jtelson

Re: Lock-On System

But does it do what you want? Cover requires you to succeed with an attack roll' date=' and then you can still 'miss' because they can break the Cover.[/quote']

 

Of course an attack roll is required - an attack roll should always be required at some point for an attack.

 

They can only break cover if they have the opportunity to - Traditionally the reason to use the cover maneuver is to threaten - in this instance however there's nothing to stop the person from covering the target (making the attack roll) and then instantly doing the damage thus expending the charge (The attacker does no damage then, but at any time thereafter, he may automatically do damage to the target — no additional Attack Roll is required, and doing the damage takes no time. 5ER pg 393) The attacker could still opt to hold lock (keep the target covered) at the risk of the target being able to break it.

Re: Love for Non-Casters?

Frameworks could modify it' date=' but there's no reason non-casters can't use frameworks to the same extent casters do. And a framework big enough to hold 200 AP won't be cheap either.[/quote']

 

I think you've hit upon the crux of the issue here - people often don't think of non-spell casters using frameworks for their abilities.

Re: Lock-On System

Doesn't using Cover take up your attack action and still allow them to "break cover" even if your Cover role was successful?

I assume an attack action would be required at some point with any kind of Lock-On System. Expending the action and rolling it before firing makes a certain amount of sense.

Becoming not "Covered" is a little problematic - the 5th Revised text offers Skill vs. Skill rolls in addition to the normal Pre Attack if you're looking to make breaking cover easier so Sys Ops vs Sys Ops for electronic jamming.

Then perhaps building other countermeasures (Maneuvers, Flares etc) as limited extra PRE.

Re: Lock-On System

However, another option might be to buy levels with "Cover." Once you have someone covered you don't need another to hit roll, and it doesn't cost any ammunition to cover someone.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Weapon Familiarity, Palindromedary Mounted Weapons

Nice

Re: Lock-On System

Yeah' date=' 0 End is what I'd go with. Plus [i']maybe[/i] a very small (possibly -0) Limitation showing that the number of hits (as opposed to the number of total attacks) is limited in number. Consider basing the value on four times the number of Charges or something, but don't let it become an Advantage because that's already covered by the Reduced Endurance Advantage.

Apply a limit to the points spent on the 0-End Advantage?

Re: 6ths are out of Customs and on way to warehouse!

But that would mean that nobody else could use it. To make it as a tool that is left in the warehouse that anybody could get in and use' date=' it should be a vehicle (imho).[/quote']

 

I'm not sure - I've generally let other people use Base Abilities - particularly those like Life Support, Images for Light, Transforms for Food Synthesizers; perhaps STR as Base Equipment then - Bulky of course.

Re: 6ths are out of Customs and on way to warehouse!

I probably wouldn't build them as Vehicles Rather - Extra Limbs + Strength with Limited Area, Physical manifestation and Requires TF Fork Lift

Re: OMCV Whats it good for (besides Mental Powers)

The Advanced Player's Guide is now available and includes Alternate Combat Value Options for targeting OMCV with Mental and Non-Mental attacks.

Re: Controlled (?) Growth Concepts

Stunning: If one of the GM's in our group said they had an idea for something they'd want to try - particularly something like an optional advancement system that is tied your choices during play but really almost anything short of having to express actions through interpretive dance - I can't imagine any of us rejecting it out of hand.

Are there really a significant number of players out there whose experience is that absolutely tied to system?

Re: Controlled (?) Growth Concepts

I like it - it has a bit of the Chaosium feel (You've suceeded in using a skill relevantly, check at the end of the mission for improvement) and Marvel (Power Stunts were the thing I missed back in the 80's when we converted to Hero).

At a scan I would suggest that a familiarity with Power Skill (8<) be included free with each power - 'You can always try to do something cool if you're inspired during play' Much like Riding including a single TF at purchase.

Re: FH Player who wants character to BE an amulet

Without more specifics - What happens to the host when he leaves?, Does he have acces to the Hosts Stats? Knowledge? Powers? etc the two first choices are Transform (Severe) or Mind Control (0-End Persistant). I beleive a Possession power is expected in the upcoming Advanced Players' Guide

Re: AI with remote "puppet" body

Dependance - Contact with AI: Ego Drain rather than Damage.

Re: AI with remote "puppet" body

The controlling AI will probably end up installed in the PC's ship' date=' they're just not going to realize that it's an AI instead of a computer, and that the "puppet" isn't a real person.[/quote']

 

I'd build the 'Controlling' AI as the Character's Computer - Give the Character Resurrection (Won't work if AI has been Wiped) and call it a day.

Re: AI with remote "puppet" body

Is the actual controlling AI ever likely to be present sans Avatar? If not I'd tend to go with it as a special effect for Ressurection.

Re: Negatory

Now that I think about it why don't we track EB drain into the red...Like characteristics, just to keep track of how long it takes to come back?

Re: Negatory

With regards to poisons that affect the target's health or DEX' date=' I would ask what effect you're trying to achieve - once we know that we can work on a build to achieve that.[/quote']

 

It's not a question of can we find a way to build it - been playing the game for a little while now - there's almost nothing I can't find a way to build - it's why do we need to find a way, when we had a way, and we're still doing all of the same bookkeeping anyway.

Re: Captain America Build 350 pts

Wow - that makes the decision to kill him off make a lot more sense.

Here's a character but if he looses a fight the fans are gonna go insane and you're gonna have to go through the mail.

Umm, I can write about 3 Mary Sue stories before russian roulette seems like a good idea plus maybe 5 morality plays about patriotism, right and wrong etc before it just gets preachy - then I'm gonna off him, deal with the mail, and get on with a super hero who is actually percieved as risking something by his fans.

Re: Negatory

I don't want to leave with just complaining about people complaining, so let me offer something constructive.

 

 

 

You can defeat an opponent without resorting to damaging powers. Reasoning from effect, your mindless, incapable of independent thought opponent, effectively a zombie, could be created with a Mental Transform (AVAD Mental Defense), Works Against EGO, Not BODY, yadda yadda (6E1 p306).

 

No negative characteristics required.

Huzzah - we're capable of replacing an elegant subsystem with a cludgy power build, we should all be thrilled about that. How do we handle degrading characteristic based rolls below 9 or less ala slow poisons that reduce a target's health or dexterity? Oh yeah, a different cludgy build.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

In his game' date=' it is, as he adds STR to all matial maneuivers, including KA's and NND's. In other words, he added more value to STR, and now he's surprised to find out that martial DC's are overpriced when compared to KiRin STR which provides everything MA DC's provide plus more.[/quote']

 

Scanned back through and saw that - wow - that does make the faux strong Martial Artist officially a crazy efficient build. Ultimately that would seem to, if you were to allow it to affect figured characteristics, reduce the value of Not for Lifting as Strength now has expanded utility. Taking away lifting reduces it less that it would normally.

 

I think I might well be done with this one, I do pity the players that go with Mentalists and Energy Projectors or even just built using the rules; they're going to be left a bit in the dust point-wise.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

What I don't understand is why Ki-Rin implied this concept cost 40% more using RAW than it did with his rather minor Limitation on STR. Yes' date=' the build seems to be a bit overdone, but it still doesn't seem like it should be so expensive unless there's a lot more to it than we've seen. A 40% overage on a 350 point Champions character comes out around 490 CP. Nothing in his posts suggested a 500 point-level MA. Quite the contrary; it sounded like the character was perhaps dangerously underpowered.[/quote']

 

I believe he was talking about comparing the plus 15 Str to 3 Damage Classes plus Figured Characteristics. Since 3 Damage Classes don't cost endurance (what would be a +1/2 advantage on the Str), increases base damage of Killing Atatcks and will add to NND Martial Maneuvers - I suspect the cost difference is not a severe as he's projecting.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

If you don't think 10 Str + 2 MA DCs is enough, go with +6 MA DCs instead. **shrug** There's no limit there. Martial Arts DCs add to base damage (in 5E).

 

I think people pay too much attention to the stereotypical character concepts in any case. Build your character to do what you want him/her to be able to do. That's what the Hero System is about. We don't have character classes. The archetypes are just there as a descriptive way to get across to other people roughly the way your character is built, not as a way to restrict or railroad your abilities.

His issue seems to be with cost, not with the actual build. He wants the cost to be in line with a straight strength buy. The next question would be What limit can I get on Str only for figured characteristics?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

The Brick is THE fundamental character archetype of HERO.

 

Everything is costed relative to The Brick to see if it's fair.

 

Any mechanic that results in a HTH combat specialist or a "Brick Trick" that is cheaper than what it would cost a Brick is considered inherently unfair.

 

Any mechanic that results in a "Brick Trick" + something extra should cost more than what a Brick pays to build the analogous "Brick Trick".

 

Steve apparently has changed the basis of the fundamental HERO equation in 6E. Until I see it and study it, I can't comment on what the new basis is.

 

But for 5ER or before, the Brick is the standard by which all other HERO concepts are judged by.

I disagree with your premise. I would say that there is no Fundemental Archetype in Hero. If your group chooses to use the Brick as that, then you may want to take a very close look at most other Archetypes since they're likely overcosted.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

DCs add damage to MA. They do not help a low STR character HTH specialist get their needed PD, REC, and STUN at a fair price.

 

If the character concept did not need PD, REC, and STUN effects where I needed anything but DCs to keep things fair, I'd just be using DCs.

It's the idea that the Brick Cost Point (High Str) is a 'Fair Price' compared to the Martial Artist Cost Point (DC's plus Points in Figured Chars). It's cheaper for certain, but is it fair?

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

It was responded to. It was rejected because DCs DO NOT CREATE THE EFFECT NEEDED.

 

You seem to like point based examples. I gave one.

 

This perfectly valid and fair character concept costs 1.4x the CPs it should.

 

If the player had wanted to do something where using DCs were all that was needed to keep things fair, I would've used DCs.

 

I certainly did not want to have a F'ing target painted on my back by the more commonly participating members of these forums.

DC's do create the effect just not the cost desired. If you're assuming that the Brick cost point is the only correct one, then you may eventually find yourself in the position of recosting all other Concept Cost Points.

Re: fair cost for strength that isn't strong

Until 6E, the STR pump was considered fair.

 

In addition changing things so this character concept comes closer to matching the efficiency of the STR pump has far fewer ripples than changing the far greater number of characters based on the STR pump.

 

HERO Games gets to cause major trouble like that. Not me.

You described what you're group considered an inequity between the Brick build and the Martial Artist Build - so either the Brick Build is unfair or the Martial Artist Build is unfair. I could easily see an Energy Projector going "Hey, I'll buy my strength like that as well since I should be healthy and tough with maybe some leapiness, plus what can I get for doesn't add to damage?" in the environment you seem to be describing. So what do you fix, one build or all but one build?