Surrealone

As it SHOULD be!

Today I bring you the LMT CSW, an integrally-suppressed confined space weapon (CSW) chambered in .300 AAC. Your military-equipped personnel will appreciate the reduced recoil, muzzle flash, and noise levels that come with this 24inch OAL rifle when using it to defend confined spaces such as bunkers, ships, and similar locations. The platform easily meets SOCOM’s SURG ("suppressed upper receiver group") requirements and passes the SURG high performance stress test, offering rifle caliber force in a substantially smaller, suppressed profile. Spare no expense when it comes to the lives of your men; give them the equipment they need: the LMT CSW - for the ultimate defense in hyper-close/confined quarters. Starting at $3999 per unit...

Out of curiosity I took at look at both GRAB and STRETCHING, as I seemed to recall rules about moving a grabbed character in there somewhere. Here is the gem I was looking for. Per 6e1 p286: A character with Stretching can reach out, Grab a character or object that’s within the range of his Stretching, and pull it to him (assuming he has the STR to move it). (He cannot pull himself to the Grabbed character or object, he drags it to himself.) If the target is an object, this typically takes a Full Phase Action. It only requires a Half Phase Action if the total of (meters Stretched + meters the character has to pull the object) is less than or equal to half his Stretching and the object is non-resisting. If the target is a person or the like, the GM may rule that making the Grab ends the Stretching character’s Phase. However, since characters can Grab and Squeeze, Slam, or Throw, most GMs allow characters with Stretching to Grab and Drag To Myself as part of one Attack Action. The GM may allow a Grabbed character to have an Action that takes no time to brace himself or use STR to resist being dragged. The takeaway, here, should be that triggered UAA movement should not be needed so long as the attacker has enough STR to move the target to him/her (or enough STR to move him/herself to the target if allowed by the GM). IMHO, this bit of RAW also strongly suggests Stretching was likely intended to be able to model what Spidey does... As an aside, if the GM requires the Grab & Pull to take more than the Full (or potentially Half) Phase, then you're back to triggered UAA to build what you desire, but I can't imagine a GM requiring that given how cinematic and appropriate the single Grab & Pull activity tends to be.

For the strap to break due to the effects of the power, I believe the holster/strap would need to be targeted, not the focus, itself. That's a much smaller target, by the way... You're spot-on with your OAF versus OIF analysis … and have provided a far more solid (RAW) justification as to why eepjr's approach of calling a holstered gun an OIF makes little sense -- since it's still an OAF per RAW unless it can't be grabbed/taken in combat.

I believe the SFX of webbing a target and pulling it to the character can be readily boiled down to a focus-based grab maneuver with a triggered UAA movement power (that's triggered by a successful grab using the focus). Thus, I think your stretching option makes the most sense, here.

So female characters who carry purses in your games have to pay points for the retention/shoulder straps, then (lest there be a double-standard). Got it. And yes, I would consider that line of thinking too onerous to niggle with in a superheroic game. But if that's how you like it in your game, that's wonderful for you!

No I haven't, as it's certainly not an IAF when it's in my hand. i.e. A Focus limitation doesn't miraculously change mid-game based on whether it's in-hand or stowed in a backpack, holster, or some other means that helps retain or carry it. When you buy a detective a gun, do you buy it based on its holstered state or its in-hand state when it comes to limitations? Most people do the latter, I suspect … even though the gun spends most of its time in a (retention, since that's what most departments issue) holster. Ninja-Bear has a solid idea, but most of the time when foci are purchased in superheroic games, niggling details like how a holster is constructed tend to get glossed over -- at least from what I've seen. (Now I can absolutely see Ninja-Bear's idea making sense at the heroic/agent levels of play -- but the Luck-based SFX that started this conversation is something I suspect to be more along the lines of superheroic.)

S&W 629 .44 Magnum Performance Center Edition (with a crappy UTG optic that comes with it; I think they should and could have done better than this). This one's for the modern-day gunslinger in your campaign...

Getting paid to play again, I see.

A full-sized pistol is an OAF, agreed? (Because it is obvious and quite accessible...) Now, put that pistol into a retention holster (which has a strap with snap button, or Velcro … to retain the holster while running, climbing, hanging upside down, etc.) and now what do you have? That's right, the pistol is still an OAF … it's just a holstered OAF … on which the aforementioned CE shouldn't force a DEX roll.

I believe this makes good sense for Foci that are held/wielded, but not so much for those that are holstered, attached with molles, or strapped to the target a la a belt or somesuch (like, say, grenades). Key to this is that one shouldn't have to make a DEX roll to hang onto something that's already tethered to him/her. I realize that one might argue that untethering such things could be part of the special effect, but to that I would argue back that there's a reason targeting foci has a penalty and that it costs more for TK to have fine manipulation … and that I do not feel it should be free to just wave both of those types of things away claiming 'special effect' …. as that's a LOT of benefit … for no cost, at all. Thus, I think that for your (solid) idea to be justifiable, a limitation would be required that the power doesn't work on tethered/unwielded/worn foci … only on those that are 'in hand' (so-to-speak).

As I see it, the trouble with your proposed approach is that it's all or nothing ... meaning it either works or it doesn't against all Focii … whereas you indicated what you wanted was something Lucky Lass was 'hoping to cause him to drop his rifle and have his belt and combat harness fall off him'. To me, your 'hoping to' qualifier was read as indicating the power should NOT be all/nothing … and that there should be a chance for an unlucky event to happen to each of the Focii, rather than it affecting all of them ... or none of them. Thus, instead of an AoE I would expect this to look something more like a Multiple Attack against each Focus (taking the penalty for targeting a Focus, of course … and the Multiple Attack penalty) … and using an appropriate power (TK? Martial Disarm? Whatever fits your special effects, really...) against each Focus you wanted to Disarm from the target. I definitely don't see Only to Disarm as -1 on the TK; more like -1/2 … but that's really up to your GM, I suppose.

Taking no BODY is ~not~ like taking no STUN because if you take enough BODY, you die … but you can take STUN ad infinitum and still live. For this reason they are VERY different things. The rates at which one naturally recovers BODY and STUN are also key differences -- one highlighted by the fact that Regeneration exists as a pre-built Power to allow for faster automatic BODY recovery. As for people thinking more generically -- your examples were presented as what you intended to build -- so we ran with that. It's not magically ~my~ fault that your examples were specific/limited. It's also not ~my~ fault that your example used Toon (a game I happen to have played) and that you neglected the fact that Toons do, in fact, take BODY damage, since hit points in Toon are that game's equivalent of BODY … and falling down is that game's equivalent of Death. Finally, sticking to your examples doesn't make anyone's mind in need of broadening or make Hero players vampiric. Instead, it means your examples were limited and your goal less clear than you apparently intended. That, sir, is on you … and only you. No one told you anything was stupid. No one told you to shut up. You, however, have condescended to others by indicating you believe your idea frightened someone -- and I don't think anyone here did anything that warranted that. Perhaps instead of using Toon as your example, it might help if you throw out a power build of your own … and provide your rationale for whatever cost you assign to it -- then we could actually see your concept for your new idea and provide feedback on it … rather than taking stabs at builds based on examples that apparently were only meant as a guideline (without anyone ever having indicated that in the original post). We don't read minds, you know... What say you?

Sure, but those are nits you're picking. I say that because when you return back to the context of the examples that were provided (Toon and getting bonked) regarding this topic, there's functionally no difference. How so? Well, in Toon, when you run out of hit points (as they are called) you just fall down instead of dying … and then you're out of the game for THREE MINUTES. So, being prone and taking time to Regenerate is absolutely appropriate to a Toon simulation and getting bonked. If Mr. Taylor actually wanted to stick to the 3 minute timeout imposed by Toon when one is bonked, his Regeneration level could either be lower (less BODY) or slower … or some combination of the two in order to bring the cost down. But no matter how you slice it, the cartoon character should be taking the equivalent of 'hit points' (which in Hero, is BODY) … and fall down (i.e. be prone) … and be out of commission for a bit. i.e. The Toon character standing in the exhaust of the Space Shuttle would take hit points and eventually fall down … then lay there doing a bunch of nothing for three minutes. The more I think about this, the more I wonder why if Mr. Taylor is trying to model something Toon-like … he's deviating from Toon's use of Hit Points and it's falling down and doing nothing for three minute death replacement. Taking No Body models neither of those things, IMHO … and your Space Shuttle example is a shining example of why!

May I play?

Not dying from taking BODY is fundamentally no different from dying from taking BODY and then resurrecting a la Regeneration -- because the end result is the same: you live after taking BODY damage that would otherwise have killed you -- and are effectively unkillable. ( It is for this reason that I assert that not dying from taking a massive amount of BODY is basically just a special effect of Regeneration that has Resurrect capability. The same is true of limb loss/disablement and regrowth/use.) And by the way, using your own example of Wile E. Coyote ... he clearly takes BODY. Here's an image that backs up my stance:

Appropriate amounts of per-turn Regeneration (with the ability to resurrect and heal limbs) fail to properly represent this how, exactly? I ask because the ability to be Toon-like 'bonked' is effectively a special effect of the ability to die and recover from it. That's Regeneration in Hero … and a LOT of it at a very high cost if it's supposed to be near-instantaneous. Do note that even Wile E. Coyote peels himself off of rocks or walks away looking like an accordian after being pancaked … taking roughly a Turn (12s) to do it as he exits a scene in an amusing way … so I don't think you need to recover faster than that. You probably need a high REC to go with it so that you have some END and STUN, of course … unless you forsee the character needing to take it easy like Wile E. Coyote does (when he goes back to the drawing board) before it goes back into action. Put another way, I think we already have a power and appropriate characteristics that do exactly what you want. Thus, I don't see a need for another one. It probably costs more than you want it to cost, but it's so stupidly powerful that it SHOULD cost a ton, IMHO. Even your two-stage example of inability to lose limbs is actually covered by Regeneration; all you need to do is use the optional Hit Location rules to determine which limbs were hit, and consider them disabled or destroyed if enough BODY is done … then let Regeneration with Limb Healing ability do its thing to bring them back. No special tables or limitations needed, at all … and no need to create a custom power around it; just use the optional rules you already have around Hit Locations in conjunction with Regen and you're golden. That said, if you insist that this isn't a special effect of Regeneration and are absolutely intent on building some janky house-rule power around it, then I believe that the cost to achieve what you want using Regeneration and Recovery should be your guide as to the appropriate cost of whatever you build. i.e. I think this should cost far more than the Automaton powers tend to cost if it's to be near-instantaneous. To put that into perspective, Recovering 20 BODY per turn with the ability to Heal Limbs and Resurrect costs … (wait for it) … 345 active points. So that's the kind of power and pricing you're talking about when you want someone to be unkillable and be able to get up and walk away from Wile E. Coyote-like deaths in Hero in 12 seconds. (And that doesn't include the cost of a high REC to go with it...)

We use 1d6 of HAP/Luck in Khedron's game (which is a 5er game to which HAP was loosely ported) and what I've seen in 3 years of doing so is that when people roll well they tend to use it to help out people who didn't roll so well. Meanwhile, those who didn't roll so well tend to save what little they have for those critical moments where someone drops the truck (i.e. rolls an 18) or where an attack against them is perfect (i.e. a 3 is rolled). Overall, most sessions go without all HAP being used unless it's one of those really brutal and gritty scenes where the dice are wrecking havoc on all sides. Lieutenants and bosses get 1d6s HAP, too, btw … but mooks don't.

I like it, but I think you make things simpler if you let players know their HAP totals - and I see no reason why you shouldn't since the entire point is to provide players a way to keep things they feel are inappropriate from happening to their characters … or allow them to influence things they feel are really important to their characters. (i.e. Why make players blind when it's all about group storytelling and HAP are a way to give some limited, controlled influence to people other than the GM?) As for how doing so is simpler: it means no worries about over-spending and, thus, no need for rules around that. That's a complexity reduction... I also fully agree with 1d6 being 'enough'; 2d6 just seems excessive to me, as well. Last, I really like the idea of a GM adding HAP for actions s/he deems appropriate, but again, I think players should be 'in the know' on their totals.

Sadly, in my experience Deadman doesn't use HAP natively. I wish he did, as it's effectively a RAW 'Luck Chit' system that makes a lot of sense when it comes to keeping dramatically inappropriate things from happening just due to 'the luck of the dice'. I do like the breakdown you use, Neil … but I also like Deadman's balance point system. Looking at them, I find them to be somewhat duplicative when applied.

That's nuts...

Unclevlad, I looked at the RAW for buying less than the full amount, but that rule appears only to set a minimum cost i.e. I believe the RAW you cited would be relevant if I were buying only 2 pts of Multiform, for example -- in which case it would cost the minimum 1 CP. But my example is about buying 502 pts of Multiform …in which case the minimum cost is more than satisified. Also, as noted in my edit, above, Multiform's cost in RAW explicity states it's 1 CP per 5 pts (which mathematically entails Total Multiform Pts divided by 5 to compute the CP cost). For the avoidance of doubt, 6e1 p40 states (red emphasis added by me): BUYING LESS THAN THE FULL AMOUNT Some Characteristics and other game elements cost 1 Character Point for a large amount of something, such as 1 Character Point per +5 END or 1 Character point for +2m of movement. A character can choose to buy less than the indicated amount if he wants, but because the minimum cost of anything in the HERO System is 1 Character Point, he still pays the full cost. For example, a character who wants just +3 END still pays 1 Character Point for it. As for your Blast comparison, 5 CP gets me one die, but I have a means to buy +1 and even half dice, so I don't think it's a fair/valid comparison because there are ways to buy less than 5pts of Blast.

Again, technically, paying 1 pt is paying more than nothing … as is 2 points. So it isn't something for nothing, it is, again, something for the same cost as a little less of it. Example: Someone spends 100 CP on a 500pt multiform. Similarly, someone spends 100 CP on a 502pt multiform. Both pay (more than nothing, so this is NOT a case of something for nothing), but because of rounding they pay the same. The above example is completely in keeping with 6e1 p12, which states (red emphasis added by me): Character Points & Rounding In the HERO System, you use Character Points (see below) to purchase all of your character’s abilities and powers. Sometimes this requires calculations involving division or multiplication. Examples include determining the Active Point cost of a power to which you apply an Advantage, the Real Point cost of a power to which you apply a Limitation, a character’s DEX Roll, and the Endurance (END) cost of a power. When you calculate the cost of something using division or multiplication, always round off to the next whole number in favor of the Player Character (unless a specific rule indicates otherwise). Numbers from .1 to .4 round down; numbers from .6 to .9 round up; and .5 rounds up or down depending upon what’s best for the character. You only have to round to one decimal place (unless the GM requires more precise rounding). Hero Designer appears not to be following that bit of RAW when it comes to multiform, duplication, bases, vehicles, and the like. Thus, I am looking for the 'specific rule [that] indicates otherwise'. Again, I ask you to point me to RAW (actual, written RAW) that exempts/precludes the cited rule above from applying. If it came from Steve Long (as you say) then I would expect it to be in 6e1/2 … or in his recently posted errata. Barring the existence (today, as of the time of this writing) of a specific rule indicating otherwise in either of those places (or a GM house rule specific to a given game, which would also count), it's not in actual RAW and we appear to have a rounding problem in HD due to it not respecting the rounding RAW from 6e1 p12 for the aforementioned things. Note: Vehicle and Base costing states (on 6e1 p107): A character pays 1 Character Point for each 5 Character Points used to build the Vehicle or Base Duplication's cost states (on 6e1 p198): 1 Character Point per 5 Character Points in the base character Multiform's cost states (on 6e1 p266): 1 Character Point for every 5 Character Points in the most expensive form All of the above involve division in the form of: [Points Used to Build Vehicle/Base/Duplicate/Multifom] / 5 … nd none of these RAW citations state 1 CP per 1-5 pts Thus, if HD is following RAW, I must have missed the RAW it's following and I'd like you to point me to it for my own edification. Barring that, it deviates from RAW … in a way that costs (at most) 1 CP more than it should for certain builds … but a CP is a CP.

This is one of those cases where I'd just let the freak of nature die … or, if it seemed to be suffering, I'd put it out of its misery. That really solves the dilemma in a quick and permanent fashion … without any thought needed ... you know? P.S. Can you tell I enjoy playing barbarians in fantasy settings?

I believe the following from the 'Weapon Advantages' list within the 1st Edition rulebook is what you're referring to. (Talk about a trip in the WABAC machine to find this; wow!) Weapon may Autofire: Autofire allows a weapon to hit a target more than once in a single round. Autofire weapons give +4 OCV. The range modifier of an autofiring weapon is halved (x1/2), rounding up. If the character makes a normal Attack Roll, he hits the target once. The character hits the target again for every 2 points he makes his Attack Roll by. Example: After all modifiers, a villain needs a 9 or less to hit our hero. He gets lucky and rolls a 6. He hits the hero twice, once for rolling 9 or less, and again for rolling (9-2=7) 7 or less. The villain then rolls damage for the two attacks. Each attack is applied to the hero's defenses separately. Each Autofire shot takes 10 uses or normal shots fran a weapon. Multiple = +1/4. Citation: p41 of Champions: The Superhero Role Playing Game (by Steve Peterson And George MacDonald), copyright 1981