Wayside

Re: A way to fend off attackers What about an AoE Change environment to reduce the movement mode of running. Enough of a reduction to movement and when they enter the protected zone (2 hexes out from the character, leaving a 1 hex gap) their speed is reduced to 0 and they stop, unable to approach the spear whirling character.

Re: New Mechanic: Limbs I don't understand what you're trying to do here. Your mechanics result in any creature with more or less limbs than humans having wildly different point costs. Ie, a human is considered base so he spends no points for his arms/legs. But a horse can't manipulate his legs so he loses some points, or the argument that i really feel destroys your mechanic, the millipede who costs thousands of points more than a human. And then, to counter this, you simply say that any that differs from human simply pays 0 points for it's extra limbs. At this point I really don't no how to argue with you to get you to see how pointlessly stupid this is. If any creature with differing limbs and manipulation simply pays 0 points; WHY ARE YOU CREATING GAME MECHANICS FOR BUYING THEM It makes completely no sense, really. If everything else in this thread hasn't convinced you of that then I doubt this will either, but whatever.

Re: "Never Miss" powers a +0 advantage in my opinion. Unless it is really tricky, like a gun that can fire different shots that all appear identical but have any effect desired. Then possibly a +1/4.

Q:If a character has 1d6 Absorption (Energy) to STR and 1d6 Absorption (Physical) to STR can he add a Max of 6 or 12 to his STR? A:6. That really does not seem right to me, did you missread the question, or do two seperate absorption powers adding to the same stat really not stack? It seems to me that he would be able to add a maximum of 12 to his strength, but only up to 6 for ED based attacks and 6 for PD based attacks.

Re: "Never Miss" powers Ok, here's my last argument in the way of sean's +1dcv per 1" or a flat dodge bonus. Assuming all your arguments are correct, the manuever is based on the defender anticipating the attack, and the attacker has no way of mitigating this (yes, i realize it doesn't always fail, but it doesn't scale. A normal guy diving for cover 1" out of the way of a directed attack from mechanon will have the same chance to dive for cover 1" out of the way of a directed attack from his little sister.). It is 100% illogical that someone firing enough shots to encompass the entire time it takes the person to dive out of the way and land will be completely incapable of following the target. There's all this talk of how absolutes are bad, while hero system has one built in. You don't even have to make an attack roll, just a dex roll. And you have effectively desolidified yourself against the attack, worse yet, you can't even hit them with affects desolidified. Granted, it has a costly side-affect of making you prone. This manuever should be handled one of the following ways for directed attacks in my opinion: Opposed DEX checks +1DCV per 1" of the dive +3 DCV

Re: "Never Miss" powers I don't need you to explain the psychology of the situation. The fact is it shouldn't be an instantaneous win for the person who dives for cover. You should have a CHANCE of "outwitting" them, or of just keeping enough calm to hold the shot until they are laying on the floor. If in fact a mind game is occuring then the attacker shouldn't always lose. It makes much much more sense to just give the person who dives a DCV bonus to represent the fact they are harder to hit while diving through the air. I don't care if you anticipated the shot, are fast enough to actually dive out of the way of the bullets or whatever attack it may be, or just got lucky and dove at the right moment. The attacker should be able to track your movement (or at least try, ie the defender gets a DCV bonus) especially if he's firing a half dozen shots at you.

Re: "Never Miss" powers No, he's not. The special effects are indeed that you are jumping out of the way, and could also be so for dodge. The point is, once someone fires a gun, the bullet has essentially hit you. So you have to dive before the attack happens in hopes it will make you harder to hit. It's illogical that you can fire a gun at someone and they can dive out of the way of the bullet after you fire it. The best that diving would be able to do is make it harder for you to be hit. The person firing logically will move his aim to follow you as you dive. Not fire at the spot you were after you dive. So it makes much more dramatic and common sense for you to still be able to be hit by directed attacks when you dive for cover. Just for it to be more difficult. (unless your dive makes it behind cover)

Re: "Never Miss" powers I don't have any trouble believing diving 2 meters would get you out of the way of an attack. The conceptual problem is that the person firing should be able to correct for the dive. Once a person pulls the trigger on the gun, you've been hit. You would have to be diving out of hopes to make it harder for him to hit you when he does (ie dodging but with actual movement involved) It's troublesome that by diving 1 degree out of the line of the attack, it is completely avoided and there is no way to correct for their dodge. Especially when you are for example, firing an ak-47 or other full-auto, you can't correct your stream of bullets to follow them. Which doesn't make much sense. It would be much more appropriate in my opinion if diving for cover simply gave you the benefits of dodge versus directed attacks. rather than automatically thwarting them.

Re: "Never Miss" powers Only effecting one specific person in the area would be an advantage, not a limitation, especially if it doesn't require an attack roll to hit that person.

Re: "Never Miss" powers well, the trigger is just where I derived the new advantage from, the new advantage isn't actually firing another shot if the first misses, it just doesn't miss in the first place. My curiosity with the trigger was that it would be bought as a naked advantage for the power. So you would use the power normally and if it missed then the naked trigger would apply to it and activate. I wasn't sure if that was legal within the rules though, having the naked advantage only apply when the trigger actually occurs. I like the idea of the no normal evasion, although it ends up being equally expensive once you have to buy does body for it as well.

Re: "Never Miss" powers Thia: Accurate can only be bought for a one hex area of effect. And if you bought an area of effect bigger than one hex it would hit everyone in the area, possibly including yourself. Archer: Clever way of handling the never misses situation, I like it.

Re: "Never Miss" powers Well, a few things. I would like to note that I'm not using these in my games and didn't make them for my use, just for discussion. Though I am considering using unavoidable depending on people's opinions of it. But alas, no one has commented on it... Obviously the consesus is that never misses is way too expensive, looks like +1.5 to +2 would be more appropriate since it's background advantage can't be used for any manuever but with blazing away (which after thinking about it would include rapid fire and sweep, so i think that justifies the reduction pretty well.) Using the one hex accurate, line of sight method makes it hit most of the time, but the target could simply dive out of the way. Add in a situation where your enemy (or rather his hex) has cover, and is standing in a fog, and you could rapidly be in the "sort of hits...half...the time" category. Add in penalties for rapid fire or sweep and your chances plummet yet further. At any rate, does anyone have any comments about the unavoidable advantage? Does that seem fair? +1/2 feels like it's probably a bit too steep for what it does, perhaps reduced to +1/4 for having a limited trigger?

Re: "Never Miss" powers I'm aware, that's the standard presented method. And I also referenced that in my post :/. E: I would also like to note that it is impossible to make it a sure thing using that method, as you will still miss on a roll of an 18, no matter how many levels you have.

Never Misses (+3) The attack requires no attack roll. Background: Autofire 216 (+3.5), reduced to a +3 because it's usable only with blazing away with a standard effect of 1 hit. House ruled into a new advantage. Unavoidable (+1/2) The attack still hits, even if the target dives for cover. Background: Trigger, zero phase reset, takes no time to activate, character has no control over trigger, trigger is missing due to target diving for cover (+1/2) Inevitable (+1/2) The attack still hits, even if the target is behind cover. Background: Just indirect any origin (+1/2) Really, Never Misses (+4) The attack cannot be avoided. (All of the above) I never liked the presented method for always hitting (a bunch of CSL's with area of effect and line of sight), and I really didn't like how it would automatically miss if they dove for cover a single inch. So, those are some of my proposed solutions/alternatives. not sure if the dive for cover solution is kosher though.

Re: Musing on Movement: Is Velocity "Persistent" Acceleration, Deceleration, and Velocity have been a pretty constant bother for me. 1. In the book it notes that you can only accelerate up to your combat movement per phase. And that it may take several turns to reach your NCM velocity if it's very high. So does this mean that all characters can only do a full combat move on their first phase, reaching their combat velocity, and then speed up to their noncombat velocity on their second phase (assuming a 2x multiplier). 2. In the book it list adding or removing velocity is a zero phase action doable once per phase. I've pretty much taken that as a complete falsity. Taken literally it would seem to me that you could only either accelerate 5" or decelerate 5" each phase. In most cases it seems it's intended to just be ignored. 3. At the end of your phase, since the game goes through the trouble of including acceleration and deceleration, it makes sense to me that you would still have a velocity until your next phase, assuming you ended your last one with a velocity. Ie, if you run at someone on segment 3 using your full move, with the intent of performing a move through on segment 6, your velocity should carry over. 4. What if you get hit and take knockback? Suddenly your velocity is completely negated? Shouldn't your velocity factor in to counteract the knockback if you are moving forward at x velocity? It's illogical that someone running forward at a velocity of 100"/phase who takes 1" of knockback is instantly knocked back 1" and loses all his velocity.

Can someone who has been grabbed grab the person who grabbed them (assuming they have a free arm[or other limb usable to grab] to grab them with)? If so, what if they grab the arm that has a hold of them? Is their grabbed limb free? Subject A establishes a choke hold on subject B with his right arm. Can subject B, rather than attempting to escape, attempt to perform his own grab on A? What if B grabs A's right arm? Assuming B succeeds in his grab on A's right arm is the choke hold released and A now considered grabbed by B and no longer grabbing him?

Re: Rusty Hero (Dumb q) Well, there are two primary places to look. The most general one would be the Limited Power limitation which is a catch all for limitations not described in the book. The second is the variable power pool limitations since they have built in limitations for when you can change the powers in the pool. Depending on how long or how difficult it is to change the slots in the multipower it could be worth anything from -1/2, requiring a half or full phase, to -2 being the character has to spend days in his lab changing the slot in the power. I'm deriving these values from the variable power pool advantages and limitations, note that changing the powers in the pool normally takes between a turn and a minute and it's a +1 advantage to be able to change them as a zero phase action. So, it stands to reason that if you want changing your multipower slots to take a turn to a minute it should be about a -1 limitation (or -1/2 if you just want it to take a full phase [the vpp would give the -1/2 a half phase, but that seems a bit too lenient for the limitation]) Then, you can also apply the vpp limitations to it, so if it can only be changed under certain circumstances ie (under a full moon, or at your lab) it's worth an additional -1/2 (more or less depending on how rare the situation is), and the longer it takes to change the slot the larger the limitation as well.

Re: Rusty Hero (Dumb q) Buy a power framework with the charges limitation applied to it. Most likely a multipower for what you are describing. With an additional limitation which requires you to declare how many charges are dedicated to each arrow type(maybe -1/2 to -1 depends on how difficult it is to change the configuration, and how often he can do it) when you load it. 27 Quiver: Multipower, 60 point reserve; OIF (-1/2), 12 Charges (-1/4), Must define how many charges are dedicated to each arrow each day (-1/2 or more, gm decision) then, buy each arrow as a fixed slot in the multipower with OAF; requires bow (-1) and whatever other limitations you want. If you want the character to be able to recover the arrows, or "recover" them by getting his extras out of his pack then you need to buy the charges as (suprise) recoverable. That's how I would build it at least.

Re: A flash in the dark Well, since darkness normally instantly blocks the flashes entirely, it would actually be decreasing it's utility or cost. I hadn't looked at the darkness power before, but after looking at it and seeing the power blocks all of x sense within the area not imposing a penalty to PER rolls within it, such a mechanic doesn't seem very appropriate at all. Since a flash continues to scale up in power while the darkness remains at a static value, never getting more powerful against a given sense, only increasing in area and class. (My previous assumption was that it gave a PER penalty not 100% blockage) A darkness to sight group 1" radius will always cost 10 points. While a flash will get more and more powerful. Having the flash blow through darkness unless it has a massive radius (which wouldn't be any stronger of a darkness effect, just larger) or affects many other senses (which again wouldn't be any stronger of a darkness effect, just broader) doesn't seem right since there isn't a way for the darkness to get...darker. While it does seem very off to have Darkness to sight group 1" 10 active points give complete immunity to sight group flashes, it also is the only method that seems appropriate given that there is no way to "strengthen" the darkness effect.

Re: A flash in the dark If you wanted to house rule something here's a couple suggestions You could just do a straight subtraction of active points: If the flash has more active points than the darkness then subtract the active points of the darkness from the flash and apply the weakened flash against the defender. Or you could create a mechanic for darkness applying x flash defense to all in it's radius based on the perception modifier or the active points, etc...

Re: Not Taking Advantage It seems to me if you wanted to do those things you would just buy them in a multipower. Is it really advantageous to fire your AVLD or NND at someone without that advantage? Considering it is half as powerful as a normal power in the campaign, it probably won't be able to injure the opponent. In a campaign of 10d6 energy blasts, what good is a 5d6 energy blast going to do? You spend some extra points and you get actual useful powers that do what you're looking for. Do you really think your half effectiveness attack can do any damage at all? I have my doubts. You make some good points with several of those, but with most of them I still have to disagree. The amount of dice you are losing to have an advantage in the situation the advantage is for make them lose a lot of their function when they lose that advantage. You're better off using one of your other powers entirely.

Re: Not Taking Advantage Well, in my opinion the advantages to using the npa in such a manner (turning it off when it's not useful to save end) is a very narrow and uncommon advantage. I think that it is narrow and uncommon enough that it's equally narrow and uncommon disadvantage (easier to drain, supress, etc...) balances it out. Yes defining your advantage as an NPA grants some minor utility to the power, but it also gives it a minor disadvantage. In some cases the advantage might outweigh the disadvantage a bit (ie explosion) but It doesn't seem like enough to warrant extra cost. Perhaps depending on how often drains are used in the campaign.

Actually, NPA's can't be applied to powers inside a framework at all (unless the gm permits it), so that point is moot. Though I do see your concerns about the cost. While it does add more utility to the power than having bought the power straight with the advantage applied to it, I don't think it's advantageous enough to warrant a greater cost. If you have a 90 active point power that's only a 12d6 energy blast explosion, it's not that much of an advantage to be able to fire it as a 60 active point 12d6 energy blast. If the character could fire it as a 90 active point 18d6 energy blast it would definetely be an issue. But, since explosion and area of effect are essentially the only advantages that doing it without the advantage is really helpful in a given situation (perhaps if you had an NND or AVLD and you needed to switch it to a normal blast to hurt them at all, thought it's probably going to be so weak that it won't matter) I don't think it's worth any advantage to be able to do so. EDIT: Of course you could always house rule a +1/4 additional advantage onto any area of affect or explosion taken as a naked power advantage (similarly to how autofire recieves an additional +1 in combination with certain other things)

Re: Not Taking Advantage Well, in my opinion they are already defined enough, though the general naked advantage one is a bit vague on how many things it adds to (probably intentionally). Also there is usually a big difference in cost between a group naked advantage and a single power naked advantage since the naked advantage for the single power is based on the cost of that power's real points rather than it's active points. 30 Armor Piercing (+1/2 any firearm built on 60pts or less) 10 Armor Piercing (+1/2 only with My Rifle) 4d6 killing[60 active points, 20 real points] -the same cost as applying the advantage directly to the weapon