Zarthose

Hi Beast, Tommy here. I like your build. Just some ideas, of no real value. Maybe shave some CON, add something to body. maybe 4 levels of striking appearance is to much...with a 20 PRE you are HOT, with one level of striking appearance, you are very hot, . that's 6-9 points that you could trim...and still always be the hot woman. On the strength, change the 12< role to 14<,...its still a 1/4x disadvantage. Disguise at 3 points seams risky...after all...you have a complication about being noticeable. Possible ideas on what to do with extra points. Make a small multi power. one slot is your rattle, another might be a EB, stun only...so you have a non leathal option? Another might be a flash( vs hearing) both still in a cone. Maybe consider positive rep...You are an accomplished singer. a good rep adds to Pre roles, just like more attractiveness. Maybe some DMCV levels or mental shield? currently you are a great tank, but defenseless vs psyics. Again, these are just spitballing ideas

I see I missunderstood the meaning of this advantage....does this mean i still need indirect to reach through walls? If so, what level?

I'm building a martial artist with 2M of streaching, does not cross intervening space. Can I face someone, and punch them in the back of the head? Or do I need indirect for that option?

Can you combine Teleport with passing strike? Allowing yourself to make a full move and to strike at a target somewhere along the path?

You seam to have completely missed my point, I'll try again. You cite the 3 different names, each one clearly defined in your mind. The REST of this thread is filled with people who have their OWN ideas what those mean, some of whom agree with you, many who do not. Thus no consensus. The consensus part means that if you don't have a clear majority, and have no position of power ( like you designed the game for example) Then you are just pushing your own definitions on others, with no basis. If you read the OP, then you would know some call me a power gamer...So clearly that guy has different standards then you do. If you have no agreement on what terms mean, then you cannot have any meaningful conversation about said topic. Example Guy X says "Power gamers are bad", meaning the people who soend one point to have a planet killing power Guy Y says "Power Gamers can be fine" meaning the guy who buys Dex at 18 is not broken, hes just using his points efficiently> Nether is talking about the same thing, though both are useing the same labels

I'm glad I was able to make a post that engaged people. Many of you brought some great ideas to the discuession, others I felt brought some assumptions. That does not mean thier opinions lacked value. I do feel it is an assumption to think everyone uses, or MUST use your definitions. Since there have been almost as many answers as posts, I feel I can conclusively say there is no solid defination of what is a power gamer, minmaxer or efficient builder. Though I do feel the "efficient" builder probably falls on ther weaker side vs "min/maxer or power gamer". I feel it might be more accurate to state how YOU define these terms for yourself, as opposed to stating these terms must apply for everyone. There is clearly a fluid dynamic here since if you pulled out a module and presented it at 2 different tables I strongly suspect any given character might fall on weak, sweet spot and overpowered based more on the table then any arbatery set of numbers. If your character is two powerful for the table, then its bad, if he's too weak, IT's bad. If there are 5 characters all with an average defense of 25-35, then rolling in with a 10 is gonna be a problem just as much as rolling in with a 60. Since tyhe nature of the game rewards efficiency, and everybody likes to win, people will naturally buy powers, skills and stats a good break points, and like others have pointed out there are other ways that can be unbalancing...the guy with no flaws, and perfectly well rounded for example. I started the discussion hoping to find some outside metric that might help me decide if I was power gaming, min maxing or just being efficient. The clear answer now is those labels are meaningless...since there is no universal agreement on their meaning, and their is also not outside metric as to what is "to much" or "just right" or " not enough"...People will judge that based on how well your character plays in game...yet a skilled player can frequently wring far more from a character then someone will less experience or imagination...thus further mudding the waters on whats powerful or not. I do feel better after reading all the answers, and I hope others will keep in mind that the character they find overpowering will be a wimp at someone eleses table. This requires more oversite from the DM, and open communication between the players then just flat numbers.

I am glad I sparked an interesting debate, though I never expected to touch on normal human maxima. The conclusion I am drawing is power gaming is bad only in comparison to your table. At my table my OCV and DVC are in the expected range, my character would peek out at 14d6 vs 17d6 for the most powerful, my defenses are the weakest at the table( not by much) with fewer stun and con then most...but with a potential better DCV. I would have zero ranged attacked, but a a unlimited number of different MA attacks ( VPP Taskmaster style). Unclevlad made 2 examples of power gaming, and I thought it was funny because one example ( combining many smaller powers to get an unfair discount on a larger linked power) is in use at the table, and his other example is similar to my use of the VPP, though his example is more powerful. As to discounts on powers, when I DM...I ALWAYS make them come up, a 1/4 discount SHOULD appear in 1 out of 4 games. When my frequently used "unified" gets me drained down to crap...when I dam well used those extra points in all the other games, sometimes you gotta pay the price. I should say that if you build and play the "prefect" character, then you are denied many of the best story's and tropes. If you NEVER get captured, your escape artist and lock picking skills are less fun. I ALWAYS build in some major flaws, it helps the DM feel in control, and the other players not feel overpowered. I also never fear using ANY disadvantage you get points for to screw you over ( not excessively). The Thing is ugly, Daredevl cannot see through glass, and Wanda is a mutant ( some people hate mutants). In our current game, the least optimized player was clearly the MVP last week, his crappy OCV did not matter when he area entangled a villian, and the overpowered blaster killed a villian with his attack( just to powerful) and that arguably was a fail.

Spence, 1st let me apologies for my mistake, I thought I was posting stretching, but my spellcheck decided to intervene. I respect your opinion, but disagree. Meaning I do not believe a good design idea is not incompatible with a good story. Clearly some people can min max, and role play, while others excel at one OR the other, but they are not incompatible. As others have said, degree matters, as does the power level of the table. I personally prefer to leave lots of holes in my character ...hopefully not fatal ones. This means there are many areas where I fail and other teammates shine, as well as roleplaying restrictions that also leave me vulnerable. I never mind flaws, I feel they are critical to a fun character, as is learning to overcome them in good gameplay. But my real question remains, is it "bad" to build with the mechanics of the game in mind? BTW, the current power gamer at the table does excellent roleplay. and I have been DMing the group for the past 6 months. I ALSO fall in that category, and will now be able to play, so I'm excited, but leery.

I'm sorry if I did not make that clear, its ALWAYS the GM's call. Thats not in question. That question is not that, but weather or not a design philosophy is bad. A short while ago I met a guy ( not this DM) who felt that ANY discount on your powers was like cheating, further more buying your stats at good break points was "gaming the system". While I disagreed with him, the next guy makes me question it. I felt the first guy was a hypocrite, because my use of that was criticized, while HE was the the only person at the table who did not use it...meaning I would have been the only player chastised for doing what everyone else was doing. The current DM is is a nice reasonable guy. But it still makes me think. Is it gaming the system to chose a DEX18 instead of 17...because the break point works out better? Clearly you might be more likely to face someone who has a DEX 19...just to beat all the min maxers, but thats also fair to me. Its not a particular power or combo I am asking about, but weather or not its "wrong, cheating, min/maxing" ect to always aim for the beat results for your points?

Is it ethically wrong to work your character in a way that takes the most advantage of the system? I'm not talking about spending 1 point to mega scale kill a planet, I mean Like spiderman having a IIF for his multipower webs with tons of charges? Is it wrong to use the system to avoid endurance costs and getting a discount on his MP with something that only rarely comes up ? In my case my DM asked me if getting screeching ( reach weapon) while being invisible was gaming the system or not. I felt it was not, but as I'm the guy planning on it, maybe I'm biased. This character would by no means be unbalanced for the table. Other players would for example have area attacks, or extra senses that would allow them to ignore my invisibility...So I assume our opponents would also have equal access. What do you guys think?

Thank you for the input. The current game I am running has no damage cap, and the intended user is a NPC...so cost and effectiveness do not play a part. This is more about their theme. Also, everyone at the school ( setting) is expected to learn MA...and multipowers are limited severely in game. This is to prevent blurring of roles...I didn't want everyone to fly/be invisible, have 7 different attacks ect. So it looks like a naked advantage would be the way to go, or a 1 pip HTH 2x knockback...which would convert all DC , but not always have to be on. I was just hoping for something that was not a cheesy dodge, or the worst buy possable

Hi guys, if I made a character with a 40 strength and used a fast attack ( +2 DC) and +1 HTH damage class....The norm is 11DC and roll 3D6 to subtract for knockback. The question I have is if his strength is bought with an advantage 2x knockback(+1/2), am I reducing his MA damage to 2DC but doubling his body for knockback to reflect his advantage on his Str...or am I figuring it as 8DC strength ( thus 16DC for knockback) + 3dc from MA...since the MA did not pay for the advantage? A third possibility is I have to pay for the advantage on the MA as well...but now that is crazy expensive, so expensive, its an unplayable option For comparison I bring up lets say HTH attack. Buy 2D6 and Armor piercing , on that guy an unmodified 40 strength ( 8DC) now would have 2DC AP+ 6 1/2 DC for a total of 8 1/2 DC that is all AP...effectively getting a choice of base damage or AP damage while only applying the actual costs to 2DC of powers.

While I prefer the 6th edition, one ellement I dislike is how trasfer never fits in a multipower anymore. If its outside, the disadvantages acn equal the advantages...and net zero...but the active ponts frequently prevent this from being a viable choice...even when the real points are reasonable

Hello Barton, I saw your post and wondered what the rules were when you did play? Is this a trimed down version of 6th? How many points are you building with? What kinds of limits if any are you using? What makes it "teen heros" to you?

Hi guys, I am winding down that campain and starting another. We have a full roster, but if anyone leaves I will surly return here and post