TheDarkness

You kids get off of my grass: enhanced senses, yard only

Social complication: wears dress socks with sandals

I am pretty sure that Barrier can be centered on the owner of the power the same way that Darkness can via Self Only and other Modifiers.  It's basically a version of what Violet did in The Incredibles except that the Barrier is Opaque.  It's expensive but doable.  Figuring out how for the character to see out of the Barrier is another complication. Again, doable but likely expensive.

 

HM

But moving it becomes an attack action. That's a big sacrifice.

Call me crazy, but I don't lile the Barrier solution. One, he can only englobe itself. Two, it is moble with him, unlike barrier, which normally needs to be anchored, and also immobile. So, I would like to do this with Resistant Protection.

Ah, that's right, I was worried. To do what I said above would require making the AOE mobile, which would make every time he or she moved it into an attack action.

I feel cleansed.

But(inner munchkin rallies) there is nothing to stop him from doing resistant defenses and have such a barrier power only when he stands in one place, after all, what's a one point barrier among friends?

My main question is, depending on the nature of the force field, there may be no need at all to build the defense against chokes, it may be included in the force field. So, if the field has resistance defence, that would nullify the NND of the choke. Further, if it has any PD/rPD, then you couldn't do a choke on him or her in the first place without overcoming that, and since the choke itself cannot overcome that, since it's damage is NND upon completion of the grab, then I'm thinking there is no further build needed, because the grab or choke cannot happen.

Further, if there is no defense already on the field, then, unless I'm misunderstanding things, one point of PD on the orb effectively nullifies grabs and chokes, doesn't it?

I mean, maybe I'm misunderstanding things, but if I have a force field in a sphere around me, you have to bypass or shut down that force field to choke, becuase you need to grab. But, the grab could not do any damage whatsoever to overcome the force field, since the only way it does damage is by first grabbing the neck, and the force field has no neck.

So, I suppose, thinking about it, a barrier with 1 point of defense with the limitation(although, I could see this being seen as an advantage) only applies to chokes would nullify all chokes, as far as I can tell.

If you really wanted him always immune to chokes, then build two barriers, one that does all the big stuff, and one that is a single point that works against grabs and chokes only. I feel dirty writing that, it's uber munchkiny, but the second barrier, since it effectively doesn't exist for all the attacks that could possibly cause it damage, is a strong defense.

I'm thinking there must be a rule against that that I'm not thinking of. There must be.

As an aside, I have found that if I don't want to see awful, hamhanded choreography and awkward posing, I need to avoid looking at the background action during the arena jedi battle in Attack of the Clones. And if I want to avoid seeing a highly manipulative relationship destroying an intelligent woman's confidence in the most hideous way, I need to not look at the foreground action in other scenes. And if I want to avoid being forced to wonder who thought the best cinematic approach to combine the wonder of the force and a totally disfunctional relationship forming was levitating a sliced spam pear before rolling around meadows filled with herd creatures who undoubtedly leave hidden treasures in those meadows, then I need to actually sedate myself.

I spend a good portion of the movie telling myself 'I am only here to see storm troopers and tusken raider murder, I will not ask why Yoda never has a talk with Annakin about all that tusken raider murder, there is nothing but storm troopers and tusken raider murder. All but storm troopers and tusken raider murder are the mind killer. They are the little death that brings final anni-alation.'

Doesn't that fall under artistic license?

I'm a bit of an oddball when it comes to this. Often, when I play games that are, in essence, based around worlds with familiar characters, I usually don't want to interact with Paul. I guess I'm funny that way, but I tend to want to adventure in the world/universe, but not be closely tied to the main characters of the novels. Plus, it avoids killing Paul and things like that.

Not that there's anything wrong with tying in the characters of a novel, I just tend to avoid it. Plus, as GM, I'd hate to do a crappy job role playing Gurney or Thufir. If I foul up an NPC, I can always say, oh, that guy is awkward. That's just his personality. Brilliant assassin. Terrible conversationalist.

But, I would imagine that some sort of unit like that would play out well, regardless of who they are answering to. Plus, you have the advantage that any of them could be royal family members, as many received training from the mentats or the bene Geserit, etc.

I don't recall Luke ever using force choke, just minor levitation and some leaping.  His force powers were pretty weak, especially compared to later demonstrations of the power.  But he clearly was more capable than everyone else around him, even flying a ship and shoot a blaster because the force just makes you better at everything you do, particularly if you let it "flow through you" (activate skill levels, whatever, probably RSR ego roll or Force Power skill).

 

As for blaster one shot kills, that was just cinematic, like wearing armor that does nothing and never missing.  Its just part of the action serial genre Lucas was filming, in my opinion. even if the blasters are meant to be instant death, I doubt any GM would hand out instakill guns that never run out or miss.

The only comparison we have in the OT is Vader, Yoda, and the Emperor. As far as telekinesis, he's on par with almost all the jedi in the prequels except Dooku, Yoda, and the Emperor.

So, by ROTJ, fight choreography aside, he does everything jedi knights in the prequels do at about the same level, including deflecting blaster fire on Jabba's barge and leaping.

This is why I think most jedi builds are overpowered, if one goes by the movies. That leap is not that long, the choke and telekinesis is not ever shown at Yoda/Emperor/Dooku/Vader level except for by those four, they're the only ones shown to be able to do heavy telekinesis in combat, and those are four of the most powerful AND highly trained of all jedi/sith, not average jedi or sith.

Past that, there's just choke, mind control, and fight choreography(plus force lightning for sith, and some sort of ability to absorb that by yoda); the choreography is obviously much more frenetic in the prequels, but that is really more due to the era they were made. Once one figures in that Luke beat Vader in a light saber duel, and Vader was a paragon of the era when there were jedi knights, Luke is on par with other jedi knights, imo.

By ROTJ, Luke's leap, control of minds, and choke are depicted as being exactly the same as any other depiction of them that we have from any but the most insanely powerful force using characters. So, for instance, Vader chokes a commander from a great distance(over comm, no less), Yoda, Vader, Dooku, and the Emperor all fling extremely heavy things in combat(or, in Yoda's case, stop those things from being flung), but no other jedi display this strength, and only Luke senses Vader's goodness.

As for better at everything, piloting was something he had talent in, not all jedi were, so that plays into it, but we don't actually know if Han was better or not. Han himself, after all, did surprise Vader while he was pursuing the novice Luke in the trenches of the Death Star.

Han was portrayed as the better shot, but, of course, this is all relative, as the heroes usually hit and the enemies usually miss. But Luke wasn't really shown as being better at that in the movies, it was never emphasized much, but keep in mind, Han, half blind, shot the sarlacc tongue thing, outdrew Greedo, emphasis definitely went into Han being more a gunslinger than Luke.

As for the blasters and damage, I am not suggesting instakill guns, but if we're handing out lightsabers that are on par with the genre, at least a blaster SHOULD potentially knock someone out, including a jedi. Especially if there are concerns with jedi unbalancing things, which, if one uses the movies as a basis, I don't think they would, because they will lack a lot at range, and if blasters aren't nerfed, there will be more situations in which a jedi is in a pinch than almost anyone.

I'm not sure I wouldn't go for a setting along the lines of the Fremen first arriving on Arrakis. That avoids the necessity of dealing with shields, House intrigue, and pretty much anyone that can see the future outside of the Guild Agents. I like stories about the struggle for survival over courtly intrigue though.

Even with the precogs, the odds of running into one are basically zero at any point. But the shields, I would want the shields as an option, but I could totally get behind the origins of the fremen type story you are talking about. Lots of knife duels, conflict of groups, riding worms into battle.

Well and that's the point: Luke didn't start out a great Jedi.  In fact, there's no scene of him anywhere in the movies being particularly great, despite being said to be "strong in the force" etc. Its possible in the next film we'll see him do more impressive stuff but he was frankly pretty weak as a Jedi.

But it still made him able to do what others could not, and able to properly fight with a light saber, which is immensely more deadly than any blaster.

Most everyone who was shot with a blaster who wasn't a central character died. And at range, a blaster is immensely more deadly than a lightsaber. No one ever threw a lightsaber far enough to change that.

And, deflection against simultaneous fire almost never happens. Which is why there was often some running away from such situations.

In game terms, I just don't think they're that powerful if one uses the OT. Even the Emperor needed bodyguards. Luke in ROTJ being weak as a jedi seems off, he force choked, lots of levitation, sensed Darth Vader's goodness. Within the context of the OT, he was a strong jedi in that movie.

Didn't you find Metamorphosis uplifting?

Should it bug me?

then what to mech droids roll around on?

I think the point they made was that the only thing you can actually see that's close is tracks.

Heh. Blame the Conservative Media. The person he called a bloviating ignoramus was Trump.

But it couldn't be Trump. Trump has the complication 'forgets to cover up obvious ignoramity BEFORE denying it'. Whoever this is has experience disappearing people.

Clearly it's Hillary.

I'm not sure if it's in this thread, or the one in the hero system forum, or elsewhere, but I recently read someone make the assertion that, in the Star Wars universe, apparently no one invented the wheel. Thus, AT-ATs.

I believe the current explanation is, the clones were elite, but they were later decimated by biological warfare that targetted only them, I'm not sure if anyone's named the virus, perhaps a form of dysentary called the Django Shuffle, but anyway, they had to be replaced by mass numbers who were not so elite.

And then, the First Order, being smaller in size than the Empire, went with high tech and elite, but smaller numbers and more Hitler speeches.

Blame the liberal media!

Maybe sneak a picture of him somehow, see if he does not show up. Is George Will a vampire?

Additionally, put this in super hero terms without the associated points.

Your character can have deflection(as long as they have their lightsaber), a pretty mild telekinetic push and lift power, and close combat skills better than others.

Everyone and their brother can pick up EB off the street. Everyone and their brother can have flight through high speed vehicles. They could have flight through armor, entangle through armor, poison dart guns(NND), higher energy exploding EB(Chewie's weapon), robots with energy shields, grenade type weapons, contacts, et al.

Even if a character just has a blaster, if they get the same points, they will be waaaaaaaay better by means of their skill and skill levels and bells and whistles they can put on that than the jedi could ever start at as far as a ranged attack, because he has to pay for much more.

Plus, if you make him pay for a dark force power push, he's got even less points to throw in more powers.

It's useful to remember that, in the OT, Luke was usually running at the same times as the rest of his party. There aren't really that many scenes of him taking on all kinds of baddies.

Not sure, do you think reading what Kafka says on the matter might give me some hope?

Diazinon, anyone?

Will it kill me?

A bolwevil infestation?

Wasn't it a rhetorical question?

Can my answer be rhetorical?

George Will, the columnist?

Do you want an answer to this?

 

 

I would never use a Kevin Costner avatar... ever.

Do I?

Grr.

 

First, is it accurate to say that American manufacturing capacity has increased since 1975? Statistics do show this, and the result has been an avalanche of futurological claims about how the robots are making more stuff and soon they will be making all the stuff, and no-one will have jobs, and it'll be Soylent Green for all those jerks who were mean to us in high school. (Uhmmm, Steve. . . Wait. That sounds homoerotic. Never mind me, Ima gonna go have a gay panic.)

 

But, hey, look, a quote: (which comes from a pdf, so only click if you're good on crufting up your computer.)

 

This report argues that this dominant view on the loss of manufacturing jobs is fundamentally mistaken. Manufacturing lost jobs because manufacturing lost output, and it lost output because its ability to compete in global markets—some manipulated by egregious foreign mercantilist policies, others supported by better national competiveness policies, like lower corporate tax rates—declined significantly. In 2010, 13 of the 19 U.S. manufacturing sectors (employing 55 percent of manufacturing workers) were producing less than they there were in 2000 in terms of inflation-adjusted output. 2 Moreover, we assert that the government’s official calculation of manufacturing output growth, and by definition productivity, is significantly overstated. Overall, U.S. manufacturing output actually fell by 11 percent during a period when GDP increased by 17 percent.3 The alarm bells are largely silent for two reasons: government statistics significantly overstate the change in U.S. manufacturing output, and most economists and pundits do not extend their analysis beyond one macro-level number (change in real manufacturing value added relative to GDP). But the conventional wisdom that U.S. manufacturing job loss is simply a result of productivity-driven restructuring (akin to how U.S. agriculture lost jobs but is still healthy) is wrong, or at least not the whole story. This report contends that the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs is a function of slow growth in output (and, in most sectors, actual loss of output) caused by a steep increase in the manufactured goods trade deficit.

 

Second, what about those robots? The problem here is that "robot" is a new name for an old stock scare story. Going way back, the idea that something something was putting humans out of work seems to predate the Luddites. Is a jig/pattern/gauge/assembly line, or, heck, a flying shuttle, a "robot?" Sure, in the sense that the capitailst weighs the costs of a fixed capital investment that reduces the labour component of manufacturing a given good against the loss of flexibility. If you build a plant that "automatically" produces automobile frames in 1928 fast enough that it can literally produce all the car frames needed by American industry, you'd better have a plan for in case Citroen (and Chrysler) bring frame construction to the industry in seven years! This is why there have been "robots" in manufacturing since forever, and yet there are also people. It's a story of production rates, schedules, and consumer demand. Some things can be "mass produced," and other things can't be. READ THIS BOOK.

 

With these philosophical observations and one shouty book recommendation in mind, are there any facts at hand that contest this stylised story. Why, yes! As noted in the pdf above, American manufacturing employment took a steep tumble in the Reagan years, then held steady through 1998, then shrank dramatically in the first decade of the 21st Century, losing almost a third of employment. Were these guys replaced by robots? Then we would expect a significant increase in productivity. In fact, productivity growth has been all but stagnant for . . . some time. (Some scholars say 2205, others later. More recently, it has been declining.] How can manufacturing employment shrink without robots. Oh, I don't know, something about outsourcing? Yeah, I think I read something about that once. 

 

In the midst of all of this, several stylised facts are deployed like bludgeons to hammer home the point that the future is so shady that we've all got to wear those funky SAD goggles. The first is that Google has been working on self-driving cars since, what, 2003, and will have the bugs worked out Real Soon Now. I can't even . . . LYou don't like driving? Want to read on your way to work? There's already a solution to this problem! Call a cab! You're not going to do that, though, because you don't want to pay that kind of money. The self-driving car will appear when the self-driving car is a lot cheaper than a cab. Well, at the moment, the self-driving car requires a quarter-million in hardware in each vehicle and a massive computer network support apparatus. Will this ever be cheaper than a taxi driver? Probably not, and even if it were, I think much cheaper is . . . extremely ambitious. And this sets aside the basic problem that Google hasn't cracked the self-driving car problem, and has no real idea how to do so. 

 

But, hey, never mind that, because there's a self-driving truck! Now there's a technology that's going to be easy to implement, says I to the umpteenth driver tthis week who has pulled into our loading bay instead of the mall's loading bay, next door. Maybe it'll be the driver who is on disability, so that he can't swamp his own truck! (And who will not be employed long, if the dispatcher has anything to say about it . . . ) Except for intermodal deliveries, which are already highly susceptible to "automation" via roadtrains, most trucks require someone to be in charge of swamping and other delivery duties. Now, the prospect of having someone in the cab who is paid as an unskilled labourer instead of a driver (they're just there to unload the truck, and maybe take over from the autopilot in case of emergencies, which, by the way, the company is totally commited to repairing or replacing in the next fiscal quarter) is attractive, but that's not replacing the job --just the wage. It's even almost like that's a feature, and not a bug. . . 

 

Now, about Steve, former high school jock, oh he thinks he so cool with his perm, who is now on his way to the Soylent Green factory on account of not taking Algebra 12. The argument here is that since all the good jobs are going to go to college graduates, more education is the solution to our problems. Without being opposed to education, much less liberal arts education, I am going to chime in with some skepticism. First, this talk is coming from our public intellectuals. And where do our public intellectuals work, these days? It's kind of like taking a poll of the literary world two hundred years ago about whether church attendance and tithing was key to a prosperous society. (It turns out that it was, and it's a complete coincidence that almost the entire reading public was clergymen). To flip the historical analogy a bit, there has never been a worse-education technical working class than the one that existed in the world in 1946, due to assorted wartime disruptions in the educational process. And yet this was the generation that got us to the Moon. The moral of the story, I suggest, is that work experience counts for something here. 

 

In fact, I'm going to suggest that work experience counts for a lot. In spite of our high-school fuelled anger, it is likely that Steve is actually a quite productive member of society. I work with a lot of Steves, and I can tell you, twenty years of experience makes up for a lot. Steve built up those twenty years of experience while we were diddlilng our way through college and university and trying to get on full time with a business that would pay the bills. Thanks to "first hired, last fired," Steve is always going to be there, at least until he retires, when he will be replaced by the kids that we, of course, had and raised wihile we were going to endless school and building up our un-repayable student loans.

 

Oh, wait, I guess we didn't have those kids, did we? Uhm, Houston? I think we have a problem, here. 

I agree in part, but, as someone who spent most of their life being the guy with long experience short on degrees(went to college later in life), there are waaaay more people at the lower end than are needed for production, and the people who have decades of experience know they cannot leave their jobs without often facing a loss of opportunity, because employers can pick and choose, and are not going to ever match the pay that one currently has because of what amounts to tenure.

Further, gaining that tenure often ties to generation. It was far easier to achieve if one started one's job by the eighties, far harder after, when the rise in pay often did not keep pace with inflation. Less stability meant greater need to find a new job that did pay what one needed to survive, which meant less job stability due to not being "first in, last out".

Many are not particularly compassionate to workers who have less expertise, but the solution is not to not try to allow as many people as possible to reach a level of education, including trade schools, that might allow them more opportunity. And not turn that opportunity into the equivalent of payday loans for an education that is beneficial to society.

I didn't say it was right. But, and I think (from an outsider's perspective, this seems like it should be important) one of the big things that Trump voters picked up on as a Good Thing that must've outweighed all the impossibly egregiously Bad Things about him, was the promise to return manufacturing jobs to the US which had previously been "offshored" (or, in the case of manufacturing capacity built and staffed in Mexico to supply the US market, "cross-bordered", perhaps). Such possibilities did not seem real to the liberal-leaning (and maybe the right-leaning, I don't know) economics establishment at the time, and there was ridicule heaped upon the claim. It will be interesting to see whether these 700 jobs by a major manufacturer are the thin end of the "US manufacturing renaissance", or largely a publicity stunt for Ford to garner home-country approbation, and not followed up by other heavy industries and in larger number. And if these changes do, in fact, materialise, I'll be interested to see the reaction of those who said, as I did, that it wasn't possible. Whether it is possible remains to be seen. But diverting the issue into his appalling character (the guy disgusts me too) doesn't do the liberal argument against the monster any favours if it ignores any actual successes of his regime.

 

So the question remains to be answered when we have further data: is his rhetoric providing an environment for US business to thrive based on domestic production like "everyone" said couldn't be done? 

The wage difference from the developing world to the developed world means that the manufacturing center of the world will always, assuming the current economic model, be in the developing world. To base the economics of a developed country based on production either requires production models that require far less workers, which means little added employment except in tech, or having wages like a developing country, both of which would be disastrous for consumer spending, unless, in the former, a significant portion of the workforce were actually working in jobs that require higher eduction.