Surrealone

I think gradual effect works only if I increase the diceage and then apply the gradual effect limitation. I'm specifically trying to avoid upping the diceage...

I've been struggling with how to properly build a 1d6 drain that in 6E would entail a DoT advantage where defenses apply only once and the damage is done in 6 increments at a rate of one per 2 segments. I keep coming up empty-handed because a continuous, uncontrolled power would drain on the user's phases, not in segmented fashion. Can anyone think of a way to build out this effect using 5ER rules without increasing the diceage to compensate for the lack of segmented approach?

Are you suggesting replacement of the -2m KB for every 2x normal human mass ... by making it random (using die results) based on BODY, instead? If so, how would you handle the +2m KB for every 1/2 normal mass a character has ... since, you know, the character would need to be at negative BODY (and likely dying) for you to do go positive (i.e. +1d6) ... and I'm not sure that makes much sense. Or did I misunderstand?

No, you are talking about what is apparently unusual for you, period. 5+ turns of combat is quite normal for others (me, for instance) in THIS RPG. Your experience is not that of everyone else, nor is yours the 'norm' and things outside of it 'unusual'. But you're talking as if that's the case... and I'm absolutely counterpointing you to underscore that it's only YOUR case. 5-10 turns of someone unloading a firearm steadily may be something not done in YOUR games. It has happened in the ones I play in. After you spoke up and said no one blazes away as if it were canon/law, Vondy spoke up and mentioned he's blazed away. It's been done in games I've played in, and suppression fire is quite common from my experience. I think the point is made that extended fire happens. Maybe it doesn't happen in your games, especially if your combats last 1-2 turns and are then done (since 5 turns is apparently long in your games). But in games where even semi-realistic amounts of time are simulated as combat, I'm sure it happens in some games, where appropriate. I agree, weight of ammo is the key reason this tends to be a non-issue ... in both the real world and in the game. However, if in the game you can shoot on the move and resupply using your enemy's ammo as you move from point to point, it's do-able. OR if you are storming a military storage facility ... it's VERY doable. And if the firearm fails, well, pick up one of your enemy's or one from the depot... Now, regarding Heat -- I mentioned in that post it wasn't representative of enough gunfire to cook off rounds. Rather, I posted it to underscore for Tasha that combats last more than 1-2 mins in Hollywood ... and given that cinematic/dramatic effect is something we strive for in RPG's, it'll tend to happen in the game, too -- even if it doesn't in hers. (I know it does in ours!) And as for the North Hollywood shootout -- the duration of that clocked in at 1 hour and 43 mins according to the almighty Internet. That's 1100 rounds in 715 turns of combat, so of course their firearms didn't fail. They had lots of non-shooting time between uses, just like in Heat's gunbattle... Nice Serenity reference.

I dunno, I think it depends. A glass of water with a called shot to the head ... could and probably should do really interesting things to the Fire Mutant.

As I think about it, the longest running fight/combat from recent films I've seen clocks in at over 10 mins. Specifically it's the robbery scene from Heat., where both the cops and robbers are doing their things (including holding actions -- especially in the case of the cops once the move into positions) in combat time well before any shots are fired. Again, my GM would likely run this as one 50+ turn combat for battle simulation accuracy, as well as to do proper justice to things like the PRE attack that takes place just shy of 2 mins into the scene. The first shots aren't fired until a bit more than 4.25 mins into the scene, but once the gunfire commences there is a LOT of it from these SPD 2 guys. I know some GM's would break this up into mini-fights, but you lose a lot of positional accuracy doing that, whereas remaining in combat time makes the jockeying for position, cover, surprise, etc. that you see in this scene highly relevant when simulating it. (This is one of my favourite scenes, by the way. Just awesome to hear the gunfire echo off the buildings. A real Hollywood treat!) Note that none of what's in this scene is enough to cook off rounds ... but if one of the robbers had steadily blazed away (only stopping to reload) for 7-10 turns (of this 50 turn combat) with those high ROF M16's, you bet some rounds would be cooking off ... if the gas tubes were still intact on the rifles. And in the context of a 50 turn fight, sustaining fire for a bit more than 7% of the combat time ... is peanuts.

10 turns using the AK as the benchmark? That's oversimplified and also overly generous. The devil's in the details, so let's look at why: Details: The AK47's rate of fire is 600 rounds per min ... and that guy's magazine changes were abysmally slow. By comparison, the M16 and M4 both have rates of fire that are 700-950 rounds per minute (depending on manufacturer) ... and the delta between an AR-15 and a M-16 is a whopping 5 parts which anyone can buy. (Note: It's not legal for a civilian to own a majority of those 5 parts without ATF approval!) This video is a poor example because the guy with the M4 slows up while walking backward, but notice he starts after the AK fire commences, and finishes well before the AK fire does: Relevance: If the AK user blazed away with a RoF of 600 rounds/min for 2 mins (totaling 1200 rounds in 120 secs aka 10 turns) ... the user of a M4 with a 900 round/min ROF would only need to blaze away for 1.33 mins (totaling 1200 rounds in 80 secs aka 7.75 turns) ... and would have a barrel that is actually hotter than the AK's barrel since the 5.56x45 NATO round is spec'd for 55,000 psi while the 7.62x39 Russian round is spec'd for 45,000 psi despite having similar powder charges. Thus, you need to look at each weapon's rate of fire AND the pressures produced in it -- to fairly gauge when you might need to be concerned. If you used your AK gauge of 10 turns before being concerned ... for the M4 user ... you'd give him a bit more than 3 turns more of worry-free sustained fire than he really deserves, since his rifle puts more rounds downrange in less time, at higher pressures and temperatures. You say 5 turn Hero combats are long??? Maybe for you, Tasha, but I'm presently playing a SPD2 character for whom 20 phases (i.e. 10 turns) of combat is NOT a long combat. In fact it tends to be about par ... with longer combats going 20-25 turns. Do consider, though, that everyone in this game tends to be SPD 2 or 3 ... with the occasional 4-5 'speedster'. Turns play out much faster (meaning you can play through more of them in the same period of time within the real world) in games that are lower point levels and, thus, lower speed. You also tend to get more reasonable fights resembling cinematic/vigilante fight sequences in Hollywood this way ... where 2-3 mins of combat-time cat/mouse, hit/run, fight/evade sequences are pretty common as position is jockeyed for and people move around. Parking a designated marksman with a high ROF weapon in such a scenario and having him let loose in order to suppress opposition/movement in an area for minutes at a time is completely reasonable ... and that's the guy you'd have to gauge for malfunctions/issues. As I think about it, I'm just not sure why you think 5 turns of combat time is long. To show you why, here's a 6+ min scene from John Wick that my present GM would likely run as one long combat (not a bunch of short, separate ones), as he tends to include the initial positional movements before a shot is taken ... in combat time ... for combat simulation accuracy: That's a 30+ turn fight ... for a SPD4, well-trained normal. (And a good one too. ) 1.3 mins (i.e. 7.75 turns) turns of steady fire with a high ROF weapon ... just isn't a lot of gunfire ... in a military, paramilitary, or other scenario where there's no reason to stop firing except to change magazines. Not in games in which I've played, anyway...

I thought it was 24 seconds. Now it's 30? Regardless, that runs counter to my experiences in heroic games. Perhaps the difference is in the power level of the heroic games we play, as most I've played in have tended toward 'standard heroic' levels (i.e. barely above competent normal level play) ... with a few reaching 'powerful heroic'. Another possibility may be a matter of the gaming styles, as I tend toward games that treat the battlefield much like wargaming ... i.e. the battle simulation entails a high degree of precision, with pretty much all RAW options on the table and few (if any) house rules that handwave or ignore options. People absolutely 'blaze away' in games on this end. Sometimes it's to provide suppression fire. Other times it's to make very violent presence attacks. 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. 3-shot bursts are, indeed, a mathematical sweet spot (which is good, as it emulates controlled 3-shot bursts in the real world), but there are times and places where you want to intimidate/cow your enemy and/or force a retreat ... not kill him/her. Maybe the people you play with don't think in such ways, but the folks I've gamed with sure did/do. Tactical battles here just don't tend to be short/sweet without the element of surprise at play ... and in modern genres, the element of surprise is tough to come by. (Cameras, alarms, human patrols, dogs -- i.e. good layered security -- can rarely be defeated in its entirety.) Perhaps your fights are simpler? I dunno...

Aye -- even if we see the terms differently in terms of the numerical values we assign, scale is still very much an issue!

I'm with Doc on this ... the greater the volume across a given duration, the larger I'd expect the effect to be.

'Infant' (from Champions Complete pg 20) and 'toddler' do not mean the same thing, so I'm not sure why you conflated the two terms. Not to be semantic about it, but the term 'infant' is usually (but not always) applied to a child in its first 12 months of life while 'toddler' is typically (but not always) applied to a child from one to three years of age. I went with STR 3 for a toddler assuming 2.5-3 years of age. If you want to hang your hat on the 'Average People' table on Champions Complete pg 207, you'll also note that 1 STR for a 'small child' is out of whack compared with every other physical stat ... and that based on what a 1 STR can lift many kids falling in the 'small child' range would not be able to stand up due to an inability to lift their own weight. I think of a 'small child' as any child under 5-6 years of age for whom abstract thinking has not yet 'turned on' within the brain. A 6 year old with 1 STR? I don't think so. 4-5 STR, most likely. You're welcome to hang your hat on this obviously strange table column if you like. As further evidence that it wasn't well-considered, note the sellback of OMCV and ODCV to 0 for the 'small child' in that same table. Minimum characteristics as argued ad nauseum on these forums and per RAW are supposedly 1 -- so this column breaks the very RAW it attempts to exemplify/underscore/assist with. I truly get the sense someone was building out a 'weak' example hurriedly with a set of points, as evidenced by the DEX 8 for a 'small child'. (Sure, kids can be dexterous, but I'd argue this was done to provide a 13- DEX roll where a 12- using a 4-5 DEX would have sufficed -- with the freed points likely going into STR so the 'small child' could actually carry its own weight and then some extra.) Bringing us back on topic: Still no response as to how, if KB is halved by GM fiat, a GM avoids removing an element that brick-types often rely upon to cause higher-speed opponents to blow actions ... thus helping equalize speeds? I suppose I'll take that to mean that doing so (i.e. halving KB) simply unbalances the game toward SPD being preeminent, as there seems to be no replacement mechanic offered for brick types to use in lieu of KB to cause higher speed opponents to blow phases/actions without attacking or defending -- and no penalty levied on them to compensate for the impact to brick-types for KB being halved by GM fiat. I can't say I'd recommend it in games with diverse SPDs and character archetypes, but hey, if someone wants to encourage SPD preeminence, I suppose halving KB by GM fiat is one (of several) ways to do it. Tholomyes: I'm interested in what you ultimately decide to do -- because I think toolkitting KB is tough (due to the need to an opponent's movement, SPD, etc. to be considered) ... but worthwhile, since KB can be a very significant ally for brick-types.

A suppressed 9mm CZ Scorpion Evo 3A1 with short barrel and folding stock. Hey, you said cost was not a major factor ... and this isn't something I can afford in any variant except the civilian CZ Scorpion Evo 3S1 varietal. Worth a quick look: P.S. You said personal defense; you didn't say what kind​ of personal defense! Obviously this wouldn't be holstered, but belongs more on the homestead.

If I recall correctly, the Dark Campions supplement was aimed at heroic level play for street vigilante types. In my experience, combats tend to take a lot more than 24 seconds in heroic games. In such a game with SPD2 or SPD3 normals operating the relevant firearms, you could absolutely toast a barrel, cook off rounds, melt a gas tube or guide rod, etc. during the course of a 1-2 min fight, especially if those firing are 'blazing away'. Surreal

Context is important -- and this thread is about CSL's (and maneuvers) in frameworks. You can't have your +2 Levels you can apply to OCV or DCV as you please within a gadget pool due to the RAW that I cited, above, even with a GM handwaving putting the CSL in a framework. Why? Because a CSL with a limitation automatically causes the CSL to be -only- OCV ... and a gadget pool (usually, at least) has a limitation that all the powers within it also take. Now if the GM handwaves the OCV-only aspect of CSL's with limitations ... AND handwaves putting the CSL in a gadget pool (i.e. VPP framework with focus limitation), you can have it. However, as I said, it's getting hairy at that point since, you know, something tends to be amiss if you need exceptions to multiple rules for a given construct.

Who said 5 STR? I seem to recall posting 3 STR... Your clarification on lift weight was noted and appreciated.

For whatever reason folks seem to read my verbiage as passionate when it's merely blunt, dry, and to the point. There's no heat on this end. I absolutely concur with adding/subtracting things to fit campaign concept -- and I think house rules make sense for that so long as they don't favor one character type over another. However, I suppose I tend to question ad-hoc changes to the rules to overcome inherent design flaws within the rules -- as that's a far cry different from adjusting to fit a specific campaign concept, is it not? I also tend to question changes to one side of a system's equation without making additional changes to rebalance the entire equation, as that tends to yield an unbalanced result that leans to one side of the equation. Back on topic: I'm still quite interested to know where one draws the lines when trying to 'fix' inherent scale (including physics -- since, you know, a toddler can't throw a full suitcase or TV 12feet) problems. This seems like an important question when adjusting KB, especially since KB effects are one of the ways slow, heavy-hitting brick-like characters tend to make fast, flurry types blow actions. If you cut KB in half by way of GM fiat (a la a 'house rule'), don't you skew the game more toward the fast, flurry types since the slow, hard-hitters now have much more difficulty depending on making the fast, gnat-like insects go sailing across the street, have to stand up, then return to fight HTH some more? I could be mistaken, but I got the sense that the OP was trying to avoid exactly that kind of skew.

One of the more interesting and obscure references regarding 6E is that "CSLs with Limitations automatically apply only to OCV (not DCV or damage)." (Champions Complete, pg 27). So if an exception is made to, say, allow CSL's in a gadget pool ... and the gadget pool necessarily entails a limitation (focus of some kind), then those are OCV-only CSL's and can't be shifted to DCV or damage, at all. Unless, of course, the GM is going to do yet a second handwave/exception to allow shiftable CSL's with limitations ... in a framework -- which seems kind of hairy to me. Presumably the aforementioned and cited rule was made so that one would buy straight DCV or DC's rather than a shiftable CSL. At the 5pt level it works out the same and, given this, it begs the question of why one would seek an exception for CSL's when one could much more easily justify a characteristic (OCV, DCV, 5 more pts of STR, another DC of some offensive non-killing attack power, etc.) as part of a unified power. Food for thought...

I just scaled up the strength and a potential correction for it to better match real-world scenarios ... as I'm trying to get a feel for where you draw the line on correcting for things you don't like in RAW. Kinda off topic compared to KB, but the question is related in an oblique sort of way: Where does one draw the line when tampering?

Christopher, Presumably in your world, then, Superman being able to lift a plane doesn't translate to being able to keep one from crashing since, you know, applying such force on just the wing, or the fuselage, etc. (basically in the limitated, tiny area where someone as small as Superman [compared to a 747] could apply that strength) ... would simply destroy that portion of the plane? Since you try to correct for scale problems in RAW, I guess I'm asking how far you take your corrections?

Scale has always been a problem with Hero System ... and you're not going to fix it by adjusting KB mechanics, movement, etc. A STR 3 toddler can, per the STRENGTH TABLE, lift 25kg (examples include: a full suitcase, a TV set, and a bicycle), do 1/2d6 damage, and throw what it can lift (see previous) a whopping 4m (12 feet!). Ever seen a toddler throw a TV set 12 feet on level ground? Neither have I... Now imagine if it REALLY wants to throw it (i.e. pushing)! That's per 6E scale. It was actually worse in earlier versions. In 5ER, the same STR 3 toddler could lift 37kg (examples include: a refrigerator, plate armor, etc.), do 1/2d6 damage, and throw what it could lift 1" from a standing position or 2" if it was a running throw. (Ever seen a toddler throw a refrigerator 12 feet on level ground with a running start?! ​ Again, imagine if the kid pushes!) Welcome to a system designed around superheroes; it's got scale problems in every facet of its design ... but at least it's consistent about having superheroic scale (i.e. at least it is absurdly scaled for every aspect, instead of just unrealistic for a few). We can either live with it, fix it across the board (rather than ad-hoc and piecemeal), or choose a different system. Any other approach (e.g. ad-hoc tampering with one aspect without mucking with all of them) just skews things in favour of some character builds and not others -- which seems less fair than RAW, which as noted above, is at least consistent about being skewed toward absurdity when compared to normals.

Per RAW (Champions Complete, pg 71): "To project an Image, the character decides what Image to produce, where to produce it, and what actions (if any) the Image will perform" "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)" "Normally, Images react in an appropriate manner to outside phenomena unless the creator of the Image chooses otherwise" Taken together, this means that when the character performs a move-through on the images that feel like invisible steel walls ... or empties an entire magazine (not clip! clips are something different! look up the difference outside of Hero System!) at them ... the touch-based image reacts appropriately. Thus, the character doing the move-through goes flying through the non-existent walls, but as long as s/he remains in the area of effect, the image adapts appropriately, presenting an image that represents the character still feeling walls around him/hers (i.e. the character still feels the presence of the wall, even though it didn't hurt; perhaps the invisible wall felt like it stretched???). Similarly, emptying an entire magazine at the walls means bullets are sprayed all over the place -- but the character still feels the presence of the walls, afterward. (Unlike the move-through, the character wouldn't feel anything since the bullets, not the character, passed through the walls -- so the character would simply feel the presence of walls after the shots). IMPORTANT: Image complexity increases in each reactive scenario, above, meaning you should consult the Images Complexity Table and consider giving those who can feel the images another PER roll, potentially with modifiers based on previous attempts to 'escape'. Sadly, the Images Complexity Table seems to have been referenced in Champions Complete (see quote, above) -- but left out of it, as a search for that exact string reveals nothing in the PDF. (One more case of Champions Complete being ... incomplete... it seems.) 5ER has the table, and presumably 6E does, too. From that table, +6 is the bonus to PER roll for observing things as complex as a football team in action, the sound of an orchestra, the smells of Thanksgiving dinner, etc. Thus, a -6 to PER rolls would offset quite a lot of complexity for things much less complicated (like one individual performing a move through on, or shooting at ... the walls they can only feel) ... at least for a while.

Consider that KB, as designed, helps offset higher speeds in superheroic games -- because it causes characters to burn time getting up, moving back into position (and burning END to do so), and/or taking recoveries due to the added damage they may have sustained. Since this is how it manifests, perhaps your toolkit should account for it in that way. I think your feeling is just that, a feeling. Breakfall and KB resistance should only be must-haves if character vision/conception entails it. HTH attacks are only limited in effectiveness if the person using them doesn't plan properly for the knockback his/her character tends to generate (by say, attacking against a surface ... or having enough movement to be able to half-move up and attack again after s/he has sent an opponent flying with knockback). Experienced players will plan and/or play around this game effect. You may wish to consider introducing KB, per RAW, just to broaden the scope and dynamics of play to what most players experience, especially considering that you admit to ignoring it. After all, it does have the impacts I noted, above. Think about it -- your SPD 6 character gets knocked back 9" while in HTH combat. If s/he wants to re-engage the same opponent s/he has to get up (half phase) and then half-move (5") ... and then half-move (4") again ... assuming the opponent didn't move. This SPD 6 character basically has 4.5 phases left to work with. Suddenly playing with full KB mechanics makes a lot of sense, considering it was probably a SPD4 brick that throttled him/her to begin with. ​Thus, I don't think your solution should be to tweak how much or how often KB is done. Rather, I think your toolkit should spit out KB-related numbers that indicate the potential for added damage (if KB was done against a surface), and/or the amount of time potentially blown recovering from KB. Keep in mind, however, that these things depend on defenses, movement, and SPDs in your game ... so really, they always need to be considered relative to some opponent if they're to have any degree of accuracy.

Personally, I can see value of toolkitting this... Ouch. What did you do to the cost of the double knockback advantage to equalize? Did you keep it the same price and make it a 4x knockback effect (so players using it would get the usual full effect)? OR did you half the advantage's cost too and rename it 'normal knockback' ... since doubling something that you halved outright, gets the character back to normal KB effects? Or did you just leave it alone since it delivers 2x(your halved KB) and 2x is 2x in your mind, even if what they're doubling was halved by GM fiat? Also since characters are now more likely to remain on their feet because you halved knockback, a skill that allows one to get to one's feet as a 0-phase action is now less valuable -- so did you reduce the cost of Breakfall when implementing your 'trick', too? Curious, Surreal

Interestingly, my experience is exactly the opposite of Tasha's -- i.e. most heroic games I've played in DO NOT require an EGO roll for pushing up to 10pts; the GMs have simply required 1 END per pt pushed just as you'd see in superheroic games. GM's just haven't cared enough about a 10pt push to slow the game down with another roll...

This depends on the gun. As an example, the semi-automatic Bushmaster M17S is a piston-operated bullpup rifle that has a shrouded barrel as part of its original design. The shroud traps heat -- a known design issue which causes people to mod these rifles (by CNC'ing ventilation holes/openings into the shroud). The original, unmodified rifle will begin to cook off rounds with as few as three 30-round magazines that have been rapid-fired through it (basically as fast as one can pull the trigger and change magazines). That's under 100 rounds... and fairly easy to achieve. I should know; I own one, and it's happened -- which is why mine looks almost nothing like the original design, these days. Semi-automatic AR-15 rifles fitted with bump-fire stocks and using well-lubricated beta magazines can dump 100 rounds in about 10 seconds. Coupled with multiple beta magazine changes and assuming slow 2-3 second magazine changes, that's more than 500 rounds per minute out of a shouldered and aimed semi-automatic civilian AR-15. The average civilian AR-15 has a craptastic barrel (i.e. not military grade, usually) ... meaning it's probably going to be HOT after that first 100-200 rounds are put through it ... hot enough for VERY noticeable barrel walk at even short (100yd) distances ... and possibly round cook-off if one is left chambered with the bolt closed for any length of time. Someone running the gun steadily probably won't encounter a problem because the heat transfer would take time ... but up the ante and put 500-1000 rounds through it in 1-2 mins (i.e. get it super hot) and you're probably cooking off rounds given the closed bolt design ... assuming the rifle's gas tube hasn't already failed AND the handguard provides enough forearm insulation that you don't get burned handling the gun. Based on personal experience, I disagee. See above as to why. Comparing experiences with belt-fed machine guns to running civilian AR-15's at high RoF's isn't exactly apples-to-apples. Keep in mind that belt-fed weapons are usually open bolt designs (general exception: WWI aircraft machine guns that needed to be synchronized with propeller rotation soas not to shoot off the propeller; these were primarily closed bolt designs). In addition to open bolt designs having fewer moving parts (and, thus, reduced malfunctions), a major consideration for the use of an open bolt design is that there is substantially increased heat dissipation compared with closed bolt designs. The fact that the venerable Vickers gun from WWI was a closed bolt design that required water cooling for the barrel should tell you something...