Surrealone

Fair. But in this case, I do believe I have the preponderance of evidence on my side. To your point of synonyms - words that are synonyms have similar (but not exactly the same) meanings. That's important because we're discussing a fine point within the delta between synonyms. (i.e. Synonyms aren't precise enough for the discussion ... since the entire realm of the discussion exists within the space representing the difference between synonyms ... which is what I was driving at when I said we're almost splitting hairs, above.) I tend to agree: this is why we have GMs.

6e1 p284 is clear: "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.)" It also goes on to say that some creatures are more malleable than this, but in my experience that doesn't tend to include most humanoids -- and especially not you, Hugh (at least not based on the intractability of some of your posts! ). Take a giraffe -- it has the longer neck you speak of (presumably Stretching with Neck Only and Always On limitations) -- but it can't bend its neck left/right around corners to take a looksee because its neck is not articulated for that; it's articulated for up/down bending and has only marginal side/side flexibility of the neck. (I actually watched some giraffe videos before posting this response -- not kidding!) Similarly, your neck is not properly articulated for bending sideways around a corner -- even if you could stretch it 1m. That's where I believe Exta Limbs comes in ... because the articulation required to bend a neck around a corner is a pre-cursor to the types of more extreme bends/twists required for it to be prehensile. If someone doesn't want full prehensile ability with the Extra Limb, fine, take a limitation on that, but in general I wouldn't condone giving away the utility of the ability to bend the neck in unnatural ways ... for free. It -is- useful ... so it should cost -something-. And per RAW it's not, by default, included with Stretching in most cases (but the GM could, of course, rule otherwise). It is a limb that is NOT articulated for more than 180 degress of motion left/right, 180 degrees of motion up/down, and up to 180 degrees of motion from left shoulder to right shoulder -- in most humans. i.e. The vertebrae and muscles would not, even if it was longer, allow the human neck to form a U shape. Per RAW, Stretching won't give you that, anyway unless the GM rules differently. So we're back to Extra Limbs to get that kind of functionality ... sans GM fiat.

Today I bring you the latest F*ck You to the BATFE from FightLite Industries: the FightLite RAIDER. Practically useless in every defensive scenario I can think of, this little 7.5" barreled blaster comes in either 5.56 NATO or .300 BLK, with the latter being the obvious choice given the short barrel length. Screw on a suppressor, slap in a 20 round magazine of .300 BLK, attach a sling to the QD port on the end of the grip (so it can be easily hung/concealed under a duster, trenchcoat, or the like), and your mooks will be the silent but deadly life of your heroic opposition's party.

You and I agree on this ... I was simply making the case that an Extra Limb ought to be required to do that with the neck if the neck were to be use in prehensile ways. Consider: Your arm is considered a limb, and it's normal/sane for you to be able to reach it around a corner to feel along the opposing wall. Stretching would let you do -more- of that sort of reaching. But you can't inherently do that with your neck, right? (Unless., say you're an alien or something ... one that has two necks and no arms ... i.e. you just switched around what was considered limbs on the alien character. But let's stick to human for simplicity, shall we?) My stance is that because you can't inherently do that with your neck, simply buying stretching isn't enough, you'd need to also have the neck as an Extra Limb ... to let it do things it normally could not. (Put another way, without taking the neck as an Extra Limb, I don't think you should get any limb-like use from the neck (including reaching around corners to have a looksee) without paying for it. At most, stretching only straight up would be appropriate, since that's not so limb-like in use.)

Happy to oblige. My approach was based on not adding any words to what's written in RAW; I simply parsed what was already there, in text, as that is inherently definitive (hence 'RAW') ... and also avoids guesswork (because you don't have to guess at the words on the page or what they literally mean). If you don't the per-definition meanings of the literal word choices within RAW are persuasive, then the only fair way for you to make a judgment call is to also look at the counter-argument's supporting evidence within RAW and weigh the two against one another. To that effect, can you show us supporting evidence (with RAW citations, as above) that clearly indicate: the application of the Ranged advantage makes the advantaged power become a ranged power (not a power usable at range, but an actual ranged power); and the application of the No Range limitation makes the limited power become a HTH power (not a ranged power usable at HTH ranged, but an actual HTH power with touch being required)? If so, let's see those citations ... so we can make that unbiased judgment call together. I did my part; so I'm looking to you to present the other side -- because I, myself, don't actually see support in RAW for the counter-argument ... but I'm open to it if it's there and I've simply missed it. In either case the preponderance of evidence should prevail ... at least, in an unbiased environment/mind (much like in a court) ... right? If only that person were perfect ... with complete/perfect recall of exactly what he meant years ago when RAW was initially codified -- such that there was no potential for retroactively assigning meaning to things upon further thought. I bring this up not to be a jerk, but to point out that Steve Long is human ... and subject to altering what he originally meant upon further review. This means that not even Mr. Long can be relied upon to give perfect clarity to his own intent 5+ years ago; he can only render his opinion, today, of what he thinks he meant. Thankfully, Mr. Long is (as I understand it) an attorney by trade/training -- so he knew when he wrote the rules that word choices mattered ... and chose them very carefully to presumably codify his meaning/intent while also creating RAW that would withstand the test of time (similar to how I contract is supposed to). More important: Mr. Long has provided a few clarifications in the past that actually contradicted language in RAW -- without there being an errata update. This, I submit, is proof of human fallibility rearing its head ... and is evidence that even clarifications provided by Mr. Long need to be inspected/questioned/scrutinized ... and/or taken with a grain of salt.

I think the concept is functional for the genre but that it should be done with Clairsentience.

Most GMs would probably rule that this Indirect build is an attempt to duplicate N-Ray Perception for Normal Sight while dodging the drawback of N-Ray Perception (i.e. reasonably common substance that blocks it). You shouldn't be able to buy something better than N-Ray Perception (i.e. no drawbacks) that does the same thing .... for less points ... right? Moreover, if you want an Indirect sense, you should buy Clairsentience, right? If you argued that point, then the discerning GM would likely go one step farther by shooting the build down based on a hardline interpretation of RAW. Specifically, Indirect is an advantage intended to work on powers that require attack rolls (regardless of whether they target an individual/object or a hex), as evidenced by the verbiage littered throughout the description of Indirect found on 5er p260. PER rolls aren't attack rolls... and perception of something isn't an attack action. Thus, Indirect shouldn't be permitted on senses.

How I build characters doesn't fit into any of the given categories, so I didn't vote. Key to this is that I build as follows (and in this order): I choose my archetype (e.g. Energy Projector, Brick, Martial Artist, Speedster, Mentalist, etc.) based on team need -- to fill holes in the team with minimal invasiveness to another player's 'schtick'. i.e. If we have a cold-based Energy Projector and we need a Brick, I'd make a Brick and avoid a cold-based theme for the character since that's someone else's theme. Once my archetype is chosen and GM-approved, I write up a background to flesh out the concept. Next I buy everything and anything for the character that I feel makes sense for it at a given eyeballed play level (e.g. heroic, powerful heroic, very powerful heroic, superheroic, powerful superheroic) - without any consideration for actual point totals. Next, I tally up the point totals and begin shaving things down to fit within the game's limits -- by tossing out things I think I can live without (since I usually find I'm over the starting point value for the campaign). Note: I record everything I toss out and then prioritize that list ... yielding a character advancement plan I can use later. Next, I point-crunch the character per the principles taught to players in 2nd Edition by the famed Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness, catching the round everywhere it makes sense for the character , since this sort of optimization is actually part of the game (else it'd not have been taught to players in 2E, right?). Once I've done my point-crunch, I see how many CP I managed to scare up, and then I re-buy things I initially tossed out as part of step #4 ... pulling from the top of the advancement list based on what I can afford to bring back into the character. Worth mentioning is that I sometimes end up iterating on #5 and #6, depending on what I brought back into the character as part of #6 and whether it needs to be and/or can be re-crunched.

Yup -- at which point, why pay for an advantage that gets you nothing beyond what buying Targeting for Mental Awareness does?

Depends on how the trigger is defined -- which I don't see, above. So what, specifically is the SFX and how are you defining the trigger?

Well, since the Focus is typically the gun, the ammo usually ends up being nothing more than a special effect to properly represent the Charges/Jammed/Burnout limitation(s) as taken on the Focus. As far as different ammo types on a Focus, that's usually represented by either a MP or a VPP on the Focus ... with Extra Time (half phase, only to activate) to switch slots or change the pool (to represent a magazine change to one holding different ammunition) ... and Charges on the slots or the specific VPP power (to represent only so much ammunition of a given type within the magazine(s) represented by Charges on the slot or VPP power). Many a GM will allow Fast Draw to apply to the Extra Time ... since it represents a magazine change (and since Fast Draw is capable of mitigating the usual half phase mag change). But to be fair, there's really not a huge variety of ammunition for most small arms. Caliber tends to dictate capacity (since bigger rounds take up more space and weigh more) ... and once the caliber is chosen, capacity only varies based on how much extra weight/bulk you want to carry in terms of magazines. i.e. It's not like there are a plenthora of options to choose from within most given calibers. I can't just run out and buy .45 ACP armor piercing rounds ... or .45 ACP incendiary rounds ... or .45 ACP penetrating rounds ... or .45 ACP explosive rounds. Instead, my choices are basically: wad cutter, full metal jacket, hollow point, and match grade ... with a special note for tracer rounds. Using the .45 ACP example, in game terms, full metal jacket is likely the de facto standard on which the .45 pistol's damage is centered (which I'll express as Xd6 RKA) -- i.e. no delta and nothing special about those rounds. Hollow points probably takes that .45 ACP from Xd6 RKA to Xd6+1 RKA ... while wad cutter/match grade are geared for competition shooting (the former intended for punching very clean holes in paper ... while the latter is constructed for improved ballistic coefficient/aerodynamics) ... and, thus, each is probably something closer to Xd6-1 RKA in terms of output. Regarding the tracer rounds I mentioned: There -are- tracer rounds, but they tend to be available only in calibers commonly used by the military -- are spendy -- and are tough for non-military folks to get because they're just not that common. These guys sacrifice pretty much all of their damage by burning their material as they fly -- to allow the user of the Focus to roughly see where s/he is shooting. By and large they are used as either training aids (for night ops training) or are staggered (as in every 3rd or 5th round) in magazines (or belts) of autofire weapons that are intended for high volume shooting at night -- to help improve night shooting accuracy (via night shooting penalty reductions; I'd represent tracers with PSLs to offset penalties imposed by natural darkness - that only work at night or in similar situations) .... when/where FLIR is not available. They also have the side effect of giving away the shooter's position -- so no using Stealth with tracer rounds at night once the shooting starts. Additional note: Bullet weight (heavier versus lighter) within a given caliber doesn't tend to mean harder hits ... instead, it tends to be a tradeoff between speed/trajectory and wind resistance of given caliber bullets. i.e. A lighter bullet of a given caliber shoots faster and flatter than a heavier one of the same caliber ... but a heavier one of the same caliber is not as affected by the wind and retains more of its energy at longer distances than its faster/lighter brothers of the same caliber. Thus, I don't see stun multipliers or BODY damage changes as germane to the bullet weight conversation within a given caliber, since bullet weight within a given caliber choice is mostly about accuracy under certain circumstances ... and we're talking a +1 to offset range/wind modifiers, tops here ... only at and between very specific range thresholds for given calibers (i.e. immaterial at short distances for given calibers). See where this is going? Most of the real meat/potatoes of guns are in: caliber choice -- which will tend to dictate damage output optic choice -- which will tend to offset range penalties quality choice - which will tend to dictate whether the focus has an activation/jammed/burnout roll slop (i.e. tolerance) - this one's kind of weird and represents a tradeoff between accuracy and reliability. The AK-47 is a great example, you can let it get dirty, treat it badly, and it will be super reliable despite its low quality and cost ... but to do this it has sloppy/loose tolerances that result in a less accurate firearm than, say, the M16 (when it is clean, anyway). You can tighten those tolerances, of course ... and when you do so, you'll sacrifice reliability to gain back some accuracy. Now if you want to go crazy and make up a bunch of guff (akin to Green Arrow's quiver of totally ridiculous arrows) ... then you'll basically be creating a pile of totally ridiculous ammo for your game -- i.e. stuff that's just not out here in the real world. A great example would be the tranquilizer bullet (from the XXX movie) ... or the splatter dart bullet (from the same movie). That's bogus stuff for Hollywood's sake. Sure, there are tranquilizer guns ... but they are specialized guns with specialized darts ... that use blanks or compressed air to propel the darts. i.e. Someone didn't just pop some special ammo into a typical gun to get a tranquilizer round; they used a special gun with special darts. (i.e. Different Focus, entirely...)

Nope, there are not people producing a running list of gun write-ups here just for kicks.

In 6e this would be modeled by changing the AoE Radius to AoE Surface ... which gets you an outline of the surface of an object instead of a radius. In 5er there's no equivalent -- which is one more example of why 6e's got improved flexibility. In 5er one thing you could probably do (subject to GM approval) is take a self-only limitation so that the power only affects the character who is using it ... and not things within the 1" around him/her. (And you'd still need Personal Immunity, btw ... or the character couldn't see ... unless s/he uses some other sense for targeting and the like.) However, I think DasBroot has the right idea -- model it with a stealth bonus and call the look a SFX of it. And, of course, take a distinctive feature to match (which covers your original 'Always On' approach). Less filling, tastes great.

The No Range limitation on 6e1 p388 states "This -½ Limitation represents a Ranged power that doesn’t work at Range. The character can only use the power at HTH Combat range (i.e., within his Reach). In some cases, the special effects of a No Range power dictate that the character actually has to touch the target of the power to affect him/ it; this does not change the Limitation’s value." This verbiage is very specific; nowhere within its text is there an indication that taking the No Range limitation automatically makes the power to which it is applied a HTH power wherein contact is required. There is, however, an exception noted for SFX that require touch, in which case the need for touch/contact is heavily implied to be a -0 limitation placed on the power to make it HTH, since the language clearly states that the SFX requirement for touch doesn't change the No Range limitation's value. Thus, unless touch is required, what you've got is a ranged power that's only usable at HTH combat distances/ranges ... but is still a ranged power (with a VERY short range). We should also look at the Ranged advantage on 6e1 p344, which states "Powers that ordinarily have No Range can be used at Range if a character purchases this Advantage for them." This verbiage is very specific; nowhere within its text is there an indication that adding the Ranged advantage makes the power to which it is applied a ranged power. Instead, it clearly indicates that powers with this Advantage can be used at range. i.e. A HTH power bought with the Ranged advantage ... remains a HTH power ... that just happens to now be usable at range due to the advantage. (If the cited verbiage had intended for the advantage to turn the HTH power into a ranged power ... it would have said that. But that's not indicated, at all.) As it pertains to skill levels: Clearly the language for the No Range limitation does NOT state the power becomes HTH (unless touch is required, in which case there's a strong implication that touch SFX result in a HTH power) ... so ranged CSLs should continue to apply unless touch is required, in which case a prudent GM will likely go with the aforementioned -0 limitation for the avoidance of doubt. Similarly, the language for the Ranged advantage does NOT state the power to which it is applied becomes ranged; rather the existing HTH power is simply usable at range ... so HTH CSLs should continue to apply. 6e1 p129 also informs us: "If a Power has No Range, the character using it does not have to remain in HTH Combat range with the target to maintain the effect — he only has to be in HTH Combat range to use it. Once the Power takes effect, the character can distance himself from the target (though in the case of Constant Powers, he still has to maintain Line Of Sight to keep the Power functioning). Activating or using a No Range power that would normally require an Attack Action to activate and/or use still requires that Attack Action." This is very informative with regard to powers such as Change Environment, Darkness, etc. -- since they can still be maintained at range after being initiated within one's reach (i.e. No Range ... aka HTH Combat range ... despite not being a HTH power where contact is required) ... clearly demonstrating there's a ranged component to such powers that remains when the No Range limitation is taken on them. Note that we're WAY down in the weeds here; it's almost splitting hairs. However, we're dealing with a fine point of RAW - i.e. a subtle yet important nuance in the application of the aforementioned advantage and/or limitation. Thus, careful analysis of the word choices within RAW seems warranted to make sure we understand the actual meaning those word choices convey (as opposed to an ever-so-slightly different/wrong takeaway ... wherein the application of the Ranged advantage makes the power a ranged power -- which is something RAW doesn't actually state.) I feel your second sentence is spot-on -- the death touch Drain is clearly a HTH attack and should be bought as such, since touch is required. Your third sentence (lightsaber bought as a RKA) is one I'm struggling with, because I believe that should be bought as a HKA, not a RKA ... since it, too, requires contact between the saber's blade and the target. (i.e. I agree it should be a HTH attack ... but I take issue with buying it as a RKA, and if I were the GM I would require it be purchased as a HKA since it's HTH.) Your example of a martial arts AoE Blast w/ No Range shouldn't necessarily be a HTH attack, as it could be a chi-based blast involving no physical contact -- in which case it remains ranged, not HTH ... or it could be a whirlwind kick (requiring contact/touch) affecting a radius .... in which case it's HTH and not ranged .... and should probably have a -0 limitation placed on it to make it HTH. Spot-on. This is another item that should absolutely be considered when choosing whether something should be bought as a HKA or a RKA.

So this is a 2m radius (i.e. sphere) of really dark black? That won't attract any attention at all in broad daylight on the street, at a football game, or in the park. /sarcasm off Currently, as written, its best use is to make the person using the power completely unable to see anything using the sight group ... since it wasn't bought with Personal Immunity.

Incorrect -- specifically because of a subtle but important nuance/distinction. A RKA bought with No Range is still a ranged attack ... the nuance is in the fact that its range just happens to be the same as a HKA or melee attack as a result of the application of the No Range limitation. i.e. The No Range limitation does NOT magically change the ranged attack such that skill levels with all ranged attacks (for example) no longer apply; instead, the application of the No Range limitation adjusts the range (and ONLY the range) of the power. (If the power was not usable with ranged combat skill levels ... that would be worth yet another limitation ... assuming it also couldn't benefit from HTH combat skill levels because it still didn't make thematic sense for the power to be HTH.) A flamethrower (as mentioned earlier) is a fine example of this situation -- a RKA bought AoE: Line w/ the No Range limitation -- wherein Combat Skill levels with All Ranged Attacks should still apply to it, as it's certainly not a HKA with the ability to put strength behind it to do more damage (at least not while using it as intended) ... and it's certainly wielded more like a gun than a sword (again, while using it as intended). Keep in mind that this scenario is, indeed, in the weeds. It's usually pretty clear where one should use a HKA (e.g. sword) or a RKA (e.g. gun) ... but there are some outlier scenarios (like the flamethrower) that get down into the gray area. When trying to make such a choice, it's often helpful to look at which CSLs and/or PSLs would make sense with the attack in question (even if you have no plan to take those CSLs or PSLs) ... just to help inform you of which of the two approaches to select.

It was precisely the breakdown of those other benefits gleaned from Damage Reduction I was looking for in your comparison -- specifically because you called them out (broke them down) for Damage Negation as follows: "So even if we adjust the cost for AVLDs and Drains, after rounding in defenders favor, that's 11 resistant, 6 power def, 6 NND/AVLD def. If we cheapen the cost of the power defense to 3 since it only affects Body and Stun drains, and treat the NND/AVLD defense as 1 point per point, that's still 25 points of defense. " You tallied all of the resistant defense, so-called power defense, NND/AVLD defense, etc with Damage Negation to come up with '25 points of defense' -- so I was, of course, looking for the same breakdown for Damage Reduction since it has a number of those same (or similar, especially in it being completely unimpacted by Reduced Negation) benefits and since you seem to feel Damage Reduction is fine for its cost. It would be useful to see such a breakdown from you in order to wrap my head around why you think DR's bottom line (i.e. points of provided defense ... including the so-called 'other benefits') is fine for its cost ... but DN is not.

Oddly I don't see your comparison to Damage Reduction and how it stacks up in terms of costing. Did I miss something?

dsatow, I'm glad you brought up those nuances ... because you saved me the trouble of doing so ... and did it in fewer words than I'd likely have used.

Damage Reduction also applies to AVADs, works against body and stun drains .... and is not affected by AP. (Penetrating affects Damage Reduction unless it's bought Impenetrable). Yet you're ok with Damage Reduction's costing, right? And, of course, DN has its own nemesis: Reduced Penetration ... unlike Damage Reduction.

Well, to determine a 'better' combination would also require considering how Armor Piercing, Penetrating, AVAD, and Reduced Negation etc. attacks fare against your combinations. Why? Well let's look: Damage Reduction: Armor Piercing and Reduced Negation have no impact on DR, at all ... while Penetrating works normally against DR unless it was bought with Impenetrable. DR applies to AVADs even if the target does not have the listed defense. Damage Negation: Armor Piercing and Penetrating have no impact on DN, at all ... while Reduced Negation works normally against DN. DN applies to AVADs even if the target does not have the listed defense. RPD: Reduced Negation has no impact on RPD, at all ... while Armor Piercing and Penetrating have their usual effect on RPD ... and RPD does not apply, at all, to AVADs (i.e. the target either has the listed defense ... or suffers the consequences). This, of course, paints a more complicated picture ... but also a more complete one. From this picture you can see that the applicability of DN and DR to AVADs provides some protection that RPD fails to convey. Likewise, the lack of applicability of Armor Piercing and/or Penetrating may give rise to a preference for DN or DR above RPD. Selection will likely depend on how common Armor Piercing, Penetrating, Reduced Negation, and/or AVAD attacks are in a given game, but I think it's fair to say that Armor Piercing is probably the most common among these ... across most games ... with Penetrating running a close second ... and AVAD probably coming third for frequency of occurrence. Put succinctly ... to determine what is 'better' or 'best' ... we actually need to include a few more variables ... since some of the defenses provide broader protections than others ... and we'd also need to agree on 'the average game's frequency of occurrence' for things like Armor Piercing, Penetrating, AVAD, and Reduced Negation.

Honestly, Netzilla's post (above) is spot-on ... and the Killer Shrike analysis is worth the read. From what I can see, you seem to be driving the cost structure up (against Killing Attacks) solely based on the maximums DN can do. As a reminder, most of the time the dice roll average, not maximum ... so it seems a bit odd to drive the cost structure up based on outlier maximums ... instead of basing your decision on averages. Because of that, it feels like you're out to penalize DN just because you find it clunky and/or don't care for it. Hey, if you're the DM, that's your right ... but if that's what you're doing, then if I were a player in your game I'd request that you call it what it is (i.e. own it) rather than basing decisions on outliers. Why? Well, outlier-based decisions set a really bad precedent, IMHO.

I personally loathe this idea. Why? Well, most folks I know seem to dislike the complexity introduced by Damage Negation. (You, yourself, even complained of its 'clunky mechanics' [to use your exact words].) And now you want to add even more complexity/clunkiness by having one way of doing things for standard attacks ... and another way for killing attacks? Adding more complexity/clunkiness to something you already think is complex/clunky ... as a so-called solution ... is about as fooked up as a football bat, IMHO. (Why on earth would you advocate 'fixing' something by making it more of what you said you 'dislike'???) If you think DN is too cheap for what it does against killing attacks, then I recommend simply House Ruling its cost upward for applicability against Killing Attacks and being done with it. Your use of the Resistant Advantage seemed like a fairly good way to go to achieve that goal, by the way.

AoE (to desired size/shape), Accurate (+1/4), Constant (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (+1/2), Usable As Attack (+1 1/4) .... should resolve the Dive For Cover problem, as the Accurate advantage gets you a specific target within the AoE while still targeting only DCV 3 ... and the Usable As Attack advantage allows you to 'attach' the Constant power to said specific target (per 6e1 p359) so that said target can't simply dive outside of the affected area to escape it. (Reduced END is just icing to make the Constant power END-affordable. One could just as easily do Continuing Charges, instead ... if one wanted to bring the active point cost down some .... and if Charges made sense for the power build, of course.) Note that I presumed the attack was neither AoE nor Constant to begin with ... which is important if, say, the attack was something like Darkness (which is already an AoE ... and Constant) ... meaning you wouldn't need the AoE or Constant pieces of the advantage puzzle for a Darkness attack (because Darkness inherently has both, already).

I wouldn't try to backwind Defensive Attack to 5er (or explain it to your GM) because it is an optional combat skill designed solely to reduce a penalty imposed by Multiple Attack ... which is a (game-changing ... in a good way) 6e combat maneuver that has no 5er equivalent of which I am aware.