Surrealone

On 7/26/2020 at 2:54 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

I don't think anyone is arguing against defining the power mechanically.  I, and I think Lonewolf, argue that you start with the plain English description, and build the power from that, not start with a mechanic.

 

I do this, as do a number of people with whom I play.  However, a number of other people with whom I play tend to make lists of what they want their characters to be able to do ... and things they don't want to affect them ... and then build around that conceptual list.  The former is akin to writing up a backstory extemporaneously and then adding powers based on what one wrote ... while the latter is akin to deciding one wants to build a brick and then listing out the aspects of that brick followed by layering in the backstory afterward."

Both approaches work.  Both are fair game. Neither is better than the other.  Different strokes for different folks.

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

My preference is for characters that have some logical consistency.  Why is the character resistant to mental entangles, but not to any other form of mental compulsion, including those that achieve the same result through a different mechanic, such as Mind Control?

 

...

 

My bias is to build a character which fits my vision of the character, not tack on bizarre abilities with no rhyme or reason based on "that fight last week suggested I might actually have a weakness".  Much like complications, though, building a character with weaknesses relies on some trust that the GM will use those weaknesses to make the game better, not as a "gotcha" to frustrate the player.  "Well, Fred has a normal human ego and no mental defenses, so every game will feature a mentalist that preys on his failure to build defenses around mental powers so Fred can be entirely ineffective every game." will quickly lead to the "my character must have no weaknesses" mentality.

That's YOUR preference and YOUR bias.  Just because it isn't someone else's doesn't mean s/he was ''desperately seeking a justification' for patootli squat.  For all you know, Jerry Siegel just tacked on X-Ray vision to Superman because he wanted him to not to be stuck looking at things normally ... and justified it as an afterthought akin to 'well, he's an alien, kthxdone'.

Being strong is just a mechanic.  Seeing through everything but lead is just a mechanic. Being hard to mentally entangle while weak to other mental abilities is just a mechanic.

On 7/24/2020 at 2:01 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

This just feels like a mechanic ("I don't want mental entangles to affect me") desperately seeking a justification.  But I'm also assessing it out of context.  In the right game it might fit right in.

 

And what, exactly, is wrong with someone deciding something like "I don't want mental entangles to affect me" and then wrapping an explanation around it?  

I ask because I don't see it as fundamentally any different from "I don't want to be really weak" .... and then buying a pile of STR to represent how strong the person feels the character is ... and then wrapping an explanation around it.

It's also fundamentally no different from "I don't want lead to affect my vision" and then buying N-ray vision that cannot see through lead ... and wrapping an explanation around THAT.

By definition, 'invulnerable' means 'impossible to harm or damage'.  Per RAW on 6e1 p190, "Furthermore, a character must define the special effects of a reasonably common group of attacks that affect him while he's Desolidified." RAW then goes on to provide examples of what is meant by 'reasonably common group of attacks" using a few that have very clear cut special effects.

Put succinctly, Desolidification is NOT a defensive 'I win' button … and it certainly does not provide a defense against all attacks that meets the definition of 'invulnerable' given the above text from RAW … in addition to Mental Powers also applying.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the point of playing a character or NPC … in a game … that is 'impossible to harm or damage' (i.e. 'invulnerable'), anyway.  That just seems awfully boring, to me.  If the intent is for a GM-controlled plot device, then treat it like one and don't bother defining it, as GM fiat is fine. Then again, GM fiat is, IMHO, an unnecessary crutch typically wielded by weak-minded GMs .... that's also awfully boring.

Hi Steve,

In late 2017 you posted a stickied thread containing 6e errata. In early 2018 you then updated the 6E Errata 01-01-2018.pdf file linked within that thread.

As of today,  clicking on the 6E Errata 01-01-2018.pdf link within that thread yields an error that reads:

Sorry, there is a problem 
The page you requested does not exist 
Error code: 1S160/2

Would you kindly update the stickied thread to address this problem such that we can once again obtain the 6e errata document from the relevant thread?

Thanks in advance!

12 hours ago, greysword said:

The event that triggered this question is specific, but this could set the precedent for similar actions.

 

 

P.S.  The event that triggered the question is one of my players has mega-scale flight and is naive.  Thus, he likes to travel to other countries and investigate "new things".  He not only flies into countries to go shopping or have lunch, broadcasting live on social media, but he has recently started doing things that might upset the State Department.  For instance, he flew to Greece and got involved in a pissing match that the Turkish Air Force was having with the Greek Air Force.  He also flew to Russia and involved himself in help Russian citizen injured by an accidental nuclear issue/explosion.  He bought 1CP in Passport, and we are debating if that would cover the character entering into any country legally without going through a port of entry, even if the nation wasn't friendly to the US.  He argued that the Passport perk included the required Visas from the destination country.  I thought it was simply a Passport (liek a Drivers License is just that, and an International DL cost more).  Just wanted to share : )

Food for thought:
If he never lands, then technically he hasn't set foot on foreign soil.  And if he's low enough to be beneath what is considered 'navigable airspace'  (which has a very specific definition per the FAA - below 500 feet), then he's not in this or another country's airspace.  Very technically.

i.e. So long as he hovers or flies … without ever touching the ground … below 500 feet … a governmental entity would have a hell of a time arresting him on any solid legal merit  … because he'd be flying/floating in a big legal grey area (off the ground and under 500 feet -- never having set foot on foreign soil or flown in its sovereign, navigable airspace). This is, of course, exploitation of a loophole caused by our laws not being written to account for people who can hover/fly.  A government could certainly arrest him, anyway, but a good attorney would have him out in a matter of hours and, if the government pursued it, likely be able to extract all kinds of money out of said government for civil rights violations (since no laws were technically broken) …. assuming the government recognizes civil rights.

If the character lacks lots of Wealth, this could be a fun storyline to get him to a wealthy state.  i.e. Good result coming from bad situation/complication that would require RP. 

Just a thought...

Surreal

P.S. And if the government passes laws to close that loophole, a good attorney could logically file a discrimination suit, since it treats hovering/flying people differently from those who cannot -- and likely win and extract more money from the government based on unequal treatment of persons via discriminatory laws (in addition to having said laws struck by the court).

On 1/8/2020 at 8:10 PM, Ninja-Bear said:

And I’d suggest this is why certain rules where changed over the editions. The biggest probably is in 4th Endurance went from ACT/5 to ACT/10. Also the base assumption for Characters in fourth is now 250 Points. I believe this move (which is continued through 5th/6th) is so you can create characters with more of an eye to create character concept than point efficiency.

You seem to suggest that it's an either/or scenario when, in reality, one can very readily create a character with an eye toward both concept AND efficiency.  This was rather the point of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness blurbs -- i.e. They reminded players building to concept not to forget about efficiency.

On 1/7/2020 at 2:25 PM, PhilFleischmann said:

I had a player many editions ago, that would calculate all his power limitations so that the point cost would always end in .5, or as close as possible to that, so it would round down.  Then he would put powers in a Multipower, so the cost of the fixed slots would also end in .5 or close to it, so they round down again.  He was not so brazen as to give himself an extra point of END or COM for free, by rounding down the half-point.

Given that catching the round was actually explained/shown to players via the rules as written (specifically as demonstrated in 2nd Edition via the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness blurbs), this is part/parcel of the game.  While you may consider it munchkiny, players and GMs, alike - in virtually every game in which I've participated, tend to crunch their characters like this for efficiency.

Getting maximum value for every point spent may seem munchkiny to you, but I'd argue that it's thoughtful, diligent, cost-effective character creation.  So did the original game designers, it seems.  Again, I cite the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness blurbs from 2nd Edition as evidence, thereof.

43 REC bought as a fixed Multipower slot in a shape shifter's Multipower where it could run only one slot at a time -- defined as adjusting physiology to allow for rapid healing.  (The character was an efficient 450pt build in 6e, by the way … and it was the largest of three Multipowers on the character.)

The player would hold through Segment 12 and then, if no action was used, slot the REC and keep holding into the next Turn, thereby leveraging the crazy REC during the post-Segment 12 recovery.  Only when needed, of course.

I admired it from a justification and rules lawyering angle, as it was perfectly legit with a sound basis in character concept -- but it still smelled like Limburger.

I was curious about that too, as I've never seen DEX races, either. Perhaps it's because the GMs I've had tend to take heavy advantage when a character 'drops his pants' (by taking an action on a Phase at his DEX early in the DEX count for the Segment), thereby precluding his/her ability to abort when someone (or several someones) with lower DEX attack in the same Segment … often thumping him/her.

Kick a dog enough when it can't abort … and it begins holding Actions until the last possible moments to use them -- i.e. until the Segment just before an upcoming new Phase, usually.  That's been my experience anyway...

I tend to agree with Killer Shrike that if one is going to penalize for hurrying then one should provide a benefit to taking one's time -- otherwise one ends up with a poorly-considered band-aid in play that isn't exactly logical.  Certainly you may not subscribe to the need for symmetry, but that doesn't mean all of your players will see it the same way.

I mention this because, ultimately, groups agreeing to play by a certain rule set with a GM isn't a license for a GM to be draconian.  Instead, it is exactly that … an agreement (usually verbal) … that the rule set is mutually acceptable to use as a basis for game play.  Thus, it logically follows that players should also have some input into whether changes/amendments to the rule set are mutually acceptable.  If they aren't, well, the adult thing to do is hash it out (a la negotiatiation) … but if that reaches a stalemate, there are always other GM's (or, from the GM's perspective, other players).

Spot-on.  Likewise, the version of the Character who pays for the Multiform must spend experience on Multiform (a la the usual 1/5 costing) to represent experience-based improvements to/for the forms that did NOT pay for the Multiform.

Note, however, that GM awards (such as form-specific Contacts, Perks, and the like) can still be form-specific experienced-based improvements; they're just zero-cost experience-based improvements (i.e. non-issue).

That's pretty much what Captain America's shield is -- an unbreakable focus that provides defense, likely requiring a skill roll to use while having a partial coverage limitation.  It can, of course, be destroyed outside of combat... and it likely also has some Reflection capabilities.

Naked advantages are considered 'special powers' and cannot be placed in frameworks per RAW.  The GM can, of course, rule otherwise.

55 minutes ago, Tech said:

 

Actually, there is such a table: Champions 2 p.16.  However, I don't know if we're permitted to show an entire page of one of their (old) publications, otherwise I'd post it.

I was referring to the current version of the rules and gave absolutely no thought to 5e and earlier versions.  Good memory there, or are you still playing 2e?? 

IIRC the Growth Table on 6e1 p229 is about as close as you'll get in RAW to what you've asked about.  Beyond what is provided in RAW, there, you might have to sit down and build such a table, yourself, as I'm unaware of a table that has pre-built sizes, masses, and weights for a large number of random objects/creatures. Even supplemental materials tend to be fairly focused (i.e. vehicle-focused supplement, creature-focused supplement, etc.) -- meaning I can recall no supplement with the breadth of 'everything from Doors to Aircraft Carriers' since the supplements tend to align to some kind of theme.

On 12/9/2019 at 2:15 PM, Doresh said:

 

Depends on the GM, if 6E1 379 is anything to go by, where it is mentioned that a defense focus is automatically hit along with the wearer. Though this is omitted in Champions Complete, so I guess I may have been overthinking this.

As has been remarked, before, Champions Complete is not actually complete; it is missing at least one table and also lacks a lot of clarifying verbiage.

If you were to ask Steve Long about this, you'd get a 6e answer, not a CC answer.  Take that as you will.

Off the top of my head, the following are determined/affected by CON:

• Holding one's breath (sans Life Support);
• The effects of radiation on one's character (sans Life Support);
• Impairing effects when a head or torso hit is made using impairment rules;
• Long term effects of disablement when a disabling hit is made using disabling rules; 
• How much one can push when using dangerous pushing rules (since dangerous pushes drain CON); and
• How resistant to physical torture a character is when CON is used (to represent physical toughness or hardiness instead of relying on PRE or EGO) to resist PRE attacks that are based on physical pain.

-1/4 to -1/2 is what I tend to see in 6e games due to the above -- depending on how many of the optional rules are in play. 

As a reminder, OCV and DCV are characteristics (as opposed to being figured from DEX in 4e and earlier).  Thus, while you cannot, per RAW, buy Skill Levels with Multiple Attack, nothing in RAW prevents/precludes you from buying +2 OCV and slapping an appropriate Limitation on it … such as "Only Usable When Multiple Attacking. [-1]".

Arch,

Take a gander at Damage Over Time...

GM's call as to what happens when stunned on a mount, as it's very situational.  In the given situation, I'd expect the rider to remain mounted unless the horse did something that might cause the rider to fall -- in which case, I'd offer no Ride roll or Dex check to preclude a fall if the character was still stunned when the horse did whatever it did.

It also doesn't seem fair to downvote just because you disagree with someone … or because you feel offended by something someone wrote when that wasn't the person's intent.  The fact that this was done, suggests fairness isn't part of the equation that was used by some people when conducting their downvotes. Thus, it seems a bit unreasonable to hold others to a standard of fairness when it comes to downvoting.  (I believe there's a term/word for holding others to a standard to which one does not, oneself, conform/adhere.  Hypo...something.  Hrm, if I could only remember the rest of it...)

So, use a Limitation to the SPD Drain, for that...

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

I have a small reputation here for _hating_ change (I haven't left second edition yet, and your antique BBB was the fourth edition) _and_ for putting story and concept ahead of of anything it says in the "must build" or "Must buy" or "points go here" parts of the rules

Ya' think?  LOL 😆

On 9/10/2019 at 2:21 PM, steriaca said:

How would you simulate putting someone in suspended animation, and slowly heal the subject? I know it would probably be a complicated multi-power power.

Regeneration, Usable By Others with a Side Effect (sleep that is ODCV, totally unaware) that always occurs when used?  Maybe build it using continuous charges so you can switch the multipower reserve after activating it, too?