Oruncrest

Entangle is ordinarily an Instant Power with continuing effect, so the Entangle would remain even when the points are switched elsewhere, unless the Entangle is built to require some kind of maintenance through END cost or otherwise. 

And then PETA joined Child Protective Services as hunteds for the man of Ass.

Not sure if any of you watch Critical Role, but the fan art from that weekly D&D game is some of the best. 
 
Here's an artist's interpretation of Vox Machina's druid and rogue doing their best Barda and Scott Free Impression. Her smile just makes me giggle.

1. Trump's ban went after legals. People who'd been vetted and had green cards. That's not the same as deporting Illegals. That's rounding up Foreigners.
2. Clinton's sex scandals and Trumps sex scandals aren't different. They both show signs of men of power treating women like objects. Clinton's cigar antics however were - as far as we know, consensual where as Trump bragged about sexual assault. Both have been accused of the latter and both are poor examples of humanity. Trump is looking to further the GOP backed initiative of telling women how to reproduce so that's something more than Clinton ever did to women. 
3. so both sides do the same thing, and? Is it only wrong with the other side does it? Because the same people angry now for the Lefts actions were doing the same on the right an this isn't even an argument. It's just noting that the ability so say the exact opposite thing you did when the tables were turned is a political tactic long used by both sides.
4. Yates was doing her job. She was following the constitution. Clinton was doing her job she was a defense attorney. Yates's job is not to do what the President Demands. Which is what Senator Sessions questioned her about during her confirmation hearings in 2015. She was asked if she could do her job despite pressure from the President (At that time the other team) to do otherwise.

Ok let's try this again. Both have been accused by women of sexually assaulting them. Neither has been found guilty. Clinton had an Affair with an Intern. Trump has had affairs while married. He has 5 children with three women. 
 
So "One actually Did it" isn't accurate, as Clinton's sex scandal wasn't assault. I will be the first to admit Trump might have been bragging while he had nothing to go on...it seems to fit his profile as a prolific liar. But Both have been accused by multiple women neither has been found guilty. 
 
So your statement is incorrect. But both men are horrible champions of fidelity. 
 
 
Second, you're correct. And it was my fault for lumping all of women's health issues into "Choice." So let me correct my misstatement and expand on the issue. The Right to Choose isn't the only issue here. It's more broadly an issue of women's health as well as reproductive rights. Planned Parenthood which may or may not be under fire spends 0 federal funds on Abortion. They are not allowed to. [http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/] so removing their funding does nothing to stop the 3% of their operating costs that goes to abortion service; rather the 97% that goes to testing, screening, birth control, and STI/STD testing and treatment, and Vasectomy procedures. The largest portion of their clients are the young and the poor. Who don't have a wealth (get it?) of care options even if they want to have children they rely on Planned Parenthood for prenatal care. 
 
The Gag Order Reinstated by Trump prevents American funding for any health organizations that provide abortion information (not even abortions, just information) on an international level. So any health organizations that deal with women's services can't receive funding from the US.. Which means that such services will be less able to provide the afore mentioned screening, prenatal, post natal, pediatrics, testing, screening, contraception, and STD/STI services. 
 
This isn't about women "taking responsibility for getting their bits out." (There is some of that, of course. Abortion rates go down when contraception is available, however. Which in your over-simplified drinking analogy is calling a cab after having a few too many.) It's about women dying from treatable cancers and suffering from STD/STI and passing that on to men, it's about starting out families who don't have the money or soon the insurance to ensure healthy children. 
 
For some reason; allowing women, particularly young and poor women, to have some sort of agency in their reproductive rights beyond "No Sex for me, thanks." is an anathema to some people. 

Japanese Airforce Pilot and her Manga Portrait decal.
 

I would have reacted to his original question of how much of a limitation is appropriate to ask for but since he'd already gotten advice on that and he had already gotten a response from his GM, I didn't see a point in chiming in on that aspect of the conversation.
 
For clarity's sake, I was reacting to his statement of, "We won the fight, but the mentalist got away, so my character's power is growing/adapting itself to fight the last fight, in the grand tradition of militaries everywhere.  I do expect to encounter the mentalist again, likely soon."
 
It might be a grand tradition of militaries everywhere but it isn't a grand tradition in my Champions games. I deliberately try to not turn my Champions games into an arms race between players and the GM. I mean it's fine if the players and GM want to take a few baby steps down that slippery slope in their game. But I also don't see any problem with pointing out that it is a slippery slope. We're having conversations about the HERO system and its applications in actually playing games. And frankly, Panpiper was the one who brought up his motivations for asking the question so I don't see why you should be flummoxed if we politely discuss his motivations and whether we think it's a good idea for the GM to grant his request.  
 
 
Now I'll go out on a limb and get controversial
 
I understand the motivation: he didn't find the encounter to be fun so he's spending character points to try to keep the next gaming session against that opponent from not being fun as well.
 
But frankly as an outside observer, the game not being fun is something better addressed by a conversation between the player and the GM about how much he didn't find the session to be fun rather than spending character points to specifically protect himself from a future gaming session not being fun. 
 
If a GM sees a player feeling he has to spend character points in order to protect himself from having future gaming sessions not be fun, that should be a big red flag to the GM. A GM should use a villain very sparingly when having that one villain appear is irksome to the player(s).
 
If it were the GM asking the question of how to handle it, I'd recommend finishing out the story arc but have the villain primarily use his other powers and use hirelings of various sorts so various players aren't sitting there for 15-20 minutes at a time with nothing to do because the villain has a highly effective (remove player from the game) attack that he uses over and over.
 
A GM can always build a villain who is massively "unfair" or massively un-fun to play against. Or have the villains always behave in a massively un-fun manner (like the GM who has every villain turn every encounter into a hostage situation). A player shouldn't have to spend character point to counter the un-fun parts of the game...and the GM shouldn't make him feel obligated to do so.
 
 
Now to give some completely unsolicited advice:
 
I've had a couple of heroes built with "Hates mentalists" or "Hates enemy mentalists" which gives a convenient excuse for the character to work to develop mental defenses. That "drawback" also tends to give you an excuse to disobey of Mind Control commands easier and an excuse for targeting enemy mentalists first. If you don't like losing control of your character from time to time, I highly recommend that psych complication. It's also easier to work that into roleplaying than many other complications so enjoy it when you get the opportunity.
 
In general, if you get a second crack at some villain and you know it's going to happen, I'm a big fan preparing to kick the guy's butt. Have the team gadgeteer whip up something to flash the villain's targeting senses. Have everyone on your team target the enemy mentalist during the first phase, even if it isn't convenient. Use some detective work to track him down and ambush him when he isn't ready and isn't with his team. You don't have to play fair: the guy's a mentalist after all.

Seems like a reasonable thing to discuss.
 
Let's play!  
 
 
 
Before starting, I'd like to point out that "completely dislike" and "will not play" are two different levels of rejection, and the subject you're leading with is a great example of that.
 
My own players, at least the majority, _dislike_ a game where PCs get capture (with some "buts" here and there), though they _will_ play in them.
 
What they don't mind at all is when a capture is integral to the plot-- not when it's just something that happened, and now they have to sit on their rear ends until something happens to get them sprung.  They enjoy having to figure out there own escape, etc, etc.  They have never minded it when _the party_ gets captured.  They absolutely _detest_ when one or two of them gets captured.  It's weird to me that while they will endlessly split the party regardless of how difficult that makes things on me, having the party split forcibly drives them into wild fits of paranoia.  Beyond that, there is the issue of one player or subgroup of players effectively "not playing" while I work with the other group.  From the players' perspective, they've only got so much time available for the game tonight, and they are going to spend a chunk of it being "forced" to not play.
 
Oddly, this is _never_ a problem when they yell "Hey, let's break up into little groups and run all over the map for the next eight sessions!"  It's only a problem when it is something that _happens to them_.
 
Yeah; from the GM's chair, it's one of the more annoying double-standards.
 
 
 
 
 
 
[Lumped them both together since they are essentially the same in-game problem]
 
I couldn't answer about their refusal, but I can tell you they don't like too terribly much of it.  Fortunately, they don't get too terribly much of it, because this GM does refuse to play in such a game.   I mean, I've done it-- and let me stress:  SPARINGLY-- over the years, as a call back to this or that plot or character, but at the end of the day, Arkham Asylum is stupid.  They should build a new asylum-- one with like... walls or something.   The major difference between an RPG and a comic book is that comic books, for whatever reason, are like action movies:  the status quo must be maintained at all times.  The popular characters must be the characters we work with most regularly.  Thus, the Joker walks through the front doors of Arkham Asylum, realizes that the wall with that door is the only actual wall on the property, so he just keeps walking until he gets home.  That way, the audience gets to see the super-popular Joker all over again in a few more issues.
 
It's stupid in an RPG.   First, in an RPG, there is no audience.  Seriously-- if they can't show up to watch us play, screw 'em.  They don't get a say in what characters we have to play with.  The players, as the characters, put a lot of work and a lot of effort into finding, tracking down, and thwarting the villain.  Maybe we even played out a trial; who knows?!  Perhaps the villain has tormented them for months worth of sessions, and even attacked their loved ones or private lives.  When the moment comes that the PCs are able to finally defeat and capture that villain, it is _glorious_, and it is an occasion for celebration and to savor victory.
 
So we should just let the Joker walk out through the missing walls and resume his crime spree, undercutting _everything_ the players have done for the past several months.   Sure?  Why not?  After all, this should get them really angry, and make them hate that villain even more, forcing them to redouble their efforts, so that when they capture him _again_, it should be even _more_ satisfying, right?  And you know what they would probably like even _more_?  Well, imagine if he was to escape yet again!  Ho-yeah!  The players should be _thrilled_ thinking just how much better than the last time this third time should be, right?
 
Honestly, it usually ends up with a heel turn as one player finally decides to push his EGO to overcome his CVK, to the applause of the group.  He turns himself in to face punishment for his crime with a stoic pride that he has done what the justice system could not, and actually made the world a better place.  Then he makes a new character so that he can continue to adventure with his friends.
 
I've been on both sides of this:  player and GM.  As I said, once in a blue moon, as part of a larger, better story, it's not a deal-breaker.  However, there is no side of the screen from which the routinely recurring over-and-over again villain doesn't just totally suck butt.
 
 
 
 
This 
 
 
Never had that problem, either-- or rather, those problems (because "dislike" and "will not play" are, again, two different problems / levels of dissatisfaction).  No one likes to be in a situation where they can't "win" the scenario, but by and large, the players I've encountered tend to respect it when it happens: it shows intelligence and planning on the part of your villains, after all, and it's a pretty common element of adventure fiction as well, so....
 
But seriously.  The only negative feedback I've ever gotten from that is "Damn!  That _sucked_!  We've got to come up with contingencies for things like that!"  But even then, it's generally not hatefully received.
 
 
 
 
 
I've never encountered this personally, either.  I mean, I've used the whole "your friend is the bad guy / your friend works for the bad guy " thing a few times.  I try not to use it too much, or it loses it's surprise factor, and suddenly becomes the first place the PCs start looking.
 
I have heard horror stories from other players about GMs who have something like that in _every single adventure_, which I think is mind-numblingly bad as plot ideas go, and I have heard complaints from GMs who overuse this idea that their players have lost all interest in the various NPCs he throws at them and barely have interest in interacting with anyone from whom they can't buy supplies.
 
Can't say I don't know why, of course, but I'm more surprised that _he_ can't figure it out!  
 
 
 
 
 

Re: A DC Animated-style HeroMachine
 

 
Forget picnic baskets. This guy looks as if he snacks on tourists. And keeps the heads of rangers on his cave wall as trophies.

The real problem is that people are assigning special effects to a power and absolutely refusing to let people change it.
 
There is no game mechanic for an attack passing through a target and hitting someone behind them.  That doesn't exist.  So why are people trying to assign that penalty to a desolid character?

Steve Long wrote about Entangle variations in an issue of Digital HERO. One of the possible variants concerned using CON as the breakout characteristic instead of STR. HERO was still in 5th ed., but it should still work for 6th. Here's an example:
 
 
Another possibility is to use Change Environment (Stunning) with the long lasting adder:
 
 

That would be hilarious.  Hopefully they both end up skewered, and then you don't have to deal with morons with infinite Triggers anymore.
 
The thing with Triggers is that since 5th edition, they can get pretty expensive.  You have to pay extra for them to reset quickly.  I believe the auto-reset level is a +1 Advantage.  On an attack power (which is what most people are concerned about) that means you're paying a huge amount of points to get an attack that gets past defenses.  In a 12D6 game, a guy with a 6D6 infinite Trigger is just gonna blast through his own Endurance, and he's probably not going to hurt anybody with it.
 
Even if you don't enforce any kind of Active Point cap (so he can buy up the dice and get reduced end on it), that's still a huge amount of points that he's got to pay.  He's gonna have to cut points elsewhere to be able to afford it.

Nope. No subscriptions. It's nothing but a money grab.
 
If I buy Software 1.0, and it serves my purposes, I don't need or want anything more. IF and when I find it lacking, I can *choose* to pay for an upgrade (Software 1.1 now with flavor!) or a whole new iteration (Software 2.0). But I'm NOT going to pay a monthly or annual subscription just to maintain access to a product I bought.

I grew up in Scotland, sunlight was at a premium...

I'd use Tunneling, with the Limitation/Special Effect that it only works on existing doors/windows/gates/etc. Whenever you want to go thru a door, hey--it's unlocked! How conveeeeeenient. Then I can close it behind me (the "fill in behind" option for Tunneling) and my pursuers can't follow me.

Massey misspoke. A CON Roll is made to determine if the target is stunned.
 
HERO System Advanced Player’s Guide, pg 83:
 

Massey misspoke. A CON Roll is made to determine if the target is stunned.
 
HERO System Advanced Player’s Guide, pg 83:
 

In The HERO System Almanac, the Average Soldier was given a PRE of 10, with the text specifying that the extra point came from 'an improved self-image and experience with acting under pressure'.
 
If the idea of an Average Human having Primaries of 8 took hod around this time then a Genocide Rook having a PRE of 10 doesn't seem so unreasonable...

[Adam West voice]You're endangering my cover, old chum![/Adam West voice]

When adapting IHA to different campaigns, it may be useful also to the role of mutants. As mentioned, Marvel uses mutants as a metaphor for socially disfavored minorities. (I would debate the appropriateness of Marvel’s execution, but that’s not relevant here.) Or as LL mentions, mutants can represent the fear of hidden Otherness, especially in one’s own children. (From what I’ve seen of very early X-Men, I actually think this “atomic horror” aspect was more the original intended meaning.) But those are not the only possibilities, and what you choose can influence how you treat IHA – including the very important matter of who funds it. Maybe it’s my own prejudice, but I think that whatever their prejudices, people with big money tend to be rather calculating in the causes they support.
 
Let’s start by looking at the big-name mutant villains of the CU. Three of them (Graviton, Holocaust, Menton) are white people from privileged backgrounds. Not exactly great stand-ins for oppressed minorities. (Okay, I’m guessing about Holocaust’s race. His 5e and 6e write-ups don’t say. Geoffrey Haganstone, son of a Pennsylvania senator and his socialite wife, is not provably white. But that seems most likely.)
 
But they are excellent characters for a theme of “Born To Power.” In this treatment, mutants are not as new as people think. Past mutants used their powers to become rich and socially prominent, and their descendents inherited that social status as well as a chance of developing super-powers. The model for mutant villainy is less Brotherhood of Evil Mutants and more Hellfire Club: Many of the world’s mutants act covertly to protect and increase their wealth and power, as their ancestors have done for generations.
 
(See also the classic Champions module, The Blood and Dr. McQuark. The Blood are exactly the sort of super-powered lineage I’m talking about, albeit of different origin.)
 
The rate of superhuman mutation is greater now; increasing numbers of mutants appear outside the old families and knowing nothing about them. For the general public, the paradigm for “mutant” is the teen whose suddenly-activated mutant powers cause havoc. But some people know differently. And some of those people fund IHA.
 
The backers of IHA are very rich, but they have seen some avenues of social power closed to them. They found there’s more than old money behind the business and political dynasties that balk them: Those dynasties have powers that these nouveau-riche entrepreneurs, financiers and politicians can never gain. And they hate it. IHA is their weapon against the mutant dynasties. Attacking some shmoe who used his pyrokinesis to rescue someone is only a means to an end. The battles against mutants who go public, whether hero or villain, are just practice for the real battle when the soldiers and Minuteman robots descend on the Hamptons, the artificial islands of Dubai, and other haunts of the super-rich and the hidden mutant aristocracy.
 
There's one different spin on the IHA. Let's see some more.
 
Dean Shomshak
 

I'm in the "old adventures" camp myself.  Even though they are fairly compatible, they are out of print and difficult to find.  New editions specifically for the latest version of Hero would make it much, much easier for Champions GMs to get a game started.  Game companies claim that modules don't sell enough to be worth their while but that's a fallacy: its not very easy to play your game if all you have are rules.
 
Plus: once everyone has bought the rules that are going to, your revenue stream stops.  Adventures are a continual source of money that you can keep publishing.  And unlike "splat books" they don't tend to ruin the game or turn into crass exploitation.  People like modules.  Even if they never run modules, they collect 'em.

So we've got one vote from Duke to have CLOWN updated...

"A man is known by his enemies. My greatest foe was the superhero Dr. Stalwart. An intellectual giant among ungrateful dwarfs, he never took his full due from the bleating population he saved time and time again. His own studies in bio chemistry allowed him strength to match his intellect, a boost that lasted for days. I enjoyed our little contests of genius and power. The few times I had him at my mercy, and they were embarrassingly few,  I found myself either sparing him so I might gloat or else arranging a 'death trap' to test his resourcefulness. It was a test he always managed to pass. I see now that I savored the hunt more than the trophy, the contest more than the prize. Let puerile jokes about my mental state commence, but you will hear me out. Dr. Stalwart did not die by my hand. He did not die saving lives in some natural catastrophe. No, he was outed a facial recognition program for the government's new classification program funded by the government set up by a corporation and lastly, leaked by some greedy intern who sold the information to a shady news source. This forced him to retire last week for the good of friends and families... and under legal pressures. I am sure many of you delighted in your rush of dirty laundry. Last night, in the news, his death was finally reported. He was killed by two junkies hoping he still had access to his treatments thinking it would be a 'super high'. Killed in his sleep. Killed.In.His.Sleep."
 
The screen flickered, showing two figures scrambling through a large technomaze chased by winding mechanical arms with electrified tips.
 
"If either or both of these men survive, I will help them go cold turkey in a rehabilitation program under my tender care. I suspect it won't come to that. The government official who took the campaign money from the company that wanted the Facial Recognition program contract was in good health and did not last long. The lobbyist for the company and five of its stock holders died even quicker. And the reporter , well, I have something special planned for him. Don't misunderstand, each of these death traps has a way out. I made sure of that. But you'd need the intellect and courage of a man like Dr. Stalwart to find them. They won't. And I realize that worthy foes will be a vanishing breed soon, unless I do something. So? I have. By now, superheroes all over the country, and soon the world, will be receiving the schematics and samples of my Cryptomask Technology. The brilliant among them will be able to reverse engineer it. Others? Well, I did what I could to match their preferences. It's not a trap. It's not a trick. Consider it a sign of respect from a dragon to knights in a world full of grubby peasants. Why you care for them,  I will never know, but at least you will be spared the envious mobs torchlight shoved into your faces. Cryptomask will superimpose false faces on photographs, cameras, digital and otherwise. Thus rendering them all useless. You can set it to blank if you like, but currently, the device imposes the face of Frank Jeffries aka Dr. Stalwart, my enemy, my rival, and the only person on this planet I respected. I am retiring save to keep making sure the technology of anonymity outraces that of identification. Monsters are meant to fall to heroes and vice versa. It is only fitting that when the rabble try to peel back the helm they see the face of the man they murdered through their envy. Now, for your viewing pleasure, let's see if these two men surprise me."
 
Sounds of screams as one of the junkies clearly does not make it.
 
June 2013, all channels overridden by the villainous mastermind Master Apep