tesuji

Re: End: Should he go the way of Com? My goal with an end change would be to remove as many accounting "attacks" as possible. By accounting attack i mean basic resource management that merely serves as paperwork. having to mkark off end every phase for every action is a waste of time IMO **IF** it only serves that role. If you have a character who has "manageable end costs" so that you almost awlways have some end to use and only rarely if ever have to worry about end usage - then you have spent a lot of tracking to no real gain. This can be served a lot less effort - want to be able to push heroically in some circumstances? Provide a rule that says "i can gain extra effect but doing so causes fatigue" and define some minor effect from fatigue. "lose 1dc or 5 ap for every fatigue" until you take a recovery or some such. Want an attack that "takes a lot of effort"? again have your character accumulate fatigue. Now, if you do this you will likely find fewer "takes a lot of effort" powers because frankly as many as not the "take a lot of end" is merely an accoubnting trick - he will never run out of end anyway but i can save a few points if it means i mark off 10 end instead of 5 end. So i would replace the various "takes effort" with an ACTUAL penalty for exertion instead of "silly accounting tricks."

Re: terminator where thepeople scrapes with damage Sorry but i dont get this one bit. A terminator that is always metal showing has distinctive features with a not concealable and very high frequency of occurance. a terminator who has skin covering most of the time has more concealable and lower frequency. the baseline is, after all, no dictinctive features. you dont have to pay points to "look normal". that is the default. you seem to have redefined the baseline for chargen to "IS A TERMINATOR" for free and now want them to pay for human-like appearance? how much shapeshift would a normal human need to buy under these conditions? one can always slap lims on a power. i have even known those who just keep piling on lims, that are then ignored, until they get the cost low as they want. for me, i want to get an accurate cost, one that reflects the utility. and to me - "looks like an inhuman killing machine that is hated by most people" isn't a positive trait. (though it might help you with a presence attack) so i dont start out thinking "how much should you pay for this. As for how it could be done... Suppress running 2d6 (Standard effect -3") +1/2 0 end +1/2 persistent +1 IPE 30 ap -1/2 self-only -1/2 always on = pay 15 cp as opposed to just buying a physical lim disad and gaining 5-15 cp? Which do you prefer for a human who has a base move of 3"?

Re: terminator where thepeople scrapes with damage my issue with the ablative shapeshift approach is cost. even if we assign a 25 pt disad for the "walking erector set" then you wind up with a 25 pt disad and a 29 pt power whose combined function is "sometime you look non-human" and PAYING points for that problem seems counter intuitive. its a problem so the net should be "gain points for the problem" not "pay for the problem". this assumes you are concerned about cost. If you are not concerned about cost why go thru the shenanigans to "model" it at all. Just DEFINE it and move on, right? I would simply resolve this as a distinctive features. How often does it crop up? Assign a frequency. for a combat model, fairly frequently. For an infiltrator, not so often. obviously the reaction is very strong among humans. So i would likely give it a "limited group" and "extreme reaction" set of values. and go from there.

Re: All in the...timing I assume each to-hit roll is a separate attack landing sequentiaLLY. so, autofire is one to hit roll with multiple damage hits applying but each getting the defenses. while a three shot sweep hits immediately one then another so effects like KB etc can apply in between sweeps. So a three shot autofire would combine for KB at the end while a three punch sweep you could knock the guy away with your first shot and never get the second or third swing. if a force wall we knocked down by the first sweep hit, the second one hurts a lot.

Re: Someone Please Explain This to Me? My issues with KA stem from its ubiquity in HEROdom standard. By making every pea-shooter and pocket knife do "killing damage" by default the mechanics that brings makes for odd designs in some campoaigns. I think actually that for many genre, knives and normal guns ought to be standard damage, so that unarmored supers can work fine. Cyclops and Banshee and others dont get dropped by penny ante normal guys. Now the answer in HEROdom is to concoct many diverse ways to buy "anti-ka defenses" like c ombat luck and such - a mechanical workaround. However to me the better solution is to let most of those "normal day" attacks be built using "normal damage" and you reserve KA for specifically lethal variety - say in a sci-fi game where guns do normal damage but laser swords are KA damage. getting shot hurts but lasers are lethal!!! sure i can build around it using NND does body and so forth... but telling your typical brick that even though he is tough as nails he is at risk from a 22 because it might generate 60 stun and we cap brick defenses at 40... bah. and yeah the whole "its supposed to be generating more body and less stun but the reality is more stun damage" bothers me too.

Re: Opinions wanted on a custom limitation As a momentary burst of devils advocate - and a decidely anti-hero-system approach... consider the following. in a typical 12-15d6 supers game one player buys ... wait for it ... a 6d6 Eb. thats it nothing fancy just pays good points, 30 cp maybe 15 cp in an ec, for a 6d6 eb. now that eb is so far below the normal level of effectiveness it is practically useless. so as gm will you - a - let him buy it b - warn him against it c - refuse to allow it d - reduce the cost e - script in a lot of villains very 2x bulnerable to it (assumes he is the only one with that sfx) f - other please specify. if d is even an option then "cannot raise with xp" on a power that has higher levels might be worth something. maybe. the potential downside is the campaign will outgrow that power that is "left behind" and so eventually those points will be wasted. its kind of like "independent" in that he is paying for a power he will only use for a while and eventually he wont be able to use it (effectively.) any takers?

Re: Opinions wanted on a custom limitation its worth nuthin' at chargen if a guy came up to you with his 14d6 EB bought and he said "i did not spend points for 15d6, so how big a lim can i put on the 14d6" you would say no, perhaps smack him, right? same deal if this is 5xp into the campaign. Every trait on the sheet qualifies for the "i spent my other points on something else" modifier... its just not worth anything. usually this thing appears as a multipower steal, where they try and get points off the multipower for "i cannot add more slots later on".

Re: Abilities stopped by an item i would buy the powers normally. i would also buy a susceptability - "remove the ring" transform "to evil demonic steve" set to go off moment by moment or at whatever timeframe you want. make the transform have partial effects. so lets say you want to transform completely in a weel. set the transform to go off daily with enough dice to beat your 2xbody after seven "doses. you can tailor the transofmr susc to match whatever timeframe you wish. removing the ring is not something you will want to do so iots the equivalent of an uncommon now if using the powers actively speeds up the effect, also apply a side effect transform to the use of the powers. So - gradual transform is a susc transform powers cause the change is a side effect transform. and you can have both.

Re: Focus on focus the myth of consistency is not due to mechanics being defined. take your chosen example - armor. legally one gm can define it as oif for one character same gm can define it as oif real armor for another same gm can define it as oihid for a third same gm can define it as no lim for a forth. all based on "what kind of problems does the character have". by choosing oihid theplayer wrote "i sometimes get caught out of armor and have to change" and by choosing oif the other player wrote in "sometimes it is stolen and it takes damage from attacks" and so forth. the difference is not in consistency UNLESS the different parties agree to a mutual "we will all use oif for powered armor" and decide to limit themselves... which is the same agreement they could make in an open system. a hammer can be oif or oaf based on "does he have trouble with people grabbing it" regardless of whether or not it CAN be grabbed. the difference is two-fold. in an open system without predefined cubbyholes there is no pre-fabbed component you try and fit our concept into. if your armor contains elements of oif and oihid but not all of oif, you can define it that way. the limitation fits your concept exactly not "close enough". additionalluy, there is clear understanding, there is clear expression of the problems and their ffrequency. how often is the very well defined OAF blaster gun shot out of your hand in combat? how often is it damaged? more over, taking two gms who both decided to define blaster gun with oaf, how frequentl one has enemies shoot it outt of your hand (using spread ebs to overcome the ocv penaalty but realizing the lower dice damage is still enough to overcome your strength) is not anywhere defined as goingto be close to how frequentl the other gms does. i have seen gms who played villains tactically and so focus was a serious problem and i have seen gms who didn;t and focus was a rare problem and both used the same well detailed focus oif rule and oaf rules. on the other hand, in an open system, if both gms had the same defined list of problems and the same defined list of frequencies, the odds are they would be the same. the open system provides more useful definition, tailored to the specific character traits, not less.

Re: Focus on focus replace restrainable and focus with LIMITATION - Stuff happens Frequency - how many sessions out of ten does this limitation cause you problems? Multiply number by 3cp. Severity - How severe is this when it comes up? Critical? costs character 2/3 of his effectiveness x2 cost Severe - costs character half his effectiveness x1 Minor costs character 1/4 of his effectiveness x1/2 Definitions (by player) - provide one paragraph and at least five examples of "these problems" Definitions (by gm) - approve/disapprove the player's suggestions and provide at least three more examples. move along. i think we get less useful the more we try and pigeon hole the game play into pre-defined mechanical blocks. We shouldn't be trying to define the game blocks but instead to let the play define the mechanics. make it more about mutual agreement between player and gm and not about which hero defined elements are bought how. make game fit you, not the other way round.

Re: Stealth Suit options one key to remember - the base perception roll is NOT the roll required to see someone standing in front of you. Really! The average guy will not fail to see the guy standing in front of him 20' away 305 of the time, roughly the leftover from the standard 11- per roll. Most of the time it wont even require a roll to see someone standing in front of them 20' away, so that -8 doesn't help much. At the worst i would rule this an easy or simple roll, giving you a +3 to +5 to the base per roll to start with. So mr invisible can stand in front of you or walk right past the uard in broad daylight, barring fringe. stealth guy - well Ok so the guard has to make a per roll at -8 but he gains a +5 for it being easy to spot the guy walking past him... BIG DIFFERENCE especially if a camera is recording this for later. Now on the other hand, if mr stealth suit uses it as a STEALTH SUIT and instead waits until nighttime, sneaks in using STEALTH, then when we come to the opposed rolls stealth vs perception, the penalties from the suit help him out. So one is actual invisibility. the other is good stealth for use when stealth applies. to me there is a big differences there in utility and application. the mistake seems to be thinking "if you dont make a normal per roll you cannot see obvious things" which isn't usually true. We aren't that blind, usually.

Re: Indirect and IPE Well yes and no... an invisible attack raises a lot of problems, including lots of surprise options. Can you block or deflect an attack you cannot percieve coming? Nope? or maybe yes but at the penalty for invisible targets? But on the other hand an attack thats very visible just coming from a strange direction is blockable. also... Big difference between "my stretched hands swing around and come at you from behind the cover" and "my invisible blast still has to deal with the cover you are hiding behind". etc... invisible seems to have some benefits but the indirect has others, making them in my book a nice pair of options with different benefits. the two different options both might be used for the same thing - hiding the source - but they do so much more.

Re: Restrainable Limitation reference please thanks

Re: Restrainable Limitation My default position is: ENTANGLE DOES SOMETHING THATS WHY I PAID POINTS FOR IT!!! What entangle does is STOP THE OTHER GUY! You dont IMO need a limitation to say "i cannot use this movement power while entangled" cuz thats what the other guy paid all those ap for the entangle to do. Thats why he is 0 dcv - he cannot move! I certainly am not going to tell "speedy flier guy who flies by TK "yes, you are entangled and YES you can move just fine since you chose "superman style flight sfx" instead of "wafting muon particle flight sfx" for the same price but hey even though you can move your dcv is zero for some reason... that violates tesuji's stupid rule nor am i going to tell him "yes you are entangled by the 60 pt entangle but you can move and have your dcv cuz you chose "superman style flight sfx" and the guy with the entangle just gave you additional PD/ED you should thank him..." cuz that violates tesuji's stupid rule. if you want an entangle that doesn't restrict movement - you get a lim. like the one they mention for handcuffs now for a power that entangle doesn't normally affect, like say missile deflect - that is still stopped by an entangle, then you can start talking about restrainable. but once you default to "sure you can move under entangles, just choose the right sfx" and you have gutted most of the benefit of entangle, you have imo missed a boat somewhere. i mean, paying 60 cp to give you free pd/ed seems like a heckuva bad deal.

Re: Restrainable Limitation Well, now, hang on a sec... Can i take a limitation on my stun and body that says "when hit by an Eb that gets past my defenses i lose stun and body"? I wouldn't think so... because thats what you paid points for Eb to do. Thats what EB does. Well, entangle does something for that 60 cp you pay for it. It stops most movement. It stops you from running.

Re: Restrainable Limitation for me its simply a matter of "what do you want?" do you want your character to freequently be unable to use this attack? if so, take restrainable. if you want this to rarely happen? dont take restrainable. by taking the lim and taking the points you are telling me "do this to me". by not taking the points, you are saying "this isn't often a problem for me". or at least not enough to be more than sfx. see, you can be "unable to bite" even without the restrainable - its called sfx - so those whining about getting lims applied "after the fact" dont get much truck with me - its called SFX. a little here and there is sfx. a limitation however gets more frequent, frequent enough its a "part of the character". same way that one guys armor - did not take focus - is rarely damaged or lost or in the wrong place, while another guy's armor is frequently so - took a focus - even though both are power suits. So, you tell me about "your" bite - is it often stopped by grabs or entangles? welll, is it? that other guy;s bite may be different!

Re: You. Make. The Call. Well I dont have strict ap limits but generally for 350 i weigh in at 15dc max and defenses maxing at 35ish but of course that varies as there are many ways to buy defense. but i would allow the 90 str tk as long as he understood the max damage would still cap at 15dc. he can lift the bigger stuff ok, but the damage cap is set... 15dc even if it is a 90 str tk punch. His force field also maxes at whatever gets him into the 35ish range max, tho i will compare to his con to see where his con stun falls. IOW allow it but it still has the typical restrictions of the campaign. bt the practicality of the design is poor... the "most of the time i am within campaign limits but "once in a while " i exceed the hell out of them" doesn't play well. it too easily boils down to "cover me while i waste them" kind of play. pair this guy with a good missile defelect guy and you got trouble. so dont fall for it. the key with the "allow it but limit it anyway" is the guys who are playing fair and want the super-lift but not be game breaking will accept it. the guys who want to sneak by you a dc buster will object and fuss and fret and reveal that was their intent pretty quickly.

Re: Innate Defense vs Power Limitations I think that the power such as plague touch should get a lim for "wont have an effect against certain types of life support" AND THEN the robot should have to buy appropriate life support in order to fit within the not affected group. Kind of like i might buy +3 DCV 15 ap -1/4 not effective against anyone with mental defense 12 cp to represent reading someones mind and being able to get out of the way of their attacks because "i see it coming" Now in this case my power gets a lim because certain "purchaseable" traits, ie mental defense, will cause my power to not work right. So standardize the effect and purchasing. have a codified "power reduced by life support of proper type" lim. The lim could perhaps be based on the cp cost of the off switch. this ties into the way NND work as well as things like "rka must do body" to a lesser degree. A thought - Restructure life support a IMMUNITY Cost immunity based on FREQUENCY of the effect (how many things, how often they occur) and also DEGREE OF RESISTANCE (cut in half, cut by fifth, totally immune) then you could have a cyborg who is only slightly affected by disease or a robot who is totally unaffected etc. then vary the value of the "affected by life support" by how much the life support costs maybe. The more they have to pay for the immunity the lesss the lim is worth. Also there should be some obvious life support packages like "robot" provides as standards that we can then tweak as needed, just an ease of play thing.

Re: grab and OAF

Re: grab and OAF if it were me... If you take the full OAF then i call it a "no you cannot use while entangled" regardless of sfx. you bought the lim you take the problem. HOWEVER you can buy it with lesser lim on some powers to reflect their ungrabbale nature. So your lightning might take OAF and be unavailable when entangled. your flight might be half that at -1/2 or maybe -3/4 if they dont suffer the usual lims. o it is up to you. how you buy it, what lims you take, determines what it can do.

Re: Worrying unnecessarily (as usual) Well perhaps life support should be broken down into a generic power called "immunity" with a point cost determined for a give3n sfx and frequency... 1 pt for partiqal immunity 3 pts for total immunity 1 pt for rarely a factor 3 pts for occasionally a factor 5 pts for common Immunity to "lack of sleep" 3 for total and 3 for occasional makes it 6 cp for never having to sleep. immunity to age - 3 for total and 1 for rarely a factor sure the numbers need tweaking but most of the current costs can fit in with a little tweaking.

Re: Beholder FWIW you might want to borrow the writeup for the hydra from the bestiary (i think) as in there they give the hydran duplication in order to account for it getting multiple attacks from the heads. As this beholder is written it gets only one action at a time and thus only uses one eye at a time. from my recollection what makes the beholder so terrible is it using multiple eyes at once and one eye at a time acting at speed 4 doesn't capture that feeling for me. but add in duplication 8 duplicates only for eye beams... things get back to scary.

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout lockout is imo like many other traits in that while they give it a flat static middle-of-the-road value its actual value varies greatly. consider the following two sets 12d6 eb 30/30 force field 30" run -1/2 lockout on eb vs 12d6 eb 30/30 force field -1/2 lockout on eb 30" run these all should by rule cost the same but in practice not being able to run in combat but having shields and attack is more valuable, more useful than being able to move but having to drop your shields when you wanna fight. thats without even getting into having small powers lockout larger ones. it, like many lims, really needs to be looked at case by case, just like "no figured characteristics" should.

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout turn as in a turn... if i start to use the power on turn 1 segment 3 it goes off turn 2 segment 3.

Re: lim cost: semi-lockout ditto to what sean said.