GAZZA

Re: Bonuses to STUN from the Growth Power That's just silly, IMHO.

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs Thing is, being a dwarf is just a special effect. You might say "I'm a dwarf, so I'm really strong!" but I would say, "I'm really strong, because I'm a dwarf", while someone else might say, "I'm really strong, because my upbringing was filled with hard physical labour" or "I'm really strong, because my dad was Zeus". IMHO, assuming "really strong" is the same mechanical strength, all three characters should pay the same for it.

Re: Poisons and Diseases OK, I say you can't be immune to bullets. "Most bullets are X" is begging the question: there is nothing preventing my bullets doing more damage than your defenses can handle (or have enough Armour Piercing, etc). Desolidification? Affects Desolidified. One of the major features of the Hero system is that it doesn't have this "absolute" defense. Of course in any given setting you can say, "No disease does more than X dice of damage" and thereby set the amount of Power Defense that is necessarily to be immune to diseases - but if you don't do that for Energy Blasts and RKAs, why do it for diseases or poisons? As far as whether it would have been better to simply say I don't like Life Support: Life Support isn't the issue. I don't like the way that poisons and diseases are built as No Normal Defense. Poisons and diseases vary in potency; using an "all or nothing" mechanic is counter intuitive (IMHO) when building them with Drains - which was introduced in HSA1, after FH pioneered the NND Does Body method - allows Power Defense to eliminate some, none, or all of the attack depending on how powerful it is: exactly the way most normal attacks like EB and RKA and so forth work. Basically, I do not understand the reasoning behind making all poisons or diseases "all or nothing". The default rules assume that this is going to be the case - either you are buying NND Does Body attacks, or a Drain with either a limitation that makes the appropriate life support negate it or a NND for the Drain. I don't feel this simulates poisons and diseases very well, and I don't feel that there is justification here to make these attacks fundamentally different in nature from normal attacks. But as always, YMMV.

Re: Infinite Loops That in Revised, or the FAQ, or something? Because I'm not believing it.

Re: Infinite Loops That doesn't work: Succor is a variant of Aid, and barring a ruling to the contrary subject to the same maximum as Aid (ie whatever the maximum you can roll on those d6s is). Succor is already a Constant power (by implication, since the boost lasts as long as you keep paying END), so Continuous is meaningless. I'm using the 5th ed book as my reference; if FRED says something different about Succor, then I guess the above is wrong.

Re: Poisons and Diseases Why not? What is it about power defense that you feel is "anti-poison"? (And incidentally you can always make a drain NND if you feel that this is important). Again - why not? You seem to have some specific special effect in mind for power defense that is skewing your reasoning here. As an obvious counter example: Power Defense, Only vs snake venom would be a perfectly valid construct in a campaign where snake venom was (eg) a BODY drain. Err, no. No way. I will simply throw out the immunity to poison and disease features of Life Support. I see no reason to have a perfect defense against poison in a system that does not allow a perfect defense against bullets or "frickin' laser beams". Its own power? That seems completely unnecessary. Both are modelled well (I feel better by Drains than NND Killing Attacks, but I do not deny that the latter works for lethal poisons). There seems nothing about this "new power" description above that could not be simulated without a new power.

The Hulk. The angrier he gets, the stronger he gets. There is no upper limit. 1d6 Aid, increase max to 42 (+18), increase STR and Aid simultaneously (+1/2) [42 Active Points] After 42 points, this becomes a 2d6 Aid, increase max to 84... and so on. It is an infinite loop. And a similar loop can be constructed as long as the total advantages are less than +1. If you wanted to lower the fade rate to 5 pts/minute, say: 1d6 Aid, increase max to 98 (+46), increase STR and Aid simultaneously (+1/2), fade rate 5pts/minute (+1/4) [98 Active Points]. This is nothing new. Similar loops have been possible since the BBB (and perhaps before that). I'm just curious as to whether any GM has ever allowed such a construction - on a PC or NPC. The only published example I've seen was the Thanatic Rod in the old Mystic Masters supplement, which actually wouldn't have worked the way it was built (it was a Continuous Uncontrolled 0 END Persistent Transfer - but with +2 1/2 in advantages, it's not possible to construct an infinite loop in this fashion. Perhaps it is possible some other way - anyone got any ideas?)

5th edition introduces the concept of a 10 point Life Support ability to be immune to all terrestrial poisons (and another for diseases). This goes against the usual "absolute" philosophy of Hero, but in addition raises an ugly spectre. Some people build poisons as NND Does Body Gradual Effect attacks; others build them as Drains (possibly with the Gradual Effect limitation from HSA, not to be confused with the standard Gradual Effect limitation). (Personally I think Drains are better, since the AP limit is lower, there are less modifiers, and you can have poisons that make you weaker or slower instead of deader). With the NND method, you can define the defense as "appropriate Life Support". That's fine. But what about the Drain method? Must that be NND as well? (Pointless, in my opinion, since Power Defense is less common than PD and ED - at the very least NND should be worth less). Is it a -0 limitation on Drain poisons that they "do not work vs appropriate Life Support"? (Or maybe -1/2, or whatever). I guess what I'm getting at is this: if you prefer the Drain method for poisons (and diseases, incidentally), then presumably the defense against poisons is Power Defense (possibly with a limitation "only vs poisons"). This new method of creating poisons was available before 5th edition was published. Presumably there is some reason why it was abandoned in favour of the "older" method used by Fantasy Hero. I'm just having a problem understanding why, I suppose. The Drain method is more elegant (as it allows targetting of other characteristics), less complicated (no No Normal Defense, Linked Attack Must Do BODY, Does BODY nonsense; at most, it might have an advantage to move the recovery time down the chart and a Gradual Effect to attack less often than once per phase; both kinds need Continuous and either Uncontrolled or Continuing Charges), and comes with a ready-made defense (Power Defense) rather than needing to tack something on to Life Support. Am I alone in thinking that this was the better way to go?

Re: Bonuses to STUN from the Growth Power The stats do not give figured characteristics. Growth is not a bargain; it is actually quite expensive for what you get. Take one size doubling: +15 STR, +3 BODY, +3 STUN, -3" KB, +1 Reach, and you get penalties of -2 to DCV and a +2 to PER rolls to see you. Plus you could argue (I would so argue) that being 800kg and 4m tall was a disadvantage. That costs 15 points. Instead, let's just buy 15 STR (+15 pts), 3 BODY (6 pts), +3 STUN (-7.5 pts; we get 3 from BODY, and we're losing the 7.5 from STR), -3" KB (6 pts). That's 19.5 points spent. However, you are also getting +3 PD (-3 points) and +3 REC (-6 points), so really you're getting that for 10.5 points. We haven't bought the reach yet, though. That's +1" Stretching, 0 END Persistent (+1), No noncombat Stretching (-1/4), Direct only (-1/4), for 7 points. A total of 17.5 points. True, this is 2.5 points more than Growth. However, it doesn't come with a lowered DCV or a penalty to hiding. +2 DCV is worth 10 points; even if -2 DCV is only worth half of that, it's still cheaper to just buy the stats directly. Now, before anyone takes me to task here, there are a couple of caveats: Firstly, you cannot normally sell back Figured Characteristics. So if you have a tough character that was happy with his figured PD, REC, or STUN - and didn't spend at least 3 points on PD, 6 on REC, and 7.5 on STUN - then you can't really subtract it. I submit that most characters who get their STR from Growth are going to end up spending some points on PD and STUN, at least, and if they leave their REC unchanged they're at a significant disadvantage compared to the guy that just bought the stats. Growth gets better as you get bigger, because of the reach advantage. Beyond a certain point, the fact that your reach continues to double makes it prohibitively expensive to simulate with Stretching. Really big guys get a cost break. Moderately big guys pay for it. Many GMs that would balk at shoving stats into a Multipower or EC will calmly let you stick Growth in there. That's a not-inconsiderable advantage for Growth. But realistically the power has never been a great deal. Shrinking is a much better deal than Growth is. For 10 points of Shrinking, you get +2 DCV, -2 to opponent's PER rolls, and +3" KB. The DCV would normally cost you 10 points, and the hiding bonus can be viewed as a +2 on Stealth rolls, so that's about 14 points. Of course, Shrinking costs END (though note that 0 END Shrinking is only 15 points per level), and it does have that KB problem... on the other hand, it also has the growth momentum ability (+3d6 damage per 10 points), which is some sort of limited Hand Attack. The two powers are not by any means symmetrical, of course, which means that technically you can have both powers activated simultaneously (though common sense should forbid that).

Re: Permanent Size Changes... I'm not really familiar with editions of Champions before the BBB (I do own 1st edition somewhere, but I'm scared to read it unless it falls apart on me); however, I believe you're referring to previous versions of the Growth power that did indeed give bonus CON. The whole "without Inherent it can be Drained" and so forth has always bothered me a bit. It's absolutely true, of course, if you consider it mechanically; on the other hand, though, it is hard to come up with a special effect that would target Growth in this way. Of course you can have a shrinking ray that drains Growth, or maybe Aids Shrinking, but from a special effects perspective they should work just fine on people that are normally really big (even if it's bought Inherent, I would argue - unless the Inherent was supposed to represent some sort of innate immunity to shrinking rays and the like). I suppose it comes up when you come up with something like a "alien power inhibitor ray", which you aim at something really big with lots of tentacles. If the desire there is to target things like the alien's telepathic powers and acid blood, but not its size or razorsharp claws, I suppose you need Inherent - but I can't help thinking that should be more in the nature of a limitation on the attack rather than an advantage on the defence.

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs It should be noted, incidentally, that the above argument also can be applied to state that Normal Characteristic Maxima should not be a disadvantage worth points in a game where they are not assumed (eg a supers game). Very few players are going to construct a character that cost more in exceeded NCMs than they get back from the disadvantage.

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs The problem here is that -2 to a NCM (or +2 to an NCM) is not intrinsically worth anything at all. It affects only those who have characteristics at or above the new NCM; for all other characters, it does not benefit or limit them in any way. Many FH characters will have an EGO score (for example) in the 10-14 range. It can therefore be deduced that an NCM adjustment (up or down) to EGO that leaves 14 underneath the threshold will not affect the majority of characters. Conversely, many FH characters will have a high STR (in order to wear armour, if for no other reason), so an NCM adjustment downwards here affects characters in a completely assymmetrical fashion to adjusting it upwards. 4th edition package deals made the mistake of making races pay for increased NCMs and giving them points for a reduction in NCM. For example, the same elf might have paid 6 points to have a DEX NCM of 22 and gotten back 1 point for a lowered STR NCM to 18 and 2 points for a lowered CON NCM to 18 (note that the lowered ones only give back half the points). Unfortunately this means that lots of elves are going to have a DEX of 22, because if they have any less than this they are being screwed on points. Likewise they are highly unlikely to have a CON of more than 18, and if they don't, then they've gotten those points for nothing. Unless you're willing to adjudicate these things on a character by character basis, however, that's really the best that can be done - and if you are willing to adjudicate on a character by character basis, then what benefit are you getting from a package deal?

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs A couple of points: Unless I'm being thick, it would seem to me that 4e GURPS has pretty much jumped on the Hero bandwagon as to how this works. That doesn't invalidate the problem, but it does make it a suboptimal example. If you do change NCM, you have to make it a -0 limitation/+0 advantage (in other words, it costs nothing and is not worth a bonus). This is because you will find that those who have elves (+2 DEX NCM, -2 STR NCM, -2 CON NCM) will "just happen" to have STR 18 DEX 22 CON 18. They have paid 6 points less than a human would for their DEX, and not been disadvantaged by the STR and CON compared to a human. One can argue that only being able to have a STR 18 is itself a disadvantage, but it's not: the player that wanted a higher STR than that will simply not play an elf. I think the suggestion that these things are simulated without direct characteristic adjustments is the way to go. So a dwarf, instead of having a higher base CON, might have Power Defense against poisons and diseases, and have a social limitation "gruff" rather than a lowered PRE. An elf might have +2 combat levels with a bow and +2 to DEX skills, and a vulnerability to represent greater frailty. In a FH game you can't just buy powers willy-nilly, so racial powers such as these cannot be easily duplicated by other races.

Re: XP idea I give out from 10-20 XP per session, usually. That's a heck of a lot more than the system suggests, and means that characters change pretty rapidly - on the other hand, most of my campaigns tend to be of short duration (10-20 sessions), and I like to see characters change markedly over that time. So in effect me giving out a bonus of 1 or 2 XP would be like giving out 1/10 of an XP in the proposed system.

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP Note that the Multipower is 100 points, and the ultras are only 50. Unless something very serious changed between 5e and FRED, you can activate two 50 point ultras simultaneously in a 100 pt Multipower (ignoring for the moment the whole MPA issue). I agree that there were multiple camps beyond the two I mentioned in the bad old days of 4e; I was summarising the position for the benefit of the young tykes that may not have been around that long. Didn't mean to imply that we were all die hard extremists.

Re: Permanent Size Changes... My feelings are similar, but on the other hand there was a problem with the 4th edition. I can't help feeling that if you're taking a permanent decrease to your DCV, a mass issue, and so on, that it should be cheaper. For instance, in the time honoured BBB fashion: Growth (15pts), 0 END Persistent (+1), Always On (-1/2) costs 20 points. It gives you +15 STR, +3 BODY, +3 STUN, -3" KB resistance. Alternately: +15 STR (15 pts), +3 BODY (6 pts), +3 STUN (free from BODY), -3" KB resistance (6 points) only costs 27 points, and gives you an extra +3 PD (3 points), +3 REC (6 points), and +7.5 STUN (7.5 points) worth of figured characteristics. Since virtually any brick is going to want to buy up their PD and STUN (if not REC), then this is a more efficient way to buy it - and you don't get those annoying limitations. I'm sure I'm not the only powergaming munchkin to have noticed that in 4th. At least in 5th edition the spirit in is the right place - strong big guys should cost less than strong normal sized guys - but the execution at high levels of size is not as fair as it could be, IMHO.

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP On the whole, I didn't think 5e was much of an improvement over 4e - to be honest, I kind of felt I wasted my money buying it. From the sounds of it, FRED is worse. I'm not sure that I wouldn't rather just ignore whatever the "official" position is and buy the FH Grimoire instead - something I'll use, rather than shelve after reading. But as always YMMV.

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP Damn and blast. From my perspective, I "only just got" 5th edition (which is to say I got it a while back, but I haven't actually used it much). I've seen all these references to "FRED" and sort of hoped it was more along the lines of "D&D 3.5" - essentially ignorable - but I'm getting the impression that the changes are a little more extensive than that. Which means that I'm probably going to have to upgrade, if only to decide what parts I'm throwing out.

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP "No one"? I've done it from time to time; it makes a reasonable approach for a superpowered wizard. Sorry if that's not the "officially approved" method. Doubled the pool for the MP here so that it can have two powers running simultaneously - again, in a similar manner to how I've constructed certain superpowered mages in the past. There's nothing officially "wrong" with that approach. If you want someone that has a host of different attack powers, a host of different defenses, and a host of different movement powers, but can use only 2 of 3 at once, that's a reasonable way to build it. (The more common case of having just attack and defenses there can of course be simulated with 2 separate Multipowers, but there's nothing wrong with merging the two - assuming, of course, that the special effects are OK). I think you're coming at this from the wrong direction. Rather than say that "ECs are not supposed to be offensive" and (by implication) that MPs are, I would suggest rather that ECs are for powers you can use all at once, and MPs are for powers you can use only 1 at a time (very generally speaking; the example I showed allows 2 at a time, and non-fixed slots allow many of them at reduced power, etc.) I do not see any reason to treat attack powers differently to any other kind of power in either framework. My construct above is designed to demonstrate that there is nothing inherently abusive in the idea of even an all-EB elemental control - so why complicate the system with unnecessary restrictions?

Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules. I think either you misunderstood the situation in 4th ed, or I'm misunderstanding what you're saying now. Assume for the moment I want two equal point forms in 4th edition. Let X be the points I have to spend. Base form will have X + X/5 (cost for Multipower) points. In a 250 point game, that means 6X/5 = 250, or X is about 208. Indeed, 208 points would cost 42 points as a Multipower, so we're all good. The base form is not being charged twice. The rule was that no form can have more points than the base form points minus the multiform cost. The base form points is 250; the multiform cost is 42. Therefore all forms are built on 208 points, with the base form rounding out to 250 points due to the multiform cost. In 4th ed, a Hulk/Banner would presumably be built similar to the way Jaguar was built (with Hulk as the base form, and a special effect that he hangs around in Banner form most of the time). Banner is probably no more than a Competent Normal (100 points total); Hulk would be 250 points. Of that 250 points, he'd pay 20 for Multiform to Banner, and then could spend the remaining 230 (not 210!) points in whatever fashion he so desired. The flaw, as has been pointed out, is primarily that an adjustment power against Multiform would mean Hulk couldn't change into Banner anymore rather than the reverse. However, that's a purely mechanical issue. Someone who wanted to build a "Gamma Ray Inhibitor Gun" would have to build it as a Transform instead of a Suppress/Drain - no biggie there.

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP Ah, multiple power attacks. I fondly remember the 4th edition days and the fights that the Linked limitation could spawn. 5th edition was supposed to end these fights, and yet it doesn't seem to have done so. In brief: back in the days of the BBB, there were two camps. Camp A said "Linked allows two powers to be used together at the same time. You can't use two powers at the same time otherwise." Camp B said, "Bollocks, that would mean that Linked is not a limitation. You can use as many powers to attack as you like; Linked means that you have to use them together." And there was much fighting. Friendships shattered. Vendettas were initiated, only to fall to shockingly brutal reprisals. As a member of "Camp B", I proposed the following: let us suppose you want to prove that multiple power attacks without linked are unbalancing. One way to do this would be as follows: Elemental Control (Multiattack Power), 20 point reserve 8d6 Energy Blast a-20 8d6 Energy Blast b-20 8d6 Energy Blast c-20 8d6 Energy Blast d-20 A total of 100 points. (You can substitute other powers for the duplicate EBs if you like; it complicates the point, but it remains true). That gives you a 32d6 attack - oh dear, we can't be allowing this! Except... it's virtually worthless. Compare it to a 20d6 Energy Blast, no frills, same cost. A typical Champions campaign might have 20-30 DEF as standard. Ignoring for the moment the fact that the average damage of 8d6 vs 20 DEF is actually more than 8 (since you can't do negative damage), that's somewhere in the region of 32 STUN for the EC power compared to 50 STUN for the straight Energy Blast. And it gets worse with higher DEF. Yes, the 32d6 does more against normals with very low defenses, but that's hardly relevant - 20d6 does enough to KO (or kill!), with less "wasted". "Oho!" you may cry, "but the latter would break the DC limits for the game!" True, but so does the former! It's not the fact that you have multiple attacks that is the problem; it's that you have so large an attack. It's clearly not a 32 DC attack, or even a 20 DC attack, but it's probably worth at least 15 or so. You should evaluate it on that basis, exactly the same way that you should be suspicious of someone claiming that a 10d6 EB with a Linked 50 Active Point Flash doesn't violate the 10DC game limits. Along comes 5th edition and gives a result that pleases neither camp totally (it's a Camp B response, but it specifically disallows the EC construct above). Personally I think I was right back in the 4th ed days, and I'm still right now: EC slots should be allowed to be combined in Multiple Power Attacks. Just make sure that when you're evaluating an EC that contains attack powers that no possible combination thereof will violate whatever DC limit you are comfortable with - exactly as you should do for any Linked powers. At the end of the day, a Multipower such as: Multipower, 100 point reserve 10d6 Energy Blast 5-u 10d6 Energy Blast 5-u 25 DEF FF 5-u 25" Flight 5-u is equally open to abuse. 5th edition (AFAIK - I don't have the book with me) has no problem with simultaneously activating the first two slots of that construct in a Multiple Power Attack. Yet: EC, 25 point reserve 10d6 Energy Blast a-25 10d6 Energy Blast b-25 25 DEF FF c-25 25" Flight d-25 is somehow not allowed, even though (a little) more expensive? (NOTE: yes, it seems that I've gotten a very good deal here by spending only 5 more points; I have, however, presented the minimum number of Multipower slots for which this is the case. Add a couple more slots and the MP is a clear winner). The MP got the extra attack for 5 points. The EC had to pay 25 points for it. It seems ludicrous that the MP would be allowed while the EC was not. If one is unbalanced, then the other must be as well. Anyway, just my opinion.

Re: Permanent Size Changes... OK, reasoning this through a bit. Compare and contrast. Double size. The "old-but-updated" way would be to buy 15 points Growth, 0 END Persistent (+1), Inherent (+1/4), Always On (-1/2) for 22 points. That gives you +15 STR, +3 BODY, +3 STUN, -3" KB resistance, +1" Reach, and the associated -2 DCV and +2 PER rolls against. Instead, we could do it "the new way". That entails a 5 point Physical Limitation, for which you get the -2 DCV and +2 PER rolls against "for free". You have to buy the rest; strictly, that is +15 STR [No figured chars -1/2], +3 BODY, -3" KB resistance - for 22 points so far - and then Stretching 1", 0 END (+1/2), Always Direct (-1/4), No noncombat Stretching (-1/4), No Velocity Damage (-1/4), for 4 points (total of 26 points). That's only 1 point cheaper (factoring in the disadvantage). Because Growth becomes a better deal than Stretching pretty quickly, it should be obvious that Growth is cheaper to simulate this than the limitation method. And that's doing it "correctly". I know more than one player that would decide that simply having the Growth 0 END was "good enough"; with a decent CON, you're not going to be stunned often enough that it will matter too much. If we are a little less literal, and we take the +15 STR without the "no figured chars" limitation, it actually reduces the cost. +15 STR would cost 15 points rather than 10, but it gives +3 PD, +3 REC, and +7.5 STUN, so in effect it is 8.5 points cheaper. (This assumes of course that such a character would otherwise spend at least 3 points on PD & REC, and 7.5 on STUN - but that's not too unreasonable assumption). Looking at it this way, and scaling up to 32 times human size: "old" way: 75 points Growth, 0 END Persistent, Inherent, Always On: 169 Active/113 Real. "new" way: +75 STR (75 points), +15 BODY (30 points), -15" KB Resistance (30 points), Stretching 16" 0 END Always Direct Non Noncombat Stretch No Velocity Damage (69 points). That costs 204 points, but you get 15 PD (15 points), 15 REC (30 points), and 37.5 STUN (37.5 points) for free, taking the cost down to 121.5 points. You also get a 15 point Physical Limitation for this (according to FH pp 53). So the Growth method does eventually get cheaper here as well, but only at very high power levels (I doubt there are a lot of 85 STR characters out there - and even if there are, I doubt too many of them are 64m tall). That's a pretty compelling reason to use the limitation method - it's cheaper. Sorry for rambling. Just trying to convince myself that this is the way to go. And unfortunately I still have my doubts. Consider the above character. He gets a 15 point physical limitation, and this imposes a -10 DCV and +10 PRE rolls against. Unfortunately, according to Fantasy Hero, this is the same limitation value that someone merely 4 times human size (ie 30 points of Growth in the old method) gets - and he is only getting a -4 DCV/+4 PRE rolls against. Forgive me, but this means (to me) that the value of the limitation is entirely arbitrary. It seems that the player is, in essence, being punished for a character conception of "really really big" rather than merely "pretty big but really really strong". At least with the old method there was nothing arbitrary about it. You could build the character as either 32 times human size with base STR of 10, or as 4 times human size with base STR of 55. In addition, the Physical Limitations for Growth and Shrinking seem pretty radically different. If I'm reading things correctly, then a character who is (say) only 1/8 human size in the new system is treated purely as a special effect. He has to buy the DCV, he has to buy the PRE roll bonus. The physical limitation in that case is basically, "Well, he's small. Use your common sense. He's going to have trouble getting on carnival rides, for a start". With Growth, the physical limitation imposes "free" penalties to DCV and PRE rolls (against). With Shrinking, there is no corresponding penalty. Yes, it is definitely inconvenient to be only 12.5cm tall - but it is also inconvenient to be 8m tall (above and beyond the "free" combat problems - you will have problems with low ceilings, you can't use public transport, and you will be constantly inundated with Jenny Craig advocates - probably even get on Oprah). I am coming to the conclusion that the penalties to DCV and PER for large characters are not appropriate to simulate with an arbitrary inconsistent physical limitation. I do see the benefits of not building it with Growth and Shrinking, but in my opinion it would be preferable to separate out the specific from the arbitrary. For example: a DEX 20 character who is 8m tall could buy his +10 DEX with the -1/4 limitation "Not for DCV" (thus he would be DCV 3 instead of 7). Or maybe we could just dispense with the mucking about and have him buy 4 negative DCV levels (for -20 points) and -4 to Stealth rolls (for -8). Granted this would need special GM permission (it is a "Stop" sign situation) to avoid people buying "-100 Combat Levels when wielding small furry mammals from Alpha Centauri" and spending the 200 points thus released elsewhere, but it does seem the most appropriate way to build large characters.

Re: Permanent Size Changes...

Hi all! I'm new to these boards, but not new to Hero - I've been playing for years, and even know what "BBB" stands for. I got the new 5th edition rulebook about 18 months ago. Ran a couple of sessions of a Champions game, and then resumed the D&D game that I'd been running before. (Yeah, sorry. I don't like it, but sometimes you gotta run what your players ask for). Recently while reading some of my back issues of Knights of the Dinner Table, I was inspired to create a "Biggest Damn Dungeon Ever" based on all the monsters in the Monster Manual - but using Hero rules. So I picked up a copy of Fantasy Hero for 5th ed, and I've been mulling through it. Back in the bad old days of 4th edition, if you were always bigger or smaller than a normal human, you bought Growth or Shrinking as 0 END Persistent Always On. Now, the preference seems to be to just have an appropriate Physical Limitation. I have some issues with this. Mostly, it doesn't seem worthwhile to be big anymore. Let's say you're twice human size; according to the chart in FH, that means you get a -5 Physical Limitation. Yet the DCV modifier alone is worth more than that; you're effectively buying -2 Combat Levels with DCV. And that's not taking into account the perception penalty you suffer as well. What was so terribly wrong with buying it as Growth? Certainly it had the disadvantage that you could technically have it dispelled or suppressed, but doesn't the new Inherent advantage cover that? I'm not totally opposed to "the new regime", but can someone sell me on it?