Surrealone

In the first section before <SNIP1>, above -- you seem to suggest that one cannot build around normal human characteristics and still have playability. One can certainly build a glass cannon type who is either a force to be reckoned with ... or is in deep, deep trouble after suffering a hit. When done, the character should absolutely expect to be hit, get hurt, and be out of game play for a while ... and the player of such a character must employ cautious, strategic/tactical play to help avoid it. Some glass cannons off the top of my head: Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, Prism, The Human Torch, Dr. Octopus. Caught off guard, any one one of them can be cold-cocked and rendered unconscious fairly easily. If the Hulk were to hit any one of them at full force, they'd all be in the ICU -- if not flat-out dead. Suggesting that players don't build any of these types of characters ... and that they 'tend not to be PCs' ... seems pretty absurd to me, as I've seen some rendition of each one of them played as PC's across my years of gaming.

No longer produced. Those who own them likely wouldn't shoot them given collectibility. You could make your own but it'd be illegal unless you went through the proper ATF processes to both manufacture it ... and own it. Those so-inclined in a Dark Champions game would probably do a 3-round, 12ga pump version with a breacher's grip by Knoxx that reduces 65% of felt recoil. Those with the in-game money would likely buy a Kel-Tec KSG bullpup shotgun to have 14 rounds in about the same package size as the 3-rounder I just mentioned -- with none of the legal hurdles or illegal consequences to deal with.

It's only a disconnect if a GM allows it to be one -- and basically any/all possibility of a disconnect on such an issue resides with the GM since the GM is responsible for providing final approval on characters. ​ As an example: If someone builds around 'average human' characteristics of 8 but the GM runs his/her average humans with 14's ... then the cause of the disconnect was not the player, it was the GM -- specifically the GM's failure to communicate that fact to the player so that the player could build for the GM's notion of 'average' rather than the RAW notion of average. This is something that should be caught when going over the character; and if it's missed because the GM didn't go over the character with the player, well, that fault is with the GM, too. With a good GM, I've never had a problem building for concept and having it be playable. Good GM's make sure the kinds of disconnects you're underscoring ... don't happen. And bad GM's, well, why would you play in one's game???

Only if you incent building that way. Example: Professor Xavier certainly is NOT DEX 23 -- and I doubt he's SPD5. He's probably closer to DEX 8 (tops), and SPD 3 (perhaps 4). What he lacks in the DEX/SPD race he more than makes up for with other capabilities. My point is this -- the DEX/SPD race need only be played if one chooses to do so. People insisting on certain averages for supers drives me nuts because of this -- since the comic books show us plenty of superheroic examples that are NOT beyond human averages, at all, when it comes to DEX and SPD. Mentalists, bricks, spellcasters who are otherwise normal humans, and the like are all good examples. Why? Some character concepts may entail being KO'd in one punch. (Example: Professor X, again.) So the point of that exercise was what, exactly? To work out the numbers for how to build a character for a certain damage level regardless of character concept ... in a game where character concept should drive the build and not the other way around???

I agree 1000%.

Trigger has its place, but big flashing WARNING signs need to go up if it auto-resets quickly, doesn't have a fairly small number of charges tied to the reset, etc.

The moment use of a trigger with instant auto-reset capability begins to cause a power to behave like a constant/continuous power with the area of effect surface advantage ... is when the builder of the power should build the power out as a constant/continuous power with the area of effect surface advantage. An instantly-triggered, auto-reset dodge ... basically behaves like a continuous, area of effect surface dodge ... but the special effects are idiotic. It amounts to 'always dodging', which is asinine. Imagine someone with this walking down the street -- s/he'd be ducking and dodging instead of walking. The smart GM will say, "buy Danger Sense and call it a day; that's why it exists." After all, trigger is ripe for abuse ... and a good GM should shut it down hard if someone's trying to game the system with it.

Thus far there's been no indication of trying to take anything over; the OP only spoke of linking with certain things. (Hence why I asked!) If one wants to control such machines without GM hand-waving based on a die roll (i.e. if the player should have the control, here), then The Ultimate Mentalist provides some guidance for mental powers that work on machines -- specifically in the realm of the following limitations: only versus non-intelligent machines [-1/2] and mental power based on INT [-1/2] Thus you could have mental illusions that are based on INT which only work against non-intelligent machines with a restrainable limitation (i.e. to reflect needing to type) ... bought on a focus (laptop?) ... used to alter what cameras, screen images, etc. see in realtime. You could do telepathy with the same limitations to represent reading hard drive data or changing data in a foreign system. You get the idea...

Good info, Armitage!

Just link to those things? Or take them over and control them, as well?

No, trigger is intended for a power where you take an action (at some point ... potentially well in advance of the effect being triggered) to activate it ... such that an effect is produced when a well-defined circumstance (i.e. the trigger) occurs. Basically, a power built with a trigger has been prepared and activated ... but not yet used ... and its use takes place when the well-defined circumstance/trigger occurs. Usually instant powers are built with triggers, but constant powers can be done with them if properly build (example: continuing charges). By comparison, a damage shield is a constant area of effect surface power that has been activated and IS in use ... until deactivated. Taking a trigger and trying to use it to build an instant reset, auto-occurring instant power that is triggered only when a character is hit ... reaches the point where the power should be made continuous and have area of effect surface applied to it in order to make it a damage shield that should be turned on and remain on until deactivated.

The disadvantage is legit in both builds, but only the GM can decide if 'vs Undead Only' is -1 ... or if they are so common in his game that -1/2 is more appropriate. That said, build 1 is drastically more powerful than build 2 from a team perspective because it allows the power's user to stave off undead for a team while the team can attack them with impunity ... until such time as the barrier drops, in which case the power's user simply erects another one. If you're concerned about balance for either build, one option might be requiring concentration throughout the power's use ... such that the character must make a conscious choice to rely heavily on the power as a defense against undead ... and can only move so much and react to a limited degree when using the power. That would work for either build, as would limiting either to a small number of charges. Food for thought...

I concur with kukuli. Likewise the bat signal should cost no points. After all, Batman gains no real power or advantage from the existence of either of them ... so he shouldn't have to pay points for either of them. If anything, the bat phone and bat signal are manifestations that play into a GM's ready exercise of a Gotham-related committment (i.e. psychological complication) that Batman has.

VPP gadget pool with day/night SFX Instant change for day/night costumes Life Support to eliminate the need to sleep Psychological complication - schizophrenia with personality shift triggered by the day/night cycle DNPC that also rotates with the day/night cycle (each personality effectively has its own DNPC) In this build, truly 'never the two shall meet' since it is the same person with two personalities driven by the day/night cycle. This means no need for disguise, acting, etc. since one personality is not trying to pretend it is another/different -- and instead there are two personalities that must be role-played distinctly, no matter how inconvenient it is for any one of them at any given time.

As I said in an earlier post, "Most of the time it happens when NPC firearms are procured and used against the enemy; people don't tend to blow their own charges in such ways." You might want to use caution with your assumption. Certainly it's fair to say that a competent gunner with appropriate WF will properly care for his/her weaponry, but a competent gunner with appropriate WF may also absolutely acquire the enemy's weaponry and choose to use it in such a way as to burn the enemy's ammunition away quickly, influence battlefield movements in his/her team's favor, and harm/destroy the enemy's weaponry by such use ... all at once.

This mirrors my experience almost precisely -- except cost was -also- a factor in whether each player bought 5e to supersede his 4e rulebook. Perception -is- 9/10ths reality, as they say -- right?

You shouldn't be. 4e was sized properly for consumption and price ...

And don't forget the availability of the two volume set; that could be so much more user-friendly, as well.

This is spot-on. The above approach endorses a small set of core rules with well-selected examples only for powers that are complex enough to absolutely require them ... and then allows the purchase of add-on, pre-built material (which serves for additional examples) if desired. It's what the 4th Ed. HSR did 'right' in combination with all the 4th Ed. sourcebooks. (This approach actually gives one a -compelling reason- to buy the add-on material, as well.) Having read CC, I was also disappointed. I don't think it needs another 100 pages, but problematic errata should have been addressed and it feels a bit too stripped of examples. To be fair, examples are a tough thing to balance, I know...

Actually that nipick may be a big deal because it establishes a 5E version of the DoT advantage ... which is potentially usable based on existing precedent of using material out of other 5E (and earlier) sourcebooks. I've played with a number of Gradual Effect builds at this point and the best I've found is to have one power for the initial delivery of a gradual effect AoE (cone) drain ...and a second, linked drain power that is triggered (set trigger, 0-phase auto-reset) any time the target is affected by a gradual effect drain (of the same type) ... that is continuous, uncontrolled, persistent, at 0 END, gradual effect with 1 segment extra time, with a limitation that restricts the trigger's use to 5 times. ​This results in a drain that is delivered as an AoE field ... with a linked power that basically ticks every other segment on affected targets for 5 additional ticks after the initial drain. It's also a case where the smaller power is the main/delivery mechanism (akin to the example of a small HKA being used to deliver a larger poison power) ... while the larger power is the more expensive of the two -- so it would require GM permission only because of that aspect of the build. I don't really like this and think the 5E DoT approach in Digital Hero #47 is a lot cleaner ... and a HECK of a lot more concise in write-up on a character sheet and/or in Hero Designer. Ideally it's the best route to go.

Interesting, as I've not read about any reliability issues with the CZ Scorpion Evo 3A1. Is it having issues you're aware of? If so, got some links handy -- as I'd love to read?

I never could figure out why these ONLY exist in Champions II -- and why they (or some equivalent) didn't make their way into v4 (the first real aggregate of I-III) or v5. It was fantastic advice/guidance to consider EFFICIENT character construction while working with concept ... but only the old school players ever tend to have seen/read these. IMPORTANT: I scanned and uploaded these SPECIFICALLY for the reasonable and fair use of rendering commentary/criticism regarding the info contained within the images/text and the lack of its existence in revisions of the rules after v2. Given the small and very specific/selective amount of content, here, I believe I'm well within fair use of the material.

Right now I'm looking at extending the Gradual Effect limitation from a limitation to an advantage. At its lowest (-1/4) level, Gradual Effect is a post-seg-12 tick. I WAS going to see about scaling Gradual Effect's time chart into a custom advantage (Segmented Effect?) to get its ticks to an every other segment level -- basically a poor man's, 5ER DOT. However, a Continuous/Uncontrolled/Triggered power may make a LOT more sense, so I'll explore that, first. Much thanks for the suggestion/idea! Per RAW (Champions Complete, pg 71): "Characters who perceive an Image may attempt a PER Roll, modified by any purchased penalties and any bonuses for the complexity of the Image (see the Images Complexity Table)" Can you find the Images Complexity Table In Champions Complete? Searching for 'Images Complexity Table' has no results on my PDF. It's not listed in the Index. I can't find it within the Images power description, either. Can you point me to it within Champions Complete? Yea, it's what I'll have to do unless HM's suggestion pans out.

I realize this would affect all characters evenly, but once again, if KB effects help equalize the delta between hard-hitting brick types and faster characters (by causing characters to brace for, get up from, and move back into position after KB), how will you keep such a change from altering that equalization? I like the idea, but it basically conserves an action for the person bracing .. which is one less blown action between a high speed character and a low-speed brick-type that often leverages KB. To offset this and balance it out, I would propose we amend your House Role such that Bracing for KB is not only a 0 Phase Maneuver that results in half DCV ... but that it also entails an inability to abort in the next new segment if the character doesn't have a Phase or a Half Phase to use. i.e. A character could abort to a 0-Phase Brace for KB maneuver ... but would not be able to abort again while braced. This would add real risk/choice -- do I blow an action and exist at half DCV while sacrificing future aborts until my next phase arrives ... to brace to soak the KB? Or do I eat the KB and then soak damage and/or blow actions after the fact. Half DCV with no further aborts basically compensates the brick-type for the fact that a 0-Phase Brace could completely negate the KB effects he's built to rely upon.... which seems fairly equitable because now the brick (or his compatriot) has an opening where the braced party (who probably takes no KB and likely blows no actions) is easier to hit. Thoughts? P.S. Obviously SPD12 characters don't care much about this. That said, they have so many pts invested in SPD most of the time that they tend to be unable to soak hits -- i.e. their defense tends to be NOT getting hit. Thus, I don't think this breaks down as you move up the SPD chart, since moving up the SPD chart tends to entail characters who can't brace for KB or soak the damage.

To all of the above: Why not import DOT? Because I'm not the GM and my GM has been extremely resistant to the consideration of 6E mechanics -- specifically citing it is because he doesn't own the hardcopy books, doesn't want to foot the 150+ dollar bill to acquire them, won't settle for just PDF's, and also doesn't want to invest time learning the delta. Despite me loaning him my hardcopy of Champions Complete to peruse for the last two months, he has found it insufficient -- and, frankly, I tend to agree since CC is missing things that it, itself, references! It's been frustrating, as I did an exhaustive analysis of 5ER and 6E differences which I documented and provided to all within the group -- and a number were interested. Aside from the hexes to meters change and the character creation cost inflation of 6E, I see huge improvements in 6E, and those downsides are tolerable (to me). In retrospect, my GM apparently felt as if I were foisting 6E on him, and despite explaining that I was simply exploring potential improvements and providing data for input by the entire group, he seems to have taken such exploration as an affront. Thus, I'm not going to push the issue ... and remain stuck with 5ER while a purpose-built DOT advantage exists in 6E. Annoying!