eightiesboi

Re: An Immaterial Question

we may be running headlong into tesuji's stupid rule which says if a rule makes me sound stupid when explaining it to my players, i dont use that rule.

 

i woul never ever dream of telling someone they could limit "part" of their 10d6 blast, say 8d6 or 7d6 but not all of it.

 

so i would not real the partially limited rule as being allowed against part of a power or against the advantage or not but not against the whole of the power.

 

just like i wouldn't let this interpretation of the raw wind up pricing "i am always desolid but i can make others desolid too, willing" more expensive than "i can go desolid and make others too" . as a means of measuring the difference, applying the limitation, the savings/discount, only to the part of the power that are affected by it (ie no lim for the UBO parts) seems very obvious.

 

but if the right way to do this does indeed place the more limited version as more expensive, we should just dispense with any pretense about what these costs are for altogether.

.

I like tesuji's stupid rule, and use it myself...

I also think that what you are proposing may be workable. I simply offer up that it isn't necessarily covered by the RAW (nor is it necessarily against the RAW, AFAIK), and I offer an alternative solution.

I like the idea of using Variable Limitation because it does two things: first, it allows the power to be limited appropriately ("always on" for the main character, and something else for the UOO); and second, it makes the power slightly more expensive than if it were a "normal" desol--which it should be, as it is advantaged. This, of course, only works if you *want* to take a limitation for the UOO.

OTOH, I think that whatever works for the GM works. Either way is potentially viable, which is what I like about Hero.

Re: Dispel Desolid

From the Hero Rules FAQ:

Can a character with a Dispel that affects one or more powers of a given special effect use it to Dispel Desolidification based on that special effect, or must he apply the Affects Desolidified Advantage to do so?

 

A Dispel or Adjustment Power bought specifically to affect Desolidification, or which can affect a special effect upon which a given Desolidification power is based, can affect a target even if he’s currently Desolidified.

So to answer your question, no.

Re: An Immaterial Question

I would disagree with some of the others on this point. you do not have to buy a second power from scratch. its makes no balance sense for this to be the case.

 

Example

 

Desolid boy has desolid +3/4 usable by others (UBO, himself and two others at same time) for 70 cp. add in +1 persistent for +40 cp and we have 110 cp for the power.

 

the above character can go desolid. he can also touch two others and desolid them as well.

 

note this is not "as an attack UAA as that wasn't necessarily specified.

 

Now we want to adjust this so that he can do exactly this but can never turn his off - clearly a lesser power set.

 

 

What i would suggest is to buy it just like in the first example, the 110 cost but apply the ALWAYS ON limitation only to the non-UBO parts, just like a partially limited power - you dont get to apply the -1/2 to the 30 cp of the UBO because it doesn't affect that part - doesn't limit it. so the power winds up costing 84cp if my math is correct saving 26 on 80 cp woth of power.

 

thats my take - it shouldn't cost you more to say "i cannot turn off my desolid"

I agree with this in spirit, but looking at the rules for partially-limited powers (5ER 282), I am not sure it works. As written, partial limitations can be applied to part of a power or to an advantage. What you are suggesting is applying a limitation to all of the power and excluding the advantage from the application of the limitation. To be clear, as a GM, I might allow this, but I am not sure that the rules as written permit it.

FWIW, the OP mentions UAA in reference to whether the power needs the "Affects Physical" advantage in order to use it while the character is already desol.

Also, in reference to ghost-angel's posting, I am not sure that the example of different lims apply, as the 5ER example indicates limitations on the applying (or casting, if you will) of the power which are different from the limitations on the power itself. In this case, the OP is making reference to limitations on the power itself that change depending on whether it is used by the character with the power or by that character on someone else. I still think that Variable Limitation is more appropriate.

Re: Review this character

 

Mental Defense Set: Multipower, 30-point reserve, (30 Active Points); all slots Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

 

TK Force Field: Force Field (10 PD/10 ED), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (30 Active Points); Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

Why a MP for only a single power?

Mental Manipulation Set: Multipower, 50-point reserve, (50 Active Points); all slots Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

 

Psionic Mind Control: Mind Control 8d6 (Human and Class of Mind: Animal classes of minds) (50 Active Points); Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

 

Psionic Mind Link: Mind Link , Human class of minds, Any Willing Target, Any distance, No LOS Needed, Number of Minds (x8), Psychic Bond (50 Active Points); Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

 

Psionic Mind Scan: Mind Scan 9d6 (Human class of minds), +2 ECV (49 Active Points); Character Cannot Attack Through Link (-1 1/2), Requires An EGO Roll (Active Point penalty to Skill Roll is -1 per 10 AP; -1/2), Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun / 10 AP Used; -1/2), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

To reiterate some previous points: if these are not flexible slots, the mind scan won't be able to be used with any other powers, as the AP effectively equals the reserve for all three powers. Also, why psychic bond on the mind link? I would also suggest double-checking that mind link is costed properly. I get 15 AP for any willing target, +15 for 8 minds at once, +10 for no LOS, +5 for psychic bond, and either +5 (anywhere in this dimension) or +10 (anywhere in any dimension), for a total of either 50 or 55 AP, depending on what "any distance" means. (I realize that Hero Designer has checkboxes for "any distance" and "any dimension", but 5ER uses slightly different language, and as a GM I like to head off any potential "misunderstandings" based on different wordings in official sources...

Re: Review this character

Yep,

 

That's what it means. Is tht too much or resonable limitation side effect. ?

A 1/2 Side Effect is a "Major" side effect, and in should result in 30 AP of effect... maybe a 3d6 Stun?

Re: An Immaterial Question

What Adventus said, but more specifically,

Does a Desolidification power bought with Usable By Others Simultaneously (or' date=' indeed, Usable As Attack) need the Affects Solid World advantage if the character wants to, while Desolidified, Desolidify someone else as well?[/quote']

 

Yes, as Usable on Others (of any form) is an attack, although for UBO and US, the GM can generally rule it automatically succeeds (5ER 274).

 

A character has Desolidification' date=' Always On, and wants to be able to make others Desolidified as well. Does that require purchase of an entirely seperate Desolidification power, not an Advantage on the first one, since "Always On" obviously doesn't apply to anyone else using the power?[/quote']

 

Yes, because you can't remove the limitation "Always On" from the power merely because you want to use it on others. Keep in mind, however, that "Usable As Attack" has some additional considerations: first, you can't use a UAA power on yourself, and second, any limitations applied to the power should apply to the character attacking, not the subject of the UAA (5ER 275).

 

However, although it isn't strictly RAW, you might be able to get away with using the "self" desol and not making a separate "others" desol by adding a variable limitation on a UOO (except for UAA), with "Always On" applying to yourself, and something else applying for when the character wants to use the desol on others.

 

But if you want to attack with it, then it has to be separate from your "self" power.

Re: Help with Abilities

9 Lives:

 

36 Cat? I'm a kitty cat!: Healing 10 BODY, Can Heal Limbs, Resurrection, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (187 Active Points); 9 Charges which Never Recover (-2 1/2), Extra Time (Regeneration-Only) 1 Turn (Post-Segment 12) (-1 1/4), Self Only (-1/2)

Shouldn't this be *8* charges which never recover? After, all, the kitty-boo starts out with one life...

Re: Water Tunnel

Is he the only person that can pass through the tunnel' date=' or is it static so that everyone can? [/quote']

 

That's what I get for trying to beat a teleporter at posting...

Re: Water Tunnel

I want to build a spell that can create a tunnel in water (either vertically, to reach the ocean floor, or horitzontally, so he can walk in it (he's buying water walk separetly)). Tunnel says you cant use it on gas/liquids.

What is he using it for? Primarily movement? Can other people move into the tunnel with him? Or is he the only one that can use it? Are there distance limitations?

Re: Review this character

Here's a board friendly view of the character for those without HDv3:

 

Anya

Cost Powers END

22 Mental power: Multipower, 50-point reserve, (50 Active Points); all slots Side Effects (make skill roll of effect is 1d6 stun /10 active used; -1), Concentration (1/2 DCV; -1/4)

2u 1) Aid 5d6 (50 Active Points)

2u 2) Energy Blast 10d6 (50 Active Points) 5

2u 3) Ego Attack 5d6 (50 Active Points) 5

2u 4) Mind Control 8d6 (Additional Class of Minds class of minds) (50 Active Points) 5

2u 5) Mind Link , Any Willing Target, Any distance, No LOS Needed, Number of Minds (x8), Psychic Bond (50 Active Points)

2u 6) Mind Scan 9d6 (Human class of minds), +2 ECV (49 Active Points) 5

I noticed that the OP says that this is a potential problem player's character in a game the the OP is GMing. (Pondering... is the OP still with us? ) With that in mind, a couple more things popped into my teeny little brain...

1. As already asked--Aid what?

2. A mental EB and an Ego Attack in the same MP strikes me as odd without knowing more about the character concept. Not that it is wrong (it isn't), but you asked about this build from a GM's POV. This sends a warning flag up for me, for if a second EB (or something similar) is added, this character will be able to hit PD, ED, or MD, at their discretion. Again, not necessarily wrong, but I would look more closely at this.

3. What is the additional class of mind in the mind control? Does it make sense within the character concept?

4. Why the "Psychic Bond" with the mind link? As built, this character can form a permanent mental link with any willing target. What is the rationale behind this, or is this an error?

Re: Review this character

In this case, it is a potential gamebreaker. I mean, Hmm. 2x mass and 320" range? Automatic get out of jail card. Also, under the right conditions (a victim that can't fly) a death dealer.

Only if the character doesn't mind going along with the victim and only if the GM permits teleport to be used with a grab; otherwise, Usable As Attack would need to be added. (5ER 233,4. Note however the potential inconsistency in the rules; page 233 indicates that grab + tp would work, page 234 clearly states that involuntary subjects can only be teleported if the 'porter has UAA.)

I think Thia's post makes much sense in regard to effectively grouping powers. Personally, I would like to hear more from the OP about the character concept (besides the obvious).

Re: Aid: Visable or invisable?

AID does not inherently cost END, and is not normally visible. If you take "Costs END" as a limitation, it becomes visible automatically. Otherwise, you may take "Visible" to make the AID visible to three sense groups. 5ER page 102.

Hope that helps.

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

Back to the original post here...

 

Yeah, this works as one build option for this move (Naked Trigger for Takeaway), and yes, you costed it wrong. UMA has special rules for working out the cost of Advantaging Martial Maneuvers by determining sort of a "virtual AP" value for any given maneuver.

I have UMA, and I vaguely remember the part you mention here. I will look it up--thank you!

Re: Mind Control - how much is glowing eyes worth?

Well' date=' mental powers are already visible to the Mental Sense Group so just 2 others are necessary if the Visible Limitation is taken.[/quote']

 

Actually, unless I am misreading it, 5ER says that mental powers with the "Visible" limitation must take 3 *additional* groups (that is, not including the mental sense group).

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

even with trigger' date=' the trigger cannot go before the triggering action so the enemy strike still gets thru - trigger isn't a defense.[/quote']

 

Maybe I was imagining it, but I recall reading somewhere that if the trigger is "being attacked" (or something similar), then a DEX roll-off occurs to determine whether the attack completes itself before the triggered even occurs, or if the trigger "interrupts" (if you will) the attack.

 

But I could be making that up...

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

Is it a multiple power' date=' or are you just using strength twice? Mind you, held action, takeaway then (next phase) strike sounds peachy, and entirely appropriate for a heroic game.[/quote']

 

This is what I am currently doing. I also have another character in the superheroic version of the game who has a version of the automatic riposte (sorry, I don't have the page number right now, as I am not at home) in 5ER. I wanted to create something similar. The concept behind this is a character who is really good at taking away your melee weapon even when he is in full combat mode. The "held action, takeaway; next phase, strike" works, but only so long as he can hold an action.

 

Think River Tam in "Serenity" (not as concepted in "Firefly" itself). It is a bad idea to attack River in general, but a *really* bad idea to attack her with a melee weapon, as it inevitably ends up in her hands.

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

I'm curious, maybe I missed the boat here:

 

Why isn't this being done as a Held Action (Full Action), Wait to be Attacked, whatever, then do a Multiple Power Attack, with Martial Maneuvers, Take Away followed with a Strike?

GM does not allow multiple power attacks.

Re: Mind Control - how much is glowing eyes worth?

I would say -0 to -1/4 since you seem to be indicating that it is only visible to the sight group.

 

Visible is a (-1/4) Limitation by the book but it has more consequences:

 

Per: Hero System Fifth Edition Rule Book, page 202; Revised, page 309

The same page has an example mind control power "Argent Control" with a -1/4 Visible limitation where the limitation is Both the character's and victim's eyes turn a solid silver color, and an example ego attack with a -1/4 Visible limitation with text that says, A silvery-green beam of energy lances out from the character's forehead and hits the target's head.

Based on these examples, I would ask the player to better describe the "glowing" eyes. If the glow is something that is barely noticeable, or can be concealed with a pair of sunglasses, I would make it a 0 lim. If it was bright and impossible to ignore, I would give it a -1/4.

(Note that the examples listed in 5ER seem to contradict the rules on the same page, which clearly state that mental powers with this limitation must be visible to three groups in addition to the mental group.)

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

I think what you are describing can be handled quite easily by combining a Held Action with a Sweep of Takeaway and a Strike.

My GM isn't currently allowing sweep to be used with different combat manuevers.

Re: Triggered Weapon Takeaway

I think what you are looking at is DAMAGE SHIELD, thats the advantage for "when i am attacked i get to hurt them" most likely applied to whatever strength you can use.

 

as gm i would not allow trigger to supercede damage shield and i would not allow either on martial arts maneuvers without also covering the AP of the relevent strength.

Why "Damage Shield" and not "Trigger"? When you get down to it, isn't a damage shield just a form of a trigger?

I am not sure what you mean when you say you would not allow trigger to to supercede damage shield. Would you mind explaining further?

I mean' date=' i cannot buy +1 ocv with guns and then apply +1/4 autofire to that 5 cp skill level and use that to claim "i now can fire all guns autofire". I consider martial arts maneuvers to be "add ons" like skill levels to your strength, and so i dont allow advntages on those maneuvers to do squat to the strength, unless you account for those points.[/quote']

 

Right, this makes sense. You apply the autofire naked advantage to the APs used to build the gun, not the to the skill (5ER 245). I hadn't considered that applying a naked advantage to the takeaway manuever needs to take STR into account. Thank you.

Hello all,

I have a new character that is a heroic martial artist. When he is attacked by a subject with a melee weapon, my character can grab the attacker's weapon, take it from that attacker, and then (if he so chooses) beat the crap out of the target with the newly appropriated weapon. I have been trying to figure out how to build this efficiently, but I think I may be completely off. Right now, I have it built as a naked advantage "trigger" applied to his martial arts "takeaway" manuever. Right now, I have it figured as 5 AP of takeaway for a real cost of 1 point. This seems too cheap. Should I stop looking the gift horse in the mouth, have I built it wrong, or is my point costing in error?

(BTW - I am building this with the assumption that the takeaway happens on the attacker's phase, but the counterattack [if any] occurs as normal in my character's phase.)

Also, with the above manuever in mind, what value would you give a limitation that said the takeaway could only be used if the attacker missed (or alternatively, only if the attacker hit)?

Thank you in advance,

Scott

I wrote this after reading the latest thread started by Sindyr, but it is directed at any players or GMs who, like myself, have only come to use the Hero system relatively recently. I am here to offer a piece of advice that some may find useful. You may take or leave it as you choose.

Sindyr references having GM'd RPGs for 25+ years, and poses some questions about the Hero System. I also have an extensive background with RPGs. My first exposure to Hero was only 3 years ago. I tried learning the system with another friend of mine, who also had played RPGs since shortly after the dinosaurs disappeared. We were fortunate to have a patient and experienced GM, but despite this, my friend and I rapidly became frustrated with this system. My friend quit our campaign soon after, but I stayed with it and eventually stumbled upon the cause of my problem: as far as experienced gamers are concerned, Hero does not have a high learning curve; rather, it has an un-learning curve.

When I first started playing, I got so caught up in "powers" that I began picking and choosing things in the rulebook that sounded cool. In fact, my first character was a hodge-podge of various powers with no real thematic underpinning. I had no idea what I was doing, but it seemed fun--that is, until I started playing. I felt (player-wise) as if I were schizophrenic every time we went into combat. I had so many choices spread out over 6 condensed pages, that I felt like it was the roleplaying equivalent of looking at a menu from the Cheesecake Factory! And many of my powers were either useless, underpowered, or simply poorly built. (And for those of you who are wondering: yes, my patient and experienced GM did try and guide me, but I insisted that I could take care of myself, and he was wise enough to let me try. And sympathetic enough not to laugh openly when I fell flat on my face ).

For my next character, I tried to do something different. Instead of using the rulebook as a shopping list and / or trying to figure out just how far I could break something, I put the rulebook completely away. For about a week, on and off, I began sketching out a word portrait of my character. I deliberately avoided terms from the books, I just wrote several phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs describing what he could do. I tried to imagine different situations, and how he would tackle them. In a very real sense, I created an imaginary but fully fleshed-out hero in my head. I even found a picture ('cos I suck at drawing) that looked exactly like him. Only then did I pull out the rulebook.

But I still didn't start building my character; in fact, I put my word sketch away. For the next week, I reread the rules from cover to cover (well, to be honest, I skipped sections that didn't apply to our campaign or to my character, but you get my meaning). Finally, I put character sketch and rulebook together and begin to design my powers.

By working this way, from effect to cause, I was able to build my character without any of my previous frustration. In short order (about half a day's work), I had a very interesting, well-developed, well-structured, and *playable* character. I still had fun in the creation process, but I had even more fun using my balanced character in the campaign--in fact, my GM was so impressed with how I built a few of my powers that he incorporated my builds into some of his own characters. I then started talking with my friend--the one who had quit the campaign--and convinced him to give it another go. He agreed, and we met to design him a new character. At first, he was completely resistant to the process of describing what his character does and then building it (I actually had to pry the rulebook out his hands), but eventually he gave in. After about an hour of talking about his character and brainstorming--without referencing the rules--we fired up Hero Designer, grabbed the book and had a go. Again, another success: we made a great character and my friend ended up rejoining our campaign.

What I would strongly recommend to an experienced RPGer new to Hero would be to first read the rules, but skip the powers section; yes, really. Don't worry, you'll come back to it, but resist the temptation for a bit. Learn how the core system works. You don't have to be an expert, but you do want to understand the basics. Then engage in a thought experiment. Take a hero from some source, and think about one of their powers / abilities. Describe it in detail. Then, when you think you've got a grasp of it, read the powers section. Take a few notes, but don't get bogged down with all the great possibilities for incredible, even game-breaking powers. Build that one power. Try building it a couple of different ways.

For example, consider Xena. I thought her chakram was pretty dang cool. I think I want one. How would I build it? Well I could do an RKA or an EB or... wait, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. What does it actually do? Well, Xena throws it, and it hits people. Or other objects. Sometimes it kills people, sometimes it only does a little damage but knocks them out. It always comes back to her; except on a few occasions when someone god-like managed to intercept it. She can hit one person or many. She can hit the same person multiple times with it. She can bounce it off other objects to hit people that have taken cover. She has even, on occasion, seemed to concentrate for a minute and then hit a target that was really, really far away. And she used it once in a really wicked attack where she held it in her hand and cut someone's throat; but she was in a battle rage at the time, so I don't think it is something she really "meant" to do.

Okay, now that I've described it, I can build it. Where before, I was trying to figure out whether it should be an RKA or an EB, I realize now that it needs to be a multipower. Obviously, it is a focus, and I'll build a bunch of powers that include things like an RKA *and* an EB (probably more than one of each, or maybe with variable advantage, so that I can have indirect, autofire, area of effect, etc). I realize that the extremely long range shot is probably an LOS with concentration on it, and that I can model that it can be occasionally intercepted with an appropriate limitation like "can be missile blocked." I'll even throw in the HKA for when I want to use it up close and personal, and limit that to only when I've become enraged (obviously, this exercise in building a single power has bled over into choosing my disadvantages as well).

My point isn't to actually build Xena's chakram. Rather it's to state the obvious: if you *really* know what you want to be able to do, (and I mean really; not just describing it using the power names provided by the rulebook), it becomes much easier to design your characters. Once you become comfortable doing this, *then* start toying with powers themselves to see what other ideas you get. Or grab the Until Superpowers Database--you'll find some great idea-starters in there. But trying to use the powers in the rulebook without knowing what you really want them to do is akin to looking for the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything; if you can't describe what you really want to know, the answer you get is likely to be relatively meaningless.

For those of you on these boards who have amassed much experience with this system (I've been a lurker for a long time, and I've learned quite a bit from your discussions, debates, and arguments), I would ask that you practice patience whenever a newcomer to the boards and the game propose something like Absolute Invulnerability for the umpteenth time. Yes, you've been there before, and yes, if newbies took time to search the boards, they would see the decaying remains of former posts on the subject. But some gamers learn best by trying to reinvent the wheel, and need the benefit of your experience without the expression of exasperation you undoubtedly sometimes feel. When we fail, and we will fail, we will (hopefully) learn from our mistakes and become better players and GMs. And occasionally we may even surprise you.

And for my fellow newcomers, either to the system or the board, I implore you to remember that by posting here you are asking, inviting, encouraging, and sometimes even demanding critical review from your peers, some of who have much more experience than you do. To ask for an opinion and discard it merely because you dislike or disagree with it is certainly *not* an efficient way to improve your own understanding of a given topic. To post about topics when you haven't really taken time to look at, much less learn, the relevant rules is likely to irritate those who have read them. And to suggest that everyone who disagrees with you must be either wrong or unable / unwilling to understand you is characteristic of fanatics and fools. Choose not to categorize yourself thusly.

Absolute, Relative, and Effective Invulnerability - Concepts, not just mechanics

Hello all,

This is my second post on the boards, so please excuse me if I violate any customs. I am a long-time RPGer; I first started playing D&D (yes, the original) in 1976-7. The first sci-fi RPG I ever played was Metamorphosis Alpha, followed by Gamma World. The first Hero RPG I played was actually Villains and Vigilantes, although I used to adapt Champions material to my campaign all the time. I am a relative newcomer to the Hero System, having only used it for about 3 years now, but I have grown to really appreciate its adaptability. I think it is one of the best gaming systems I've ever used.

But enough about me... This post is the end-product of my lurking on the boards, reading a lot of source and meta-game material, and a long walk for lunch. I was thinking about the desirability (or lack thereof) for Invulnerability. I realized that conceptualizations of invulnerability can fit into roughly three categories (regardless of mechanic): Absolute, Relative, and Effective (which could also be called Conditional).

Absolute Invulnerability: This is exactly as it would seem. A character having this ability would be Invulnerable to Absolutely Everything. HA. RKA. EB. NND. XYZ. PhDs. You name it, she is invulnerable to it. This is an absolute state, needing no basis in any sort of mechanic to explain the effect, or in other words, it doesn't really matter if her ability zeros out all damage dice, or if she is unhittable by any means, or what not: the effect remains the same. This might be modeled by using a modification of Damage Reduction, Desol, or a new ability, but in the end what matters is that she can't be hurt. Ever.

Relative Invulnerability: This character has invulnerability according to the game world. If the greatest amount of damage that can be done in the game world is "x" amount, and the character purchases the appropriate amount of double-super-secret hardened defenses (or the like) to protect against this damage, then she is relatively Invulnerable. This is still only relative, as if something (like the GM) changes the game world to allow greater than the formerly agreed upon damage, then the character is vulnerable (but probably tough to hit / hurt). In other words, she can't be hurt by normal game world means, but change the rules, and it's rabbit season.

Effective Invulnerability: This character is invulnerable unless a certain condition is met, or alternatively is only invulnerable as long as a condition is met (thus, this could be called Conditional Invulnerability). Stupendous Man is invulnerable; unless you have some Green Jello, then he goes all wobbly.

Where am I going with all this? Simple. As GMs (and players), we are constantly looking for ways to make our games better; i.e., more interesting, easier to play, more internally consistent, more fun, etc. Having read this and other, similar threads, it is clear that there is a persistent and entrenched dichotomous "yes there should be / no there shouldn't be" debate on invulnerability, where movement from one camp to the other is fairly rare. But even within the "Yes" camp, there seems to be a lack of consensus on just "how" invulnerability should be conceptualized, which leads to great disagreement on how to build the effect. Thus, I am not proposing a mechanic; instead I suggest stepping back from the rules and looking at the bigger picture. Once a GM has decided how to categorize Invulnerability (or any similar "absolute" power), then an appropriate mechanic can be designed.

For me, Absolute Invulnerability powers (and any other "true" absolutes) aren't just stop signs, they are big ole' game destructive no-no Do Not Enter signs. The reason is simple: once they've been allowed in, the only way to deal with them (without removing them by fiat) is to allow other characters (PCs or NPCs) to have other or similar absolute powers in an escalating arms race of sorts, and the inevitable "irresistible force, immovable object" problem rears its ugly head. Absolute Invulnerability might work as a tool for the GM in world-building (for instance, in a fantasy RPG with true gods), but I think that even this circumstance is of limited usefulness.

Relative Invulnerability is not much better, even though it looks it, as sooner or later the GM may find it necessary to raise the damage level (or whatnot) for the sake of the story, balance, or drama, or whatever--and then that GM has just gone back on an agreement as to what the player was getting when she paid points for the power in question. Some players would look at this as a challenge, but many would feel as though their GM has "betrayed" them by changing the rules mid-game. Further, if the change in damage cap is due to circumstances that have increased the overall power of the characters (or as a rare occurrence meant to upset the status quo before returning to normal), then a player could simply buy their defense back up (or not worry about the "change"); however, if the higher damage cap is to revoke the character's Relative Invulnerability, then the player's feelings of betrayal may be justified. Never a fun place to be.

On the other hand, Effective or Conditional powers have an in-built expectation that sooner or later, the guy with the Green Jello is going to show up. It still requires careful management to keep the power from getting out of hand or having the player irritated by the amount of Green Jello in the world, but is potentially manageable. In fact, whole interesting plot developments can be made about well-thought powers that are effective or conditional; especially if "normal" characters have to save the [in]effectively invulnerable brick. Of the three conceptualizations, I find this to be the least problematic; YMMV.

In sum, I personally don't think that Invulnerability as a power is the problem, as long as the GM first answers the questions "when," "how," and "under what conditions?". Or, in other words, absolutes should be effectively conditional (or conditionally effective). My two cents.

Hi!

I am working on a character build, and I came across something interesting in the Ultimate Super Mage on page 41. It refers to a Continuous Aid to BODY as a substitute for regeneration. However, in a previous post you said that regeneration is the only way to get a persistent form of healing. Am I missing something here, or isn't this (with the appropriate advantages) the same thing?

Thanks!

Scott