JamesG

Hello,

I have some questions regarding how a Martial Arts Maneuver that combined both Strike and Escape would work. Using the rules in UMA, it is possible to build something like this:

Reversal Strike - +0 OCV, +0 DCV, +10 STR vs. Grabs, +2d6 Strike – 4 points

1) Would the strike take place if the attacker failed to break the grab he is being held in? Or is breaking the grab a prerequisite for launching the strike?

2) Assuming the strike can be attempted whether or not the escape succeeds, does it matter which order the two are attempted? Or is that determined by the special effects of the maneuver?

3) If a character with this maneuver buys extra H-to-H Damage Classes with his martial art, do they increase both the STR to break the grab and the damage of the strike, or only one of the two? If only one, is that determined when the maneuver is purchased, or can it switch between the two as it is used?

Thanks.

Hi,

The rules state that a character that buys Combat Driving, Combat Piloting, or Riding is entitled to a free 1 point Transport Familiarity of the appropriate type.

But what if instead the character buys a TF category; is the cost of the category reduced from 2 points to 1 point?

For instance, say a character bought Combat Driving and TF: Common Motorized Ground Vehicles. Does the TF cost 1 or 2 points?

Thanks.

Hi,

I was wondering, in the official 5th ed. Champions Universe setting, are Demons and Devils considered part of “Human” Class of Minds in regards to Mental Powers, or are they part of the “Alien” Class. I’m thinking that since they are tied to human beliefs they would be part of the “Human” Class, while the “Alien” class is reserved for really ‘different’ minds like the Kings of Edom. But I’d like to know the “official” stance on this.

And does the answer for Demons/Devils also apply to ‘gods’ such as Thor, Apollo, etc?

Thank you.

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

Pardon the OT' date=' but nice to see you around, James.[/quote']

 

Ummm, thanks, but I think you may be confusing me with another James G... (James Gillen perhaps).

 

If not, then double thanks!

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

Phil's model keeps average BOD the same' date=' bit does lower the average stun. If you wanted a system where average STUN is closer to the current model, the closest I think you can get is to add STUN normally, then subtract 1 STUN for every 3d6 of attack, to get an average of 9.5 per 15 AP, versus the present 9 1/3, a minor increase to average Stun.[/quote']

 

Hmm, or you could do -1 stun per 2d6, for an average of 9 stun per 15 AP. Slightly lower than the regular average of 9.33, but not dramatically so. And dividing by 2 on the fly is easier than 3.

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

I'm wondering why you don't just give a bonus body for 6s and treat 1-5 as 1 body.

 

It's almost the same thing, averages the same as above and eliminates a step.

Because doing it that way creates a high "floor". For instance, with 30 AP (6 dice) you would ALWAYS do at least 6 Body. If you do it the suggested way (no Body on 1, 2 Body on 5 and 6) you can have results lower than 6 Body.

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

I may not have been completely clear: I meant to *keep* the minimum 1 STUN per die. In this case the averages are exactly the same. If you don't keep the minimum 1 STUN/d6' date=' you get the same averages that you'd have if you let the STUNx for a regular KA to be 0.[/quote']

 

I don't get what you are saying here. Can you please elaborate? Going back to your original post, are you saying "Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die with a minimum of 1 per die". (bold added by me)

 

This only raises the average stun for 30 AP from 15 to 16. Still short of the 18.67 avg stun that 30 AP of standard KA does.

 

Or am I totally misunderstanding you?

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

I've toyed with the idea of doing something similar' date=' however: Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die, and both 5's and 6's count as 2 BODY damage, rather than just 6's. This gives the exact same average results as the standard rules, while eliminating the STUN lotto. (We've discussed this before, you can search the boards for a more complete discussion.)[/quote']

 

I've toyed with this idea as well, but the averages are not exactly the same. The average stun is significantly less using this method. For instance:

 

30 AP of normal damage
6 Body avg
21 Stun avg

30 AP of standard KA
7 Body avg
2.67 avg Stun Mult
18.67 Stun avg

30 AP of Modified KA (6d6-6 for STUN, bonus BODY on 5,6; no BODY on 1.)
7 Body Avg
15 Stun Avg

 

It still may be workable, as a way to eliminate the stun lotto, but I'm concerned it goes too far the other way, hosing KAs.

Re: Force Wall Modification

No Range Force Wall

Defenses that protect the person with the power and anyone (or anything) else that is behind the Force Wall. The Force Wall must appear in the hex with the person who generated the Force Wall. Can Englobe others along with the person who generated the Force Wall.

I would also allow a No Rangle Force Wall to englobe an enemy right next to the Waller, without the Waller also needing to be inside the FW. Similar to the way some No Range area effect attack powers do not attack the user.

Basically as long as some part of the FoWa is at "No Range" it's OK. So if someone had a 6" by 1" No Range FoWa, they could make a Wall stretching out 6" as long as one end point was adjacent to him.

The FAQ talks about how you can simulate an EC slot using a -1/4 Limitation:

Q: If a character wants powers outside his EC (whether in another Power Framework or otherwise) to be affected by negative Adjustment Powers (Drains and the like) as if they were in the EC (to represent a linkage of the overall special effects of his powers), how can he buy that?

 

A: To simulate this sort of linkage, take this Limitation on all relevant powers outside the EC: Affected By Negative Adjustment Powers Used On [Name] EC (-1/4).

Just to clarify, if a power has this limitation is it subject to BOTH the "doubling effect" and the "adjust one, adjust them all" drawbacks of ECs?

Thanks.

Re: Force Wall Modification

Apparently, the policy is such that supplements are supposed to follow the core rules. I'm very glad to hear that I was wrong. (8^D)

 

It never made sense to me for them to not enforce the rules on the supplements. (8^D)

Yeah, it didn't make much sense to me either, but you started to have me worried. Glad we got that settled!

Re: Force Wall Modification

It was in a private email I had with him. I was asking about a character writeup in one of the supplements that had built one of the powers in way that the core rules forbid. He answered as I stated above.

 

I've heard he's also stated somewhere in the Rules section, but I can't say for sure.

 

- Christopher Mullins

I know you've already seen it, but for others who have been following this thread, see here where Steve Long says that the material in the supplements (other than Digital Hero) CAN generally be considered book legal:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50185

And Chistopher, regarding your followup at http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50201

There are certail rules restrictions in the Hero 5th Edition Revised.

Examples:

Astral Projection must be built with Duplication.

Dispel may not affect characteristics.

 

Is it possible for supplements to contain builds such that Astral Projection is built with power other than Duplication, or a Dispel that built vs a characteristic?

The 5ER rules don't say that Astral Projection MUST be used built with Duplication, at least that I can find. It merely uses Duplication as an example of one way to build an Astral Form. One way, not the only way.

5ER does forbid the use of Dispel for Characteristics. What supplement violated this rule? I'd like to check it out. Thanks.

Are the Power Builds in various books published by DOJ (such as Ultimate books, Genre books, etc.) considered book legal? I had always assumed I could use the samples in the books as a reliable guide for legal Limitation usage and value, etc.

But I’ve recently heard that rules restrictions, other than AP/RP cost calculations, are not enforced in books other than the core 5ER book itself. Hence the other books can not be relied upon as a source of “book legal” builds. Is this accurate?

PS – I know that material Digital Hero is not checked for legality. My question refers to the actual published books.

Re: Force Wall Modification

Unfortunately, the supplements can't be used as evidence for "book legal" builds, since Steve Long says that he won't enforce any rules restrictions beyond AP and Cost Calculations. So, just because you can find a build in a supplement done a certain way, it doesn't mean it is "book legal" via the Hero 5th Edition Revised set of rules.

 

Just A Clarification

 

- Christopher Mullins

Can you provide a link to where Mr. Long said this? I know that we can not depend on Digital Hero for "book legal" builds, but I have always been under the impression that the actual books published by DOJ included "book legal" power builds. With the exception of the occasional mistake/typo etc, of course.

Re: Force Wall Modification

Sean and I cross-posted, but I just looked something up. Page 70 of the Ultimate Brick includes a sample build of a FoWa with both "no range" and "self only". One of the variants of the Bulletproof power.

So it is legal to take both on the same power.

Actually that sample power also includes an additional -1/4 lim that the FoWa has a restricted shape (always surrounds char and conforms to his body). I would argue that this limitation DOES double dip with self only. But "officially" it is legit.

Re: Force Wall Modification

Its not *totally* double dipping, since Force Wall by default is a one-hex barrier. No Range means you can't project it anywhere but touchrange. Self Only means you can't use it to shield anyone except yourself, even if they are in touch range.

 

OTOH, it is a tad questionable.

I don't even find it questionable personally. With "No Range" you could create a one hex FoWa right in front of you that protects you and the targets behind you from attacks launched from more or less in front of you. Once you add "self only" you can no longer protect others, so it is a significant additional reduction over "no range" alone, and is thus worth an additional limitation.

Also note that if you are doing a "no range, self only" FoWa, you probably want to make it 2" so you can englobe yourself. With "no range" but not "self only" you could use a 2" FoWa to englobe an enemy in hand-to-hand range. But with "self only" you can't englobe enemies. Another factor pointing to "self only" being worth an additional limitation on top of "no range".

Regarding your last answer, is that a "No" to both questions?

In other words, NNDs can not pass through normal barriers like walls, but they can pass through Force Walls, assuming the Force Wall does not have the defense that would stop the NND?

Hello,

I see from the FAQ that Aid and other Adjustment Powers can be used on objects as well as characters. But are there restrictions on the size of the object? I assume that an Adjustment Power can be used on any single target (within special effects reasonableness of course), whether that target is a simple sword or a huge Imperial Star Destroyer. But I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing a system like Usable on Others has whereby an Adjustment Power would need an Advantage to effect massive items.

Thanks.

Hi, I found a small error on the ARMOR COVERAGE TABLE in 5ER on page 488.

The third row has this entry:

Protects Locations: 10-13

Limitation (Value): 10- (-1¼)

Example: Cap, Long Vest

But I know a Cap protects location 5, so either the Protects Locations entry or the Examples entry is in error.

So my question is:

Should the Protects Locations entry be changed to 5, 10-13

OR

Should Cap be removed from the Example entry?

Thanks.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

In LL's game' date=' that works and I like that approach. As I understand the initial poster's house rule, ALL KA's will face the "no BOD inflicted means no STUN gets through" restriction. It is to that house rule that I direct the question of offsetting benefits to Swashbuckler (or restrictions/drawbacks to PAG).[/quote']

 

Hi, I'm also in the same game as CBikle and Thrakazog and it is myself and the main GM who are mostly pushing for the house rule in question.

 

Let me clear up a misconception here. The rule proposed, as mentioned in the first post in this thread, specifies that STUN done by KAs that don't do Body is halved. Not eliminated, but halved.

 

So KAs can still dish out PLENTY of stun on a good roll. Just not OVERWHELMING amounts of Stun to high defense targets.

 

And my PC (Musketeer) is the only one in the group who regularly uses a Killing Attack. Beleive me, I'm not pushing for a rule that will render my PC ineffective. I still expect Musketeer to be plenty effective. But now when we face the high defense master villains or Brick, our tactics will need to be a little more advanced than "Let Musketeer beat on him until he rolls a 6 on the stun multiple." Actually, if Musketeer gets a six on the stun multipler and an above average Body roll, he's still going to be dishing out about the same or more stun than the rest of the PCs and their normal damage attacks, even after the halving. But at least it won't be double (or more) everyone else's.

 

Also:

 

But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt, even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.

 

Your examples are flawed (IMHO). A mace off the helmet can cause a concussion. That's BODY damage. A bullet against a kevlar vest can crack ribs. That's BODY damage. Just because it does not pierce the flesh does not mean it's "no Body" in HERO terms. So I do not feel you've shown a real world example of a Killing Attack that does "no Body" but still does significant stun.

Re: Defense against Entangle

Really, the only people who seem to be bothered by it are some martial-artists and anyone who relies on accessable foci.

And even then, as long as they have an energy blaster on the team who can help out, the Entangle isn't much of a hinderance. It's so ridiculously easy to target an Entangle w/o risking damage to the person entangled, that in a team on team battle the average Entangle isn't going to be very effective.

Re: Teleport with trigger question.

I stand corrected on the timing:

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1065500#post1065500

I still think the character can choose distance/direction when the trigger goes off, but I doubt the player will want the power anymore given Steve's ruling.

Hi.

Situation:

A character has the Trigger advantage on a Defense or Movement power with the trigger defined as "When attacked by a melee attack".

Question:

Does the triggered power automatically activate before the attack action that triggered it can take effect? Or is there a Dex-off or something to determine if the attack gets to effect the character before the triggered power activates?

I had always assumed the triggered power automatically goes first, unless a limitation like "Requires an Opposed Skill Roll" or something was put on it.

Thanks for your time.

Re: Teleport with trigger question.

I'd allow the Triggered Teleport' date=' but just like a Delayed Phase used in response to another character's action there would be a Dex-vs.-Dex contest (the attacker could substitute a Fast Draw roll as usual, but the defender could not) to see whether the Trigger or the attack comes off first.[/quote']

 

That's not how trigger works, AFAIK. If the triggering condition is met, the trigger goes off. No opposed Dex-vs.-Dex needed.

 

Of course you could require the character building the reflexive t'port to add a "Requires an opposed Dex Roll" limitation to the power if you felt it would be too abusive otherwise.

Re: Teleport with trigger question.

This idea can be build legally' date=' but to use the Trigger option, you'd have to set a direction as well. Could suck if you were attacked facing the wrong direction near a cliff.[/quote']

 

I do not think this is true. Revised page 271 allows the character to choose the target of a triggered attack power under certian circumstances. If a target can be picked at time of triggering for an attack power, I don't see why the direction/distance of a movement power can't be picked at time of triggering as well.