Kesedrith

That may be, but they typically have higher defenses too, and at heroic level the CV difference in my experience is only 2 - 3 at most. Of course at the heroic level I'm used to the tanks have DEX 10 and base CV 3, and taking ~2 CSLs themselves, and the high CV folks having DEX 18, base CV 6, and 2 - 3 CSLs with maneuvers and 2 - 4 in PSLs and RSLs depending on their flavor. My experience is that I usually have to bump enemy CON, STUN, and BODY because both groups are laying in about the same number of hits, because the high CV folk put their CSLs in DCV to keep from being hit since they have lighter armor, and both are doing about the same amount of damage, one by hitting with higher weapon DC, and the other by using PSLs to call shots and take advantage of damage multipliers. Admittedly ranged combat is often another story, but I haven't had many Bricks worry overtly about ranged weapons unless it's thrown weapons. (I've seen a few FH Bricks take a few RSLs or PSLs with javelins or spears, and use that to devastating effect.)

I'd say this is a good run down of how to mechanically work such a contest. It's very similar to what I remember of the old Western Hero book's take on how to handle duels. Similar rules are also forwarded in The Ultimate Martial Artist if I'm remembering correctly, as duels aren't restricted to just the Western genre or even to just guns. Actually, now that I think about it, there's a "fight" scene in the movie My Name is Nobody that illustrates this sort of mechanic in a very, very one-sided duel.

Why not just emphasize PSLs, RSLs, and DCs? I guess I've just never been, or even seen, the situation where someone that utilized those three things to be able to choose where they hit, how far away they're hitting, and their skill reflected as actual more dice of damage where outshone by the Brick in combat. That or, as this thread originated discussing, the creative use of combat maneuvers. That's not to say your house rule, Ndreare, isn't a reasonably straight forward solution too, by the way, but it does hold to a different philosophy of the hit roll than what I've always considered it, which is just that it says, "Yep, you hit," and any extra just means you were hedging your bet, kind of like sandbags say you under bid your hand when playing Spades.

Sounds like a plan to me. As some are mentioning, it sounds like a setting that could be used for those who are interested in a more "realistic" sort of fantasy setting. It could even be modified to be used for those of us who like doing something of a more historical, Medieval flavor.

I have to agree with this. From the game mechanics, all the hit roll is setting up, no matter how "well" you hit, is whether you made contact at all. Making the required hit roll by 9 is no better or different in the least than than just barely making the hit. Technique, weapon factors, all of that are in the damage roll. Even a brilliantly executed head shot can just be a glancing blow. All making OCV higher does is hedge your bet that you even make damagable contact that phase. It's all in how you view the two steps of the mechanic. This is why I don't care for the idea of "critical hits" being determined off of a hit roll. That roll in no way, form, or fashion even suggests the nature of the hit; just that you did indeed hit.

Interesting. I'm going to have to keep some of the ideas I've seen in this thread in mind. My tactic with new players has just been to sit down with them, get them to describe what sort of character they want, and then make the character for them, explaining what I'm doing each step of the way. With only one failure, I wind up repeating this about three or four characters in before they're wanting to take the active role and just have me sit there and provide clarifications on the "How do I do this?" questions that come up. My one failure? My wife. We've been playing, with breaks, for around 25 years now, and to this day she will not touch character creation. She loves the system and that she can get the exact character that she's wanting to play, but if she's stuck with making the character herself, she'll sit the game out.

I'm one of those guys that companies tend to dislike. I have the core book for 4th along with a Fantasy Hero Companion II and III, 5th ed. core book with Ultimate Martial Artist and Fantasy Hero. That's it. I can say the same of any other RPG systems that I GM or play with though: I get the core books needed, and unless the material is something that I used repeatedly and often, that's all I work with, and pretty much never setting related stuff. That last is just more fun to come up with on your own.

This. Always this in this sort of situation.

I'm coming from this same place, except that I got my start with 2nd ed., "way back in the day." In my heroic level games, I rarely have anyone take a characteristic above 18 to be perfectly honest. Even in my "street level" super hero games for which I'm noted by players don't have characteristics going above about 25 terribly often. Then again, it may be an issue of the maturity level of the players. I say this because as I typed the first part, I remember that we regularly had "blast canon" characters who were nothing but defenses and their one super blast in the beginning. Speeds ranged in the 7 - 8 range (even worked up rules for SPD of 12+ for someone who wanted to be a SPEEDSTER!! with a SPD of 14) and so forth. Ten years later and we're all making much more generalized characters capable of lending a hand in situations other than combat, with speeds in the 3 - 5 range, and characteristics closer to normal human except for that "one defining characteristic." To cut this short, sometimes I have to wonder if some of the "disagreements" in these discussions don't come from simple changes in play styles due to factors like how long you've been playing, age, and bare bones philosophy of what these games are about.

See? This is exactly where I figured this discussion was going. This sort of mechanic just smacks of "vorpal blade" or a stiletto named "Heartseeker." Or a much more potent blade that screams its rage for vengeance across the world, seeking the heart of someone who's wronged the wielder! Anyway, glad to know it wasn't just me.

As many have already expressed, the source of balance is the GM. As a GM you really -must- set limits on what the campaign you're running will allow. This will also change from game to game. I've had some where I've told players their characters had to have a minimum of a certain number of RP in skills. I've had games where I've set maximum DC's and others where I've set maximum AP and RP in powers. I even had one game that I knew was going to be combat heavy where I worked out this complicated chart of SPD vs. DC and CV vs. DEF to set character initial maximums so that there couldn't be a combat monkey who made all the others look pathetic. In addition, the GM also has to be ready, and able, to just plain say, "No." I've had long out arguments with players before about some new power, ability, etc. they wanted to put on their character, and it all boiled down to: "But it isn't against the rules!" and my response of, "I don't really care. I'm not allowing that." Sometimes something isn't against the rules explicitly, but that doesn't mean it won't break, gimp, hamper, or give an "easy button" in the game. I had to learn the hard way, much to my chagrin, that allowing a character a "Skill VPP" in a heavily skill based campaign was a bad idea. I should have known better, but couldn't see any reason to just stamp the big red, "NO!" on it, and it did fit with all stated rules and guidelines at the time......but it pretty much broke the game and I gave it up after three sessions. Lesson learned: be ready to look at a players, shake your head, and say, "No," whether it's a "legal" build or not. Players may be a cowardly and superstitious lot, but they will try their best to game your system if you let them.

This is why even in 4th and 5th ed, there were some of us that set lower levels of points from Disadvantages and increased the base points. After about 100 - 150 points, it just all seemed to become "cheese."

If the costume is indicative, you could go with something very simple: Ao....."Blue."

Okay, you're right. I'm not quite as heartless as I'm sounding. I always give them a chance to recover the item. I don't use it as a "something invisible chews your character" sort of thing, but most don't seem to understand that they might not recover those points. The item may be broken or dispelled or they simply can't catch up to the thief. Stuff happens. I just try to make sure that players understand that, and have had issues when I wasn't just going to let them "build another" without investing more CP's. Again, it isn't a common occurrence. I can count on one hand the number of times I've ever had anyone actually keep with the idea of the Independent lim., just as I can those that have taken an 8- activation roll. I just don't see either even come up all that often, much less players follow through with it. As for my taking that a bit too seriously and harshly? They're getting a x3 multiplier on those points for those -2 limitations. That better be really limiting and, yes, painful. I'll also admit that if a player really wanted to start with that magic item, they can sell me on it. I've never permanently removed a magic sword from someone that gave them +2 CV that they started with. I've also allowed one player to not put Independent on a "family heirloom" weapon that would do the fantasy schtick of not cutting the rightful heir. ("I have nothing to fear from my father's sword!), and used it to that purpose in the storylines. I love it when players give me creative ideas that hook stories into the ebb and flow of the game. I reward that as a matter of fact, so stick your neck out once in awhile. Go out on a limb. Sure you may lose that specific item you came in with, but give me a story I can weave and bring everyone in with, and you'll likely get something better in the end when it is removed. I just do like letting people know what they -could- be signing up for, and then them's the breaks.

I'd not thought of that method, Outsider, so thanks, that's a good idea. I usually just let it happen through storyline events, which does work as well, but can also lend itself to the limitation's disadvantage never coming up. In general though, I have always tried to discourage players from taking that lim., but some are just bound and determined to take it, and then still, after all the warning, get butt hurt over losing those CP's. I still like the lim. in its own way, but I can see it being dropped in 6e. It really is crazy for a PC to put that lim. on something they're spending points for. (I've been known to still do it, but as character flare and RP hook for the GM to use, not as something truly important and inherent to the character.) And Acamtar, I apologize for the sidebar then. I misunderstood your point.

I can see why they removed Independent. I've seen some horrible abuses of that limitation because people didn't understand what it really entailed, and gotten into some huge arguments that led to that particular session disintegrating because I did point out the fact that it means those CP's can, and should be, lost at some point, as well as other issues with it being an inherently universal focus. People definitely seem to prefer the idea that they get a x3 multiple on their CP's for nothing more than saying it's "independent." They don't like you holding their feet to the fire of what it really means.

You know, if you as the GM don't think something looks right, then don't allow it. Period. That's what you're being "paid" for: making sure everyone has fun (including yourself), and no one just runs away with the game and is the superstar. Addressing the particular situation, this sounds like someone may be trying to recreate a "vorpal" sword, and remove heads with it. Snickety-snack. Not an entirely awful idea, but I think I'd make them use 3-pt. PSL's, and put an activation roll on those bad boys. You don't get to call the shot, but occasionally the sword does indeed take a head. Snickety-snack. I can think of a lot of other ways for making such a weapon though. Of course when players start making magic items, I also remind them that I require Independent on that item, and hence those points, and make sure they understand that that means that sooner or later those hard won experience points -WILL- be lost forever with no refund. Usually that takes the wind right out of those sails.

And here I am thinking of the One Ring. You put it on and become the peak of what you're supposed to be. Hobbits became sneakier, even less likely to be noticed, hence invisible. Anyway, I like the idea. I don't know that I wouldn't let my players help me with things like working out the origins (not that I'd let them know they were doing that mind you, but just from listening in on their speculations and such in game) and let them decide what they'd wind up being called. After all, maybe they're Screens, since you wind up projecting onto them what you truly are.

I am the Mad Astronomer! I'm tired of all your cities and their light pollution interfering with my observations of the stars!

Huh, learn something new all the time. I'd always thought that even powers hit this limit, so a character that was at, say STR NCM hit with an Aid to STR would only get half the effect. I never had anyone complain about that either. I'll agree, as both player and GM, that NCM is generally a bad, bad, bad idea in superheroic games. I've only had one character I've played with it work where I wasn't raping the rules. That was with a mentalist I named "Dirt." (As in "Old as....") Dirt was just an old man who'd been a super when he was younger and put the suit back on because the young guys were making a mess of things! On more than one occasion he just sat on the hood of someone's car, or got a teammate to air lift him to a building top, and used his LOS mental powers to whatever effect he could. My fellow players loved it (nothing like some old codger telepathically telling you how they'd have done it in his day during combat), and the GM got lots of laughs too, but Dirt was definitely the sole exception.

I use the cap in all of my heroic level games. It's just always made sense to me: these aren't superheroes. Of course the issue has never come up either. I also enforce Characteristic Maxima and make no bones about using the cap and Min. STR, so they'd have to have enough STR over the Min. to double, much less over double, the DC of the weapon anyway. Add that I've never had a magic using character played in my games that used buff spells, and have only had one magical weapon that boosted STR (it was specifically designed to allow anyone that could wield it to reach its double DC limit), and again, getting to those levels of STR has just never been an issue. So then there's skill. Even here I've had no issue. I've had very few fantasy players buy MA with their weapon, and when they do, they typically are after the CV bonuses, not the DC. Someone that can hit repeatedly, or defend from such, will in the end do better than someone that hits for high damage, but only once in awhile. The caveat to that being that supposedly they can't do enough to alpha the target. In a MA campaign, most of the time my players have always chosen to go bare-handed, using weapons only if the situation called for it (pole arms and thrown weapons being the usual exceptions). Maybe I just play with too many Bruce Li fans. Now Christopher Taylor brought up a good point in an early post, and I'm going to have to think on Deadly Blow and its like. That gets into being able to lay in a precise hit to a vital organ. Something that generally can't be done in active combat where people are moving around (hopefully) erratically and generally not cooperating with sliding a stiletto through the ribs and into the heart, sure you can target "head," "chest," etc. in a combat, but that doesn't mean you're going to hit them in the eye or heart, which is what I've always imagined Deadly Blow as doing, so chances are I'd allow that to exceed the weapon DC maximum rule, but probably only in very particular and specific circumstances.

I'll second this, as I'm considering trying to work up a scenario to run at a local convention here in Cleveland. Sadly, I don't think I have anyone I can draw on that's familiar with the system, but that's why I'm definitely thinking along the K.I.S.S. route. I'm not sure if I'll actually try it though, as I love the system and have been playing it for long enough that I'm not sure I wouldn't start bringing in too much.

Tom Mix, Joseph Kittenger, -any- of the early rocket men (including Werner von Braun), with modifications, several U.S. Presidents would fit in the list: Abraham Lincoln, Andrew "Devil" Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt...Ugh, too little sleep to have any more pop into mind.

It's my understanding that this is a frequent tactic used when a specific target isn't sought. Kill a man, and you've removed him from the fight. Wound him, and you've taken him and two or three of his buddies out of the fight as they seek to protect and stabilize him. EDIT: Not to mention trying to get him to safety, which draws others out from cover and into the snipers scope. Plenty of examples of this in movies like Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket.

I tend to go the route of Netzilla. There are codes and signals that different groups use, but the actual languages tend to be regional or racial. The codes are more knowledge skills than actual languages. I DO however use a trade speak that many in the world know, but as has been suggested by others, that's more a "language" of "How much for this?"