Flight: UAO didn't fit the bill. I got to thinking about the idea of grabbing someone at 100mph and- already knowing that there were no rules for damage to the target in 1e through 4e, and knowing that Steve wrote 5e, I figured I had better check to see if there were rules in there about something that had always been a case-by-case judgment call (looking at you, Growth Momentum). The idea is that his power allows them to instantly be travelling with him, at his speed, etc, with his power protecting them from the normal "Oh God! My arm! My arm!" That would happen in the real world (and in the xomics world, sepensing on the level of realism you want for the game- which is why I always assumed grabbing damage was a case-by-case GM call). I am not the GM for this game; the GM admits candidly for sticking as xlose as possible to the written rules until he becomes more comfortable with the system, etc, so I was hoping someone could tell me if there _are_ specific rules, and where to find them. At any rate, assuming there are no specific rules, then rather than Flight UAO, Telekinesis: must be. Flying, must be touching allows for the effect I am looking for, including (pending 5e rules of which I am currently attempting to cure my ignorance) the "power protects target from grab and instant acceleration damage." "Get the hostages out!" "On it!" And a quick race around the playing field, and a line of ten people are zooming away to safety. Or, with TK as opposed to Flight: That bus is teetering precariously off the bridge! This kids are in danger!" Fly by, touch the bus (I figure the GM should have problem treating this as a Grab, aince that makes it mechanically more difficult than just touching), and fly the entire bus to safety. It keeps more as a BA kgrouns character than a combatant (depensing on whete they want me to drop the bus) and the TK will be limited further to ensure he cant accidentally step on the toes od whoever is playing the brick. So: Does 5e _mandate_ or even suggest damage to a person or thing that I "grab" when travelling at high speed?

It would make for a pretty crowded world to be adopted by an entire culture, but I had a player once whose cleric-type character was so concerned about the undead that he spent a significant majority of his share of payment, treasure, etc, on having the dead ressurected before they could rise. Sounds goofy, but it was actually pretty interesting as a quirk that was totally in character and ultimately, only disruptive when the party needed to fund a big purchase (lists, I have just spent my last silver on a sack of jerky and having those four guardsmen revived; I am a little short now. Perhaps you could float me until....?)

Short version: Friend of an acquaintance picked up 5e in a used book store in the 'Boro earlier this year. For about 4 months or so, he has been running a Champions game. So this: Newish GM (has been running some Fate thing for about a year prior to this) and newish players (one from the Fate group, three others new for this game). I have been invited to try playing with them. Given the experience differences, I am very concerned about overwhelming the game or accidentally being "that guy". To avoid that, I hava come up with a xoncept- powers and personality- that suits itself more to a support role than to a take-charge type or a quick-to-action type. However, I didn't do much with 5e, as - well, let's not go off on a tangent and just say that i didn't like it and never adopted it. I will spare you all the details of concept and build, but ultimately, the build I have in mind (which the GM has tentatively approved, pending review of a submitted sheet) to represent his power all boils down to what happens when you are moving very, very fast and you grab something. Does the grabbes thing take move by damage? Do you just grab it? I personally (2e player, even to this day) have ruled both ways, but _situationally_, as befit the story, genre, and situation at hand, but I have been "cautioned" that as this still fairly new to him, the GM is pretty tied to the letter of the rules, at least for right now. I know that 1e-4e have no hard rules about this, making it GM country, but I do _not_ remember if 5e does or does not. I have askes the GM for his opinion, which was met with "I will have to check the rukes and get back to you." I have skimmed through both 5 and 5er, and haven't seen anything specific, but as I said: I _skimmed_ them. I was hoping that some of you who did (or even still do, though I havent seen her about in months) might know for certain if there are specific rules. The 2 players I have talkes to have both said he has so far been pretty open to anything not specifically covered in the rules, but will stick to the absolute letter of ant law that even seems like it _might_ be relevant. I would rather not waste the very limited free time I have fleshing out and getting attached to a concept if I know ahead of time it won't fly by 5e RAW. Thanks to any and all who can offer references or confirmation. Again, this isn't me shopping for opinions on how to make a call; this is me neesing to know what, if any, specific 5e rules apply to a high-speed grab. Thanks again.

It was only a matter of time, really.