PhilFleischmann

I don't own 6e. Has the price of All Combat Skill Levels gone up from 8 to 10 points? Is a +1 OCV with one attack CSL still 2 points? Or has that gone up, too? Is +1 for OCV/DCV or increasing damage with three attacks or a tight group still 3 points, or has that gone up? You were the one suggesting that "Only for OCV" should be a -1 limitation, making them exactly half the price. Are you changing that stance? That might be true only if your opponents are the sole determinants of the nature of the combat. A character does have some control over the tactics he chooses. You can choose to pick up the hot coal without permission from your enemy. But you don't set the limitation value on your own. The GM is involved, too. That's why I said "normal" circumstances. If you set your "Not in an Intense Magnetic Field" at -2, you're asking the GM to put intense magnetic fields all over the campaign world. If the GM doesn't want to do that, then you don't get to take it as a -2 limitation.

You don't halve the OCV, you halve the dice roll. Like I said, I don't use this system, so it's also possible that I got the math wrong. Let's see now. OCV 7 vs DCV 7 means 11- to hit, 5- to crit. With roll-high, it should come out to 10+ to hit and 16+ to crit. I roll a 16, plus my OCV of 7 gives me 23, so I hit a DCV of 13 or lower. If my roll had only been 8, 8+7=15, so I would have hit a DCV of 5. Well, that didn't work, so I obviously did something wrong. My first thought is that since 3d6 only goes down to 3, not to 1, you might have to add another 2 to compensate. That would work for this case, getting a crit on a DCV of 7. Let's see if that works in the other cases: OCV 9 vs DCV 7 means 13- to hit, 6- to crit. Roll-high means it should be 8+ to hit and 15+ to crit. I roll 15, plius OCV 9 = 24 so I hit a DCV of 14 or lower. If my roll was only 7 (7.5 rounded down), 7+9+2 = 18, so I would have hit a DCV of 8 or lower, which means I crit the DCV 7 target with my roll of 15. But I would have gotten that same crit if I had rolled only 14, which also halves to 7, so I'm still off. I'll have to work this out. This calls for a little bit of algebra. I'll get back to you.

Yes, but the choice of +2 OCV or +2 DCV or +1 of each is significantly less useful than +4 of OCV. But it does not remove at least half the utility. It only removes at least half the flexibility. A single combat skill level that provides +1 OCV to a single attack is 2 points according to the rules. If we multiply this flexibility by 9 - allowing it to work with 3 different attacks, and to be added to OCV, DCV, or damage, costs only 3 points according to the rules. Is it your opinion that +1 OCV.DCV/damage with any three attacks should cost 18 points? Or say, at least 6 points? Well, if the bad guy is on the other side of that barrier, it may make a big difference if you get through it in one phase, or if you give him a full minute to get away, or harm hostages, or commit some other mayhem, or warm up his doomsday device. I don't know what the proper solution is for this situation. It's probably a subject for a different thread. It's not simply about the number of energy SFX in the game, it's also about what that allows the character to do. If I'm effectively immune to fire, I can pick up a hot coal and throw it at my opponent who isn't immune to fire. I can stand in the middle of a fire to make my presence attack (holocaust cloak, anyone?). I can direct my efforts against the enemy with the flamethrower, while my friend concentrates on the guy with the cold weapon. I don't know where that is listed, but I would never rate those two limitations the same, unless the campaign world had lots of intense magnetic fields in it for some reason. Off hand, under most "normal" circumstances, I'd probably call "Only in Daylight" a -1/2, and "Not in an intense magnetic field" a -0. I remember a GM who threw in a villain that generates an intense magnetic field himself, just to knock out the powers of any cheese-weasels who take that as a limitation. BTW, in my real life, I've encountered an intense magnetic field only once - at a university's chemistry lab, where they had a very powerful electromagnet that would erase the magstripes on your credit cards in your pocket if you came within about 20 feet of it.

That's an easy enough calculation. 5- is equivalent to 16+. With the roll high system, instead of looking at the roll and halving it, you can look at the DCV you could have hit with half your OCV. If your OCV is 10 and your 3d6 roll is 11, then your "roll total" is 10 + 11 = 21. That hits a DCV of 21-10 = 11 or less. If you could have hit the target with a roll total of only 10+(11/2) = 15.5, rounding down to 15, then it's a critical hit. I generally don't use the "Half or less" system for critical hits. I usually use "Natural 3" for criticals, which would be Natural 18 in a roll-high system. I don't use (or have) any of those Hexman dice (as nice as they might be). Do you use them for damage dice as well? Because in that case, rolling a lot of Hexmen is not a good thing, despite the "pop".

That's precisely my point. +4 with OCV only is far from the same as choosing between +2 with either OCV or DCV. But we're not talking about Dodging or breaking through a barrier,* We're talking about making Multiple Attacks. Just like a power that only works during the day is not remotely helpful if it's night.** A Blast is not helpful if your opponent is virtually immune to that particular special effect, A character built around levels with OCV will probably not be doing as much Dodging as other characters Limits to flexibility are far less limiting than limits to raw power. * Speaking of breaking through barriers, can you use Multiple Attack against a barrier? If Mr, Punch wants to punch a hole through a wall, he could punch, say, 5 times in a single phase, assuming he has the END to spend. The -8 OCV is unlikely to matter against a stationary wall. As long as you have END and an attack that can get at least one BODY through the DEF of a barrier, Multiple Attacks mean that barriers don't have to slow you down for more than a single phase. **You don't give a -1 limitation for "Only Works During the Day" do you?

I think the distinction is the actual effect. Flash affects the sensory organs of the target, whereas Darkness affects the environment. If I've got sunglasses to protect me from bright lights being shines in my eyes, that's not going to help me see through thick fog and smoke. If I can smell with the accuracy of a bloodhound, I'm going to be affected differently by having raw garlic shoved up my nose as opposed to having a strong wind blow away all traces of scent. Flash and Darkness do different things. I think they need to remain different powers. However! You could certainly make the case for folding Darkness into Change Environment, as Duke Bushido mentions. In essence, that's what Darkness is - a change to the environment.

I think this is a problem right here. If a level that only works with OCV is a -1 limitation, then that means that two levels with OCV are of the same value as one level that can be used with either OCV or DCV (or damage). IME, this is not the case. This is a matter of flexibility vs. raw power. In every other part of this game, raw power costs more than flexibility - which is as it should be. Increasing your Blast from 10d6 to 20d6 costs 50 points, but making it into a multipower with a 10d6 Blast and a 10d6 Flash only costs 10 points. Likewise, limitations that limit flexibility are not nearly as limiting as limiting raw power.

Big cities like New York have the highest concentration of superheroes. Despite this, they also have the highest crime rates.

The same people that say a manticore is supposed to have a human face. The same people who say dragons breathe fire. The same people who say giants are very large. The same people who say pixies are very small. The same people who say dragons have four legs and wyverns have two. The same people who have defined the fantasy genre for centuries. You already know this. Dragons with boobs, cat legs, human pecs and abs, etc., disrupts my willful suspension of disbelief and seems to me to belong more in the superhero genre than the fantasy genre. Dragons that look like mammals lose some of their unique fearsomeness.

And a dragon is supposed to be a reptile, which a cat is not. Now the picture above is deliberately designed to be a lion-like dragon. It's a choice the artist made, which is fine. But if you're trying to draw a traditional,reptilian, lizard-like dragon, then don't give it cat legs.

Sure, if you want your dragons to look like big cats with scales, then go ahead. And if an artist knows how to draw cats, but doesn't care to study the anatomy of any other animal, and thus draw dragons like cats, that's their choice. I understand, I'm lazy, too, and I'm not a good artist either. But I really don't like when dragons look like cats. I really don't like when dragons have human-like abs. I'd say he looks like a dinosaur. At least somewhat based on one. And of course, it depends on which depiction you're referring to. But even in the original movies with the guy in the foam rubber suit, Godzilla doesn't have cat-like legs or human-like abs.

The difference between skills and talents (lower case) for your character(s) is whatever you want it to be. The difference between Skills and Talents (upper case), is the way the Hero System constructs them.

Reptiles have boobs because many artists either don't know how to draw reptiles, or they're so used to making commercialized art to sell as much as possible that they feel compelled to put boobs of everything in an attempt to catch the eyes of potential customers. But of course, character sheets and illustrations aren't intended to sell products, but to represent characters with sufficient verisimilitude. Mammaries are found on mammals (that's why they're called mammals), not on reptiles, or birds, or fish, or arthropods, or mollusks, or coelenterates. Don't get me wrong: I like boobs as much as anyone, and I certainly understand it if you want to put a babe in a chainmail bikini on the cover of your fantasy RPG book to help is sell better. But make sure she's a mammalian race, not a drakine or seshurma. I've seen many illustrations of dragons in particular that really annoy me, and indicate that the artist didn't put much thought into what a dragon is. And not just with regard to boobs, but with regard to the entire body and muscular and skeletal system. So many modern illustrations of dragons have mammal-like legs - legs with the same structure as that of a dog or cat, but with scales. 😠 NO! Dragon legs should look reptilian. Artists, please, please, please: if you're going to draw dragons, study lizards and alligators, and dinosaurs, and other reptiles. Notice what their legs look like, and how they are very different from the legs of mammals. And while you're at it, study their tails and torsos as well. I've seen dragon illustrations that have six-pack abs like a human. 🤬 NO! And yes, I've even seen nipples on a dragon's chest. 😫 And they probably shouldn't have horns that look like those of cattle or goats, either.

There are a number of benefits already available for taking one's time. The most obvious being Holding one's action for a great advantage in flexibility and the ability to react to whatever has happened, but there are others, such as Set and Haymaker.

I've always preferred a roll-high system. The "Stealth +2" notation that Doc Democracy mentions works very well and is more intuitive, IMO. I understand the idea of the roll-low system, because when you express the roll as "X or less", the higher the X is, the better. But that's the same as "+X to the roll, trying to hit a target number of 10 (or higher)" - again, the higher the X, the better. For a combat to hit roll, you just have to roll at least the target's DCV+10 on your 3d6+OCV. "+10" is pretty easy to calculate - easier than working out "I rolled an 8, and my OCV is 9, so I hit a DCV of (9+11-8=) 12 or lower."

Is there any in-game benefit to having the weapon teleport to him as opposed to just having whatever weapon he wants? If not, then it's probably best built as a VPP as Grailknight says, with limitations "Weapons Only" (I'd call that a -1/2 at least, or maybe more like -1), and maybe another limitation for "Only Weapons Previously Touched" - maybe -1/4 depending on how many weapons he's touched, and how easy it is to touch more, and the variety of weapons available in the campaign world (to reflect that you can't just make up a weapon that serves the purpose of the moment that doesn't already exist). Instantly teleporting object to you is just an in-game SFX description. It's not what the Teleport power is for. If there's an added advantage - like taking away a weapon from someone else's possession, then it would need a more complicated build. If you want to use Grabthar's Hammer from a half-a-world away, and Grabthar is in the middle of a fight and suddenly his hammer disappears from his hand, he's going to feel right put out. If this is never going to happen in the game - or at least not in any way that affects the character, then don't worry about it. If the GM uses this as a plot device once in a great while, or as a justification for "Hunted by Grabthar", then don't worry about it. But if you can, in the middle of a combat, cause your immediate opponent's weapon to disappear from his hand and appear in yours, that's a big power that's going to cost you more points. Maybe a TK-Grab, ot a Teleport, Usable as Attack, or something like that.

The main thing to watch out for when reducing the skill list (combining multiple skills into one) is the relative usefulness of skills. If you combine Acrobatics, Breakfall, and Climbing into one skill (for example), it's now about three times as useful as any one of the skills was before. Should it still cost the same as a single skill that wasn't combined with two others? Like say Contortionist? And if some skills are more useful than others, they should probably cost more than others. In some long-ago edition, the skills did indeed have different costs. Acrobatics costed 10 points, and included Breakfall and Climbing (IIRC). So they broke it apart so that all skills would be roughly equally useful and would all cost 3 points for the base CHA-based roll. Yes, simplicity is a good thing, and a fine goal to strive for. But which kind of simplicity do you want: the simplicity of all skills having equal utility/cost, or the simplicity of having fewer skills on the list?

Anyone about my age remember Dr. Shrinker? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-XSFPMGIqg

Yeah, naked advantages can be used as a way to get a munchkin build past a confused GM. For example: 60 Point MP 6 12d6 Blast 6 4d6 RKA 6 6d6 Blast AoE 6 6d6 Flash 30 Naked Advantage: Armor Piercing to add to any slot in the above Multipower. PURE CHEESE. Player earns a slap in the face.

Has anyone ever seen or used a Drain Growth or Suppress Growth? Are there any published characters with Drain Growth or Suppress Growth? I'd say it's worth a -1/20 limitation at the very most. If you only use multiples of 1/4 for your limitations, then it rounds down to -0.

I can see how it would be a "headache" in a LARP, if you tried to do multiple attacks or a combined attack in one "phase". But on the table top, the dice are no harder to roll, and the damage no harder to count and track.

I haven't seen anyone so far say that the Combined Attack rule is a headache. The only claim against it I've seen up to now is that it's "unbalanced" or "unfair". I don't see any way in which it's a headache - not any more so than any other use of multiple powers, whether in the same phase or different phases. If I use attack A in one phase and attack B in the next phase, I'm doing the exact same thing as I would if I used them both in the same phase. I'm rolling the same dice, subtracting the same defenses, spending the same END. One might argue that it's actually less of a headache, since I'm making one fewer attack rolls. Our Hero, Aspirin Man has a 60-point "Walk" power, and a 60-point "Chew Gum" power. And he simply decides to use them both at the same time. No headache.

No single table will ever include all the objects and creatures you might want. However, for individual objects and creatures, there's probably an internet around here somewhere that can tell you the dimensions and weight of an elephant, a door, or an aircraft carrier.

That's because most characters either have only one attack power, or have all their attack powers in a Multipower so they can only use one at a time anyway. Multipowers make for very efficient buys with a lot of flexibility.

What is it you want these cantrips to do? A Power Skill, in addition to the spellcaster's array of spells, might cover it. Can you cast a Fireball spell? Then with a "Cantrip" Skill Roll, you can light a fire without burning the house down. Have an Illusion spell? Then with a Cantril roll, you can make a small projected image for illustrative or entertainment purposes. Have a spell to keep everyone warm in the cold weather? Then you can make a cantrip roll to warm up a plate of food. If you want to telekinetically fetch your spellbook from across the room as a cantrip, then you should probably be required to have some TK spell available first. But IIRK, 1 point of TK should allow you to pick up 25 kg up to 10 m away.