Tonio

Re: Negative CSLs True... DEX Drain DOES sound more in tune with the power description. Well, except for the whole "target is reduced to 3 DCV/OCV", which I'm inclined to advise against anyway.

Why are these two so different? BoECV allows you to attack using ECV instead of OCV (and against ECV instead of DCV), but you can choose whether it goes against MD or PD/ED, allowing you to build powers you direct with your mind, but manifest physically. (I still want to attack using OECV vs DCV, though! Grrr!) On the other hand, BoCON turns it entirely into a physical power, period. I can't build a, say, Mind Control Ray, which attacks based on normal DEX-based CVs, but applies Mental Defense and requires EGO+XX for effect. I could, of course, build it as a regular mental power then add Requires Successful Attack Roll or something... but then I'm stuck with a power for which I need to roll to hit twice, one of those times with a combat value which might be very low for me (ECV), and which might make no sense whatsoever (I'm not attacking using my mind... why do I have to use my ECV?). Thoughts?

Re: Negative CSLs Nope, not wrong. I was just wondering whether you could "mix and match", or whether they all had to be defined as reducing the same thing. That is, I'm not wondering whether i can buy "6 NCSLs" and use them for DCV now, OCV later, and half-and-half at some other point in time. Rather, I'm wondering whether I can define my 6 NCSLs as doing -3OCV and -3DCV, always. In other news, turns out the player wanted a power that reduced the target TO 3OCV/DCV. He'd initially asked for Mind Control with a Set Effect "Only to cause confusion", which he defined as lowering the target to 3 OCV/DCV. I disallowed it for several reasons, first of which was it turned out to be a 165 AP power (in a 300pt campaign), but mostly because there are already at least two other mechanisms for reducing OCV/DCV, which are more straightfoward. I suggested CE, but he wants the power to "stick" to the target, and I don't really like how CE gives you -3 OCV/DCV, PERIOD, with no defenses. So now I'm thinking NCSLs. Except when he explained he wanted the target at 3 DCV/OCV, I'm now thinking a mental entangle would be more appropriate. The SFX is a cloud of nanobots which attack the target's neurons or something, causing confusion which manifests as reduced combat values. Thoughts, ideas?

Re: Negative CSLs

Re: 1pt CSLs Meh... I don't own The Ultimate Skill. At least I don't think I do. I'll re-check Fantasy HERO, though.

Re: New Advantage: Area Effect Arc Not quite exactly what you're describing, but a similar effect could be built with Explosion, Nonselective (I'm not entirely sure you can apply Nonselective to Explosion by default, but it makes sense). That way, the initial target gets hit by the full blast, then opponents farther away get hit by smaller blasts, only you have to roll to hit for each (since the effect is arcing towards them, not a true area effect). Or use Selective if you wanna choose who gets hit.

Trying to build a power that imposes a -3OCV/DCV on the target. Can I buy 6 Negative CSLs and define them as 3/3, or do I have to buy two Linked powers?

In Hero Designer, I can buy 1pt CSLs which read "+1 with any single attack with one specific weapon". I can't find these in 5ER, though. Where are they from? I find them unbalanced for a Superhero game, especially if a character picks them with his RKA blaster. I'm thinking it'd only apply to, say, Strike (well, Shoot, I guess), not Haymaker, Rapid Fire, Ranged Disarm, etc, if they're actually valid at all.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I'd like to think you (or anybody else) wouldn't have to do that... I think I can pretty much "see around" badly expressed arguments. I only nitpick when it's of no consequence. I'm not gonna go "aha! you forgot to properly categorize the subjects of your statements! I win!". (In fact, I'm not even sure what I just said there makes any sense... but it sounds vaguely "logic-y".)

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I see your point, and it's a good one. Two comments, though: Person 1 really is more informed, unless he doesn't know people can be allergic to peanuts. Also, the analogous argument to his, regarding the STR issue, would be "because there exist people who would stop playing HERO altogether if the ruels regarding STR were changed to 'fix' the underpriced STR issue, the rules should not be changed in such a way that there is no option to play with STR as it exists currently". That is actually pretty unrealistic, since I believe very few people would actually quit HERO if the price of STR were changed, or it were split, or whatever, mostly because it's not such a cataclismic change, and because there is always the option to use STR as it is currently. The equivalent chocolate situation would exist if people who were allergic to peanuts could remove the peanut butter from chocolate products that included it without suffering any adverse effects. If so, and everybody agreed chocolate tasted better with peanut butter, and if it were NOT an option to have some products with, some without, then I'd think the best solution would be to include peanut butter with all chocolate products, no?

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics Although I can certainly appreciate how you'd come to that conclusion, I'm not assuming that. I was supporting the validity of Markdoc's argument, not the truthfulness of his statements:

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics No no... not "anyone that likes the system as-is", but "anyone that hasn't tried the alternate method". Of course they're less informed; they haven't had both experiences. Someone who's tried chocolate both with and without peanut butter is more informed (and can make a more informed decision) than one who hasn't tried it with peanut butter.

Not really flawed reasoning. Markdoc's argument doesn't work both ways. Those who've tried increasing the cost of STR have ALSO played the game with the original cost. So they've tried both, and in all (most?) cases, they've decided to go with the increased cost. Those who haven't gone with the increased cost are only (mostly?) those that haven't tried it, so their decision is not as informed, being based only on theory, not on practice. Markdoc's argument boils down to that: regardless of what theory says, practice argues for increasing the cost of STR. And it's an entirely valid argument, too. Not deterministic, and I won't comment on the veracity of the statements (because I honestly don't know), but certainly a valid one. Edit: An analogous argument would be: "People who've watched High Definition videos say it's the best thing since sliced bread. People who say it's no good haven't ever watched any." Sure, you can argue 'till your face is blue about how HD video is flawed and looks like crap, but if everybody who's actually watched it endorses it, that's a strong indication it's a good thing. You can't argue the same for people who haven't watched it, because they lack experience: they haven't made a decision as informed as those who've watched it.

Holy cannoli!!! I must confess I was not aware of this. Certainly opens up possibilities... Plus now half my powers will be cheaper, since I can take "Can't be spread" for them, and use them how I've always used them anyway, hee hee!

Re: Power Thresholds Not adding much to the discussion, just wanted to point out how cool I think this idea is, the pitting different types of CVs against each other (especially the SFXs involved). I've always been somewhat irked by how someone defined as a Mentalist would always hit, and damage substantially, someone defined as a non-Mentalist (high OECV vs low DECV, damage vs no defenses), and vice versa. For example, it's always bothered me how magic wielders (be they wizards in a fantasy game, or supermages in a superhero one) either had to target your mind, or be good at physical combat in order to hit physical-oriented combatants, either thru high DEX or CSLs. Makes a lot of sense for them to be able to direct their attacks using their mind (i.e. attack using ECV), but have them be dodged, blocked (or deflected), etc. through physical means (i.e. against DCV). Tried to rep, failed... need to spread around. =/

Re: Lowish-powered Supervillains Thanks for all the input, guys!

Re: Another kind of balance

Re: Lowish-powered Supervillains More info on the campaign, sorry I neglected it before: It's just two players; I highly doubt one will want to play sidekick to the other. They're not very roleplay-oriented (sadly). I can almost guarantee their motivations won't be similar, although I'm sure they'd be willing to modify them to make them compatible. I'm not sure how much I like the patron/organization idea. Seems too much like classic superhero campaigns, or City of Villains-like missions, hehe. I would like to have an adventure mostly set up by the time they create their characters; generic enough that whatever they decide to create fits. They'll expect to play soon after creating their characters, plus I'd like to avoid accusations of creating adversaries tailor-made to their vulnerabilities, hehe. (I'm not asking for a "mostly set up adventure"... just general plot ideas.) Thanks =)

I'm starting a campaign where the players will play lowish-powered supervillains (250-300 pts, I'm thinking). I'm sort of in a rut thinking up "adventures" for them. Initially, I thought "no problem, just think up a regular adventure, and have them play the role of the villains". But that doesn't really work... regular adventures are sparked by villainous actions. So I thought of something along the lines of having a politician try to pass some sort of legislation that would be detrimental to them, to have them try to stop him. But that's too X-Men-esque, hehe. Any ideas?

Re: Flamepunk!! So you're saying Star Wars is Forcepunk?

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics

Re: Turakian magic keeping it balanced?

Re: The Cost of STR & Other Characteristics: An open discussion I think this is the most important point in the argument. STR as an attack power is, I believe, pretty balanced at 1:1, except maybe for the fact that everybody gets 10 APs free. But STR is so much more than just an attack power, and all that added usefulness comes free.

Re: Discussion on costs of Characteristics I disagree. I don't think his argument is based on that. It's based on a lack of options, mostly. An analogous situation would be a game where the HKA Power was free. Anyone who wished to play a character based on ranged attacks would find themselves at a serious disadvantage. This isn't based on a premise stating that "It is undesirable that all characters buy HKA". As it is, players who wish to play a character with low STR find themselves playing a sub-par character, since they're losing capacity without gaining anything in return. The premise, I think, would be more like "It is undesirable that all characters HAVE to buy up their strength, or be at a disadvantage". In certain settings, it's entirely appropriate to expect everybody to buy up their STR, or be at a disadvantage. As an analogy, in a space campaign (not necessarily a Star Hero one, but one that takes place in space, outside of ships, mostly), it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy some form of LS: Self-Contained Breathing, or be at a disadvantage. The setting itself requires it. Back to the STR issue, in a campaign where everybody's a member of a race known for their strength, it's reasonable to expect everybody to buy it up, or be at a disadvantage (the environment is set up to require a lot of strength: doors are way heavy, levers are hard to pull, there are no hand-to-hand weapons (people do more damage with their fists anyway), etc.). But that shouldn't be built-in.

Re: Why should I care? I wouldn't automatically say the players need to adjust. The game's supposed to be fun for all involved (or as many as possible). If half the people involved don't enjoy saving people in a fire, then they shouldn't be playing a game based around such activities. As an extreme example, if I ran a Fantasy game for 3 players who hated Fantasy and only wanted to play Supers, I'm doing something wrong, not them. Now while this might be a case of players ignoring plot hooks and generally being uncooperative, it might also be a case of different expectations. Players 1 and 3 might've wanted a grittier, anti-hero style campaign. And that's fine. If that's the case, then they either need to adjust their expectations to fit into the game the GM's running, or the GM needs to change the tone of the game (and Player 2 needs to adjust his expectations). Or, better yet, some sort of middle ground. The GM might offer incentives for Players 1 and 3's characters to join the fray (maybe the demon sees something that looks like a fellow demon, maybe hint to the loner that the insurance company might offer him a reward for minimzing the damage? I dunno... doesn't have to be a reward, just something that makes it interesting). The players agree to play in a setting somewhat different to what they originally wanted to. In short, the solution is communication. Yes, it's a horrible cliché, but it's still true. Maybe the players really DO want a heroic style campaign, they're just not making the right decisions? Maybe the GM thought the players wanted such a campaign, but they really want a gritty dark campaign? Make sure everybody's on the same page.