Willpower

Re: Bow & Arrows separately.

This is a bit complex, though not overly so. It may aso seem a bit useless to some people, but I think I get some of the ideas involved. The way I have done something like this in the past is to build a multipower for the arrows, and it had the limitations OAF: arrows (-1) and No Range (-1/2). Then you purchase the naked advantage Ranged (+1/2) for up to the active points in the multipower. It also gets the limitation OAF: Bow (-1). Some of the basic things this allows, that isn't allowed with a straight Multipower with the limitation OAF: Bow and Arrows (-1) is that if you don't have your bow with you for some reason, say it is broke, you can pull out an arrow and use it in hand to hand.

Bullseye did this trick a couple of times in the Avengers. The GM may even allow the archer to throw the arrowheads if needed at particular penalties.

On a different board I saw a guideline for dealing with dice and speed that I really liked. It was very simple. Dice of damage for a character plus the characters speed could be no greater than 20. I really liked this conept, though it appeared not completely finished to me. It seemed a lot like the Fuzion system's Rule of X which I liked. It too, was not completely finished for me.

The Rule of X was missing a Speed element offensively at least, where as this rule is missing an offensive skill element. The rule of X worked great as it was, but if 2 people had the same offensive X, and one operated at 3 points greater Speed, it was no mystery as to who was more powerful. (I know, Fuzion didn't include Speed at first, though we incorporated it.) This rule doesn't incorporate offensive skill, and two people both operate at 12d6 damage, and have an 8 Speed, than it is also not a mystery to know that the one with a 12 OCV is more powerful than the one with an 8.

As it is, I like basing the power element off of Speed, though either way this will work. What I am thinking might work best is to work the rules based off damage and speed, and then add in the skill element based off a deviation for the campaign norm. So for instance if the campaign normal for CV is 6-8, and you have a CV of 10, then those extra 2 points come off either the damage or the speed the character can have.

As I said this can work in reverse too, making the number based off CV + damage dice, may work better in some cases, as their is less deviation among Spd than their is among CV. So if someone had 8 CV and 12D6 damage, they could have the campaign average of 6 for speed if the number used was 20. OR they could have a CV of 10, and do 10d6 damage. Or they could have a 9 OCV, do 9d6 damage, and have an 8 Spd. Both work similar, though with the second things could develop how I saw them do in Fuzion, where people have one attack at one power level, and another at a lesser level with a couple of skill levels to offset the damage difference, in order to keep the same offensive rule of X. I just don't like that manipulation aspect to this house rule, so I will probably prefer the first option rather than the second.

First off, I want to know what everyone thinks of this, and then I also like to come up with a way of regulating the other side of this, the way the rule of X did. Maybe something like DCV plus 1/5th defenses +1/5th stun, or something like that.

Any ideas to help expand on this basic idea?

Re: City of Heroes to HERO conversion?

A rough concept for CoH to Hero using feel instead of strict conversion.

 

Blasters - Primary: Ranged attacks

Secondary: Status Attacks

Tertiary: Movement, defenses

 

Defenders - Primary: Buffs, Heals, Debuffs

Secondary: Ranged Attacks

Tertiary: Movement,defense

 

Controllers - Primary: Entangles, Status Attacks

Secondary: Buffs, Debuffs, Heals

Tertiary: Movement, defenses

 

Scrappers - Primary: HTH Dmg attacks

Secondary: Defenses

Tertiary: Movement,

 

Tankers - Primary: Defenses

Secondary: HTH attacks

Tertiary: Movement

 

Primaries are 60 AP, Secondaries are 40 AP, and tertiaries are 30 AP.

 

Very rough and much overlap between types.

I agree, that is the perfect way to do this type of convertion. Forget power levels, but ideas on how to build the powers how they appear in the game is great. For instance, EB = EB is easy. Lightning Blast (or whatever it is called), would be built slightly differently, as it doesn't do Knock Back, but i believe it drains End. So it might be EB with does no KB limitation, and an added End Drain power.

Re: Delaying an opponent

You could always go with some form of entangle. Maybe a mental entangle would work, or just one bought with Invisible power effects and transparent to attack. That doesn't fully work for the effects in CoH, but Hero doesn't do those types of effects so hot. Even something with added dice only to Stun, will only get rid of one action, IF you stun them. Where as in CoH a stunning attack can take someone out for a bit of time. Particularly with adders that increase the stun time. Something like what you are talking about really requires some sort of D20-like Save system, and Hero isn't built that way.

Though one could be jury rigged though. You could work up something like Dimensional travel usable as an attack to send someone for a different dimension. Say the dimension is lose to ours, and so you can still see the person, (though you wouldn't really be able to affect them) and returned them to our dimension several rounds later. Slap on a Ego, or a Con roll, and attach an effect to that, like if they miss they are in the other dimension for 1full phase, if they miss by more than 2, they are there for 2 phases, and if they succeed they don't go.

That same thing could also be done with Mind Control, one telepathic command, only to stand perectly still. Or even a Transform. These two give the added benefit of allowing you to interac with the person too.

Don't know if this helps or not, but those are my ideas on it.

Been playing City of Heroes again, and several of the powers there incapacitate an opponent in some way, stunning them temporarily or knocking them down, so that they cannot attack for a few moments.

 

Struck me that Hero does not have a ‘direct’ way of delaying someone in that way. Sure you can build a power with (+xd6: only for stunning), but that does not feel right.

 

So, here’s a thought:

 

Delay Adder

 

The delay adder comes in three flavours,

 

1. The target hesitates, taking their action at ½ their normal DEX: 5 points

2. The target is distracted, and loses their next ½ phase action: 10 points (MAGNIFYING GLASS)

3. The target is delayed and loses their next full phase action: 20 points (STOP)

 

Each adder is attached to an attack power, and the delay takes place simultaneously with any other result of the attack. The attack must have an actual effect, specified at the time of creation, to cause the delay (for example the delay might occur when a target takes KB, or damage, of a particular level of effect from a mental power. Just hitting is NOT enough).

 

Now we can kinda do that in hero with adjustment powers, but it is a bit convoluted, and this seemed like a neater solution.

 

Maybe there is a better way though, without new rules? Thoughts?

Hello all,

I am building another villain for my Champions game, and this one I am trying to base off a character I have in City of Villains. Basically, I have a Mastermind Villain in City of villains, that I am looking to build in Champions with as little change from the way the character works as possible. He is a Force Field/Robots MM. I am sure most of you will probably not know anything about that, but for those that do, have any of you thought of ways to build some of their powers so they work at least somewhat the way they do in the game?

Here are some of the basics. He has 3 different types of robots he can "summon" 3 battle bots, 2 protector bots, and an assault bot. All in that order of power level. The way the powers work in the game, is that they are 3 seperate powers, one summons the first 3 bots, the second summons the second 2 bots, and the third summons the third bot. He then has to upgrade them to provide them with additional weaponry. I am thinking that would be different multipowers on the base character that would be usable by others (the bots) and specified as to only work for them. All of this, I do not have too much problem with. I could work it either with duplication, or summoning, or even followers. Followers is the route I was thinking of using, but I don't want him teleporting more than those 6 followers at a time. Duplication also works for this, but if one bot goes down, I want him to be able to summon another to replace it. Then he would also have to outfit it to make it tougher and what not. I don't think duplication works well for this. Summoning might, though I am not positive if it would. If you summon something and it dies,, can you summon another right away? Right now, I am thinking of just using followers, and then making it to where the powers he has that upgrades them will only work on those six. That way, I can have situations where the players fight hordes of robots that aren't as powerful, and then get to him.

There are a few powers that I will have work differently at least. I am combining a few, that really should work as one. For instance his FF that blocks physical objects, and his seperate FF that blocks energy and other effects, I will just make 1 FF instead of 2, that I have to apply seperately.

The character in COV has Leadership and such to help the bots, but I don't think I am going to worry about that level of a convertion. The dispertion Field, I have worked out as a 5/5 FF wih a selection area effect radius.

Any other ideas as to how to build some of the more common powers that seem to work differently than they regularly do in Hero?

For the most part, I don't expect to get many replies from those that don't know anything about Masterminds or City of Villains, cause those that don't won't uderstand many of the differences I am talking about. I tried to explain a few, about the powers I talked about, but there are more.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

I'd need to see a cite for that to believe it' date=' as basic physics just doesn't agree.[/quote']

 

Like I said, I just heard about it, I'm not sure. Though I'm not so sure physics would disagree with it. Bullets travel somewhere around the speed of sound. They fire at that velocity, but while in the confines of the plane enjoy the added speed of the plane. As soon as they leave the muzzle of the gun, they would start to slow down rapidly to their normal speed. If the plane was going at 5 times the speed of sound, then they might hit. I suppose it would be like trying to jump forward out of your car, or the reverse of jumping up in a falling elevator. Just jumping out of a plane shows this also, as the plane has perpetual thrust from its engines, but once you leave the plane, you don't so you end up way behind it.

 

Like I said, not sure (I'm not a physics major), though it makes sense to me.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

But keep in mind that the muzzle velocity of a projectile is relative to the speed of the muzzle' date=' not the earth. As long as the muzzle is traveling at the same speed as the plane you should be just fine. Granted the bullets will tend to slow down faster than they would had they been fired from a vehicle at rest, but then again the air at the altitude they are generally fired at is a mite thinner as well, so it balances out at least some.[/quote']

 

Actually, I have hear of times where planes have been shot by their own bullets because they were travelling fast than the bullets. Your right, they went fast enough to escape the muzzle of the gun, but slowed down enough that the plane caught up just after leaving.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Dogfights actually require the jets to slow down. There is a reason that we use a surplus of superiority fighters. Missile locks from miles away...

 

I never considered Superman chasing the missles to be anything more that dramatic plot device.

 

ETA: You could also write the whole thing off as a power stunt, requiring the use of the Power Skill. Player wants to constant do something in combat, at noncombat velocities, make him buy up his movement and disallow anything combat at noncombat speeds.

They don't slow down that much. Though, Dogfighting is almost a thing of the past anyway. Pretty much they just lock on and shoot missiles. The computer's OCV is what hits, and it isn't necessarily reduced to 0 OCV anyway, since that is what it was meant to do, fire at these speeds.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Pg 363...

 

[/i][/b]

 

Now, with the inclusion of always 0, I'd have to say that the always trumps any positive combat modifiers when at Noncombat speeds.

Oh, Oh... That means if we could do mental move throughs they wouldn't be that hard. 0 OECV - (atypical) 3 DECV + 11 = 8- to hit. Just make your Strength based on Ego Combat Value.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

deleted

Re: Move-Through Broken?

I tried rolling up d20 guy recently.

 

I could feel my heart racing and I got short of breath and spots started appearing in front of my eyes.

 

Rolling up a guy. Without cool powers to design and build myself.

 

I had to go back on my meds.

 

And while I hate to make my unprovoked claims of munchkinnery across too many threads, the high powered move through can be a classic example of this.

 

Please note the 'can be', not automatically IS. I don't need more posts stating that I think someones beloved concept is an example of rules hacking and that I'm an idiot trying to force my views on others.

 

Ah, to heck with it. High powered move throughs ARE a classic example of munchkinnery.

 

Munchkin: Okay, I've got to buy up my Strength cause it's Strength. And then I need some increased movement cause I got to get close enough to use my Strength. And hmm.......

Wide eyed innocent pc: Hey, you know if you combine your Strength with your move you can do this thing called a 'move through'.

Munchkin reads. Eyes start to gleam, palms start to sweat. He buys his Strength and move to the campaign limits, and then a few weeks later subjects the GM to this attack.

Munchkin: I pick up a bus and run away from the fight.

GM: Uh, ok.

Munchkin: Then I turn around and accelerate to NONCOMBAT speed. I smash the bus into the bad guy. It's an AOE attack, and my 50 Strength and 50" of movement mean that its 10d6 + 16 1/2 d6..... What, is there some problem?

 

One of my solutions is to not allow the adding of Strength to a noncombat move through. The character is concentrating too much on moving and not enough on using his strength IMO. Sort of like the difference in a flying tackle and simply running into someone at full speed.

 

Also, I simply disallow attack rolls in situations where I deem there to be no reasonable chance of success.

 

And I'm aware that the combined Def and Body is too low to allow the munchkin to do his full damage. He still does a lot more than the 50 AP 'cap' that the campaign was supposed to have.

Hehe, That brings up something I had to do once. I made a move Through based Character named Silver bullet, who used Powered Armor for his powers. With him I had to significantly limit his strength and his flight, so that I would NOT have a munchkin-type character.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Yeah, but in this thread, Willpower has declared that he won't accept a character-based fix, won't accept a house rule-based fix, and won't look up the optional rules in the book itself that would fix his problem.

 

I guess he's SOL, then, and it's no one's fault but his own.

I never, ever said I won't accept a house rule fix. In fact, I have accepted one that was proposed, and I have said as much. Though, that doesn't make the thread or the conversation magically disappear, which is why we are all still here. I said I accepted having people figure their movement per Turn, and then dividing by a standardized SPD, so that all velocity works equally.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

You know' date=' a lot of people are here tossing out ideas to help fix a problem you've seen in your game, Willpower. The snarkiness is totally unnecessary.[/quote']

 

What snarkiness?

 

I know people are throwing out ideas to help, and they have, and I have said so.

 

If, by snarkiness, you are referring to the post above yours, I had ignored his previous posts, because I know from experience that whenever I comment on the 5ER with my true feelings on the issue, people have gotten me into trouble with the powers that be on it. So I ignored his previous posts. When he basically posted indicating that he felt I was ignoring him. I respoded with an explanation as to why I had not responded to him before. Namely, because I wanted to avoid getting an infraction. In explaining this to him, he (I assume, partly based on his response, if I am wrong I apologize for the assumption) decided it was necessary to report me for an infraction. (for what I do not know, other than criticizing Hero) Just affirming my standpoint that I should have kept ignoring his posts in the first place.

Re: How to kill characters?

Killing attacks based on ECV are nasty as all get out.

 

We once had this GM that liked to kill his PCs. To sit at his table was to tease PC nightly. I was playing a mentalist with a VPP named Psi-lord.

 

I cooked this up once in I think 1989-90. When the game was in the three book set I think. But I may be wrong there maybe it was the big blue book. I might have the dates off, I drank oodles back then.

 

He had a scenario that was killer and it involved DEMON. They were summoning a Demon Lord in Grand Central Park. He took down three out of five of us. I told my fellow PCs to hold him off me and I would take it down. They did and thanks to LOS mental powers I survived and I got his Demon Lord and ruined his evening. I took a pip of Body as a side effect of unleashing my psychic anger so violently it was a nice power modifier that added theatric touch.

 

Lucky for me, he designed his own NPCS and if he over looked something he would not cheat to beat you. But he would throw around 4d6 AP RKAs like they were candy in a parade.

 

But I bet it would own most of your PCs and thin them out so you can use other things on them.

 

Personally, I rarely kill PCs. They are what a good game revolves around and a good gm + good players = best entertainment in the verse. Once in a while someone got stupid or it advanced the drama of the story so I did it.

I never tolerated shenaniggans at my table. Once , a guy brought me Bunnyman to play in our serious Dark Champions game. I asked him to redesign and he smirked and said no it would be fun. I told him I did not think his game was compatible with ours nothing personal and ripped up his sheet and showed him the door. Being wookie sized as I am , he complied.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do not kill PC's regularly either. Though I do prefer some danger of death in the game, so I do put into the game attacks capable of doing Body damage. I dislike trying to kill PC's though, which ends up meaning that if one gets close to death I switch to more non-lethal attacks. Which again, takes the danger of death out of the game, since the Villain probably would go for the kill, but I don't. This is why I invented my Trauma Rules, which we are still playtesting. They appear to work rather well though.

The reason I started this thread though, was because two players have indicated that if they were to have to make new characters they would rather have their characters killed in game than have to make new ones for what they conceive as no reason. And apparently a campaign ending, and starting a new one isn't reason enough for them. To avoid problems I have been exploring ways to purposefully kill those two, and those two alone, without looking like it was purposeful, at the end of the campaign. Normally, I would never go out of my way to kill a PC.

For me though, if I made an adventure such as your GM did, it would be to inject danger into the game, maybe to kill a PC that asked to be killed to make a new character, or what not. But I would be pleased when the players defeated the bad guy. That is the intention of the game for me. Once I even planned a campaign alterring story that would unleash 7 extra dimensional armies on Earth, forever changing the game. I fully planned on the game changing this way, and put up significant defenses to ensure the PC's failed in stopping the bad guys this one time. Usually, I make my adventures hard, but the PC's are still supposed to win. This one they were supposed to lose. But they pulled out some interesting tactics, one player in particular, and stopped the change from occuring.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

I guess you also missed or were too lazy to follow the link at the bottom of my posts that converts page references in 5er to 5e. The same optional rule is on page 292 of 5e btw.

Yes. I missed it. I don't go through and read every persons links and signatures all the time, as it is usually a wast of time, not laziness. BTW, thanks for showing me that I was right to just ignore posts that I know will get me in trouble. Allow me to return the favor.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

The difference is that velocity as used in Hero for combat purposes is determined as inches per Phase, not inches per Turn. So a SPD 3 character with 30" of flight and a SPD 6 character with 15" of flight don't have the same combat velocity. It may not be the most "realistic" answer, but it is that way for purposes of balance. If you wish to make a house rule to change it, feel free. Several have been suggested.

Yes, I know. That is what I am saying needs to be fixed, and I am including it as a house rule as I stated previously. As for your second paragraph, I didn't fully comprehend where you were going with it, nor do I agree that it is more accurate than my hypethetical situation. (At least based off what of it I could understand of it.)

Re: Move-Through Broken?

????

 

Have you looked at either of my previous posts yet?

Yes, I have seen your previous posts, though I do not have 5ER, so I cannot do as you suggest. I actually ignore 5ER, as I believe it is a complete rip off. I paid $50 for a ruleset that they revised a year later, and then want everyone that supported them a year previously to shell out $50 bucks for the same rulebook with some revised changes. I do not go by 5ER in my game. A friend has it, and I told him to take everything in there with a grain of salt, as if it conflicts with what 5E (The orginal FREd) says, in my game 5E wins. However, everytime I state my viewpoint on these forums lemmings try to tear me to shreds, so typically I ignore replies that refer me to 5ER rules. Nothing personal against you. It is just a habit I picked up for survivability. Now if you excuse me I think I hear about 5 million lemmings coming at me.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Depending on the action, if it's flat out impossible (under the rubber parameters of the game and genre for "possible"), I'm inclined to simply say "there is no (Attack) Roll; it is impossible". I also wouldn't let a character who is devoutly religious summon a holy smiting because he prayed for it and rolled a '3', for (absurd end of the scale) example.

OK, you brought in the rubber nature of the game, and the genre of the game. The genre is comic books, (which on the surface Champions does not really mimic very well anymore, but can be fixed. But that is a topic for another day) I know not this rubber nature of the game people refer to at times, but in the comic books, and in cartoons and the like how many times have you seen someone like the Flash decide a situation is just too nasty to mess around with. He decides I need to end this quick and so he runs around the world to pick up speed. Once twice whatever. Picking up speed in this case translates directly to building up to his non-combat velocity. Then after a few times around, SMASH he hits Brainiac or someone else doing massive damage, once, twice, however many times he needs to, to take them out. I have seen him do just this sort of thing many times. Now probably for him it was a Passing Strike as he doesn't appear to take much damage from it, but I do not allow those in my game. Though it still could have been a move-by or a move through, as several times I have seen him do this sort of thing, he nearly lost himself to the speed force.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Cite me the page that says "no matter how absurdly impossible the task, a roll of 3 will always succeed".

 

In any case, if the character could get by the acceleration requirements, be unperceived despite the use of a power which is visible to three sense groups (unless the character paid for IPE, of course), navigate the turn mode requirements to be able to aim at a single target, and make a successful to hit roll with the noncombat base OCV of 0 and the penalties imposed by noncombat velocity for a Move Through, I'd be inclined to allow them the benefits of that Move Through.

 

It's not like that's going to happen very often. Just rolling that 3 to hit (which, with an OCV of 0, is required if the defender has a DCV of 8, even if we ignore velocity penalties) will happen less than 1/2% of the situations when all the other criteria are met. And meeting those other criteria will be pretty scarce in and of itself.

Ok, as soon as you cite me where it says that is an absurdly impossible task. This sort of thing happens all the time. The task at hand, say at 20" X4 NCM for a 5 SPD character is only 75 MPH roughly. Cars hit people all the time at speeds such as this. Purposefully, or unintentionally. Now before you go saying, OK, but a car is an AE attack, motorcycles do it too. Something that happens every day hardly seems obsurd to me.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

MT isn’t broken but can be broken.

 

Mind you, it can also be fixed, if you manage to break it.

 

MT for a high SPD character with a relatively low movement does an unrealistically low damage for their m.p.h. velocity.

 

So add in a few extra Hand Attack dice, linked to their running, to oomph up the damage.

 

I’ve tried to make stuff work on ‘per turn’ movement rates, and whilst it is doable, it is a far bigger change than just building the character you want in the first place.

Ok, fine... What if there was some obscure rule somewhere that meant a person with a higher strength would actually do less damage with a haymaker than characters with lower strength. (This is a what if mind you, to illustrate a point. I am not saying that is the case.) And someone complained, "Why do I get less of a bonus to my Haymaker than the person with 15 Str? I have a 60 Str, I should get just as much if not more bonus for my haymaker." Would your answer simply be, "Well, thats how it works. You can always buy extra Hand Attack dice usable only with Haymaker."? Probably not. That would be a broken rule, and should be fixed. This is why I don't buy the buy extra dice answer for saying that MT is not broken. If it wasn't broken, as a maneuver, it should provide an equal bonus, for equal velocity. The same way Martial Strike does equal bonus damage for whoever purchases it. (Unless they BUY extra dice) The same way Haymaker does equal bonus damage for whoever purchases it. Someone should not have to buy extra dice to get a bonus equal to what they should have had in the first place.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

While I like Comic's standardized SPD for move-throughs/move-bys' date=' you could always simply buy a HA Only When Using a Move-through or Move-by.[/quote']

 

Yes, yes, I understand that. Many people have said the same thing, however that does nothing. It adds a little damage to one character. Then that character still isn't getting their proper velocity damage, but they do a few more dice which they had to pay for. The person with the higher SPD should HAVE to buy extra dice of damage to get the same velocity damage that another gets who has the same velocity, but has a lower SPD.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

Viewed from another angle, if we have a 3 SPD and a 6 SPD character moving at the same velocity, the 3 SPD character spent twice as much on his movement as the 6 SPD character did.

 

Let's assume the 3 SPD character has 30" of Flight and the 6 SPD character has 15" of flight. Otherwise, they are identical (15" flight and +3 SPD cost the same).

 

It seems to me the only advantage the 3 SPD character has received for his 30 points is the ability to add twice as much velocity-based damage (at twice as much velocity-based penalties) as the 6 SPD character. They noth get to move 90" per turn, at the cost of 18 END per turn. The 6 SPD character gets to move 48" in half moves, a little more than the 3 SPD character's 45". The 6 SPD character gets twice as many opportunities to use a velocity-based attack (or any other attack). It seems to me that the 6 SPD character is not really suffering by comparison.

 

All too often, too much realism spoils the game balance.

Your right. It is virtually the same. The only point I am trying to make is if the same two characters both hit a tough opponent the one with a 6 SPD may not have a chance of hurting him, while the 3 SPD character might, because he gets more velocity damage, even though their velocity is the same.

Thats all I am saying, and that I think for such maneuvers it might be better to figure out the characters velocity per turn and then assign a SPD value to divide it by universally for all characters. This was someone elses suggestion, and it was a good one.

Re: Move-Through Broken?

I suppose I should add to this conversation that one of my favorite characters was Move Through based. A character named Silver Bullet, who could shrink to a few inches in height. He had strength that only activated when shruck (making himself more dense in the process.), and could only fly when shrunk. He had special braces he built that would protect him a bit more as he flew through people. Hehe. He was a killing attack too. (Though not always.)

Re: Move-Through Broken?

what's really broken about move-throughs is cheap movement.

 

 

It's been fairly established that a die of normal damage should cost 5 active points (or more, if you're using a non-standard power like TK or the like)

 

If you use move throughs (or passing strike) and you're using something like gliding for movement, then you're getting a die of normal damage for 3 points.

 

So, if you've got a nice handy 30 point movement multipower, you can get one slot with 15" of flight to gain some altitude (or even cheaper, just get 30" of superleap) and then 30" of gliding in another slot and drill people for 10d6 + STR damage.

 

A simple workaround would be to adjust damage to 1d6/6 active points in movement power. So, a running or flying move through would be unaffected. A leaping or gliding move through would be nerfed somewhat.

Though you are right, personally I don't worry about the cost of movement, as the damage from them is subsidiary to the ability to move. The penalties to Move Through, and Move By are significant enough for me. I just think it means the person who spent more points on SPD gets hosed. Though even then it is not that big a deal.

Though, also personally, I NEVER allow Passing strike or any combat maneuver like it into my superhero games. I am also very leary about them in other hero games. Particularly Superheroes though, move much faster than those in other games. Adding a velocity damage type attack with a standard penalty, instead of a velocity based penalty is asking for unbalance.

Re: Flying out of a moving vehicle

Actually, it's more complex than that since, once they leave the jet, they face wind resistance which would gradually slow their forward velocity. Without the telekinetic working to reduce their speed, wind resistance should reduce their forward momentum somewhat. In the absence of some better measure, I'd use 5" per segment for ease of reference.

 

Mind you, unless I had some reason for racking their movement phase by phase, I wouldn't bother. The flier can control their direction enough that they'll eventually bring their momentum under control.

Normally I wouldn't either, but there were about several hundred reasons to keep track of it. Being chased by half of Viper, (not a base, HALF of Viper) a jet crashing in front of them filled with master villains who took the crash and kept chasing them, and the fact that they were still on a crash course as well.