Bartman

He already took that into account. Look again. He listed the radius of the earth in km not the diameter. Then he listed the diameter in game inches. I almost posted a similar correction. So to sum up: Radius = 6,378 km Diameter = 12,756 km Diameter = 6,378,000 game inches. If you are doing Star Hero combat, I generally prefer a scale of 1" = 1000km. At this scale the Earth is just under 13". And that fits on my battle mat wonderfully.

Glad you liked it. I've been playing with the idea for a while so it seemed natural to post it here. It is a game way of playing all those chracters in Sci-Fi etc. who are able to pick up languages and communicate within a few minutes/hours. Think Daniel in Stargate or Hoshi on Enterprise.

Etymology- Study of the origin and historical development of a linguistic form as shown by determining its basic elements, earliest known use, and changes in form and meaning, tracing its transmission from one language to another, identifying its cognates in other languages, and reconstructing its ancestral form where possible. Give him a few dozen languages, a few language KSs or SciSs, cramming for languages only, and a universal translator with the extra time limitation.

No. But... well here is a quick remake as I remember the character Cost Power 32 Elemental Control, 64-point powers 33 1) Clairsentience (Sight And Hearing Groups), x128 Range (65 Active Points) 43 2) Sight Group and Hearing Group Images, No Range Modifier (+1/2), Increased Maximum Range (40000"; +3/4), Indirect Any origin, any direction (+3/4), Invisible Power Effects, Hide effects of Power (Fully Invisible; +2) (75 Active Points) 118 3) Energy Blast 10d6 (vs. ED), No Range Modifier (+1/2), Increased Maximum Range (70000"; +3/4), Indirect Any origin, any direction (+3/4) (150 Active Points) 86 4) Telekinesis (13 STR), Fine Manipulation, No Range Modifier (+1/2), Increased Maximum Range (60000"; +3/4), Indirect Any origin, any direction (+3/4), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1) (118 Active Points) Basically the guy was a alternate play on the character Duce from Mind Games. He started out as a mental exercise between the GM and myself. He could seperate out a spirit form which could then go and adventure. The Clairsentience allowed the character to see through the 'eyes' of the created form. The Images formed the character as others saw it. The TK gave the character the ability to interact with the world and the EB was his attack. The character could cast this spirit form about 40km in any direction and then take any action it wanted. But this allowed the character to act against the villians without any fear of retaliation. I played him as a bit character off and on for over a year, before we decided the concept was fundamentally unworkable. My conclusion was that allowing a character the ability to affect annother character without some sort of ability to strike back was fundamentally flawed.

Mea-culpa. I missed the 2-handed part. So that is just fine. And as long as you are limiting the character to pre-learned spells that alone justifies the -1/4, if not a -1/2 IMO.

Sorry I may have not made that sufficiently clear. This is purely my own opinion. I as a GM woudn't find that line of argument sufficiently limiting. I personally woudn't allow a "magic only" VPP to have a -1/4 limitation.

I had a PC back in 89-90 who did this as his primary power. And frankly I would be really leery of allowing it again. It was a campaign destroying combo, for one simple reason; there is no way for a target to defend themselves or strike back.

Cool, Valentines Day then. My wife has been wanting to learn Hero for a while... Maybe if I packaged it in choclate...

Not bad. There are a few things I'd question though. You have both Gestures and Incantations on the VPP at -1/2. Shouldn't those be -1/4? As it is any instant power such as Energy Blast couldn't go into the pool, because instant powers only take a -1/4. And constant powers would require 'gestures/incantations throughout'. That may match the effect of some spells, but I bet you are expecting to be cast a nd forget. I would also question the -1/4 for magic powers only. As a GM you would have to convince me that at least 20% of the powers in the book wouldn't ever be usable in the pool. And frankly I can't think of a single power in the book that coudn't be defined as under the effect 'magic'. So I would make you bump your control cost from 16 to 25. But other than that she looks good. I like her permanant enchanted items. And her skill set and perks look good. I especially like the fact that you bought access and contacts for both Trismagistus and Thoth.

Nice flavor Vanguard. If paper is at all expensive it may be common to bleach and reuse the parchment and vellum. This historically wasn't at all uncommon. Likewise even a dozen books were a notable library prior to presses. The occasional monastary or university may have a few hundred books. But such a hoard might take ceturies or a king's ransom to create.

I don't know about Argus' player. But I had one just like him. If my player had this character this is what he would do. He would make a list of 20-30 spells that he'd claim he uses so often that he should get a +5 to the skill roll with them. He would also plan on using that +1 with magic combat roll to add the skill roll as well. Not to mention he'd want to use at least two of his KSs as complementary skills everytime he casts a spell. Just look at the Light Beam of Good spell. He would claim that he should get a +5 straight off, after all he should get a bonus to frequently used spells. Then he would claim that because it goes through his staff he should get a +1 because he has a WF: Staffs. Add in the CSL Magic and we have a -16 already. He would also claim that this spell should use KS: Occult 14-, KS: Magic through the ages 14-, and KS: Items of Power 14- as complementary skills because it is an ancient occult spell that creates an item of power. That on average will result in an end roll of -19. Of course this would take forever because he would have to convince the GM of the situational modifiers every spell. He would also then have to make multiple skill rolls for each power every phase. Which I guess is one more reason to disallow the character. Unless the player is very fast at figuring the minuses for RSR, every phase is going to be rather long. He will have to decide how his VPP points are allocated. Then he will have calculate RSR and roll it. Then he take his normal actions. Every phase will have two extra steps. This can really bog a slow or indecisive player down.

You'll probably have to make them St. Patricks Day or Memorial Day gifts instead. It isn't on the offical schedule. Steve is trying to fit it in, but if anything slips at all it is the one that will be pushed back. Which is too bad. Of all the products coming in the next six months I'm looking forward to Sidekick the most.

Kind of an odd thought but what about using the Power Skill naked? Call it Power Skill: Swashbuckling. Buy it up to some high level and allow the character to roll against it for the various swinging, curtain wrapping, banister sliding tricks. You could also have a Power Skill: Fencing for various sword tricks, ala putting out candles. As long as the effects are fairly minor like a ±1 to OCV/DCV or a 1d6 Flash or Entagle, I don't think it would be unbalancing. Normally you have to have a power to purchase a power skill. But in this case I would allow it. It would sure look cleaner on a character sheet than Entagle, Transform, Flash, Swinging, Running, multiple naked advantages, etc.

OK, I took a second look The Character. Here are my points of concern in order. CSL- What precisely is 'magic' combat. Is this going to give him a +1 with his staff, his VPP and/or against any spell cast against him, including mind controls etc? If so he should pay 8 pts and up this to all combat. It seems like too broad of a concept. Contacts- I would make sure you know exactly what the character is expecting The Magician, The Master and Raven to do for him. These all sound like get out of jail free cards to me. Have a problem? One of these contacts can probably solve it. Six points seems like a small price to have access to multiple 600+ pt characters. Summonable Staff- Anything that is 'summonable' shouldn't have OAF on it. If this is truly summonable he needs to drop the focus. Perhaps restrainable would be better? If it is not summonable he should rename the power to enchanted staff or some such. And why does this have no knockback? If there is an effects based reason have him keep it. If not that should probably go as well. Because it looks like an attempt to just shave a fe extra points. Spells of protection EC- This is questionable from the get go. Under 5th this isn't a sufficiently tight group to qualify for an EC. I would allow it under some circumstances, but as he has it, it is over the top. He has GM permission required constructions in 5 of the 6 slots. The whole construction simply looks like an excuse to save points. And why would draining his Clairsentience also reduce his Force Field? Until he can answer this to your satisfaction I'd disallow this. Protection Bubble- He hasn't defined what the IAF is for this. And why is he taking Only In Heroic Identity as well? He has already defined it as part of his costume. It sure looks like he is taking the same limitation twice. Damage Reduction- This shouldn't normally be in an EC Danger Sense- Ditto Blur Field- Ditto. And he has taken IAF and OIHID on the same power again. He has also taken "Costs Endurance Only Costs END to Activate" twice on this power. And I certainly wouldn't allow 4x End on a power that he only has to activate once. He would be getting a 30 pt power for 4 points, and none of the limitations seem very limiting. Clairsentience- Why is this in a "Spells of Protection" EC? This should be right out Instant Change- Always be cautious of OIHID and instant change. This isn't a deal breaker. But combined with everything else, I'd nix it too. Mantle of The Hero- Focus and OIHID on the same thing again. Assuming a mystical heroic form is a comic classic. Combined with everything else this is just pure cheese. That +19 REC will also eliminate any problems from his costs end limitations. And what does he expect to be doing the one in five adventures in which his IAF costume it missing? He'll lose all his characteristics and defenses. Is he really will to let that happen? VPP- How is magic a limiting special effect? I'd also take a good look at some of his sample spells. Two are GM permission required. And I am leery of the others. One thing you will definitely need to decide what happens to points when someone takes his IAF staff away. Given what I've seen here he will assume he can reuse those points immediately in another spell. And if that is the case why should he get a limitation on it? I'd also be leery of stacked attacks and defenses. As it is he is almost a brick defensively. He'll be able to pop on another 25-25 Force Field and still have enough left to give himself an additional 13DC to his Staff attack. Now any single one of these probably wouldn't elicit a comment from me. But once a character has a dozen questionable constructs, it is too much. The sad thing is I think there is an interesting character buried under there. But as it is he needs a complete rewrite.

Fair enough. But the official products have to. Dr D has a huge INT because he is supposed to be a super genius. And according to the standard rules a normal can get a 30+ INT fairly easily. It is a bit disingenious to state that you don't use the rules as written and that all the offical characters are wrong because they do.

Hey I'm not saying it was a bad adventure. I just don't think it was a great one. When people post asking what everyone's favorite adventures were, there is a short list that everyone seems to agree on. The Great Supervillian Contest, To Serve and Protect, and V.O.I.C.E. of Doom are all routinely listed as great adventures. I don't think that Valkries would fit into that if it had been widely availible. I don't think most GMs could pull it off without it feeling heavy handed. And just like Scourge of the Deep, I don't think I would ever run it again without extreme modifications. As it is written no matter what choices the Heros make, the adventure forces them to end up at the beer hall. The decision tree forces that on them. Once there they will defeat the Children. Rob states that has to take place. Then the players make their choice. As written they either take eveyone back home or the heroes have to slaughter 40+ men themselves. This alone would prevent half the PCs I've ever played from making the choice your players did, because they have had a code vs killing. I think it is great that you and your group had a great time with it. In fact I think it is credit to your GM. But I don't think that would be the standard outcome. Unfortunately we will never know because few groups will have ever played it, due to a distributor decision a dozen years ago.

Given the monstrosity above, I'd have to say he is quite familiar with the character creation rules at least. Argus, there is no way I would allow this character as is. I'm of the same mind as D-Man. There is nothing wrong with some optimization. Heck my current character is a Mage-Brick with a 22 slot Multipower. But this is just over the top on almost every single line. Send him back for a rewrite.

That's fine LL, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing. But I still think that it was something of a railroad job. If the characters allow the assassinations to succeed then they will disappear from future realities. I think "do this or your character will have never existed" counts as coercion on the author's part. And that is a classic characteristic of a railroad adventure Your GM was more lenient than Rob in allowing you to stay and correct the problems in the alternate timeline. According to the book even if the characters stay and attempt to solve the problems of the future, it happens anyway. Basically the GMs are instructed to punish the players for making the wrong choice. Once they have learned their lesson, "lenient" GMs are encouraged to allow the players to restore the original timeline. So the adventure as written says that players have two choices. If they choose one they return the world to normal and go on with their lives. If they choose the other their old lives are destroyed, and everything they do after that is moot until and unless they go back and correct their choice. It sure sounds like a railroad to me. All of this is not to say that a GM can't change it. But as I said, "As it was written it was a bit of a railroad."

Well it depends on the summon I suppose. I would say that 1-way communication is part and parcel of the summon spell. The summoned being will auto-magically understand any commands issued by the summoner. However if the summoner cannot normally speak to the class of summoned beings he would not be able to understand anything what he summoned says back. In your rat example. I would say that the spell that calls and controls the rats allows the rats to understand what the PC says. But he couldn't tell them to spy on something and report back unless he had some sort of Telepathy, Language Skill or Universal Translator. In addition if the PC had bought the spell at less than the +1 completely loyal advantage, negotiating with the rats would be difficult at best. He would have to make sure that his starting offer and request is something the rats would accept.

Scourge was the only 3rd ed product with any kind of complete information. I always thought it was somewhat clunky, fiddly and arbitrary. I also wasn't very interested in the villians. So I wouldn't recomend it. Target: Hero and V.O.I.C.E. of Doom both had some basic underwater rules as well for their underwater scenes. And I believe Super Agents also had some info with the bit about the UNTIL submarines. Atlantis is the only 4th ed product that I can think of that had any underwater bits in it. And it seemed a lot cleaner and consistant than Scourge. But much of it was the same.

That seems low to me. After all any normal can reach that fairly easily... At least they can once the age disad has been applied. Virtually every NCM campaign I have ever played in had at least one character with an INT around 30. I like the ranges given in Champions (5th Ed). And the next time I GM I will use them. Before that we never really had any sort of standard. But now that we have them I haven't seen a published character who's concept and writeup were out of synch with the offical guidelines.

Mine is somewhat similar. Make sure that the scale for everything is correct. Far too many maps have had 6' wide chairs, 18' long dining tables in apartments, 12' long beds, 100' long hallways in suburban homes, etc. If 2m = 1" then make sure everything fits that scale. Nothing throws me off a map more than inconsistancies in scale. Note: Keith this is not at all intended to necessarily criticise your maps. I'm not GMing anything at the moment. And at my GMs request I have avoided looking at Battlegrounds and SoB. So I can't say if they have had the same problems as many previous maps.

Exactly right. And frankly I think it was an overreaction for the distributor to force it to be pulled. But I can't say that I completely fault the response. If 6 million odd members of my religion had been killed by a group, I would probably be critical of an adventure where the 'goal' of the heroes would be to make sure that the slaughter took place. In theory, yes. In practice I don't think the actual adventure was particularly good. As it was written it was a bit of a railroad. The players really didn't have much choice. I understand that originally it was far more ambiguous. And Hero/ICE made Rob change it to make the proper choice much clearer. As it was I don't think it would be particularly well loved or talked about if it hadn't been pulled. It would have been remembered as something like Target: Hero or Scourge of the Deep. Namely it would be mostly forgotten. Instead it is routinely brought up and discussed. Unforseen consequences. Had the distributor not made a fuss it would probably never be mentioned. Instead he assured that it will retain a noteriety far beyond it should have.

Agreed. Even a bunch of links to the artists' own pages would be nice. I didn't know Andy had one until I did a google search. No doubt other do as well.

Indeed. Very nice. Kudos to the artist. I was going to ask if he is a new artist for DOJ. But I went to his site and found a large number of illios that I love. I don't know why, but I just never really caught the name. In any case thanks Andy for all the great work you've done on the Hero books. You do great work and I look forward to seeing it for years to come.