Duke Bushido

Thank you, Gentlemen. It was driving me nuts, as I had been under the impression that handguns were outright illegal in Australia, and the character that had the gun was clearly not law enforcement. Later there were some military or swat types with handguns; that made much more sense. Thanks again. Duke

maybe it's a reference to the flavor. Like Gatorade.

Just finished watching Wyrmwood: Road of the Dead with my daughter. Quick question for you guys who actually live there: Where does an Australian get a handgun? I assumed taken from a Law-Enforcement type turned zombie, but I didn't know if that was right, or if there were other options. Thanks! Duke

You see, Brian, you're not a punaholic until you've been to one of the meetings.

Okay, I got a lot of notifications on this, and after a quick re-read, I _totally_ see why. Shrike, I can't answer most of your questions because I straight up don't know what the hell I was trying to say, either. Except for the rotisserie thing. I almost went with revolver cylinder, but decided I like the imagery of "rotisserie" better-- sitting in a gas station, waiting for the perfect movement power to come into striking range of the tongs.... Yeah, fine; it's just me. If no one minds terribly, in the interest of reducing the already-too-much time I've spent here tonight, let me repost a slight piece I put somewhere else a few minutes ago. Be right back. Here you go: I didn't manage to get much of a nap, either, but I did get three of them, roughly thirty minutes each---- I love you guys, but I've got to cut my time here back considerably. The only place I can find more time is to cut more sleep, and I'm too damned old for that these days; it's really starting to show. I would like to ask for a do-over, where I will take the time to ensure that I am coherent, and I will try to address your questions thus-far asked in that go, if everyone's cool with it. You were more than hospitable in your 6e thread, and I have great interest in living up to the stellar example. I _think_ I was relatively clear on the bulk of the movement multi gripe (in spite of the unpopular metaphor) and will go ahead and say that as a GM that has shot that down, you are, in my own experience, in pretty rare company. As to the rest: I understand that it's cheaper to buy one movement, and that might be the way everyone's doing it these days. When I first discovered the movement multipower thing (the rec center of Ft. Stewart, 3e era, but we knew BBB was coming), I didn't see it where people only had one movement. It was as if one guy tried it, got it okayed (as a one-time thing, it doesn't seem so abusive), then _everyone_ had one. I mean every single table. My players were angling for them, even if they didn't _use_ the powers, on the basis of "but for only a few more points, I could be triple-effective" and such. My argument was "what's you're concept for this? Sell me on it." And the replies would be things like "well _he_ has tunneling...." Yeah. That's his schtick. He's also the emissary of the Subterrans. It makes sense for him. You have ice powers.... From a story point of view, I waffled a lot on it: there are those characters I could see justifying it: The powered armor guy could certainly justify it, since he had already bought Flight and Swimming. But from a GM point of view, everyone having one seemed a lot like dimming the spotlight on those few unique abilities only one or two characters had, and everyone had -- well, one or two of those. Those whose unique abilities were movement-related would miss out on a chance to shine. For example, powered armor guy was the _only_ guy with Swimming. Or LS, for that matter. But your concern is points. The P/A guy bought his powers straight-out (with the limitation Only In Hero ID). Had he suggested a multi, I would probably have allowed it. He didn't, and I don't know that we'd done a movement multipower before then, honestly. Then we get exposure to the idea, and suddenly everyone _needs_ one. Yeah, common problem. So what does it do? You've already mathed it up. Guy who paid for his stuff-- essentially gets boned, and people are paying much less for the same stuff-- Okay. Problem solved. It's all about perceptions. I am clearly perceiving problems that aren't there because the totals are different. Because I don't worry excessively about points-effectiveness, I will likely have larger totals or smaller "gains" for my expenditures, and I perceive conception-first as more important-- at least to me-- than points first, and anything points-first I will perceive as method of getting extra pickles for the same cost. Yep. Perception. It's all me. My bad. Weird, even though we know the answer now, I'd still like a do-over, if only so I don't sound so much like I need a penguin suit. oh-- and in this instance, AMG was "awesome-at-math guys." When they are going "here's where you went wrong" or "have you considered this?," they're awesome. When they're going "You shouldn't do it any other way because breakpoints, [or whatever] ), then they are angry math guys. When they find a nice _clean_ way to make a build without having to throw a line or two of multiple modifiers (say five or more), they're awesome again. I totally get that some people do math for fun. I'm not one of them. I do it all stinking day (well, only about seven hours of the day; the other six are equipment operation), and that's enough.

I understand-- I'm not OCD, and I confess I _tumbled_ for joy (spiritually; I've been far too abusive to this body during it's life to attempt it in reality) at the thought of being able to correct everything that was wrong in the original text--- but then I remembered my original mission: this is _not_ my book. This is someone else's book, and it's a book I loved enough that I want to make sure it's around for as long as possible for other people to enjoy. To that end, the only "corrections" I want to make to the actual book itself are issues that affect actually reading it: I want to preserve the actual reading experience-- warts and all, I'm afraid-- as much as possible. However, someone upthread suggested creating an "errata" sheet to include at the end of the text. To that end, continue to find the ticks, and we will incorporate the corrections in that way. Except for the out-of-order pages. There is no way that the original author could have possibly not wanted that corrected. I mean, that's not even messing with his words or his intentions; it's just putting them in the order in which he wrote them. Duke

Okay; I'm awake! Yeah, sounds strange, but let me explain: I was four days (Sunday and three work days) laid out with the flu. Should have laid out one more, but I was going stir crazy. Went back to work knowing better, but I wanted to get out, and of course, there's that whole "work or go hungry" thing working against laying out in the first place. My typical workday is thirteen hours; sometimes it's a bit short, sometimes it's a bit long. Yesterday's was, mercifully, a couple of _hours_ short, allowing me a few minutes to catch my breath. I checked in here, but I had to get ready for the youth group game: an extended session (that turned into a nearly all-nighter) that saw the exciting climax and conclusion of their campaign. It was a huge success, and there was celebration afterward (pre-ordered of course; this town is too small for an all-night anything except Sprawl-Mart). So I got precious little rest, and needed even more than usual. Tried to post this last night, when I got in, but I got sidetracked on the board and ended up I dont' even know where and woke up in in this chair, computer glowing, sun coming up.... decided I should take a little nap...... Okay; I'm awake! As promised, there was a bit of house rule I was going to post here, in spite of posting it elsewhere already. Still: PRE Attacks are defended against by EGO. It makes more sense to me. Presence is your force of personality. As long as I'm discussing what makes sense to me, the fact that the rules interpret this as always being a fear-based reaction baffles me. "Strength of Personality" does not automatically imply "scary." It just doesn't. I would like to cite Terry Hogan as a great example, but all my evidence is anecdotal. The gist, however, is that everyone who knew the guy, even in high school, comment on being bowled over or plowed under by his personality, but he wasn't aggressive, threatening, or anything else. He was, evidently, extremely outgoing and very likable. He wasn't known to dislike anyone. He was a bit of a boor, apparently, since it seems that the thing he liked to talk about most was Terry Hogan. (I believe he's still famous for that, actually). But still: a big, strong personality that is decidedly not fear-based. Look at Sam Elliott-- actually, no; don't. I don't want to drag this out. I need to make my points and move on, because I have been spending entirely too much time here, and it's not like I've got the time to actually do what I've been doing more and more and more of, and that's hanging out here. It's cutting too much into my sleep, and my health and faculties are starting to suffer for it. So just pretend I mentioned something about Sam Elliott having a powerful commanding presence in spite of not actually being able to back it up (which, even this far after his prime, Terry Hogan could probably still do) with a butt whuppin'. This judgement has allowed my players a good bit of freedom, as the don't feel they have to play one of the various denizens of Gotham or a hulking animalistic brick to justify a high PRE score: it's not a measure of scariness; it's a measure of, as the rules state, "force of personality." But the idea that your force of personality was the defense against some else's force of personality never sat any better with me than did "your scariness is your defense against someone else's scariness." So what is it? I did some thinking and some light research-- then some accidental research that really drove it home for me. oh yes: the accidental research: Way back in the mid-eighties, there were a number of things going-- Sorry. Short version. Donny T was missing a beat down. I had found it for him, and had been wanting to deliver it for some time. One summer night, coming home from a date that ended up with my girlfriend and I mad at each other, I passed Donny T's truck broken down under the light at the SUNOCO station, and lo-and-behold guess who's legs were sticking out from under it? I fishtailed the bike around, bolted it over the curb, dropped the stand, and started yelling and cussing before I had managed to get my helmet off. The feet stirred and a hand came out from under the truck and I grabbed Donny T by the ankles and _snatched_ him the rest of the way out from under that truck and it wasn't Donny T at all. Not even a little bit. Turns out Donny had sold that truck to another guy, and that guy was not even a little bit, either. He started screaming and hollering, and at that point I had two options: backpedal and try to explain the situation or bulldog on through and hope he flinched. Given that he had _at least_ five inches and eighty pounds on me, I didn't figure he was going to flinch, and I wasn't smart enough to try the other option. So I did the dumbest, most typical thing a young, healthy man with a score to settle could do: I kept being threatening. We escalated things between us for at least a minute or two. But that's getting too long, too. So while I was getting my ass kicked (thoroughly, I might add), I had an epiphany. I realized that I had known from the moment I dragged this complete (and very large) stranger out from under "his" truck and got a solid look at him pretty much how this would up, should we come to blows. I was no small fella, and (from this point in my life, I am not terribly proud to say) no stranger to a fight. But this guy outclassed me physically, and I had no idea of his skill. His looks told me immediately that we lived a similar lifestyle, and that he, too, had likely had some practice dusting his knuckles. He was a couple of years older than me: not enough to slow him down at all, but enough to give him more opportunity to have fought and learned from it. He also had a focused look and manner about him (which could have been a simple response to my own posturing) that suggested he was more likely to resort to violence anyway, which led me to make the decision to not back down in the first place). But the entire time-- from that instant I realized I had little hope of winning this fight to the moment I had this epiphany, I had absolutely not been afraid of him. Knowing that I was likely going get a solid ass-kicking (and I did, and it was very solid) had not deterred or even concerned me. I could still very cleanly see what he was doing and try to move or retaliate. My head was clear. I was able to quite completely notice that he was both faster than me and more physically powerful than me. I could understand mid-fight-- not replaying it later, but as it was happening-- that he had already learned every left was a feint and he was comfortable stepping in to them to get around the right that he knew was coming even before I could make myself not throw it. Now that's not to say I didn't touch him. I bopped him here and there, and his middle was softer than mine. His gourd, however, was was more extreme to my range than mine was to his. And of course, I already mentioned he was faster..... So two minutes later, it's all over. He's standing by the truck, moving a bit, getting warmer and looser, and I'm getting up off the ground. "We gonna do this again?" he bellows in that gigantic taunt with which we are all so familiar. "If we have to." I posture back at. Much flatter than his. I am trying to convey that I'm not interested in it, but I'm perfectly willing. He postures another minute or so, I drop my defensive stance and posture back, and ask "Well? You gonna dance alone all night?" The he just laughs, we look at each other, laugh some more, and talk a few minutes. He makes fixing his truck noises; I make getting home noises. I started back to the bike and he yelled "you gonna try that crap again?" I looked back at him. "You let those fists get out of line again, and I'll do my best to beat them till they bruise." He's got a bloody nostril and a black eye. I've got two of each. And a cut lip. He was standing when I fell for a feint and took a straight-out sucker punch that turned me enough to trip over my own feet. He wins. I get on the bike and go home, he crawls back under the truck. It was about two months later when I realized what I had learned. 1) Presence isn't about looking scary. I was big and ugly; he was bigger-- much bigger-- and while not ugly, definitely harder-looking. Everything in me told me I _should_ be scared of this guy, but something kept me from doing it. Neither of us would qualify as being especially scary-looking, but he admitted to-- well I won't quote it, but being extremely scared when a guy rolled up, squealed to a stop, leapt off the bike screaming bloody murder, and was doubly-so when I grabbed him and dragged him out of the truck. I admitted that I had a hard re-think when he just wouldn't stop standing up. I even told him that I knew I was going to get beaten pretty badly, but for whatever reason, I hadn't been scared. He told me that once the fight started, he wasn't scared, either: he just fell into habit. Turns out he was a solider from the local base, so yeah-- _way_ better training that I had _ever_ had, which was none at all. All my "practice" came from actual fights. Learning-on-the-fly, as it were, isn't nearly as efficient as a good instructor, and the military specializes in that sort of thing, from the physical to the mental. Just like he said: once he had analyzed the situation, he just fell into habit. I had known I was out-classed, but hadn't really appreciated just how much until we talked those few minutes. I was setting up a new campaign, preparing for the end of the current one, when I made this connection. PRE vs PRE wasn't what kept me from being scared. It wasn't what caused my opponent (whose name I never asked. It didn't seem appropriate) to stop being scared when the fists started flying. I mean, it was sort of "presence," but it was "presence of mind" more than it was force of personality. Force of personality-- that's the zeal with which you act, the confidence and certainly that you project, even the efforts you make to sell that image of yourself. But when someone does it to you, it's not a skill-versus-skill sort of thing: you can't "unposture" your opponent. It is your determination to stand your ground, your willpower that forces you to ignore all the flash and gumption rolling at you, and see this thing through to the end, regardless of the outcome. And that campaign was the beginning of the House Rule that PRE Attacks are defended against by EGO. Now we _do_ have "Presence Defense (FD)" as a Characteristic, and it is modeled price-wise on PRE: only for defending against PRE Attacks, but that's because we already had that in play. We have never interpreted it as "PRE: only for defending against PRE Attacks;" we only priced it by that model. We have always interpreted it as the ability to see posturing for what it is; the ability to see how much of the bravado is genuine, and how much is for show-- the ability to see that maybe, just maybe, he's not as confident as he'd like you to think. Now to be fair, from the point of that entire realization, I had always meant to go back and remodel the cost as EGO: yadda yadda, but I never did. Partly because we already had an EGO-Defense (MD) characteristic modeled that very same way, partly because no one ever really bought a whole lot of FD (remember that our older editions used Characteristic X "so much" as opposed to Characteristics + "so much," meaning that a little went a long way, and partly because moving from PRE vs PRE to PRE vs EGO was just enough of a difficult sell to the players that I didn't want to rattle things up any further. So, if you're young and full of vinegar, and are looking for just the right experience to get your creative juices flowing, I highly recommend not getting yourself beat up because your temper is short and your mouth is quick. There are better ways. Perhaps none that stick with you as well, but still: there are better ways.

As stated in one of my absolute favorite scenes from Futurama, you are the best kind of correct. However, other than for slot/control cost imbalance, I have never seen anyone reject a movement multipower. So what is the point of this framework? Is it a built-in limitation scheme of some sort? I have always assumed so, seeing as how I have used them to simulate "a limited amount of power from which to use any of the following things" sort of builds, and ultras flat-out state "i can only do one of these at any given time." Sounds like they are intended to be sort of akin to "Limitation: Power is in a rotisserie." But have you ever seen a Movement Multipower shot down? Are they not today as standard as they ever were (for characters with multiple forms of movement)? - - side note-- I think this is what the newer Advantage: usable as othe movement-- actually stems from, and I have issues with it as well (though fewer) for similar reasons. A movement multipower offers substantial savings (any multipower does) for the idea that you are going to suffer the inconvenience of not also having access to whatever else is in that multi. So here is your rebate of X points for having to endure the hardship of not being able to run while you are flying or tunnel while your teleporting or swim while you are FTL. With luck, you will find some way to cope that will still allow you travel successfully. We wish you the best, of course. A rebate for a Limitation. A rebate for a Limitation that does not _effectively_ limit. Yes, it still _technically_ limits, but not in any reasonable way for the vast majority of actual campaigns. I would love to say "any" campaign, but there's always that theoretical or possible-to-imagine campaign that exists long enough to prove a counterpoint (which is completely valid, of course: we are talking theory anyway, at this point) and then vanishes. If we built these as disadvantaged powers: Swimming: cannot use while flying FTL, what sort of deep discount are we looking at? Running: cannot use while Teleporting? Teleporting: cannot use while Tunneling? Movement whatever: cannot use while using some other movement _power_? (to go ahead and dismiss the "you could drown I the three seconds it would take a SPD 4 character to switch from Flight to swimming!". It's mathematically possible, without life support, but not mathematically _likely_, but let's leave you access to your "normal guy" swimming, running, and Leaping and put only the _powers_ in the MP.) After exhaustive review, I find it hard to justify - 1/8, but accept that there might be a GM that thinks it could be worth a - 1/8, so in the interest of peace, I will let that slide. Does the multipower reflect a savings roughly equivalent to that? Or to - 1/4? No. It most certainly does not. So... Free points. No, not _technically_ free, but in overall effect? And given that the phrasing of multipower has shifted over the years to continue to include the limiting elements (small L) and downplay the similarity to Limitations (big L, and which I do not claim it ever specifically was, but it was) we have in our possession a framework that can be used to generate _effectively free_ points: the same thing we hated about EC and Package Bonuses. The difference: this one _can_ be used to model a variety of Limitations. I was once foolish enough to use it that way myself. EC couldn't, until 4e, anyway. And of course, "package bonus" was a package "bonus;" not a handicap in anyway. It was something of a bribe you the player took as a sign that you agreed to make the GMs life a little easier by taking a pre-approved chunk of character and working off of that. The only close to limited there was a slight reduction in your own creative input. Not really mandatory, and extremely meta. Power Pool on the other hand, is awesome. You get a massive discount for taking every possible power, talent, skill, Characteristic, or what-have-you. Seriously: only the GM limits - - mind you, _pre_-limits, before you buy-- what you can't have. Anything else you can sneak in later? It's yours. You get every single power ever for what is quite possibly the deepest discount in the game. Or the worst. It's impossible to calculate because you can toss in and out whatever modifiers you need, as you need them-- it gets nutty. And all you have to do is agree to not use more than X points worth at a time. So, for a control cost and the price of a single slot, you get multipower with unlimited ultras-- seriously: unlimited. If you think of it and get enough modifiers on it to fit that slot, boom! It's yours! And at Zero additional slot cost. So there are no _technically_ free points here either, but an effective amount that is nigh-impossibly to calculate, and varies depending on the foresight of the GM prior to allowing this construct. Or, put another way, how much math he was willing to do, and how much he was wling to give away. Yes; you are completely correct: we all know that there are no free points out there. There are, however, and we all know that, too. I am curious, though, why the ones that appeal to the story guys were blasted and the ones that appeal to the AMGs were given a pass....

My appologies, Brian, somehow I cut off your actual question. If you will allow me to attemot repairs: BRIAN STANFIELD: "What happened to package deals?" As near as I can tell, they became two decks of cards. Now as to bit of quote I did _not_ mangle: That corollary, while nicely-axiomatic and in keeping with the oft-espoused goals of balance, dose not exist, neither in the character creation methodology of the rules nor in the hearts of the players using them. Were there actually a "you pay for what you get" principle involved, there would be no power frameworks at all: they are essentially "free points" in their more common usages, such as the famous "movement multipower" or the arrow quiver of gimmick arrows. Further, there would be no "breakpoints for rounding and never would there have been a " school of cost effectiveness." This is a quibble of unknown size, I am afraid, and it's only mine, I think, so it's not one upon which to waste much thought. I simply wanted to point out that, while we demand a perceived full-value for every point we spend, we will put a little work into finding as much value as we can find from the points we don't spend, too. It doesn't seem to be enough of a problem to worry about, so if you will excuse me, I've got a multipower and a couple of power pools to finish off real quick-like so I can work on my post about the importance of mathematical balance. I need just a couple more points though: I have got to finish buying everything up to nice Prime numbers to improved the rounding efficiency. We will never know for sure, but I think this was a large part of the idea behind them in the first place: to help the GM establish the fit and finish of his world, ensure certain skill sets or disadvantages were in play, guide fantasy and alien races into a, if you will pardon the expression, "uniform set of differences" to help them feel more like "a people" as opposed to "a person." I suspect they also prevented a lot of minor disagreements about what X should or should not be by drawing attention to the GM's concept in an "I didn't bash it in the campaign guidelines," oh-cool-a-handy-chart;-I-like-those kind of way. And it was all made a bit more appealing to the players because of the tiny bit of two-flavored bait: there was the crunchy, healthy and important "well that's a lot of work already done and GM-approved" kibble _and_ the so tasty, ultra-meaty "I can't believe he just left those three points just sitting there-- right there where I mean, just _anyone_ could walk by and like, just _pick the up_!" Bits that we are always on the lookout for so we can buy our movements up to the next odd number.

Oh no: They are all worth doing. That was the point. Just heard back from Jason. We have permission to make "whatever changes you deem necessary." I don't want to change the original book. But damaged or badly-pressed letters, deformed characters, etc. Those will be considered. Spelling errors, etc: they will remain. I do not wish to change what was actually printed, only what prevents it from being as clean and clear as is possible.

I am in the vast minority here, but it was every bit as cringey as the live action version.

Told myself I wasn't coming back to this thread, but as I posted a hit-and-run at lunch the other day, I wanted to see what I had missed at least above that. And I want to say a couple things (briefly; game resumes in a couple more minutes): First: Thank you! Thank you so much. Gadzooks! I thought I was taking crazy pills or something... Yes! This is _so_ much more acceptable, as it completely precludes the written-in justification of "you missed anyway." I have no idea why-- it's probably a math thing or a tinker thing, but the more vocal on this board-- no; that's not a negative or pejorative or any other such itive; it simply means those who are most regularly active-- are focused so much on _mechanics_ that they don't seem to think that the _semantics_ even matter. And the fact is, plainly and simply, that the _semantics_ are where the flavor is! Ignore the semantics and we don't have a rules set; we have a book full of mathematics exercises; word problems at the very best. HERO isn't scaled appropriately for the HEROIC level, either, but we seem to sweep that under the rug by unspoken agreement. Personally, I think that could have been fixed by raising prices on Characteristics and lower / altering them on Skill Levels, etc; but I've mentioned that before, and "raising costs" never seems to be the most popular topic out here. But that's also a different discussion, and I'm going to stop starting those, at least for a while, because I have got _so_ much catching up to do on the scanning project. It wouldn't have to stack, as-- since your opponent retroactively missed (if you had enough CL, that is), you wouldn't need those other defenses anyway. And as written, it doesn't work if you're unconscious or otherwise-unable to ... well, to avoid getting hit. And yes: not specifically including the concept of causing a retro-active miss would have been _miles_ ahead of what got published; I agree completely. And frankly, I think Toxxus's approach is absolutely _perfect_ for mechanical application for the ability to roll with the punch: you will get banged up, but you have managed to "soak" or avoid it. Quick question for Toxxus: what about STUN? First point? First Die? Just curious. I understand where you are coming from, and would ordinarily agree with the concept. However, since the last three incarnations of the rules have done all they can (so far) of cutting "extraneous" or "one-off" mechanics and folding them back into other mechanics, they have effectively cut the legs off that argument even before the gate dropped. Would love to add a bit, but I gotta run; groups almost completely back, and if anyone holds up the game, it should _not_ be the GM.

Well, I can tell you _I've_ played it that way since second edition, but when you get down to it, that could be the game I'm running tonight!

Hi, Neil: I'm not going to judge anyone for what jokes they have or have not heard, particularly in the pre-interweb stone age we grew up in. Mostly because jokes just didn't travel like they do now. You're reading list, for example, is foreign to me. I mean I'm familiar with them, of course. It's just weird, considering how much I enjoy the way you think, that you and I clearly had different influences. For example: Don't care for Norton or Lewis; have a particular distaste for Tolkien (which I freely admit may have grown over the years as a result of over-exposure; I can't say if that's true or not), LOVED Burroughs, Howard was solidly enjoyable, but never really exciting. Moorcock and McCaffrey were both hit-and-miss for me, Niven was solid entertainment (it's weird to see a list with Niven, but not Pournelle, who was also one of my preferred reads), adored Heinlein, and detest Asimov beyond the bounds of reason. Yet I still enjoy your conversations. Weird. I have learned that who you are is _not necessarily_ what was poured into you.

Break time in the youth group game; I've got about fifteen minutes to check in: Brian, take the time you need. I myself was out of work the first three days this week: contracted flu over the weekend. I also see your autocorrect does the same thing to Amorkca's name that mine does. . Amorkca, you've been pulling all of our weight; I am both ashamed and very grateful. I hope this weekend to get the list in the first post updated, and delete out those things which I have addressed. Brian's will be a little trickier, because of the way he is doing it, but I _will_ get it done. Gotta run; I want to check a couple threads before "potty break" is over. Bonus: We are at the "Exciting Conclusion" point of our short campaign, and everyone is riveted so far. We just _may_ get a couple of new RPG fans out of all this.

Thanks, Chris. Bookmarked it, and I'll get it tomorrow night: 45 minutes to game time with the youth group; I've got to get ready.

You've reminded me of our very earliest games, where none of us really had a clue what was what, but we wanted to jump in and play this game! So we all made characters (wildly bizarre, disparate, mis-matched characters who, without the most extreme of GM intervention, would make a truly ineffective team (you know: a "team" of lone-wolf types ) None of us had considered making up for each other's shortcomings-- to the point where we most often shared shortcomings: "Mute?! Dude, that sounds like an _awesome_ idea! Hey, Jim! My guys mute, too!" (shameful, but a true story )) Short version: we were _incapable_ of keeping _in sight_ of each other, let alone pace, with out-of-combat movement. More than one character's "movement power" was a bus pass the GM tossed at him. Those first three or four adventures (we were adamant that we could make these characters work! ) more often than not were a series of cut scenes: Okay, so you agree to meet at X in twenty minutes and continue the pursuit. or: Your the first one here. You scan the scene, looking for traces of where the villain may have gone. After speaking with eye-witnesses and posing for the crowd, Dave shows up and crumples against a lamp post. Dave, you should probably just Recover for a minute or two. You see a cab headed this way. Mike, didn't you take a cab? Okay, is Dave recovered enough to talk? Sure. Great. I turn to Dave "Greased Lightning, I think I see The Hunter arriving. Tell him I'm headed south, toward the desert road. Demonic is riding in a chariot made of skulls, pulled by giant flaming dog skeletons with battle armor. I haven't seen Lucas at all, but I'm sure he's at the nearest bus stop." That kind of thing. shortest version? We could _not_ make those characters work. I got no idea how old you are, Neil, and I'm not asking. But trust me: that particular "dig" was around a lot longer than the internet. Never, _EVER_ turn off Pedant mode! NEVER! in a hobby overflowing with AMGs (angry math guys: thanks, Neil ), it is _vital_ that we keep reminding them what the rules say to the people who read the _words_! Duke

On the plus side, you'll be much closer and I can come 'round more often. Almost all of my-- Aww, crap! I totally forgot to go back and post this in Chris's House Rules thread! Sorry, Chris. At any rate, most of my non-supers campaigns use EGO as the target for Presence Attacks. It just makes more sense to me: presence is your force of Personality; Ego is your strength of will. It just feels more right. Why not my supers games? Well for one, I get way more EGO: 10 characters in Supers than in any other genre. Don't know why, but the bulk of my supers players seem to think that Captain UltraRighteous and Miss Victorious Leader should be as influenceable as any other schmoe on the street. That, and a lot of them have drifted in and out from other groups that use PRE and PRE Attack as-is. Even so, though: I don't use presence attacks much (outside of Horror or Occult), but I _do_ use them, and even my regular players have a nasty habit of making EGO: 10 supers. (sometimes, when I'm really frustrated with them, I think just how inexpensively I could build a mind-controlling villain.... Not that I would, mind you!) That doesn't happen as often at my non-supers games, because most people who aren't already HERO-familiar will instead look for "that particular game" instead of a HERO-based version of it, and my regular players are aware of the PRE vs EGO rule (you know: the same people who _won't_ buy a little PRE for PRE vs PRE rules! Maddening!) Another exception is my Horroresque games-- well, some of them, anyway, where there are one or more custom damage-tracking characteristics against which PRE-Attacks are directed as a form of sanity or spiritual damage. (and of course, there are recovery rules as well. I ain't Lovecraft). I instituted -- sorry. Not derailing this thread; my apologies. _That_ can go into Chris's House Rules thread, when I find it again. Duke

I agree with you completely. I have always understood the way this works mechanically: it's armor with some eclectic limitations. I totally understand that. This! This is the part that chafes like 80-grit Charmin: " missing me" _is_ a special effect. It's all special effects for playing with random number generators, in the end. But "missing" is not just any special effect. Missing is a special effect for which we already have not just a mechanic, but a well-known mechanic. Several source books have been written around ways to make this mechanic more exciting and colorful, and how to exploit this mechanic in new and creative ways. In response to a question, Hugh (no negativity, Hugh; just citing my source ) responded that he felt the martial arts rules should be considered part of the core rules. The martial arts rules are nothing more than further flavoring for the existing and well-established mechanic of I/you hit/missed. That mechanic is the to-hit roll. I won't go into all the ways to influence that; I could not possibly do a better job typing with two thumbs on a tiny screen than the umpteen actual complete books on the subject have done. I couldn't even do well enough to embarrass myself by comparison. In the last couple of editions, we have seen flavor and color lost to the drive to consolidate mechanics: unique abilities that are now mealy (and often expensive!) versions of their former selves, simply because, if you stretched a different mechanic far enough, and piled enough advantages and limitations, and had a shoe horn and one of those long-handled golf hammers, you could make it fit. The push has been toward the importance of reducing mechanics into groups of type: transfer is now drain and aid; instant change is now T-form (for _how_ many ap?!), etc, etc. Except for this. This is a mechanic that is clearly armor (sorry; it's so much more practical to type than "Resistant Defense"). Ain't no doubt about it. We all see it's just armor. No one, myself included, will claim that armor does not work just the way the mechanic of this power works. But then the text spells out the intent of this power (which it further supports via the limitations listed) is to nullify the to-hit roll. I ain't havin that. You want to get missed, then find a way to affect that roll before it happens, and not a way to claim it was any different than what it was. Combat weaving: +2 DCV. If 6 let's you put mods on skill levels, or buy raw CV as talents and powers, flavor it up a bit: Character has a well-defined defensive instinct or extreme training that keeps him moving, feinting, and learning his opponent's Tell for striking. This allows him to twist and weave in such a way that he is often able to completely side-step attacks from even the most skilled of fighters. In which case, it missed complete, by the Combat Luck description. At the end of the phase, a miss and a zero-damage hit are "mechanically the same." I'm not a damned robot; I don't get hot for mechanics. I'm not an accountant; balanced spreadsheets don't tighten my pants, either. I'm a writer, a reader, and a teller of stories, and this construct was designed specifically (it's right there in the description) to re-write a piece of the story that has already been penned, and read by everyone at the table. It _kills_ me a little that no one else is ever bothered by that because "hey, same thing, sort of, and it's cheap, too!" So what? Get your THAC0 out of my OCV/DCV. Except for the qualifier phrase, that's my own construct as well. Duke

Interesting programs from other countries? From Venus? From next week? Maybe it's now the world's first high-def 3D CRT screen? Or go with the more obvious, if a bit more mundane, suggestion for a critical repair roll: it never, ever breaks again. Or he did it in record time, with a stylish flair. Something like the Fonzie thump, and viola: never breaks again. Rewards don't have to be spendible to be satisfying.

5e: Unfortunately, 5e is only in my phone right now (didn't realize that when I sat down here), but I promise it's pretty much the same, including the phrase "sometimes called the just missed me!" effect. 5er: Because Combat Luck depends on a char- acter’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if he’s asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). Nor does it protect him from damage in most situ- ations where he deliberately does something he knows will hurt him (such as performing a Move By/Through, both of which cause him to take some of the damage he does to the target). In some cases Combat Luck won’t apply if the character is Sur- prised (see page 380); the GM may require a PER Roll or other roll to determine if the character per- ceived the attack in time to use his Combat Luck. 6e1: This Talent represents a character’s ability to avoid damage in combat due to luck, skill, training, or some similar reason. Although referred as Combat Luck, it can indicate a charac- ter’s skill at dodging attacks (it’s sometimes known as the “just missed me!” effect). Combat Luck provides a character with 3 points of Resistant PD and ED for 6 Character Points. (Characters may buy Combat Luck more than once, unless the GM rules otherwise.) This defense is considered Hardened (see 6E1 147). It works together with any other applicable defenses a character has, such as his innate PD/ED, armor he wears, his Resistant Protection power, and the like. Because Combat Luck depends on a character’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if the character is asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). Nor does it protect him from damage in most situations where he deliberately does something he knows will hurt him (such as performing a Move By/Through, both of which cause him to take some of the damage he does to the target). In some cases Combat Luck won’t apply if the character is Surprised ( Let me see if I can shorten that up: 5er: Combat Luck depends on a char- acter’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if he’s asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). 6e: Combat Luck depends on a character’s ability to dodge, block, or otherwise avoid damage, it doesn’t work if the character is asleep, unconscious, or deliberately throws himself in the way of an attack (for example, to save a comrade from injury). Factor in the creator of the rule calling it "just missed me," the rule that says characters can have it multiple times, and the fact that it is _not_ armor (though it works like it) and the fact that the only way it won't help a character is if he, paraphrasing, chooses to get hit or is in a circumstance where he cannot dodge, twist, bend, fold, spindle, or mutilate his way out of being hit. The rules, as quite specifically written, regardless of _how you chose to _use_ them_, have a very clear message that this is intended to simulate "not getting hit" (when it works perfectly, at any rate) _after_ having actually been hit. Fine. It bothers none else. We could decide to roll a die every time a character takes any sort of action. Every time a 6 comes up, we ignore that action as though it never happened. Eventually, we'd find a way to justify that, too. We are creative people, after all. Used with proper GM discretion, this models it _poorly_, but since so many people worry about stacking it with several other kinds of defenses, I, like Chris, have to wonder just how much P-v-P is going on between GM and everyone else. I mean, if the GM decides he wants to hose you, go adventure naked. It'll be over sooner. _IF_ this rule _did not_ present itself as a way to avoid getting hit without using CV, skill levels, or their mechanics, but instead said "roll with the punch" and presented itself as "this talent represents people who have learned to instinctively blah blah blah to alter and change etc etc etc deflect knife blades hooziwhatsits to mitigate the damage he takes from being hit in combat," I would have _way_ less problems with it. If it just changed it's name from "Combat Luck," that would help. Lessen the severity of knife wounds? Screw that! I rolled three sixes! I want a damned flamethrower! _That's_ a three-sixes luck roll. So my last entry to this conversation (bowing out before the round of "why don't you just call it that and define it so?" questions-- actually, no: I'll answer it preemptively this time) Why does it bother me? Partly because it claims to be luck. Oh, but luck doesn't have a good mechanic. Well neither does actual, honest-to-Pete luck. Things just happen-- good or bad, while you're too damned busy to figure out why, or sometimes even understand. "A good mechanic for Luck" is physics, which is the opposite: it's understanding-- Hell, most of you are better educated than I am: you know what physics is; I'm not here to patronize anyone. (short "a") Mostly, though, it bothers me for the same reason so much of the Dark Champions fall-out bugs me: here's a neat way to use one mechanic to screw up another one. Want to be invincible? Desolid, only versus bullets / knives / thrown weapons / whatever. So now my "Desolid" is cheaper (you know, because it's "limited" ), I'm practically invincible within my campaign, _and_ I don't have to buy "affects Solid" because my enemies aren't damage dice! Woo-hoo! Want to never miss? Autofire or Area Effect on your fist, Dude. (yeah, there are some giants and speedsters for whom that's a rather inspired build; we know that. But just because you don't want your street-wise vigilante to have a serious chance of missing a punch? Bit much). Enough! Sorry: first day back to work after three days of unbelievable fever, and I'm tired as all get-out, and want to wrap this up before forgetting it. The reason I don't do that and call it that is because that is not a HERO construct: That is a Duke construct. Or a Lucious construct. Or a whoever-wants-to-be-the-first-to-suggest-this-obvious-solution-this-time construct. The official HERO construct will always be "here's a way to completely undo getting knocked on the head. Try it out." And from HERO-- the company that is _not_ D&D-- this rule, by it's own explanation, completely ties the strength of your armor to whether or not you got hit. Coming from Champions (HERO System today)-- the game that, so far as I can recall in my foggy sleep-deprived mind, was the _first_ game to separate "getting hit" from "defense"-- it's a Flippety-flappin abomination. Night, All. Duke

Hmmmm.. Base it on AP flies to mind, but that still makes it much more effective for some powers than others, and of course, anything I an ultra gets it for a song. Base it on Actual Cost? Lots of complaints all around, but I think the scenarios that spilled out of it until everyone had a handle on where to go next.

Sorry folks, lunch break is twenty minutes, so I can't really read what I've missed if I want to poke in any words on this tiny screen. From 5, 5r, and 6, without changing from one to the next: (paraphrased for time reasons) Combat luck represents a character's ability to dodge or turn or otherwise avoid attacks. Also called the "just MISSED me effect." Whether or not the math works out, the intent that here is a mechanic designed to turn a success "yay! I hit!" "Okay, roll your damage, then add it up." Oh, okay. Turns out you missed. You mean I didn't go through his defense? No; I mean you miss. I'm a super marksman, government sniper assassin with eleven skill levels with this particular weapon, a scope that has nine more skill levels built in, and I'm firing from twelve feet away. And you missed. You said I hit. Well you did. But then you rolled too low on your damage, so you missed. That's bull"&3i@, Man. Yeah, but you still missed. We can sit hear and say "well it should be used" or "it could be used" and you won't be wrong: we all tend to create situations where we are justified, after all. Hell, I'm doing it now. But we have a unique situation in the history of all editions: we have access to the original incarnation of the rule, and every version thereafter, and we know that it was written (and left unchanged) by the same guy (not team) every time. So no matter what we may convince ourselves was the direction of the first few players who created this game, we can _see_ the original intent of this rule, and see that it is _still_ the intent of this rule. And just like the 4e crap of "Desolidification: only versus damage" or that other nonsense, it is intended as a way to _take_ a success without actually going to the trouble of altering the probability of that success. Suppose it was some other sort of success? You have successfully defused the bomb and saved everyone in the stadium! The police officer slumps against the wall in relief. Thank you. My kids are here. Thank you. Too bad our villain has retroactively improved the design. Kaboom! What? That's crap, Dude! No. It's Something we put together building on the idea of retroactively taking a success away from you. On the plus side, you never knew the cop's kids were there, either. And we've done this before, back when it first hit, and taking my lessons from then, I'm done. There are those who will refuse to see this, and those who will justify it with a work-around definition without acknowledging the origins, clearly-stated intent, and maybe even a few who have gone out of their way to make sure they can't, but at the end of the day, if you can't see why a power build intended to retroactively take a success away from someone is utter crap, I can't help you see it, either. Have fun! Gotta get back to work. Duke

Really? How is acknowledging his successfully making contact with you any different from some some bull$@=; pansy-@$+ little-kid-getting-tagged-and-runs-off-yelling "did not! Did not! Did not!"? Just clarifying: that _is_ the question being asked here, correct? At the beginning of every single edition of these rules is some syrupy little bit about how 'we use to play cowboys and indians or cops and robbers or army and aliens or pirates and navy or whatever. Do you remember the problems? First, you had to have room to run around' etc, etc, until they get to talking about what's so gteat about an RPG, and they get to that point where there are rules we all share that let us know when we are successful, or when we've been hit, or when we've yadda yadda, and these rules are great, because they keep your friends from being the complete dicks they were when you were kids who kept yelling "nunh-unh" and "did not" every time they were shot, outflanked, arrested-- whatever. ' So then this tiny little cobble pops up one day, slap in the face of that very preface in the same book. Is Steve telling us something? Was he one of those kids? Or did they leave a bad taste in his mouth so he built us a handy little detector they couldn't help but pick up, because it's just so _them_? Y'all can (and will; I've been down this road before. I almost developed a roster (almost because a lot of them don't seem to be active anymore) of who will tell me this very thing here: "But the end result is the same, so what does it matter? " Because Forrest Gump is not Lord of the Rings! You know what? I dont care any more. Screw it. Forrest Gump _is_ Lord of the Rings, because the end result is the same. Imagine the money Peter Jackson would have missed out on if Hanks had just titled his film "guy takes boring-assed walk". There. Same. And SWAT kicking in your door and shooting your grandmother and your dog, that's the same as serving a warrant, because now you know the police want something. Same/same. At the end of the day, the player had a Success. And Cobblebat Luck very specifically uses a mechanic (one of the new perfect ones) that absolutely one-hundred percent cannot affect that success, and uses that mechanic to take that success away. I say "take it away" instead of prevent it, but this mechanically-perfect bit of "nyunh-uhn" used a mechanic that is incapable of affecting the odds of success one way or another to flat out pick up its ball and go home--- I mean, steal someone's success retroactively: you know: after everyone at the table has watched them succeed. You want to know what the difference is when the end results are the same; I want to know why, given the number of builds that could have incorporated things that actually affect an attack roll, were all fighting to see how many levels of Dick Move we should allow to stack. And a million more, but I went back to work today; I've got to get inside.

Here's a traditionally unpopular idea I used to toss out when there where "what would you like to see in 5e?" or 5er? Or 6e? And that was about it... How about _raising_ the prices of Characteristics (preferably primary and secondary, but you know: I just don't think that's going to happen anymore) until there is actually room for the granularity required to make all these things balance. I've been avoiding this one, and I'm stepping out now, simply because I don't want to get on a rant about "skill levels in a power framework."