Kdansky

Re: Help With A Super Skill Build: "Bullet Guidance" Don't make me do something really annoying when I post something long next time! I could try to format like japanese though, with a fixed size font, writing in columns from right to left.

Re: Help With A Super Skill Build: "Bullet Guidance" I think you are using too many manual linebreaks . Also, I like indirect better than combat levels, due to being more flexible (and the player WILL be using the very flexible. I would.)

Re: Rep Points So the NGD posts are limited by "no figured characteristics"? Is that a -0? I don't see any points lying around, I could use them to improve my Language Skill: English.

Re: [build] True Sight Mind that True Sight is a huge balance problem in D20, as it makes all illusions after the first few levels utterly useless. Barred school Illusion? Yay, no disadvantage, all these spells don't work properly anyway! TS should not exist anyway.

Re: best way? And use a better thread title next time Money is always useful, even if you cannot buy weapons. PRE Attack bribe, supported with 200'000$ ? +4 dice

Re: Deconstructing skill levels Very interesting, though I also think that the 5 point level is the base for a skill level. Most powers don't come in the strongest form out of the book, but in a good "very useful and point efficient" form. Also, think about how you build a character with skill levels: The ones used very often are 5 points (for combat). And last: "+1: covers everything" is very, very typical for the base rules. It's like an adjustment power or framework (VPP), as soon as there are no exceptions anymore, it's an advantage. So base 5 seems very logical. (not that base 10 seems stupid, mind you, but it looks more elegant with a base 5) Also, I think skill levels are extremly useful and very underrated. If you have a 75 AP limit, buying combat skill levels and converting them to DCs is actually breaking the AP limit, so that IS very good. I exspect some characters in my next campaign to heavily use Str and CSLs to push HKAs or HAs. I'm not yet sure if it will be a problem, but if the 3d6 HKA suddenly is 6d6, that might be a problem for The Evil Guys. What I want to say is: 1 point and 1.5 point levels are just too cheap, no matter how limited. Often, 2 point levels are too cheap too, if you are not playing 350p games, you usually don't have dozens of attack powers, so +1 OCV for 2 points suddenly is really good.

Re: EC unsuitable? You got a point there. Although I'm not allowing called shots usually. Vitals is just way too easy to hit and instagib all the time.

Re: Attack multipowers [spoilers] Ah, right, just use charges twice. Makes actually sense. First you limit amount of use (for a lot of points) and then choices (for not so many points). Still weird behaviour with bad choice of numbers, but by far not as bad as before. Thanks.

Re: Sweep Combat Levels I don't think his idea is flawed. Making a character be able to hit 3 times decently but not able to perfectly hit once if only attacking once is a very valid concern. If a player asked me: "Hey, I want to be able to sweep 5 enemies, I'm buying 20 combat levels à 2 points" I would definitely not allow that. Because he *will* use these 20 levels without sweeping. And +20 OCV is more than enough for 100% hit

The spoilers tag is there for my group in the hopes they skip the thread. Well, it will be rather generic I have a character concept where the guy is carrying around half a wagon load of weapons. Now paying full price on all weapons when he can only use one each turn (yes, yes, MPA, but how do you use 2 twohanded swords at the same time?) would be a bit expensive. So we're going for the usual approach here: Multipower: 50 points pool (numbers at random) 5 ultraslots at 5 points each for 5 different weapons (HKA sword, RKA shuriken, AP dagger, penetrating needles, entangle bola, flash flashgranades, ... you get the picture). Now further assuming the character can only use each weapon once per combat (because he throws all weapons. Yes, even the sword). That gives all the slots a -2 charges limitation. But wait. That only limits the slots, even a -2 will only make the power (5*5/3= 8) 16 points cheaper (from 75). But if we use 6 (-3/4) charges on the *whole* MP, we save more (pool of 50 / 1.75 = 28, saving 22). We also get 6 instead of 5 charges (ok, that's due to rounding), but we can choose freely where to use them. It depends a bit on how you choose the numbers, but the effect is there. 5 charges on a MP is far LESS limiting than 1 charge per slot (with 5 slots). Cost and effect are the wrong way around. How do I fix this? And sorry for hogging the forums atm, I'm writing a campaign right now, have a creative phase and need some answers I'm not *that* fluent in Hero.

Re: "Well, last time I saw that, we did...." I think I'm going to use the MP approach. That way, he can even choose which skills to have and which not And we're not rounding all the time, since then everything would be 1, no matter if it was 1 or 10 beforehand. That should get us to something along the lines of 30-50 points for all skills on bad to mediocre levels. Also, having a sheet with 72 skills on it (even if most are way below 14-) would be very cool.

Re: Sweep Combat Levels Yes, sounds like sweep to me Lot's of attacking, not so much hitting. Btw did it not occur to anyone that attacking twice for double end (oh no! How completely unpayable) and a meager -2 (less than 5cp in combat levels) is actually rather powerful for very, very, very low cost? I'm just thinking that a combat level should only be used on one attack per turn, that would make sense. Attack 6 times and your OCV will drop, no matter how many CLs you have (well, you'd need 6x6x2= 72 of them, rather unlikely)

Re: Sweep Combat Levels Yeah, but that does not change the fact that it's 'normally' cheaper to just stack 2-point CLs instead of buying limited 5-points (which are in the end NOT cheaper than 2-points, but worse, since you could just not sweep and get +10 OCV in that case). Also, I always believed that 2-point CLs are way too cheap if you limit yourself to one attack (which by the way might be very strong, since you got points to spare. If you run against AP-Limits (which are still a band-aid-solution), then go and buy Find weakness and Combat Levels for DC). Back on topic: I would also go with 5 point levels limited by -2 to -3 (real cost: 1.66~ to 1.25 and cheaper than 2-point levels). only my weapon of choice: -1 only for sweep penalty offset: -1 to -2 I think Sean has these in huge amounts. Weapon of choice: answering questions on the hero boards. He sweeps through them.

Re: "Well, last time I saw that, we did...." I wanted to write a hefty flame. But realized you are probably right. (Hah, I put in a "probably"!) This sends me back to Start (without getting 4000 cp), it looks like I really have to do some fairly weird guessing on cp-cost...

Re: "Well, last time I saw that, we did...." @Sean: Well, VPP also does the same for powers. I always wondered where the game balance in that was. So this is the same problem, limited on skills. Very interesting thoughts.

Re: The Sound of One Hand Clapping Images, invisible?

I have got a modelling question. I have a character concept that gives me trouble. The character is basically immortal (ressurection covers it nicely) and due to that, he lived for millenia and by now is pretty good at nearly anything. He did some magic, he learned how to climb/drive cars/cook sushi, he speaks nearly all languages, even some dialects, he's proficient with as good as anything. And all good things come with a catch: - He needs some time to remember ("How to deacivate a security alarm? Well, let me think about that for a minute or two, I believe I've seen something like this before..." - "HURRY, WILL YOU?!") - He might be proficient, but he was far too lazy to ever master anything. So he actually always has rather crappy unmodified rolls (around 11- to 13-). What I have come up with: VPP with some sort of extra time to change points and some activation roll. Ideally something along the lines of: "Fireball? Wait, I did that once, now how was that supposed" *Rolls 9-, fails* *retry, fail* *retry, fail* *retry, sucess* (1 minute has passed by now) "Ah, now I remember!" Since it's a pretty open problem and concept (and I hope it's interesting), shoot away Thanks.

Re: Steve's Chat (Weds., October 24) Assuming one lives in Japan, can we get a transcript?

Re: EC unsuitable? Yes, I think there will be dieing involved in that campaign. And since you mention it, innocents always make good targets *scribbles something in a black, leather-bound book labeled CAMPAIGN OF UTTER DOOM AND DESTRUCTION in red, bloody letters, then cackles maniacally*

Re: EC unsuitable? All great ideas, but I should have gone to greater lengths to explain a bit about the character He's neither trained, nor very tough, nor anything to that matter. He's just a very gifted kid (yes, not even grown up), who has an extraordinary ability to read other peoples minds. So all the "I'm not feeling the pain" things are really ill suited, sorry He's actually afraid of getting hurt (btw, what's a good psych disadv on that?) and also easy to frighten (vulnerability against fear based PRE attacks). Also note it's not a superhero campaign, but more of a Film noir Steam punk. The setting is pretty unusual, that makes character creation very easy (you can come up with nearly anything) and very hard (sometimes you just cannot justify a required power well. We just cannot have a 20 stun, 10 con, 10 body, 3/3 pd/ed character without resistant defenses in a game where most attacks are around 3d6 KA). I think I will go for "please don't hurt me", cover on the ground and generate a massive force of telekinetic energy around him (either field or wall, probably field). Very nice idea with damage reduction, but it's actually more about body than stun. At the moment it looks like this: EC 60 pkt Telepathy 12d6 (6 END / phase), Full Concentration (-0.5): 30/1.5 = 20 cp Mind Scan 12d6 (6 END / phase), Full turn (-1.25), Full Concentration (-0.5): 30 / 2.75 = 11 cp Mind Control 12d6 (6 END / phase), Full Concentration (-0.5): 30 / 1.5 = 20 cp "I don't want to die!" - Big bunch of shields: Force Field 40 cp: big 20/20 resistant defenses. 4 END / phase. 10 cp (+30 by EC) Power Defense 10 cp (-0.5 costs END): 7 cp Mental Defense 10 cp (-0.5 costs END): 7 cp Mind Link, 15 pkt any target, +10 no Los, , +15 up to 8 people. invisible (+0.5). 0 END, 60 AP, 30 cp (not happy with that yet) Mind Blast, 6d6 (6 END), no killing damage (+0), partial concentration (-0.25), Full turn (-0.25), 30 / 1.5 = 20 cp Not in EC: Healing, small part: 2d6, 20 AP, double END (-0.5, 4 END), full turn (-1.25) , total cost 7 Healing, big thing: +6d6, 60 AP, tripple END (-1, 18 END), full turn (-1.25), activation roll 11- (-0.5) total 16 total cost: 178, since the character will have pretty cheap stats (most of them are base, he IS a boy), this might be doable with about 200-250 total. disads: Afraid of battles / being hurt (not yet sure how to model) Mute 20 cp Just a Boy (social disad) Despises physical labour I'm actually the GM, not the player, but the player does not like the number crunching and his concept is rather powerful, so I'm "helping". I'm not yet entirely happy with what I have (most powers are extremly bland), so ideas are welcome

Re: EC unsuitable? Thanks for the replies, I need to think about that for a moment, but I have other questions in the mean time: - Invisible advantage. Now what exactly does the target "see" when I use Telepathy on him without being invisible? Does he know "someone" is in his thoughts? Does he know it's me? Does anyone else see me doing that? Does anyone else see me doing that if he has mental awareness? Which of these can be prevented by invisible adv? - Also, you have used a MP with I-Mind, which works great, except for Mind Scan (as soon as you switch points out of MS, you lose your telepathy target). I'm not sure what is cheaper, mind scan separate and multi for the rest, or all in one EC. The reason for Mind link belonging to the EC: It's actually the "friendly telepathy", but since telepathy needs END and is a bit more than talking, using a different mechanic works better. Search per Mind Scan, set up Link. Mobile phone in the middle ages!

Well, I wanted to hear some suggestions to a "problem" I have. A character in my game is a psi-genius, very good at all sorts of mind-X, but otherwise rather weak. I was thinking about doing this the EC way: EC Mind Powers 75 AP Telepathy 10d6, +1/2 invisible to normal sight Mind Scan 10d6, invisible to normal sight (do I need that?) Mind Control 10d6 invisible Why invisible: He can just use his powers without anyone noticing he does it. That's just part of the concept (as a GM I don't think it will be too good, I've seen this in action already, mostly due to implicit "limitations" with psi powers in the world (for example god-like beings always have a mental damage shield)). My problem: I want to add some sort of defense to him, because he's awfully squishy. Obvious approach: having a Force Field in the EC. Problems: Just too many AP. A 75 AP FF will outright destroy my game balance, there's nearly nothing that can even harm him anymore then. But since all powers in an EC have to be the same AP, the Field cannot be smaller, or it would have to be outside the EC, and then it's kinda small again (or expensive). Could I stack power defense, mental defense, flash defense all in one slot? Sidenote: I also want to put a Mind link in this framework, but again, that's not expensive enough to fill the required 75 AP (well, one can just take about 1024 active links instead of the required 8, but it's not useful at all).

Re: Standard Effect Table Your dex drain example does make sense, there it's actually useful to know how much you will be "rolling". On the other hand: I would not take a 3.5 Standard Effect for my KAs, never! I'd think about taking 4, but not because I think it's effective. Everyone of us likes guaranteed results, even if the risky version is more profitable. Look at all the people taking 15- activation rolls, even if 13- is the best bang for the buck. What will you do with your 3d KA SE 4 -> 12 Body everytime against someone with 11 resistant armor? Whoa, a whopping 1 body per hit, now that's great. It would not matter if you roll a 10 or a 3, the result would be 0 everytime, but if you roll a 15, you do 4, which is 4 times more than 1. Wide range is good. I'd take 1d20-1 (avg 10) over 3d6 (avg 10.5) anytime, because chances are 20% that I will make a brutal hit of 15+. And a 10d6 EB is superior to a 35 stun SE EB too. You can easily roll 40 on 10d6 (I've seen 55+) which is really devastating, whereas rolling 10 would not matter much as your enemy has some armor anyway and will absorb about 20 stun anyway.

Re: Standard Effect Table Bad idea, as everytime you did really hit you did roll low. This will reduce the average damage significantly. On the other hand I never liked the 1d = 3 pts rule, as a wide random range is generally an advantage: Suppose you're using 10 DCs. If you're fighting some guy with 0 armor. Standard Effect: 30 stun Rolling: 35 stun (average) So Rolling is sightly better (+12%). Against the really weak characters, this is probably better, because you _know_ they will drop down after one hit. Sucks if they have 30 stun and 2 PD, though... Now when you fight someone with 30 armor, things look differently: Standard Effect: 0 stun (everytime, you can't even scratch that guy) Rolling: often, you will do 0 stun too, but every second roll you will do more than 30 and if you're lucky, you can still to very ugly damage (this effect is even stronger with KAs, when you roll 12+ with your 3 dice and then a 6 for stunmultiplier) I had a character with a summon and used standard effect because rolling 3d6 KA * Stun Multiplier for 9 guys was terrible, but I will not do that again because in one fight the standard effect really nearly killed me because the enemies had high armor. Without standard effect, I could've hurt them easily. (Because if 6 our of my 9 guys hit, I will usually have at least one good roll on one of them. Many rolls -> High variation, which is good) I'd use Standard Effect = 3.5 or even 4, to make up for that. Standard Effect as it is now is 90% disadvantage, 10% advantage, but you pay for it.

So? Is this in the errata then? I did not find it anyways, but the errata+faq is quite long. (you could also add my text to my own post or update those, to keep this forum clean).