dsatow

Never hold super team meetings in someone's home. Eventually, the villains will attack during the meeting and you'll lose your security deposit.

Here's another system I have thought about similar to the damage system (blame Silicon Valley rush hours): Instead of modeling skills after damage, why not treat it like combat. You stat/3 gives you a SV similar to an OCV. To make a skill roll, you target a value set by the GM or the opposing SV. If you make the roll by half, you score a critical success of the skill. While this does eliminate a method of rolling from the game and increase granularity of the stats in a skill, it doesn't really add anything else. It offers little advantages over the current system along with changing a system the current players might have problems digesting without sufficient impetus.

I wouldn't accept that as a trigger since the trigger needs a commonly used sense available to the player to trigger (6e1p350). in other words, the player doesn't know if he will take damage or not unless he has precognition. A better solution would be imminent threat or attack. If he's about to get hit by something (whether the attack succeeds to hit him or doesn't) he would teleport. Thus, they would teleport at first sign of being attacked, so in that build, not just AoE but surprise attacks and attacks he couldn't sense coming to him (such as being flashed and then attacked) would also affect him.

LOL, we should continue the light argument here but force everyone to use recipe terms.

When you obtain growth at the huge level or larger, your strength gets an AoE advantage (accounting for the huge leap in cost). Is that AoE advantage at 0 end or not? I am also wondering if the AOE on the strength means I have to pro-rate my strength to compensate for the AoE.

In case anyone wants to see what Bide is and isn't a pokemaniac. https://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Bide_(move)

For extended tests, I will usually GM the roll to adding extra time. For instance, if someone is a physics professor with a 13- science roll: Physics happens to roll a 16. I generally won't let him fail if as a physics professor he should know the answer. Instead, I tell the character that will need to think about it for a minute before getting the answer. This also works well with social skills. You fail with a charm roll by 5, you don't hit it off immediately. Instead you need to work on charming the target. If the character has enough time, they will still charm the target but the question is will they have enough time to successfully charm them or will they have to rudely run off in the middle of an awkward spot in the conversation to deal with a crisis. The reason I like this solution: 1) The major mechanics aren't changed and it uses an existing mechanic (the time chart) in a new way. 2) Character concepts that say they are "X" aren't dis-satisfyingly ruined due to a bad die roll. IE: Your sneaky ninja is still sneaky, they just have to move slower and more cautiously. These reasons are why I abandoned the skill as a normal attack mechanic back then rather than trying to kludge more fixes. The more fixes it required, the more major changes to the system and more learning it would require to keep the game portable to beyond just my own gaming group. Also, usually, the time aspect was enough to be disappointing without being discouraging on a roll.

Here's my suggestion: Build it with Absorption into energy blast non-persistent, attack action to maintain (probably a -1 to -2 limitation), succor (-1) but do not add the advantage absorption as a defense. The energy blast should be outside of any multipower and should probably have an extra time limitation extra phase. Add in a couple of levels only with the energy blast. Note, this will not work exactly like the bide in the Pokemon games, as those games use different mechanics, but it should simulate the feel of the Bide maneuver. You persevere under a couple of attacks then let loose with a bigger power. Pikachu is biding. Since he is biding, it ends his phase. While he can allocate levels to not get hit, he can't dodge or block. Geodude attacks with an 8d6 attack. Pikachu is hit and absorbs 8 body. Pikachu continues to bide ending his next phase. Geodude attacks again with an 8d6 attack. Pikachu absorbs another 8 body. Pikachu is pikapissed and decides to attack. Pikachu fires off his normal 8d6 blast in his multipower of attacks and the 1d6 outside of the multipower. This normally would only do 9d6, but from the bide he gains another 3d6. The lightning bolt strikes for 12d6 damage and because he stops biding, the points gained from biding fade at the end of the phase.

I thought about this before too. (Great mind think alike?) But I agree with Gnome's assessment in that the variance was not enough, at least using the BODY pips for success. My idea was 2d6 + CHAR/5. Familiarity = 1d6. Proficency = 2d6. +1 = +1d6. The idea I had was to use the BODY pip to determine success and the STUN pips as the quality of the success/failure, but the higher the number of dice, the more certain the end value will be using the HERO Normal Dice calculations. This starts to show at the 6d6 level. It works well on a skill vs skill scenario, but not in normal skill rolls.

Dazzler = Feb 1980 Xanadu = Aug 1980 Bedazzler = 1970s! <-- Winner!

Guess I owe you an apology. I might have been replying and went off track, but don't remember. Sorry about that.

in 5e (or was it 4e) UMA designing new styles/maneuvers: Guy made his own martial maneuver: Something like a block +2 OCV +3 DCV, +4d6+v/5 damage, full move, grab 4 limbs +20 str, target thrown to the ground. All for only 27 points.

I guess we are pundits. Sorry, my wife and coworkers groan at my puns too. I am a recovering addict. Its been 10 seconds since my last pun.

First off I am going to apologize for the length of this post and the multiple responses. I should break it up, but I think they all flow together. My apologies. This came from an argument from Phil (Saturday at 12:02 AM) and Gnome(Friday at 08:14 PM) on page 3. Both were arguing for the adjustment power based penalties to be increased and I incorrectly assumed you to agree with the larger penalty. I was wrong. Which is a GM decision and not a rule of the game. IE: a House rule. This was my argument which got down voted. Actually, not really, since the argument for using adjustment powers is that the absence of light(the actor) which generates the penalties to be drained, then unless there is light, the absence of light generates the penalties again. I'll explain why I am reiterating something people have already stated in a minute. 1) Unless I directly quote you, it's mostly not directed to you or any single person. It's more of an annoying general discussion. 2) Every so often a good gem of an idea gets floated out there. Most of the people I game with are pretty smart. Smart enough to try to break/find fault with a hastily conceived house rule to their benefit. If I argue the idea here, there are a dozen other smart GMs who can come up with an answer beyond just the old "I say so". If not, I try to think up a way to counter the flaw if the flaw is not too major. Usually, though the flaw is too obnoxious to overcome simply and cleanly. 3) I will sometimes repeat answered items because of several reasons. a) The same arguments that spawned the problem get mentioned again or are ignored and not solved. b) Just to remind people by summarizing the situation. c) Some of the posts are so god damn long it feels like read a thesis. I'll forget some of the items being argued. I'm no spring chicken and 35 years of HERO gaming is bound to take a toll. d) Lately, the world seems to be if you don't constantly bring up the problems, people think you agree with them and their solutions, even if the solution isn't something you agree with. So, I try to be cordial and reiterate my position.

Assuming a negative modifier at 3 pts per -1. A -9 darkness according to your design is 27 active points. If we assume a standard effect of 3 points per die, then it would not remove the darkness. You probably want to beef the dispel up to 9d6 and take standard effect by your build design. There is another issue with the construct in that dispel is an instant and all or nothing, which is why suppress is a better design considerations. Per dispel 6e1p193, the power once shut off can be restarted. Theoretically, that would mean you would instantly negate the darkness and then, the next segment or at the bottom of the segment the darkness would restart since the darkness is a natural state. Since its all or nothing, that means if its too dark, the power does nothing. Drain would not work well either as once the light left the area, the light would still be present for at least 12 seconds after the character disappears. The Suppress construct is Drain with the Cost End to maintain limitation. As a side note, while I personally will allow an AoE to center and target an individual and thus allow movement, the RaW says that your construct requires the mobile advantage +1/2 for the area of effect, unless it is cast on a stationary object. ( I had an argument a year or two ago where the other poster said that allowing the movement for free was too big of an advantage ) Cost calculations: Dispel 5d6 = 15 * 1.75 = 26 / 2 = 13 Dispel 9d6 = 27 * 1.75 = 47 / 2 = 23 Suppress 5d6 = 50 * 1.75 = 87 / 2 = 43 Suppress 9d6 = 90 * 1.75 = 157 / 2 = 79 This is versus the cost of the current light images design (again by no means great but not more flawed and is considered default by the rules) Images +4 Sight Per, Only to create light -1, Mobile AoE 16m Explosion Radius +3/4, No range -1/2 Images = 22 * 1.75 = 38 / 2.5 = 15

I'm not sure I'm following your objections. You would put the spatial awareness in the sight group and call it whatever you want such as "Darkness Sight". Per 6e1p174 last paragraph, if you have an appropriate sense then effects in change environment are negated. Per 6e1p226, flash affects a sense group. So a sight flash would affect the "Darkness Sight" like any other sight based sense. To prevent it from seeing through matter, just limit it with a -1 limitation "Affected by physical visual obstructions". If you want it to foil the Darkness all sight group, then change it to a special sense and then limit it -1/2 affected by sight based flashes.

That acceptable, but the question I would then ask on the flashlight why did you confine it to one hex? If you wanted the light radius to have an even larger effect, why not 4m radius? Its costs the same and you can also buy reduced by range to reflect dimming. And the rules state you can't shoot an image through an object in the way (people hiding in the shadows between you and the target) but even with this, you could change the images to a cone like the headlight example in Ultimate Vehicles for 5e p42. Personally, I don't believe any game system models real life properly nor would we want to. Characters get thrashed to the point of death and two weeks later are up and doing their god awful feats of physical near impossibility again rather than in years of physical therapy. The question really should be, do the current rules handle the situation enough for your gaming group. If it doesn't, how do you handle it as a house rule. And, if you are bringing it up in the forums, people are going to discuss it and argue over its points. To be honest, I think like Phil on this. I am not crazy on the mechanic, but I don't think the drain/suppress/aid mechanic is any better. Yeah, its stupidly expensive and if you pay the points for it, it'll probably take a shotgun blast and still work unless you make it a fragile focus. If you think a halide light is bad, there's the concept of a smart phone which probably costs more than some of my characters. Again, the current game design isn't perfect. I like the idea from the smart phone cost argument in an old thread which says to call the light as a perk of 1-5 points based on how useful it is, but then again, I am not HERO games so that would just be implemented as my own house rule. That's acceptable, but again this could be simulated by a modifier as assigned by a GM or as a 0 point advantage/limitation. I think that is my biggest issue to this argument with drain/suppress/aid on a modifier is that the game doesn't really support it at all. Its not in any supplement in any form I can think of (not just in reference to light but with anything) which given 35 years of publication and variations from HERO games is a pretty good warning bell. If you can find a reference, please post, but I do not remember anything official that is close to this. You still see the image with the Images mechanic, you just aren't fooled by the image.* Disbelieving and it going away is a mental illusions thing. Off subject: Reminds me of a game a long time ago where a hero using Images made a villain look like another hero. The lieutenants of the villain stumbled in and the first one blasts the villain having failed his Int roll. The second lieutenant blasted the hero and basically said "The hero would never wear them socks with those shoes. Total fashion faux pas." the hero later seduced the lieutenant.

I would just use spatial awareness and base it off of sight.

I am beginning to wonder if people believe that the Images power is simply negating modifiers. If I am wrong, please ignore. My understanding is that the Images are not an image of a light source but of the object illuminated. So, if you shine a "light" with images +4 on a person in a darkened warehouse, the normal -4 penalty is still there, but you get a +4 bonus to the image of a person in a warehouse. The Create Light limitation is in effect saying you can't change the image to make it look like a unicorn, only just to light up the object. It does not indicate there is a hard edge to the light radius unless you want the light to have a hard edge. If you want it to have a bright spot in the center and gradually fade out in illumination, then the image in the area of effect will do that. Ex: a Images Create Light Only 4m radius can have a +4 PER in the 1m center and fade out such that at 4m from the center its only +1 to see the image of a lighted object.

I believe the official rule from HERO games is that the world is a construct of the GM. How the GM arbitrates the world is how the world functions. So we should not argue whether the official rules should do something or not in every world. Just on the merits of the house rule that's being suggested. After all, the GM can make a game in a teletubby world where light is intelligent and that in order to see in the darkness, one needs to make an Presence attack or a Persuasion roll for any area to be visible or to affect how many modifiers to your perception rolls exists.

This is an addendum to Hugh Neilson's question(Dec 28, 2019). Part of it is clarification that strength from a multipower slot can add to HA/HKA in another slot as it applies to other powers. Most of these questions come from the argument that there is no reason to ever buy a variable slot in a multipower as its much more cost effective to buy several fixed slots of the same but varying power. (you can look at the forum discussion here). The arguments are all just RaW, not by GM fiat, as the GM is the final arbiter of any game. 1) Is there a limit when slots adds to an outside power? For example, can one buy a 1d6 blast outside the multipower and then have 5 slots each adding +3d6 blast for 16d6 total? 2) Do slots adding to an outside power need to be exactly compatible? For example, in the example in question 1, could one of those slots have the penetrating advantage on 2d6 and still on the whole do 15d6 even if only 2d6 is penetrating? As a separate example, can one have +10rPD to add to the characteristic PD which doesn't have the resistant advantage? 3) It seems that the general rule on frameworks is that two frameworks can add their slots to modify an power outside the framework, but it also notes that Strength and HA/HKA from two frameworks do not add. So, can two frameworks both add Strength to the character and then a framework slot add HA/HKA to a HA/HKA outside the framework and still be considered OK to add them together? Example: Bob the Brute has a multipower slot with 3 levels of DI both usable at the same time a slot with HKA. He also has another multipower(or VPP) with 1 level of growth slot and a base bonus to STR slot. He has outside of any framework a HKA. Does the rules say that they all add together (his base STR, his growth STR, his DI STR, his bonus STR to his outside HKA and HKA slot)? Happy New Years by the way!

Mostly I was responding to Phil, but thanks, as I was concerned about defenses. In Phil's construct, he would have to buy at least 1d6 blast outside the multipower for them to attach to.

Yes, you could, but I generally avoid needlessly long multipowers because many GM have a general disdain for reading them at cons which sadly is mostly where I play and not GM. Also, it is against the rules as written to put special powers in a framework. This includes Mental Defense and Power Defense, which is why I use the Resistant Protection construct. As usual, a GM may waive this restriction. Characters can have as many Power Frameworks as they want and can afford to buy. However, a slot in a Power Framework cannot add to or modify a slot in the same or another Power Framework, or the same or another Power Framework as a whole. (6e1p398) So, you need to buy A blast outside the multipower to add to that blast. You also are not allowed to buy to slots which add to each other. I believe this also means that the +8d6, +4d6, +2d6 aren't allowed to stack with each other on the outside power. They must be separate powers. So you might be able to get away with an 8d6 blast outside the multipower and add one of those slots to the 8d6 blast outside, but using two slots to add damage to the 8d6 blast outside I believe would be illegal per RaW (unless of course the effects of the blasts are separate powers, not additive to the damage which would be legal). Defenses may or may not be covered on this, but the more I read that section, the more I think they would also be considered illegal, as they are additive to the defensive power. Naked advantages in slots are also considered illegal, but they note that the GM may waive this issue for good reason.

I kind of disagree on larger penalties for environmental factors. It sort of personal taste, but if a player is buying up a perception roll to say 14- (about 90.74% success rate), a -4 drops this to 10- (about 50% success rate). A -8 penalty would drop it to 6- (or 9.26% success). To me, it just seems like forcing a player to buy night vision or some other power to compensate from operating at night. It reminds me of a scene in the comics where Nightwing is with Batman investigating the sewers IIRC. Nightwing is using night vision contacts to see with but marvels that Batman has such good perception, he doesn't need it. It reminds me of two players where one is using night vision through an inobvious focus while the other has bought up his perception roll to compensate (and to help with his detective work).

That strange, I use them specifically in 6e for defense. Here's an example of a 6e defense multipower Multipower (30) 6v Resistent Protection 20PD 6v Resistent Protection 20ED 6v Resistent Protection 20Mental Defense 6v Resistent Protection 20Power Defense 6v +6 DCV 6v +30 REC