Lollypopalopicus

10 hours ago, bluesguy said:

Are you playing a superhero or heroic campaign?  That makes a difference.

8 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

Bluesguy is correct that it makes a big difference if the game is a heroic game or not.  In a superhero game any significant equipment must be paid for.  Most GM’s will allow some basic equipment like watches and probably cell phones, but almost anything else needs to be paid for.

 

In a heroic game a character uses money to purchase equipment.  Most mundane equipment is fairly cheap but some of it does cost a significant amount.  Typically heavy armor like plate costs a decent amount of money.  Unless there is some sort of campaign rule magic using characters can also use normal equipment.  One of my best wizards actually uses light armor and knows how to fight with his staff.  Due to a couple of lucky rolls while using his staff he ended up doing better in melee combat than the “fighters” of the group.  I managed to get a critical hit to the head of one of the heavily armored foes we were fighting. 

 

In a heroic campaign all a warrior needs to do is to pay character points for the weapon familiarity and he knows how to use any weapons in that group.  Considering common melee and common ranged weapons only cost 2 pts each that is nothing.  For 4 pts you can use most weapons. 

 

Magic items usually cost a lot more, but are also usually a lot more powerful.  In a heroic campaign even these don’t cost character points. 

We've used it in both Heroic, and Superheroic in the past. Like I said, since none of us really play characters based around gadgets, it usually isn't much of an issue

12 minutes ago, mrinku said:

To my mind, the scope is broad enough that it's no longer worth a limitation, or is a -0 one.

 

This is setting dependant, though. If non-magic, non-technological effects (as defined by the setting) are significant, then it's probably worth some appropriate value.

 

Likewise, that -¼ limitation for "magic only" might be worth more in a setting where magic is less useful.

 

But having two major effects to draw from will allow you to deal with most situations where one or the other is no good, so a -0 limitation is appropriate.

 

At the end of the day you have to work out "exactly how much does this limitation restrict me?". If the answer is "not very much at all" then it's -0.

 

There is also a possible argument that the VPP would be subject to the Variable Special Effect advantage, though going with "Techno-Magic" might cover that.

That makes sense. Setting wise, there is basically 4 main powers. Magic, Psychic, Ki, and Technology. VPP with no limitation basically represents either having all of them, or some unknown, godlike, world altering powers. Generally, If you are highly resistant to magic, you can bet you enemy is hiring a psychic to hunt you down.

I just figured I would mention this idea that one of my groups used with regards to characters finding items and using equipment, without permanently investing points into it. I remembered it after starting a thread dealing with a tech based VPP

To us, it never really made sense that certain things had to be paid for. For example, sure, a peasant would have no idea how to use a sword well, represented by a low OCV and no abilities related to using one, but any moron with an arm and average arm strength can at least pick up a sharp piece of mental and attack someone, no matter unskilled at it they may be. In a heroic campaign, Those small amounts can add up fast.

I should preface this by mentioning that said group didn't really have any “gadgeteers”, so there was no issue with anyone feeling as though there character was being made weaker in comparison, so that was one of the reasons I think the whole thing worked.

Basically, every character and npc has what was called "The equipment pool". Everyone had a VPP that basically represented your equipment, There were obvious restrictions.

-You had to find said item in game, or make it

-Originally, it was not something you could invest points into improve, (more on that later).

-You got a significant penalty if it was something you would have no feasible idea on how to use, like a peasant with a sword, or a wizard from the medieval ages with a gun.

-Obviously, you had to have said item on you, and you could not change said item out of the blue. Meaning you could just suddenly devote more of your pool to increase a magic items damage. (Though if you wanted to do so, when you character had the time, they could improve the item, though that meant it would take up more of your equipment pool when actually using it).

-I think there were some others, but I can't remember, as I haven't played with the group in a while.

This made everyone pretty happy. The Magic user got to have some magic items at their disposal that didn't detract from their actual spell casting. The warrior characters were able to invest said points into doing more cool tricks with their weapons rather than having to spend character points to use a weapon that had all the same design and skill requirements of the weapon they already had, but was just more powerful, and thus, would have to not use it until they got more CP.

If there was concern for characters being over powered, well, the solution was simple. After all, everyone had this pool. There was one fight were the fighter lost one of their more powerful weapons, and before they had a chance to get it, the boss started attacking him. They kept fighting, when suddenly, a random mook stabs him in the back with the sword he dropped. As for things that didn't use equipment, we either made them stronger to balance things out, or we decided that it would make sense for it to be easier to beat. After all, tool usage is how humans beat things like wolves and bears, and took over the planet.

Depending on the type of game, there were some adjustments to the way it worked, and how large it was. For example, in one fantasy game, we decided that the VPP would scale relative to how much CP a character actually had, as it showed that as they grew stronger, they could wield more magical items at once, and control more powerful ones. You could try and use something that was beyond your power, but it would have a side effect based on what the item did, and just how out of your league it was. The magic user almost died trying to use an amulet he found before checking to see how strong it was because it actually belonged to the king of Demons. Later on, he was able to try again. It still hurt, but he managed to pull off what he was trying to do. In another game, you just couldn't activate it because you were too weak.

If you really wanted, you could probably figure out a way to incorporate this into games even with “gadgeteers”. They way we decided it was that they could either invest in a separate, less restricted VPP, or to increase their equipment VPP, which would alleviate some of the restrictions on it, but not all of them. No one really did it all that much, so I can't say for certain how well it would go.

This is just something my group came up with that seemed to work well for us, so I thought I would share it with everyone here to see what others think, and to give people the opportunity to use the idea if they were struggling to solve the issue like we were.

33 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

I'd just define your pool as Techno-magic as an SFX with a -1/4 disadvantage for no psychic powers, For VPPs, its more important to define what you can't do than to blanket list everything you can.

Make sense, but it seems odd to have one VPP that is just magic cost the same as one that is magic and tech.

2 minutes ago, Brian Stanfield said:

Have you considered doing a VPP for the magic, and then science skills with a gadget pool? It might get what you want without the high cost. 

That could work. My plan was to basically have them to have their goal to effectively become their worlds equivalent of a good Dr. Doom. Master Sorcerer and Scientist, so if I do, I would have to find a way to get them to be about the same level. Still that does sound like a good starting point.

Gadgets and the like was never a problem for me before, because one of the house rules used in one of the groups I'm in was basically what we called, "The equipment pool" which was something everyone had. I might make a second thread on it just to throw the idea out there for others to try if they are interested.

So, I was thinking of a making a character who used both magic and technology, and was going to give them a VPP. The problem is, the disadvantage for just magic is (-1/4). That means, if I had science and magic, it would be even less of an advantage, which does not exist, meaning I may as well just give said character access to things like psychic powers, Mutant powers, etc. I could just have two VPP's, 1 with just magic, and another that has just tech, but that would end up being ludicrously expensive.

I suppose I am stuck, where I want to go with the character idea without having them be worthless due to point distribution, while not being so broken that they would be disallowed or no fun to play.

Just wondering, would buying characteristics as a power, not with a focus, but with something like costs END to activate/maintian, rather than using Aid or Boost and rolling for the result work?

Mainly asking because another player had a power frame work with the x2 END limitation, and figured that, since it was a spell that had a more structured casting as opposed to being random, it would make sense for it to have the same effect each time.

I was trying to build something like a crystal ball that you can call other people who have their own. 

Would unified scrying and transmit senses work best, or would transmit senses with usable on others and requires multiple users be better?

Any suggestions?

Just to chime in, Champions Beyond does have the scepter of annihilation which was designed to "restart the universe". If anyone has it, they can look it up, or I can do it later, but I think it was ten thousand+ active points. 

This sounds more like a Disadvantage than a power limitation.

Hmmm... Possibly, but that still leaves the question of what the value should be.

My current issue is that I was thinking of a werewolf character that can change shape at will, but loses his ability to control it under the full moon. I know some variants of it are given in the book, but not this idea in particular.

Obviously this is not worth the -2, but I am not sure what to value it at. -1/4 seems to make sense since it only happens for four days of the month, but considering it is losing control of a persistent power that drastically changes the character, I feel like maybe -1/2 might be more suitable.

Thoughts?

Basically, the idea is that the caster spends five minutes creating a magic circle and casting a spell, and once done, the spell lasts for about twenty minutes (as per 1 lasting charge). The problem is, is that it is supposed to be used by up to eight people at a time, and anyone can use it, for as long as the spell lasts. Effectively, it gives anyone who stands in the circle the ability to use a megascale teleport to anywhere on the planet for no END, as the magic of the circle does all the work.

I considered just using gate, but the way it is supposed to work is that it is not only one way, but allows the user to go anywhere they want. They just stand in the circle, think about where they want to go, and they suddenly appear there, so a gate that leads to one place wouldn't work either.

I have some ideas, I just don't know the right advantages to use, or at least, what ways to use them.

I was thinking Usable on others, no conscious control and uncontrolled, but I am not entirely sure how to go about all the details, simply because while it takes concentration, incantations, gestures, etc, to make it, once made, using it takes no time, so no one else has to spend that amount of time doing all the rituals and such, so I don't know how granting the powers to others would work, especially since I am possibly granting it to others beyond the original 8.

Any advice would be appreciated, and my thanks in advance.

Good day.

I was wondering, does weapon master on pg. 116 stack? By this I mean, if I bought +2d6 hka for all hth, +2d6 hka for blades, and +1d6 hka for swords, does that give me a total of +4d6 hka for blades, and +5d6 hka for swords, or do I have to choose?

Good day.

Basically the idea is that, the character drinks alcohol and gets extremely strong, but the down side is he loses Int for the duration of it, and then when he wakes up, he keeps the int loss, but also loses dex, presence, takes stun, and is weak to light and sound (basically a hangover). Would each of these be their own side effect, or would they all just be one side effect, like a package deal?

I am also trying to decide on how drinking water reducing the side effect would affect the cost

As a side not, what would the cost of not remembering anything over a given time fame, (i.e., black out drunk) be?

1)  The "Trigger" has to be "easily verifiable" with commonly possessed senses. For example, "Snapping your Fingers" or "Clicking your Heels" are legal Triggers, but "Thinking About Moving" is not. As such, you cannot define the Trigger as simply "Taking a Zero Phase Action", you have to define what that Zero Phase Action is.

 

2)  The fact that the Trigger Expires should not be considered to be worth any "Less Advantage" value on this power construct, because it doesn't cost you anything to set the trigger. However there is no reason to have to set a different trigger every time either; it could always just be "Clicking Your Heels" or "Snapping your Fingers", which would mean the actual advantage value remains the same.

 

3)  Zero Phase actions can only be performed at the beginning of your phase, or after a half phase action, they cannot ever be performed after an Attack. Adding or Removing Velocity are special Zero Phases actions which can each only be performed once per phase, so regardless of how you build the Trigger modifier you can still only activate the movement power once per phase; since you cannot deactivate the movement power until you reach 0 velocity, and you can't accelerate or decelerate twice in the same phase.

 

Beyond those points; As a GM I would probably never let a player purchase such a power construct (or anything remotely like it). The whole thing stinks of the worst sort of power-gaming

I know you only need to use the trigger to activate it, rather than for every 1m, but I am highly amused by the mental imagery of someone having to snap their fingers every time they take a step. Especially a speedster.

So, I have a question about this. Barring G.M. intervention, why would you ever not put resistant P.D. and E.D in a multipower together? They definitely similar enough to be considered viable for a multipower concept (rock character's tough body, flame character less tangible and more resistant to energy, etc.). Yet so often I see characters examples paying full price for both.

I see the Defense Powers section in 6E1 using Resistant P.D./E.D. in a multipower, and have found nothing to the contrary as yet. Am I missing something, or is this purely meant for game balancing reasons?

Default is that powers have to be automatically perceiveable by at least two sense groups, and barring specific GM permission, one of those groups has to be the sight group.

 

So questions to ask yourself:

 

Ca this guy set people on fire, with no one having any idea that he did it? For example, If I'm in a room full of witnesses and shoot someone (barring the unreliability of human perception) then it is obvious to everyone that I shot that guy. If it would require a perception roll to notice that I shot that guy, then that would be an inobvious power. And if no one could associate me with the sudden fact that the guy other there now has bullet holes in him, then that is an invisible power.

 

So, could your guy stand in a crowd, set some people on fire, and not be noticed doing it? If so, he probably has some form of IPE. If not, then it's just SFX, and despite how the power 'looks' the game effect is still that people can easily notice who is responsible.

 

Indirect:

When you use 'line of fire' are you talking literally about a line of fire, like if you were using a flamethrower, or something similar? Or are you meaning to use the specific rule term 'line of effect'? Lacking a literal 'line of fire' may or may not be some form of IPE. Not needing a legal 'line of effect' is some form of indirect.

 

Can your guy set people on fire through things that normally block line of effect, but not line of sight, like a thick pane of armored glass?

 

It it harder for him to set people on fire that are in cover?

Well, when I say line like a flame thrower, a lot of times I see fire powers described as shooting fire at someone, whereas this is just someone bursting into flames.

As for what I decided to use, based on the comments, I decided to go with indirect. Reason being is that the character is meant to be one of the top villains of the setting, and this is basically one of his main attacks, so I decided that it should be hard to stop, and went with an RKA rather than a normal blast. He has other abilities, including detecting life, so Indirect would suit it, and the intimidation factor would also suit the character given the theme.

Default is that powers have to be automatically perceiveable by at least two sense groups, and barring specific GM permission, one of those groups has to be the sight group.

 

So questions to ask yourself:

 

Ca this guy set people on fire, with no one having any idea that he did it? For example, If I'm in a room full of witnesses and shoot someone (barring the unreliability of human perception) then it is obvious to everyone that I shot that guy. If it would require a perception roll to notice that I shot that guy, then that would be an inobvious power. And if no one could associate me with the sudden fact that the guy other there now has bullet holes in him, then that is an invisible power.

 

So, could your guy stand in a crowd, set some people on fire, and not be noticed doing it? If so, he probably has some form of IPE. If not, then it's just SFX, and despite how the power 'looks' the game effect is still that people can easily notice who is responsible.

 

Indirect:

When you use 'line of fire' are you talking literally about a line of fire, like if you were using a flamethrower, or something similar? Or are you meaning to use the specific rule term 'line of effect'? Lacking a literal 'line of fire' may or may not be some form of IPE. Not needing a legal 'line of effect' is some form of indirect.

 

Can your guy set people on fire through things that normally block line of effect, but not line of sight, like a thick pane of armored glass?

 

It it harder for him to set people on fire that are in cover?

Right - if you want him to be able to ignore/bypass walls & barriers, then you need Indirect. If you don't care about that, it's just sfx. And regardless of whether or not it comes from him, if it's obvious he's the one causing it you don't need IPE.

 

Sidebar: personally I'm not a fan of the cost structure for Indirect - I think anything beyond +1/2 is way overpriced for the benefit you get. I usually just go with: +1/4 for either Source or Path and +1/2 for both. But I guess it depends on your game.

I'm with massey - so long as it's not functioning as an indirect attack or an invisible one then it's just a cool special effect. If the villain's hand glows as he uses it the attack meets all the criteria for being a standard attack.

 

Is it logical that a window will reduce the damage of this special effect? No. Will it unless you pay for indirect? Yes. 

If what you're trying to do is hit someone around a corner where you can't see them, then among other things you are going to need an Enhanced Sense of some kind with Targeting.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks there's a lot of uncertainty here about what is actually wanted

Well, when I say line like a flame thrower, a lot of times I see fire powers described as shooting fire at someone, or launching a ball of fire that explodes, whereas this is just someone bursting into flames.

As for what I decided to use, based on the comments, I decided to go with indirect. Reason being is that the character is meant to be one of the top villains of the setting, and this is basically one of his main attacks, so I decided that it should be hard to stop, and went with an RKA rather than a normal blast. He has other abilities, including detecting life, so Indirect would suit it, and the intimidation factor would also suit the character given the theme.

I am thinking of making a villain who uses things like hellfire, where they just lift their hand, and then the target(s) just bursts into flames, without a line of fire from him to the target, or from the ground. For multiple targets, just using area (selective) would work, but what should I use for a more powerful single target attack? Indirect? If so, should I go for the +3/4 or the +1? Or would invisible power effect be a better advantage?

Hello.

Just a question on barriers with the one way transparent advantage. (and to in a sense, some other advantages as a whole). If someone buys the advantage, and then makes a barrier, do they have to use that advantage every time. Say I buy a +1 One way transparent, so I can shoot out, while still being protected. However, later I want to englobe an enemy. Do I have to apply the advantage, making it so they can still fire out? Or can I simply say that I am making a non-transparent barrier with that use.

Also, in the same vein, can you buy One way transparent twice, once for each direction, for a total of +2, and then choose which direction you want it to be in each time?

Also, thanks for answering my last question.

Good day. I recently got into the game, and looking over some different books, I got a bit confused on something.

Today, I was looking over the master villains book, and saw Takofanes "Darkest Sorcery" VPP of 150 control and 150 pool, which would have a base cost of 225 CP. However, he also has the +2 Cosmic advantage and -1/4 magic only limitation, for a total of +1.75. From what I understand, that would make it (225*2.75) for a total of 618 CP. However, it says it costs him only 330 CP. Is this a misprint, or am I misunderstanding how the advantages and limitations calculations work?