poptoad

Re: Superpowers in the Courthouse I've always hated this particular gimmick, because it implies that superpowers are somehow different from the "powers" we've all developed through evolution, like eyesight, hearing, or prehensile grip. To a jellyfish or a trilobite, these are superpowers. There's no "power nullifier" that going to be able to distinguish between natural abilities and superpowers, because the only differences are relative. Guh. I hate that moment. "I've lost my powers!" And yet, miraculously, these people who've lost their powers are still able to run, scream, spit, scratch, and identify friends and foes at range by nothing but light.

Re: The Namesake Thread Mine is the name of a race I played in an old e-mail war game called Stars! My race was of a type called War Monger, so I wanted an innocuous name. They retired undefeated after wreaking great slaughter on numerous galaxies.

Re: Justifying Playable SPD

Re: Surprisingly Effective Builds? For one thing, I don't see how these are 120-point attacks. An 8d6 NND is an 80-point attack, and then you're getting it at -1/2 no range. 8d6 double knockback is just 70 points. Am I being stupid again? But something seems way wonky, since you're still getting those bonus mods on the STR for free. Why not buy just 1d6 HA and put the rest into STR? E.G., 50 STR with +1d6 HA +1 Var. advantage. wouldn't this give you an 11d6 autofire, double knockback, whatever? Or am I missing some rule that says STR is limited in how much it can help HA in the same way it is for HKA -- in other words, with +1d6 HA the most STR you could use would be 5 points? This rule seems the opposite of how running and swimming are treated, in that you have to pay the points to apply the mods to your base running and swimming, too, but with HA you don't have to pay the points to apply the mod to your base STR? Why not?

Re: Golden Girl I've seen a more common and perhaps more justifiable limitation on powers, -1/4 +3 PER rolls to notice. Any power that costs END is visible, and that includes flight. +3 to notice might be worth a -1/4, though I distinctly recall that in earlier versions of Champions this was listed as a -0. Sure, it makes bad guys easier to find you, but it also makes it easier for your friends. Still, it's a thought.

Re: In Character: A Critical and Unauthorized Look at Disadvantages ... I really enjoyed this guy's opinions because they were so strong. He had some good points, particularly about hunteds and DNPCs: they often make up stories that should occur during the game, not before it. they often have ridiculous frequencies. I thought his criticism of vulnerabilities and susceptibilities was strange. Suddenly he's entirely away from critiquing them as they apply to character creation and game-playing, and he's treating them like we're playing a war game, where the weaknesses simply aren't worth the points. (Though I do agree GMs tend to overplay vulnerabilities, susceptibilities, and unluck. My poor 15 points of unluck will get played once or twice every adventure, while some other guy has 50 points in psychological disads that won't even come up every 4 or 5 sessions.) I loved his critiques of sample characters on the right side. He finds some he likes: Green Dragon, Tachyon, Icicle, and Invictus he thinks are particularly well built. But pretty much everybody else he trashes, and his reasons were convincing and funny (I thought). It's true the disads are the heart and soul of a character, and far the hardest part of the character to create. If you've got a good character conception, they flow like water, and if you don't, it's like pulling teeth to get your 150 points. That's because you're trying to define a character. Any novelist will tell you how hard that is to do. By contrast, you can whip up a new set of powers in a few minutes on a matchbook cover. He's right that Hero should have put a bit more creativity and thought into their sample characters. More people know about the Champions than any other NPCs, but their disads do read like an afterthought.

Re: How much should strength cost?

Re: Force Field Is No Good?

Re: Bolt, the super dog Agree on the no EC thing. Some disads: Money: Destitute. That's worth 10 points, I think. Physical Limitation: Can't speak any human language. What's that -- 15 points? Hunted!!! The whole point of the TV show he's in is that he & his girl are on the run. Distinctive features: black lightning bolt down the side. Always noticed, easily concealed. 5 points, I think? I don't have my book with me.

Re: Force Field Is No Good? Well said. Thank you. Given the frequency with which you see force fields in the genre, I think it's odd that force fields in Champions are mostly a pretty bad deal. The advantages armor has -- persistence and 0 END -- are pretty good ones, particularly for a defense.

Re: How much should strength cost? The rules specifically state that 5-point levels with INT apply to all int-based skills and rolls, including PER rolls, so your calculations are somewhat off. Int has a one-to-one ratio with what you get versus buying it as a skill. It still has some advantages, e.g., you're better against INT drains, but those are small. I disagree with your premise -- INT and CON are two examples of characteristics that seemed priced just about right. STR, DEX, and SPD seem like the ones that are really under priced, and I was just starting with STR.

Re: How much should strength cost? Saving 60 points, but also making yourself 6 times more vulnerable to stuns, drains, transfers, etc. Besides, what's to stop a tank from taking an EC? What's to stop an EB from taking a 60 STR? Flying energy-blasting bricks are a staple of the genre. Your method of "balancing" requires making very strict character classes.

Re: How much should strength cost? Very cool link. Thanks. I took a break in playing from about '87 to '07, and was surprised how much work had gone into refining the game system, and how little into balancing it. I know it's a role-playing game, not a war game, but still you'd think some progress would have been made toward obvious imbalances. Instead there was all this talk about caps for certain campaigns or certain kinds of characters, which mystified me at first. If 80 STR 33 DEX bricks are overpowered, then the obvious answer seemed to be to make STR and DEX cost more, not to say "60 point cap on STR for this campaign," or "Bricks wouldn't have a 33 Dex. Buy it down." Ah, well. There's always another edition on the horizon.

Re: Force Field Is No Good? It looks like a good time to summarize. 1) Force fields should almost never be a primary defense. 2) Their lower active point cost makes them useful in some MPs. 3) They fit more comfortably into an EC. 4) They're more efficient than armor when you buy lots of disadvantages for them. 5) As a special case, they work great with "continuing charges," since that obviates their non-persistence. 6) In just about every other case, you're better off with armor. In other words, force fields have their niche. It's just a small one. The first point seems like the most important lesson. From reading sample characters, you'd think force fields were a viable alternative for your primary defense, but their non-persistence makes those characters fall like dominoes.

Re: Force Field Is No Good? Is that right? Aren't you taking the "continuing" out of "continuing charge?" This seems more like a "discontinuous charge," which you should probably buy through and END battery or something.