Surrealone

That's ok, pup ... you'll be a dog some day.

Thanks, Twister!

It's late, I'm tired, and I've probably missed a preference or setting somewhere that's glaringly obvious ... but after playing with preferences I can't seem to square this one away -- so a little help, please? I am trying to force Mental Defense into a MultiPower -- specifically so that I can play with an AoE 'thought screen' concept. However, every time I try to put Mental Defense into the framework, HD kicks it back out after giving me a warning. (I don't mind a warning; in fact, I'd like to keep that. What I need to disable is whatever is precluding me from putting special powers into a framework.) Can someone point me in the right direction to disable this sort of checking?

I guess you didn't read my previous post.

Another way to go might be Desolidification with a limitation that it's only for the purpose of avoiding triggers (a fairly hefty limitation, I'd think) ... combined with an attack built with the Affects Real World advantage. (Note that Steve Long's Gun Fu book has an example of this sort of limited Desolidification. His example was limited to only avoid suppression fire, for which he gave a -2 limitation value.) I think a lot of it really depends on the types of triggers you want to avoid. My suggestion works great for trip wires that require contact, IR sensors based on heat (since you're effectively not there) ... but not so well against triggers based on sight, breathing, movement, and the like (since a desolid individual must still breathe, can still be seen moving, etc). By comparison, Hyper-Man's suggested approach will cover the sorts of things my suggested approach will not.

It seems like you're stretching the definition of the head to include the neck (pun intended) ... as none of the citations above are definitive. That said, your earlier 6e2 p65 citation caused me to look around, and I think I have found something definitive that DOES support your assertion: Per 6e2 p67, "If the campaign uses Hit Locations or the character specifies an attack against Location 5 (the Head), a Grab maneuver hitting Location 5 (the Head) and involving a Squeeze both does extra damage (Head locations take 2x STUN and BODY from Normal Damage attacks) and cuts off the target’s breath, making him unable to shout or talk (see the rules below for Chokes). A Grab maneuver hitting Locations 3 and 4 does the extra damage, but doesn’t cut off the victim’s breath with a Squeeze." Per 6e2 p84, "Choke: This maneuver allows a character to grasp an opponent’s head and neck and inflict NND damage." Per 6e2 p84, "Choke works just like a normal Grab for purposes of determining whether the victim escapes (for example, he gets an immediate Casual STR roll to break free and take no damage, and the OCV/DCV penalties for Grabbing/being Grabbed apply). However, it only immobilizes one “limb” — the head." So, it would seem I've found some RAW for you to support your assertion that the head/neck are somewhat interchangeable. Specifically, Location 5 of the 'Head' Hit Location is apparently representative of the neck, since that is what must be grabbed and squeezed in order to Choke someone. When you add the above citations to your earlier citation from 6e2 p65 ("The head counts as a limb because a character can use it to attack") ... then there is (finally) a compelling case for the Head (Hit Location) being a limb (per the RAW you cited) ... and the neck being part of that limb since the Choke maneuver applies to the head and neck ... and Hit Location 5 (in a range of 3-5 ... per the Hit Location Table on 6e2 p109) appears to represent what one chokes (likely the neck) when performing a standard Choke maneuver.

Please show me where it says 'neck' within the text you quoted...

Hey, I think you identified a niche for the pistol that I wasn't aware of. Thanks for that. Sadly, though, I see that niche as bass ackwards -- but I'm probably biased.

Here's another solution in search of a problem in the real world... but something potentially cool for gaming use.

LOL. I'm on that page, too! No practical use but I want it anyway ... for no good reason at all. If only the bank account were bottomless...

I believe the -1/4 limitation you're referencing on HA is a remnant of trying to show/justify how they arrived at HA's NEW/INCREASED cost in 5e (over what HA cost in 4e) -- nothing more. As a result, I tend to feel that HA should be unified with HKA in terms of NOT having the limitation. I take this stance because: HKA's never had that limitation in any version (6e, 5e, 4e, etc.) -- and if it's not broken, let's not 'fix' it like someone tried to do with HA in 5e HA was the new kid on the block (in 4e) costing 3CP per die with a minimum purchase of 6CP worth of HA. HA's cost was changed in 5e to 5CP per die with a mandatory -1/4 limitation as you pointed out -- which then works out to 4CP per die (i.e. this is the 5e cost increase for HA -- with the new 'show our work/thinking' mentality that appeared in 5e text rearing its head) i.e. It's pretty clear to me where the discrepancy was introduced (5e ... with HA) ... so I prefer to fix the glitch that was introduced ... by simply saying HA has a cost of 4CP per die ... and doing away with the mandatory limitation garbage that's got you scratching your head. I prefer this because trying to take that mandatory limitation and apply it to HKA seems like perpetuation of the glitch ... and flies in the face of HKA handling since the power was initially crafted. (If you think about it, HKA changed little across the years ... until the nerf bat was taken to the STUN lottery in 6e.)

You assume that I GM; I don't ... which, of course, renders your response a bit silly. But I happen to like silly from time to time, so... That said, I'm accustomed to GMs who actually take seriously the 'you get what you pay for' approach that's germane to Champions/Hero System... meaning if it's something useful, a player either pays for it on the character sheet (or with money the heroic character earned/has) or goes without it ... under the GM's I've found to be the most consistent/fair in their rulings. (And it just makes sense -- because if you give X value to player N via GM handwaving/fiat ... but fail to give the same value to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... that wasn't fair to players P, Q, R, S, and T ... in a game where supposedly 'you get what you pay for'.)

Put another way, you'd handwave free Penetrating for Targeting Mental Awareness ... such that walls and such didn't get in the way? I'm not so sure I'd do that. Here's why: Mind Scan searches for Minds (think of it as Detect One Specific Mind, right?) in a given area (i.e. inherently omnidirectional ... and even inherently megascaled unless bought with the No Range limitation) whereas Mental Awareness searches for the source/destination of Mental Powers not minds. i.e. I think it makes sense to ignore barriers when looking for minds ... but to have to "see" (i.e. a la LOS) the actual entities with the minds if you want to see the mental powers emanate from or affect them. (The LOS requirement is actually RAW, btw...) Hey, if you want to give away another 10 points of Penetrating to those with Targeting Mental Awareness (on to of what you give away to Stretchers!), more power to you, but golly you're very giving as a GM.

And who is handling the carbon footprint in the DC TV universe ... you know, with nukes landing next door?

As context for discussion: Per 5er p87, Combat Luck was constructed as a Hardened power in the 5er ruleset. Per 5er p115, the definition of a Hardened power indicated it counteracted "the Power Advantages Armor Piercing, Penetrating, and Indirect" in the 5er ruleset. i.e. For 6 CP per level of Combat Luck -- someone received 3 rPD and 3rED that counteracted Armor Piercing, Penetrating, Indirect (while being Luck-Based and Non-Persistent) ... in the 5er ruleset. Fast-forward to 6e, please. As further context for discussion: 6e1 p21, Section 13. Changed Advantages lists Hardened as a changed Advantage. 6e1 p21, Section 14. New Advantages lists Impenetrable as a new Advantage. Per 6e1 p147, the definition of Hardened is updated to state that an "attack with Armor Piercing applies normally against a Hardened defense; the usual 'halving' effect is ignored." (i.e. Hardened effectively counteracts only Armor Piercing in 6e) Per 6e1 p110, Combat Luck remains Hardened, Luck-Based, and Non-Persistent ... and retains its 5er point cost ... but now does less than it did in 5er since it no longer counteracts Penetrating as it previously did 6e1 p20, Section 8. Perks And Talent Changes does NOT list Combat Luck as a Talent that was impacted/changed Discussion: From what I can see, we appear to have one of two situations: EITHER: Combat Luck was supposed to have retained its ability to counteract Penetrating ... and someone failed to update Combat Luck description on 6e1 p110 such that the new Impenetrable Advantage was part of the Talent OR: Combat Luck was intentionally nerfed ... and someone failed to add Combat Luck to the 6e1 p20, Section 8. Perks And Talent Changes list Question: Which of the above scenarios is correct? If neither, then please advise ... since we seem to have a Talent that has changed in functionality between 5er and 6e ... despite not being listed among the Talents as having been changed/impacted. - Surreal P.S. As an opinion, if the nerf to Combat Luck was intentional, then drawing attention to the change to the Hardened Advantage on 6e1 p147 was probably not enough to cause people to immediately think about the impact to Combat Luck. I state this specifically because the homework I did on this topic came up as a direct result of someone's insistence that Combat Luck had not changed between 5er and 6e ... and it took the above volume of citations to prove otherwise. (i.e. If the nerf was intentional, then an update to the 6e1 p20, Section 8. Perks And Talent Changes list was probably in order ... and if not ... then an update to the Talent was probably in order. Either way -- we appear to have a bit of a problem to resolve.)

mrinku is spot-on.

I don't follow this. What does Mind Scan have to do with anything? (Mind Scan, by its very definition, is Targeting -- check RAW if you doubt. Thus, there's really no need to buy Targeting on the Mental Sense Group ... or on Mind Scan.) Per RAW you need LOS to sense the source and target of a mental power with Mental Awareness ... and LOS effectively means the same as "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim" (your words) ... if I read you correctly. Hence my confusion on the above and why I seek clarification ... as Penetrating is only needed if you want your Mental Awareness to work through walls/barriers that would otherwise preclude LOS ... but that's not what your quoted text deals with, as it assumes/states "nothing [is] preventing the mental powers from targeting the victim".

Heh!

You are correct in that nothing prevents a fellow with no Stretching from tilting his torso to peek around the corner and reach his hand around that corner to fire a ranged attack. However, you completely glossed over the fact that doing so would REDUCE the amount of cover possessed by said fellow (compared to if said fellow only exposed head and hand). By pushing the torso around the corner, too, said fellow would radially increase in the amount of body mass exposed -- resulting in a statistically significant reduction in the Behind Cover penalties applied to said fellows' attackers. By pushing the torso around the corner, said fellow would lose somewhere between from 2-4 effective DCV that he would retain if only head/hand were stretched around the corner (without the largest portion of the body .. .the torso ... also being exposed). So let's do some math to determine what you want to give away: 2 DCV costs, what? 10 Active Points? And 4 DCV costs what, 20 Active Points? So you're effectively claiming the ability to retain 10-20 Active Points worth of effective DCV is a 'small advantage' (to use your words) gained by merely having say 2m of Stretching which costs exactly 2CP (since Stretching is stupidly cheap) ... with no need to pay more for Extra Limbs? Don't you see something a bit wrong with the amount of bang one is getting for the CP buck, here? Shouldn't the ability to retain that 10-20 Active Points worth of effective DCV cost a bit more than 2 CP in Stretching? Is it so much to ask/expect it to cost 7 CP, instead (in the form of 2m Stretching plus 1 Extra Limb)? If it is too much to ask someone to spend 7CP instead of 2 CP ... for the useful ability that lets someone retain 10-20 Active Points worth of effective DCV when Stretching around cover, please explain why you feel this is somehow inequitable; I'm struggling to find the inequity you seem to see in charging for Extra Limbs. 1) Again, RAW on 6e1 p284 says: "At its base level, Stretching only lets a character make parts of his body longer. (Typically that means his arms, less often his legs, and much more rarely other body parts.)" 2) See the red text, above, in this post as to why - craning his neck around the corner (which entails bending it in a way it's not articulated to bend) means he doesn't also have to put his torso around the corner -- resulting in retention of more cover. Thus, craning the neck around the corner is useful ... in the form of providing ~2-4 effective DCV (10-20 Active Points in effective DCV) the character would lose if he tilted his torso around the corner. And you want to give away that effective 10-20 Active Points worth of DCV ... for 2CP (the cost of 2m Stretching)? Why is 7 CP (2m Stretching + 1 Extra Limb) so outrageously unreasonable given how many active points worth of benefit I just showed you is conferred? You're talking a huge give-away in active points, here .... that's the 'utility'. In a game where you're supposed to get what you pay for, it seems like 2 CP for 2m Stretching is a ridiculously good deal under most of you as GMS .... for anyone who has any idea how to combine stretching with Behind Cover. Again, RAW on 6e1 p284 says: "At its base level, Stretching only lets a character make parts of his body longer. (Typically that means his arms, less often his legs, and much more rarely other body parts.)" i.e. Barring GM fiat, the neck is not a limb like an arm or a leg ... so it should fall into that 'much more rarely' category. i.e. Per RAW's guidance, if you have 100 stretching characters all show up in your game, most should be stretching arms ... less often there will be some who can do legs ... and much more rarely, other body parts like the neck should be stretchable by some of those characters. (And probably only with good reason/justification -- i.e. the character is a Contortionist with appropriate skills, is Double-Jointed, is an anatomically different alien species, etc.) If you want to handwave that, it's certainly your call ... but when you do it, consider the giveaway I just pointed out, above, as it basically amounts to giving away (in terms of effective DCV cost) 5x-10x the active point cost of 2m Stretching when Stretching is properly leveraged with cover by a player. What a great return on investment for the Stretching character whose neck you just handwaved into rubberiness, right? I can think of very few purchases I can make that, when properly leveraged, provide ROI this good within the Hero System... especially as it pertains to defensive postures. By comparison, if you charge for the Extra Limb, that return on investment, while still positive (and comic-booky), is a much more modest 1.4-2.9x the active cost of 2m Stretching. This seems to be much closer to the norm in terms of defensive posture ROI, IMHO.

And people play in his games, why, exactly?

Per 5er p165 the cost to add the Targeting Sense modifier is 10 CP for a single sense and/or 20 CP for an entire sense group. Thus, as Mental Awareness is a single sense, the unmodified cost to add the Targeting Sense modifier to it would be 10 CP. Reminder: Mental Awareness is one of two default members of the Mental Sense Group -- with the other default member of that group being Mind Scan. Important: Yes it costs more than Mental Awareness, itself, to make it a Targeting Sense. And it should. Why? Because you can target more than just Mental Powers with it. i.e. You can target your gun at the source of a Mental Power using your Targeting Mental Awareness while you happen to be Sight Group flashed by someone's flashbomb or while in pitch black a la a Darkness to Sight Group -- if you choose to do so. If you want to only be able to use Targeting Mental Awareness to Target Mental Powers ... and your character is a 50/50% mix of equally potent (as determined by active point comparisons) mental and non-mental attacks (respectively), then I could see a -1 limitation being applicable on the Targeting Sense modifier, itself (e.g. Only for Targeting Mental Attacks, -1). If your character is a 67/33% mix of equally potent mental and non-mental attacks (respectively), then that's probably closer to a -1/2 limitation. If the mix is 75/25%, then it's likely a -1/4 limitation. And if your character is a pure mentalist with little or no equivalent non-mental attacks, then that's no limitation at all. You'd likely need to build your Targeting Mental Awarness as a compound power if you wanted to limit only the Targeting Sense aspect in this way -- since the base Mental Awareness cost shouldn't get the benefit of the cost break. This s easy enough to do in Hero Designer. Of course, that may not be necessary if you acquired Mental Awareness for free per 5ER's gratis granting of Mental Awareness when some other mental power is purchased; in that case you could just buy the Targeting Sense piece for it separately ... and limit it.

Eeeew to the GM who hammers exotic defenses. Ideally team/party balance has one hero who is the exotic attack/defense specialist (who is also typically weak when it comes to standard attacks/defenses ... as a tradeoff) -- specifically so that the team/party has someone to deal with GM baddies that deal in exotic attacks/defenses. However, the moment exotic attacks/defenses become the norm due to GM overdependence ... they kind of cease to be exotic ... and a GM should adjust his exotic attack/defense costs accordingly, I'd think. If that GM's players haven't brought their torches and pitchforks to a gaming session to force a union-like discussion on that topic, someone ought to suggest it. Regarding AoE -- I'd be surprised if your team's checklist doesn't include a non-damaging (e.g. Entangle; Barrier used to Englobe, etc.) AoE attack -- since it's usually quite heroic to capture the opposition without beating it completely into unconsciousness or burning/blowing up the world around it to make the capture.

And then there's the fact that the fictitious world in which superheroes exist -- was made by their creators specifically for it to be set upon and/or messed up by villains .... as well as up, knocked down, and/or otherwise screwed up by superheroes as part of their efforts to save it. (Let's talk about the Russian nuke that couldn't be stopped by Team Arrow in the DC TV universe, shall we? OR heck, let's look at Flashpoint for a truly shining example of a superhero screwing up/with his world? )

Why do you feel this way? I ask because surely your players have AoE's they can use to target the spaces around them ... or the spaces near/around someone at range within a Darkness field? i.e. A Common and sound tactic when one can't see ... is to use AoE. This is especially true of AoEs the characters have with Personal Immunity -- you know, the Ice Guy who isn't affected by his own AoE Radius Cold Snap power ... or the Plant Dude with a nasty area-affecting plant-based Entangle and/or Barrier that doesn't affect him? Heck, depriving a mentalist of LOS is a key and oft-used way of dealing with one ... so I'm forced to ask what's so sacred about every other archetypes' targeting senses in your games? Do your players simply not follow the same route other players usually do to handle the need to attack what they can't perceive? If not, how the heck do they deal with invisible, Predator-like opponents -- or fight within Darkness fields? Do you simply not challenge them in this way???

What does it give you that just walking around the corner doesn't? Here's your answer: Cover (if only doing the looksee) ... or Cover plus full ranged OCV (if doing the looksee and performing a ranged attack, too) Consider that with >90% cover (only head visible), attackers suffer a -8 OCV penalty to hit your character. I could see a GM reducing that to a -6 or even a -4 penalty to the attacker's OCV if your character Stretched his/her head and neck (only) a long way around the corner ... thereby reducing effective cover to something the GM felt was closer to 75%-90% instead of >90%. With that in mind, in combat, that sort of penalty can be very significant - especially in combination with Stretching an arm/hand around the same corner to take a few ranged shots at the opposition with a gun -- without the body being visible (or even right at the corner's edge, which is relevant for walls made of sheetrock, where someone might assume they could just shoot through the wall). Note that without being able to put the head/neck around the corner for said looksee, just putting the hand around said corner and squeezing off rounds will incur a BIG OCV penalty .... since s/he's effectively shooting blind (i.e. at 0 OCV ... absent penetrative vision or some other compensatory power, of course - which I'm leaving out of the mix for simplicity's sake). Given the above, putting the neck/head around the corner allows the character to maintain full OCV (instead of dropping to 0CV) ... while also allowing for very significant partial cover OCV modifiers to his/her opposition. Example: Let's say we're talking about a character with OCV and DCV 8 ... and let's assume the GM says partial cover for hand/arm plus head/neck exposure just around the corner (a short distance) is -4 to attacker OCV (in total) to represent 75% cover. The user of this ability (for head/neck as well as arm/hand) avoids shooting blind (i.e. keeps 8 OCV s/he'd otherwise lose by just Stretching the hand around the corner without the head/neck) ... and also gains the benefit of the -4 to attackers due to cover. That's a total of 12 CV preserved by the ability to put the head/neck around the corner for the looksee. And people don't feel this sort of penalty avoidance is worth any CP? Wow. I find that shocking, since I doubt if I played in these people's games they would just hand me 12 CV worth of PSLs for free (or 'free' with with my measly 1" purchase of Stretching) ... but using the above example, that's exactly the sort of thing being suggested by folks who don't think a few more CP should be spent on Extra Limbs to cover the neck.