Surrealone

RAW's the law unless the GM says it isn't. With that in mind, just as GMs should consistently approach and work with players to make sure a Limitation that isn't limiting is worth nothing (-0) … players should consistently approach and work with GMs to make sure anything/everything that is limiting … is worth something. Good players and GMs, alike, tend to be amenable to such dialogues … and open to one another's perspectives.

That equates to a ~16.67% chance of that 1 BOD being Penetrating - yet the power was NOT purchased with any kind of Limitation requiring an Activation Roll for the Penetrating function (which would fall somewhere between 9- [i.e. ~37.5% chance on 3d6) and 10- [i.e. ~50% chance on 3d6]). If the Penetrating is now subject to chance where it otherwise wouldn't be per RAW, then it's limiting ... and, thus, worth a Limitation … right up there with the value of a 9- or 10- Activation Roll's value … adjusted (x1/2 the limitation's value prior to adjustment?), of course, for the fact that it's only the Penetrating component to which the Activation Roll would apply. I say this because I think we all agree that a Limitation that isn't limiting … is worth nothing (-0) … which can only be consistently true if its converse (anything that is limiting … is worth something) is also consistently true. Note: For cleanliness, I would tend to write what you suggest up as Penetrating bought as a Naked Advantage for N points of the power … with the 9- or 10- Activation Roll applied to the Naked Advantage's cost without adjustment. Doing it this way gives the player a cost reduction for the GM-required Limitation, avoids any need for goofy house rules while introducing the element of chance you've required … and completely avoids the potential problem of the Limitation modifying/applying to more than just the Penetrating aspect of the power.

Unless, of course, Resource Points are being used -- then there's no room for abuse, at all … despite characters not paying "for everything in points". (Instead, they pay 1 per 5 pts beyond the initial GM allocation of Resource Points, so some amount is free while anything beyond has a price [that isn't one for one]).

Another tactic I like: Drain X followed by attacking something affecting X. My favourite use of this is with a Mentalist -- specifically because EGO is not considered a defensive stat/power and, thus, is not subject to the halving rule when affected by an Adjustment Power like Drain. As a reminder, there is no cap on the amount you can Drain … and as another reminder, a character with 0 EGO must make a successful EGO roll each Phase to act (failure means s/he can initiate no actions of his/her own). In addition, at 0 EGO, characters follow any orders given to them unless they make successful EGO rolls … and absent orders, will follow their Psychological Complications. This is awesome when multiple conflicting orders are barked at a character, as the character will try to do them all unless s/he makes his/her EGO roll! Example: Psychic Crush (low dice, fully-IPE EGO Drain built as a Damage Over Time effect) followed by Mind Thrust (Mind Control) or some other mental power once the DoT has run its course. This works very well in low point games where dice caps are low -- allowing one to achieve better mental effects than would otherwise be achievable thanks to the lowering of the EGO stat. It will easily fit within the dice caps … and NPCs tend to have no or low Power/Mental Defense as well as low EGO. The tradeoff, however, is time … but since this example uses a DoT that's IPE, the mentalist can spread it around early in the scene, then attack when the timing is right in order to maximize effect. This same sort of one-two combo also works well draining PRE (again, not a defensive stat/power and, thus, not subject to halving rule)… followed by PRE attacks. In fact, if you can muster an AoE PRE Drain (rather than a DoT) within your point caps … it can be ridiculously effective. Similar to EGO, a character with 0 PRE must make a successful PRE roll each Phase to act offensively or remain in the face of anything threatening (if s/he fails, s/he flees). Example: Fear (moderate dice fully-IPE AoE PRE Drain) followed by Vampiric Majesty (Aid to one's own PRE) [or a violent action, perhaps] combined with a PRE attack

Most GM's adhere to RAW, wherein there is no strict requirement to call out what you're holding for. Part of this is just plain old RAW adherence, but part of it is that it tends to make scenes a bit more cinematic, I think. Per RAW on 6e2, p20 (italics, underline, and bold added by me for emphasis): "A character may choose not to act when his DEX indicates that his Phase begins. He may wait until a lower DEX or until some event occurs ("I wait until he strikes"; I wait until he comes around the corner"). This is known as Holding an Action (or delaying or reserving a Phase). A character may Hold his Action until a later DEX in one of his Phases or until a later Segment. … <snip> A character may perform a Half Phase Action and then Hold a Half Phase. The character is considered "ready" and may perform the Held Half Phase Action later." Notice the use of 'or' meaning you can either just wait for a lower DEX (and when you get there, you can even continue to wait again if you want) … or … you can wait until some event occurs. There's more RAW on the cited page as well that states: "With the GM's permission, a character can Hold his Action "generically", without declaring any sort of precondition for acting, and then may perform whatever Action he wants to whenever he wants to." It sounds to me like your GM isn't allowing that. However, per the above RAW, you can state "I hold my action until DEX 10" and when DEX 10 occurs, you could say, "I continue to hold my action until my normal DEX in the next Segment" … and then when the next Segment arrives … you can keep on repeating. It'll probably annoy the heck out of your GM (and, if so, expect him/her to eventually rule on it) … but technically, per RAW, it's legal even if you don't have GM permission to hold generically (because holding until a specific DEX on a given Segment is not the same as holding generically; it's actually constrained/tied to a given DEX). This was spot-on.

In general, the most effective tactic I've noted when it comes to the management and conservation of one's actions is to half-move using cover … and hold the other half Phase until the very end of the Segment right before the character's next Phase comes up. This provides the following tactical advantages: Allows movement toward a target to reduce range mods or close for HTH with that target ... or away from the target to add range mods to the opposition Harnesses the benefits of cover Allows the held half Phase to be used defensively if needed (instead of Aborting) Allows Breakfall to be used to get back on one's feet (thereby preserving DCV) at any time while the half Phase is held (assuming the character is knocked down and not Stunned/Unconscious), while retaining the held half Phase if the roll succeeds Allows one to take a half Phase to get up if knocked down, thereby preserving DCV Allows one to attack immediately after an opponent has performed an attack action, thereby precluding the opponent from Aborting to avoid the inbound attack Minimizes the gap between one's own attack action (after which one cannot Abort) and the ability for one to take a defensive action Allows one to take back-to-back actions, if needed (for example -- if two attacks in quick succession might bring about the end of the fight) The above is especially true of higher-DEX and SPD characters. The scoot-and-shoot-from-cover tactic is also stupidly effective in Heroic level Dark Champions games, where maneuvering and cover matter a lot more due to the lethality of firearms, knives, clubs, and the like. Having an odd number of meters for a full move also games the above tactic to maximum effect, as it gives one a 1m longer half-move without having to buy 2x as much of the movement to get it. (That's the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness applied to catch the round. As a reminder, the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness was taught within the early editions of the game, so application of its principles are a legit part of the game, too!)

For some reason my mind read the title of this thread as "Dancer International" … a name that gives a completely different perspective on having poles in the batcave, I'd think. Sorry for the digression, I just figured I'd share. Carry on...

I did read the damn post, so stop cursing at me. I used the example I did because it was an obvious one. A less obvious one would be someone who throws a pebble into the air to block an incoming arrow by deflecting it 'just so'. Is it possible? Sure, anyone could do it. However, it's highly improbable -- without having extensive training at doing just that. If you care about realism, then this suggests you should give everyone a chance at it, however improbable -- and you should govern that probability as you, the GM, see fit, with the modifiers you assign. You do this, already, when you assign someone negatives to a Computer Programming roll for the difficulty of a hack … or to a Lockpicking roll to represent the difficulty of the lock being picked … or a PER roll regarding the difficulty of perceiving something … presumably to represent the realism of the situation properly. Why is it that assigning these very same sorts of difficulty modifiers for Blocking a ranged attack is somehow poor design … and somehow the need to do so to properly represent the realism of the situation … is so terrible? Frankly, I feel the current approach is more consistent with how other aspects of Hero System are handled (see previous examples regarding assignment of difficulty modifiers). You manage to reliably assign difficulty modifiers for all sorts of other activities in Hero System, but you can't or won't for blocking ranged attacks?! That's comical to me -- and causes me to view your angle on this one as if you are picking a specific bone with the system just because it's there to pick.

Every grunt on the field of battle with a buckler or a shield has the potential to avoid arrow-fire by blocking with that shield; you see this in Braveheart (the movie). "Pure … bad … design" was the old way of requiring every single one of them to have purchased Missile Deflection just to have a chance of avoiding arrow-fire. That was horribly unrealistic. The current approach allows far more realism than the 4e/5er way did. Sure, it's unlikely Joe Schlep can knock an arrow out of the way with his buckler, but it's POSSIBLE … without him having 20 CP in Missile Deflection … and the new rules account for that. You, the GM, are supposed to be the guy who susses out just how possible/probable or impossible/improbable such things are in your game. It sounds to me like you don't want to. If that's the case, then don't … and forbid Blocking ranged attacks … but understand that by doing so, you've imposed something unrealistic, since Joe Schlep should have a chance of doing so; however improbable, it is still physically possible in the real world, after all -- without Joe Schlep having the 4e/5er equivalent of Missile Deflection just to have a shot at it (which was even MORE unrealistic, since he always should have had a shot at it).

I'd do #1 because I think it's cinematically correct/interesting, and then breathe again (or follow the first breath with some other more direct attack against Plate Armor Man) once the barrier was gone -- again, because I think it's cinematically interesting. Breath weapons are often huge, so I'd expect Plate Armor Man (and anyone else with a good shield) to weather such an attack well … assuming the shield is large enough, strong enough, and the character interposes it in time (Block). While it may seem like the character took too little damage, you, the GM, have cost the character (and potentially more than one character, since it's an AoE attack) an action … and annihilated a Barrier/shield -- setting you up for your next attack on a now-shieldless opponent (or set thereof). I have no problem with 0 BOD and 0 STUN being taken, at all -- if I made the character blow a Phase in order to avoid the damage. I liken the loss of the shield to being as harsh (if not more so) as Diving for Cover, since a defensive option is now gone for the duration of the adventure … until replaced. Sure the game provides you with a rule/mechanic - assign some negatives (there's the rule/mechanic) as you see fit. It sounds to me like you don't want to assign those modifiers -- and, moreover, like you're complaining there's not a chart, thereof. No such chart is required; you're the GM so you can assign what you feel is appropriate for the circumstance -- sans any charts, calculations, etc. If you want such charts, you can make them, but they aren't required. Most GM's tend to do things by the seats of their pants … and many don't want to be encumbered by the very sorts of charts you're pining for, here. (Rolemaster aka rollmaster, anyone?? Ugh.)

Reminder: Aunt May would need a suitable item to use for this (say a silver serving tray?) … unless she bought Deflection. I think the entire point of everyone being able to perform a Block against ranged attacks was to simulate the concept of being able to knock arrows away with swords. The game is, after all, called 'Hero System' … not 'Boring Average Joe/Jane System'. If everyone being able to block ranged attacks isn't your style, as a gentle reminder, the section on blocking ranged attacks found on 6e2 p59 begins as follows (bold/underlining added by me for emphasis): "With the GM’s permission, characters may Block Ranged attacks." Also as another gentle reminder (one that plays to your tennis ball example), per 6e2 p59, "...the penalties for trying to Block a Ranged attack unarmed are more often incurred, and can be more severe (-4 or worse)." i.e. You, the GM, are supposed to impose penalties appropriate to the size/speed of the ranged attack being blocked, the means of blocking the ranged attack (e.g. unarmed, with shield, with sword, etc.), and the like. Using your tennis ball example, what, exactly, is the problem with any unarmed person being able to do it? Sure, it's hard -- reflect that by assigning appropriate penalties -- and if the person succeeds, then s/he overcame the difficulty. It's as simple as that. Why all the fuss on your part? Assign the modifiers, and let the dice be thrown!

Given the rarity of 3's, Aunt May would be smarter to simply move out of the way before the Hulk's haymaker completes … by either half-moving or (if she lacks a Phase) aborting to a Dive for Cover. Just saying.

If shields are built as Barriers, b) and c) of the above are both addressed. Building them with Block bonuses is something else I agree with, and that's easy and cheap enough to do.

I'd require all shields to be built as a form of Barrier, since that's what shields actually are. After that, the issue of hiding behind shields to avoid dragon breath, cones of cold, etc. becomes a simple matter of whether the character interposes the Barrier in time (a la a block roll) … and then whether the Barrier provides enough coverage and is strong enough to withstand the incoming damage. Magical shields should obviously be much tougher than non-magical ones, as should Vibranium shields and the like. If the Barrier breaks, the shield is toast and whatever damage leaks through, the character takes per the usual Barrier rules. I believe this simulates the trope perfectly … while accounting for what happens if an inadequate barrier is used, as well. Note: A shield for which a character pays points (a la Captain America's shield) could very well be a multipower where the Barrier capability is merely one of several powers. (Captain America uses his shield offensively and bounces it, so he's probably got attacks in the MP, too.) I think you get the idea.

This is where we'll have to agree to disagree, I think -- as a successful block avoids damage … and the trope I mention entails precisely that -- yet your handling of it requires taking damage rather than avoidance of it.

I concur with much of this, but the above seems not to account for the 'hide in shield's shadow to block AoE breath weapon' trope. Out of curiosity, how would you handle that?

I'm a bit north of Durham (close to Roxboro) and could be interested in a game -- depending on regularity of sessions, session cadence, and other such logistical items, of course. I'm open to most genres and enjoy playing at all point levels -- but I tend to enjoy low-mid powered superheroic games, most. You should be aware that I'm one of those ultra-dependable types who, upon committing to something, is very consistent - and I seek the same for regular gaming. Note that do not GM; I've tried on multiple occasions and learned that it's not my cup of tea. P.S. I'm also a student of the Goodman School of Cost Effectiveness. (Per 2e RAW, that sort of thinking is part of playing the game, too!)

Not to digress, but, honestly, I believe Mental Defense provides more utility (at least, defensively) than straight EGO, since MD will apply as a defense to the STUN done by a Mental Blast … whereas straight EGO won't. Thus, the defensively-minded character is incented to buy Mental Defense and, if s/he also cares about EGO rolls, s/he spends 2CP per +1 Skill Level to EGO rolls … especially since these levels are usable when EGO is drained to 0 (i.e. different drain needed to also drain away the levels). Put another way, I tend to see no situation where buying straight EGO is a better deal than buying Mental Defense … specifically because the one drawback (EGO rolls suffering) is so easily overcome with 2pt Skill Levels to a single characteristic roll (EGO).

Reminder: The hex you're in as well as those adjacent to you are DCV 0. So no, a hex isn't that hard to hit if you're in it or it's close to you. But 6' away, yea it's tougher than it was when it was right next to you or the one you were in … but still not tough.

If everyone's OMCV and DMCV default to 1, how is there a balance issue, exactly … especially if the GM is putting genre-appropriate caps in place for OCV, DCV, OMCV, and DMCV?

Sure there's a downside to doing it -- if you pick up some object that requires decent OMCV to properly target it, the character can make less effective use of that object than others. Now if you don't put such objects in your game, that's your call, but a lack of objects doesn't equate to a lack of downside associated with a potential use of such objects, if obtained. (i.e. There is still a downside -- you've just elected not to leverage it … and that's on you, not the characters, IMHO.) Now, that issue aside -- I personally feel like OMCV and DMCV defaulting to 3 was a holdover from 5ER and earlier days … and that both really should have defaulted to 1. I also feel like defaulting both to 1 is a better/cleaner house rule when compared to 'No you can't do that because I just don't happen to like it and I'm too lazy a GM to make the buydown matter in my game.'

Straight out of RAW: "A character with this Talent has a sixth sense about danger." (Source: 6e1 p111) You need to GM that as you see fit, with the understanding that it relies on senses the character has unless purchased with the +10 CP option for "perceive any type of danger, in or out of combat, and regardless of whether he could perceive it with his standard senses" -- at which point, it effective DOES operate as a 6th sense. Most GM's I've seen and/or played under tend to give a basic DS roll (using normal senses) whenever an attack is coming in for which a per roll would not normally be permitted. An example might be the first shot fired by a sniper at the character. (Normally someone would not get a PER roll against this … and would be surprised, but someone with DS would likely be given a roll and, if successful, would spot the glare off the sniper's scope or hear the bullet's movement through the air --- i.e. GM explanation as to how it was perceived would be based on the character's senses.)

This has been my experience, as well. Most players and GMs agree that it's just too cumbersome.

Neil, I am late to the party and have not read all posts in this thread, as I'm pressed for time, right now (posting during lunch break). I don't see this (i.e. points for equipment vs free equipment) as an either/or problem. Why not? Simple: Resource points (specifically Equipment points) I'm currently playing in a Dark Champions (heroic-level) game where all equipment is GM-crafted/created. It is modern genre (so it has cell phones, and today's guns, for example) ... and a basic flip phone costs nada, since pretty much everyone has at least that. A smartphone, however, does so much more and while 68% of the US population has one, they're still not as ubiquitous as, say, tap water (free water when you go to a restaurant) … so they DO cost something. A really swanky smartphone (think latest Samsung Galaxy or iPhone) is built as a 20 Active Pt item (costing 4 real points)… by the GM. To put this into perspective (i.e. for context), a GM-built Glock 43 with FMJ ammunition in this game also happens to be a 20 Active Pt item (costing 5 real points) -- nevermind that, dollar-for-dollar, the phone costs twice as much as the pistol with its ammo (in the real world). This is where resource points come in. Everyone starts with a pre-set allocation of resource points -- some for equipment, some for followers/contacts, and some for vehicles/bases. Player characters can have on them at any one time (i.e. for a given scenario) equipment whose real costs equal their equipment point total … and they begin play with a maximum of 2x their equipment point total in their arsenal. As they collect things from adventures, those things are added to their arsenal without additional cost, but the equipment point total, itself, always serves as a cap on how much equipment the character than have with him/her for a scenario. Last, additional equipment pts can be purchased at a rate of 1 CP per 5 equipment points. IMPORTANT: It is the real cost of the equipment that is tallied against a character's equipment points, not the active cost. Thus, in a campaign where resource points are used and the starting equipment point total is 50: The character could have up to 50 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for a scenario -- at no cost. The character could start with up to 100 real points worth of equipment in his/her arsenal -- and change out equipment when able to visit that arsenal to do so. If the character wanted to be able to have 55 real points worth of equipment on his/her person for each scenario, s/he would buy a 'Resource Points' perk costing 1 CP. (In Hero Designer terminology, one would buy a 'Resource Points' perk whose type is 'Equipment Points', set the Starting Points value to 50, and then buy 5 'levels' of that perk ... which would end up costing the character 1 CP). There are several big benefits to this approach: The GM controls all equipment (and yes, builds it) -- a very good thing from a balance preservation standpoint A reasonable amount of equipment is available to all characters (defined by them but written up by the GM -- yes this requires working together) … thanks to the campaign starting value for equipment points Characters who want to carry around a pile of useful equipment (thereby having a pile of benefits that those who don't carry such around … lack) actually have to pay something for the value they get from having more at their fingertips in a scenario The problem of characters trying to lug around the kitchen sink is completely avoided I had never used resource points in a game before … probably because most GM's have been too lazy to build out equipment. I have to say, I really, really like the equipment point approach and think every heroic game should use resource points. That said, this only works if a GM isn't slack/lazy when it comes to building things. i.e. I believe this would fail miserably with a handwavey GM … or a slack GM who lets players build equipment -- as both leave too much open to interpretation and/or misunderstanding. But it works amazingly well with a GM who is interested in very granular/detailed simulation/creation of objects … and is willing to put in the legwork to get it.

I, too, said FRED … mostly because changes from 4e were made in FRED … that then had to be undone (or redone) in 6e -- signaling that what was done to those items in FRED was FUBAR, to begin with. In case a working example is needed, I'll give you a concise one: Regeneration. Sadly, 6e was next on my list -- primarily because the 2-volume set is cumbersome and I really, really liked having a complete game in ~200ish pages back in the 4e days.