Surrealone

For 1-2 CP, a WF already keeps you from suffering penalties due to lack of familiarity. I was thinking more like a new 5pt skill (called 'Steady Fire', perhaps?) that becomes part of the Autofire Skills set. But otherwise … yes.

I think you're spot-on in all respects when it comes to the STR Minimum being used to address recoil. I also fully agree with a steeper OCV penalty and a removal of the DC penalty to accompany the steeper OCV penalty … and -1 OCV per 3 point STR deficit feels about right. The DC penalty never made much sense to me, as recoil doesn't magically change the effect that a bullet has on impact. Instead, it simply alters the probability of an impact. I get that Mr. Long might have been gunning for (see what I did there?) the concept that recoil will affect damage due to an altered point of impact. However, a hit is a hit when not using Placed Shots, using disabling/wounding rules, and/or the like -- so an OCV adjustment should more than suffice. Likewise, Placed Shots, disabling/wounding rules, etc. are heavily OCV-dependent so, again, an OCV adjustment should more than suffice … while letting the rest of the RAW around such things work as designed. As for the Autofire OCV penalty, when it comes to realism the STR Minimum never properly represented what happens with an automatic weapon. i.e. It doesn't actually require more strength to properly control an automatic weapon; it's all about skill/technique, as each round is NOT generating more force than the last. Thus, I also agree with you that the Autofire penalty should be ignored … but for a different reason than that which you put forth: the rule is wrong/dumb to begin with. Realistically, I feel; an appropriate Autofire skill should be in place for Autofiring … and without it, ugly OCV penalties should be suffered in progressive fashion for every shot after the first. This, of course, assumes you want realism. If the goal (per Neil's goals) is more Hollywoodisms in the form of lots of lead in the air due to increased Autofire use, then even the skill/technique aspect I feel should be in place … should be ignored.

The distance from the wall thing is likely just a cinematic Hollywoodism. I say this because while it's true the bullet will have more velocity closer to the muzzle … the extra fractions of a foot per second would have little (if any) impact on how well the bullet travels through material or whether or not the impact with material causes the bullet to deform and/or tumble. Semi-automatics return to battery as part of their recoil-based operation. An out of battery condition exists when they fail to do so. If I recall correctly the phrase has its origin in the artillery world … specifically pertaining to a piece of artillery that is fired before being pulled back into position. Think back to wheeled, towable cannon that would move (even when chocked) and you'll have the right mental image for the origin of the term, as each such artillery piece had to be repositioned after every shot. So why is a wheeled gun that fires from the wrong physical position out of battery? Because it's not firing with the rest of the artillery pieces that comprise the artillery battery; it is, instead, slightly off-target compared to the rest of the battery. In more modern recoil-operated artillery pieces, the same term came to be used to describe a state where the moving parts of the gun were in the wrong position (since the gun, itself, no longer changed physical position when fired from land). This was actually appropriate since such a state usually resulted in the inability to fire with the rest of the battery. The term also made its way to semi-automatic small arms for hopefully obvious reasons, despite the fact that one isn't usually firing such weapons as part of a battery. The origin of the term 'battery' as applied to artillery units is also somewhat fascinating (to firearm nerds like me, anyway) … and also goes back to cannon use. And cannons have been around since, what, the 12th or 13th century? Heh.

I can attest to this, as well. My sledge is only 8lbs … and you STILL don't want to be on the other side of drywall or wood lathe that I'm busting down.

Bad idea for a recoil-operated semi-automatic firearm. Why? Because pushing, say, a Glock against a hard surface can (depending on the surface -- say, an uneven one, for example) cause the slide to be pushed back far enough to force the pistol out of battery … resulting in an action that is no longer locked closed and ready to fire. Now If it were a revolver that isn't prone to such a problem -- well, I'm just as curious on the subject as you are!

Learning to shoot through obstacles is as much an art as a skill. For instance, shooting through a car windshield DOES actually offer the occupant some protection UNLESS the shooter is skilled at doing so. Why? Because a car windshield is angled and, as a result, the bullet is deflected downward through the windshield if fired at the car from a head-on location. Likewise, firing from WITHIN the car through its windshield will deflect the bullet upward as it penetrates the glass. How much deflection will depend on the angle of the windshield, of course … but a skilled shooter who has practiced this kind of shooting stands a higher probability of hitting his/her target through a windshield than the average gangster unloading his/her Glock sideways at the occupant of a car (or at someone from within the car and behind the windshield). In a similar situation, most bullets begin to tumble as they deform due to impact with drywall, glass, a car door, you name it. I mention these things because, while glass provides no Resistant Defense, it and other substances that are readily penetrated (by a bullet that deforms) absolutely increase the probability of a miss (when the fired round might otherwise be a hit) … and I believe this dose of reality should probably be accounted for when shooting through things. Appropriate skill in shooting through misc materials things might make sense to offset any applied negatives to hit something beyond an obstacle.

Technically It's not something for nothing. Instead, it's something for the same cost as a little less of it … due to rounding. (i.e. You still pay.) Can you point me to RAW exempting the 1/5-based powers from the usual rounding rules, please -- since your response appears to indicate such an exemption?

Keeping this at its absolute simplest, math-wise, 5 points' worth of Duplication, Multiform, a Base/Vehicle, etc. that has no limitations costs 1 CP, right? If I recall correctly, rounding should fall in the character's favour, meaning 7 points' worth of such things (sans limitations) should also cost 1 CP. Yet in Hero Designer, 7 points' worth of these things costs 2 CP. The issue isn't just with Real Cost, but also with Active Cost … which I would think relevant for situations like Multiform inside of a Multipower (which is legal per RAW as Multiform is a Standard Power as of 5th Edition). i.e. The aforementioned 1/5-based purchases appear to ignore rounding rules. Is this an oversight, or is there some specific rule pertaining to these 1/5-based purchases that HD is following that I have overlooked? (If the latter, please cite the relevant RAW, if you would be so kind … because I've looked and can't find it.) Thanks in advance for the clarification (either way)!

The suit is capable of generating (and fluctuating) fields that break molecular bonds -- which is quite effective against organic and chemical hazards since they can be broken down prior to contact with the suit, itself. This, of course, is NOT structural … and it does, of course, cost energy. Heating/cooling both cost energy to perform, too, for their respective safe environments … as does the use of fields (think force field-like SFX) to counter high pressure or a vacuum. Radiation scrubbing inside the suit also takes energy. I think you get the idea, so I'm not going to cover every item that's included in Total Life Support, but they all make sense given the sci-fi genre this suit is meant for. What I think I need to do is group LS components logically (e.g. all the safe environments together, each of the 10pt immunities, etc.) into ~10ish active point slots that make sense. As for the END Battery, it currently has a recovery. The draw of the LS systems is, indeed, low compared to combat systems … but the potential need to run them in conjunction with the combat systems makes the END cost of the LS systems worth considering. I'll give some thought to the charges idea.

All abilities on the suit cost END (using an END Battery), including LS.

Suit with environmental capabilities -- some or none of which may be run at any given time … alongside other things (such as various forms of movement). Obviously self-contained breathing isn't needed in an atmosphere, so the suit wearer can turn that off and apply its reserve to other things. The MP helps capture the idea that the suit can't do all of its functions at all times. Ultimately what I was wrestling with was how to properly purchase the Life Support. The thinking was that with Total Life Support being possible, it just made sense to be able turn on/off some of those functions. Now if this were Spider Man's symbiotic suit, that might be different, but this is a technological implementation, not a biological one -- and most technology has an off switch or power button of some kind … and it wasn't sitting well with me that you had to have Total Life Support or nothing because that's just not how environmental controls in deep sea diving gear, space gear, etc. works. Instead, such things have discrete functions that can be independently controlled. (Air, heat, cooling, etc. as examples.)

Alrighty, so it sounds to me like the logical approach for what I'm after is to break down the Total Life Support into logical groupings of discrete functions and buy each of those groupings as individual fixed/ultra slots … and select some or all of those groupings as appropriate to the need at the time. Thanks, guys … this discussion helped a lot.

Is that your opinion, or a fact supported by RAW? Asking because the way it's presented, I'm not sure. If it's a fact supported by RAW, can you provide a citation, please?

Simon, Does RAW stipulate that only level-based abilities (like Blast) can be flexible-/multi-slots? If it's in RAW, I've looked for it and cannot find it; please point me to it. Without a RAW requirement that only level-based abilities (like Blast) can be flexible-/multi-slots, I would think it's permissible (and even intended) to have things like Life Support in flexible-/multi-slots. Also, if one can afford Total Life Support, it's reasonable that one might only run a fraction of that capability at a given time. Actually, as I think about it, even if one has limited Life Support capabilities (pre-defined), it's also reasonable that one might only run a fraction of whatever those are at a given time, yes? Example: An environmental suit capable of Total Life Support that isn't in High Radiation right now but IS at the bottom of the ocean should reasonably be able to run only Self-Contained Breathing and the relevant Safe Environment for High Pressure if desired, right? This would leave more of the reserve free to do other things (like, maybe, swim faster to get off the bottom of the ocean, perhaps? ). Why would you make the wearer of said suit tie up so much more of his/her reserve? What's your logic in that? Note that Life Support isn't (at all) like Desolidification (your example), since the smallest increment you can buy for Life Support costs 1 CP … unlike Desolidifcation, whose smallest increment is a whopping 40 CP.

Life Support is a Standard Power, so it doesn't need GM's permission to be placed into a Power Framework. When placed into a Multipower with a 45pt Reserve (or higher) as a Multi-Slot (aka Flexible Slot), does one need to pre-define which capabilities are provided? For context: 45 pts will buy Total Life Support. Thoughts?

Umm, I kind of have a problem with that table because a failed result should be something other than 'Grace Under Fire'. i.e. That table should only be populated with positive results since all of the negative results currently within it fail to qualify as 'Grace Under Fire'. It just makes no sense to me to have disgraceful things in a table supposedly about graceful things. The other option is, of course, to change the name of the table and topic to something a bit more fitting, but without either adjustment, we have a bit of a conundrum. P.S. What surprises me is that a lawyer (Steve Long) authored that … since attorneys tend to avoid using conflicting language and/or words in the things they author.

I concur that the raw tables work well. I also agree that the STUNx, N STUN, and BODYx are too severe. I tend to lean toward a preference for application of them -AFTER- defenses … as this tends to reduce the impact for those with low defenses -- which in a Heroic or Dark Champs game, is most people.

It was supposed to have been finished more than 7 months ago, since Jason's post was written in the present (not future) tense, at the time (which was Dec 8, 2017). Specifically:

I needed the chuckle this gave me, today. Thank you! Disclaimer: This show of appreciation subject to clarification or withdrawl and implies no promise by the thanker to actually implement this show of appreciation.

If you're the GM and you choose to adopt them, what about what your players are in for when they try to make sense of them? I ask because players, too, must be familiar with the changes. Thus, a GM's choice to add complexity adds it not only for the GM, but for that GM's players, too … and they might NOT know what they're in for … or might not want it once they find out. (Heck, many players have trouble understanding/following RAW, let alone deltas from it.)

I am chill and didn't take it as an accusation. Accounting for the differences IS the added complexity, as a GM must account for RAW plus the delta.

You're the one trying to make things more realistic, not me. I'm the guy who was (earlier) trying to keep things simple for ease of gameplay … and -now- you pull this out? I'm having difficulty swallowing that double-standard because either it's ok to keep things unrealistic/simple for gameplay's sake … or it isn't, right? And if it is, then gameplay (not realism) should probably trump/rule since it was the deciding factor, right? I'm not trying to be difficult or contrary, by the way -- I just don't see a point to all of the complexity you're adding if you're not going to go for broke and do it to its logical conclusion/extreme for the sake of realism … since anything less is still only a partially-baked result.

Let me put it another way so that it doesn't seem 'arbitrary' (since it wasn't): If you have two 18 DEX people who normally only have 8- Everyman rolls to coordinate … who have 13- rolls as a result of the granting of Teamwork to them in a single action, then you have granted +5 to the roll using a single attack action. Consider what it would cost someone to use a single attack action to do an Aid that brings similar value (i.e. on average … i.e. using STD Effect). To get an extra +5 to the Teamwork roll, you'd have to increase DEX by 25 … which means you'd need an 8d6 AID to DEX costing 40AP (just to start) … then you apply your AoE to it to affect multiple people. Compute the costs of 40AP*AoE versus 3AP*AoE*UBO and there's a huge delta. That's why my observation wasn't arbitrary, at all. It's also why this next observation is also fact-based: Your skill-based build appears to intentionally exploit a low base that is multiplied by stacked advantages to achieve something that is not otherwise achievable, cost-wise. Keep in mind, though, the Aid approach was just to compare cost vs. effect, since by itself it wouldn't actually work (because the added Dex won't actually add Teamwork to the recipients' sheets). For that, we'd need a Minor Transformation attack. To add Teamwork to the sheet of a normal human who lacks it, you need 20 BODY worth of effect. That's a minimum of 7d6 Minor Transform … taking STD Effect -- to reliably get 20 BODY in a single attack action. (But you'd probably need closer to 10d6 for most supers … and even more for bricks, I'd think.) Minor Transform is, of course, 5CP per die … so to do this right it's probably even pricier than the Aid that I used to loosely compare cost vs. effect. I would have expected this to be obvious to someone as familiar with the Champions/Hero system as you are, thus I didn't think I needed to do the math for you. But apparently without someone spelling it out for you, it seems 'arbitrary' to you. I would encourage you to do the math, yourself, next time … before assuming something's arbitrary. I would also expect you to compare the cost of your proposal to the cost of doing it with existing mechanics that are rules-legal without a GM call (which is required to allow your Skill to be treated as a Power) … unless there's no rules-legal way to do it sans GM call -- because that's just prudent planning/comparison to see if your proposal is or isn't 'too good for its cost' before putting it in front of a GM or others. Sorry if you don't like my analysis, but what you've proposed is potentially devastating … and costs next to nothing for the benefits it brings … when compared with existing rules-legal means of achieving said same. Surreal P.S. As for stacked advantages -- I've found one place you tend to need lots of advantages on powers just because there's no other way to do it: making non-mental powers into mental powers. Take a look at the rules for building a mental entangle, if you doubt. Making mental Flashes, Darkness fields, and the like that can be used across Mind Links (like other mental attacks) against DMCV are similarly stacked (to Mental Entangle), advantage-wise … just because they must be in order to make them behave in all respects like a mental power (i.e. ACV, AVAD, LOS, etc.) This is, in fact, the only such situation where I've found highly-stacked advantages to be pretty much required.

I don't think increased rates of fire should do more damage. Instead, I think increased rates of fire should ADD to an already low hit probability in order to improve it -- because that's how it basically works in the real world. i.e. A NYPD officer has an abysmal hit rate if fire is being returned, but s/he is statistically more likely to hit his/her target if s/he sends more rounds downrange at the target. Thus, if we want to emulate that bit of reality, we need mechanics that improve hit probabability when multiple rounds are fired at a target. Unfortunately, the autofire rules do the exact opposite by penalizing the hit rate when more shots are taken. Multiple Attack does the same thing with its OCV penalties. This is because the game's base mechanics try to make hits more likely than misses … which is completely backward for gunfighting. So, if you want to add proper realism to gunfights, you need to adjust your house rules so that most shots are misses … and then rework autofire and multiple attack rules so that taking more shots will improve the odds of a hit rather than reduce them. I am, of course, talking about aimed shots, here. Spray&Pray (i.e. Suppression fire) entails no aim, so its hit rate should suffer despite the volume of lead going downrange. That said, I've always felt its hit rate was set a bit too low.

I dislike the idea of granting skills of any sort (including skill levels) to others because they are so inexpensive the UBO+AoE construct becomes super-cheap due to the nature of stacking advantage costs on top of a low point base. If I were a GM, I would expect someone to use a variable effects AoE AID to improve the output of others in some way, as I think that better represents enhancement of something the character possesses … rather than giving them something they completely lack on the sheet. I also think it more accurately reflects the appropriate cost of granting things to a massive number of people … since enough Aid to be effective will not fall into the easily-exploitable window of SmallBaseCost*HighAdvantageCost.