Lairian

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) The real trouble here is that now you have to arbitrate somehow which were the dice in the attack that were "BOD only" or somesuch. Slows down game...

Re: Environmental Adaptation Couldn't "only within natural climate levels (-1)" cover this? Or is the intent to save a bit of ink?

Re: Hunted -- Everyone Is it just me, or does everyone else get visions of the Evil League of Evil picking up the character bodily to set him in a corner while clucking "naughty, naughty, naughty!" every time they see "mildly punish" on a hunted?

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) At least in the case of Damage Negation, you pretty much have to prorate for advantages. Consider a character, Alice, who bought a Penetrating Armor Piercing Indirect 6d6 attack. Her teammate Bob bought a 12d6 attack. Same active cost. Senior Sinister, Fashion Victimizer At Large, has 6 DC Damage Negation. Prorating this, it means Alice deals 3d6 Pen AP Ind (I believe Ind is on the list, not certain), and Bob deals 6d6. Seems good and fair. If you skip the prorating part, Bob rolls 6d6 for damage, but Alice gets to roll ZERO dice on her attack which is clearly designed to get around defenses as much as possible. tl;dr: Don't skip DN's prorating if you don't want REALLY cranky players.

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E)

Re: Hunted -- Everyone The question is, even if it is everyone on the world, does Vash the Stampede get to write down on this complication "More Powerful"?

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) This is a valid point and argument. My comparison to Resistant Defense was in the interest of keeping overall point expenditures going toward the same goals, namely that of stopping all incoming damage. Damage Negation is 100% applicable to incoming Killing Attacks (although demonstrably not efficiently), whereas a mix of Resistant and Nonresistant Defense is only somewhat applicable. In the lion's share of cases (namely not the BOD of killing attacks), you are correct in that a mix of rD and D will be more favorable than both straight Resistant Defense and Damage Negation. I'm...not following the Stun Damage you're providing, sadly. 2 chances at 1xBOD, 2 chances at 2xBOD, and 2 chances at 3xBOD, so (2x1 + 2x2 + 2x3)/6 = (2 + 4 + 6)/6 = 12/6 = 2. So average stun should be two times the bod dealt, or 3.5*2 per die, or 3.5*(2/3) per DC. Your assessment of rounding error (what I termed loss due to step graph functions) seems correct, and as you assert, division by 3 approximates nicely enough to not worry about (and as you note, worst case modeling is available for the skeptics as well).

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) It's the approach my damage sponges certainly will be taking (to the extent I worry about point crunching as GM). The "invisible" gain of Damage Negation to keep in mind is predictability. Resistant Defense does nothing to stop a glorious roll on the part of the attacker. Damage Negation, by dropping their dice, does by reducing their possible maximum.

Re: The SUPER Defense Power (6E) Actually, I've done a significant amount of math and spreadsheetery on this topic, and the conclusion is that you're better off (points-wise) buying resistant defenses in the lion's share of cases. Per 5 points, 1 DC of damage negation stops .17 stun more than resistant defense (remember, since dam. neg. picks physical or energy, we get to dump all the resistant defense into PD or ED). Damage Negation stops 1.83 more stun from a AP Normal attack per 5 points, and the same for AP Penetrating (step graphs, so similarity is not overly surprising). Against a straight Penetrating Normal attack, Damage Negation stops on average 3 stun LESS than resistant defense. Sounds good so far, right? Against a nonadvantaged normal attack, Resistant Defense stops 2.33 more bod than Damage Negation per 5 points. It stops .67 more against AP attacks than Damage Neg, and "significantly" more against penetrating attacks (2.33 and up...way up). Against AP Penetrating, resistant defense stops .67 more than damage negation in the worst case, and "significantly" more against lesser attacks. So for normal attacks, Damage Negation is notably better only against the stun of AP attacks. What about Killing Attacks, then? Against the stun of a killing attack, resistant defense will stop .996 more per 5 points than damage neg. when the attack is nonadvantaged, and in the worst case against penetrative you'll again hit .996. I'm unclear if you then trend toward "significant" gains for small attacks, as I'm unsure if penetrating BOD guarantees minimum stun as well. Against the stun of an AP killing attack, Damage Negation wins out by .996 stun per 5 points spent, and breaks even with resistant defense against AP Penetrating (it can be more, or less, or equivalent based on the step in the step graph). For the BOD of a killing attack, you will always be better off with resistant defense, to the tune of 2.16 per 5 points spend against unadvantaged, .503 against AP, "significantly" for penetrative (meaning unstable but climbing noticeably), and at least .503 for AP penetrating (minima cited because of step graph tomfoolery). In essence, against non-penetrative normal attack stun, and AP killing attack stun, Damage Negation is better. Against all other cases, pick Resistant Defense. I chose to use AP and Penetrating as advantages to explore because while 6E lists a number of advantages that "apply directly to dealing damage", these are the only ones that effect numbers. For all other advantages on that list, Damage Negation is punished, while Resistant Defense doesn't care (e.g. Area of Effect reduces Damage Negation's protection, unlike its effects on Resistant Defense). Wish I could upload the spreadsheet so you didn't have to "take word for it", since I know none of you will (or should!). It's all mathematically provable for non step graph functions, though, so for example... Normal Stun comparison: (stun reduction of D.N.) - (stun reduction of R.D.) = (extra from D.N.) 3.5 - (5/3)*2 = 3.5 - 3.33 ~= 0.167 AP Normal Stun: 3.5 - (5/3) = 3.5 - 1.67 = 1.83 Normal BOD: 1 - (5/3)*2 = 1 - 3.33 = -2.33 (e.g. D.N. comes out lacking by 2.33 points) Killing Stun: (evaluated at 15 points, rather than 5 as above) (3.5)*2 - (15/3)*2 = 7 - 10 = -3 (note that -3/3 = -1, but the number cited above in generalities section is not from this simplification, but a trend line set to a proper pip/half die/full die step function). Anyway, long story short, Damage Negation is really only stellar at Stun from Normal Attacks.

Re: Post "gotchas" here Mammal chucking is serious business.

Re: Post "gotchas" here In my mind a OAF PM Badger is acceptable only if it's the continuous uncontrolled ("wild", as previously abbreviated) variety. If my OAF continuous RKA was, say, a flamethrower with lasting burn, PM doesn't come into play; OAF already covers preventative violence to stop the attack. Once fired, you're on fire, and nothing you can really do. The badger OAF continuous RKA has an effect that really should be stoppable by violence after the fact: shooting the badger off your face. So, there is a PM to be attacked that limits the power. Just be careful not to cut off your nose to save your face.

Re: WOW! Stun drain in 6e Minor slight off-topic perhaps, but where is the citation for recovering 10cp per turn on Drain STUN / END instead of 5? I'm missing it somehow...

Re: The patriot I'd consider a character with absolutely no skills whatsoever more than "a little off".

Re: Idea about Dex Currently, combat order is a straight comparison of the two hostile gentlemens' DEX characteristics. Both gentlemen paid the same amount of points for each bit of their DEXes. Really for determining combat order, then, it doesn't matter if DEX is priced at 1, 2, or 20. Fair straight comparison. Really the low price only adds more granularity in exactly how large a gap in "initiative" there is in this gentleman's dual. Really, it doesn't matter how much faster than each other they are, just that one is faster, or neither are. The sticking point of course is that in "beating him to the punch", you pick up skill roll bonuses. Since so much of combat effects (figured characteristics) were decoupled from characteristics proper, this is an annoying place where it was not. I have no problem decoupling this as proposed here in my games, but honestly it's just as easy to make "DEX: only for phase order (-1)" and "DEX: only for skill use (-1)" commonplace.

Re: I killed a PC. Man, those sewers can be deadly. The first player I ever killed lost to them too. Anathema (party Healer/Aider/Blaster, with all squishiness that implies) and company go off to respond to a trio of eco-terrorist metamorphs rioting downtown. They find a Tyrannosaur wielding a warclub, a Brontosaur in war barding, and a Pterodactyl with underwing machine guns, all wearing "Fauna First!" tee shirts. Yes, this was a random comedy episode. The team engages the T-Rex first, but break off to stop the Bronto from smashing some high-rises (innocents screaming, etc). All the team but Anathema. T-Rex clubs him over the head, some fudging later and he's at 2 BOD and My Discretion Stun. He goes down into the sewer main through the street, PD preventing more BOD damage. He has no life support of any kind, the rest of the team blows perception rolls, nobody comes to haul him out. The player made me swear to in no way take back that death or resurrect him. He said the ability to tell the story of his superhero who drowned in poopy was too valuable to him.

Re: Post "gotchas" here 5e had Visible powers perceived by three sense groups (pg. 98). 6e has Obvious powers perceived by two sense groups (pg. 124).

Re: Whoops! Did I really allow that power? Desolidification (only versus knockback damage, persistant and all that goes with). He wanted his brick to be subject to knockback, but never actually harmed when thrown through walls/trashcans/pillars. Made for great cinema I'll admit, but it came up far, far more often than I anticipated.

Re: Gravitic Influences of a Neutronium Man As I said in HeroChat, more like Katamari Man after a few seconds.

Re: Sixth Edition Showcase #1: ACV And AVAD *wordless tears of overwhelming joy*

Re: Technomancer Perhaps an EC or the like with slots to represent different mechanical abilities in the concept? A TK (only to restrain Foci) legitimately can disable things others paid points for by leveraging their Limitations, for instance. As noted above, Summon may work (if hammered out ahead of time with your GM) to take control of non-owned technology. Turning off may be trickier, as it may have to be represented by a host of Suppresses.

Re: Force Field Is No Good? Well, HA xd6 (hand attack -1/2, ranged +1/2) vs EB seems to be two models of a ranged normal attack at the same cost, but HA allows STR, and so is "better" mechanical effect for points, but as you say, that's going away from the issue being looked at. I admit in hindsight KAs were an irrelevant example. My crux is that replacement of Powers with descriptive names limits accessibility to some degree, and should be kept in mind. Of course I wont argue that flavor should give points benefits, either. Ideally, there is a flavorless Power that PD, ED, Armor, Flash, etc. are based off of, and so you can arrive at any other like power through use of Limits and Advantages, and at equivalent cost. Whether this flavorless Power is published or not, the Powers "Force Field" and "Armor" have use if nothing else as a "Start Here!" point for new players.

Re: Force Field Is No Good? Generally, a good idea. Of course, by similar logic, we should be rolling EB and HA into one power (NA, or normal attack), and HKA and RKA into one as well (KA). Adders and Limitations then define which "flavor" of Defense, NA, and KA your character has. Begin with the abstract, and define entirely through Limits. I admit the last assertion was a half-goad and a risk of off-topic, but if we're going to remove any "flavorings" and presumptions on the utility of powers inherant in their naming, it should be universally applied. And doing so may not be a bad idea (in fact, I'm in favor of this). The main disadvantage in doing something of this nature is accessibility to new players. Its harder for a new player with no experience to go from "I want Hunter-Of-Criminals to wear super SWAT armor" to finding and modeling this via a combination of two powers (physical and energy defense) than to just look at the Powers list and say "Hey, look, Armor!". Similarly, a player generating Plasmid will have far more difficulty making the connection between "hurl a blob of superheated plasma" and Normal Attack (ranged +0) than "Energy Blast". tl;dr: abstraction is great for points, but remember descriptive names help new players, regardless of redundancy.

Re: Guidlines For Skill/Power Advancement Burning Wheel also requires failure. Specifically you need X successes and Y failures based on your current skill level. This has been house ruled into most of the games I run at this point, and I find it works well if you make X about 3*level and Y 2*level, Crayadder. YMMV.

Re: Speed Power Or apply Indirect (always in direction of target's current velocity).

Re: Seeking suggestions on speeding up the Hero System I find that giving all NPCs Standard Effect on all their powers (as was mentioned above) cut combat time down by over 50%. This can lead to unsatisfactory results with capital V Villains, as the players immediately in their heads start calculating numbers of hits they can take etc (thus wasting the time saved). Considering changing my definition of Standard Effect when in regards to Villians to [cannon Standard Effect + 3 - 1d6] for this reason.