GAZZA

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

This reminds me of an old 5th ed argument I had all the time. If you told people that anyone that if you had a STR over 25 you were a metahuman' date=' for the most part, people were fine with that. But do the same thing with DEX and/or SPD and look out, you had some fights on your hand.[/quote']

Well, in fairness, that's because there were some unfortunate precedents set in 4th edition. Rainbow Archer, anyone?

Re: Background Skill in Combat

Because PSLs are specifically barred from being used to offset Unfamiliar Weapon Penalties' date=' 6E1p84.[/quote']

ghost-angel is correct, and any rumours you may have heard that GAZZA forgot about Penalty Skill Levels are to be disregarded as treasonous hearsay.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Hé ?

I understood the french hero system community was ridicoulous.

If we are so tough , why there is no translation ?

It's a fair question; there's probably a board somewhere here that you can pose that directly to the publishers. I would have imagined that with the size of France and French-Canada alone, there'd be a reasonable market at least for a pdf translation.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

I ever will be polite with you Gazza. So I invite you to do the same with me. I do not insult you.

So don't insult me. Who are you to tell me I am amazingly arrogant ?

That's not an insult. An insult would be if I called you stupid. Your tone is arrogant; you are, essentially, a beginner coming into a discussion with several experienced players and insisting that your position is correct despite enormous patience in explaining to you what is wrong.

And you started it by calling me a joker mate, so don't play the victim here. However, I'm happy to pull back to a more respectful tone.

I defend the three position.

That's basically fine then. That's correct. If only the rest of your reply didn't suggest you don't, in fact, subscribe to that position.

I said it is not legal. My reasons ? The example on BR P14. Jason pick only 50's CP worth's complications. And BR says he only has 375 CP to create Defender. So he can't buy a blast for 400 CP.

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

The list of complications I gave is 75 points, which is standard for a 400 point superhero. I flat out do not believe that the basic rules say the limit for total complications points for a 400 point superhero is 50 points. The example character may not be using all his possible points, but that doesn't mean that you can't. In the highly unlikely case that the basic rules do say that, then they are in error. That certainly isn't the case in the full rules.

Some people argue the missing 25 CP can be recuperated by selling Normal hearing or Normal sight. But - according to the BR - more Complications do not provide extra character points to spend on the character creation ( including power ).

You have misinterpreted this. There is a maximum number of complication points you can take and receive points for - but it is 75, not 50, for a 400 point superhero. If a 400 point superhero takes 100 points of Complications, he nonetheless only gets 400 points to play with (and not 425). But if he takes only 50 points, he's still allowed to take another 25 points of Complications to bring him up to a 400 point character.

Note that these limits change depending on genre; heroes (as opposed to superheroes) have different limits.

Then , Gazza , ask me to read the p.46 because (s)he explains me no need to have many END points to use the huge blast. STUN points will be used instead of END.

Note that I was careful to specify HSR6e1 pp46. That is, I'm not referring to a page number in the basic rules. I have said, many times, that I neither own the basic rules nor have any need to do so; I own the full rules.

I do not believe the basic rules contradict the full rules, but if they do clearly the full rules are the definitive source. I am unable to assist you in tracking down page number equivalents for the basic rules, however. If the basic rules don't say that you can spend STUN to power abilities if you've run out of END, then they have omitted it in the interests of conciseness. The full rules certainly permit this, as page 46 of Volume 1 illustrates.

Okay , but Huge Neilson's character has 20END and 20STUN (bases values only because all the character points were spent in the blast ).

I answer Gazza that on p.46 the only thing which looks like its description is CHARACTERISTICS; a power increasing END ( or any other characteristics like STUN ). And as it is a power , it costs some points to acquire it. And Huge Neilson's character haven't points anymore.

Right, because you missed the part where I said I was quoting from HSR6e1, not the basic rules. I don't even know how many pages the basic rules have, I'm certainly not able to give you page numbers for it.

In the full rules, it gives this information under the description of the END characteristic. It may or may not also do this in the basic rules. It is largely irrelevant anyway, for two reasons:

1. The basic rules are a simplified subset of the full rules; the full rules take precedence.

2. Even if you dismiss that, it is 100% legal to buy a power that you cannot actually use. It's silly, but it's not illegal. You could, for example, spend 400 points on Blast 240d6, only on your 18th birthday (-2). This is a 1200 active point power, that costs 400 real points. If you start your character off at 20 years of age, you will never be able to use this ability in the campaign. But it is technically still a legal character. Note that this power would require 120 END to use as well; that doesn't make it any less legal even though this character has only 20 END.

And to finish I said Huge Neilson's character probably would be stunned or knocked out before using its huge Blast. Because to make 19- with 10d6 is improbable.

You're confusing two different things here.

Getting stunned or knocked out before using the power is dependent on situation. It is true that most situations calling for use of this power will be combat, and that the foes such a character would face will likely go before such a character and knock him out or even kill him before he gets a chance to act. But they might miss. And he might just decide to use this power while he's shopping for cat food, where there are no foes around.

However, even if there are no foes around, or they all miss, or whatever, he will still almost certainly knock himself out by using the power - but it won't be before using it in this case. You pay the END cost (including burning STUN, if required) after resolving the activation of the power. He'll still get to do (on average) 80 BODY and 280 STUN to someone, assuming he hits (which is unlikely for a supervillain opponent, but fairly probable against an adjacent wall to the aisle where he's selecting tins of food for his cat).

Gazza , if you find me amazingly arrogant because I don't want the player changes his mind when he realizes that he couldn't kill in one turn, I disagree with you.

As well you might, but that's not why I find you amazingly arrogant. I find you amazingly arrogant in your insistence that you know better than everyone else even though they are much more experienced than you are, and even though apparently you do not even own the full rules.

Note that I think telling a player that he can't change his mind about a character to be a bit of a jerk move, but that's a completely separate issue. If you don't want players being munchkins, you're better off rejecting their character concepts and giving them some more reasonable guidelines rather than letting them play and then screwing them over. Setting up an adversarial relationship with your players is rarely a recipe for a harmonious game, unless perhaps you're playing Paranoia or some other comedy game.

I think the player will understand furthermore if its character is quickly and easily killed even if (s)he has the 80d6 Blast. It is only what am i were trying to saY. politely.

So we come full circle, and now you acknowledge that the character is legal? That's fine. It was a throwaway example of mine, not something I seriously expected to still be trying to explain 50 odd posts later.

I disagree that it's better to let the player try and fail rather than tell them in advance that "It's a dumb idea, here's why, and this idea would be better..." as apart from any moral considerations you're just wasting play time by letting him play that and then killing it off before he ends up making a more reasonable character. However, if your own style preference falls towards this, that's up to you of course.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

No I only said this power is not free. So you can't buy it after spending all your points on a first power.

Which power isn't free? I have no idea what you're talking about.

No, it is not legal. Because in Huge's example after spending all your point to have a huge blast. You can't have 40END.

Again, I don't claim this character has 40 END. He has 20 END. I said that, explicitly. 20. Not 40.

He can, nonetheless, still fire off an 80d6 Blast. Having done so, he will have 0 END remaining and have taken (on average) 35 STUN damage, leaving him with -15, so he'll knock himself out. So tactically, it's a bad choice especially if he's facing multiple foes. But it is legal.

I quoted the whole text on page four ( integraly ) . And that's not what you were saying in your precedent reply. Read your own reply. You were talking about the character points.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Vondy said that there was nowhere in the rules that said you can't spend 400 points on a single power. You replied "BR p14, the example". Now, I interpret that reply of yours to mean "It says on page 14 of the basic rules, under the example, that you can't spend 400 points on a single power." Is this not what you meant?

Assuming that is indeed what you meant, my reply was that despite the fact I don't own the basic rules, I am 100% sure that there's no way it says that. You have now said that you you quoted page 4 somewhere - did you mean page 14, or did you get the page number wrong?

As I said, I don't have the basic rules and there's no reason for me to (as I have the Hero System 6th edition volumes 1 and 2, which are a more comprehensive version of the rules). So I'm unable to tell you what page 14 of the basic rules says, and why it doesn't say what you apparently think it says. Someone else may be able to help there.

However, I don't think you even believe that. You are cycling between claiming that:

- You can't spend 400 points on a single power

- You can, but you won't be able to use it because you don't have enough END

- You can, and you can fire it off (knocking yourself out), and you won't let the poor player that didn't know that change his mind

Which of these three is your actual belief? Here's how it looks to me. It looks to me as if you were initially of the first opinion, that subsequent to the proof you were wrong you slipped into the second, and that now after further proof you have retreated to the last position. That's fine if it's true - there is no shame in admitting you were wrong, Hero is a moderately complex system, but you must realise by now that you are being amazingly arrogant in your presumption that the rest of us (including people that helped write the book you're quoting from) are wrong, and you are right.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

And where do you find the missing 75 ? You take no complication. So you lost 75 CP and only have 325 CP.

I gave you a list of complications. Go read that or make your own up. I'm not going to repeat myself every reply.

So it cost no END . But it does not explain where the 40 END came from. Specially when the message begins with:

2. It is permitted to spend more END than you have; if you do' date=' you take 1d6 STUN for every 2 extra END. (HSR6e pp46, under 'END').[/quote']

 

Okay. This is a power. How do you buy it after spending all your points for the first power?

It is difficult to make out what you're saying, but it sounds as if you think that you think the ability to spend STUN when you don't have END is a power that costs points. That isn't true; anyone can do that, it's part of the system.

 

No.

You decided to spend all your points in one power ( a huge Blast ) . You now decide to spend points you have not anymore in another power. I simply say No.

But I haven't put any points into any other powers. All I'm saying is that characters are allowed to burn STUN when they have insufficient END. It's under the description of the characteristic in the Hero System Rulebook 1, page 46. It is possible the basic rules omit this, which means you'll be unable to confirm it, but if you have access to the full books by all means look it up.

 

You can't use your power.

I am the GM. At the beginning - when we create your character together - you say you put all your points in the huge Blast. I said okay. You cannot change the way after . ( when you realize you need 19- with 10d6 not to be knocked out ).

Huh? I'm not saying that I expect to not be knocked out. I even pointed out that would happen!

 

And of course I wouldn't actually create this character. I just said it was legal. For goodness sake man, I realise that English may not be your first language, and I'm trying to be patient, but you aren't listening!

 

BR p14. the example.

I don't have the basic rules. But I am 100% certain that page 14 doesn't say "By the way, you can't spend all 400 points on a single power." You are misinterpreting it.

Re: Background Skill in Combat

If you're just going to make it an "everyman skill" there's no point in doing a write up for it. Just don't apply the unfamiliar weapon penalty in that campaign. Finito.

Indeed, I was basically just giving the writeup as an example for characters that want to be able to use any weapon. The everyman skill bit was just a throw-it-in there.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Where come from the 40 END ' date=' please ?[/quote']

80d6 Energy Blast = 400 Active Points. End cost is 1 per 10 active points. Therefore 40 END.

 

Or else you mean "how can this character spend it"? He has 20 END (and 20 STUN, which we'll get to in a moment). There are two ways.

 

1. Buy the power as Blast 80d6, 16 charges (-0). That means that it costs no END, but he can use it only 16 times per day.

 

2. It is permitted to spend more END than you have; if you do, you take 1d6 STUN for every 2 extra END. (HSR6e pp46, under 'END'). So he has to spend 20 more END than he has, which means he'll take 10d6 STUN. On average that will be 35 STUN, enough to knock him down to -15, which means he'll knock himself out.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

I think you are a joker.

My hair isn't green, and I'm not wearing make up, and frankly more of a Marvel fan.

You only forget END and STUN. ( Which are the disturbing elements of the message. Strange, isn't it ? )

I didn't forget them, Hugh didn't mention them, so I assumed you weren't referring to those when you said his quoted base values were wrong.

The base values are the same. they are given on page 17 and 19 of the BR.

I don't have the cliff notes, but they're both 20 right?

For information , the base value of END is under the minima for one use of a 80d6 blast.

Which I not only acknowledged, I told you two different ways that didn't matter (both of which have been independently suggested by Hugh and ghost angel, two of the most knowledgeable frequent posters here).

And as I said above , the super character will be probably ( and mathematically/Statistically ) STUNNED before to use it.

Which again, is not in dispute, and in fact is worse than you imagine (he'll be knocked out, not just stunned). If you're going to disagree with the parts that I'm not disputing this could take a long time.

Here, let's make it simple. At what point has anybody ever suggested the following:

- That the 80d6 Blast was a good character concept

- That it would take less than 40 END to use (unless it has charges)

- That it would be wielded with better than OCV 3, at a DEX higher than 10, or with a SPD higher than 2

- That the character would have no complications to make up the extra 75 points

I'm saying that nobody has said any of these, and yet you seem to be arguing as if we were. The sole claim we're making is that the character is legal - not that it's a good character, not that it will dominate play, not that it is remotely playable. Just legal. The same way my other examples of bad characters are legal but equally unplayable.

Re: Background Skill in Combat

What about +3 Combat Levels (all combat), only to offset weapon unfamiliarity (-1)? 15 points to never have to ever care again. And make it an Everyman skill for campaigns where you don't want to care for anybody.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

If you spent all your points in a 80d6 Blast ' date=' some of the numbers - so Base Value - given in this message is/are uncorrect. According to 6th BR.[/quote']

Chapter and verse please? Which of the base numbers are incorrect? All Hugh mentioned was OCV 3 (which is correct), DEX 10 (also correct) and SPD 2 (huh, correct as well, fancy that). Which of these base values do you take issue with? I claim, with the full force of the rulebooks behind me, that a character who spends 0 points on characteristics will nonetheless have a DEX 10, OCV 3, and SPD 2. What do you claim such a character will have?

 

I don't know where come from the cost of STUN for example. But mathematically, the super hero probably will be stunned before using its power.

In a standard campaign, he'll probably be knocked out by an average 10d6 attack (he only has PD and ED of 2, and STUN of 20), and he'll go after anyone with a DEX higher than 10 even in the first phase 12 of the combat. So yes, he's not likely to be conscious long enough to use his power. Nobody said it was a good character, only a legal one.

 

If your character got over 400 CP - because of disabilities - its OCV certainly prevent him or her to reach the target.

Not over. You do understand that starting superheroes, by default, are going to be built on exactly 400 points, of which 325 will be "free" and 75 will come from complications? Or do you think, for some reason, that complications are horribly debilitating things that nobody ever takes and so most characters are built on just the 325? Because that is a very incorrect impression.

 

As far as being able to hit the target... well, he can spread his Blast if he wants to, getting up to a +79 to his OCV. But that's really neither here nor there - nobody is saying you should play this character, or even that most GMs would permit you to do so; we're just saying that by the book it is a legal character.

 

It is, if you like, an extreme case. By arguing specifically against this you miss the point. Hugh gave an excellent example earlier of someone with "only" a 60d6 Blast, and enough OCV and Lightning Reflexes to make effective use of it. That character doesn't have the "can't hit" or "too much END" problems you seem to be obsessed with, and it cleverly doesn't even have the "won't get to use it before getting knocked out" issue you've just noticed.

 

The point is not that one specific character (with an 80d6 Blast) is abusive, and coming up with incorrect statements about its legality or dubious evaluations of its playability is to miss this; the point is that the points alone are not enough to create balanced characters - that is why campaign guidelines are used in many games.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

The maximum of your CP is 400. And a part of theses 400 have to go to complications. After if you decide to take disabilities for having 80d6 blast ' date=' that is your choice but your power is useless.[/quote']

 

What? Just what?

 

You need 75 points worth of complications for a 400 point character. Every 400 point character needs that many; it is highly unusual for any character built on that many points to not take the maximum number of points of complications. Are you suggesting that every 400 point superhero is blind?

 

Here's a sample list for EB Man that leaves him with surprisingly normal sensory abilities:

- DNPC (girlfriend, normal, unaware of adventuring career, frequently) 20 points

- Distinctive Features (mutant - shows up on mutant detectors, not concealable, unusual senses needed) 5 points

- Hunted by archenemy (as powerful, frequently, harsh) 15 points

- Psychological Complication (overconfidence - very common, moderate) 15 points

- Social Complication (secret id) 15 points

- Unluck 1d6 5 points

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

I have read and reread the corresponding section in HSR6e1 (I don't have the basic rules, those are a subset, as has been pointed out) and I cannot understand where anyone would get the impression that purple justice is coming up with. I'm not trying to be rude, but purple justice: you need to read it again mate. That isn't what it says, and if you think it is, you haven't understood it.

I could tell you how long I've been playing the Hero System and 6th edition specifically, but I'm not going to use an "Appeal To Authority" fallacy when it's not even necessary to do so - my experience with the system is not a factor in reading comprehension. The Hero System is, perhaps, not the clearest it could be for new players, so a misinterpretation is understandable, but believe me - it is a misinterpretation.

Note that nobody is saying you should let a dude that rocks up with an 80d6 Blast into the game. We're just saying that it is a legal character. It's not a playable one, but it's legal. You could also have any of the following examples, just to make it perfectly clear:

- A character with 410 Strength, and all other characteristics at their base levels with no powers or skills.

- A character with Inventor 209-, a 25 STUN, and all other characteristics at their base levels with no powers and no other skills.

- A character with a Contact 409-, all characteristics at base levels, and no skills or powers.

- You get the idea.

None of these are good characters either, but they are legal. A choice quote:

HSR6e1pp32: "The HERO System doesn't establish any restrictions you can spend Character Points on. If you want to spend most of them on Characteristics and just a few on Skills, you can; if you want to buy a lot of Powers for your character but leave him with more or less ordinary Characteristics, you can."

As far as the 40 END required to fire the 80d6 Blast, there are two answers here. Firstly, you buy the blast with 16 charges (a -0 limitation). Secondly, you could accept that it will knock you out - you'll have 20 END, so you have to power up the other 20 via STUN loss. That will inflict 10d6 STUN on you, averaging 35, so you'll knock yourself out for a while. But it's legal.

Note that insisting on the basic rules is like complaining to people that have read Hamlet that they haven't read the cliff notes.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Don't forget that most snipers have been setting since the beginning of time or at least a turn. Also they are braced.

Wow, that's kind of an extreme "Universe was created last Tuesday" thing.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

But the question of whether it's arbitrary is all about whether it makes sfx sense. If you're playing a game of no superhumans, a STR limit isn't arbitrary.

 

That's my point. A limit applicable to a game mechanic - "effect" - is arbitrary, but a limit to STR, skills, etc. isn't necessarily so.

Splitting a mighty fine hair I think.

Depends on what you mean by "arbitrary". It's not arbitrary in the dictionary sense - it has a justifiable reason, the reason is "we don't want situations where we are comparing massively disparate chances to hit, damage, etc". It's arbitrary in another sense - there's no obvious real world reason for it - but I'm not really sure that's something where we would necessarily say that arbitrary was bad.

I think you know what I meant - total OCV, from base OCV, MAs, CSLs, etc.

For what it's worth, I think total CV limits should be more elastic. It's not really fair that OCV 10 man should be allowed while not letting OCV 4 man with 7 combat levels in Karate shouldn't be, in my opinion. But most GMs publish campaign guidelines, not hard and fast rules.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

I won't reiterate the many good points here; I just had something re the artificiality of a cap.

 

IMO, a CSL cap is less arbitrary than, say, an OCV cap. I see it more like a skill roll cap or a characteristic cap. You rule that there's only so strong a human can be in your game, only so good one can be at Acrobatics or Shadowing, and only so expert one can be with a rifle, just like in reality.

Eh... I disagree. Reason from effect. If I have an effective OCV of 15, it doesn't matter whether I bought that as:

- +12 CSLs with rifles (36 points)

- +12 OCV (60 points)

- Some mix of the two.

In fact if you want to be specific, the CSLs are less problematic, since there will be cases where they don't apply. (Incidentally OCV is, of course, a characteristic, so saying that a CSL cap is less arbitrary than "... a skill roll cap or a characteristic cap ..." is technically self refuting).

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

Legal but totally uninteresting.

80d6 for an Energy Blast ? Why not . But the Game Master should tell the player a so massive quantity energy needs too much time to be used in combat. I mean 1MN over 10d6. So 8MN for this deadly - and useless - power.

But it 'd be interesting to create an energy blast who attack several persons . A 12d6 EB will attack four men with 3d6 per target.

Well, see, that's a bait and switch. If you are allowed to buy 20pts worth of 2pt CSLs and use them as written, it isn't fair that you'd force limitations to my 80d6 Blast. My point is that no system, not even Hero, can possibly balance "a point is a point". 5 points worth of Power A can never be exactly the same as 5 points worth of Skill B or Characteristic C. That's why campaign guidelines for maximum CV, SPD, Active Points, defenses, and so on usually exist. Granted some GMs find those too restrictive, and loosen them accordingly, but a total free-for-all is the sort of thing that can only work when the players impose such restrictions on themselves.

Re: Background Skill in Combat

I meant a character who losts its special weapon and must fight with the empty hands.

Err, there's no WF for unarmed combat, if that's what you're asking. Everyone can do that. (And as Tasha reminds me above, you can even use clubs and so forth without any weapon familiarities).

Re: Background Skill in Combat

Thanks for the answers , guys.

What would you do if a weaponed super hero lost its weapon ? Will you apply -3 OCV ?

Lost his weapon to another character, or lost his weapon and grabbed a similar one?

Strictly speaking, if you didn't pay points for the weapon, and you don't have WF, then you're at -3 OCV. I can't think of too many cases where I've actually remembered that in the heat of the moment, nor do I generally apply it if a brick throws a car at someone (it is, after all, technically a thrown weapon). That's not to say that I wouldn't apply it if I did remember, it just doesn't come up that often in my superhero games.

Re: GM conundrum - CSLs

I thought the maximum was 8 CP for a 8-CSLs. I understood when you spent over 8 CP you go to the next level : 10 CSLs

No, that isn't the way it works. The 8 point level is broader than (say) a 5 point level, but you are allowed to have 2 5 point levels and no 8 point levels. This isn't uncommon in fact.

So if I created a character like Goku , I would create a 2-CSLs technic and I would nicknam it " Kaïoken Attack " wich'd cost me 20 CP and my OCV will reach +10 ?

Isn't it a little bit crazy ?

That is legal, although it will break the maximum OCV limits in many games. Just like you can't usually have an 80d6 Blast for a 400 point character, even though you can technically afford it.

Re: Self Resurrection

No' date=' because there is a difference between a limitation on when a Power [i']works[/i], and a Limitation on when a Power can be activated.

So far so good. However, Regeneration is a persistent power, and doesn't turn off when you aren't injured (it just doesn't happen to do anything useful - much like Life Support breathe underwater doesn't do anything while you're in air, but it isn't switched off).

That would seem to imply that by this reasoning, if you have ever died, your "resurrection only" Regeneration will be active (there isn't any reason to switch it off - I suppose it could be Dispelled, but that's a corner case at best). If Dispelling really bothered you can you take Inherent on it? There isn't any clear reason why not.

I grant you that "resurrection only Regeneration kicks in as soon as you are 'dead' and deactivates once you are at full BODY" is a reasonable way to rule it though. Perhaps we just assume that "deactivates once you are at full BODY" is part of the "resurrection only" limitation.

Re: Self Resurrection

well in the book' date=' Mechanon has [b']Duplication [/b]; Original Character Is Incapacitated And Helpless While Duplicate Exists (-1)

 

which is in no way what I expected.

Apart from anything else that's worth way more than -1.

For Mechanon style resurrection, I think Summon is probably the best way to do it (with "summoner is incapacitated and helpless until summoned creature dies" as a limitation) - Summoned creatures don't penalise you if they die, whereas Duplicates can't be replaced on death. Granted you can just spend 5 more points and double the number of duplicates, but I think Summon is "cleaner" - you can whack on limitations like "Extra Time (to construct creature)" and "Only in laboratory" and so on to bring the cost down (you will of course require Slavishly Loyal).

Re: Self Resurrection

Resurrection implies that the character comes back exactly as they were at death - with all memories for example. For a rebuilt robot' date=' that may not make sense, whereas a Summon could be interpreted as "Summon: Myself as I was at last upload."[/quote']

Meh, I'd represent that with a Physical Complication or a Limitation on Regeneration.

Re: Cybernetics

In Shadowrun or Cyberpunk there are no reasons not to cyber yourself to the gills without some sort of artificial "humanity" or "essence" mechanic (at least Shadowrun has the "makes you bad at magic" semi-excuse; Cyberpunk it always felt like pure metagaming). Hero shouldn't have this problem, since you're paying points for it (assuming it is actually better than your meat arm was).

If cyberpsychosis was real, I wonder how the plague of serial killers from contact lense wearers and cochlear implants has been so successfully covered up by the Illuminati. By a strict definition of the word "cybernetic" even someone like me that wears glasses is a cyborg. And I rarely kill people.

Re: Rescue/Kidnap Teleport

A lot of people would agree that just the opposite is true. The game started began as very superhero centric and has become more generic over time.

That isn't what I said. I said the main 6e rulebook is generic, which is a very different statement from saying that Hero is historically a generic system (the latter is not even a defensible statement, since Champions predates Hero). I don't use the system much outside of superheroes myself, but the main rulebook gives power examples that are not only superheroic in nature - which is as it should be.

Similarly, Nightcrawler's ability to teleport others he is in contact with to the same destination that he himself travels to is still a separate ability from his own personal Teleportation Power. It is best modeled as Teleportation with UAA.

I'm not sure I agree, but for a completely different reason.

I've never been happy with using UAA for anything. In my opinion it's basically a hack - the cost of being able to Teleport others (or extradimensionally move them, inflict Flight on them - whatever) isn't particularly highly correlated to the cost of being able to do that yourself, so applying an advantage to allow it to do that has never really struck me as a "correct" way to do it. (UBO is different; it is specifically UAA - what used to be called UAO - that I'm complaining about here). For very few active points you get can a Flight power UAA that will eventually put a non-flier into orbit, or some other similarly fatal occurrence (perhaps just turning it off when they're high enough to impose terminal velocity on the resulting fall).

Which is not to say I have any better ideas. Transform would work as a substitute, but Transform suffers from the same pricing problems (many permanent effects cost the same, even though some are worse than others, and Transform doesn't have any real way to limit how far you can teleport someone, or whatever). I suppose you could work something up that involved a sort of Grab-By-And-Throw to simulate teleporting someone, but it isn't clear how you would simulate that "being really strong" isn't always the proper defence to resist it. (You can often use Telekinesis instead of Flight UAA though).