MistWing

While reading the Until Superpowers Database book, I came across a sidebar mentioning how to make an ‘Energy-Controlling’ Telekinesis power. The sidebar implied that a given TK power could be either an ‘Energy-Controlling’ TK power or a ‘normal’ TK power, but not both. Is there a way to make a TK power both? Thanks MistWing SilverTail

This is more of a ‘curiosity’ type question. I was going through the Heroes book and read the section on Combat Skill Levels. It occurred to me that the 8-point CSL seemed odd (not that I ever use it). Why 8 points? An 8 point CSL gives you +1 OCV OR +1 DCV, determined at the start of your phase. For 1 more point, you get +1 OCV AND +1 DCV, all the time. Plus you might get a +1 bonus to all of your Dex-rolls. Plus, for either +0 or +1 points, you get a +1 to your SPD. Given all this, I was wondering why an 8-point CSL exists? BTW: This is just curiosity. Like I said, I never use the 8-point CSL. I use either 3-point skill levels (for one power) or 10-point skill levels (for everything). Thanks MistWing SilverTail

This is a power concept that I want to surprise my GM with... Auto-Defenses. The idea is that I combine a computer, special senses (including ‘Future-Seeing’ for 1 phase), and a power pool for defenses. This would actually be a power and not a device (which it appears to be with the inclusion of a computer). The computer would automatically adjust the Power Pool to contain the proper defenses needed for that phase. By using a computer, it can be almost completely independent of me. My only control would be turning it on or off. For most types of attacks, there would be no problems. The pool creates the appropriate defense power. Even ALVD powers can be dealt with, costing 1 or 2 points per point of defense gained. It’s the NND attacks I’m having a problem with. In some cases, it’s simply a new power (like Life Support) that can easily be added. But what about the other cases? Maybe the attack is a sonic attack and the defense is a set of ear-muffs. How many points should be allocated from the pool in such a case? How would I determine this type of cost? I’m not sure how long the GM will allow me to have this power (I’m going to try to sneak it past her). But I figure that if I can use it in a fair manner, I will be able to keep it for some time. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

Way back when, I build a 30 Str Telekinesis power and gave it the Uncontrolled advantage. I defined it (and the GM agreed) as a ‘multi-Telekinesis’. The idea behind it was that I could use a part of it to do a task and then, without releasing the first part, use a second part to do a second task. Kind of like walking, reading and drinking a Pepsi at the same time (which I do on a regular basis). You ‘set’ your walking on ‘autopilot’. As long as nothing unusual happens, you don’t need to pay any attention to it. This frees you to read while you’re walking. When you want to take a drink, you interrupt you reading for a second or two and the resume your reading. In this way, I can do three different thing at effectively the same time. A similar thing would be allowed with my TK. I would consciously do one thing. Then I would either just hold the first thing, or do a simple task with it, while I started a second task. The limiting factor was the strength of my TK. I couldn’t exceed 30 Str, either individually or collectively. My question is: What would be the proper way to do this? Thanks MistWing SilverTail

One of the powers I’m trying to build is what I call ‘The Ultimate Entangle’. My goal is that, once I entangle someone (say – cocoon the stereotypical ‘Damsel In Distress’ (DiD) ), it’s virtually impossible to release them. One of the things I would want is a Variable Trigger, but instead of triggering the power to go off, it trigger the power to release its prisoner. I have come up with three basic ideas for designing this cocoon and I would appreciate any comments or suggestions on them or on any other ideas for the design of this power. Option 1 - Build the cocoon as a normal Entangle, but with these enhancements: A. Regenerative Body - When the cocoon takes damage, it heals itself. This can be simulated using the existing rules and would cost +5 points per d6 B. Regenerative DEF – Similar to Regenerative Body except it applies to DEF instead. Cost is +5 points per +1 DEF and is based on the cost of Regenerative Body C. Other Defenses – These would be the other three defenses of Heroes and would cost 5 points +1 defense (based on the cost of the Regenerative DEF) D. “Does Body†Defense – The biggest problem of them all. This is a +1 advantage and would alter the “Does Body†advantage of any attack on the cocoon, allowing the cocoon to automatically defend against that attack, using the most appropriate of its 5 other defenses Option 2 – Build the cocoon as a major Transform attack The advantage of this is that, since it’s a transformation (the DiD becomes a cocooned DiD), the release can be anything I want (subject to GM approval). The drawback to this approach is that I can, in theory, get away with a major Entangle costing me very few points (1d6 Transform, 0 end, Continuous, Uncontrolled). It hardly seems right. Option 3 – Transform attack combined with the cocoon This option, the cocoon is made as a normal Entangle, but there is also a Transform attack combined with it so that, once the cocoon forms, the Transform begins to alter it so that in order free the DiD, the Transform has to be countered. This one seems to have the least problems with it, but there still seems to be something wrong (but I can’t figure out what) Any ideas? I am aware that there was a recent supplement that had an Entangle with an NND on it. But I am under the impression that this is actually illegal and was just used to get the proper feel across. Besides, it would be a dirt-cheap Entangle for a very powerful effect. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

I have an idea for a power (actually, several powers) and I would appreciate anyone’s help in its design. This power is described as a combination scrying portal and teleporting portal. I can open the portal to observe any place not protected by appropriate (i.e. GM determined) defenses. In this mode, I can position it and watch and hear what’s happening on the other side. In addition, I can ask it a question and it will answer. The question has to be a question regarding ‘fact’, not ‘opinion’ or ‘speculation’ (In other words, I can ask to see the text of a bill being debated in Congress, but I couldn’t ask it what would likely happen if it were passed into law). Also, the ‘fact’ has to be at least theoretically knowable. That is, I could ask for the text of a long buried document or the location of a specific buried treasure (I would have to know that the specific treasure existed though), but I couldn’t ask what a T-Rex actually looked like (too much speculation about skin color, etc). Finally, if I’m looking at a place, I can open the portal so that I can teleport through it. Additional things about the portal include: Anyone can look through my end of it when it’s in the ‘observing’ mode; the portal’s size automatically adjusts so that, when I use it for teleporting, I can always pass through it (I can shape shift and grow to rather large or small size); when used for teleporting, the portal is two-way (the Gate advantage); and the edge of the portal is effectively razor sharp. Most of this is rather simple to do. My main question regards how to do the ‘question’ part of it. However, any additional thought or comments are welcome. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

This is not only off topic, it’s likely in the wrong area. I couldn’t figure out where to put this, so I decided to put the basic question here and let the moderator decide whether to allow it, or to have it moved elsewhere, or to moved to e-mail. Basically, my group is going to (hopefully) start a mini-game which may grow to a longer running game. Tia (the hopeful GM) has been planning this for some time, but every time she tries to start it, some RL thing interferes. So, she’s ready to try again. Back when she first proposed this game, we had just finished a scenario in our main game and a lot of those events were still fresh in our minds. One consequence of this was that my character in Tia’s game was going to have a harem of eight women (not my idea BTW). So, my problem is... I have to make these characters. Making one or two characters is not that big of a problem. Having to make 9 characters, is. In addition, everyone in the group has provided input regarding aspects I should include (appearance, personality, skills, that sort of thing). They can get away with this since they’re going to help run them (each player will take one of them as a secondary character). So, I’m asking for any help in this. If this topic is allowed to remain and if anyone is interested, I can provide additional information about what was requested. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

This is an old question that (I think) has been rendered largely irrelevant. But there may still be situations where it can come up and I’m curious. Is it legal to define a power’s special effect in terms of another power? For example (using Champions… which tells you how old this question is ): One of my characters had a follower defined as his girl friend. She also had some super-powers. Included in her repertoire was enhanced swimming. The special effect of this was that she shape-shifted into a mermaid. She gained no other advantages of Shape Shift (as defined at the time), so the power was allowed to be used as a special effect. Is this acceptable? Thanks MistWing SilverTail

This is an old debate that was never resolved. It kind of died, but I was still curious about it. Waaayyyy back when, I had a character who had a starship. In building it, I increased the ship’s DCV (I didn’t like a negative DCV). A player in the group commented that the DCV bonus would cause the passengers/crew to be thrown around whenever it was used, since DCV was defined as a character’s innate ability to evade attacks. I countered, saying that my ship’s DCV was actually a virtually impenetrable force field. My justification was that DCV game-effect was to prevent the character/ship from taking any damage. The player countered by saying the DCV caused attacks to miss, so the attacks could travel past the character and hit something behind the character. A force field would prevent that. The debate died because it was irrelevant. In deep space, where the ship normally operated, there was nothing ‘behind’ the ship that could be hit. So, my definition was allowed to stand. My question is, in general, who was right? I realize that there will always be special cases where one or the other would be more proper. I’m curious about the more general situation. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

Is this legal? I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, but there has been some questions about it in my group. I can build a device that combines a computer, some sensors, and one or more other powers (ex: telekinesis). Can I make a power in the same fashion? Obviously, I wouldn’t get the cost benefit that I would get if it were a device (either equipment or through a focus). However, my intent is to make a power that I can set off and it can perform a complex set of actions without my input. For example, I might make a TK power that I can program in advance and then, while it’s doing what I told it to do, I can be doing something else. Assuming that this is legal, should it have the Uncontrolled advantage on it? On the one hand, it’s acting independently of me. On the other hand, I have a certain degree of control over it (to include an ‘off switch’) Thanks MistWing SilverTail

Basically, I am curious what the ‘dividing line’ is between ‘equipment’ and ‘powers through a focus’. This is important since ‘equipment’ costs only 20% of what ‘powers through a focus’ costs. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

Hi there. I have a large number of questions that I’ve been accumulating over time and I finally decided to actually ask them. In order to keep things a bit organized (and reasonably small), I’m asking these as separate threads. I would appreciate any help or answers you can provide. A minor thing: One thing that you may notice over the course of these questions is that, if I were to do all of these, it would cost a huge number of points. First off, not all of these are mine. I just find it easier to refer to these as though I had them (it avoids having to inundate you with the names of my group members). Second, we do play a high-point game. And third, some of these are old questions that I never asked and am still curious about. Another minor thing: I often say ‘my group’. However, I generally don’t run games as I’m a lousy GM. It just sounds more proper to say ‘my group’ and not ‘our group’. Thanks for your help MistWing SilverTail

Hi there... me again I have yet another question in my list of questions (if I can keep from procrastinating, I might actually get around to asking them ) As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have a Shape Shifting character. I specialize in animal forms and some of the animals can be rather big, requiring Growth to simulate this. What I want to do is buy some Skill Levels to offst the DCV penalties that Growth gives. So, my question... What would the limitation be for the Skill Levels if I can only use them to offset the DCV penalties that Growth gives? I thought of using the Penalty Skill Levels, but they are not allowed to provide DCVs. Thanks MistWing SilverTail

I have a question concerning the Analyze skill. Here is a bit of background so you can see what my intent is. I have a character who is an expert Shape Shifter. In addition, I have a variety of Martial Arts skills which I describe as "Using my Shape Shift powers to enhance my fighting prowess". For example, I may use my tail to strike my opponent. Then, grow a set of claws to add damage to my H-T-H attack. Things like that. If I were able to be completely random in the use of my Shape Shift power, I would be able to completely negate anyone's attempts to Analyze my Martial Arts. However, I can't be that random, so my Shape Shift power only reduces the Analyze's effctiveness. So, given the above, how do I reduce Analyze's effectiveness? Normally, I would use another Skill as an Opposing Skill to give minuses to the Analyze roll. However, there is not an opposing skill for Analyze. Am I missing it? Is there an already established way of doing this? Thanks MistWing SilverTail

Sorry if this hasn't been asked before. I am trying to build a compound power... an 'Ultimate Entangle'. The idea being an entangle that resists virtually every attempt to escape from it or be freed from it. If successful, my victim will be entrapped for a considerable time, so I want to add a Transform power to the Entangle, giving her full Life Support if she doesn't already have it. To make this work efficiently, I want to combine these two powers into one power, which would look something like this: Sub-Power 1 - Entangle * advantages / limitations Sub-Power 2 - Transform * advantages / limitations Power - (Sub-Power 1 + Sub-Power 2) * advantages / limitations My question is: How would I determine the range? Is the range based on the active points of the final power? Is it based on the range of the Transform (the smaller power)? Does it have two ranges, one for the Entangle part and one for the Transform part? Should I make both Sub-Powers 0 range and apply the Ranged advantage to the final power? Any help would be appreciated. Also, any ideas to further my goal of the Ultimate Entangle would also be appreciated. Thanks MistWing SilverTail