rauer

Re: Order of the Stick

Anyone else recognize the raven's quote?

 

 

It's from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dave says it as he enters the Obelisk.

Nice catch!

Re: Balancing Mental Powers

4. In the case of an enemy like VIPER or a Gadgeteer they have the opportunity to go in prepared (assuming they expect to run into the mentalist.) Give the targets some higher Ego and/or Mental defence in a focus.

 

6. The Comeback. Next time the bad guys encounter the Heroes they know to be careful of the Mentalist and target them first and hard.

 

Cheers mate, hope this helps.

These two bring back memories for me, and are good to note. Enemies can learn, and some of them can adapt better than others. If the mentalist PC (or, for that matter, any of the PCs) is extremely effective in one encounter, then when the same bad guys face the same PC group again the bad guys might have a new tactic to try and deal with what defeated them before. In the case of VIPER and other agencies, they might actually build files on their enemies and pass them around to some/all of their operatives/nests.

This actually reminds me of an old Battletech game I played in. One character had some stunning die rolls and downed an enemy mech every round for either four or five rounds. In the next session we faced another part of the same enemy 'army', and this part had been briefed on the prior battle and ordered to take out the lucky PC first, since he was clearly 'far more of a threat than any of the others'.

Re: Dr. Sebastian Poe

Wait' date=' since when does Drain have a cap? IPE seems like a good idea though, as does the Transform.[/quote']

 

*cough*... Drain does not have a cap, Ice9 is right. I was thinking of Drain working in the same manner as other adjustment powers and it does not, sorry about that!

Re: Dr. Sebastian Poe

The Mental Shapeshift leads me to think of Dr. Poe as a foe who relies on not being found. If this is the idea, then how about this.

If the EGO Drain were lowered in dice to one or two, then you could give it IPE and an increased cap. This might give you a much stronger effect, with a little added time, and would make the power very subtle as well. Something like this:

Drain EGO 1d6+1 (standard effect: 4 points), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Minute; +1/4), Ranged (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), Cumulative (56 points; +1 1/4) (58 Active Points).

With a SPD of 4, he could use this power on each phase and drain the max of 56 points (or 28 EGO) in about three and a half turns (42 seconds). With IPE, this is pretty nasty. Of course, anyone with Mental Defense might be an issue since the attack only hits for four points, but an AP vs Mental Defense would help with that (a little, anyway), and swapping AP for Ranged would mean that he would have to touch the target, so it could be:

Bedside Manner: Drain EGO 1d6+1 (standard effect: 4 points), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Minute; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (+1/2), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1), Cumulative (56 points; +1 1/4) (58 Active Points).

Something like this might fit nicely with his Mind Scan in an Elemental, as well. One thing that changes sharply though is that the Drain essentially becomes an "out of combat" type of power, where against a foe on a map it might not help Dr. Poe much at all. But... add something else like this and it carries the change even further.

Emotion Sculpting: Major Transform 2d6 (Alter, remove or add Psych Lims relates to or affecting emotional states. heals back normally (a month or more)), Works Against EGO, Not BODY (+1/4), Based On EGO Combat Value (Mental Defense applies; +1) (67 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Limited Target (humans) (-1/2).

*cough* Too much of this stuff though, and a villain might be seen as abusive when the players realize what is happening, but that would depend on the flavor of your campaign. And who knows, perhaps the good Doctor starts out small and learns more powers as he goes?

If you are looking for a Dr. Poe who can track down a mind (A Connoiseur Of Minds from your post), weaken or incapacitate a mind (EGO Drain), and do some molding of it (Transform), then small doses of those powers can do ridiculous things while leaving your goal (He will NOT be able to "duke it out" with a super hero) intact.

Hope all this helps!

Re: Dominos, mountains & small cars

It all depends on what you want from the System

to be consistent...

I think they key is seeing HERO as a way to model multiple systems. Rather than deciding for you, HERO gives you, as the GM and 'world creator', some options for how you want things to work in your System that you base on the HERO guidelines.

The individual GM instills the consistency, if I correctly understand what you are looking for.

Re: Social effects

If you haven't figured it out by now' date=' that's a quote I would ditch. There is no reason for PC's to be immune to seduction rolls. They are also characters with features, flaws and foibles. They may be [i']resistant[/i] to seduction rolls, but nothing should make them immune.

PCs are not immune. The outcome should be roleplayed. I am not trying to be rude, just pointing out that there is a difference. A bit back in the thread, Markdoc made a post which emphasized this difference in his own method of handling social skills.

You know, the snarkiness of recent posts, from both viewpoints, really obscures the possibility of exchanging ideas and debating. In fact, a devolution to what I think of as "rudeness that would rarely, if ever, emerge around a gaming table but seems easily found on the internet" means that the rude part really gets in the way of the 'constructive exchange of ideas' part. We should be talking to each other the same way we debate a game idea with our gaming pals face to face, which does not seem to be happening in some of the recent threads.

If all this thread really is, with the cover peeled back, is a sandbox where we are grabbing at our little trucks and smacking each other's hands, then I'll go spend more time preparing for finals.

Re: Social effects

For that I recommend using Hero system, pretty much as-is, in in much the same way I suggested you can for social interactions - in other words, break each "event" down into multiple skill rolls.

 

One important point, however - when you do this, the GM needs to be aware that each skill roll is a chance to fail and that if you load an encounter up with them, the PCs will eventually fail. To counter this, the GM either needs to give significant bonuses (or smaller penalties) to make each sub-task easier or make sure each subtask is not pass/fail, but moves the odds of probability back and forth, so that PCs have a chance to recover from a failed roll.

 

Essentially, what I tend to do as a GM is to tell the players that hey can go for a straight roll but the penalty will be nothing/trivial/substantial/overwhelming and then let them decide whether to just tackle it head-on, break it down into subtasks, or try and wangle up some complementaries. I'm usually pretty open to players suggesting subtasks.

 

Even a simple action like "climb the cliff" can be handled like this, where a really difficult climb can be broken down into "ascents" of different difficulty. Will the PCs choose the one roll at -4 to climb the sheer face or try to work around the face by a series of short climbs (at -2) around the corner to see if they can find a better route?

 

This gives the GM the option of choosing "short resolution" or "long resolution", (and shifting back and forth between them) as suits the dynamics of the game, without necessarily tipping the players off which is which. For example , in the cliff climb example, if it turns out that the players are less than enchanted with a blow by blow climbing expedition, the GM can always go "and on rounding the corner you see a chimney that provides an easy route to the top, that was hidden from the ground" - and move right along. It also gives the players some input as to how they would like to handle things, since they can always opt for a more detailed resolution should they want to play it out. That way the system provides a high level of granularity when required, and - equally importantly - doesn't inflict it unnecessarily, when not required.

 

Essentially we don't need new rules, so much as GM's need a new perspective on the rules we have, IMO. I'm keen - as a GM - on skill heavy/social interaction heavy games, so like being able to facilitate that, and this approach is very flexible and non-intrusive, in that regard.

 

And for what it's worth, using this approach I have actually done what some posters here have talked about - run a court case over the span of an entire afternoon and evening's play. Brian (Sir Ofeelya on the boards) was one of the PCs and can give his opinion, but at the time, I thought everyone seemed to feel it was great fun and it worked really well, from the GM's point of view. The speech by one PC as to why he was not guilty of murder went down in game history

 

cheers, Mark

This is explained very well. Nice job.

Re: Social effects

I think that it would be the player stating that they are immune and while we are mostly (in this thread) arguing at extremes, I do not believe that any of us are experiencing the extremes being used to illustrate points - regardless of the glee with which antagonists are jumping on inappropriate exaggerations.

 

I think what you are likely to get is a player character in a social situation where they have some kind of interaction with GM controlled characters.

 

Now, if they use their conversation skills to find out, for example, some minor point of information about the character, his work, tomorrow's bank job etc. but this is not roleplayed out 'in full' such that the player utters the words, "Nah, John would never allow us to go with the safeties on" then the player says, my character would never have let that slip - it is not appropriate for your slick tongued journalists to draw that information out of my character unless you, the GM, can trick me into saying it.

 

So. If the GM is not skilled (or not more skilled than his players) then there is no way such things can be put into the game. If the GM is very skilled (or simply more skilled than his players)* then he can trip up his players all the time without even needing the modesty cover of having slick tongued journalists do it in game. "You said it! It will be the Gazette's headline tomorrow".

 

So, the system will not help imbalanced groups to have these kinds of interaction - not even for the small stuff - the people will have to learn to roleplay better. Nice message....

 

 

Doc

 

*I have run clubs for kids (12-16) for a long time and believe me, if you need to, you can tie them in knots. GM and player skill in social combat counts for a LOT, just not in game mechanics at present...

You are correct, I used the word 'character' when I should have used the word 'player.' Also, I would hope that nobody arguing for either viewpoint is experiencing the extremes that both sides are presenting because the extremes seem to come down to bad playing and bad GMing. The less of that the better, for everyone.

Regarding a game where the GM's social abilities dwarf those of the players, or the reverse, this is a good situation to look at. Here, the GM should recognize this and make allowances for it. Essentially, for me this falls into the category of adjusting playstyle to suit a specific gaming group. The specifics of those adjustments would depend on the example. I would guess that a group of 12-16 year olds led by a far more skilled GM is probably closer to an exception than the norm (if we had a scale), but situations like this are why I think a 'firmer' system has merit as an optional rule. I see that it has a use and a place (which I've expressed in earlier posts as well). What I do not want is to lose the current system, which I believe works well as the default.

Re: Social effects

Are social skills unique that they should be role played? I expect more out of players in combat than

 

[Monotone]I try to hit him with my attack.

 

I roll damage.[/monotone]

 

But I don't believe the success or failure of physical combat should be influenced any more - or any less - by role playing concerns than social combat results should. How large a bonus (penalty) will you give a well-described and role played (poorly thought out and described)combat action? I suggest the same size bonus (penalty) should apply to social conflict - no more and no less - with the result then resolved with an objective system.

Yes, social skills should be roleplayed. The rules clearly state that. No, combat does not have to be roleplayed. RP in combat is part of the fun, absolutely, but I believe roleplay is not nearly as crucial to combat resolution as it is to social resolution, and I believe the rules support this.

I understand that you disagree and that you would like social resolution and combat resolution to be equally influenced by roleplay. I would not like that because, as a player, I need to have more control over my character in order to contribute to the story in the way that I desire to. Nobody else at the table, including the GM, has the insight to my character that I have and can resolve situations and decisions "in character" as accurately as I can. Every player has that relationship with their own character and the GM has that relationship with all the NPCs. "roleplay" is the trust that everyone is acting in character and making decisions for better or for worse, but more importantly for the story.

If that isn't happening then I might as well be playing Battletech. Without the Mechwarrior supplement.

Which brings me to the next part.

To me' date=' I think the present system (with "I'm a PC so I can do what others cannot" subtracted) would be a reasonable resolution mechanism. However, I would also see value in a much more granular system, to the detail of the physical combat system, for games where social interaction, and not physical combat, is the core conflict resolution system. In a game of diplomacy and court intrigue, for example, one might use the Granural social resolution system, but reduce physical combat to opposed skill rolls in such skills as "swordplay", "pugilism" and "brawling". Physical combat will not be the focus, so make it easily and quickly resolved.[/quote']

 

First, "I'm a PC so I can do what others cannot" is not quite the whole story. A PC who states, by word or action, that they are immune to social skills would, I believe, widely be seen as roleplaying badly (if at all). That is up to player and GM to resolve. This means that, subtracting bad roleplaying, the current system is reasonable, yes?

 

Second, I see value in a more granular system (to adopt your term, which I like) as well, which is why I think it, or some form of it, should be considered for inclusion as an option. Some will like it, use it, and enjoy it, and I think the option is worthy of consideration. I'm open minded, and just because I don't want it doesn't mean that others wouldn't have fun with it or even prefer it, so where is the harm in including it as an optional rule?

 

 

I am still not sure why the existing rules cannot be used with very minor tweaks, actually.

A) Use the Resistance Talent to defend against social skills. The book specifically details this.

Houserule out the statements that Persuasion and Seduction should not be used on PCs, while ignoring the statement in the descriptions of other Interaction skills that recommend roleplaying out the results over using straight die roll results.

 

This would seem to allow equal application of social outcomes to all, based on die rolls, would still allow roleplay reactions to (but not ignoring of) die rolls, and situational modifiers could be adjudicated as needed. Wouldn't that fulfill what proponents of changing the system are asking for?

Re: Social effects

Unless something has changed and I missed it' date=' the rules currently indicate that social skill use should not be binding when used against PC's. Anyone have a current page reference?[/quote']

 

Though I have lost my own rulebook, I have temporarily obtained a copy of the Fifth Edition rulebook. Fifth Edition, not the FRED, so when checking references and page numbers please note the version of the source.

 

I decided to start with the description of Skills. I found nothing in the Skills section on pages 26-30. Page 31 starts the descriptions of the individual skills, so I decided to look at all of the Interaction skills.

 

 

Acting (31-32): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

Animal Handler (32-33): Nothing that seemed relevant (barring an animal PC, I suppose, but lets not get hung up on exceptions).

 

Bribery (33-34): First paragraph: "Characters should roleplay bribery attempts as much as possible, with the GM allowing a character to make Bribery rolls at crucial points in the bargaining to determine how much to offer, how subtle to be, and so on." Second paragraph: "If the Bribery attempt fails badly, or if the character attempts to bribe an incorruptible target, the potential bribee may call his superior or the police, arrest the character, or threaten him with a weapon."

 

Conversation (37-38): Third paragraph: "Although successful Conversation rolls indicate that a character is a witty and intriguing conversationalist, in general you shouldn't substitute this Skill for roleplaying. If a character makes clever or stupid statements, the GM should apply modifiers to the roll. You should roleplay most conversations without using Conversation rolls."

 

High Society (40-41): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

Interrogation (41): Nothing that seemed relevant, with the possible exception of the end of the first paragraph which notes that "many uses of this Skill aren't very heroic; Interrogation is most often bought by villains in many campaigns." Also, the first paragraph refers the reads to the Resistance Talent, which offers resistance to Interrogation (and other social skills).

 

Oratory (45): First paragraph: "Oratory does not help a character argue--it's only useful when the audience isn't talking back. Characters who want to lie convincingly or argue effectively should buy Persuasion."

 

Persuasion (46): Fourth paragraph: "Persuasion is normally only used on NPCs; PCs are usually allowed more latitude with their decisions. However, a successful Persuasion roll should make a PC much more inclined to believe the speaker or do as he requests."

 

Seduction (48): Fourth paragraph: "This Skill is normally only for use on NPCs; a player should have more control over his character's actions. The GM may rule that Seduction can be used on a PC when it fits his Disadvantages or personality."

 

Streetwise (49): Streetwise is not included as an Interaction skill on the list back on page 31, though the first sentence of the Streetwise description states that it is an Interaction skill. Fourth paragraph: "Encourage players to roleplay this Skill as much as possible; it's a lot of fun."

 

Trading (51): Nothing that seemed relevant.

 

 

I found no other information that looked relevant, to me, in other sections of the book.

 

The descriptions for Bribery, Conversation, and Streetwise all recommend that usage of these skills be roleplayed as much as possible.

 

The description for Bribery indicates that one method of failure is to attempt to bribe an incorruptible target.

 

The descriptions for Persuasion and Seduction both indicate that these skills are not normally used on PCs and each provides an explanation as to why. Both explanations relate to the player having more control, or being allowed more latitude, over the character's decisions or actions. Each description notes 'rough' exceptions related to die roll success (Persuasion) or Disadvantages (Seduction). Both descriptions, in their entirety, seem to indicate that in limited circumstances a 'shared decision' between GM and player may be appropriate regarding usage of these skills.

 

To summarize and answer Hugh's question, the Fifth Edition rules indicate that roleplaying should heavily influence outcomes of social skill use, that die roll results should be taken into account when roleplaying decisions are made regarding social skill results, and that yes indeed social skill use (for some skills) should not be binding when used against PC's (along with an explanation as to why).

 

I want to be clear that I'm not trying to make a value judgement here on how anyone wants all this to work, but I don't think the present system is broken. Vulnerable to bad roleplaying? Sure, but only good roleplaying will resolve that, imo.

 

 

I believe that, in game, there should be an objective mechanism to asses the success or failure of social skills, just as there is an objective mechanism to assess the success or failure of other efforts by the PC's and NPC's. I don't define "my character is accurate - his shots always hit" or "my character is tough - bullets just bounce off". I buy a high OCV/high defenses and resistant defenses. Then I interact with the DCV's and DC's that other characters have purchased.

 

Social abilities should work no differently. I should define the result I want, and purchase the abilities to get there. I then interact with the game world. I should not simply be able to jot down "Percy Paladin is chaste and no one can ever tempt him." I should be purchasing abilities which prevent such attempts to lead him down the wrong path succeeding.

 

Similarly, there are cases where even the most extreme resistances fail. A system where we just say "it is impossible for him to be persuaded" does not account for that possibility. A system that imposes penalties and bonuses could certainly allow for a character whose resistances are purchased to such a level that it will not be possible to persuade him, just as it is possible to purchase defenses to such a level that an attack cannot harm him. But neither should be a gimme. You want that level of resistance, pay for that level of resistance.

 

I believe that the mechanism used to assess success or failure in the social aspect of Hero is a mixture roleplaying decisions and die roll results. The degree to which each part, roleplaying and die results, is used will be determined by the desires and playstyle of the specific gaming group. This is not the same method of resolution as the one used in the combat side of Hero. This difference looks, to me, like a deliberate design decision.

 

I'd like to point out that I don't see any reason why anyone who wanted a firmer social combat system couldn't simply use the Resistance Talent, as presented in the book (page 65, description and sidebar), to defend against social skills. One could also ignore the statements in the book regarding PCs being allowed more control over their actions than NPCs as well, which would allow free usage of Persuasion and Seduction.

 

Is there some reason why this would not work, or is insufficient, for anyone who wanted to run a game where social outcomes were determined more by die roll results than the format laid out in the Fifth Edition ruleset?

Re: Social effects

Well, it depends how you look at it...you might define it as not taking damage from an attack, and not worry too much about the mechanism. Someone who has +10 DCV is all but bulletproof (although not grenade proof!)

 

I'm happy with social defences too, but I think in many cases someone who has social defences will probably be resistant to social situations, so probably not that great at social situations themselves, although there are always exceptions.

 

Someone who is 'defensive' in social situations is possibly hard to influence but also unliklely to successfully influence others.

Hhmm... To an extent I agree and disagree. I prefer to avoid describing 'taking no damage' as 'missing' when I run a game because it can provide different information to the player/character, but I suppose at that point the topic breaks down into specifics like power construction and SFX, and from there I think it all becomes personal preference to a given GM. It's all good.

Re: Social effects

If that was what you were asking for' date=' no-one would cavil. And indeed, one can buy such resistance in the rules as written, so it's pretty much a non-issue. However, that's most emphatically [b']not[/b] what you have been asking for: you have - over and over - asked for a social system that can compel actions. I refer you back to the, by now, infamous post about naked nuns and locker rooms.

 

That's what's generating resistance. If such a system were grafted onto Hero, I wouldn't GM Hero, simple as that.

 

cheers, Mark

This has been my understanding as well, that the social system being debated would involve compelling actions from one who lost a social combat.

Re: Social effects

I think that there are plenty of examples of physical immunity: people get shot at and it misses.

Isn't that just a physical attack missing, where immunity would be more like bulletproof (in this example of someone being shot at), as in the bullet hits and the target is unharmed by a successful attack?

Re: Social effects

Well. I typed out a nice, pretty response and then my IE crashed and ate it. My fault for using Windows, I suppose.

Nether does a soft (and I agree - pick any name) system prevent bad GMing.

I think we, and perhaps everyone, are agreeing on this. Systems don't prevent bad GMs/players from being, well, bad.

You know' date=' I don't believe I've ever seen someone tout Hero as a game of gooey and vague mechanics before. Why should the group who wants structure be denied that structure?[/quote']

 

I was comparing the social side of Hero to the combat side of Hero. In comparison, yes the social side is murky, 'gooey', flexible, and relies far more on judgement calls than the combat side.

 

Combat and role playing are not mutually exclusive. Characters do not stop being individuals with personalities' date=' quirks and foibles and become tactical drones simply because they have entered physical combat. Certainly not in my games, or any games I have experiences with real role players.[/quote']

 

I didn't claim that the two are mutually exclusive and I certainly hope that nobody think so. I was trying to point out that the flexibility of the current system allows it to be adapted to a wide range of playstyles, essentially 'built to suit one's needs.'

 

 

 

You also mentioned denying structure to those who might want it. That is an excellent point. My answer is that, in my opinion, the structure is built by the gaming group to suit their needs. I see Hero as providing an 'out of the box' combat system along with an explanation for how it works and guidelines for a social system along with encouragement for the gaming group in question to customize this part to suit their needs.

 

I don't see that arangement as a problem, but at the same time I don't see a problem in providing something along the lines of the optional rules which already exist in some areas of Hero to give more 'social structure' to those who want it.

 

I do want to repeat that, in my opinion, a given group's playstyle is what fills in that 'social structure,' and I think that is generally a good thing.

Re: Social effects

So how is a mechanic that prevents bad play itself a bad mechanic?

I don't see how a hard (or fixed, or whatever name everyone agrees on) social system prevents bad play. In my experience, bad play is prevented by other players and/or the GM helping the 'bad player' learn to play better. No game system I have ever seen has prevented bad players or GM's from participating. Just saying.

"Equally bad" is not a sufficient basis' date=' in my view, for retention of the current system.[/quote']

 

Neither is "equally bad" a sufficient basis, in my view, for revision of the current system. If both options are equally bad then it does not seem that revision would lead to improvement, unless this discussion results in a 'less bad' direction to consider (which would be constructive and excellent). If both sides are using bad players/GM's as points to be made then I come back to my thought above that game systems don't prevent bad play.

 

 

 

In my view/experience, the lack of a rigid nature in the social side of Hero is what makes it open to a variety of play styles and is an intentional design feature. I believe that this is where an individual campaign develops its flavor, in how that specific campaign (that group of GM/players) uses their own creativity and play style to fill in the intentionally gooey/vague social framework that Hero provides.

 

In fact, that gooey social structure allows Group A to play a Hero game essentially as a miniature combat game with little to no RP involved, Group B to play a mix where storytelling and combat balance, and Group C to play a game where combat is infrequent.

 

The base system supports all of that, at least in my view, but all of it depends on the desires of the specific group that is using the toolkit.

Re: defense against grabs / throws, and TK grabs / throws

While this would not apply to all (or even most) villain concepts, Density Increase might limit the possibility of being thrown, depending on how heavy the grabbed character is versus the strength/TK involved.

I say "might" because I am without rulebook, so I cannot look up the specific detail of what happens when a character tries to use a Throw/Martial Throw on something he cannot lift, but DI could be one method of defense.

Re: Indirect and IPE

I've seen suggestions for powers where, for instance, an attack with indirect burrows through the ground and attacks up through the surface, which makes it difficult to logically see where the attack is actually coming from, even though this seems like a perfectly valid use of 'indirect'.

 

How would you rule that? Require IPE as well, or just say that, despite 'appearances' the source of the power is obvious?

If I were the GM and the power were bought Indirect as you describe, with no level of IPE, then I would say that a line of disturbed dirt moves from the originator toward the target, or something to that effect. That would keep the power "visible" while also allowing the power to utilize Indirect to bypass objects and Force Walls and such.

That being said, I have lost my rulebook and can't look up both advantages to read them in detail so my response is less RAW and more "what makes sense to me at first look."

Re: Bullet Kata

A limitation for (only up to DC of incoming attack) would help one aspect. Another limitation for (only to mirror special effect of incoming attack) would also help, assuming the presence of a Variable Special Effect advantage.

Both suggestions assume a build like a VPP that is flexable enough to do what you are looking for. I don't know what to estimate for the value of either limitation, honestly.

Re: Bullet Kata

Here's one way to model the attack itself:

 

20 Bullet Kata: Killing Attack - Ranged 2d6, Reduced Endurance (1/2 END; +1/4), Area Of Effect Nonselective (4" Radius; +3/4) (60 Active Points); OIF (Enemies' gun attacks of opportunity [works best if surrounded by 6 or more opponents]; -1/2), No Range (-1/2), Cannot Use Targeting (-1/2), Limited Power Must make Half Move to use (-1/2) - END=2

Would this construction result in a situation where one incoming attack could trigger an AOE response, or does the OIF above inherently limit the AOE attack along the lines of "This AOE can trigger a number of times equal to or less than the number of incoming attacks?"

My reason for asking is that I am assuming Nexus' idea of the power would reflect a "one for one" type of response.

Aside from the above question, I think the VPP model would allow the Bullet Kata to simulate a wider variety of attacks, but not at the same time (which would be an issue when the character was attacked by a PD EB and an ED EB in the same phase).

The more I think about it the less I can think of something that perfectly reflects what you want, Nexus. I am sure it will simmer in the back of my brain while I do homework this weekend

Re: Stacking Strength and Hand-to-Hand Attack

I see. So let's say my STR is 30 and I purchase a 4D6 HA with 0 END. Combined that would be an 8D6 0 END attack. If I had a 45 STR then it would still combine to an 8D6 0 END attack (or, of course, 9D6 at normal END using only the STR and not the HA power).

Thank you.

Greetings!

Disclaimer: My copy of the rulebook has been missing long enough that I think it really is lost, so while I am sure this answer is in the rules I no longer have a copy to check. So, I know there is a way to stack these abilities from reading elsewhere on this board but I do not know the details.

Question: As the title suggests, I am fiddling with a character who will use strength and HA together. I want to check my intuition on how this works (since I can't check the book). Let's say I have a 20 strength and start from there.

Example 1 - I buy a 2D6 HA, 0 END (+1/2). Intuition says I stack to 6D6 and pay END only on my 20 strength.

Example 2 - I buy a 2D6 HA, Armor Piercing (+1/2). I am sure I cannot stack to 6D6 AP as that seems abusive, so intuition says I can add from STR as many dice as the HA has and no more, which in this case results in 4D6 AP (2D6 from the HA and 2D6 from STR).

While that seems correct, does anyone happen to know what the rules are for this situation?

Thanks in advance

Re: new mutants; Magik's "soulsword"

Howdy MWiggins,

Here is an example of Magik:

http://the-wild-hunt.org/x-men/magik.html

This was not done by me and you may have already seen and gone over it, but I thought I would toss it in just in case.

Re: Sex and the Single Superhuman

Anvil - Male brick, married (twice now, actually). Has a secret ID. One daughter, early twenties if I remember right. He has always been the mature responsible type, one woman at a time and loyal.

Chill - Female energy projector/martial artist. Her powers are ice/cold-based and her low body temperature (always on, as in public ID) makes her unpleasant to be around for normals and most supers alike, so she is a loner both by fate and by choice.

Mercury - Female teleporter. Metallic silver skin (all the time, public ID) and fame get in the way of romance, but she is approachable and does date when opportunities present themselves.

Bishop - Female brick. Powered armor in hero ID and a normal outside with a secret ID. Too devoted to the pursuit of heroic angles, justice, stopping bad guys, and business pursuits to think (much) about a date.

Re: A bit of advice for fellow newcomers...

Well said. I found the same thing helped me. Think about what I want in real terms until I know what it is, then fiddle with options in the rules.

More than that though, you are right about patience. We need it the most when we are most likely to lose it.

Re: Sell my friends on DCV

IMO rreay has it right; DCV isn't about dodging bullets (or laser blasts), it is about the attacker's chance of launching an accurate attack.