Duke Bushido

Charisma is selling tomato pie.

Yep; I'm a lot like Doc. If I can find the last thread we did on this, I'll put up a link. Lots of interesting comments there. Oh: I also allow a 6- option. Partly because it's on keeping with a set of house rules on skills, partly because it's in keeping with house rules on other disads, and mostly because every once in a while, someone wants a hunted that doesn't pop up so often as to become a part of every fifth or sixth session. I'm totally fine with it: it's worth five points less.

I've had a standing rule for non-supers games that no playable race can exceed SPD 5, and the nastiest thing in our universe was SPD 8. There was only one of them, though. Most beasties are between 3 and 6 with outliers on both ends. To explain: We started doing non-supers stuff in 2e; there were no other HERO games out there from which to draw guidelines, so we took a guess. It's worked out remarkably well.

Some clarification of motive: A couple of years ago, I decided I wanted to read the 4e stuff I never saw new. After buying a couple duplicates, I decided to keep a list so I didn't throw any money away. Then I discovered the cock-up with Enemies 3e, so I decided a database was in order with publication dates, edition, etc. That's how I found it.

I think your close right now. The thing you have to decide is do you somehow impart a second one-time use of EDM to those in the Healing dimension, or is it the nature of the zone itself to "discharge" its patients when they are no longer in whatever need qualified them for admittance? Sure; it's something of a hand-wave, but so long as the narrative is compelling, I suspect your Fate player will go for it.

Don't know what help I was, or why you want to send more violent people to Detroit, but I'm certainly glad something there helped.

I can't believe I'm doing this, given my history of "Keep it simple" preferences, _But...... A movement power moves a person somewhere. You buy 40" of running and use it, when you stop using it, you're 40" away. When you move extra-dimensionally, you move through whatever tickles your fancy for dimensional barriers, and when you stop using it-- you're in Dimension X. To leave Dimension X, you have to use it again. Sure; that can be hand-waved, at least as far as I would worry about it, since it has no real impact on the game (unless you now have to travel to England to retrieve a healed-up teammate). At any rate, I am just throwing that out there.... Enjoy. Duke

Think about things like the Flerken debate: Some people think that needs explaining; someone's going to try to cash in on explaining it. For what it's worth, my first though was "pan dimensional being." It explained how so much insides fit into such a small volume, and why Nick Fury was at no time supporting the weight of the things being eaten (of the rest of the Flerken). No; I'm done with that-- it was simply the most recent example I could think of without falling into the youTube hole. It's kind of depressing, but some people _want_ everything explained because they don't want to come up with something on their own. Great. Now I feel all mopey...

I see. Thanks.

Enemies has a similar problem going on, but it's related to an actual original printing in which the 3e reissue labeled itself as first edition.

I'm not entirely certain which way to go here. Would the OP please clarify: Which one is your actual character: is it the avatar, or is it the ship itself?

Thanks, Hugh. When I get some time, I'll try to dig through some of the "let's take a look at this particular rule" threads focusing on Mulitpowers; I may get luck and stumble across it. I like this Linked build better than the Multipower build, personally, but that's most likely because of personal opinions on the use of Multipower (that I have posted enough to not go into again here. ) I totally understand that. Thanks again, Hugh.

They are part of an organization of some sort. I suppose in a manner of speaking and with the help of loosening the definitions a bit, they may well have Disads similar to military or law-enforcement personnel. "Subject to Orders:" Do what you're told; not what you think. Certainly they have a lot of leeway as field operatives, but at the end of the day, when they are told "secure Mr. McGuffin," they will have to do that, regardless of danger or desire or even if they know it's just the wrong thing to do. Again, because they _will_ have more lateral freedom than most military personnel (I don't expect a lot of people make it field agent spies if their judgement can't be trusted, after all), I wouldn't allow the same sort of level of disadvantage that I would for, say-- a beat cop or an infantryman. Building from that, what is the structure of your organization? Where do the PCs fit in? Are they in the lower-echelons, actual foot soldiers subject to the orders from pretty much anyone else in the organization? Are they mid-level operatives, responsible to a handler of some sort, who reports directly to the brass? Is the agency all about these characters? Are they at the top of the mountain, the agency a support staff charged with doing nothing but helping these characters achieve their goals? (the characters, then, would presumably report to some separate entity: the Queen's hand-picked men, of an elite CIA committee.) That information can help you determine the value of "Subject to Orders" as well as other unshakeable responsibilities the characters may have. How about "Deep Cover" as an actual Limitation? No matter what, they cannot break character. For one, it can get them killed or worse. If the characters routinely "know things" that the other team would like to know-- the identities of other spies, how much the spies already know, etc-- then breaking cover could result in death by long and painful torture. At the very least, a humiliating hostage exchange that will likely ruin their usability as secret agents for years to come, at least in this region, and certainly affect their careers. Worst thing about Deep Cover? Having to watch as another spy is discovered, tortured, and executed, knowing the whole time that doing one single thing to help them could expose you, especially while the enemy is on high-alert for additional accomplices. And how do you beat a hasty departure before the torture becomes too much, and a captured spy gives you up to the enemy? Again, I am afraid that the value of that is going to depend on two things primarily (seasons with others to taste): what do your spies routinely "know." Perhaps not the exact data-- that will change all the time-- but how much information and how valuable that information is to the enemy as a routine matter of course when completing an objective? That's the sort of thing that needs to be considered. Second: how are captured spies usually treated? Held as prisoners? Interrogated? Pretty standard 5-point stuff. Tortured? Held indefinitely and in secret? That's worse. Killed as a matter of routine, perhaps after a couple of months of torture? What other fall-out might affect the characters if their cover is blown? Ruin their careers? Jumping to Brian's Bond references, in that sort of game, it doesn't seem to matter: Bond was the _worst_ "secret" agent of all times in the movies: I don't think he ever walked into a room where he wasn't identified by half the people in there. Didn't seem to affect much, though. But what happens in _your_ world? The entire team get extracted before they can be outed? The mission scrubbed and failed? Everybody gets desk jobs? Perhaps any agent whose cover has been blown picks up a 1-point Reputation: 6- (5-, whatever) to be IDed as a spy anywhere in this region of the world forever and ever, Amen. Just a couple of thoughts. Hope something in there gets your juices flowing. Duke

Someone who uses 6e can tell you more, but if I remember-- haven't read the 6e books in three or four years now, and Basic (my go-to reference, now that I have it) doesn't seem to cover it, but if I remember correctly there is an option in 6e to have a power modifier "physical manifestation." This is akin to a Focus, really, but the differences are noteworthy. That is one option. However, that doesn't really give you a "character" to interact through beyond whatever Clairsentience you decide to build: just because you have a manifestation that can walk and talk and listen and read doesn't mean that you have a character that can take an inflict damage, open doors, swing swords, etc. There's also the option to make your people-esque character an actual separate character. This removes lots and lots of build issues, but odds are your GM (and likely the other players) isn't really going to go for that. That leaves some options out there, still: You can have a follower, through whom you can use the Clairsentience. Still, a Follower is essentially a GMPC and not your character. You can have a drone / automaton under "Mind Control" (not hard for a willing target), but automata operate under different rules (or at least, they _can_. They don't actually have to). I really believe, as Netzilla beat me to earlier, that Duplication is the best bet: Duplicate is less powerful (I assume), can't recombine, etc, etc. Your GM may allow you to use Mind Link with your duplicate to use all the duplicates senses instead of the pricier Clairsentience builds. If I may borrow the accidental catch phrase of our last president: "Now let me be clear:" I am not claiming that this is the cleanest possible build. I am only stating that it is the cleanest one I can think of right now. Hope that, or anything in this thread, helps you. Duke

I left my helmet out on the bike, so be careful with the beatings-- aim low, please. I know that of late I've had a tendency to be the unpopular voice, but bear with me: First, I have _thoroughly_ enjoyed this conversation. Seriously. I've been skimming a lot and ignoring a lot lately because of time constraints and my desire to get at least one book scanning done, so I have stayed out of a lot of things I wanted to comment on. (unfortunately, not all, but a lot. ). Second: Hugh: do you by any chance remember the thread in which you were "educated?" I'd like to read that thread as well, as I've missed it somewhere. And finally, the observation I'd like to offer: Now this is based entirely on this conversation, period; don't think I'm trying to pull some esoteric rule from somewhere or some psychobabble nonsense, please. It appears that the reason you two are in disagreement is related entirely to your judging criteria. Hugh, you seem to be working from "how is the Power limited?" Doc seems to be working from "How is the Character limited?" Aggravatingly, from outside the conversation, I can see both your points, crystal clear and shiny, and find them to both be completely valid. There is no fault in either line of logic, so far as I can tell. It falls back to POV in this (and many, many other, I am sure) instance. In short, I don't think that there is a "right" answer here. Without meaning to slight anyone on either side, I tend to fall in Doc's camp overall: I look at the game as being about the player characters themselves as the vector by which all things are done, and the powers as being the tools they use. From this point of view (which I am not claiming is Doc's position, mind you; it's my position, and it lines me up more with Doc's ideas on the build), it doesn't matter how flawlessly or effectively the tools work, if you don't have the right one when you need it, the job becomes much more difficult for the character to do. And that shoots my entire intellectual wad, right there. I'll go back to watching and learning now. Duke

I was misremembering. Seems I have a version that's calling itself 4e. Browsed about halfway through at this point. I will have to finish it up tomorrow, as thus far I see nothing useful out replicants.

What the heck? My thank you to you went through, but the one from earlier didn't. Wierd. Now I've got to hunt that post back down. Thanks again, though.

Ah! Funny; I hadn't even considered the Star Wars connection. Good looking out. Thanks! (have to add you to tomorrow's thanks list. Seems I've still been too grateful of late.

Your intuition was correct: I did not get it. I appreciate you taking the time to provide a possible rationale. I told you nothing. I made a statement on a message board, on a thread being participated in by many people. Now I will accept that this might have been less strenuous for you had I said "the players are taking a snack break, so I've got fifteen minutes or so to make a couple of calls, hunt up a couple of maintenance parts for the truck, and maybe squeeze a minute or two into checking out an online group I have grown to appreciate. To that end, I ended up here and read this thread to see what other posts might be here. That's how I found your reply, and I really appreciate it. You might have a point: it makes sense that a reasonable number of people seeing this movie are even less-exposed to the source material than I am (which is really saying something). Looking at it from that point of view, I don't really know that I wouldn't react the same way they are. Thank you for pointing that out. I can see that maybe they wanted something much cooler for the "how he lost his eye" story: like somehow taking a bullet in the eye but not the brain behind it. Losing an eye to a scratch from an alien cat isn't super cool. For what it's worth though, even knowing this, the flerken story just doesn't seem like something to get upset over: it was still backstory. Ultimately it seems they are getting upset because the movie doesn't match their expectations or their head-canon or maybe some comic event, but it doesn't really seem like such a deal-breaker moment to me. " The problem is its a hell of a lot to type in two minutes using two thumbs, and not having until just now how delicate you are, there wasn't a real drive to make sure all the implications came across. I should have remembered that first and foremost, your feelings are the point of all communication. It might not come across that way, but I didn't intend to. I understand irksome, though. For me it's when someone assumes they are being victimized because something doesn't set right with them.

Which Kazei 5 are you playing? I've got the 5e version at the house. When the game is over and I get back home, I'll take a look and see what suggests itself. Though honestly, the old-fashioned HERO response will likely apply: However you want.

"sorry; you can't add any more rep today." I'll get back to you(r player).

Yeah. Still don't have a problem with it. Wonder why they changed his name, though.

THANK YOU! In the words of Mgatu: "I thought I was taking crazy pills!"

Poor frog... _two_ eyepatches.....

I don't get why so many folks (it's not just here) are bagging on the flerken. They're an established part of the Marvel universe; they weren't just invented for this movie. Yeah, Marvel has a history of stupid-ideas-as-aliens, but honesty, most of the early comic book aliens were goofy ideas. That hasn't gone away, it's just that now the odd ideas are created for deus-ex-machina roles instead of being the majority of aliens. Honestly, DC comics seems to think that it's not possible for aliens to not have incredible super powers, but folks don't tend to bag on them so much. There. It's not that I'm in love with flerkens. It's just a point I had to make. I made my once-a-decade trip to reddit and was overwhelmed with flerken hate-- which I suspect is from people whose first exposure to flerkens was this movie. Nice. [thirty minutes of typing redacted in the interest of not starting a conversation I don't have time to participate in] I guess I'm the only person here who is completely fine with the idea that Fury lost his eye in some un-manly accident?