SableWyvern

Re: Sweep Combat Levels

'S cool.

I was using "you" in the generic sense, didn't mean to make things sound personal.

I agree with the general premise that where two equally costed powers are available, it makes little sense to take the inferior version and that, further, where the GM is happy to let a player take either 20 CSLs or 20 CSLs that act only as sweep PSLs, the player should get something back if he chooses that latter option.

My only point was that in certain circumstances, there is merit in requiring -0 Limitations to be taken -- which, based on your very last sentence, seems to be something that you agree with.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced there is merit in forming a NCM point for CSLs -- the more things you roll into NCM, the more concepts you'll find becoming difficult to build. At the moment, you can play around with a whole range of damage dealing, soaking and avoiding abilities to develop a range of characters that are ultimately well balanced one against the other. NCM, applied too broadly, will ultimately penalise some of these concepts for no real gain.

Then again, I'm still really just a n00b when it comes to HERO, so I could be completely mistaken about this.

Re: Sweep Combat Levels

It's not my character concept. I was merely pointing out the unfairness in a having highly limited CSL for the same price as an unlimited CSL.

So, let's imagine I say "Nope, I won't allow you to take 20 CSLs in my game," and then later you say "Hey, I'm wondering if I could take 20 CSLs or PSLs just to counteract sweep penalties."

I give it some thought, and reply, "That's edging on being abusive and unsuitable. However, I think it might be workable -- I'll require you to take a -0 Lim on regular 2pt CSLs to do it, but if you're happy with that, I'll allow it."

Is that less fair than just saying no? Are you really going to argue that your sweep PSLs should be costed based on a superior power that -- in this particular game -- for all intents and purposes doesn't even exist?

And, just to point out that this isn't a purely hypothetical discussion, I've done something very, very similar in my current game. I limited one of the PCs to a CSL or two less than he originally wanted (which he was ok with). Later, he came to me with some rough ideas for some combat manouevres (in the general sense) that involved combining different attacks or manouevres for a variety of effects. Being true to concept, I did my best to accomodate him, and I allowed him to take 3pt CSLs for some of these combos, mainly for use in off-setting sweep penalties.

The fact that these combos and special attacks were a little more limited in general utility than his basic attacks went some way to countering the extra CSLs he gained with them, but I felt he was still edging past the original limits I had set. Thus, I ruled that his 2pt CSLs would only apply to specific attacks they were selected (eg, quickdraw attack, rather than sword), and his 3pt CSLs only to a limited number of combos (rather than to his entire sword martial art style).

That I allowed him to add CSLs to these combos and manouevres at all was a concession on my part, in an effort to help the player develop the character in the way he wanted. It is my responsibility as a GM to make sure he doesn't outclass other PCs whose players also envisage themselves as combat oriented, to avoid a CSL arms race, and to prevent a need to just start scaling up my NPCs in an effort to present any sort of challenge uber PCs.

If he'd decided to start whinging that his new 3pt CSLs should either apply to his entire martial art style or cost less, I would have been less than impressed.

Re: Sweep Combat Levels

20 CSLs may be a bit much, but they are standard skill levels. How many of them is too many? How many are few enough that the GM wouldn't veto them? How many plain old, by-the-book, combat skill levels would be acceptible? Three? At least. Five? Maybe.

 

As was recenty mentioned on another thread, maybe there should be an optional "Normal Skill Maximum" rule available for some games.

Discuss your character concept with me and explain what it is you're trying to achieve, and we'll come to an arrangement that best enables you to both realise your objective and ensure that the character integrates well into the campaign as a whole.*

One of the things I quickly realised about HERO is that fixed, objective limits on anything aren't really the way to go, and that context is what matters. Although, with only a couple of exceptions, I am still using hard AP caps.

*That's rhetorical, btw, unless you're actually planning to join my current game.

Re: Sweep Combat Levels

It's easy to see which is the better buy.

I betcha it's also easy to guess which would would be most likely to find my GM veto power being applied to it.

Re: how to: homing sense

Depends on how stupid...er, gullible, er...generous your GM is.

 

I mean if you define it as 'Detect the direction a previously visited localle is', then range modifiers are not an issue - you are not detecting the object, just the direction, which is likely to be really close.

 

So, a 3 or 5 point 'detect' should do it.

 

OTOH, our galaxy is 100 000 light years across (approximately), and assuming you have a megascale sense, and a 5 point detect, that works out at 1 hex = 1 quintillion km (or about the width of the galaxy) with the 'can scale down' advantage it is a +5, or a total of about 30 points.

 

Now you can claim a limitation - 'Has to be a place I've visited', which has to be worth at least -2, because, unless you are immortal, you are never ever going to visit even a tiny fraction of the galaxy, so, between 1 point and 10 points, in my estimation.

I'd go with something like this, however I'd be less generous with the limitation -- a big, indirect benefit of this sense would be that some simple triangulation will mean the character can always determine exactly where he is, if he has access to an accurate map.

Re: how to: homing sense

A variant of photographic memory may let one remeber everwhere one has been, and even where those places are in relation to other known places. But it wouldn't let you know that Jim's House is somewhere directly to your left, when you wake up after a big night and find yourself hanging upside down from a beam in an abandoned warehouse somewhere.

It certainly wouldn't allow you to identify the current direction in which you'll find a ship you were aboard six years ago on the other side of the galaxy.

Re: Help with Power: Regen as Armor

Slight Tangent: Two people in this thread have mentioned adding Invisible Power Effect to Armour. Isn't Armour already invisible (being an innately 0-End power)?

Re: Suppress Running?

Cheers. That makes sense, and is a good example of applying a power in a non-conventional fashion to achieve a desired aim -- a skill I really need to develop and refine.

Re: Suppress Running?

[Notes: Without Uncontrolled and AOE 1 Hex the caster must hit the target's normal DCV and concentrate each phase to continue the effect] - END=5

The original has AoE 1" Accurate, which I don't think the player will want to drop. I'm not sure where the concentration comes into it; I assume you mean must continue to expend an attack action.

The TK essentially has the same restrictions on movement as the Drain. If the target isn't wearing armor or standing on a metal platform the TK has no effect on his running or flying. The TK doesn't target a character, it only targets anything made of metal. A subtle but distinct difference. The effects on a character wearing a chainmail shirt are going to be far less than on a character wearing full plate.

I'm not sure exactly how this would work. Would you care to elaborate on how you'd apply the power in those two circumstances (ie, chain shirt vs full plate)?

Re: Suppress Running?

The (fairly hard) active point limit is 60.

To be honest, neither the player nor myself really considered the idea that STR would even come into the equation, until this thread. A TK build has some advantages and some disadvantages; the biggest single issue with the magnetic build you used is that it cancels out movement options that don't rely free limbs (eg, wingless flight). It also directly hinders movement, irrespective of leg armour (whereas, based on SFX, the movement drains would not apply to targets without leg armour in the original build).

I think that the player in question would like your magnetic build in principle, but I don't know that you could get a sufficiently high strength on the TK within the active point limits available, such that it would be a preferable power to the one already in use.

Re: Suppress Running?

If the sfx is magnetism why not use a TK build instead?

 

Example:

 

37 Magnetic Charge: Telekinesis (25 STR), Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Sticky (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2) (103 Active Points); Limited Power Only To Stick To Metal (-1), Only Works On Limited Types Of Objects (Ferrous Metal; -1/2), Affects Whole Object (-1/4) - END=9

 

This works like a giant refrigerator magnet vs. the target. The more metal they have on their person (armor and/or weapons) the more effective it is. If someone trying to help free the victim also has metal on their person they will be affected too.

 

The Costs END Only To Activate and Uncontrolled just make it a Fire & Forget Grab Attack that works like an Entangle with a slightly different breakout mechanic.

That doesn't suit the concept ... but, it is a power that I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with, and -- while it is more expensive than the Suppress in question -- it is also a much more effective way to stop people dead in their tracks. Which leads me to seriously reassess whether or not the original power in question is as problematic as I had first imagined.

I have a feeling my initial reaction was due to the fact that the power surprised me with it's efficacy, rather than it being objectively too powerful. I am now even more willing to let it stand, and see how it goes.

Re: Suppress Running?

Frustrating, to have all your points spent on something that isn't movement, and then finding you can't move them into range to affect your opponents.

 

Considering there are so many easily selected alternatives to Running, I can't say I believe the Suppress is too cheap for what you get. Growth, Stretching, Teleport, all ranged attacks, Tunneling, Flight, Gliding, Swinging, Power Defense.. useful in and of themselves also act to counter the effects of losing Running.

First up, I should point out that my main concern is that the PC will be able to ham-string any and every NPC he comes up against who doesn't have Power Defence or an unusual movement mode. I also note that Okham's Spoon's solution to my problem will give the player some points back for his reduced capability (less dice of effect for half the power, plus Linked limitation), which is a fairer solution than just reducing it's effect, as I originally considered.

It does look like the player in question plans to be using this ability with some frequency, so I'd like to make sure it's kept in check. Even with the reduction I've applied, it remains fairly potent.

It sounds like there's something else going on here, too? Is the player disruptive, are there complaints from other players, is the one character having disproportionate effect on the campaign?

No, not at all. My original post probably made the PC vs PC conflict sound more serious than it really was. The players themselves were quite amicable about the in-game dispute that resulted in the Vice attack being applied, and the characters invloved didn't take the situation to heart either. The Vice was used specficially because it allowed for an abrupt, but completely safe form of conflict resolution.

That conflict is the only time Vice has been used yet (we have played, to date, only one session of HERO, ever). I simply noticed the ease with which the first PC rendered the second fairly helpless (although, being a mentalist, the victim could have escalated, if he'd wanted), and am trying to keep potential imbalances under control.

The player in question has accepted my proposed changes with good grace, and I remain open to the idea of letting him expand the power back to its original form at a later date.

Edit: Actually, after much consideration, I think I might take a less extreme stance and let the power stand as it is -- for the moment. I'll let the player know I intend to keep a close eye on it, however.

Re: Suppress Running?

Ah, ok. Still fairly inappropriate given the SFX, then.

Re: Suppress Running?

I am guessing you bought this Suppress with the +1 Advantage "affects 4 abilities"? If it were me' date=' I would not allow mixing of characteristics with movement powers in a single Suppress, partly because it doesn't seem kosher, and partly because you end up with exactly the situation you describe. I would buy it as something like 6d6 Suppress vs. 2 abilities at once, 4d6 vs. DEX & SPD and 2d6 vs. Running & Leaping. Or maybe two separate Suppresses linked together but with a similar dice ratio. Price-wise it should be close to what you have now, but it won't have the movement vs. characteristics mismatch you have now.[/quote']

 

Yep, it has the multiple suppress advantage. Your solution sounds like a good one; I'll probably go with that.

 

Nice ability by the way, I may have to borrow it for some characters of my own.

 

Cheers.

 

Based upon the stated F/X' date=' it should not affect SPD, and should affect STR (kinda hard to wield a weapon when the armor's arms are seized up). But the character inside the "frozen" armor still gets his full allotment of Phases -- only his ability to move is restricted.[/quote']

 

You are correct; I'll make that change.

 

Based upon that reasoning, I would say that it would be better bought as either a TK grab, or an Entangle (doesn't take damage from attacks+1/2). Either way, the character has to "break out" using his STR to force the armor to move (either STR vs TK STR, or STR damage vs the Entangle).

 

Hmm ... I must entirely have missed the "takes no damage" option for Entangle, otherwise I may have considered it when we were originally designing the power. As things stand, I prefer the Suppress method as it makes it easier to adjust the results based on the SFX (eg, ignore movement penalties for unarmoured legs).

 

Don't let him near 'supress INT' then.

 

Actually, now that you mention it, that is something that I think I'll keep an eye out for, and watch very closely in the event that a player decides he wants it.

 

Thanks to everyone for the feedback.

One of the PCs in my group has a Suppress DEX/SPD/Running/Leaping, which was used in our first session recently (against a fellow PC, but let's not get into that ... ).

The SFX of the power is that it causes metal armour to seize up, inhibiting the target's ability to move.

The DEX and SPD portions of the Suppess seem quite reasonable, but the Running bit immediately proved far more powerful than I had realised it would be. It only requires 12 points of effect to totally stop an unimproved human in his tracks, and 20 points of effect will nullify a move of 10".

This leads me to wonder if Running, other than that bought as a power, is even meant to be suppressable, or if it should be treated as an inherrent ability. OTOH, both I and the player are quite happy with the general way in which the power functions, and if I was to rule that basic Running is unsuppressable, we'd need to totally rework it.

I'm thinking that the easy fix is to require 4 points of effect for each 1" of Running movement that is Suppressed (I'll probably leave Leaping as is, as Suppress Leaping isn't exactly a high-utitility power). This ensures that they will be noticeably slowed, without guaranteeing to stop most targets dead in their tracks with ease.

I should also mention that, due to the SFX, Running would be completely unaffected by the power if the target has unarmoured legs.

Your opinions sought.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

2. This is unecessarily complicated to keep track of and doesn't necesssarily add particularly much to play.

Unnecessarily complicated if doing so doesn't suit your style of play. OTOH, just handwaving that sort of thing away would completely destroy my suspension of disbelief.

One major difference between the puppet and a SFX (other than the movement issue, which you dismiss not as being replicated by your alternate build but as being something that, in your opinion, doesn't merit the effort of building in) is that neither a Focus nor a Physical Manifestation can take damage, but still function. An Automaton can. I believe this is another reason the puppet is perceived by the designer as an independent entity.

Exactly.

As I mentioned upthread, I am not remotely comfortable with the level of abstraction and handwaving that Braincraft is advocating -- it simply does not suit my play-style.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

I can't imagine how all of this could be easier than just using it as a special effect for ranged attacks' date=' especially since it's just a focus without the character to operate it.[/quote']

 

It's easier than treating it as a special effect if you wish to take into account:

 

- The puppet exists continuously, even if instant attacks are being used.

- It has limited movement that is subject to the same constraints as a normal character.

- It is subject to attacks in much the same way as any other automaton

- It's uses are not necessary limited to narrowly defined attack powers

 

Neither the Focus nor the Physical Manifestation accurately model these things, and adding a host of advantages and limitations to do so seems much more complex. Especially given that, having ironed out a couple of minor bugs, the Duplicate route seems quite straightforward to me.

 

Building the puppet as a special effect is not merely mechanically different, it is different in style and function as as well. It's a valid style, but not one that I like.

Re: New to the hero system, trying to figure out some things

...decreased stun is there because the blades should deal no stun at all in the way i designed them...

As I understand it, Stun in HERO represents, amongst other things, shock and pain. Almost all (if not all) weapons that deal Body damage should also deal at least some Stun.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

Fair point.

As I mentioned upthread, I was originally against the idea of using Focus with the Follower build, and the same basic reasoning applies to the Duplicate build, so I do see where you're coming from.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

The puppet is definitely being built as an Automaton.

DocSamson hits on some very important points with respect to control of the puppet, and Summon isn't really designed to deal with this situation (any kind of free will or limitation on number of tasks is innappropriate for the puppet).

Anyhoo, after playing around a bit, my Duplicate version only costs 20 points more, and there are some obvious places elsewhere in the character where we can make the points back while maintaing the player's original concept.

The Duplicate should have "cannot recombine", since they can't join together. I wonder whether Focus is even appropriate - a follower, summoned creature or duplicate can be removed by its nature, so again that Focus seems like double dipping.

One major difference is that a Duplicate (or Follower) normally has the wherewithall to resist someone just picking him up and carrying him off. The puppet has no such ability.

Re: New to the hero system, trying to figure out some things

Does it say this anywhere?

Reasoning from Special Effects. A bit over a page is dedicated to explaining the philosophy.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

Some other issues:

 

- followers are supposed to have minds of their own - they don't do whatever you tell them without question. Presumably, the puppet will do whatever it's told without question, so it's more an extension of the character (ie a duplicate, rather than a follower). This is a key difference between duplicate and follower, and one reason a duplicate costs more.

 

- followers are also supposed to have lives of their own, so they aren't always available. Mind you, there will likely be situations the pupppet can't be available either (a formal dinner reception, for example, seems an unlikely venue for a large puppet).

 

- when followers (or duplicates) die, you don't get another one back for free. The puppet or the PC should have some ability to allow him to "ressurect" the puppet, if risk of permanent point loss is to be avoided. This is especially crucial if it's an automaton, since lacking an ability to bring it back faces the GM with a choice of "I can never take down the puppet" or "I permanently take away his major ability".

 

 

 

Using a follower, limitations in general aren't allowed.

 

You're right that Duplication would be more expensive, as would Summon (due to Slavishly Loyal). The end result of a Follower, that the character gets a 275 point combat monster for 15 points, seems pretty inexpensive.

You may have a point. In fact, you probably do -- I think I'll probably shift to Duplicate.

On the death and healing issue, we have already established that the puppet only heals through use of the PC's Puppet Crafting skill (and, theoretically, a "healing" power specifically designed to work on inanimate objects).

I have taken an unusual step (for me) in this campaign, and established some very generous guidelines for ressurection wrt the PCs. I will be extending this to the puppet, which could be "ressurected" by the PC through the use of his puppet crafting abiliteis.

Re: Building a Puppeteer

I would just count it as a special effect for ranged attacks/TK.

That level of abstraction makes me feel ill. IMHO, YMMV etc...

Re: Building a Puppeteer

20" range imposes a -6 OCV penalty' date=' IIRC. Half move to within 16", and it's -4. Depends on the OCV and DCV in question, but I'd say he's pretty easy to target.[/quote']

 

I am planning to allow the character 120 degree arc of uninhibited Perception (necessary so that he can actually direct the puppet), which will allow him to abort to his fairly substantive defences as necessary (assuming the attacks come from that arc, of course). However, you've got me to reassess the value of that benefit, and I'll probably drop the Concentration limitation from -1/2 to -1/4 as a result. Extending the range remains an option if he still turns out to be too vulnerable -- it's at 20" atm because that's the limit on the character's ability to perform a teleport that switches the puppet and puppeteer.

 

Follwers is one way, but without special GM permission you can't take modifiers on Perks (5ER pg. 78). Your build is very good though.

 

IMHO the way to go is Duplication. I recommend the following Adders:

 

Altered Duplicates (+1) to build the puppet as an Automaton (5ER pgs. 155 and 457-458)

Cannot Recombine (-0)

Costs Endurance (-1/2) to represent the expenditure of Chakra

IIF (-1/4) to represent the puppet, though the puppet cannot be disarmed from the character and the character may hide while controlling it

Physical Manifestation (-1/4) to represent the Chakra Strings as they can be attacked seperately from the puppet

Gestures, Both Hands, Constant (-1) to represent that the puppet cannot be controlled unless the character's handa are free

Concentration, Constant (-1/2) to represent that controlling the puppet requires considerable effort

Limited Power: Limited Range (-1/4)

Limited Power: Character must maintain LoS with the Duplicate or the Duplicate is treated as Blinded (-1/4)

 

I hope this helps.

 

That's the guy.

 

Since I'm the GM, GM permission isn't an issue. I can see the merit of choosing a power over a perk, but given that Duplication costs more to provide the same effect (+1 Altered Duplicate + Disad Points need to be paid for) I'll let the player stick with using the Follower.

 

Costs END will probably be too prohibitive, but I'll bring it up with the player as an option. I've got no idea if Kankuro tires when using his puppets.

 

Don't see the IIF as being particularly valid, especially when using a Follower build, although I can see how you could justify it.

 

From what I can tell, the Chakra strings can't be physically attacked (apparently they got damaged by Chakra-eating bugs once), which is why I've gone with the "Can be supressed" lim.

 

Oops, yes Gestures should be constant. Also, good call on the LOS lim resulting in blind penalties.

Re: movement

When you do a Full Move in Combat your Movement takes place at the end of the Phase

Can you point me to this rule, because I can't find it anywhere I'd expect it to be.