worldshaking00

In the Advanced Player's Guide 1, there is an AOE modifier (+3/4) called Accurate Selective. How I read it, I get to chose which target(s) I affect in the Area, but not have to roll against their DCV. Ultimately that is the goal I am looking for, as I don't necessarily want to affect my own gear or that of my team mates yet still easily affect those targets who are foolish(?) enough to touch the hot potato (as it were). Where I am having the most difficulty in building the power's construction is using the AOE: Surface as a base effect (e.g. a target's held gun), then being able to use that exact same Power in a cone/radius effect on other "guns" of my choosing (using Accurate Selective from APG1) in that defined cone/radius. I've been playing since 4E, so I was thinking of borrowing something from the older versions of Usable By Other to establish a Base power, then pitching the idea to my GM of applying the second larger non-surface Area Advantage as a multiplier to the Base surface-enabled power. Does that make sense to anyone? Ultimately I think the power is going to be crappy, as the DCs just aren't going to scare anyone into dropping their gun/knife/chainsaw/whatever. However it is a very cinematic power effect. Thanks for chiming in so far.

I need some advice on building a power, and whether or not a particular construct is legal. I want to build a Heat metal objects effect (similar to putting one's hand on a hot iron or electric burner), but I want it to affect an area of objects (either around my character i.e. no range, or at range but in a visual cone or simple radius). Ideally I want the power to affect only the metal objects I want the character to affect, so I was going to apply the Accurate Selective (+3/4) AOE Advantage (from the APG) to the mix as well. Using the Surface AOE advantage, I could create the effect of a heated-up item. But how would you make it so that you could affect an area of objects that would already be affected by a surface area? According to 6e2 150, a heated burner is 1/2 to 1d6 K damage. Nothing much to write home about, but it might be useful versus agents or "lower end defense" campaigns. The base power I was going by was 1d6 Killing Attack (Ranged) AOE: Surface (+1/4) Constant (+1/2) Reduced Endurance (+1/2). Is it acceptable to apply the AOE Radius/Cone as an additional advantage on the base? {[base Power above with the advantages listed] times (1 + larger radius/cone AOE effect)} Or, just apply it on the power normally and have two AOE Power Advantages? Is there another way to construct the power without an insane amount of "Any area" squares combined with a cheese-weasel limitation of "only affects targets touching metallic objects". Thanks for your advice.

I usually just buy the Brick Trick as Tunnelling, with PD of the wall being somewhere between the character's casual STR and full STR damage classes (e.g. 60 STR normally -> 30 STR casual = 6 DCs so 6 PD [and adjust as much as needed by my GM]). It is an interesting predicament though, about doing the damaging attack if you are smashing through the walls and bulldoze over another (especially while you are blind to the fact of others in the way). The AOE option sounds reasonable to me, as this would drop your dice of damage for the bulldoze down to be more on par with a Move By (saying your GM has a rule of X on damage classes and AOE advantage counts towards DC cap). Now if your special effect of the bulldoze attack was smashing the rubble onto the target rather than just moving over him, a Naked Advantage: Indirect (+1/4: attack originate just outside of the frontal reach of the character) on your DCs of the attack with a limitation of only being usable to simulate tunnelling debris [and thus you'd have to have enough actual tunnelling to complete your movement seeing daylight] might work. Or a triggered AOE: 2 m radius Blast whenever you explode out of the wall like the Kool-aid man. (Oh yeah.)

I think x3 would be more in the spirit of the Complication. Technically, each complication would factor in regularly (once for base dmg, once for first comp., once for second comp.) so you wouldn't be cheese-weasling. I'm trying to wrap my head around taking 3x dmg in the first place, but 4x would be beyond overkill. Most x3 damages should practically kill a character already, at least in my game. If your campaign has characters running around like Galactus wearing adamantine underwear with capital ship-level force fields, YMMV.

On the topic of VPPs, our table has a house by-law: unless you're really good at math on the fly, no 'open-ended' VPPs. By that I mean your powers purchasable through the VPP have to be completely written down in list form ahead of time. That way that players won't be bogging down game. We justify it similarly to a high tech gadgeteer who as lots of stuff in the works... but just doesn't have it working 'right now'. Or if you like, a wizard who's a little absent-minded. It has worked well for us. It does partially limit the player for hampering his character's VPP, but the other option is to just build the character with a MP instead (and with a lot of slot options... can chew through character sheet space really quick).

I sometimes use Damage Negation as a form of "instant regeneration", granted in small amounts. At least cinematically, it looks pretty cool when "Snikt-bub" runs down a corridor pretty much ignoring lower caliber gunfire as he's wading through mooks. A lucky KB roll would mess that up, and since Negation removes dice ergo less KB to roll... you get the idea. His skin isn't bullet proof; he bleeds; he feels some pain; but, he's used to pain in smaller doses so he 'ignores' it.

For the combat math, we write on the top of all of our character sheets the following easy formula: 11 + OCV - 3d6 = DCV hit. That way, if wasn't already ingrained in our heads, we can easily refer. As far as group/campaign style, I'd ask your group: what genre do we want to play? That will help a lot. Once a consensus is reached, then I'd try to find out what character archetype each person wants to play. I'd also make sure that you limit the number of one particular type, that way not everyone is playing the same flying/flaming/fire-slinging/torch-like guy (or what-have-you). Like it most MMOs & RPGs, a party balance is nice plus you have the added benefit of not having one player constantly stealing the limelight from another player. Lastly I always have my players (and myself when I play) come up with (most of) my Disadvantages/Complications first. Sometimes we all brainstorm for each other's characters. That way we can see what makes the character think, drives them, and know really how many points we can build with. Players might want to team up and take matching Rivalries, for example. Or maybe your group is playing a super-patriotic themed team, subject to orders from the President. There's nothing worse than building a character, then having your group have to sit and wait for a straggler (or more) to finish their Complications. It's unfair to those who put the full effort into it. One thing about building a power. Generally speaking, if you describe a power to ten different people, you'll most likely get ten valid different ways to write it up. Hero is very versatile, allowing for GMs and players to work together to build a power, special effect, or whatever. To me, that is the system's strength. Some systems make it nicer for you, by giving you every conceivable power from a certain special effect (how I love playing Magnetic or Gravity-based characters, mwa-ha-ha). In Hero, you have to buy it (or use Power skill to one-off a feat). And that is totally cool. Helmeted magnetic mutate leader-guy really shouldn't have to pay for the Power to alter the entire Earth's magnetic field... how many times is he really going to use that, really? If it tells a good story, then let's roll the dice and do it! The character creation process might seem daunting, but once you've determined your particular campaign's "Rule of X" it becomes simpler. Once you know your maximum Damage Class threshold (and how many points you can afford to spend), you can reverse engineer back to the base Power's dice value. Out the gate, generally stick to easier characters. "Snikt-bub", for instance, without the bushido/long-history baggage. A gun-based vigilante. Star-Spangled discus chucker. Start off simple, then experiment with Power Frameworks (Winged rodent person's utility belt; Arachnid girl's spinnerette tricks; Speed-zone enhanced hyper movement; The Thang's clobbering feats of strength; etc.). Definitely give your group room for a slight rebuild if they find certain write-ups just aren't working. There's a ton of radioactive lobsters just waiting pinch your depressed Hero and give them their accident (or substitute vats of chemicals or alien dissection or mystic imbuements). Just my 2 XP.

Perhaps the chart could be slightly reworded. "Exhibiting a Power or superior technology" could be modified to "Exhibiting a Superior Power, Skill, or technology"? For mooks, at least. I mention "skill" because of Martial Arts- style flourishes (Boxing series of shadow-box punches before a bout, a Bruce Lee-style dance, impressive swordplay, etc.) that are of higher training caliber than the targets. Another use for taking PS:<your martial art here> possibly, too. Amen. Where's my Lactaid defense!

My group tends to follow the motto: what's good for the goose is good for the gander. We try to not create powers or do overly nasty things (like SPD drain, n-ray vision combined with Mental powers, and the like) because if we pull that line of stuff, then the GM will play the arms race card and do it back. It is a form of respect, which goes both ways most of the time. PRE attack abuse is one such avenue. Sure, my group uses them, and quite often. They are quite handy when attacking a mob of agents or to get the police bolstered versus the big baddie. It gets really ugly when PRE scores get over 40, and the PRE attacker continually perma-locks their (captive) audience by removing their ability to act. My group's characters' average PRE is about 20-25. We don't like to have every "hero" or "villain" be a charismatic demigod. Only the really inspiring ones get higher. Our group follows our GM's Rule of X, which can be a drag at times but its there for everyone's enjoyment, I guess. We sometimes purchase a level or two of Positive Rep and/or Striking Appearance. Do the math to figure how your campaign mileage would handle your own group's numbers. Our GM included PRE on the list of defensive characteristics for Adjustment powers, precisely because your deeds/atmosphere/circumstance should play a more influential role in building a good PRE attack. An Aid (or Drain) has a very significant effect on the characteristic without such, and you're effectively neutered if your PRE drops too low, heroically speaking. It really takes the wind out of your sails when some galactic cheese weasel with a 70 PRE shouts "Flee!" and you find yourself PRE attacked so hard your unborn grandchildren lose their next phase.

Yes. I agree 100% on personal defenses. The question that arises then: is an inanimate unattended/"not part of any character's personal defense special effect" object (in this argument, a locked door) pertinent & subject to Indirect (as in being able to target/affect just its locking mechanism)? By definition, they are parts of a whole. However there is a skill called Lockpicking, not Door Opening. Therefore one could infer that there is something distinctly "targetable" and different between the two. I don't doubt that the power would have to go against some Defense power (per my write up, rED). I don't doubt that certain high-end doors would have redundant and/or high quality material locks, and therefore better DEFs. Just by using the "Object Body by Thickness" chart, the part that locks the door should be thinner than the door itself (and therefore less Body to 'cut' through). I was considering your application of the Beam limitation, and that might be applicable if the attack's base Power was KA and the attack was Constant. I could visualize the attack taking a while to "cut" through, but my interpretation of Beam would be that no matter how much Body damage actually got past the DEF of the door, only 1 Body damage would be taken (akin to how it would affect Entangles). Unless my GM insisted on taking it, I think that's too much of a disadvantage for the -1/4. I do see how that visualization could be Beam-like though, as my intended result is just a pin-point attack of certain parts of the door and not, as you say, "destroy the door surface and create a human sized opening like unlimited attacks." I can see arguments for both. This might be a case of special effect/storytelling/common sense taking precedence over rules. By roleplaying, the door is still on its hinges and technically still serves the purpose of a door, just minus the ability to be locked. It could be swung shut once opened, and can be used by anyone. It is not being used by Janus the Door Man* as a form of personal protection, so his anima doesn't control/inhabit the door nor is he using it as a tower shield. If someone could open the door with Lockpicking, can a power do the same without slagging the door? I'd reckon Telekinesis with Fine Manipulation could develop a power stunt to jimmy a door lock rather than simply bashing it down. Thanks for continuing to read and to brainstorm this problem. *= Janus the Door Man might belong to someone. Apologies if I borrowed the character's name for illustration purposes. No monetary gains were made.

Part of why I was figuring Transform was the way to go, as it already has the built-in way to heal back from it (i.e. repair the door). I was also considering the Indirect advantage to allow me to bypass the sheet metal (or whatever the door is made of) so I could affect the internal working of the locking mechanism. While Indirect can't bypass a personal defense (e.g. body armor), by definition it allows a barrier to be ignored. And as was pointed out, unless circumstances warrant it, the DEF & Body of a smaller piece of metal should be less than that of the entire door. But then, who builds oak door locks/latches out of Adamantium or Questionite or Unobtainium, really?

That would work, for me, to just have the door be opened/unlatched. However it fails to represent the fact the the door's locking capability is functionally destroyed until repaired. I'll talk it over with my GM as to which he'd prefer. I'm thinking that Transform would be better, because a well done 'weld' should be a lot tougher than what my Active Point total would be by using an Entangle. The door itself, i.e. the game environment, would be what sets the tone for the power. I know I could have a "Requires Components"-style of limitation, modifying my Max DEF of the door/weld, but if I took the time to do a weld on a particularly strong door (let's say, a vault door), I don't think I should be penalized by being limited to a cheesy amount of Entangle dice. Fair enough. So what you're saying is that the power's special effect is keeping the door 'whole' rather than being slag? So since it is going against smaller, more intricate parts of the door rather than the entire mass of the door, do you think that Penetrating (+1/2) would be in order by that same logic? I agree. Question about that: can such an attack be Deflected normally? I know my attack is Invisible to Sight, so if the Deflector wasn't able to perceive the incoming attack he'd be in deep doo-doo to try. I'm just meaning legally. Cute. Thanks for the replies thus far. Any others?

Sorry for the long-ish thread, but I'd like some input from you fine folks. First: I have a pyrokinetic character that I want to build a power stunt for. The effect of a power in her MP is to use her psychokinetic power to melt the deadbolt or what-have-you of a door/latch similar to a torch cutting through it. However I wanted the power to not be as blatant as "having a flame jet come from out of her finger" but rather be more subtle.Similarly, I did not want the door itself to just be burnt into cinders/slag. I imagine the metal/target just superheating and melting very precisely. I discussed it with my GM, and he was cool with Minor Transform dice, as I am changing the usefulness of the door but not its fundamental existence. Obviously his word is what works for this campaign, and I am not questioning the soundness of his decision (in fact, I agree). I bought it as... 5d6 Minor Transform (target into unlocked target) Partial Transform* (+1/2) Alt Combat Value (+1/4: non-mental power uses OMCV vs DMCV)** Indirect (+1/4)*** Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2)** Defense is rED instead of Power Defense (-1/2) *= partial because if I transformed/damaged the door enough, it might make it easier to bash open the door, game effect-wise **= simulating psionic TK-like effect; {I know most doors shouldn't even have DMCVs (so yeah or nay on the +1/4 and just go +0 ACV: OMCV instead of OCV)?} ***= as long as she can see where to 'cut' the lock (or have a good enough guess to non-targeting PER roll to make the attack, or see through a window at such a locked target) she can affect the target. Second: Then I got to thinking about other ramifications to that same power effect. What about welding a door shut? If anyone saw the more recent incarnation of the movie Carrie, when Carrie just looks at the lock and telekinetically welds the door lock that is keeping her psycho mom in the closet, that is how I imagine the effect looking. 4d6 Minor Transform (target into welded shut target) Partial Transform (+1/2) ACV (+1/4) Indirect (+1/4) AOE: Surface (+1/4)**** Invisible to Sight Group (+1/2) Defense is rED instead of Power Defense (-1/2) ****= to simulate that two parts have to be joined in order to be welded Third: Now I really got wild & imaginative. What about welding a gun's trigger so it couldn't be fired? And that's when the alarm bell started ringing. Depriving a target of a power could be simulated by either Transform or Dispel. Depending on special effects and GM adjudication, it might be a while before a target could "turn back on" his RKA 'gun' without making a skill roll or something to make it work. Removing a power from a target is also a much higher level of transform. Either Power choice could be "healed" or "turned back on" by repairing the gun in one way or another. Either way, the target's Power Defense still applies... which plain doesn't make sense to me with this special effect. How should I construct the power? The Dispel description, paraphrased, lists one of its uses as "turning off an opponent's foci" You cannot Dispel a person's Base, so Transform seems OK for the first two power effects. Could Entangle do the job as well for power #2's write up ?Or, should I just save the points on power #3 and learn Martial Disarm or Takeaway lol? We all know that almost any power effect can be purchased in a multitude of different variations. I'd really not like to reinvent the wheel here. Thanks for your sage advise and patience reading.

I was bringing it up, mainly for consistency's sake. I assume that a character that goes first, takes Flash "damage" to a sense, still gets to heal from their Flash damage on their DEX phase, possibly avoiding taking an actual detrimental effect combat-wise from being Flashed in the first place based on the SPD scores of the combatants. Continuous attacks reapply on the DEX phase of the attack's owner. Fairness, to me, would have the Flash wear off on the Flash-attack owner's DEX. But I understand K.I.S.S. can make the game easier too. I also understand that some of this is comparing apples to Volkswagens, but the underlying theory is what I am bringing up for discussion. I guess I am trying to get a little bit of universal fairness for the attacker's attacks. I can see where simplicity can make the game more enjoyable, as well as give character's with higher DEX scores a minor advantage for the points they invest into that characteristic. I suppose a grittier campaign house rule could eliminate the combat's first Post-12 fade and/or Post-12 Recovery, especially on game nights where you'd want to make it not last quite as long. Has anyone tried this? Any unforeseen side detriment to using this?

If I attack a target on the 12th (say, the opening 12th of combat) with a Drain bought without any increased Fade Rate duration, does the target get 5 points back of the drained attribute on that Post-12? It seems a little unfair for it to occur, especially if the target suffers no game detriment (such as having a higher DEX and going first anyway). I assume the answer is yes. I understand that a similar argument can be made of attacking a target and having just a little STUN leak through a target's defenses on the 12th, just to have them recover the STUN damage back fully on the Post-12. The opening attack was basically wasted. But everyone has PD/ED & REC, not every character has Power Def. Thanks for reading.