sobran

I was wondering if I could get a little clarification on the blurb about simulating Mental Attacks on 6E1 326. On the same page, it says that AVAD Attacks do not ignore Barriers or other obstacles without an appropriate form of Indirect. Does this same rule apply if the power has ACV as well and is simulating a Mental Power? Example: Mental Fire has an ability of the same name, modeled as an RKA, ACV (OMCV vs DMCV), AVAD (Mental Defense), in which he sets people ablaze with his mind. He uses Mind Scan, achieves an EGO+10 roll against his opponent, and during his next available action uses it to target his enemy who is located on the other side of a mundane wall. At this point, since the power does not have Indirect, does it: A) Attack the target as normal, without a penalty for attacking blind, but have to blow through the wall's defenses before affecting the target. OR Ignore the wall as any other Mental Power would because it does not have Mental Defense.

Re: AoE Pyrokinesis That last part you touch on is why I wonder. Okay, so in the description of Mind Scan, it says that at the level of effect of EGO + 10, you can target Mental Powers AND Powers using the Simulated Mental Attack rules (using AVAD and ACV) through the scan. Does this just mean you have "locked on" to them accurately and may now attempt to blast through the intervening barriers without taking a penalty for firing blind? In particular, the bit at the beginning of the second column on 6E1 326 is what started me wondering in the first place. "It doesn't get Line of Sight for free, nor is it Invisible to Sight for free, but for the most part it can be treated as if it were a 'Mental Power'." Okay, so this means you can target through Mind Scan (and Mink Link, I would imagine), provided the power meets the ACV/AVAD requirements and possesses Line of Sight range (6E1 263, near the bottom of the right-hand column). Does this also mean it ignores barriers that do not have Mental Defense, as that is standard for Mental Powers? This isn't quite the same thing as Indirect, but I can see arguments either way.

Re: AoE Pyrokinesis I understand how Barrier works. I chose my term poorly. Where you understandably thought I was referring to Barrier (the Hero System Power), I actually meant "barrier" (the english word, referring to an obstruction of some sort). A clearer rephrasing: If an Attack Power is bought with AVAD and is using the rules for simulating a Mental Power, can it ignore walls and other structures that would ordinarily block Line of Sight or Line of Effect the way that Mental Powers in general can? I know that it doesn't give Line of Sight for free, as mentioned in the text. I'm a little unclear about targetting through obstacles, using say, Mind Scan or an appropriate Detect.

So I'm having some trouble with figuring out how to make an Attack Power function as a Mental Power in Sixth Edition. The single target version, I believe I've got down. Ranged Killing Attack, use some AVAD (Mental Defense), and ACV (OMCV vs DMCV), and most of it is functioning as intended. I'm having two problems with the power. Firstly: if I make the power Constant, it will by default cost END every segment the character has an action, correct? I know this is the default, but some options in Hero Designer confused me. From the text, it doesn't look like making it a Mental Power should change this. The second problem I'm having is when creating the AoE version of the power. The power should be a zone, inside which any living creature is immolated, whether the character can see them or not. Let's ignore the silly bits, such as every insect in 8 meters being set on fire and stick with the obvious effects on humanoid targets. So far I've got: RKA 1d6, ACV (OMCV vs DMCV), AVAD (Mental Defense), AoE (radius - 8m), No Range, Does BODY, Cannot Use Targeting, Constant. Now for this power to affect targets on the other side of a wall (assuming perception isn't an issue), do I need Indirect or does the fact that the power functions as a Mental Power essentially take care of this? I believe that Indirect is unnecessary in the first power, but I'm a little unclear about how this would interact with Area of Effect.

Re: Reduced Penetration That would certainly make it a painless endeavor.

Re: Reduced Penetration Isn't KB calculated from BODY rolled, rather than what got through the defenses? EDIT: Nevermind. I just caught what you meant. It's late for me.

Re: Reduced Penetration You raise a good point. In the examples I ran, I hadn't considered how a roll that was signifigantly below the defenses would affect the outcome. So there is a difference I overlooked. Thank you! I will point out that Reduced Penetration doesn't affect the way that STUN is figured though, just to make sure we BOTH run it right

I am posting from my phone at work, so I don't have the rules in front of me. Going from memory here. Anyway, as I recall, Reduced Penetration says to split the attack into two equal portions and apply them against the target's defenses separately. For ease of use, I have always just doubled the target's defenses instead, as that is easier to do on the fly. I can't think of a situation where this approach would be mathematically any different than the RAW. Am I overlooking something? I keep wondering why Reduced Penetration is written that way. There has to be /something/... EDIT: oops. Meant to put this in the System forum.

Or however errata is spelled. I realize that you don't typically answer 5th Edition questions anymore, but I'm hoping that Book of the Machine is recent enough that you might clarify two small details for me. On the writeup for the T-78 Anti-Personnel Robot, listed on page 96-97, the robot has a form of Mechanon's Vulnerability to Gravity, Magnetic, Or Force Attacks at 2x STUN. The T-78 doesn't have STUN, being an automaton. Was this intended to be double BODY damage or should it be omitted entirely? I can see arguments for both. Also, the two NND gas attacks in the Poison Gas Projector list "Life Support [appropriate Immunity]" as the defense. Do you recall if you intended this to be Immunity to Terrestrial Poisons or Self-Contained Breathing? I'll understand if you can't answer these, as it is technically against the guidelines you set out.

Re: Magic systems based on science? An example that springs to mind: In some villages there are weather casters, capable of controlling weather not only in their own region, but wherever they go. Their abilities are more reliable in their own region however--there appears to be areas of "dead magic" that some people refer to as "Imp Zones" throughout the world. The reason for that isn't understood, nor is the name. The ability to control the weather is passed down from mother to daughter or father to son and is embodied in the Sol Bracelet. It is suspected that these bracelets contain a connection to the Earth as well as the "Sols" of ancestor weathercasters, an idea given more credence by the fact that weathercasters appear to be getting more powerful over time. The political position of a weathercaster varies throughout the world. In some regions they are powerful warlords, ruling through power and fear. In others they are respected wisemen, shamans, or witches, whose advice is heeded but seldom wield power on their own. Regardless, people are afraid to kill them, knowing that their power cannot be stolen. Only a decendant may inherit the Sol Bracelet, as the Sols know their own. The science: There are weather control systems all over the world. Certain individuals were given bracelets with encrypted radio links to the system to help oversee the system. Each bracelet was genetically encoded to only work with the individual the bracelet was given to. After the apocalypse, the bracelets did nothing as the individuals given this responsibility died off. Over the next few centuries, the safeguards in the system began to fail. Today, simply being descended from the correct individual and of the correct gender is enough to fool the system into taking commands from the bracelet. In addition, safety mechanisms have begun to fail as well. Systems never intended to be controlled are now available, such as commanding lightning to strike, provided one knows the arcane language of "coordinates". In time, who knows what horrors will be unlocked by the failing safeties?

Re: Few questions about point costs The higher DCV should help the gadgeteer a lot. The only thing that jumps out at me is that the gadgeteer's battles may be somewhat like a pendulum. If, as Hugh says, his PSLs keep him out of the effective combat range of many opponents, he'll be unstoppable. Giving opponents a sniper or two or executing pincher attacks will mitigate it, of course. On the other extreme, I wonder what his CON is. Are their attacks representative of what a "lieutenant" class villain might be able to dish out? If I'm reading correctly, a 12dc Normal Damage attack (against PD) would do an average of 22 STUN after defenses. If this is more than his CON, it will stun him, causing him to lose an action and open him up to a devestating Multiple Attack. If his CON is higher and/or he will be hit rarely and this reflects the feel this character should have, disregard this

Re: Few questions about point costs Wow. That is quite a hefty END load. I would think about putting 1/2 END cost on at least a couple of the heavy load powes, just to minimize that. If there are a couple specific culprits, it might even be cheaper than the END/REC required otherwise. A few continuing charges might be appropriate for Density Increase. With that particular power, I've often found it easier to buy enough DI to get the weight and KB Resistance where it should be and then purchase some more STR and defenses linked to it. Helps with the END cost immensely. If you haven't considered it, an END reserve might be appropriate, if the SFX doesn't involve them being tired the same way you would be after a long sprint. From the sounds of it though, this wouldn't be appropriate for the gadgeteers attack.

Re: Few questions about point costs Up until recently, I have primarily played Dark Champions, where STUN and END aren't much of a concern. Most gunfights were over with a lot of dead bodies before either variable came into play. So I'll share what I came up with when I recently started playing Champions. I would take either character and see what would happen if they fought themselves or a "standard" villain you want them to go toe to toe with. You understand the bell curve, so figure out how many times, on average, a character will be hit in a single Turn, assuming an opponent of average speed. If the average Speed will be 4 and most opponents will have an equal OCV, you might assume 3 hits, for example. Make sure the PCs have enough STUN to survive one Turn of average damage rolls, preferably more like 1.5. Then just figure out how much REC they need to still be standing for however long you think is appropriate. Personally, I aim for combat to be over by Turn 3. Long enough to be satisfying, but not dragging. I see a lot of variance though, based on Move Throughs and clever tactics. END is kind of the same thing. Make sure they can pretty much go all out with powers for one turn before they have to worry about it. Compare REC to this number as well. I realize that's very "build it yourself," but there is so much variance in character builds that it's hard to say definitively. After you season to taste, run one mock combat with the PCs against each other. It will probably expose design weaknesses or STUN/END imbalances before play.

Re: Few questions about point costs Actually, the Impairment rules may be exactly what you're looking for. They aren't permanent--they last a single day at max--but they can certainly do what you are asking for. The Disabling rules, which can be much more permanent and debilitating, need not be used with the Impairing rules. Essentially, the Impairments do what you want, but with some variance. Impaired legs inflicts a -2 DCV penalty and halves their running speed, while an Impaired arm inflicts a -3 OCV penalty when attacking with that arm, as well as inflicting 2D6 NND STUN if they insist on using it anyway. It sounds a little less severe than what your players proposed and has the advantage of being dramatically interesting. Why not give it a test run and see how it plays? Also note that an Impairing shot to the head probably kills any mook, which is a fun side effect.

Re: Looking for alien invader types - 6th Edition Well crap. I'll add it to the list. Thanks for the heads up