Tonio

Re: Instant Unluck UAA

Re: Does anyone have any idea why this is legal? Oh I understand that this is the intent of putting Trigger on Missile Deflection... but is that what it's really doing? If you put Trigger on an EB, is the EB always "on", but only fires when the Trigger conditions are met? Or does the EB turn on and fire when the conditions are met? Hrm... nevermind, I just re-read Trigger. You "use" the power when you set it up, not when it's triggered. The conditions don't trigger the power, just its effects (and attack roll, etc). Meh.

Re: What game would you LOVE to play in? I was just thinking of that... sorta Final Fantasy-ish, Vibroaxes vs Flame Darts, "SS: Quantum Physics as a Required Skill Roll for my Disintegrate spell" type of game...

Re: Does anyone have any idea why this is legal? Regarding Missle Deflection with that Trigger... seems to me it's really kinda useless. The Trigger part, that is. Missile Deflection is a Constant power that costs no END. So having it "turn on" when you get attacked, instantly, doesn't do anything for you. Doesn't save you any time/actions (you can just have it be on all the time), no END (since it costs no END to begin with), nothing. Which, I believe, reflects a problem with how Missile Deflection is built. The Missile Deflection Power basically gives you access to a Missile Deflection maneuver (which isn't constant, and I believe doesn't cost any END, either). Clunky, IMO. But that's another discussion (or discussions, I think)...

Re: Sidekick I think that'd be covered under Fair Use, though. I'm fairly certain I can make an electronic copy, regardless of what it says on the book, for back-up purposes. I'm also fairly certain (although admittedly less so) that I can make an electronic copy for use exclusively by the owner of the hardcopy (me, unless I sell it). I'm almost entirely certain I can't give or sell an electronic copy to someone who doesn't own the book. In any case, even if I'm wrong and you CAN'T legally own an electronic copy of a book you own in hardcopy only without obtaining it from the same source (e.g. buying the PDF separately), I'm sure DOJ (or whoever owns the copyright) can decide to allow you to do so. They might, if you ask nicely!

Re: Sidekick Yeah, I'm somewhat irked that I don't get a PDF "for free" when I buy the hard copy. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it's perfectly legal to use a PDF copy if you already own the hard copy (like, say, copying a friend's PDF file).

Re: End Of Year Blowout Sale! When did the sale start, officially?

Re: Aborting to Shrinking Doesn't putting up a Force Wall also require an attack roll (to "hit" the target Hex)?

I'd do an END Reserve and a Multipower, one slot for the base HKA, another for the powered one. 29 Multipower, 80-point reserve, (80 Active Points); all slots OAF (-1), STR Minimum (6-14) (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) 1u) 1d6 HKA, Reduced END (0 END; +1/2) (22 Active Points); OAF (-1), STR Minimum (6-14) (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) 2u) 2.5d6 HKA, Armor Piercing (+1/2), Penetrating (+1/2) (80 Active Points); OAF (-1), No STR Bonus (-1/2), STR Minimum (6-14) (-1/2), Real Weapon (-1/4) Total cost, 32 points, plus the END Reserve. The 2nd slot draws END from the Reserve. (The only reason I'd use a MP instead of a compound power is the "add Penetrating and AP to the original 1d6 HKA, also add No STR Bonus to it" business. If you'd rather tack on an extra 1.5 dice of HKA, but have only those extra dice be Penetrating, AP, and no STR bonus, then DEFINITELY a compound power is the way to go.)

Re: Flying Dodge Hm, Aborting to DFC to protect others... Would you allow it if the Aborting character had high defenses and Absorption, with an AoE EB, no range, Triggered "when damage is absorbed"?

Re: Drakine: There will be only one

Re: (HR) Char/Skill & damage rolls I believe Hugh was referring to the part where rolling better to-hit translated into more damage (and vice versa). With high DCVs, not only would you be hit less often, but when you DID get hit, it'd be for less damage, effectively double-dipping on DCV. Also, when an attack targets a hex, how do you determine damage to the character? Based on how well the attacker hit the hex? Hexes having such low DCVs, that'd make AoEs inordinately powerful.

Re: Weapon Familiarity and Reality That doesn't follow. Fire breathing dragons, and magic, are imaginary, fantastic concepts, so they get to be modeled however the modeler sees fit. Weapon fighting (and martial arts) are real world concepts, so there's a drive to get them "right" by modeling them as close to real life as possible. Giving a -20 OCV penalty for using an unfamiliar weapon is iffy because you KNOW it's not so, from real world experience (maybe not yours, certainly not mine, but some people's, yes). Having a dragon's breath do 10d6 damage is not iffy because you don't have any real world basis to base it on, so you HAVE to imagine it. Any differences between two people's concepts do not reflect either being wrong, but rather different imaginations. Given that imaginations DO vary, game balance is used instead to work out differences on which people can't agree. On real world concepts, though, the imperative is to build it as realistically as possible without breaking game balance (and of course, playability / fun factor).

Re: Martial Art: Tricking Hm, true, nexus and OddHat... I still think my point applies to some SFX's/backstories, but there are certainly a lot to which it doesn't apply. It could be that when you understand a subject matter better, it's harder to suspend disbelief regarding that subject. If that were true, then, say, geneticists would have a harder time getting used to a game where mutants have superpowers, since they're much more familiar with the concept of mutations and how they work. A martial artist would have a much harder time accepting Tricking as a MA concept, too. I think we're all more familiar with the specifics of martial arts than, say, genetic mutation, so accepting Tricking is tougher than accepting Mutants. On the other hand, the opposite could very well be true, too. A martial artist would know Tricking doesn't work IRL, but he'd maybe also know why, exactly, it wouldn't work, so he could "fix" it for his character; or maybe he'd just wish it DID work, more than others, so he'd go that route... I dunno. =/ Anybody have any info/input on that? (Yah, I'm just arguing academically... it really makes no difference either way, I'm just curious as to why this phenomenon happens.)

Re: Martial Art: Tricking I think it comes from the fact that "shooting lasers out your eyes" doesn't so much break science as we know as it expands it, while Tricking as a viable martial art breaks what we do know about martial arts. Consider "hard science fiction", where an adherence as strict as possible to current laws of physics and such is observed, while introducing new concepts which are as theoretically sound as possible. Hence no "these people evolved to withstand high radiation and heat because their sun nova'd", since evolution is known not to work on such short time periods, but we do get "these people evolved to withstand higher radiation and heat than normal because their world was closer to the sun and had a thinner atmosphere than Earth", since that's at the very least plausible. Saying "my guy can control electricity" presupposes that it's possible for a being to somehow manipulate electricity. Electric eels do something similar. One can assume that given some changes to our current physiology, it could be possible to withstand high voltages and currents. Given that, it's a short step to being able to control that, in a similar way to that with which we control our muscles, for example. So while no, we can't control electricity right now, it's not theoretically impossible for a being to control electricity. On the other hand, using Tricking in an effective offensive way by an otherwise normal human being is pretty hard to imagine, for several reasons. Believing someone can shoot lightning involves a series of smallish imaginative leaps, while believing someone can effectively fight using Tricking involves a small number (maybe 1?) of huge leaps, and I think that's the problem. Not that either should be disallowed in a game setting because of this argument. =)

Re: Controlling machines So a "generic" -1, possibly reduced depending on the characters this characer is likely to face? Sounds good.

Re: Controlling machines Well, it's not so much that half the time his powers don't apply, but rather that over half the time he won't find "just the right machine for the job", but less than half the time he won't find "any helpful machine to control", so, on average, his power is half as effective. Compare it to an unLimited Cosmic VPP... I'd say this one is about half as effective (but I'm not certain, which is why I ask your opinion).

Re: Controlling machines What value would you put on "Only to Control Machines", meaning only to effect powers that represent controlling the machine (i.e. suppress, duplicating the machine's powers, the driving-the-car-into-someone-as-EB example, etc.)? I'm leaning towards -1, does that sound about right?

Re: Controlling machines Meh, I wanted to avoid VPPs... but yeah, looks like that's the way to do it.

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement

Re: Controlling machines Well, to be honest, this isn't a player in a campaign of mine, but rather my GM, who usually consults me regarding power construction and rules and stuff. So there's no worries about him thinking he'll just shut down Mechanon. =) The problem with the Multipower is that it's way too many effects to cover. It'd have to be a VPP. Plus a Linked Suppress to prevent the other guy from using it. Meh. And Thia, can you Mind Control machines who aren't sentient? What about simple machines currently being worn/wielded/used by another character? (Like a policeman's gun, or a car being driven.)

Re: FTL vs. Lots of Megascale Movement Not a lot of that type of character in our game. =) And if there were, it'd probably be bought as PD/ED with Damage Resistance. (Yes, I know it comes out to the same cost... again, like I said before, I'm not arguing whether that's correct or not, just saying how we usually play it.)

How would you build a power that lets the user control machines? Not sentient machines, just regular ones. Initially I thought "TK, only vs Machines", but then the player mentioned he could control, say, a gun in someone else's hand. Like make it fire when HE wanted to, and wherever HE wanted to, and not fire when the gun holder wants to. Considered some sort of Mind Control to have the gun wielder in the example do whatever the power user wants, but it feels kludgy, not to mention it runs into "why is it tougher to control machines wielded by mentalists?" or, if based on CON, "why is it tougher to control machines wielded by healthy people?" I'm leaning towards "TK, only vs Machines", and going for STR vs STR contests every time wielder and power user disagree on what to do with the machine (i.e. power user wants to fire at gun wielder's friend using gun wielder's gun, or gun wielder wants to fire at power user)... does that sound right?

Re: 1 pip RKA, Penetrating Silly me, heh. Well, the variant I like is 1 point of effect per die. 1 point of effect per DC would have a 1pip EB doing 0 STUN, but a 1pip RKA doing 1 BODY. A 1d6 RKA would do 3 BODY. A 1d6 RKA that does 3 BODY, minimum, is substantially more powerful than a 1d6 RKA, NND, Does BODY, yet costs half as much. Consider, for contrast, a 1d6 RKA, Standard Effect, NND, Does BODY. It always does 3 BODY. Your 1d6 RKA, Penetrating, does 3-6 BODY.

Re: 1 pip RKA, Penetrating