Ockham's Spoon

Re: Supers vs. Military As mentioned, it is all about the power level of the game you want to play. Give the players points to build characters respectively. If you want a cosmically powerful group of heroes, go for it. From a GM viewpoint, I much prefer lower-level campaigns, because it gives me a much wider array of adversaries that can prove challenging to the heroes. Beyond that, it requires the players to out-think rather than out-fight the opposition more often. If your supers can take a hit from an H-Bomb and punch through a vault door in a single blow, how many foes are really going to be a challenge for even one member of the team, much less a whole group? That is a recipe for boring.

Re: Sensory Input (5e) From a practical standpoint, the only difference between Radar and Sonar is where you can use them. Sonar works great underwater, but not in vacuum. Radar, vice versa. Both basically give you a topographical map of your surroundings, but probably not fine detail. High-powered versions can give you info about density and such. If you want other cost breaks, I would consider that the Squee developed underwater initially, and so might not be as capable on land (I have to think they developed most of their current civilization on land though, since it is hard to imagine an advanced society that didn't tame fire early on). As such they might be effectively amphibious. They might have Dependency on water, Vulnerability to heat/fire, or you might sell back some of their running. Out from left field, they might have physical limitations like narcolepsy or that alcohol is a deadly toxin. Humans might take that as a major weakness, but the Squee probably boggle at the human's sad inability to regenerate or breath underwater.

Re: Question about keeping equipment balanced in heroic campaigns? As long as the amount of equipment is reasonable, I wouldn't sweat it. I would take note of the quality of the equipment, for a couple reasons. First, you don't want your characters running around with gear that is so high tech that it makes enemies or obstacles trivial, even if such equipment exists in your universe. Partly it detracts from the characters that their gear is more important than they are, and partly logically super-advanced equipment should logically be expensive and hard to get. Second, if the heroes start out with junky equipment, anything nice that they acquire later (through rewards, loot, deals, or whatnot) will be that much more cool. Really nice equipment becomes the equivalent of magic items in a fantasy campaign. It gives the heroes a sense of reward, especially for those from a dungeon-crawl background. If you are concerned about the equipment becoming unbalancing, make it clear when the heroes get it that it has a limited power supply or will get used up or something (disintegration grenades are awesome, but obviously can't be reused).

Re: Sensory Input (5e) I think you could get points for either selling back vision or take a Physical Disad for not having it, but I wouldn't take both. I would also point out that any Disad would be dependent on the setting. For the Squee homeworld there is hardly a limitation since their society will be geared toward non-visual information transfer. In fact a human there would be the one with the Disad. I have not read the books, so I am unfamiliar with this alien race, but I wouldn't bother buying Radar myself for 3 reasons. First, as you noted, it is expensive, and from a gaming standpoint somewhat redundant. Biologically it is also redundant; it makes little sense to devote so much sensory power to two entirely different senses. That is why humans have excellent sight but dogs have excellent olfactory powers. It is hard to make room in your brain to process both, so few creatures will have evolved like that. From a physical standpoint, radar doesn't work underwater, so one wonders why they would have developed it at all (unless you are using radar as a stand-in for a similar ability at a much different wavelength; even so the range is going to be restricted underwater). Of course you can take this "realism" with a grain of salt; Star Wars was great fun even if it didn't make a lick of sense sometimes.

Re: Discriminatory IR vision? In 6e IR Vision is specifically NOT Discriminatory, as noted above. That means you can target people using only IR Vision, but you might not be targeting the right people. The functional question is how easy is it for a hero with non-discriminatory vision to keep the good guys and bad guys straight? Obviously it depends on the circumstances, but a PER roll (with modifiers no doubt) would probably be required. Some characters would be easy to distinguish (a lone flying character or those with active fire powers for instance), but it would also be easy to lose a target in a crowd. Enhanced senses, in my experience, are one of the hardest things to GM because it requires you to think about what exactly a character with those senses is really perceiving at any given moment. I had a player who ran a hero that was blind but had a heat sense bought as IR Vision, and I was forever forgetting he couldn't do simple things like read signs or see through the windshield of a car (which is largely opaque to IR wavelengths), much less keep track of who's who in combat (and yes, he accidentally blasted his teammates more than once). Fortunately the player was willling to remind me of the character's shortcomings most of the time, but in retrospect I might not have been so willing to go along with it if I had realized what a headache it would be.

Re: How Much DCV? From a metagaming standpoint, maybe AoE is the way to go, but from a conceptual standpoint I want justification for that power. I think it really just lets you build a lot of different characters, each effective in their own way, and each representing the special effect you want. If you have a big brick with a club, AoE might be just the thing. But if you want a sharpshooter that can pick off terrorists without endangering their hostages, the high OCV is the way to go. In the average combat they might be roughly equal, but each shines on their own terms in the right situation.

Re: Superhero complication: glass jaw To make the Vulnerability trigger only when a hit location of 3 is rolled is rare enough I am not sure it would be worth any points (1 in 216 chance). To work as a reasonable complication I would give it automatically for a hit roll at +8 or better and allow it to be targeted by those who know the weakness and have it occur with the lucky roll of 3. I have used similar concepts for villains with a weak spot that the heroes must exploit, but I have always done it as an Activation 15- on the villains' Armor (typically I am representing some giant monster and the weak spot is something like the eyes or Smaug with a missing scale). But I like the idea of building a glass jaw as a Vulnerability; I will have to try that out.

Re: Who is an Empyrean? It has been a while since I read Hidden Lands, so I can't recall the packages unfortunately. But if I were going to pick "real world" Empyreans, I would have to choose people with myths and legends already around them, like Rasputin, Houdini, and Alexander the Great. At the risk of being sacrilegious, there are some good biblical characters that would fit the bill too; Solomon, Moses, and of course JC himself. But I don't think I would go there any more than I would try to feel up Charlton Heston at an NRA rally. Especially now that he's dead.

Re: TASER in 5ER Do you want a realistic taser or a game-balanced taser? I believe in the HERO Equipment Guide a taser is built as an 8d6 NND attack with one or two recoverable charges (I don't have the book in front of me at the moment). While that might capture the real-world effect, you are looking at a 80 Active point attack, which is pretty hefty, especially for a heroic level game. That might fit well with the campaign tone, but you might want to drop the number of dice a bit to keep the heroes from being one-shotted by a little old lady with an attitude and lucky to-hit roll.

Re: Hardened Invisibility versus . . . ? Well that is a lot cleaner than what I came up with, and if you are going to have custom powers defined for the game you may as well go with simple. Ockham's Razor applied!

Re: How to build: melting a bank vault Damage Over Time seemed like a good fit to me at first too, with the alternate advantage that defenses only apply once. The problem with DoT is that you have to specify a number of iterations, but the power I have in mind is continuous as long as the pyrokinetic pays END; she will eventually be able to melt through anything given enough time. I could just buy a huge number of iterations (this is an NPC villain after all) and figure that is sufficient to melt through anything I guess, but that somehow doesn't feel right. As for the hot surface, I would build it with the AoE:Surface in the 6e rules. There is even an example along these lines in the sidebar (My Heat Vision Makes Your Gun Too Hot to Hold!). Normally AoE: Surface doesn't actually damage the surface; it is like a damage shield (it is how you build the 5e Damage Shield under 6e rules in fact). If I did go with the DoT option, I could tack AoE:Surface on it with the modifier that the surface does take damage (±0) and have the whole thing as a single RKA instead of a bundle of linked powers which does have the appeal of simplicity. Lots of good suggestions here.

Re: Hardened Invisibility versus . . . ? Since Detect Invisibiliity is detecting the power and not the invisible person himself, then your advanced Invisibility could be purchased with Invisible Power Effects, rendering it undetectable. If I were to make "levels" of invisibility, I would do it like this: Invisibility I: Images vs. Sight -6 PER, only to make self invisible (-1). This is works most of the time, but even without Detect Invisibility you can be spotted at times, especially if you are moving quickly Invisibility II: Invisibility to Sight with Fringe. Better than the the first level, but you aren't undetectable Invisibility III: Invisibility to Sight w/o Fringe. Now you can only be seen with special Enhanced Senses Invisibility IV: Invisibility to All Sense Groups w/o Fringe: Now you can only be seen with the special Detect Invisibility sense that targets the magic not the invisible character Invisibility V: Invisibility IV with IPE: Now you are undetectable. Don't lose consciousness now or they will never find you. For levels of Detect Invisibility, you start with +6 Sight PER only to detect invisible, and move on to more exotic enhanced senses as you go.

Re: How to build: melting a bank vault The All or Nothing limitation would work well on the vault, but I am now thinking that the ED Drain linked to the small RKA is best because it has the fade effect built in (as the temperature drops) and because the vault won't feel it at all until the ED is low enough for BODY damage, but characters will start to take STUN damage well before that. Also, it gives me something to link the Too Hot to Touch! AoE Surface attack strength to, so that it fades along with the temperature drop. Thanks all for your help!

Re: How to build: melting a bank vault Transform crossed my mind too, but it has two drawbacks in my mind. First, when used on a bank vault it is fine, but when turned on a character, you are basically Transforming a character from normal to cooked (dead), and really that is a job for a RKA (Tunneling can't be used on characters either, although I guess in a Multipower you could just define which slot was in use by what target you had). Second, the threshold for the power should be defined by the ED, not the BODY, which is what Transform does. Hmm... actually you could have a Penetrating Transform against and Alternate Defense (ED) which could work pretty well combined with the Multipower slots...

Re: How to build: melting a bank vault Yes, that is why I first thought of Penetrating too. But if the vault melts at 1500°C and she only has time to heat it to 1000°C, then once it cools down the vault is unaffected. If I go with Penetrating, the damage starts immediately and remains even after the vault cools, which is not what I am going for here.

I am making a pyrokinetic supervillain, with the ability to gradually make things hotter and hotter until they melt/burn. Ultimately she should be able to bore through a bank vault with this (24 ED, 9 BDY), but I don't want to give her a 25d6 attack for two reasons. First, it is way over the damage cap. Second, if she doesn't actually melt through the vault, it will just cool down and be undamaged. From a dramatic standpoint, I want the heroes to know that if she attacks them, they have a few PHAs to put her down or escape before they end up like the vault door, but I don't necessarily want them to go down with a single hit. So my first though was a Penetrating attack, but that starts doing damage immediately, and I want this to gradually build up and have no effect if it doesn't exceed the threshold. Damage Over Time seemed like it might be good with the optional advantage that the Defense is only applied once. But then I have to pick how many segments it works, and this power is continuous as long as the pyrokinetic focuses on it. I thought of a few other ideas, but they become increasing more complex for a physically straightforward concept. So I throw this out to other Herophiles. How would you model this power? To add a little more complexity, this power would almost certainly be linked to a AoE Surface attack to represent the hot object being dangerous to touch. If anyone can see a good way to build it all as a single attack, that would be great, but if I have to link them so be it.

Re: Entangle That Get's Tougher Over Time This is a nice idea for an Entangle. The simplest way would be a custom limitation, the size being based on how long it takes the resin to harden, but the question would be how much? You could model it with partial limitations on the power. For a 6d6 Entangle say, the first 2d6 happens immediately, the second 2d6 has a 1 turn delay, and the third 2d6 has a 1 minute delay. So your total cost will be 20 + 20/(1½) + 20/(2) = 43 pts. Or to simplify it, you could say that a 60 Active pt power with a Real cost of 43 pts cost is close to what you would get with a -½ limitation, so make your custom limitation -½ and be done with it. If the target can escape the full Entangle by just getting out of the first 2d6, add Linked to the second two Entangles. The the partial limitation route gives 20 + 20/(2) + 20/(2½) = 38 pts. That is still actually pretty close to a -½ limitation, but I'd go with a -¾ partly based on the first example and partly because functionally I think it is probably a bigger limitation than the numbers immediately suggest. Edit: Whoops! I see I have been beat to the punch, and by an official rule!

Re: Super Martial Arts and endurance I am not quite sure how the recoverable charge is supposed to work, so I won't comment there. If you want players to mix up their combat, be generous with Surprise Manuever bonuses, and/or penalize their OCV for using the same manuever over and over because they become predictable. You can also encourage martial arts manuevers that have the limitation "must follow X manuever". You might also have attacks with large OCV penalties (because they have to be targeted just so) which would encourage use of throws or grabs which can make the target easier to hit.

Re: 5e Naked Advantage I'd buy him separate multipower slots for Telepathy with IPE for three reasons. First, it is potentially less abusive. Second, it is probably cheaper (well, depending on how many IPE slots he wants). Third, it makes sense in my mind that if he is being careful not to be detected that the total number of dice would be lower. The analogy is if you want to be stealthy you don't run at top speed. Of course with a additional +20 effect on the roll, you can have the Telepathy not be detected by the subject, so maybe you just need +6d6 Telepathy only for purposes of remaining undetected.

Re: Random Thought: Splitting Speed Combats would take longer for two reasons. Partly just the added complexity of tracking two SPD for each character. Partly because most people don't use half their SPD for Defensive manuevers IME (speedsters being the possible exception). So now the characters deal damage more slowly since they only have half their SPD to attack with, and because there would be a lot more blocking & dodging so everyone gets hit less frequently (you have those Defensive SPD phases, you might as well use them). Of course most of those Defensive SPD phases would probably be used for movement so as not to waste Attack phases, but even so you can see a dramatic increase in combat time.

Re: Proper Whip Build in 6e I bow to your experience. Thanks for the reality check. Still, I think the cinematic whip probably has too much appeal to be modelled realistically in a RPG. BTW, does anyone know if bullwhips were ever considered weapons of war instead of instruments of intimidation/punishment? And (more tangentially) how similar are chain weapons? I can see a lot more bludgeoning utility in a heavy chain, but I don't think weapons like the kusari had heavy chains or were used that way.

Re: Mundane Item Buildng: Rope The rope automaton is an interesting build and potentially a better representation than just the TK build. That said, while I would allow it if a player really wanted to, it is a bit cumbersome to spec it that way, so I would have to go with the TK build personally.

Re: vampire blood drain Yeah, Transfer was useful notationally, but I guess it was really just Drain + Aid anyway, so that is how 6e models it. It makes the rule book that much shorter, but it makes writing out a transfer power on your character sheet that much longer. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Re: Proper Whip Build in 6e I believe that whips built as Killing Attacks are those that have metal tips or barbs in them, giving some cutting power (still you ought to apply Reduced Penetration though). For a less cruel version, such as Indiana Jones' iconic equipment, I would probably use a small HTH attack instead. In either case, you might care to give the character +5 PRE only for attacks just because the crack of the whip is so intimidating.

Re: Armor Wars Some of this has been covered, but I see power suits as limited in production for the following reasons: 1. Too expensive. Yes, tanks are pricey too, but the high tech needed for personal body armor is well beyond even that. This is also why you don't have supertanks everywhere. 2. The required materials are exceedingly rare and difficult to obtain. You simply don't have enough unobtainium in the world to build more than a couple of suits properly. 3. The suits require fine-tuning to the "pilot", so you can't easily mix and match which limits versatility, and it requires lots of pilot training. Something goes wrong and you have to overhaul the whole thing. That is putting too many eggs in one basket for the military. Alternatively, the suits are too easy to use and they don't want them being stolen by enemy soldiers or terrorists. 4. Does the army want to be responsible for one of their power suit soldiers going rogue and stealing the suit (or even getting a bad case of PTSD)? People stealing high tech and setting themselves up as supercriminals happens all the time in the comics, so you might guess that the military would be wary of giving any single soldier that kind of readily transportable firepower. 5. The inventor is a genius and the simple fact is that no one else has figured out how to do what he did, or at least as well as he did it. The inventor could have any number of reasons for not widely distributing the technology, from a concern of the technology falling into the wrong hands to simply being too busy inventing to bother with some kind of business plan to do so.