Duke Bushido

That Grindlewald thing (with the wife). I have decided that Newt is in fact a pokemaster (is that the right word?)

Not really. That's usually how it goes, as both are related to free testosterone levels. The higher the testosterone, the more likely thinning hair and baldness and being increasingly hirsute. Testosterone is a steroid (and thus a cholesterol) and it builds up in places like the follicles of terminal -- head-- hair while stimulating the growth of both vellus (body) and pubic (which includes beards) hair. Other signs include high cholesterol levels over all, blood pressure issues by midlife, and many other boring, mundane things related to having a higher level of "man juice" in your blood. People who for whatever reason are on very long-term steroids (Prednisone being one of the more common steroids used in this way) tend to eventually develop the same issues: receding hairlines, baldness, and a marked increase in body hair. As long as we're discussing baldness, I had a classmate who shaved his head into a tonsure for a part in a play when we were fourteen. It never back.

Nah. We're good. Really, Dude?

That's pretty much what we did. Had a PC from our very first group retire (player was ready for a new character) and found such a facility. It has been a prominent part of our campaigns ever since, even though that player moved nearly twenty years ago.

and here's one you probably all know already, but if only one new viewer gets a look, then totally worth it.

Mine didn't, in spite of having the same problem you did well into my thirties. At about thirty-two, I realized my widow's peak was receding. By thirty-six, I had a "normal" (i.e., no widow's peak) hairline. By forty-five, it was _gone_. Though I understand that alcoholics almost always keep their hair. Not sure which is causal to the other, though.

Wonderful! Sorry: worked almost 15 hours yesterday. Got home, cooked the kids a meal and went to bed.

Dark blue text on a black background. Lawful Evil.

You made it further than I did. I got a couple episodes into season 2. When I realized how much effort it was taking, I gave up

Oh, Doc; thank you, for both the memories and the sort-of validation. I have been on the unpopular end of that discussion numerous times, so it's nice to see someone else on my end of it. Yes; I'm typically I. The "sfx trump mechanics" group, and would agree with you. I would love to give some examples, but ten minute break and touch screen are not conducive to long diatribes. However, even the mechanics-trumps-everything group can see the validity, by the rules, of such a situation. And as far as sfx-first, why not? A drain, growth or DI, would reduce the appropriate amount of power; suppress "magic" could be thinned out and applied equally, with appropriate resuklts: no longer stone, nine feet tall-- whatever. But it doesn't work on a guy who "just is" really really big. If I have time, I'll try again tonight. Duke

My appologies, Doc: I should have been more clear: I think the rule is solid advice for making someone or something that is simply "big," particularly when that bigness doesn't include traits given by the power: say "eight feet tall, five hundred eighty pounds, but no stronger that any other guy." I should have said that I do not disallow the "always on" build (it's why we created the "inherent" modifier umpteen years ago). I find it to be appropriate for certain builds, in particular those builds where the power can be somehow taken away. As a simple example, say some archeologist touches some bit of jeweled statuary just the right way and Boom! He's blessed/cursed by being transformed into a living temple guardian, twelve feet tall and made of stone. He can't turn it off, but something may take it away from time to time- no reason to go into possibles; it's just an example of the sort of thing for which I feel always on is appropriate. Sincere appologies for my lack of detail earlier, it's just that using a touch screen is a severe PITA so I kept it brief. Duke

Not arguing that Growth ALO is against the rules from 5e on up. I disagree with that rule, but not for the "gimmes" that come with an Always-on power that hands out STR, defenses, etc-- The idea behind the rule seems reasonably apparent: "No freebies." This appears to be supported by the rule's recommendation to instead declare your character to be "size X" and buy the things that would have been added in such as STR or what-have-you. I disagree with for the simple reason that "simply being size X" can't be Drained or Suppressed. It can be Transformed, certainly, but there is a lot of story potential for Big Joe, who has come to rely on his great strength and slightly exaggerated reach (older editions) to suddenly be deprived of them. Same with the Titan, who's super-dense metallic body has granted him a bit of extra defense. That, and by the time you reduce the END down (_especially_ in older editions! Wow! ) and add Persistent (not so required in older editions) you _might_ save a couple of points, but not usually enough to make it a big savings unless you're buying a _lot_ of Growth (or shrinking, or DI or what-have-you).

If they take it at - 1, then yes; of course it does. As I said, without a straight-up guideline universe amongst the published stuff, all I we have is the rules books and what we can extrapolate from them. I also allow OAF at lesser value, if the player wants that particular build, but doesn't want it to unavailable roughly half the time. I tend to have such things because I find that, since their relevance is greatly altered from campaign to campaign, they are pretty VARIABLE and need to be SCALEd accordingly.

True enough. But was that DCV assigned to a hex because 3 was considered default for a normal person? If we change base "normal person" to a 0, we can make that same change to a hex for targeting purposes. (mind you, I'm not saying a hex is 3 because a base character was a 3; I am asking if anyone knows of a specific reason)

I am in the "drop it to zero if you want" camp. I will say that I totally understand those folks who disagree with doing this, whatever the reasons are. What I would like some enlightenment on (because I really don't understand it) is the opinion voiced above that the character should somehow be made to suffer for this. How is a player selling off say 6 points of OMCV (so he now has a 1) more of a hindrance than if everyone but him bought another two levels and he stayed at 3? Yes; it's much harder for him to hit with a mental power (which he likely doesn't have anyway), but is that not also true if he stayed at 3 while everyone else went to 5? I suppose I am having a difficult time rationalizing that we don't add penalties to characters who sell off some STR, or CON, or STUN, or DEX or anything else, because there are default problems associated with these reductions. However, there are default problems with reducing OMCV as well. The fact that they may never come up for a given character in a given campaign doesn't make it cheesy, at least not anymore that the guy with the strength 5 is cheesy because he didn't buy enough STR to lift a bus. And just like reducing OMCV (or anything else, for that matter), the player doesn't expect to be put in a situation where he would _have_ to lift a bus, either. Further, I expect that few GMs would alter the campaign in such a way as to make this character regret not being able to lift a bus. That being the case, why does reducing OMCV somehow "require" such a penalty? I'm with a lot of other folks who really think that it should have defaulted a zero anyway. Though I confess to being intrigued by Shrike's idea of mental combat maneuvers...... How do we determine STR for mental attacks? EGO seems traditional. Maybe we need a special set of Mental Damage characteristics, too: mental STUN, mental BODY..... Great. Now I'm thinking again. I've got things to do besides think, you know.... Duke

I disagree. Granted, it's a limitation, sure. But look at the power builds it gets applied to. Shrike posted a 30 DC Killing Attack above. I don't know what the parameters are for the campaign from which that spell is pulled, but I can absolutely _guarantee_ that a 30 DC Killing Attack _will_ kill every living thing in any fantasy campaign I have ever run, including dragons and lesser gods. Given this, I'd have a hard time assigning it much more than a - 1/2 (again, in that particular world). I am _not_ looking to derail an interesting thread, but it bears mentioning that the book value for limitations is not particularly helpful without a published game world that includes some guidelines, limits, averages, etc. Otherwise, we are left to extrapolate from the values given. In the spell Shrike posted, we're looking at a seriously high-powered world where we can expect a 30 DC attack to kill outright only 1/3 of the time.

Oh; my apologies: I wasn't asking rhetorically. I was suggesting that you (and your group, whether you are GM or not) sort of sit down and muddle through this: What do you _like_ about taking down villains of higher power? What do you like about equal footing? Or better-than-equal footing? Study what appeals to you, and why, as well as what does _not_ appeal, and why. It's likely you'll get a real good measure of where to benchmark a truly memorable villain. Sorry for my lack of clarity. Duke

Well what's the fun (or the need for a team of players) in overcoming someone less powerful than you? Or equally powerfuL, for that matter?

Dispell / suppress Invisibility

Ive been using Shrike's epiphany rules myself. Great for supers games, but I had to tone it down a bit for heroic. For those, I count each 3 as a pip, three pips to a point. Just using the straight out 3= 1pt lead to some serious "super-skills" in short order.

I think global (or even long-distance) is to represent that "Lois is in trouble!" gut sensation more than anything else, but it's not like the rules aren't open to interpretation.

As of his last post, Amorkca was on p 99.

Re: Power Level of villains: I've found over the years it's best to create your villains in such a way as they can be easily adjusted on the fly. Not only is it easy to over or underestimate your players, but you learn a lot not just about the characters on their sheets, but how the players _use_ that character, and how effective they are or are not with that character. This of course extends to the whole group. You might have a villain prepared that feels or looks like a good match for your players, only to discover toward the end of the arc that this villain is going to mop the floor with the group you're running. Of course, the reverse is true as well: your players might end up absolutely astounding you with the characters they have created, and your villain doesn't have a chance. Much easier to prepare both the villain and the plan to ramp him up _and_ down, depending on how things go. Here's another thing that has thwarted me as GM: sometimes the story goes in a different direction, and the players are only following up that first arc "to be good heroes" or some other thing that indicates their hearts aren't quite in it. That villain shouldn't be a major point anymore. Don't make him too difficult to get through and let them get back to "the good parts" of your evolving game. Along those same lines, sometimes the story arc itself becomes more complex and more convoluted, and suddenly your villain needs another figure behind him. Suddenly-- while he should be a competent challenge-- he needn't be the herculean, "master villain-feeling" opponent you had in mind anymore. Don't sweat it: you already had a plan to change him, so it didn't slow you down a bit. If I can give you a very recent 'frinstance: My youth group just completed their first campaign. This was originally a short, straight-forward, four-or-five session plot. An artifact is stolen from a museum and security personnel and the videos show super-powers were involved. The characters were to make a simple investigation, follow some simple clues, and catch the villain, who gives up (eventually) the "big bad" and his plan to use these artifacts to perform a mind-control ritual that would make him the man-behind-the-man in local and state government, with an eye on the senate. We went nowhere near that. I mean, we took care of that, but the final conclusion of that story? The characters and a slightly-senile seven-thousand-year-old alien shapeshifter they picked up along the way (who sounded like the guy who plays the duck in Kung Fu Panda-- why do I _do_ that?!) stopped a several super-villains and a mad cult of luchadores from resurrecting an ancient mayan emperor who was known to have so much magical power that he could well have conquered the world. The adventure doesn't always go where you planned it. Sometimes it doesn't even come as close as the above example. Just be prepared to roll with it. Just some thoughts I wanted to share. Hope something helps! Duke

Wyrmwood (loved it, but totally understand if you dont), Train to Busan (incredibly well-done), and Green Lantern for about the fourth time. No idea why people bag so hard on that movie: very human, and no grim dark anywhere..... Wish fall would get here so I can break out the Lum DVDs....

He's not alone. Duke