dsatow

Nah, that's Zack Snyder's Space Ghost.

OK, the way I would proceed here is what are the players trying to do and use the rules to simulate it. 1) The players (the dog pile-ers) are effectively using their weight to hold down the person. 2) The jumping on of the players might induce some damage to those below the top player. To simulate #1, is simply the amount of weight being simulated as Strength. One person equals 100kg or 10 Strength. People Strength 1 10 2 15 3 18 4 20 6 23 8 25 12 28 16 30 To simulate #2, the person directly being dropped upon would be taking a move through but using gravity (jumping up and falling on the target). The velocity of gravity would probably add +1d6N and Strength can be substituted with weight (normal weight would be 10 strength). The person on the bottom would take crushing damage based on the weight of every on above them, so if 8 people were dog piling on 1 person, they would take 25 Strength or 5d6 crushing damage.

I'm gonna just respond in general. I denote that I treat recovering from stun as an attack action in SUPERHEROIC games and games that border on the SUPERHEROIC. In contrary to some posts about the combat effectiveness or strategic value, I just do not use the house rule because of neither of those reasons. In my opinion, the games where I use the house rule are genres where continuous beat downs do not prevent a response. In other words, just because Superman gets stunned by Doomsday or Darkseid, he still has a chance to fire his heat vision or punch back if he can recover from being stunned. I would not use the rule in a game where you are WWII soldiers storming the Nazis in Europe. I might use it in a James Bond style game depending on if I wanted the game more Roger Moore ERA rather than Daniel Craig ERA. Just to clarify, when I mean an "attack action", I effectively mean that using the action ends your phase and it can not be aborted to. This also means that right after getting unstunned, you can abort to a defensive action. If that caused any confusion, I apologize. Finally, in play, it hasn't caused any problems. In fact, even when used against the players, the players prefer it over continually being stunned. But again, I am running most superheroic level combat.

I usually make it extradimensional travel area of effect. People can travel to the dimension normally without hostile intent otherwise the dimension rejects those who don't make an EGO roll by 5. The other way I've done it is to make it a mind control area of effect like Tom Cowan suggested.

Personally, I think they should change the statement to be instead of Stunning, but rather anything that drops your DCV to 1/2 or drops your DCV to 0.

6e1p374 While a character activates a power with Extra Time, he may take other actions (if not, the Limitation is worth an additional -¼; characters may not take this for the Full Phase or Delayed Phase versions of Extra Time). This means that activating the power is the end of your action.

Personally I think Growth is broken and would suggest Multiform in all but the first two levels of Growth in 6th ed.

Anything which fits the genre but not the game system. For instance, I want to play a beholder as a character. Or I want to start off with a pet dragon or unicorn and have it with me in combat. Or I want to be an immortal like in Highlander. Yes, the GM can hand wave it but the rules just do not allow it.

Yeah, the rule work well for heroic games where someone get pounded into unconsciousness but less so for superheroic games or heroic games bordering on the superheroic. In those games, I usually just house rule that getting unstunned is an attack action without the extended time.

I generally prefer the K.I.S.S. method and would treat this as one large AoE attack and use special effects to describe the multiple explosions. One reason to do it with one large area effect attack is that rolling lots of multiple attacks in a game really slows down the pace of the game as you figure out who gets hits and how much damage the explosions do. As noted, there exists rules for this but personally, I'd rather just use the indirect advantage. If you can't see the target using either the rules or the indirect advantage, you are still shooting blind. The main advantage with the indirect advantage is that you don't need to know if the wall can take the damage and bounce the attack. I'd personally just use an area of effect selective attack, but using existing maneuvers work too. Technically, you can also get away with autofire especially with the autofire skills(skipover fire, etc.). Personally, it sounds like an overpowered power and I'd probably wouldn't allow it. However, I am not your GM. You might get away with a AoE explosion sticky continuous with time delay or extra time. In any case, your GM will probably want you to have a reasonable way to break the chain of explosions. That is usually just a special effect, like Thor's hammer with possibly a limitation, can be caught or deflected.

Or you can buy extradimensional travel linked to possession with the side effect of anything that happens to the possessed happens to you. The new dimension would be the possessed's body.

The last cheesy thing I saw a player do was the 14 point martial maneuver in 4th ed.

Just thought I'd upload this pic from the recent Fanime convention. i was planning to take a lot more, but this years video rooms had a lot of good stuff. Anyways, I thought she did a great job on the outfit so enjoy.

I agree, but for some reason, people like the individual numbers for incremental ranking even if it has no effect.

I tend to disagree with the "subjectivity" part of the argument here. My reason is as follows: We are not trying to simulate real life, we are simulating a story. If the story says, you have a beauty which stuns and distracts people, then you buy the power/talent/perk/skill etc. to do that. Its not about, well, "I have a thing for redheads" or "I have a thing for midgets", its about whether you or the GM are setting up the environment to be able to do that. The GM sets it up as part of their campaign or house rules. The player sets it up as part of the character build. Now whether a comeliness stat or a striking appearance talent is better is just personal taste. Boiled down: Arguments for a stat: 1) Granularity (or ranking). This just means I am prettier or uglier than you. Arguments for talent: 1) No longer allows a negative stat to have benefits. It was the only stat where having a negative value could be beneficial. 2) Its standardized giving a PRE attack bonus for a conditional situation under the control of the player. 3) It expanded looks beyond cosmically beautiful or hellishly ugly. It could now represent weirdness or fame or anything visually based. 4) It removes superficial ranking when comparing characters. Somethings I did not note above 1) It enhances role playing. Any game mechanic can enhance or detract from role playing. Role playing really is up to the players. You can say "The presence based skill system detracts from role playing. People should say their speeches and not have an oratory skill. That's role playing." but no one is arguing about oratory because we can't all be Winston Churchill or Mark Twain. 2) It could be simulated with a disadvantage/complication. We are talking about about a benefit to a character, so it being a disadvantage or complication is a different beast. Yes it could be a disadvantage or complication, but you could also buy the talent/stat too with neither(talent/stat or complication/disad) causing a problem for the other. 3) It didn't need to change. No it might not have but the game designer thought it should have and that it would improve the game. The question is, is there a need for it not to? 4) Negatives. Its easier to slam the opponent than to prove your point. I don't know about you, but I am tired of it in the news so I won't do an argument against. Did I miss a reason for stat or talent?

6e1p379 (assuming it is destroy-able) When an attack hits a Breakable Focus, each attack that penetrates the PD/ED of the Focus and does BODY damage destroys one of the powers bought through the Focus. The amount of BODY done is unimportant — one power is destroyed whether the attack did 1 BODY or 15. A Focus is destroyed when it loses all of its powers, or when any single attack against it does two times (2x) its PD/ED in BODY, at the GM’s option.

I think one thing we need to remember in these benchmarks is that while we are assigning real world equivalents to these numbers as an intellectual exercise, HERO wasn't designed to represent real life. It was originally designed to mimic comic book life and then mutated into any action style fiction life (aka movies, tv, and novels). With HERO, you can be Indiana Jones. In real life, you'd be in the hospital or worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZNx5YgvQVI

I think it would depend on the campaign, but I could see that.

I think there are some GMs which would look at this as buying a type of Complication. You get 9 points for it, so it should be treated like any other Complication and have an effect in the campaign.

I have an issue with this scale. Assume there is someone with a compromised immune system or even an alien with little to no immunity to Earth germs. By this chart then, I could go up and slap them (1d6 NND) and stun them. Currently the main property of CON is the prevention of being stunned. So it might be better to say how much pain they might be able to endure. Someone with a 5 CON could be one punched by an average person. Someone with a CON of 3 might be a child who starts to cry over a skinned knee. A CON of 1 might be a baby who will cry at the drop of a hat.

Toyota! ;D

The thing is, I truly believe something beyond charm(or seduction) is necessary as many genres has the scene where a drop dead gorgeous person walks in to a room and causes a big distraction ( ex: from Chuck https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjiVu5_83WY ).

For the record: I like SA over comeliness but I will try to answer Surreal's questions. How (precisely) is a numerical value for COM any more of an aesthetic device than the mechanism entailed by the Striking Appearance talent? People like to rank characters. Who is stronger, who is faster, who is etc. I found this out when playing the Amber Role Playing Game that people would bid their stats higher and higher just to be number 1. How (precisely) does the COM stat enable improved interaction and character behavior role-playing when compared with the interaction and character behavior role-playing achievable using the Striking Appearance talent? To be honest, the most I seen was cat-tiness. Basically calling other characters and NPCs dogs because that 30 comeliness didn't stack up to their comeliness of 40. Even the comeliness 32 would look down on the comeliness 30 NPC. BTW: None of them had the psych lim "B!T@#" or anything similar. How, exactly, is Striking Appearance deficient compared to COM? Its not on the characteristic section as far as I can tell. The major argument seems to be that because its not on the characteristic section but can conceivably be called a statistic of the character is what is causing the problem.

Brobdingnagian Originally seen at the destruction of Greenfield, some say he's the cause the of the destruction, falling from the sky as a god kicked out from heaven or an alien from another planet. He has been seen at a couple of minor robberies of banks somehow disappearing before people can catch him. Brobdingnagian.hdc

Known paranormals who hang out around around this part of town.