clnicholsusa

35 minutes ago, Old Man said:

 

Shirley, though I can barely remember which is which.

 

 

Bath or shower.

Somehow, mentioning Laverne or Shirley in the same breath as bath or shower gives me the willys. I'll go with shower so no one can throw an energized toaster in with me.

Then, which willy do we see, Free or Wonka?

Well, that was odd.

Pennywise for Tim Curry's sake.

What do you want to see, The Rocky Horror Picture Show or Legend?

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Not everyone uses it even in 6th, and not every one uses 6th.  But you can extend it further and just note it as a skill roll type: x or less as I noted, which is a tip and an alternate way of presenting it, which helps new players.

I thought that method was an alternative to the skill roll type of attack roll, i.e. 11 + OCV - DCV is the target number for the roll.

The alternative IS simpler, and I only use this method when I want the amount the attack is made by to be a modifier to the hit location roll that follows (sometimes things get a little grainy).

Base is a good word, let's say I 'based' these NPC's on television characters. I started a campaign as "street level", but it lasted long enough to outgrow that. This campaign included, at various times:

• The gang of thieves using code names Top Cat, Benny the Ball, Choo Choo, Brain, Fancy-Fancy, and Spook.
• The medical examiner, Dr. Quincy, who was always crusading about some social issue.
• The Wonder Dog and his hench-people, Wendy and Marvin.
• A group of villainous aliens that finished out the campaign included Zok, Igoo, Tundro, Gloop, and Gleep.

Yeah, those characters were 'based on' television characters, yeah, let's call it that.

On 3/15/2018 at 4:00 PM, slikmar said:

So, who is the woman in both pictures in the background?

It's American politics, the woman kept in the background would be the goddess Veritas.

A strange screech emanates from the ceiling vent above my desk, my colleague says, "did you hear that?"

I responded, automatically, "yeah, what was it telling you to do?"

My struggle, now, is to figure out where that came from.

Just watched The Monkey King 3.

Yes, I did enjoy it, though not as much as 1 and 2. Still waiting to check out Monkey from the library.

5 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

Asteroid Airburst because it doesn't have lava.

 

 

Lana Turner or Ginger Rogers

Lana Turner, unless we're discussing dance, then it would be Tina. Speaking of dance,

Two Step vs Scottish Sword

3 hours ago, Watchman Mk. IV said:

 

In the particular scenario presented, the AP have to be divisible by four to avoid rounding.

 

 

Not the way it works.  The points drained are absolute; they're split between the powers, so Character A would lose one-and-a-quarter AP (rounded to one) from each power in your scenario.

Really! No wonder I see so many characters with every possible power marked as 'Unified'. If that's how it works, it shouldn't be a limitation; or isn't it obvious that, in that scenario, placing four powers into a 'unified powers' list is effectively giving each of them 75% Adjustment Reduction?

10 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Actually, this is an issue with Unified Power.

 

Which is more limiting:

 

(a) eight powers which are all drained whenever any one is?

(b) two sets of four powers, with each group drained whenever any power in that group is, but not when powers in the other group are?

(c) four sets of two powers each, with each power drained whenever its paired power is, but not when powers in the other pairs are?

 

The likelihood of any individual power being drained rises the more powers are Unified, yet the limitation does not. 

 

As I noted, point values for options 2 and 3 would need to be assessed.  Maybe the limitation should be on the other powers (for being drained whenever the Inherent power would be drained).

 

Or maybe the player should just take a Complication - "Susceptibility:  These Powers subject to negative Adjustment when a negative Adjustment targets the inherent power"

I'm not sure this is much of an issue. The fact that one build seems to get more 'bang for the buck' than another is endemic to the flexibility of the system. To be honest, I'm not happy with the whole 'unified powers' thing, anyway. I've tried to incorporate drains of one sort or another in all the characters I make just for that nice surprise when my little 2d6 END drain depowers all the abilities in the Evil Iron Monger's power suit. Unless EIM has been allowed to declare all the abilities Inherent because they're part of the suit's nature.

Which, of course, would be an issue.

47 minutes ago, Badger said:

Fishing, I guess

 

We have made alien discovery, Our fate?

 

genocide, to prepare for extraterrestrial terraforming vs We be livestock

 

 

We Be Livestock because the difference is a breeding program

But, as to the discovery, who's in charge?

           Grays vs Reptilians

22 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Why do the wings have to shrivel up and go away?  The Drain could simply make them so weak they cannot be used for any purpose, or remove their connection to the brain, so they cannot be directed and hang limp.  They are still there, but the power is Drained.

No reason, I just like the visual.

2 hours ago, indy523 said:

 

While as a GM you have the right to rule that way and perhaps that is correct, I am not sure.

 

What I suggest to you is that no player would ever buy the inherent advantage in that fashion because it would be a waster of 25% of the base cost in points.  If the power can be drained by affecting other powers then the advantage has no real benefit.

 

Personally I would not allow this for the same reason other advantages and limitations that are at odds are not allowed.  IF you have Life Support Do Not Need to Breathe you are barred from having the complication 2x damage from suffocation.  By clever manipulation of limitations and advantages a savvy player could probably find a way to avoid the UP limitation by that.  But that's just me.

Perhaps Inherent + Unified together become something different. Unified as a limitation must have some affect or would not be allowed (unless as a +0 limitation). Inherent as an advantage must have some affect or would not be allowed (unless as a +0 advantage). Applying Unified to a power eliminates advantages from Inherent, and applying Inherent to a power eliminates disadvantages from Unified; the two modifiers applied together wouldn't change the cost of the power they were applied to, but could define the nature of that power's relationship to other powers in the build.
An alien birdman might apply both modifiers (as +0 advantage/limitation) to Extra Limbs (Wings), and then apply Unified to the flight, HA (wing buffet), EB (wind burst), and resistant protection (wing shield). If some adjustment power with appopriate SFX were to target one of the unified powers, it would affect all of the unified powers with the exception of the Extra Limbs, because the wings are inherent and won't shrink away and vanish.
An winged mutant might have an almost identical build, but leave inherent off the Extra Limbs (Wings). If some adjustment power with appopriate SFX were to target one of the unified powers, it would affect all of the unified powers and the wings would shrivel up and go away.
The alien birdman would be more expensive build than the mutant (by a few points). The two character's differing reactions to the adjustment powers would be logical, and inherent would make sense as the difference between the two.

Would the OCV penalties for a multiple attack continue to be imposed on a block maneuver in the following phase, assuming the character in question aborted to block? Or should this be an instance where a character is not allowed to abort as it could be seen as 'resetting' the CV?

Teleporting someone high into the air with the intent of allowing gravity to do the damage is not extremely cheesy. It has a nice visual feel, and tends to be a cheap way to cause dramatic tension, but it's not efficient or effective. On the other hand, true cheese can be obtained with the same concept:

To the Deepest Ocean With Ye!:(Total: 43 Active Cost, 43 Real Cost) Teleportation 8m, Safe Aquatic Teleport, Usable By Other (+1/2), Grantor pays the END whenever the power is used, Grantor controls the power totally, MegaScale (1m = 1,000 km; +1 3/4) (42 Active Points) (Real Cost: 42) plus Teleportation: Fixed Location (1 Locations, bottom of the Marianis Trench) (Real Cost: 1)

Of note, the earth's diameter is about 8000 km, so, for 22 points you can teleport anywhere on the planet.

It DOES require a full phase to utilize the power, so it's not going to be anyone's first attack. However, it certainly seems more lethal than its point total indicates.

He could be called Folk Art... unless his given name is actually Arthur, that could get confusing.

Assuming the advancement is normal (per XP added to the character as CP), then wouldn't it be logical to allow the character to create an addendum to the current power with the CP's, and thereby amp it up or move it sideways in the same way a 'spell tree' or 'skill tree' would?

In other words, if Joe the Wizard has spent three CP's for a 'Candle Blast' spell to start with:

Candle Spray:  Blast 2d6, Area Of Effect Nonselective (16m Cone; +1/4) (12 Active Points); 1 Recoverable Charge (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances; completely consumes a candle, a new one must be specially prepared out of combat; -1 1/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; some sort of magic skill; -1/2), No Range (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

Wouldn't Joe the Wizard then have the option of either spending two CP's to increase the power of the Candle Blast

Candle Spray:  Blast 3d6, Area Of Effect Nonselective (16m Cone; +1/4) (19 Active Points); 1 Recoverable Charge (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances; completely consumes a candle, a new one must be specially prepared out of combat; -1 1/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; some sort of magic skill; -1/2), No Range (-1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

or spend two points to convert it into a Fire Ball spell or waiting to get 5 CP's for a Fire Ball spell (thereby giving him the option of using both)?

Fire Ball:  Blast 2d6, Area Of Effect Nonselective (16m Radius; +1/2) (15 Active Points); 1 Recoverable Charge (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances; completely consumes a ball of sulfur, which must be retrieved from the sulfur store; -1 1/4), Requires A Roll (Skill roll; some sort of magic skill; -1/2), Gestures (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4)

In other words, allowing a player to work through their upgrades in a logical fashion would impose a decision process similar to that of a 'skill tree' or 'spell tree'. Perhaps the question is not whether the skills or spells would advance in a 'tree' fashion, but whether or not the GM could see the shape of the branches before they're grown.