Jump to content


HERO Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Surrealone

  • Rank
    Millennial Master

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The only fair answer to both question is: it depends. If you have a highly dexterous Speedster, Dex rolls and skills likely do come up more than they otherwise would. If, however, you have a slower, Brick-type character, then probably not. As to whether initiative is really a major deciding factor in a lot of combats, the answer is similar to the above -- it can be … or it might not be -- depending on what archetype you're playing, how you play it, etc. I played a Cosmic power pool-based, mage-like character for 3.5 years. For two of those years he was Dex 8, SPD 2, and in year 3 I raised his SPD to 3 and his Dex slowly climbed to 20. This was a 5er game where CV was tied to Dex, no less -- so, as you can imagine, AoE type effects were really his schtick in the firs two years. His low Dex and Speed were used to offset his flexibility/toolboxiness -- allowing a sort of balance, as he could do amazing things with the pool, but only a max of twice a turn (late in each Segment on which he had a Phase, no less) -- resulting in every choice mattering a great deal in combat because he got so few of them. The GM had but to make me Abort to take the character mostly out of the picture, if he wanted, so I was very careful about what spells/effects were active even out of combat. (All spells/effects were pre-written and pre-approved before any game play, btw, so I simply had to pick from a list.) Sure, he could make himself faster and more dexterous if needed, but it meant not doing other things for the group. Most of the time I ran him at his base Dex and SPD without issues or concerns -- but doing so entailed careful play using cover and thinking 6-8 moves ahead at all times (yes, outside of combat … because starting position and active powers in combat was hugely important to this low speed, low Dex character). I guess what I'm getting at is that initiative matters only as much as you make it matter to a particular character/build.
  2. With respect to your first sentence in the quote, above, I will remind you that I pointed out similarities between Recovery and recovery from being stunned that warrant similar treatment. Not once did I claim they were identical … or treated identically. Thus, I would appreciate it if you would apply the term 'similar' as written … without taking to mean 'so similar as to be identical' … because by expecting 'similar' to mean 'identical' you've taken what I wrote and intended … and twisted/interpreted it to mean something I never wrote or intended. As a clarifying reminder, my statement about being 'treated the same' was made solely within the context of whether you get to recover from being stunned or take a Recovery … if you get hit. With respect to your second sentence in the quote, above, I ignored nothing. The lack of what you said was not mentioned is precisely why I used the term 'implied' rather than the term 'stated'. If it was actually stated, I'd have cited it. Geez. Do I need to provide a dictionary definition of 'imply' for you? (Rhetorical question, of course … as a result of being frustrated that my use of the term 'implied' still resulted in you telling me something wasn't mentioned. Why else did you think I used the term 'implied', hmm?) With respect to your last sentence in the quote, above -- I never said PS 12 Rec had any impact on recovery from being stunned. Key to this is that PS 12 recovery is just bookwork done at a convenient time in the cycle of segments to account for the normal, autonomic processes associated with the body doing its thing to breathe, heal, etc. Thus, OF COURSE a PS 12 Rec doesn't impact the state of being stunned. Bringing it up merely muddies some already muddy water, IMHO.
  3. Yes they are two different things (I never said otherwise) … that are similar enough to warrant the same treatment if one takes damage while doing either of them (which was entirely my point). EVERY game master I've played under since 4e and beyond has done so on this basis (without me pointing it out) … and I've played under a lot of them through the years. I believe 5e and beyond basically codified what was already implied by considering the cited rules together. You can certainly disagree, if you like, but stating that they are separate … while ignoring the similarities that warrant similar treatment … won't get you very far … especially since in 5e and beyond they ARE treated the same.
  4. I don't agree. Per 4e p160 (bold emphasis added by me): "If the STUN done (after subtracting defenses) is less than or equal to the character's CON, there's no effect (other than the loss of the STUN, of course). If the STUN done by a single attack (after subtracting defenses) exceeds the defender's CON (Constitution), the defender is Stunned. A Stunned character's DCV instantly drops to 1/2 . At the end of the Segment, any Powers that are not Persistent turn off. The character remains Stunned and can take no action until the next Phase. A character who is Stunned or recovering from being Stunned can take no action, take no Recoveries (except a free post-Segment 12 Recovery), and is unable to move." We then go look at the Recovery section on page 167 (where the term 'Recovery' is defined), and we see in 4e p167 (bold emphasis added by me): "A character may also Recover during any of his or her action Phases. A character who takes a Recovery during an action Phases may do nothing else. The character may do nothing that costs END while Recovering, and has 1/2 DCV." Note the consistencies: May do nothing else (i.e. 1 full phase) 1/2 DCV Also on 4e p167: "The character may be hit while taking a Recovery. If any STUN or BODY gets past the character's defenses, the character does not get to Recover (he does not get back END or STUN)." GM's with which I have played using 4e rules have always run recovery from being stunned the same as a Recovery ... specifically because of the noted consistencies. Thus, no Recovery was granted if hit. The logic was that if you are hit and can't regain as little as 1 pt of STUN from a Recovery, how can you possibly shake off the effects of being stunned? Thus, I believe 5e and beyond simply clarified the intent that was already present (albeit, implied) amidst noted consistencies (above) and the logic (again, implied by) the cited rules (above) -- specifically for people who couldn't, wouldn't, or didn't know to put 2+2 together, themselves, within 4e. I feel that house rule has the effect of catering to people not bothering to buying adequate defenses to avoid stunning in the first place … and also dis-incents blasters and other damage-dealing archetypes from bothering with Teamwork and coordinated attacks (specifically to stun opponents) -- something often necessary when a super team is going against master/boss-level villains. I mean, why bother with coordinated attacks if the stunned target will get an action when it shouldn't (i.e. despite being stunned) and can simply burn it to recover from being stunned -- when the whole point of stunning is that the ONLY action one can take is to recover from being stunned (with one being unable to do so if one takes ANY damage while stunned)? If you want to take tactics off the table and dis-incent people buying adequate defenses, that's certainly your call … but I'd personally question the wisdom of it if I encountered a GM who dumbed down some of the fight mechanics in this way -- specifically because master/boss-level villains can now too-easily overcome stunning effects in that GM's game. A character build is often quite important when it comes to the tactics that character can effectively employ. Thus, builds are, indeed, tactical in nature … making build advice warranted in a tactical discussion. Even 'teamwork making a difference' implies a build … because a character needs to actually have the Teamwork skill in the build in order to employ it effectively. Thus, I don't know what you're poo-poo'ing, here … and said poo-poo'ing seems unwarranted.
  5. Regarding the first sentence of the quoted text, it's not that said diehards do that 'first' … they do it because it's part of the game, too -- per the tutelage of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness found in 2e. i.e. Balancing and optimizing is just another challenge for some -- one that comes neither before nor after character concept … and, instead, is considered evenly with it. After all, the more efficient the build, the closer one can come to concept (because it's more points spent toward the concept). As for your question in the quoted text - my answer would be: 0 CP (assuming that the character would receive 0 CP for selling off OMCV or not be permitted to do so). After all, if a sell-back is not limiting in the game, then a buy-up isn't advantageous -- meaning it's just fluff on a page and potentially interesting story … with no mechanical impact.
  6. Which is to say … you're in that camp that says it has no value so you can't recover points via a buy-back … while out the other side of your mouth you indicate that it has value because it costs points to buy it up. That particularly inconsistent attitude is the crux of the problem -- because if OMCV is value-less, then it should cost nothing to buy it up (just as you get nothing for lowering it). Either it has value or it doesn't. Pick one and stick with it … and we won't need debates like this to hash out such inconsistencies! If a limitation or buy-back that isn't limiting is worth no points … is to be applied consistently and taken as gospel ... then its inverse must also be true and consistent (i.e. an advantage or purchase that isn't advantageous costs no points).
  7. This seems like a clear case for Multiform -- but it sounds like you're trying to avoid it. There's another option, which is to start at roughly human-sized … and use Shrinking to get to key-chain sized … and use Growth to get to Huge. Make the Shrinking @0END … and make the Growth cost END (for the very same balance reasons you mentioned) … and provide enough END to run it (END is cheap!).
  8. So you're making an assumption, then. I say this because, within that context, he could just as easily have intended to use 2 sentences to indicate books Seduction was not in. I don't read minds … and I try my best not to assume … hence why I seek clarification from the actual author of the text. Your assumption is, of course, noted and appreciated -- but it's still just an assumption. Surreal P.S. Sorry to digress.
  9. It doesn't actually say that … and you're not the person who posted what I asked about, so I am forced to ask how you know the intended meaning. Do you read minds … or are you merely making an assumption about the intended meaning of a sentence fragment that is unclear specifically because it's a sentence fragment … or is there some other means by which you know to which the rest of us aren't privy? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just a little baffled how you can accurately answer for someone else when it comes to that person's intent. (Did the person tell you verbally what he meant, and then you hopped on line and posted it, perhaps?)
  10. I like #2 the best, as it seems the cleanest and most representative of what you describe (among the proposed approaches) while being less hand-wavey (IMHO) than #3 (due to reliance on Ablative which, per RAW, is specifically for STUN or BOD damage IIRC) … and because #1 seems un-necessarily convoluted. I don't particularly care for the Force Wall or Damage Negation suggestions, either, because I think both of them would need to rely on Ablative, too - in order to properly represent the reductions associated with each sacrifice.
  11. I believe things like that are usually the result of … (wait for it) … biases. 😝
  12. Your first sentence (which isn't actually a sentence as it has no verb) was intended to indicate what, exactly? I'm asking because I really don't know what to make of it -- as the lack of verb renders it unclear as to whether you intended for the first sentence fragment to indicate COM appeared in each of those … or it could mean you checked them and it WAS NOT in them. Please clarify so that we know what you intended to convey.
  13. That's not what you originally wrote … nor is it what the verbiage you originally wrote ... meant. I don't read minds, I can only read text, so my (and other people's) ability to understand what you meant is limited to what you actually write. Ya' know? I actually went back and looked at Champions I, Champions II, Champions III, and the 4e core rulebook … prior to responding. 4e was the earliest appearance of Seduction I could find in the core rulebooks. If it appeared somewhere else, I can't speak to that (and never tried to) … hence why I properly qualified my remark to limit it to the core rulebooks. Seduction was (and is), indeed, PRE-based. I agree 100% with your follow-up that at no time was a skill (in the core rulebooks) based on COM … and that it's mechanical effect was, at best, limited to complimentary rolls where appropriate. (Reminder, we're talking about RAW, here; obviously GM house rules are another matter, entirely.) Thus, Cassandra's new assertion that one could make COM rolls prior to Seduction rolls is something I continue to find erroneous when it comes to supporting RAW.
  14. The foregoing statement carries the implication that the Seduction skill existed prior to COM … since one cannot substitute thing A for thing B if thing B doesn't already exist. As a result, said statement is patently false, as COM appeared in the 1e core rulebook while Seduction didn't appear in a core rulebook until 4e, IIRC. None, of course, because you can't substitute one item for another if said other doesn't (yet) exist. In a system built around the idea where one gets what one pays for, if COM has no mechanical impact, any points spent on it are, indeed, wasted, because one gets no mechanical impact for the expenditure of points. That's objective, not subjective. Why? Well, I believe it's clear in RAW that if something is not limiting, then it's not worth points (back). What logically (and objectively, not subjectively) follows from that is that if it has a mechanical impact (i.e. advantage or benefit) then it IS worth points (spent). But, as put forth by the originator of this thread, COM isn't mechanical -- i.e. it does nothing mechanical -- so (in this system where one supposedly gets what one pays for) it should cost nothing because there's no mechanical advantage/benefit derived from it (and it's all supposedly about role-play). Clearly, if someone then makes COM cost points … while rendering no mechanical advantage/benefit … well, those ARE wasted points … since one paid for … (wait for it) … nothing. And, of course, if it costs points and there IS a mechanical advantage/benefit (even as small as one-upmanship) conveyed, well, then you've completely diverged from the topic of this thread, as the case being made for comeliness entailed COM having no mechanical effect -- and being purely for role-play. Surreal P.S. Why one needs to pay points just to roleplay without mechanical advantage/benefit … is beyond me. Hugh has already done a bang-up job of explaining that mechanical effects are merely a means to enable role-playing anyway...
  15. It is, indeed, six (6) points … because the floor value for a Characteristic in 6e is one (1) point. By the way, nice example of why six (6) points matter. People can do a LOT with six (6) points, especially if they are practicing the principles documented and espoused by The Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness (published in 2e, IIRC). (Granted, lack of figured Characteristics renders those principles tougher to adhere to, but catching the round is still quite relevant.)
  • Create New...