FOUNDATION

This is a followup on my "Mental Paralysis vs. Desolidification" posting from yesterday... Does your previous response mean that the entangled target could use, say, flight if that power involved no actual use of their muscles. I'm thinking of something like the "Tuning" flight used in the movie "Dark City" where the flight is performed entirely through force of will. For other forms of flight, ones that require the use of wings, or pressing a button on a jet pack, etc. the victim is obviously stuck. If the "force of will" flight is allowed, what about a flight that is activated mentally and is controlled by leaning one direction or another? Could such a person, if mentally paralyzed, activate the flight? If they could, they would presumably not remain in the air for very long seeing as how they would have no control - but it might enable them to come crashing down a couple of inches from where they started.

The FAQ says that Desolidification cannot be used to escape from a "Mental Paralysis" entangle. My question is whether or not the power can be used at all. In other words, if someone is hit with a mental paralysis, can they go desolid in order to prevent their being hit by other attacks (that do not affect targets that are desolid). The target would still be entangled, they'd just be desolid now.

Re: Another "would you allow this in your campaign" question... I agree with your argument. The nature of this power, though, is more like an energy blast that produces effects that resemble that of a Taser (minus the physical effects that you describe). I used "Taser Effect" as the description simply because the power produced effects that were similar to a Taser. The power's delivery mechanism of said attack, though, is entirely different. What I wanted to know is if people thought this power was unbalanced. If the target does not have a particularly high EGO, and the power does indeed prevent the target from doing anything, this entangle could be mighty difficult to break out of without outside help. Without the expensive BOECV advantage, the "Works against EGO, not STR" seems a pretty potent advantage for +1/4. I was just wondering if others felt the same way.

This one deals with an entangle that only goes part way towards being the "Mental Paralysis" power described in page 110 of 5e... •2D6 Entangle “Taser Effect†No damage from attacks + .5 Works on Ego, not Str + .25 Can’t esc. w/teleport + .25 No barriers - .25 The idea behind this power is that it's an electrical shock that short circuits the brain - preventing the target from doing anything until they recover (which is abstracted by their using Ego to break out). As such, it does not have BOECV - since the attack is physical, but does have the "Works against Ego..." advantage as that seems appropriate for the power. For mental paralysis, the book indicated that mental attacks could also be used to break the entangle. Given the SFX of this power, would it be unbalancing to say that the target can use *only* Ego to break out seeing as how the "scrambling" of their brain prevents them from using any other ability? (obviously, this entangle could still be attacked by other people - assuming that they have the appropriate abilities e.g. appropriate mental powers)

As a followup to my previous vehicle/VPP question (the post I made just previous to this one), what about limitations on the powers in the vehicle? I guess what I'm asking is what are the numbers, when putting together a vehicle (out of a VPP) that apply against the VPP's pool limit? It it the active costs of all of the vehicle's powers, the real cost before you divide by five or the real cost after you divide by five?

If you purchase a vehicle through a VPP, does the point cost of the vehicle need to fit into the VPP before or after you divide its cost (of the vehicle) by five?

Seeing as how the rules state that you should never have a framework inside of a framework, does that mean that any vehicle purchased through a VPP cannot have frameworks of any kind? The case in point is a VPP that belongs to a base - allowing the characters to cull together a gadget or three prior to a given adventure.

Re: Would you allow this in your campaign? One point that I missed in my original description of the power was that this was primarily designed to knock down agents - not other supers (at least for the time being).

I'd like some input from any of you willing to provide it. Is the following use of "triple knockback" reasonable? Fifth ed. correctly recommends against allowing anyone to purchase "double knockback" more than once for a given power. The kicker here is that it's for knockdown only. As such, the cost for this advantage has been reduced from the regular "+3/4" to "+1/2" per use. Think the classic Incredible Hulk manuver where he hits the ground and everybody in a given area around him falls down... •5D6 EB “Seismic Slam†Explosion + .5 Triple Knockdown +1 Knockdown only – no KB Personal Immunity + .25 Extra time - Full Phase - .5 Only targets on surface - .5 No Range - .5 Requires both hands - .5 I feel that Double knockdown for this is reasonable - but what about triple knockdown? How would you feel about allowing this into your Champions campaign? I have not had a chance to check out the Ultimate Brick, so for all I know, this is described there.

If you want to make a wall (for a base) resist Teleportation, do you need to add an adequate number of levels of hardened to counter the levels of AP that a Teleportation power has or do you need to use (an adequate number of levels of) "Cannot be Escaped with Teleportation" or can you go with either? "Cannot be Escaped..." is listed in both the Entangle and Teleportation power descriptions. The latter one (5th ed., Page 150) says that it can be applied to walls. As both advantages are the same cost, it seems that if either one can be applied (to stop Teleportation), it seems you get a bigger bang for your buck by going with Hardened since you get the additional advantage of stopping AP damage-causing attacks as well.

Following up on my earlier post ("rounding question") and your response, the rounding description on page 2 of the core rule book uses a single decimal digit of precision. If you're using, say three digits of precision, does that mean that... 10.499 rounds to 10? 10.501 rounds however the player wants it to? 10.599 rounds however the player wants it to? 10.600 rounds to 11?

I looked in the FAQ and found several entries on rounding, but could not find one that quite covers this topic. If you end up with a fractional real cost for a power, what are the guidelines for rounding? examples: 10.4 presumably rounds to 10 10.9 presumably rounds to 11 what about 10.5, 10.51, 10.56 or 10.6? Mathematically, they all round to 11. Is this also true in the hero system?

Alas, the player wants images. He wants the armor to always be active (which kills the "only in hero ID" option) and, though aware of the inherent drawbacks to using images (as it has been previously described), is willing to go with it anyhow.

Clarification: The use of images is intended to conceal all foci (within the "clothes" area of the person) when in use AND when not in use. This includes the obvious images focus itself (5th ed says you can do this, but that others *may* get a +1 (or more) to their perception roll). Obviously, their powers will not be concealed. In other words, the character's "clothes" will still appear to afford the same apparent level of protection as does his armor, he'll still appear to be running really fast if he uses his enhanced running (purchased through his armor), etc. From what I saw in the FAQ, when a character is invisible, obvious foci are invisible as well - unless they use a focus (such as a sword) in an attack (the sword then becomes visible for that phase). So from what it sounds to me like you saying, and given the above clarifications, you don't think that hiding obvious foci behind and image (in this manner) is unreasonable?

This kind of reminds me of Scorpion (I think that was his name) from Mortal Kombat.