GamePhil

I see the Harbinger as a bridging character that came from Dark Champions roots and grew into what he is today after many, many adventures. It's the kind of thing that happens in games that you just won't see in comics, because people want character growth and don't want the writers coming in and stripping them of years of continuity like they do in comics. That's part of why I wouldn't mind: he may seem out of place now, but he wasn't, originally. Something that gives more of a feel for that growth, such as doing a Year One version, could certainly be useful. Think of Batman, though: he really is a better example than the Punisher for this. The original character was pretty Dark Champions (Villain falls to his death, and his comment is along the lines of, "That saves society the expense of a trial"), but has grown into a Four Color character over the years.

Actually, it's not in 5th Ed, it's in the new edition of Champions, in the section on playing a comedy superhero game. That was really a great shot, too, captured the feel of the originals so well I thought the PPG artist might have done it.

Re: Dark Champions - Please no Harbinger of Justice... Well, if I'm not mistaken that's Mr. Long's own character, and he actually *earned* all those points over a long time in play. So I don't really mind so much seeing him, although a "Harbinger lite", basically him as he's just starting out rather than after years and years of odd events that gives him access to super tech extradimensional spaces and hundreds of Contacts, might be fun to see. On the other hand, I'm not much of a Dark Champions kind of guy, myself, so maybe I'm biased.

Re: Infinite Characteristics Just curious: do you mean Incomplete Characters, or something else that I haven't seen?

Re: Heh ... Infinity isn't a number in mathematics, it's just a concept of expanding without bound. So, infinity plus one is actually meaningless. Infinity times two, though, means it approaches infinity faster. Or something like that. Oh, wait, you were joking, weren't you? Anyway, the way I generally handle the concept (if it comes up) is to establish a point level at which you have an "absolute" power: 50 DEF cannot be hurt, 30d6 will destroy anything, and so on. Then, only someone with a higher "absolute" power can affect you. So, a god can hurt another god (starship can hurt a starship, and so on), but a mortal won't be able to. Don't generally run games like that, though.

The only Response element that I can find is a restrictive element (worth a wopping -3) that means that you can only use the maneuver in response to a specific maneuver used by your opponent. Probably not what he's looking for.

Another possibility is to do a Multiple Power Attack, and allow them to do a Block/Strike. Please note this is not by the book, but it makes some sense. Using the most restrictive maneuver, you'd: 1. Have to have a saved phase, because you can't Abort to the attack maneuver. 2. Go against the higher of the opponent's OCV or DCV. 3. Probably shouldn't be able to continue Blocking after the first one. 4. Won't be able to go before the opponent that you Blocked, because the Strike won't let you do that.

Well, Fifth Edition was discussed much like this for years before it was actually written (and several more before it saw print), so we're just getting a head start. And, while we certainly can't be nice to each other, I thought this was a fairly polite thread.

Well, you were trying to be abusive, so this is only a small problem: The attack, while technically legal, is completely contrary to the recomendation under NND against allowing multiples of such powers.

Eh, if they were REALLY too worried about it, we'd be well past page 3 by now.

Unfortunately, if it's not your house, it's somebody else's rules, so not a few people want the book done to support their views of how the rules should be. This is an understandable reaction, if not a totally rational one.

To further clarify: I meant that Steve did this under the Fourth Edition rules, not that he wrote Fourth Edition. There was a character covered with spikes in one of the Dark Champions line that had it purchased like this, I keep thinking Scarecrow? That's not right, but I can't dredge up the right name.

Actually, he did the exact same thing in 4th Edition, when the Advantage was more to your liking, so that does not constitute proof that he even agrees with your sentiment.

Did you see Star Heroes damage levels for flying through a star? Scary stuff, that, requiring many more points than any character I've ever seen to buy the Defenses. However, in a Champions game you'd probably have much lower damage for these things.

I was actually surprised that wasn't there. Ah, well, no fast digging for you...

I doubt it. It's much more likely that he has a similar definition of the "equally valid" portion of the rule as Derek presented earlier. All Rule 6 is saying is, "If you abuse the rules to get a cheaper power, you need to buy the more expensive one", and never, "If you can come up a power that is more expensive, no matter how much more complex it is than the most obvious one, you must buy it that way." If you somehow get a 20d6 EB with no restriction for 5 points, technically legally, you still have to pay 100. But if you want Persistant Resistant Defense, you buy Armor.

That, too. Really, since the average damage of a 1d6 Killing Attack is close to that of a 3d6 EB, it has to increase the base cost to be in line with other powers. Not only that, but if creating the Power from scratch it should also be Versus Limited Defense (common defense) and have some Advantage (or possibly Limited Extra Dice) for the occasional shots with x5 Stun Multiples, and the whole thing needs a (small) Limitation for those x1 Stun Multiples... Hey, I said I'd like to see such rules, I never said that it would be easy.

How so, unless you're just referring to the name? EB, Killing (+2), No Range (-1/2). Which you then apply the Does Not Add STR Limitation, a -1/2 value. OK, that seems fair. This doesn't have to be a problem: you don't write on the character sheet Attack, Ranged, Spreadable, No STR Add, and so on. You build the Energy Blast Power as Attack, Ranged, Spreadable, No STR Add, and then just write down EB on your character sheet.

If the GM agrees that the special effect of your invulnerability works against mason bursts, then it will, regardless of what it is purchased as. See previous post: just don't allow that Advantage. This is a perfectly reasonable restriction for any campaign setting in which some kind of absolute invulnerability is to be allowed. Certainly true.

Well, you did take your example too far. Just because someone who can do anything and has no weaknesses isn't a good character doesn't mean that someone with, for instance, absolute invulnerability to harm can't be one. If he's normal otherwise, Entangle him; if he's superstrong, Mind Control him. It's only when there is literally nothing you can do to stop/defend against a character that absolutes become truly unreasonable. But they have to fit the setting, in any event. And while technically there is no cap, and therefore "instant kill" and "total defense" are both infinite point powers, practically that's not true. There is an upper limit on what is reasonable for a setting, and therefore you can plan out absolutes around that limit.

Sure. Invulnerability? Typically, Desolidification, but if you have clearly defined limits on how much damage is done in the game you can simply buy enough Defense to counter it. 16 DC limit, 2 levels of AP types of Advantages? Buy 60 DEF, Harden about 30 of it twice, and you are invulnerable. Another way that can be reasonable in some games is to put Limitations on attacks to encourage invulnerable characters. For example, I usually have Killing Attacks in my Superhero games multiply the Stun Multiple by the Body that gets through the defense, allowing someone with around 12 Resistant Defense to be completely invulnerable to pistol fire. The most extreme example that comes to mind would be to have the Limitation on all attacks that they do no damage to someone with the Invulnerable Fringe Benefit. No-miss attacks? The Accurate option of Area Of Effect: Hex does this most of the time. Dive For Cover defends against it, but take a 2 hex radius and it gets a bit harder (you can't go higher than that area normally, but you can waive that restriction, after all). Again, strict limits on DCV can give no-miss, or at least extremely rarely missed, attacks. A DCV upper limit of 15, from all sources, means you just need an OCV of 21, and you have a 17 or less to hit. This isn't even expensive with 2 point levels. Instant-kill-regardless-of-defenses attacks? Make sure everyone is built according to a criteria that allows this. Perhaps everyone has a Vulnerability or Susceptability (or both) to this type of attack, that allows them to be instantly killed by it. Constraining the Body score also helps. For example, I'm building some vampires, Buffy style: with Limitations on Defenses/Body and Disadvantages, they are instantly killed by my Slayer clone on a successful strike with appropriate weapons (wooden stake, slashing weapons) to appropriate locations (heart, neck, respectively). If an individual one is tougher, they get to exceed these restrictions. Abort to an attack? Buy a 12 SPD and a Dexterity (or Lightning Reflexes) higher than anyone else in the game (except someone that has a similar power). Take the difference between your real SPD and Dex and these new scores with the Limitation: Only To Simulate Aborting To Attacks, which I'll call a -1. Again, you have to have a cap on what can normally be bought for DEX, or you'll have someone who goes a bit faster spoiling it. So, you get to go first, hold, and if you need to "abort" you just use your saved action to throw an attack, but otherwise have the same restrictions as Aborting normally does: you don't get to do all the things you could normally in a Phase. Or the GM just says, "For this game you can Abort to attacks" if everyone gets to do it.

Two things: You'd have a book even bigger than it already is, and all of these things are possible in the system as it stands if you really want them. There's no need for debate, just suggestions on how to do a specific thing.

In that case, there may be a way to deal with your problem without addition to the rules: don't allow the Affects Desolidification Advantage. The character can only be affected by attacks naturally affecting his Desolidification. If Superman were to be bought this way, he takes Desolidification, Persistent, Invisible Power Effects, Always On, Not Through Walls (whatever that's called, I'm being lazy) and he is affected by magic. Now no one without a magical attack or one of his weaknesses can harm him. Not a perfect example since he's really better simulated with a high Defense, but you get the idea.

So, you're saying that part of your definition of "valid" is "easiest", a statement I can personally find no fault with. Therefore, in every case you have so far presented, the simpler construct is the more valid one. Therefore, Rule 6 does not apply, because it only applies when the constructs are of equal validity. "Legitimate" or "legal" was never the statement, "valid" was. You could argue the need to define "valid", though I personally think that allowing the gaming group make that decision makes a degree of sense.

That, too.