JamesG

Follow up to http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1141 Thanks for the quick reply (as always). Greater granularity within the Skill system is one of the things I most look forward to in the Ultimate Skill. In a number of places you ask if I mean the 2-pnt CSL with Punch. The answer is yes, or a 3-pnt CSL with, for example, Punch/Grab/Block. Do any of your answers change with the 3-pnt CSL with Punch/Grab/Block? (I assume not). 4a. If you have a 2-pnt CSL with Long Swords, can you use those levels when attempting a Disarm with a Long Sword? What about a 3-pnt CSL with Swords? 4b. If you have a 2-pnt CSL with your EB, can you use those levels when attempting a Disarm at range with your EB? What about a 3-pnt CSL with your MP (which contains your EB)? I would’ve said yes in all cases, but your answer to my original question 4 has me unsure.

First, let me apologize in advance for this long-winded post. I’ve been trying to get my head around all the implications of some of your answers to my questions on 3/3/03 and this statement from the FAQ: Q: If a character performs a Sweep with a Martial Maneuver, do 3-point Combat Skill Levels with Martial Arts apply to the attack? A: No. The character is performing a Sweep, which isn’t a Martial Maneuver, even if it incorporates a Martial Maneuver in this instance. I think I’ve got it, here is my understanding. CSLs with attacks powers (like CSLs with EB), CSLs with weapons (ex. CSLs with Swords) and CSLs with specific attacks (ex. CSLs with Punch) can apply to any maneuver that is valid for that attack/weapon. CSLs with specific maneuvers (or groups of specific maneuvers) apply to any attack with that maneuver (or any maneuver within the group), but no other maneuvers (the basis of the FAQ quoted above). Is my understanding basically correct? Here are some specific instance questions: 1. If a GM was inclined to let a character buy a 3-pnt CSL with all HTH Strikes as described here http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1028 does it apply if he Haymakers or Sweeps his punch? (I’d say no, since Strike, Sweep and Haymaker are separate maneuvers). 2. If a character has CSLs with his EB, can he apply those when Rapid Firing his EB? (I’d say yes). 3. If a character has CSLs with punch, can he apply those when Sweeping his punch? (I’d say yes). 4. If a character has CSLs with punch, can he apply those when attempting to Disarm someone by “punching†their weapon hand? (I’d say yes, Disarm is just another maneuver that the “punch†attack can use). 5. What about Move Bys and Move Throughs? (Maybe, but I think I’d say no, since even when doing these attacks barehanded, they are really different from a ‘punch’). 6. If someone has CSLs with their ranged martial art, can they use them if Setting? (I’d say no, because like Sweep, Set isn’t a Martial Maneuver) 7. What about Brace? (Maybe, Brace is a special case.) 8. If a character has CSLs with Grab, and they use them when Sweeping a Grab? (I’d say no, Grab and Sweep are separate Maneuvers. However if the PC wanted to define the CSL as being with Barehanded Grabs, that’s a specific attack, and they would apply when Sweeping a barehanded Grab, but they would no longer apply to Grabs with weapons (lasso, man-catcher) or TK. Barehanded Grab CSLs would also apply to unarmed Martial Grabs) 9. If a character has CSLs with punch, can he apply those when using a Martial Arts attack that is defined as some kind of “punchâ€, like a Boxing Jab? (Technically yes, but I think I’d rule that any CSLs with punch (or kick) are by definition with non-Martial punches (or kicks), so no).

Glad you could join us Jsenecal ! And doubly glad you see my point. Seriously, your example was eloquently stated. K, I agree that not just ANY limitation be used to reduce a power’s rating in the ER. It must be restrictive enough to reduce the power to “gimmick†status (like a small number of charges) and/or be very character-conception focused (like the DR only vs Fire examples). Preferably both. I’m totally on board that limitations such as OIHID or FOCUS, or INCREASED END COST should probably never apply. Unfortunately, it will add in GM judgment calls to the ER, as he/she will need to decide what lims to count and what not. In general, I think defense powers will end up being limited in the ER more often than attack powers. But the ‘one-charge, boosted attack’ that I brought up earlier that is discussed in 5E Champions is one example of a gimmick attack that would qualify for the discount. Going back to the discussion on the “multiple attack surchargeâ€, it is something I would want to add, but you have convinced me it needs a cap so as not to overly restrict PCs with vast experience. I did find another flaw in my original proposal; the points added to the ER were not proportional to the power/effectiveness of the additional attacks. New revision: Add a new section to the ER spreadsheet right after Most Effective Attack called Multiple Attacks. For each significantly different attack that the character has that is within the MAF (defined a few posts back), add 1/30 of the ER points for each such attack to the ER total, to maximum of 10. Hmm, that reads confusing, but a short example may clarify. The example PC has a Most Effect Attack of a 12d6 EB, with an OCV of 11 and a DCV of 9 and a half move of 10â€. This rates 34 ER. The PC also has a 6d6 NND EB, with OCV 10, DCV 9 and Move again 10, which rates 33 ER. Under the current system, the 2nd attack would not impact the ER at all. Under my system, the 2nd attack would add 33/30=1.1 to the ER of this PC. But the most that could ever be added for all multiple attacks together is 10 ER points total. Obviously the cap of 10 and divisor of 30 are subject to further revision, they are just numbers that seemed about right, off the top of my head. The big question is what constitutes “significantly differentâ€. My initial thoughts: Different from each other: Normal Damage Attack, Killing Damage Attack, NND, AVLD, AoE/Explosion, Entangle, Mental Power, Adjustment Power, Transform, Useable as Attack Not different: Martial Maneuvers, most duplicates from the above list (such as having two AoE EBs with different areas. But having an EB, an AoE EB, an Entangle and an AoE Entangle would be 4 attacks). Gray Areas: Armor Piercing, Increased Stun Multipliers and Penetrating. Not sure if adding one or more of these should make something a “significantly different†attack. Duplicate advantage on different Damage basis. Should a NND EB be considered a “significantly different†attack from a NND RKA? I’m sure there are more types of attacks, but that’s enough to start discussion. I'm interested in comments, particularly on the “gray areasâ€

Now, back to the dialog… I agree that the BBB Keneton’s tactic as described was abusive. But part of that is because the tactic of using a grabbed character as a weapon is prone to abuse in and of itself, before adding Sweep into the mix. The 5E Champions book has a good discussion on the topic on pg 153. First off, I would not allow ‘Use art with Humanoids’ for MA. I’m not saying there is a specific rule against it, but it’s just something I’d not allow as a GM. Also, keep in mind that if the grabbed character is conscious, your OCV is halved when attacking another target, and the floor is a different target. So now we have 9+7-4-6=6/2=3 OCV vs 0 DCV. Still pretty good odds, but keep in mind your DCV is halved for anyone else attacking you while you do this. Also, I wouldn’t allow you to Sweep the opponent against bare floor, since I picture a Sweep as being a fluid movement, and smash, lift, smash, lift, smash isn’t fluid. If you were in a room with a bunch of columns, I’d allow you to Sweep against an adjacent column or two and then the floor, or if by a wall against the wall and then down to the floor (or if in a corner, against two walls and the floor). Also, if in rough terrain with large rocks and boulders (or lots of ruble) on the ground, I’d probably allow you to Sweep the grabbed opponent on the ground for 2 or 3 attacks. But all in all, it won’t be so easy to arrange. Now, I’m not saying all of that is strictly “by the rules†(thought the OCV/DCV penalties for maintaining a grab are). It’s just intended to show there are other ways to deal with an abusive tactic. But I agree that Sweeps can be very effective, and maybe not fully accounted for in the current ER system. In the ER article in DH#3 you mention adding a new category for Special Combat Skills like TWF, Autofire Skills and Rapid Attack. Maybe add active points in specific levels with Sweep to this category in order to reflect the usefulness of Sweep levels. The Concentration/Switching/Fleshing example is quite nasty. But as you pointed out, the current ER system takes care of this without a need to ban all Fleshing. It was really the switching that was the big problem there. The more I look at it, the more I like the ER system and am impressed by it (though as our discussion on the Rule of X thread demonstrates, I can’t help but propose a couple of tweaks).

I interrupt this dialog between JamesG and Keneton to briefly return to the original subject of CSLs and Sweeps. Earlier on the thread it was proposed that characters buy PSLs to counteract the OCV penalties imposed by Sweeps. This is not by-the-book legal; one must buy full 2-pnt CSLs (or greater): http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1029 Also, earlier I listed the different “types†of CSLs that can apply to Sweeps. I forgot one: CSLs with weapons. For example, if you have a 3-pnt CSL with ‘Swords’, you can apply that CSL when Sweeping an attack with a sword.

More on Sweeps and CSLs Ah, I see what the problem is. I think you are misinterpreting Steve’s ruling in the FAQ I quoted and my comments on it. Steve isn’t saying that no CSLs lower than 5 point CSLs can apply to Sweeps, he’s saying that 3-pnt CSLs with Martial Arts don’t. So you can buy a 2-pnt CSL with Sweeps. This will increase your OCV with any Sweep you do. You can buy a 3-pnt CSL with Sweeps. You can assign this to OCV or DCV when performing any Sweep (though because Sweep halves DCV after applying levels, it less efficient to place them in DCV). And of course, 5-pnt CSLs with HTH, All Combat and Overall levels can all apply to Sweeps. But if you are Sweeping a Karate Chop, your 3-pnt CSLs with Karate do not apply. (Nor do your 2-pnt CSLs with Karate Chop). In other words, what Steve is saying is you need either dedicated CSLs with Sweep, or you need applicable 5-pnt or higher “generic†levels. In this light, there is no contradiction in Steve’s two FAQ listings. So, I’m still wondering, do you allow the 2 and 3 pnt CSLs with Sweep in your ER campaign? If using them I would suggest a house rule that your OCV with a Sweep can never be higher than your OCV with the same maneuver unsweeped (unswept?). For example take a character with 4 CSLs with sweep, and those are the only CSLs he has. If he Sweeps his Martial Strike for two attacks on an opponent, with all Sweep levels in OCV, his OCV would be two higher than if he did just the Martial Strike. That does not make sense, that he’s better when making two attacks instead of one. So when making a two attack Sweep this character can only use two of his Sweep levels in OCV. If the same character had 2 (or more) CSLs with Martial Arts and/or Martial Strike, then he could apply all his Sweep levels to OCV when doing a two attack Sweep of Martial Strike.

More ER Wow, after looking at Shade I can see how implementing a “multiple attack surcharge†could pose problems in a high-powered game. Such characters can have so many different attacks that their ER would shoot through the roof. Though I think that there is a â€point of diminishing returns†with multiple attacks. Maybe the solution isn’t to ignore multiple attacks entirely, but just put a cap on the surcharge. Use a system like I proposed, but it can only increase ER by a fixed maximum amount (5?, 8?, 10?, I’m not sure what the cap should be). This might be a good compromise between both our philosophies. Congratulations to you and your wife on the new baby. I’m surprised to see you still posting to boards so frequently; I would think you’d have your hands full with your son. You are a dedicated Herophile!

Minor nit-pick, both characters in my example had the area effect EB, so neither was one ER point higher than the other. I figured the capabilities section of the ER spreadsheet was created to address the issue of versatility, but it misses the mark because it doesn’t have enough capabilities listed. And listing all of the major attack types available causes other problems. For example, if you just added NND attacks to the capabilities section, then a character with a 6d6 NND EB would rate one ER point higher that one with a 12d6 EB. That’s a problem because both attacks are equivalent and should rate the same. The problem with the current system is a character with BOTH a 6d6 NND EB AND a 12d6 EB rates that same as a character with just one of the two. Let me revise my solution. Take the Max ER, divide by 10, then divide by 2 rounding up, and call this the Multiple Attack Factor (MAF). So for a 100 ER supers game, the MAF is 5, and for a 70 ER Fantasy Hero game MAF is 4. For each additional attack that a character has that is within the MAF (measured in ER points) of the character’s Most Effective Attack, add one to the ER. The additional attacks must be significantly different for this purpose; GM’s call on what “significantly different†entails. So going back to my example, Char B would be 3 ER higher than Char A. Now on to the “gimmick power†debate. I should’ve elaborated more. The Force Wall I was using as an example was a power granted by an enchanted sword and had no range and was “fixed†to the sword (so if the sword moved the FW did). So its ability to be used as an attack was limited. The PC could englobe an adjacent opponent, but he would then have to stand there and couldn’t use the sword to do anything else. So basically he would be taking himself out of the combat as well while the FW was up. Keep in mind that a character of ER+10 should be able to, on average, take on two characters of ER. The FW added 12 ER to the PC. He certainly could not take on two duplicates of himself that lacked the FW. Obviously if the limitations are bought off or changed so that the power is no longer as limited, then it would then have greater impact on increasing the ER. The same way that buying more CSLs with your Most Effective Attack will raise your ER. Also, by not giving a discount to “gimmick†powers, the ER system discourages the use of ‘Limited-Use Powers’ as described in the Champions book, page 132. I’m sorry, but that strikes me as a cop out. It’s basically saying to players “Don’t choose to have any gimmick powers, or your ER will be inflated beyond its true measure.†I think gimmick powers add quite a bit to the game, and discouraging them is a bad thing. Unfortunately, my proposed fix, discounting gimmick powers based on their most limiting factors, adds more GM “judgment calls". Oh well, whoever said a GM’s job is easy. For my Force Wall example, I’d say the continuing charges limitation (-1) and the no range (-1/2) would count as limitations for ER purposes but OAF would not. So instead of 60 AP of Force Wall being plugged into the ER calculation, 24 AP would. This would raise the ER by 4.8 instead of 12. Probably still a little more than it’s really worth, but it now seems reasonable to me. For your “50% Resistant Energy DR, Fire Only (-1)†example I’d say that limitation should count in the ER, so the power would only increase ER by 3 instead of 6. I too am enjoying the discussion, but fear we may have killed the thread for anybody else…

Sounds like your banning of the “Fleshing Out†technique is a philosophical decision more of a game balance issue. I don’t think I’d have any problem with what Fury did, as long as she stayed within the campaign Max CV limits, though I do wonder why she wouldn’t buy 2-pnt CSLs with her Fast Strike instead of Punch, unless she wanted to avoid the KB penalty suffered by Martial Arts. I disagree her actions are non-genre, as comics/films are full of examples of the hero being defeated by a villain and then practicing new techniques so they can triumph in the rematch. Though like I said this is a matter of taste/philosophy. On Tarn and Pole Arms, I can only think of two OCV penalties Pole Arms have; the base –1 OCV and the optional OCV penalty when an opponent with a shorter weapon gets inside your range. I don’t think you can buy PSLs for the base –1 OCV since it is intrinsic to Pole Arms (though you could buy a 2-pnt CSL instead). You could buy PSLs to counteract the shorter weapon penalties. As with Fury, I would find no issue with Tarn’s use of CSLs/PSLs to specialize with Pole Arms. But again, it’s a philosophy thing. No, it’s not. Sweep is only useable in H-to-H (5E263, first sentence of the Sweep section). If you want to use the ‘sweep’ mechanic at range use the Rapid Fire maneuver. Steve’s answer now makes much more sense, as 5-pnt CSLs w/ H-to-H apply to Sweeps. I can see the point of your argument that 3-pnt CSLs with MA should apply when Sweeping a martial maneuver, but I can also understand Steve’s desire to maintain game balance by banning it. Since I can see both sides, as a GM, I’d go with the official ruling, but as a player would not be dismayed if my GM didn’t. Hmm, the ER article in DH#3 says that specific levels with Sweeping should not be allowed when using the ER, but I saw no mention of that in a quick look through your House Rules. Has your ban on Sweep CSLs been dropped? I notice you didn’t comment on my pointing out that PCs can upgrade ‘cheap CSLs’ to ‘good CSLs’ using XPs, so that they need not fear hindering their future efficiency by buying 2 and 3 point CSLs early in their career. Since I edited that in later I thought maybe you missed it.

Can a character buy PSLs with Sweep to counteract the -2 OCV penalty for each attack, like they can purchase PSLs with Block or Missile Deflection to counteract the OCV penalties for the 2nd and subsequent Block/Deflection. Or is the -2 OCV per attack considered an intrinsic "OCV penalty associated with a Combat Maneuver" for which PSLs don't apply (per the Skills FAQ). Or is the answer somewhere in between? PSLs can't be used for the initial two attacks in a Sweep, but could be purchased to counteract the additional OCV penalties entailed by the third and subsequent attacks.

The Skills FAQ contains this statement: A 3-point CSL with three Maneuvers would apply to any use of those Maneuvers (armed or unarmed). Does that mean a CSL with say Strike, Block and Grab would apply to ANY strike? This would include a punch, a sword slash, throwing a shuriken, shooting a bow and firing a gun. And the same would apply to 2-pnt CSLs with 'Strikes'?

If a character has 2-pnt CSLs with 'Punch'(Strike), can he use those CSLs when he does a Haymaker with a punch? Or is Haymaker more a like a Sweep which require specific CSLs (per the FAQ)?

Re: Good Questions, Good Answers Ah. Whew, I was worried there for a second, thinking the ER was totally cracked. As you may remember from another thread, I’ve been thinking of using your ER system. Thanks for all your fast responses to my email questions. It’s going to be an uphill struggle to convince my fellow players to use it (I can hear the cries of “It’s too complicated!†already). Before I wage that battle there are a couple of concerns I have with the system I was wondering if you (and anyone else out there using it) might comment upon. The first is it does not seem to give enough credit for versatility. For example, let’s consider two character’s, A and B. Char A has a 6d6 Area Effect (Cone) EB. Char B has a Multipower that contains a 12d6 EB, a 6d6 Area Effect (Cone) EB, a 6d6 NND EB and a 5d6, DEF 5 Entangle. Assume everything else about these characters is the same (at least from an ER standpoint, they could have different KSs for instance). Using the ER these characters would rate exactly the same. But it seems to me that Char B’s variety of attack options make him a more effective combatant. One fix for this I’ve thought of is adding a new item in the Capabilities section that adds one to the ER for each attack that is with say 10% of the Most Effective Attack. The attacks should be noticeably different to count for this, so having a dozen Martial Arts maneuvers that all rate about the same won’t inflate the ER. The second is it gives too much credit to “gimmick†powers. One of my PC’s has a 60 Active Point Force Wall. The power is pretty heavily limited (only two continuing charges) and is really only for emergencies. If he uses it once every third session or so, they’d be a lot. But it boosts his ER by 12! That’s way too much when you consider the usefulness of the power. A possible solution here is for the GM to allow some of the Limitations on such a gimmick power to reduce the AP plugged into the ER calculations.

Can a character "upgrade" his combat skill levels with experience points by paying the difference? For example, Bob starts out with a 2-pnt CSL with long swords. After some adventuring, he upgrades that to a 3-pnt CSL with swords for 1 XP. After some more combat experience, he upgrades it again to a 5-pnt CSL with H-to-H for 2 XPs. Finally, after more time, he upgrades it to an all-combat level for 3 XPs.

Note that per the FAQ, CSLs with Martial Arts never apply to Sweeps, so this is not a viable solution.

Keneton, OK, I get what you mean about the cheap levels rating the same as the expensive levels, but only if the cheap levels apply to the Most Effective Attack or raise the Max OCV. For example, imagine an Energy Projector whose Most Effective Attack is a big EB and who has a number of CSLs with ranged combat. If this character also has Martial Arts for H-to-H combat, then a couple of 3-pnt CSLs with martial arts won’t impact his ER at all. Edit Also, a character is not "locked in" to the cheap CSLs. He can 'upgrade' them to broader CSLs using XPs. While it this is something I'd allow as a GM, I wasn't sure if it was strictly legal by-the-book, so I asked the esteemed Mr. Long: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=994 End Edit I also understand what you mean by the concept of “fleshing outâ€. What I don’t get is why that is considered a problem. Can you elaborate on why you felt the need to ban the practice? Also I’m still wondering what, if any, CSLs you allow to be applied to sweeps in your game. Thanks.

Just curious, are 2 and 3-pnt CSLs with Sweeps illegal in your campaign, or just just DCV levels (only with Sweep, -1)? If both are illegal, can a character apply a 5-pnt CSL w/ H-to-H to sweeps in your game? The reason I'm asking is I've been considering using your Effectiveness Rating and was wondering why Sweeps are such an issue with it.

If I remember correctly, that is very similar to what was suggested in the old DH article, except it wasn't a AVLD but a NND with the defense (I think) being not having internal organs that would be damaged by the decel. Darn, I really wish that article was still around.

Unless you put Selective Targeting on that bad boy, it’s also an efficient way to lay some smack-down on your allies, if they get too close to you. With Selective you won’t have to worry about hitting your friends, but you’ll need to hit against the target’s normal DCV. On the bright side there won’t be the OCV penalties based on the number attacks that Sweep entails, or the Sweep DCV penalty. But there are some more subtle benefits of the Sweep w/ CSLs method that the Area Effect method lacks that you may want to consider: You can attempt to hit the same target multiple times in a phase with Sweep. You can use your Sweep levels with ANY of your H-to-H attacks. Bare knuckle normal damage, melee weapon killing damage, Grabs (to grab more than two limbs at once), etc. With AoE, you can only use it for the attack you bought the advantage for. In some Heroic games, the GM might look askance at a “power†like this, but would allow limited CSLs without a second thought. It all depends on what the goal is. If the goal was to be good at a single attack that can deal with multiple opponents at the same time, then the AoE is probably the most efficient way of doing it. But if goal is to be good at dealing with multiple opponents, or dealing multiple hits to a single opponent, either with a variety of different H-to-H attacks, then Sweep with CSLs is most likely a better option. Note – The Autofire suggestion doesn’t lose out on the ability to strike a single target more than once (1st bullet point) but does have the drawbacks described in bullets 2 and 3.

For Heroic level games, I think making Falling Damage NND (w/ Does Body) combined with using the Hit Location table should suffice to make characters have a healthy respect for the hurtin’ a good fall can put on them, without making falls too deadly. But what about a super heroic game? The genre features Bricks, like The Thing, who should be able to survive long falls relatively unscathed. So the method above makes falls overly dangerous for many Bricks. I thought about making it an AVLD with the defense being “natural†resistant PD (and Combat Luck doesn’t protect here). So Captain America (with his chain mail), Batman and Daredevil would all go splat while The Thing or Hercules would walk away pretty much unscratched. But then I started hearing in my head the complaints of the player with the Iron Man clone (whose armor is OIHID – powered armor) who isn’t protected from falls while the Thor clone (res-PD, OIHID – change from Dr. Blake to Thor) is. While it is fine for the special effects of a power to have minor in-game effects, protection from falling damage seems like too major an effect. Making it AVLD with the defense being PD bought with the limitation "only against falling damage" (Geoff’s suggestion) would be fair to all players, but would add yet another thing for them to think about during character creation. And it would reduce the campaign’s portability. By that I mean characters coming into the game from another campaign would be very vulnerable to falling damage, even if the character conception indicates they shouldn’t be, and many Bricks going from this campaign to another would be over-protected from falls. Hmm, it seems like for a ‘supers’ game, the fixes to falling damage cause more headaches than they solve. That’s one of the reasons I was hoping someone might still have that old DH article, in case it discussed some of these points. Maybe leave the damage the way it is for the PCs and super villains, but the normals in the world use the method described in the first paragraph. That way the players will need to reconsider letting their DNPC take a moderate fall because they “know†the damage won’t kill, or even seriously hurt, them.

Agreed that the random roll for each character has many (or most) of the problems your 11 objectives specified. One of reasons I never implemented it. But the basic 12 card system (which is described between "This thread has me thinking" and "Both ways fix my issue 1" in my post above) is pretty similar to Markdoc's system, and he already very effectively refuted your objections, so I saw no reason to repeat that. Looking back at your objections, some of them are reintroduced by my proposed addition to the system (my paragraph starting "One solution"). But some of your objections were a lot more objectionable than others, and I'm not sure the ones my proposal falls prey to are critical by any stretch. What core maneuvers and powers are invalidated? Markdoc has already shown that any maneuvers and powers you've previously given as examples work fine. They may work a little differently, but they are still valid. He also addressed the metagame, vehicles and falling issues to my satisfaction.

I've toyed with the idea of abandoning the Speed Chart in favor of each character rolling a die and if they roll their speed or under they get an action. There are two reasons this appealed to me: To introduce an element of randomness to the combat sequencing To give slow Speed characters a chance to occasionally have a phase in a segment a higher Speed character does not. For example, in the Speed Chart, all of Speed 3's phases are in segments that Speed 6 also has a phase.[/list=1] But I abandoned the plan for a number of reasons. Mainly, it added additional complication and also I saw some of the problems it could entail that Keneton has pointed out. This thread has me thinking of trying the "12 numbered cards" method. I assume most who use that system use it either like: (GM turns over card #4) OK, everybody with a Speed 4 or less goes this segment. or (GM turns over card #4) OK, everybody with a phase in segment 4 goes. Both ways fix my issue 1, but not issue 2 (in fact the first way makes issue one worse, as low Speed characters will never have a phase when higher Speeds don't, barring prior aborts by the high Speed char). One solution I thought of is creating a custom set of 12 cards that say which Speeds go when that card is turned. And then I can set up the cards so that low speeds (other than Speed 1) have at least one card where other "low" Speeds don't go. For example Speed 2 would appear on two cards, the "Everybody goes" card and a card with Speed 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. That way on one of Speed 2's two segments, no other Speed of 6 or lower would be going. Has anyone experimented with a system like this? I'm not even sure the additional complexity would be worth it.

Forgive the major snippage.... Am I reading this right? Both Bloodfire and Keneton had an ER of 120, but Bloodfire would win 99 out of 100 times if they fought? That doesn't make the ER system sound very effective in balancing characters, unless Bloodfire was optimized to beat characters such as Keneton. Or was Keneton a 120 on the "CR" scale? Color me confused

Does anyone remember that the Digital Hero archives used to go back further than 5/11/1999? One of the old articles no longer available discussed alternate rules for Falling Damage that made falls significantly more dangerous than in the official rules. I can’t remember the details, but I believe it involved adding an NND (with Does Body) to the normal damage caused by a fall, with the defense being not having internal organs subject to the shock of impact. So, for one example, characters wearing armor would not be more protected from falling damage than those without. Anybody happen to have that article handy who could supply more details? Other house rules accomplishing the same goal would also be of interest. Thanks.

Hi Steve, A couple of quick questions about the SET maneuver: 1 - Can it be used in Hand-to-Hand, or only at range? The table on 5E-254 and text on 5E-259 don't say, but the sample character sheet after the Index indicates it is for Ranged Attacks only. 2 - Can a character Set and Attack in the same initial phase, or must he spend an entire phase just setting first? For example, assume a Speed 6 character, just entering combat. Can he in Phase 2 Set and Attack (performing no other actions, except zero phase actions, such as Brace). Or is it in Phase 2 he Sets, then in Phase 4 he maintains the Set and Attacks? Thanks.