Marcus

Re: Tk with no strength defense Maybe buy Psychokinesis (BoECV TK), with the 'works vs. Ego, not STR' from Mental Paralysis?

Re: Blasting Mental Blast I think the thing with Ego Attack is that -every- Champions GM and Player of any experience KNOWS how broken it is, so what it tends to be used as in play, and what any mentalist player that wants to keep playing USES it as, is essentially an AVLD Energy Blast does no knockback. You just CANT use Ego Attack 'to its full extent' on a champions map, because its utterly broken if you do so. Tunneling Mentalists. Telescopic Mentalists. Shrinking Mentalists (Im looking at YOU, Hummingbird!). Mindscan and win without ever leaving your base Mentalists. None of this makes Ego Attack 'appropriate' as built... its a hideous pile of 'free' advantages. (Now, the fact that some of those advantages, most notably AVLD and Invisible, are grossly overpriced). The flip side is that players are not allowed to actually use those advantages (when was the last time the LOS Invisible Indirect nature of Ego Attack really got used in play? See conversation above). Id be happy rebuilding "ego attack" as an Energy Blast, limited to only the advantages that a sane GM allows the player to use. Say IPE for SFX (Can still tell the mentalist is 'thinking'), Indirect, maybe Affects Desolid and of course ego targeted, vs. mental defense, no knockback, no bounce. Note even the ABOVE is a bit over the cost of the current Ego Attack... The above describes how GMs will tend to 'let' ego attack work. Ego Attack as presented in 5th Ed belongs on Margarita Man, and the GM/Players just have to not use it that way. A power should be as cool as its cost, not three times that cool but with the last 2/3rds of its utility unused.

Re: The power of Recovery I think on the whole REC is -not- a great place to spend points (if your squeezing every last bit of oomph out of the points). +1 Recovery is great, but +1 OCV with your favourite attack, it is not. The thing about recovery is that it TENDS to be one of those things that slips under a GMs radar.. its a place to spend points, to make your character more effective, that isn't DCs, CV, DEF, or SPD. Similarly, stun. Buying more stun is almost always worse than buying more DEF... but if youve already got all the DEF your allowed, buying more stun can be a good thing...

Re: A limitation that does not limit This kind of thing is not uncommon in Hero. We mostly handle it hearabouts with house rules and handwavium. The point about 'sees with radio instead of vision' is a good one... I think a limitation (for however much functionality is lost) is appropriate, combined with points paid for any advantage (such as it is). Ultimately, we work from the baseline-human template, taking limitations for anything given up, paying points for anything gained, but this is -somewhat- undermined when one considers that the limitation points will be taken anyway, whereas the points that can be spent are finite (which is why it hurts to buy a 25 point sense to replace vision, even IF you gain 25 points of disad for blindness...) Associated question: Only at Night, -1. (half cost, half the time its night) Only During the Day, -1 (see above) Only Versus Fire... -1/2 (2/3 cost... are 2/3 of ED attacks fire? Really?) Similarly, if DR vs. Stun is -1/2, is DR vs Body -2? Or why is IPE+0END+Persistent so much more advantage than Costs End is in limitation? Etc...

Re: Making a character too efficient? I am, apparently, stalking you. Shrike raises a good point, though. I find that the 'newer' players in my group are the most likely to come up with interesting, off-the-wall concepts for characters. Though they can (of course) be made to work, and usually to work within points, its not uncommon for the GM or rules-guru players to have to really roll up their sleeves on those oddballs. I, for the record, love those oddballs. I dont generate oddballs, at least not often. Usually, I end up going 'Hmm, I want to play an (insert party role here)'... and building a really, really good (insert party role here). I usually match that with one of hte personalities I've got lying around looking for characters (although perhaps mismatch is a better term, I like to have characters who do NOT get the 'powers they would have wished for'). What I dont do is conceive of some completely off-the-wall power, build a character that has whatever that off-the-wall power would logically have, and then figure out how it fits into a champions team. Maybe I should try to do that more, myself. Id get more interesting characters, if a bit less cookie-cutter-efficient ones. PS: Active Point Caps tend to generate cookie-cutter powerset characters, in my experience. Alot of the odder concepts require high active point, heavily limited powers. Since my local game moved from Active Point to Damage Class/Effectiveness caps, weve been seeing a bit more 'wingnuts and wierdos'.

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower I'll admit, it always seemed to me that the point of frameworks was to let 'powers' characters work, especially when the 'powers' characters have more-than-three powers (formally, Flight, EB, and FF). Theres an awful lot of powers that, lets be honest, you just wont buy at full value. For those things, theres ECs. That cutesy change environment that costs 60 points and mostly makes it rain. The entirely character-appropriate Damage Shield, 4d6 Energy Blast. Those are the things that make me glad ECs and MPs exist, to reflect the decreased utility of buying additional powers, especially additional powers that arent 1.) Big Attack Power, 2.) Big Defense Power, and 3.) Big Movement Power.

Re: Making a character too efficient? I've done so, more than a few times. Usually what I do then is step away from the sheet for a bit, so the character can live in my head as a character, absent a sheet/powers, for a while. Sometimes, when I get back to the sheet, stuff starts vanishing... because it didnt really fit. Sometimes, I've added stuff, and I've come to realize that it should have been there all along, and it stays. XPs can be the same way.. sometimes, after a long time and a lot of XPs, you realize that its grown into not the character anymore...

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower RE: Characters: I've browed your site before, and when its my next turn at the GM wheel, may borrow some of your stuff (likely with serial numbers suitablly altered to fit the game). If I do, I'll let you know how they work out. And as for gamist and imposing internal logic on a thing external to it... inasmuch as Champions is a superhero roleplaying game, and thus a genre simulation, I think its worthwhile to keep our eyes on the parent genre. While the Champions RPG is not the Marvel (or DC, or whatever) universe, I think its worthwhile to look at how our simulation reflects, or does not reflect, the genre which it simulates.

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower Completely agree with the not bothering to drain drain-one-drain-all constructs (or to make sure that the drain, supress, etc. is so large as to, in light of drain-one-drain-all, turn the character into a normal). The recordkeeping is a nightmare. I am curious about your own-different-experiences... I always like hearing what does and does not work, what does and does not 'go', in other peoples games. And as to random-grab-bag boy... Its funny, but when I stop and think about it, many of the most iconic superheros are random-grab-bags. Superman? Only Unifying SFX is "Im a Kryptonian"... which he invented. Wonder Woman? Strength, Speed, Indestructable Bracers, and a Lasso of Binding and Truth. Do What? Martian Manhunter is Superman-Plus-More-Wierd. And what about Batman? Does "Gear" equal an elemental control? What about Iron Man? Power Suit even makes drain-one-drain-all sense, but it seems to me 'battle suit' can be the excuse for almost any power one might want to buy... grabbag land, again. How do we deal with this? Is 'All on Fire Guy' going to be built on more points than "Kryptonian Guy'? Im going back and forth internally, and a bit frustrated, so am seeking commentary/thoughts.

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower It just seems odd to have one part of a reason-from-effect game, and such an argueably important part of the game, be reason-from-sfx. One concern is that it creates 'favoured SFX'. I've noticed the increasing restrictions on ECs and the increasing support of MPs and VPPs, especially with regards to things like continuing charges allowing MP swapping, have tended to (at least in games where we run the more restrictive modern EC rules) favour tool-users over innate-power people. Similarly, I find that strictly enforced ECs tend to result in people wanting to play characters with more all-consuming SFX, that can be used to justify more things... and that the impact of drain one drain all is such that either it never comes up (and thus is not worth discussing) or is so hideously crippling that players try very, very hard to find ways to build solid, power-using non-brick characters without touching the EC construct (to the point that other, overarching limitations such as OIF, OIHID, Extra Activation Time, and their like are almost a given on non-bricks) Just some thoughts, not necessarily meaningful of anything.

Re: Elemental Control Vs. Multipower Oddly enough, Frameworks seem to be one of the few places in HERO where we reason from SFX rather than reasoning from effect. Character A is hard to hurt, flies, and throws things really hard. Perfectly acceptable EC, SFX 'Gravity Manipulation' Character B is hard to hurt (tough skin), flies (wings) and throws things really hard (EB, SFX of high strength and a bag o rocks). Unacceptable EC. Ive seen some GMs displeased by the classic "Always on powers EC, Movement MP, Attack MP" character. If the character is defined, effect wise, as able to do X things all the time, and have his choice of Y things one at a time, and Z things one at a time, isnt the above EC and pair of MPs exactly how it should be modeled?

Re: What costing for noncombat movement without penalty? Rep.

Re: My first character (Speedster) True... and if his GM is comfortable with it, and he is, thats fine. However, I just think the player, especially a new player, will have more fun at the table with some more PD and ED, espc. resistant PD and ED. Makes the character alot more forgiving. *edit* In general, what Hyper-Man said. Espc about inflation and campaign benchmarks. In specific, Id recommend a Multipower over a VPP for a first character. Odds are, an MP can do everything your likely to want, with alot less work and effort and corner-case rules calls. The VPP is more flexible, but alot more headache.

Re: My first character (Speedster) Talk to your GM, but it looks like you are depending entirely on your DCV to avoid damage. IE, you have no significant PD and ED. While this seems thematically appropriate, for mechanical playability reasons you might consider buying some PD and ED via the combat luck or other similar routes. The special effect might be 'you just grazed me' or 'I avoided the punch, but the shrapnel it kicked up did SOME damage', etc. Or consider the phenomenal resistance to heat (ED) required to run at ultra-high speeds (due to friction), and the 'realistic' level of physical resilience that is involved in running at mach speeds and then turning at a 90* angle (PD, because without superhuman tissue and bones, you just CANT transfer that sort of force without breaking). Mechanically, in play, a reliance on pure DCV to survive works very well, until it doesnt. In a game, unlike a comic book, there is no author protecting the character from EVER getting hit by inappropriate attacks. Flash somehow never eats a punch from villians who threaten Superman. Your speedster PC, sooner or later, WILL. Random chance is random, AOE attacks happen, perhaps a shot from behind, maybe someone just as agile and fast as you grabs you JUST LONG ENOUGH for Mr. Brick to unload. You -will- get hit, sooner or later. Trust me. At that point, if all you have is DCV, you will almost certainly be comatose. You will likely be dying. You may well be -dead-. Dying, at least dying randomly, for no greater purpose, is not superheroic. Other than the above? Talk to your GM. GMs vary widely on everything, but in my experience they vary MOST widely on what they consider appropriate speed, Dex, and CV. I've seen The Flash at speeds from 6 to 24!, and at Dex's from 24-50+, depending on game power level and GM taste.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts Id be perfectly happy with a x3 Stun rule. I've always preferred KA over EB mechanically, due to simply involving less total dice. Now, x3 stun DOES actually increase the average stun handout pretty substantially (x2.66 being the 'average' result on the D6-1 min 1), but it eliminates so much of that "Roll 1 die to discover if foe is unconcious or unaffected" problem with KAs.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts It seems to me that their variability makes KAs often disproportionately effective. It also often makes the disproportionately INeffective. At 12 DCs, in a 12 DC game, Id probably prefer the KA, in terms of 'putting down opponents'. For all the old reasons. That said, for a Mega-Blaster (in a 12 dice game), Id rather have a 21 Dice Normal than a 7 Dice Killing... 21 dice of normal will do really, really close to 73 stun most of the time (stunning bricks reliably). The 7 dice killing does 24.5 Bod, and 24.5, 24.5, 45, 69.5, 98, 122.5. Stunning the brick 1 time in 2 (although, granted, KOing him 1 time in 6, unlike the EB). I guess it comes down to what flavour you prefer to deal your damage in.. reliably or variably? I also cannot but think that the overall reduction of defense in 5th ed helps the EB out, compared to the KA.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts 11DCs of killing.. 22DCs w/Str. Horrifying, but not that far off (or possibly LESS, still dont know his movement) of his move through.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts How much can this brick do, otherwise, with a move through? Would it be enough to put a limitation on the manuver that it could only be used with strike?

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts Hmm... I dont think I'm likely to haymaker a 1 charge attack that locks out things I need. The 'sidestep' potential is just too great. Sign me up for the 'much ado about nothing' crowd. Lets face it, a 14 dice brick with reasonable movement will put out attacks of 18+ damage classes PRETTY REGULARLY... probably every fight, if not more often. Haymakers, Pushing, Move-Through, etc. I think weve all gotten a wee bit quick to say 'no, no, bad player, here is your box, STAY INSIDE THE BOX'.

Re: Big Name Supers or equal characters? Oh, I'm well aware of the source materials tendency to introduce 'scary new bad guy of the week who is utterly overpowered in their first appearance but will be a nobody in the rogues gallery in a few years'. Its so pathetically overused that hereabouts we've a standing '+20 Active Points on all powers, its his first appearance' joke. That can work in gaming if you do it occasionally, and the 'new' baddies turn into recurring worthy foes. But when the game is a never-ending cycle of brand-spanking-new never-before-heard-of baddies who are, usually, better than the heros at EVERYTHING and loose only because of their cackling villain stupidity, you don't spend long feeling like your 'Super'. Scale and focus... scale and focus...

Re: Big Name Supers or equal characters? What works best for me is to control scale and focus. As an illustration: If Jimbob Supervillian is built on 250 points, and has at best a 10 dice attack... then a 600+ point, 100 Stun, 45 PD 'Superman' is for all intents and purposes invulnerable. Sure, he MIGHT get some stun in, on a really good roll, but he wont seriously inconvenience Supes. The trick is, if you want your PLAYERS to feel like their playing the Justice League, you have to scale the world such that they ARE the Justice League. They have to be more powerful/flexible/effecacious than the vast, vast majority of supervillians and superheros, and they have to see/feel that, not just be told that 'Your 700 points, most supers are 250 points... but oddly enough, every John Q Random No-Name Villian you fight is your equal' Let them be super, really, really super. Figure out what their 'shtick' is and feature it, highlight it. Let -one- of them show up to save an entire -superteam- of 'normal powered' heros, and have them go 'golly-gee wonderfulman, thanks!' after your JLer spends a few phases solving a problem that would have taken the 'normal' superteam hours of blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Once youve established, for them, that they are all of that and a bag of chips, start ramping it up... but make sure their opposition FEELS cosmic enough to face them. They dont want to fight to a draw witih someone they never heard of before... build the bad guys up, in their minds, before they even face them.. show the baddies doing amazing things, to other heros, other villians, the environment, etc. That way your Justice Leaguers -know- that these guys are worthy opponents, so they dont feel cheapened when the fight is a real one. No matter what points you put on a sheet, no matter how absolute the powers you give them, if you dont supply the STORY to their opposition to make them seem like worthy foes (whatever the points), the players wont feel like the Justice League, only like the Just-Us League.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts My first thought was "Energy Transfer", from City of Heros Energy Melee power set...

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts Thats an interesting side-issue, about the side effect chosen. I've noticed that players often choose Drain for the side-effect-that-hurts-me of a power, and eschew hitting themselves with a killing attack. This suggests to me that the 'automatically ignores your defenses' aspect of a side effect may be sufficiently punitive that noone will ever actually build a side-effect that invokes it. It also suggests to me that Drain is (relatively) overpriced, if people would prefer to get hit by that than most other things.

Re: High STR + HKAs, thoughts Maybe I'm the weird one here... Assuming a responsible player, I'm not sure I see a problem. I'd consider some additional limitations, however. Specifically, limit it such that it can only be used with strike, and cannot be pushed (thus, no move-throughs, etc.) Assuming your brick has at least 12" of movement, he can already do a 90 active point move-through. At an OCV penalty, granted, but the OCV penalty on a move-through is less penalizing than whats on this HKA. What I would be wary of is this power, pushed, used in a move-through or the like.. which the above limitation rules out.

Re: What do you think For normal drowning, we just used change environment...