JamesG

Markdoc, slikmar, Are the penalty systems you propose, based on the "type" or DEF of the armor, in addition to the existing encumbrance penalties, or a replacement for them? PS - Of my original suggestions, I'm leaning towards Version B, with an increase in the penalties for wearing heavier armor, or scrappng the idea entirely.

I’ve been thinking about a Limitation that light fighters, thieves, etc. could take on some of their abilities, to reflect the fact they can not perform those tasks as well if wearing heavy armor. The type of abilities I’m talking about include (but are no means limited to) Two Weapon Fighting, DCV combat levels, Clinging (special effect: advanced climbing skill), etc. Of course, no character would be required to take the limitation on any of these abilities. It is only intended for those whose particular technique is hindered by restrictive armor. I originally considered using these values (version A): No Armor at all: -1 Armor of DEF 2 or less: -3/4 Armor of DEF 4 or less: -1/2 Armor of DEF 6 or less: -1/4 I wasn’t sure if these values were too high, and came up with two ways to scale it back: Version B No Armor at all: -3/4 Armor of DEF 2 or less: -1/2 Armor of DEF 4 or less: -1/4 Version C No Armor at all: -3/4 Armor of DEF 3 or less: -1/2 Armor of DEF 6 or less: -1/4 Mechanically, the way it would work is pretty simple. As long as the user is wearing armor with a DEF rating equal or less than specified, his limited ability functions normally. For each point of DEF over, he suffers a –2 penalty to any skill rolls associated with the limited ability and/or a –1 to OCV and DCV. For instance, a PC with “Armor of DEF 4 or less†on his Two Weapon Fighting would be at –2 OCV and –2 DCV if he utilized the ability wearing DEF 6 Chain Mail. A player can choose not to use an ability at any time. Consider a PC with “Armor of DEF 4 or less†on his +2 DCV levels. Wearing DEF 5 armor, he’d be at –1 OCV and +1 DCV, if he chooses to use the 2 DCV levels. Wearing DEF 6 armor, the –2 DCV penalty totally counteracts the skill levels, so the player would never have a reason to want to use them. Note that all these penalties are cumulative with any encumbrance penalties. Magical Armor should be considered to be the DEF of its base type, for the purposes of this limitation. As long as heavier armors are at least as frequently magical as lighter armors, this should not present a balance issue. The player who thinks he’s “cheating the system†by wearing a DEF 6 suit of magical Brigandine (which only “counts†as DEF 4 for the purpose of this limitation) may reconsider when he realizes the knight is wearing a DEF 10 suit of magical heavy plate. For sectional armor, the Average DEF should be used to determine if the armor incurs any penalties due to this limitation. What do you all think? Would you allow the limitation on your game, and if so what version (A, B or C)? If you would not allow it, why not? Thanks in advance for anyone who takes the time to answer.

Re: Re: About Dodge... To quibble, this is not entirely accurate, if you mean to say the DCV bonus for any martial maneuver is valid against all attacks. Officially, the DCV bonuses from HTH maneuvers only work in HTH combat, and those from ranged martial arts maneuvers only work vs ranged attacks. Dodge being an exception, the bonus for maneuvers with the Dodge basis work vs. all attacks. Though many GMs, including myself, allow martial arts maneuver DCV bonuses to apply vs all attacks. But that is nothing more than a common house rule. For the "official" word: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2081

Well, I was two-for-two in bonehead questions yesterday, so I'm hoping I don't extent the streak to three. In CKC, shouldn't Bluejay's Pulse Blaster be 4d6 and not 6d6? It looks like it was calculated without the extra +1 advantage for Autofire attacks that are Area Effect. With that advantage 6d6 comes out at 90 active, too big for her 60 active point multipower, but 4d6 is 60 active and would fit fine. I guess my question is, should this be errata or am I missing something that makes the construct legal? Interesting side note, the HeroDesigner file for her in the CKC Character Pack has her with the 6d6 EB, but if you try and edit the power, a pop up error to the effect that the active points in the power are greater than the MP base comes up and HD boots the power out of the MP. I guess the "illegal" power construct was back-doored into the HDC file, or it was created in an earlier version of HD that didn't check for that error.

Whoops, never mind on the Escaping from Entangles question I just asked, found the answer on the Combat and Adventuring FAQ. But I do have another question. Does the STR bonus granted by various Martial Escapes help vs Entangles, or only Grabs?

A character who escapes from an Entangle has either a full or half phase left to him, depending on how much he escaped by, as per the rules. But does this assume the escaping was done via STR or a "passive" attack like a damage shield? For instance, if a character blasts his way out of an entangle with an Energy Blast, does he still have a phase/half-phase left, or is his phase over, since he "attacked" with the EB? I'm guessing his phase is over, but if I'm wrong and he does still have a phase/half-phase left, can he use the same EB on another target?

How embarrassing My Apr 22nd post in this thread had a major rule interpretation error. Serves me right for posting before double-checking the rules. OK, I now agree that if you hit a target with ‘x’ number of area-effect autofire hits, that all other targets with the area-effect will also be hit ‘x’ times (barring a dive for cover out of the area of course). But I still don’t think the power will do anywhere near 640 points of stun, and here is why. Let’s look at the last version. OK, I accept that you can target the planet earth using this power and that all hits to the planet will hit everyone else on the planet due to the area of effect. But by rule, any misses will scatter in such a way that the planet is not damaged, and by extension, nobody on earth will be hurt by the misses. So the question is, how many hits can you generate? The Bestiary lists the Giant Space Amoeba as being larger than Earth and having a –48 DCV penalty. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say Earth is –48 DCV as well. So assuming an OCV of 10 targeting a –48 DCV (0 DCV adjacent hex, -48 for the whole planet) that’s an average of about 29 hits. Since the base of the power is ½ D6, only about half of those will do penetrating stun, so that’s 15 Stun on average. The 29 inches of KB is nasty though. In fact, the whole power would be more dangerous with less shots, but a higher base, since you’ll never be able to land anything approaching 640 shots.

You still roll to hit to see how many of those shots affect the target. The target is NOT hit by all 640 shots just because he's inside the area of effect. So assuming an OCV of 11 and DCV 3 that's an average of 5 hits with a max of 10 hits. Raising OCV will of course raise the avg and max number of hits, and 2-pnt CSLs would be a better use of points than +640 shots. Of course that tactic may quicky run afoul of campaign CV limits. All-in-all an interesting power construct, but not the world beater it is described as. Won't argue with you there, except to amend that to say that nothing is more potentially abusive...

Go back and look at the quote. He said BOTH precise and accurate.

For those curious about my question to Steve Long that inspired WillS to start this thread, here it is: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1863 Our gaming group had a rather heated debate on whether or not Combat Luck should apply in the “questionable†situations I listed. Some thought it always should, some thought never, and others thought it should only if the player could come up with a good and original explanation for why it would. After more thought I proposed my Combat Luck Compromise. (still under review) First of all I want to reiterate that I understand, and to large extent agree, with the idea that “logically†Combat Luck should usually NOT apply to such things as ‘squeezing’ damage, falling damage, etc. My counterargument is that if we strictly enforce this bit of logic, Combat Luck would no longer be cost effective compared to other forms of defense, which is bad from a game balance standpoint. That is not to say that it would be useless or never taken, but that it would be a ‘weak sister’ to other defenses, such as OIF armor. But perhaps the idea that Combat Luck would pretty much apply to all damage except in the case of a PC purposely putting himself in harm’s way goes too far in the other direction. So I propose a middle ground, compromise solution. For the obvious situations, like avoiding regular combat damage, Combat Luck works automatically (assuming the character was not surprised or something). And it never works when the PC purposely puts himself in harm’s way. So far, by the book. Now for those “questionable†situations (KB, falling, squeezing, etc damage), instead of ruling a flat “it works†or “it doesn’t workâ€, how about making it an Activation Roll. This will avoid many arguments on whether or not it “should†work in a given situation. Note the limitation value for an Activation Roll of 14- is –1/2, and the value of the “Luck Based†limitation in Combat Luck is also –1/2. Originally I was thinking that Combat Luck’s ‘activation roll’ should also be 14-, but I’m now thinking 13- would be better, since there are more situations where it always works than those where it never works. Also a player may attempt to give a creative and/or colorful description of how his Combat Luck works in an unusual situation. Since this adds to the fun of the game for everyone, the GM may waive or give a bonus to the Activation Roll if he feels the justification was entertaining enough to warrant it. If not, or if the player just doesn’t feel like coming up with an explanation, the regular 13- Activation Roll applies. Does this seem balanced?

While I understand tesuji's argument that from a purist viewpoint, something like Combat Luck should not be simulated with 'armor'. But I can live with it, because I think the alternatives are worse. Buying up DCV to REALLY high levels (with almost no other defense) leads to an all or nothing situation. Almost nothing hurts you at all, until you finally do get hit, and then you are hurt REAL bad (or maybe dead). And using DR, again with little other defenses, means just about everything hurts you, at least a little. And without Regen or something you'll soon be whittled down and eliminated (AKA death from a thousand paper cuts). Neither situation strikes me as particularly satisfying from a gaming perspective.

Ah, don't you remember Obi-Wan's comment in A New Hope when he and Luke found the wreckage of the Jawa Sandcrawler? Luke thought it was the work of the Sandpeople, but Obi-Wan pointed out how the treads had been shot out and said something like "Such markmanship could only be the work of Imperial Stormtroopers". Now since the main characters consistently avoided being hit by Stormtroopers for the rest of the series, either Obi-Wan was lying/exaggerating (and after the whooper of "Vader killed your father" who knows) or our heroes had scads of Combat Luck.

I could have sworn I saw a ruling on this already, but darned if I can find it now in this forum or on the FAQ. Basically, what I remember is: Officially, any bonus granted by Martial Arts Maneuvers is against HTH attacks only (with the exception of maneuvers with the Dodge basis, whose DCV bonuses apply vs. all attacks). However, many GMs waive this rule and allow Martial Arts DCV bonuses to work against all attacks in the interest of simplicity and ease of play. 1 – Is that indeed the official rule? 2 – If so, what about the DCV bonuses granted by some Ranged Martial Arts Maneuvers? Do they work against Ranged Attacks only, HTH attacks only, or both Ranged and HTH attacks? Thanks.

That in a nutshell is my main problem with requiring DS to have Continuous, the fact that its not really continuous. (unless you grab someone or are grabbed and the grab is maintained). So basically DS isn't as good as other powers with the Continuous advantage, but it costs more and you lose range to boot. If DSs are required to have Continuous, then the Modifier "Damage Shield" should probably be a Limitation, not an Advantage.

I don't think Leia's Combat Luck means that she is particularly tough. With Combat Luck, she gets hit in the shoulder. Without it, she'd get hit square in the chest. And a shot that would hit her in the shoulder normally, misses entirely due to her combat luck. That's the main reason it is Hardened, it is reducing damage by making the shots hit less vulnerable areas (or missing entirely) and that effect should be maintained whether or not the attack is AP or not.

Since Combat Luck is defined as the ability to avoid damage through advanced dodging or ‘dumb luck’, rather than the ability to “soak up†damage, I was wondering if it protected from damage caused by these sources: 1 – Falling Damage. 2 – KB Damage or damage from being Thrown by someone who had grabbed you. 3 – Collision damage (like being inside a vehicle that crashes). 4 – Crushing damage caused by being ‘squeezed’ after being grabbed. 5 – Damage from an AoE attack that completely fills an area (like a classic fireball spell) 6 – Damage from broad front phenomena like a tsunami or a snow avalanche. 7 – I was going to ask about damage shield, but saw the FAQ on that. I would add that Combat Luck always protects against DSs defined as the shielded character ‘striking out’ at his attacker (such as weapon flourishes and counter-strikes). My thoughts are from “logic†standpoint Combat Luck probably shouldn’t protect against most or all of these, but from a “game balance†standpoint it should (or ‘Luck Based’ should be a bigger Limitation). Looking forward to the official word.

Can 8-pnt All Combat Skill levels improve OCV with Missile Deflection/Reflection? What about 10-pnt Overall Levels? As always, thank you for the time you take to answer so many questions.

No, he'll be the fastest PC in the universe. Villains/NPCs routinely have Speeds higher than 5. I'm one of the other players in WillS's group. We're thinking of doing away with (or greatly raising) most hard caps and adopting a modified version of Keneton's ER system instead. I think most of WillS's bad experience before with having a Speed one lower than the other PCs was due to too much time wasting/stalling during combat. JohnTaber and Geoff's ideas to move things along at a faster pace should help with that. Storn's method is intriguing, but I'm not sure we want to make such a radical change.

If a character has a 3-pnt CSL with Swords, and the power Missile Deflection defined as working through a sword (focus), can he apply the CSLs to improve his Deflection OCV? What about 5-pnt CSLs with HTH? Also, can you clarify an implication of these two items from the FAQ:

OK, here is the set-up. Tiki is holding Vic in a Telekinetic grab. Tiki has hit by an attack that causes her to be Knocked Back away from Vic. My questions: 1 – Does Vic “follow†Tiki has she is knocked back? Or does the no action/reaction of TK mean Vic stays in place? 2 – If Vic stays in place, and Tiki is KBed far enough way that Vic is now farther away than the max range of her TK, is the grab broken? 3 – Does either answer change if the TK has the “no range†limitation? (I know that FRED says that “no range†should not normally be applied to TK, but say the GM gave special permission in this case). Thanks.

Character Power Level System Spyritwind, I think your Character Power Level System has merit. It captures some of the factors that go into Keneton's ER system (albeit with different weightings). While I think I prefer the greater accuracy and precision offered by the ER, I can certainly understand how some could be put off by its complexity. That was my initilal impression, until I went back and took a closer 2nd look. But for those for whom the ER is just "too much", a system like yours might be just the ticket.

I see what you are saying, but I’m not so sure the additional complexity is all that cumbersome. Especially with a spreadsheet to do most of the work for you. I’d say both ways have merits, but I’m inclined to trade simplicity for accuracy in this case. Maybe I’ll try and work up a revised version of the ER spreadsheet that includes my ideas. Agreed that under your system of adding a flat +1 for each extra attack capability, a Cap isn’t needed. But I have not given up on my idea of the adder varying with the strength of the attack. On Speed, I think I’m going to have to raise the ER “cost†of that stat. The main GM in my group is pretty terrified of high Speeds and will probably want that change. I don’t think players will avoid “deep†characters at all. Yes, the versatility will raise their ER cost a little, but that versatility makes them more effective, so it’s only fair. Though maybe the Cap needs to come down some. Well, thanks for the compliment. Hmm, interesting that this discussion is leading to a more streamlined version of the ER, since my suggestions tend to complicate it! In any case I look forward to seeing it. Have to agree with Jsenecal, that NNDs are distinct enough from “regular†damage to justify their own category. I feel the same way on Entangles. I’ve also been thinking that instead of ‘vs. PD’ and ‘vs. ED’ being categories, maybe it should be ‘vs. Normal PD/ED’ and ‘vs. Resistant PD/ED’. My thinking is that having a normal damage attack and a killing damage attack is more “versatile†than having a normal attack vs. PD and a normal attack vs. ED. But I’m still considering that one.

Sweep Limits Keneton, I think your limits on the max number of attacks you can Sweep against a single target are well thought out and good for game balance. Though they can be hard to justify from a “logical†standpoint (“what do you mean my NND ‘ghost sword’ can only sweep for two attacks, while my katana can sweep for three.â€). But I don’t think this is a major problem. You might want to add one category. Bulky/Unwieldy weapons can only be used for one attack against a single target. They can sweep multiple targets as normal. (Note: weapons with a –1 OCV penalty are NOT considered unwieldy for the purpose of this rule). This will nicely put a stop to tactics such as picking someone up and hitting him or her against the floor multiple times in a phase (since even though it is multiple hexes, the floor is still one ‘target’). But the classic tactic of grabbing an agent and using him as club against two others will still be allowed as before.

I don't really have anything to add, but I just wanted to say I think that is a great idea!

Bob you are a genius! That’s perfect! So simple and elegant, I’m kicking myself for not thinking of it originally. I’d add a category for AoE attack (your highest ER rated AoE/Explosion attack would go here) and remove the ‘Area or Explosion Attack(s)’ line item from the Capabilities section (but leave the ‘Autofire w/Area/Explosion Attack(s)’ item there). This category would be unique in that, while all others are only rated if they are in addition to the PC’s Most Effective Attack, AoE is always rated, even if it is also the Most Effective Attack or not within the MAF. I would also add an Entangle category, for the highest rated Entangle (that is within the MAF, and not the PC’s Most Effective Attack). Lastly, an Other category. Not sure what might go here, but some player will think of something. I notice you didn’t suggest separate categories for PD and rPD (ditto ED/rED), so for example an EB (vs energy) and an RKA (vs energy) would not count as two attacks. Still thinking on this one. What about an AVLD vs rPD? That would just count as an attack vs the PD category on your list, right? Also, I was thinking the Cap on the Multiple Attack surcharge should not be a fixed 10, but the ER rating of the campaign divided by 10. So in a 100 ER supers game it would be 10, but only 5 in a 50 ER Star Hero game. Do you think my Cap suggestion above and Divisor value of 30 sound about right?