PhilFleischmann

Of the ones mentioned so far, I agree with Men in Black II, Watchmen, and National Treasure. And maybe a half-agree with Joe Dirt.

My adult life began well before 2000. Do I have to look up the movies on Rotten Tomatoes? Do I have to make sure they're post-2000? That starts to feel like work. What is the point of restricting it to post-2000? And why is Rotten Tomatoes the standard? After five attempts, thinking of movies I liked that I remember being panned by critics, the closest I could find to qualifying was 8 Heads in a Duffle Bag (1997) 11% Tomatometer, 35% Audience score.

Something I often find useful - and it applies to sci-fi settings as well as fantasy - is to ask the question: What does it mean in *their* language? What would the sentient beings from another planet name their own planet? The Earth-based designation for the planet would be either the (Earth-based) name of the star, followed by the number of the planet around that star, or the name of the constellation (as seen from Earth), followed by a Greek letter indicating which star in that constellation (Alpha for the brightest, Beta for the second brightest, etc., and again - as seen from Earth), and then followed by the number of the planet (1 for the planet closest to the star, 2 for the next closest planet, etc.) But there's no way an alien race would name their own planet that way. We don't call our planet "Sol-3". We cal, it "earth", which means "dirt, soil, land". Chances are, most sentient races would name their planet with the word in their language for dirt/soil/land. Unless they're a primarily aquatic species, in which case they'd probably call their planet their word for water/sea. And what would they call themselves as a species? Probably some word which in their language means "people" or "humans" or however they designate sentient beings as distinguished from animals and plants and non-living things.

And people from Venus are Venereal.

Also, with regard to alien species, there are two possible sources for names, depending on what you really mean as the name for these people: Are they the specific species, or are they named after the planet where they're from? These are not necessarily the same thing. A human from the Mars colony could be called a Martian, which does not have to contradict being a Human. Likewise, two different sentient species from the planet of Ooban would have two different names, even if they're both "Oobanians". And of course, other flora and fauna, and anything else associated with the planet is also Oobanian. What are Earth-humans called in the campaign setting? Earthlings? Earthicans? Humans? Hoo-mahns? Terrans? Earthers?

All my characters are one-page. A second page might be used for illustration or more detailed background story. Because I customize the character sheet for each character, I can adjust the size of each section. A character with a lot of Skills and few Powers gets a larger Skill section and a smaller Power section. A martial artist will have many of the standard maneuvers left off the maneuver list. Let's face it - it's you can do a Martial Block, you're never going to do a regular Block. If you can do a Martial Strike, you're never going to to a regular Strike. etc. And also, I fill them out electronically, not hand-written, so the font can be relatively small, taking up less room on the page, and still be perfectly readable. A printed 10-point font is big enough to read easily, but significantly smaller than most people write by hand. And yes, a big bad megaboss, with a crapload of powers and skills and lots of other stuff, would probably take a second page, even with my format.

Let's see... Ferengi Klingon Romulan Borg Jem'hadar Vorta Hutt Wookiee Gungan Kree Skrull Chitari Shi'ar Pierson's Puppeteer Kzinti Conehead Gweenie -i is a reasonably common ending as well, with Earth-based equivalents like Pakistani. But it seems pretty much anything goes. Whatever sounds good. The same question could be asked about a fantasy setting: What do you call the people from this particular country or region? Well, in part it depends on how close to English the place name sounds. To use some examples from my own fantasy setting Place Name Demonym Adjective Virbenland Virbenlander Virbenlandic Neron Neronian Neronian Modro-Tonla Modro-Tonlan Modro-Tonlan Jasser Jasseri Jasserese Boo-Wa-Doki Dokian Boo-Wa-Dokian Gromingia Gromingian Groming

Looks very good for a general-purpose character sheet. As a general rule, I prefer more customized, specialized character sheets. But this one is very good for those who don't. Very readable and clear. I would second Doc Democracy's suggestion to make the lines in the various sections a light or medium gray instead of the same black color as the text and section division lines.

The three-forms version might be a possibility, but it does seem like buying a lot of the same abilities twice. Although if it's only +5 points, I have no problem with that! Yes, the two forms would have to be able to touch in order to recombine. And he would only split/recombine/change form in private anyway to preserve the secret. If the wizard is killed in "normal" wizard form, then he dies normally. If he dies in gargoyle form, it may be dramatically appropriate for the corpse to morph into the wizard. If one of the two forms dies while both are "active", then the other one remains alive, and presumably unable to change form.

I think I asked this question before, but it would have been a long time ago, and I can't find it now. And maybe the answer is different in 6e. First, a bit of background: This is for a wizard in a Fantasy Hero campaign. The wizard lives in his own tower within the big city. The public story is that he has a gargoyle assistant. The gargoyle is big and scary-looking, as gargoyles are, but the citizens know the gargoyle by now, and they're used to seeing him around, running errands for the wizard, and they know the wizard is a good guy, and so they trust that the gargoyle is "tame" and has never caused any problems. That's the public story. The truth is that the wizard *is* the gargoyle. It's a Multiform. When the wizard is in his human form, he has access to all of his usual magic, and when he's in gargoyle form, he loses access to much of the magic (say, at least half of it), but becomes bigger and stronger, gaining flight and some straight-forward combat abilities. Having gained some experience points, the wizard would like to re-work the gargoyle form as a Duplicate - with approximately 50% different abilities. Easy enough to do. However, what would really be nice is to have the option of being either duplicate, or both. In other words, when he recombines, he'd like to be able to be the gargoyle instead of the wizard some of the time. Should this cost extra? Should this just be a plain Duplication with an altered duplicate? Should this require some combination of both Multiform and Duplication? Paying full price for both seems way too expensive. I know in 5e you're no allowed to put either of these powers into a Multipower. Did this change in 6e? Did anything else about these powers change in 6e? The wizard would essentially have three forms: The normal wizard form, the gargoyle form, or both at the same time. And it may also wind up (depending on how the build works, that the "Both" form leaves both slightly less powerful than they'd be if he was just one or the other. In other words, as just the wizard, he may be very powerful, but when he also has his gargoyle duplicate active, some of his magic power is being used to sustain the gargoyle. Maybe.

I remember facing a villain whose standard MO was to 1) Make himself Invisible, 2) Project an Image of himself, 3) Use all his Attack powers bought with Indirect - they come from the Image. So all attacks against him have no effect at all. You have to figure out how he's doing it, and be able to see and target the invisible guy to defeat him.

We need more details to know how to build this. But it sounds a bit like a plain Multiform - each form looks identical, but has the various powers from each book. You wouldn't even need a Multipower or VPP.

This is something I've wanted to do also, but I'm sure I never will. One suggestion I would make it to have the heroes' efforts in each age contribute to the eventual ultimate victory. To give an example in basic, generic terms: In the Turakian Age, the heroes stumble upon the evil machinations of the bad guy, and search for any clues as to how to defeat him. In the Valdorian Age, the heroes find the Book of Prophecy (written by the heroes in the Turakian Age) which reveals the means to defeat the bad guy. In the Atlantean Age, the heroes gather the necessary materials to construct the MacGuffin (the instructions for which were left by the heroes in the Valdorian Age that will defeat the bad guy. In Tuala Morn, the heroes have to take the MacGuffin and store it somewhere where it will be unharmed until some point in the distant future when the right heroes will come along to find it and use it. By the time of Pulp Hero, all the previous knowledge of the Bad Guy and his plan and the MacGuffin has been lost - but the MacGuffin still exists, so the heroes discover it and must protect it from the (unknowing?) servants of the Bad Guy. In Champions, the scientific means exists to thoroughly investigate the MacGuffin and the whole story around it, and the heroes have to figure out exactly how to use it, and how to insure that it works. In Alien Wars, aliens make war,threatening to steal or destroy the MacGuffin. The heroes must make sure their long-term plan succeeds, even if they personally are defeated. In Terran Empire, the heroes must transport the MacGuffin to the place (in space?) where it will be able to do its thing. In Galactic Champions, the heroes activate the MacGuffin and finally defeat the Bad Guy. Or something like that. Season to taste.

I don't think this is a problem, since you can only use them one at a time anyway. Extra DCs for a maneuver you aren't using don't do anything. If you only have one maneuver that DCs can be added to, then it's probably more efficient to buy HA or limited STR instead of DCs.

This is something I've always thought should be available. How do you build a martial arts student? Someone who knows a little about a martial art, but isn't fully trained yet? The rules say you must buy at least 10 points worth of maneuvers. But that makes you a full-on martial artist, not an "apprentice-level" martial artist. You could simply buy fewer maneuvers, but that makes you just as good at whichever maneuvers you do buy as the full martial artist. A low-level wizard can buy a 1d6 RKA fireball, and then buy more DCs has he gets better at his art. A beginner can by a Familiarity with a Skill, and then buy it up to the full Skill when he learns more. But there's no way currently for a beginner martial artist to buy weaker versions of the maneuvers. My recommendation would be for an "in-progress" martial artist to pick out hs ten points worth of maneuvers (or more if he likes), and "buy them down" to a cost of 1-2 points instead of 3-5. Obviously, you do this by reducing the OCV/DCV/DC bonuses. You probably shouldn't increase an OCV/DCV penalty when doing this. For example, a Defensive Strike is +1 OCV and +3 DCV, and costs 5 points. If you reduce the OCV bonus to 0, and the DCV bonus to +2, it becomes a 2-point "Beginner's Defensive Strike". To reduce the price of full maneuvers to make beginner maneuvers, you shouldn't eliminate any other types of bonuses that are essential to the maneuver. For example, you can't remove the "Target Falls" element from a Martial Throw, because then it's not a throw anymore. Then presumably, the character will eventually add the points to the beginner maneuvers to make them into the full maneuvers.

It was generally not allowed to put Skills (including Skill Levels) in a Multipower. Is this something that changed in 6e? Skill Levels - especially those above 2 points, are their own sort of "multipower". They already have their flexibility built in. That's a way to think about it - Martial Arts are sort of like a power framework unto themselves.

No, I'm certainly not going to tell you you're doing it wrong. If that works for you and your character concept, got for it! If the maneuvers are sufficiently different from each other, it might even still be reasonably efficient. Perhaps especially if you've built some of them with the custom maneuver-building rules. I just mean that many of the maneuvers given are minor variants of each other, and it's probably not so efficient to buy two or more that are very similar. Like for example, you probably don't need to buy both the Martial Block, and the Defensive Block. But who knows? In this game, there can always be edge cases where such a thing might still be useful and maybe even efficient. ----- So here are some numbers: Say, 5 Martial Maneuvers at 3-5 points each. Call it 20 points. vs. 2 HtH Combat levels = 10 points, NND as a naked advantage on 10 STR = 10 points, +2d6 HtH damage = What's that going for these days? Another 10 points? More if you can also use it for Grab, Escape, Disarm, etc.? More if you want a Killing attack, or a Moving attack where you don't risk taking any damage. Martial Arts looks pretty efficient to me.

Let's see your numbers. Naked NND advantage applied to everything is a construct only used by Cheaty McCheaterson.

Let's see your numbers. For a few HtH skill levels and some extra dice of HtH damage, you can indeed have a lot of martial maneuvers. But you don't get: NND (Nerve Strike) HKA Escape Reversal Takedown/Trip/Throw (Target falls) Probably some others I've forgotten And BTW, nobody buys ten MA maneuvers. They buy four or five, maybe six or seven at the most. Beyond that you definitely get diminishing returns. Then they might buy levels with them, and extra DCs - for some very good returns.

I usually prefer to have luck (and unluck) affect something other than actual rolls. Dice rolls are luck already. Luck makes something entirely different happen, not just a better or worse roll of something that you're doing. Lucky (Very Lucky): The guy chasing you trips or stumbles. (He trips and sprains his ankle.) The guy chasing you in a vehicle is cut off by a truck coming in from a side street. (The truck hits his vehicle.) You fall in water instead of on concrete. (You land on a stack of mattresses.) Normal in the crowd distracts the enemy you're fighting. (Normal throws something, throwing off the enemy's aim of his BFG.) Unlucky: Well, pretty much the same as the above, except flipped. And yes, combat re-rolls are also a legitimate use of Luck/Unluck. But there should be a narrative reason for it. "I was fighting Professor Evil, and I rolled a 16, but then my Luck kicked in and I re-rolled a 4!" vs. "I was fighting Professor Evil, and my shot would have missed, but he was distracted by a bug flying around his face. So he swatted at it, rather than keeping he eye on me and avoiding my blaster!" It suddenly occurs to me that it might be useful to have a handy table of lucky/unlucky things that might happen to justify rerolls and their results. Each GM can write one up in advance based on the genre and campaign circumstances. Then they can easily refer to it and pick an appropriate one, rather than having to make them up on the fly, risking always coming up with the same thing.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I sometimes allow my players to take "Fate Packages" for their characters. That's 1d6 of Luck and 1d6 of Unluck - for free. It doesn't count against character point limits or Complication limits. And they can take more than one d6 of "Fate", but usually no more than 3d6. And they're rolled on the same dice. This represents characters that have more wacky, unpredictable things happen to them than others.

I remember all those combo pole arms from the deendee charts that all had highly detailed stats because the were all so importantly different from each other - yet without any illustrations or even descriptions of what the heck they are. "So whatdya got?""Well, there's glaive-guisarme, glaive-fauchard-guisarme, glaive-spetum, halberd-spetum, glaive-guisarme-halberd-spetum, spetum-voulge-fauchard-spetum, spetum-voulge-spetum-halberd-fauchard-guisarme-spetum, lucerne hammer and spetum, Bohemian ear spoon and spetum, spetum-spetum-mancatcher-spetum, spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum-khopesh-spetum-spetum-spetum-spetum, and a double-bladed dwarven urgosh with a removable balanced throwing pommel, spring-loaded poisoned dagger blade, sharpened quillions, blood grove, retractable sling and built-in carrying case for a dozen bullets and a bore down the length of the whole thing that you can use as a blowgun and spetum.""Have you got anything without spetum?""Well, there's spetum-voulge-fauchard-spetum. That's not got much spetum in it."etc.

I like the concept, but this list, and some of the maneuvers offer way too much flexibility to offer to everyone for free. Maybe it might be appropriate in certain types of campaigns, like a Noir Hero where everyone has some familiarity with HtH fighting. Many of these are not necessary or appropriate for a non-trained fighter. For example: Escape - you can already attempt an escape from a grab for free. Your maneuver allows a free +5 STR that an untrained fighter really doesn't deserve. The -1 DCV doesn't mean much, since you're already grabbed. Reversal - a normal person can already do a reversal: First, you escape from the grab, then you grab. If you want to do this as one maneuver, you have to have some martial arts training. Shove - a normal person can use his STR to shove. He shouldn't get any extra STR in exchange for OCV/DCV penalties. He hasn't paid for that extra flexibility in his combat choices. Likewise with all the various strikes. Non-martial artists use normal strikes. They don't know how to do nerve strikes and joint breaks and killing strikes, etc. There are a few that seem good to me, since they're reasonably realistic for an untrained person to attempt: Flash - anybody can try to poke someone in the eye. Flying Grab - Flying Tackle - Grappling Block - Sacrifice Throw - These all seem like realistic things an untrained fighter might try to do to stop an adversary from pushing The Big Red Button. As long as you've got working arms and legs, you can try to do these things. Just like you might take a flying lunge to try to catch the priceless Ming vase or test tube full of SuperVirus before it breaks on the floor.

It can only be used against you if it's Universal. If it's not, then it can't. But if someone can grab it and maybe yank it out of your hand, then it's definitely Accessible. Or even if they can hold onto it and prevent you from using it - then it could be Restrainable instead. If it automatically teleports back into your hand whenever you want it, then it's not a Focus at all. If it flies back to your hand whenever you want it, even if someone else is holding it tightly, then it's not a Focus, but if the lock it in a bank vault, and that prevents it from coming back to you, that might be worth a -1/4.

OAF, just like a gun. But don't put the Charges limitation on it. If someone grabs the shaft of the spear, you can't throw it, can you? If someone is grabbing the barrel of your gun, you can't aim it. Can it be grabbed? Is it indeed a physical thing that's just held in your hand? Returning to you is just the special effect of not having limited uses (Charges). Mechanically, it's no different than a gun with effectively unlimited ammo. A regular thrown spear is an OAF with 1 Recoverable Charge.