Surrealone

I had the same question. So did another to whom I mentioned the new Jan build. What follows is not a complaint. Rather, it is an enhancement request pertaining to the HD release process: * Inclusion (within the archive file) of versioned Release Notes that describe the changes/fixes entailed by each HD release would be both useful and appreciated by its consumers. Use cases for the above enhancement request can be found in this very thread.

I would personally find additional dice rolling for maneuvers that do not normally require it to be more time consuming, more of a hassle, and, thus more annoying. Unicuique suum, I suppose.

I'm thoroughly enjoying the posts by unclevlad, Lucius, and others who seem to insist that the terminology/distinction for 'scrapper' is unique to me. It isn't. Here's a little bit of supporting evidence (colourized emphases added by me): "Scrapper - a solid all around hand to hand fighter, he has average attack and DEF but is not a true brick. Luke Cage is the classic example." Source: These very forums, in the following thread: And then there's this, too: "... such a character is a hybrid of archetypes. He has Brick-like defenses, but attack abilities like a martial artist or perhaps a weapons master." Source: These very forums, in the following thread: My point is (and has been throughout this thread) that solid/high defenses tend to be the realm of scrappers (and bricks, since I just brought it up via a thread post), while avoidance of getting hit tends to be the realm of martial artists (and speedsters, since it was brought up by another in the thread). I believe the cited posts shows that others share that perspective … and that the terminology/distinction is NOT unique to me. But keep hammering away if you like rather than embracing a common enough concept within super hero gaming. It's probably worth a looksee at the STR and the defenses of some of the builds put forth in the second thread, as well … to see how they tend to fall. Have fun!

Probably because it is a martial maneuver … one that originated in The Ultimate Martial Artist, IIRC.

I'm personally looking forward to APG3 coming out.

I wasn't petulant, at all -- and I gave you the very instructions (in my response, above -- look again) required to come up with the same definition I used … just to see if you'd use them. But you didn't -- because I suspected you were actively looking for a basis on which to disagree rather than actually trying to understand my statement. Thank you for the confirmation, thereof!

Duke, I suspect you were kinda forced into such a bizarre construct since you play 2e … which lacks … Summon!

Given that what I suggested as the bare minimum was "Hero Designer plus the HERO System 6th Edition Bundle: Character Creation/Combat and Adventuring PDF", my instinctive response to your query is: I believe so. Of course, I can't be certain...

I'd use Summon to do this … specifically with a limitation that requires a nearby adult (akin to a MacGyver-like gadgeteer who can use any OAF for his/her gadgetry) … in addition to the 'arrives under own power' limitation … and a limited form (meaning -1 instead of -2) of 'no conscious control' impacting only the effects of the Summon such that the GM, not the kid, would control the super hero. The Summon SFX would, of course, be that the nearby adult becomes a super hero (perhaps even doing the Superman thing to run and rip off the Clark Kent costume). For Advantages, I think Amicable would probably make sense, as well as IPE. This approach would entail the super hero always being the same in terms of powers and the like … at least as I'd build it. You could certainly go for a class of beings, but I think that gets unnecessarily hard in terms of GM work required to execute it. I also tend to think it'd be more interesting for the same super to always show up when the kid's around, just because it makes for an interesting plot hook once someone picks up on it. (And, of course, the kid probably has his/her favourite hero and that's who s/he's likely steadily wishing to be present, cheering on, etc.)

I meant that in terms of both financial cost AND character creation rules/CP costs for character creation. Key to this is that if you turn on certain Hero Designer options, you basically have martial maneuvers, advantages, and limitations from most of the 6e material (including CC, FHC, etc. with the APG's obviously excepted) … and you can also kick it into 5e mode and set options within it that have the vast bulk of the 5e character creation rules/CP costs (including things from Star Hero, Fantasy Hero, The Ultimate Speedster/Brick/Martial Artist, etc.) I vehemently disagree with this. The reason I disagree is that the Striking Appearance talent as implemented in 5e and later (as a replacement for COM) results in an infinitely more appropriate and useful ability on the character sheet when it comes to appearance-based playability. It is built as: +5 PRE (5 Active Points), Only For Interaction Skill Roll And Presence Attack Bonuses Where Appearance Might Be A Factor (-1) (total cost: 3 (rounded up to allow for difference between “all characters” and “limited group of characters”). This means that in 5e and later you can still effectively do the equivalent of Drain to COM … despite COM having been replaced by Striking Appearance … by simply performing a Drain to PRE with the SFX of making the target uglier to onlookers. I see no downside to the Striking Appearance, at all, especially since Striking Appearance tends to see much more acknowledgement/use from most GMs than COM ever did, gameplay-wise. Probably not; Duke Bushido is pretty reasonable … unlike some of the people I believer were engaged in said long and bitter arguments!

I believe you're perfectly capable of looking up words using multiple online dictionaries that are readily at your fingertips, so I'm not going to cater to your demand to have me do your homework for you. Look it up, yourself, if you're that interested in confirming; it's as easy as typing 'dilemma definition' into Google. Semantics are relevant, at least to those who choose their words carefully in order to be as precise as they're able when conveying what they mean. The issue I have with the avoidance of the problem of how to handle Luck on villains … by replacing Luck with something else … is that the problem remains unsolved. i.e. Replacing Luck with something else didn't magically make the problem of the players' faith in GM's fairness (for which Luck on a villain was merely a catalyst) go away; the problem remains. Dealing with the problem, IMHO, requires a demonstrably fair system for handling Luck (on any/all characters) … or replacing the problematic players with ones who don't get butt-hurt when the GM makes something happen that they don't like. I'm a strong proponent of the former, by the way, which is why I proposed what I did, above. But if that still doesn't work, then I believe the latter is in order.

Given the very definition of dilemma entails a choice that must be made … by definition, not taking a stance one way or another (i.e. avoidance) regarding the choices fails to address or deal with the dilemma, IMHO. So I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree...

That suggestion doesn't seem to address the OP's dilemma, at all; instead, it appears to try to avoid it. Rather than avoid it, my suggestion is this: In a situation where Luck would be appropriate (using the same criteria RAW describes for players … but for the villain), immediately prior to making the Luck roll, perform a mental exercise wherein you pre-decided what 1 successful Luck die, 2 successful Luck Dice, 3 successful Luck dice (to … N successful Luck dice) -- will do for the character -- i.e. what effect each level will have. Only AFTER you have that laid out do you make the roll. This will effectively cause the results of the dice to make the choice for you -- among a pre-chosen set of paths. i.e. It keeps you from looking at the successes AND then making up a story to fit. I personally don't care for more than 3 dice of Luck to be present for PC's, much less for NPC's … and, as stated in RAW, "Luck shouldn't come into play very often - it should be a pleasant surprise for a character, not something he depends on."

He could very readily apply the following to the reserve: Variable Limitations (requires -1/2 worth of Limitations; -1/4) … and then give each slot a -1/2 limitation. There's nothing esoteric about that, at all, by the way … and it's in line with his (more than reasonable) Only To Augment HTH Standard Maneuvers (-1/4). Frankly, he should have given that a value of -1/2 (instead of -1/4), since the very same limitation (i.e. HTH Only … and its equivalent: Ranged Only) is applied by RAW, itself, to certain things at -1/2 value. The limitation (at -1/2) is absolutely appropriate on the OCV, DCV, and STR slots. It's probably worth only -1/4 on the HA and KA slots since the HTH piece isn't the limiting part, there; instead it's the Standard Maneuvers portion of his phraseology that would matter for the HA and KA slots …. since they are already HTH. Why? Because limiting them to only HTH Standard Maneuvers means you can't use them to augment non-standard maneuvers (which would mean it couldn't apply to martial maneuvers, optional maneuvers, and the like … which is, indeed, limiting in most combats and, thus, worth something). Thus, he'd be good to go on all slots except the KA slot, where he'd need to come up with another -1/4 limitation … perhaps Incantations: Must Make An Audible Kiai (-1/4) … to represent having to produce a loud shout when delivering a killing strike designed to do body to, say, break a board, a bone, or whatever. You seem to be trying very hard to find fault with Deadman's angle on this rather than trying equally as hard to see what he's saying. The man has a solid point, IMHO. Also, the bare minimum, cost-wise, required to play Hero is (wait for it) … Hero Designer plus the HERO System 6th Edition Bundle: Character Creation/Combat and Adventuring PDF. Going this route is actually cheaper than locating and procuring hardcopies of 6e1 and 6e2 while providing far more options, build-wise, thanks to HD's incorporation of things beyond 6e1 and 6e2. (And if you noticed, neither 6e1 nor 6e2 are available on this site for purchase. If you can locate hardcopies, they'll cost a pile!) I suppose you could try to go the Champions Complete route … but as I've already noted in other threads, it's missing a number of things and, thus, not actually complete … especially since no corrective errata has been posted, to my knowledge. Enjoy!

In your experience, how much of an archetypical martial artist's damage comes from actual STR (rather than 4pt Martial Arts HTH DCs, 2 CSLs used as +1 DC, the damage bonuses from given martial maneuvers, etc -- all of which can readily be lumped into one term 'technique')? It's been my experience that very little damage in archetypical builds comes from actual STR … specifically because STR costs END, whereas Martial Arts HTH DCs, CSLs used as DCs, and the damage bonuses from maneuvers do not. Thus, 'technique' is somewhat incentivized from an END efficiency standpoint on martial artists that will already have a low REC as a result of being built to avoid hits rather than soak them like a scrapper would. The reverse is true, as well -- scrappers intended to soak hits will have high REC and CON, making it easier and more cost effective to support the END costs of higher STR … since they'll buy and need that REC to recover the STUN that they will take … and that avoidance-based martial artist build don't intend to take (or take often). This was even more true in 5er and earlier when Figured Characteristics were at play... I've rarely seen a martial artist with more than 15 STR, whereas scrapper builds I've send tend to have 20-25 STR. In END terms alone, the scrapper will spend twice as much END per STR-based attack for potentially the same damage output (depending on martial HTH DCs, CSL allocation, and chosen maneuver, of course) … but will likely have the requisite REC to recover it relative to his/her SPD, which is probably lower than the martial artist's in question due to expenditure of points in CON, REC, STUN, and defenses rather than in the same quantities of DEX and SPD made by the martial artist. As a reminder, a Competent Normal has characteristics ranging from 8-15 … with a SPD of 2-4. That's not Bruce Lee; I think we can all agree he's well beyond 'competent normal'. He's likely either Very Powerful Heroic (Characteristics 10-23, SPD 2-5) or Low-Powered Superheroic (Characteristics 10-30, SPD 3-8), depending on where you place his DEX and SPD; regardless, if I were building Bruce I wouldn't give him more than 13 STR. Bolo would likely have 23 if I were building him. (Can Bruce pick a motorcycle up over his head? Probably not, but he can easily lift another person -- hence a 13 STR. Can Bolo? Probably so, without much of a sweat, I'd think. In fact he can likely lift two people fairly readily or maybe one really fat person or a cow, hence a 23 STR. These things per the Strength Table, of course.)

I think the issue is that you seem to think someone has indicated that a muscular karate guy (who is slower, often fewer martial maneuvers … but much higher defenses) is less ofa karate guy than a wiry, fast karate guy with a ton of maneuvers … when, in fact, no one has indicated that, at all. Rather, what's been indicated is that they are two different archteypes … as represented by very different builds and point expenditures. As to Gnome's question about a speedster, it is, of course, a different archtetype with its own, different builds and point expenditures as compared with scrappers and martial artists. It's probably best exemplified by comparing Bruce Lee to The Flash. Where Bruce Lee is, perhaps, representative of the pinnacle of human speed and dexterity combined with martial techniques, the Flash's speed is superhuman and rather than relying on martial technique, all of his powers derive entirely from his speed. Can Bruce Lee move so fast soas to travel through time? No. And Can The Flash perform a Martial Disarm or a Nerve Strike? No. I think you get the idea when using some common sense to compare the builds associated with the various archetypes as to what is a speedster, a brick, a scrapper, a martial artist, a flying energy projector, etc. Trying to define a razor thin dividing line is, of course, an impossible task, so I'm not going to try because I think good, old-fashioned common sense is adequate.

The words 'true martial artist' were not uttered by me. I use the words 'archetypical martial artist' because the archetype most typically entails a wiry, fast person who isn't particularly strong. Thus, deviation from that archetype entails (wait for it) … a different archetype. In this case, it's a scrapper. Sure, scrappers use martial arts and therefore are martial artists … but they are NOT archetypical martial artists, as they have their own, highly-specific archetype. To give you an analogy: A cavalier is a fighter, but it's a distinct and separate archetype with its own unique properties when compared with plain-Jane fighters in 1st Edition AD&D. Sure they are both fighters in the generic sense of the word 'fighter' (much as scrappers are martial artists in the generic sense of THAT term), but as to how they are built and the tools available to them, fighters and cavaliers are pretty different creatures with their own archetypes, just as wiry, fast, technique-based martial artists are very different from slower, stronger, somewhat brick-like characters who happen to use martial arts. Look up the word 'archetype' … and I think you'll see that the stronger, slower, somewhat brick-like characters wearing gis who happen to use martial arts … are not the typical representation of martial artists. Or not … as it's your choice as to whether you choose to acknowledge the difference … or not. It makes no difference to me, really; I see and acknowledge the differences between them, as do the gaming groups I've played with across the decades. That doesn't mean you have to do so...

Of course he does, because Bolo's a slower SPD character -- meaning he's forced to hold and react or abort in order to fend off some of the higher SPD character's attacks. This leaves fewer opportunities/openings to actually attack Roper … so of course Roper doesn't block or dodge as much. Had Bolo not blocked as much as he did while looking for openings, the fight would have likely ended sooner. Also, as a reminder, Martial Block adds +2 to both OCV and DCV. Bolo likely needs to buoy both since he likely has less of both than Roper. Perhaps more important, an often overlooked benefit of a successful block is that it can help a slower SPD character create an opening, since a successful block results in the blocker automatically acting first if both opponents have their next Phases in the same segment! Threads roll out of kilter on this forum all the time. That said, we're talking about martial artist defenses, and the video shows two different angles on that (i.e. not getting hit, versus soaking hits). It also helps underscore the idea that soaking hits tends to be in the realm of a bigger/stronger/slower scrapper type (such as Bolo, Chong Li in Bloodsport, Tong Po in Kickboxer) as opposed to the archetypical martial artist who isn't terribly strong but is quite fast when employing his/her art( such as Bruce Lee, Roper, Mr. Miyagi, etc.).

I believe the distinction is actually pretty clear and simple when boiled down to basic essentials: The archetypical martial artist relies on SPD, DEX, and a large repertoire of martial maneuvers to avoid (or minimize, where unavoidable) getting hit The archetypical scrapper starts as an archetypical martial artist but then deviates from the usual/critical SPD-DEX-repertoire playbook by sacrificing some of each in order to spend elsewhere -- specifically to be stronger (so that hits really, really hurt when they land) and to have defenses that allow the soaking of repeated hits Here's a classic martial artist vs. scrapper fight -- specifically Roper (martial artist) vs Bolo (scrapper) in Enter the Dragon. In it, you will notice that Roper repeatedly lands punches and kicks on Bolo -- which seemingly have little effect, individually (but which steadily wear Bolo down). By comparison, Bolo manages to connect with and roll damage on Roper only twice -- the first of which is so severe it stuns and knocks Roper down, while the second is a low-damage throw that merely renders Roper prone. Notice how each character even looks and moves the part of his archetype -- with Roper being faster, more dexterous (notice the breakfall maneuver to get up from the throw?!), using a wider repertoire of martial maneuvers, and hitting lightly -- compared to bolo, whose massive muscles let him hit hard when he connects … with the few moves he has … in the openings his slower SPD can manage in this fight. But, man, Bolo sure can soak some hits! Where Bolo stunned Roper in a single shot (a backhand, if I recall) and might have finished Roper had he followed up with something similar (instead of doing whatever the hell he was doing to Roper's arm), it took Roper 109 seconds of combat to wear Bolo down and win -- with more punches and kicks connecting than I could readily track. (Note: I tracked combat from the second the first punch was thrown until the second the groin kick that finished Bolo landed -- and then subtracted out the time required for the prisoner release footage). That's 9 turns (!!!) for the faster, more dextrous, but lighter-hitting martial artist to wear down the slower, stronger, and harder-hitting scrapper. As a reminder, it likely could have been a two-shot fight that went Bolo's way in less than 12 seconds (one turn!) had Bolo been smarter about the attack he used after he stunned Roper. (Or perhaps it wasn't smarts, perhaps it was lack of options; maybe he didn't have what he needed in his repertoire of martial maneuvers because of the maneuver sacrifices he made in exchange for upping his defenses and STR?) Archetypical martial artists typically can't soak two stunning hits in quick succession and remain conscious … or if s/he can, his/her state is often with next to no STUN left. The fact that this fight dragged on for ~9 turns … means Roper got the same benefit of post-seg-12 RECs that Bolo got … but unlike Bolo, Roper wasn't getting steadily hit, so it went the way it did, cinematically...

I'm actually basing it on the vast bulk of the martial artists (not 'scrappers', not 'bricks', but actual 'martial artists') I've seen written up. Per your quoted text, you appear to be fixated on DCV being the only means to avoid being hit when, in fact, it isn't. (Hint: Block!) Show me a player with a martial artist character that doesn't use martial block or similar mechanics (a la Deflection) to actively avoid damage rather than relying on adjusted DCV … and I'll show you a martial artist that spends more time unconscious than one who blocks at appropriate times. That's not the only option, by the way. Flying Dodge is in the mix, too … and it can be used to full move beyond HTH range while simultaneously adding +4 to DCV. If the martial artist successfully exits HTH range, then there's not even an attack roll to be made (much less a damage roll). However, in the off-chance the martial artist is still in range when executing the maneuver, then his/her DCV is cranked (better than a regular dodge, but not as high as if martial dodging). I think you get the idea -- there's more to not getting hit than just raw DCV; smart play is required.

This article was somewhat comical. From the article: Integral suppressed basically means the suppressor and barrel work together to make the suppressor perform better, it reduces the speed of the bullet to below the speed of sound. (The speed of sound is about 768 miles per hour at sea level) and for the record, James Seto has been heard many times saying, “It’s as quiet as a mouse fart.” ) I hate to tell these people, but the suppressor and barrel aren't magically working together to achieve better performance. Instead, the barrel has been ported and the suppressor mounted over the ports in a way that reduces the speed of supersonic rounds to subsonic speeds thanks to the reduced gas pressure behind the bullet as it is expelled from the barrel. That's not better performance, at all, it's just a means of rendering the shots super quiet (due to the elimination of the supersonic 'crack' produced by breach of the sound barrier) when supersonic ammunition is used. It's a very SPENDY way to do it, too, since a regular suppressor that's not welded to the barrel atop ports in the barrel (which can be used on different guns BECAUSE it's not welded to one gun) … can achieve the EXACT same effect as long as the user of the firearm selects 147gr 9mm ammunition, which is subsonic. Cute 9mm carbine … but it's ultimately a solution in search of a problem, IMHO. Surreal P.S. I have an integrally suppressed .22 rifle -- purchased specifically because .22 subsonic ammunition is more expensive (for less powder charge) than the supersonic rounds … and because .22 subsonic ammunition often has issues cycling .22's semi-autos. Thus, I looked into a solution that would be super quiet despite use of supersonic ammunition, which I wanted to use to ensure the action cycled. 147gr 9mm ammunition that is subsonic has no such issue, as it typically costs the same as 124gr supersonic ammunition … and it reliably cycles 9mm semi-autos.

I agree with you that martial artists are largely built on 'how things were', but I believe that is, by and large, because not much really changed for martial artists. The big defensive change between 5th and 6th that I noted was allowing Blocks against ranged attacks (if, say, using a shield or other appropriate tool/device) by default … such that Deflection was merely an expansion of the ability to Block ranged attacks - potentially freeing up 20 CP on some martial artist character sheets. Combat Luck didn't change much (if anything) for martial artists, IMHO, because at its core, Combat Luck is just Resistant Defense with some Advantages (Hardened + Impenetrable) and Limitations (Luck-Based + Non-Persistent). This means it's still a defense that reduces the damage you take after you have been hit … as opposed to something that keeps you from getting hit in the first place. As previously stated, the defense for the archetypical martial artist tends to be 'not getting hit' … so a defensive power like Combat Luck really doesn't do much for to how they're built or played. Damage Negation is in a similar boat, since it, too, comes into play only after the Hit/No-Hit portion of the combat sequence is resolved. Specifically, Combat Luck, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction, Resistant Defense, etc. all come into play to protect a martial artist in Checklist item #5 in the Combat Sequence Checklist found on 6e2 p34 … whereas the archetypical martial artist's defense of 'not getting hit' comes into play to protect that martial artist in Checklist item #4. These numbers are, of course, based on the standard Checklist, so obviously different numbers would apply if using optional rules. That said, the premise is still the same -- defensive powers that help a character take less damage … aren't the same as capabilities that allow a character to avoid damage (completely) in the first place such that no damage roll is ever made. IMHO, it's the latter capabilities that tend to be central to how most martial artists are built … and 6e really didn't do anything that would warrant building a martial artist around taking (less) damage rather than completely avoiding it. Going down that road ("ok, I'll build to take damage rather than avoid it completely") is traveling down the road of a scrapper, anyway … and if you travel far enough down it you eventually become a brick, instead.

The defense for most martial artists tends to be 'not getting hit'. Technique seems to be the rule of thumb for them as an archetype … with higher speeds often coming into play to allow them to act first, hold, and then react to allow for a martial block, a martial dodge, or even a flying dodge in order to avoid damage. (Most attack only when an opening presents itself … or when heroic need requires risking getting hit in order to save someone else.) Combat Luck, Resistant Defense, Damage Negation, Damage Reduction, PD, ED, CON, STUN, and the like (collectively 'defensive powers' for my purposes, here) are tools used to offset damage that's been taken … rather than avoiding the taking of damage that is so key to the archetype. In the HTH world, moderate-to-heavy defensive power use tends to fall in the realm of bricks and scrappers (i.e. characters who are part martial artist, part brick) … which are usually considered separate/different archetypes from martial artists. This is likely why you don't see martial artists relying on defensive powers as a primary defense -- because doing so tends to be associated with archetypes other than 'martial artist'. There are some here who might suggest that you could use defensive powers with the special effect of 'not getting hit', but that makes no logical sense to most people unless the damage is always reduced to 0. Mechanically, defensive powers come into play when/after a character is hit … and don't actually help avoid a hit … so taking any damage means one got hit, rather than avoiding it. Certainly one could use defensive powers to represent minimizing the effects of getting hit, but that's not the same as not getting hit … and in terms of thinking, it tends to fall more in the realm of scrappers/bricks than martial artists, archetypically speaking, of course. As for DCV one-upmanship, there's another take on martial arts that avoids that pitfall -- a martial artist built around blocking. Such a martial artist has little need for piles of DCV if quick enough and played smartly enough. Deflection tends to be a staple of the build and, with such a build, DCV ends up being pretty normal, but OCV tends to be cranked to allow for multiple blocks/deflects. (Note: Many GMs allow the intermixing of blocks and deflects when/where appropriate -- especially if doing so helps avoid a SPD war, as block/deflect based characters tend to be Bruce Lee-like in SPD in order to be able to reliably react … unless the two can be intermixed.)

We'll have to agree to disagree for two reasons: Just because the effect involves sound does NOT mean it has to be loud … or even heard ... to entail a sonic effect. Plenty of sonic attacks have nothing to do with the loudness of a sound. (Here's a real-world example.) Instead, these might be about achieving vibrational/resonant frequencies (which might not be loud or able to be heard, at all, without very specialized forms of detection) that match or disrupt those of the target. The distinction still matters, and your water opposition example helps underscore why (thank you, for that). i.e. Where sound is used to generate the effect, it's all about range/effect. In a thin medium, range and effect are merely reduced, whereas in a dense medium, range and effect are increased. This means a player taking a 'does not work in space (-1/4)' limitation on a high-tech sonic weapon that generates sound to achieve an effect (in a space campaign, of course, where one would be most likely to find such weapons) has taken a limitation that removes ALL of the range/effect concern from play … meaning the GM need not worry over the physics of it for that power because of the limitation. The player -should- realistically receive a limitation for this, since his/her power would otherwise work if placed 2cm from the helmet of an opposing attacker's space suit in order to Cover him/her (albeit, it would work to a lesser degree than than if the same were done in atmosphere, and the GM will have to figure out how much less). This becomes even more true if the nature of the effect has nothing to do with loudness or sound-generated sonic effects. The real-world example, above, entails the use of microwaves to create what is PERCEIVED to be sound. (Given that perception is generally considered 9/10ths of reality, it's fair to call that a sonic attack, as the SFX entail perceived sounds.) That's especially interesting, since it would work fine in space, regardless of the density/thinness of the medium, unless a 'does not work in space' limitation were taken. This is why I provided you with that real-world example … so that you could see that your 'pointless' comment was rather pointless, itself, relative to plenty of sonic weapons and space, vacuums, etc. Using our real-world-example as … an example … what we see can boil it down to is a sonic attack built with Indirect. Should that sonic attack magically not work in space for some reason just because the SFX are sonics? I don't think so; it should work fine, there, unless a limitation for it is taken to preclude it from working in space. (Note: Some might leap to say it's a NND, but I ask you, what's the reasonable defense? Sitting a lead box??? Wearing a tinfoil hat? Yea, this is why I feel building it as an Indirect sonic attack would make more sense. ) That brings us back to the topic at hand -- which is a paralyzing scent. The proposed Entangle is a solid way to achieve it. However, since it will likely have absolutely no effect if the opposition filters it, doesn't breathe it in, has the flu and can't smell it, etc., then if we want to model it properly, we should be giving the player some points back for those situations in which it won't work at all, unless the potential occurrences of those situations are so rare and counterbalanced so as to make the limitation 0 points, in which case we should STILL present it as a -0 limitation. Another way of looking at this (same coin from the other side) is to say that if the player takes such a limitation, the player has told the GM that s/he cares enough about proper modeling of the power to place realistic limitations on it that s/he feels could and would occur. Thus, unless the value of the limitation is 0, the GM should absolutely make sure those situations occur at some point so that the limitations justify the points saved. And even if the value of the limitation is 0, it should probably come up with the understanding that there are counterbalancing situations (such as being more effective in some conditions) that made it worth 0, in which case those should ALSO come up in the game. Now, if both the player and the GM are OK with handwaving such realism away (because they feel that such realism is 'a lot of mental load' to use the words already provided, above), that's their collective business, but I don't feel it's reasonable to assume that all (or even most) players are into that; it's certainly not been my experience. (Heck, a game I'm currently playing in, the GM builds guns as compound powers wherein the bullets constitute the part of the compound power that does damage, the optics/sights provide bonuses to offset range mods, and things such as slings provide combat modifiers when appropriate actions (e.g. Braced) allow them to be used. That is rock solid firearm modeling, since guns don't kill people, the projectiles fired from them do.)

But you probably DO expect lasers to take the Beam limitation (unless they're AoE or some other sort of non-beam approach) … and probably also expect them to melt/destroy the transparent objects through which they are shooting unless bought with Indirect (since shooting through things without harming them is an advantage … hence what Indirect is for, right)? Oh, I'd fully expect sonic weapons to work in space (since it's not truly a vacuum), albeit very poorly due to the thinness of particles … unless, of course, a limitation was taken to represent a power that doesn't function once a certain thinness of particles in a given volume of space was exceeded.