bigbywolfe

Re: Restrainable Limitation I understand your points but I see we're going to disagree on this.

Re: Restrainable Limitation Since you’re focusing on logic and realism I think it's only fair to point out that grabbing (the act of taking hold of, not the game mechanic) someone’s head would make you more likely to get bitten, not less. In fact, grabbing someone’s legs, arms, really almost anywhere else on the human body other than the head, especially from behind, would make you less likely to be bitten then grabbing someone’s head/neck. So, when you designate the head (which is considered a “limb”) as the point of origin for a “bite” type attack, you are being illogical, because designating the head as the point of origin means that restraining the head (Grabbing it) restrains the attack, even though logically and realistically it’s fairly easy to bite someone who has you in a headlock. Also, let’s look at Entangle. An EB can be used to break out of an Entangle. It just can. That’s part of the mechanics of the game. If the EB is bought as a Focus, then it usually can’t be used to break out of an Entangle. Now, Player of Laser Finger Man wants to show that his EB (the laser finger) needs very precise aim and won’t be useful when Entangled, yet he doesn’t want it to be a Focus that can be taken away, it’s his finger after all. What do we do? Apply Restrainable. IMO this makes perfect sense.

Re: Restrainable Limitation You can attack your "grabber" when you have been grabbed. So if you had a bite attack, you could use it, arguably even if they grabbed your head. Likewise, you could use a bite attack to break an Entangle. Now, add Restrainable to your bite attack. If someone grabs your head you can’t use your bite attack, ever, for any reason. Likewise, if you are Entangled and bite is your strongest attack, guess what? You can’t use it to break through the Entangle. Why do people have issues with this as a limitation?

Re: lets create fire powers! Even the core rules? Without that I'm really not sure how anyone can help. We can make-up power builds, but you won't know what we're talking about.

Re: What's in the moon? Not exactly Steampunk, but...

Re: Devils Tower: How to? Point taken:hush:

Re: Thoughts and Questions on Clinging Gotchya. I guess my thinking was adding no gravity penalty (or “vertical movement” penalty) to a form of movement that couldn’t move vertically anyway didn’t make much sense either. Anyway, which would you guys suggest then; buying the extra running and limiting it or adding the not gravity to your regular running?

Re: Indirect and IPE

Re: Devils Tower: How to? I moved us to a dimension without the tree:p

Re: Thoughts and Questions on Clinging In another thread I saw an advantage I had not run into before for movement powers. +1/2 No Gravity Penalty (I believe this Advantage comes from Ninja Hero, but I am uncertain). It was used on Leaping, but the penalty for vertical movement when Clinging is the same as the one used for Leaping. This could potentially make being able to use your full movement with clinging cheaper than buying more running and then limiting it. However, if this Advantage would be allowed, would you apply it to your Clinging or to your Running? 15 Clinging (normal STR) (+1/2 for No Gravity Penalty) Total Points 15 10 Clinging (normal STR) 6 “No Gravity Penalty” +1/2 as a Naked Advantage on Running (6”, 12 Active Points worth) Total Points 16 10 Clinging (normal STR) 6 Running +6" (12" total) (12 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only for calculating 1/2 distance for verticle movement.; -1) Total Points 16 Using only the 6” of base running, applying the “No Gravity Penalty” to Clinging is slightly cheaper than applying it to the Running and cheaper than buying more running and then limiting it. The difference in points increases the more Running you buy, though buying extra STR for your Clinging changes the balance in the other direction. So, what do you think? Is the +1/2 No Gravity Penalty applicable to vertical movement in this case, and if so, does it apply to the Clinging or the Running? Or am I making this overly complicated?

Re: Devils Tower: How to? Extra-Dimensional Movement to “world where I’m on a tower of earth and out of harms way”. Huh? huh?

Re: Telekinesis Martial Arts Some people feel that the extra DCs are unbalancing, which I can understand. And things like extra STR, only to hold, really seems to make less sense with TK than regular STR. I’ve seen some sentiments of “just tone the TK down and buy an EB.” Not saying it’s my view, but it’s out there.

Re: Attacks That Follow The Target. How about Transform: Person to Person Being Chased By Attack? What? Someone had to say it…

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity" I did not know you were present. I don’t know who you are. I didn’t even know “Zac” was someone on this forum and not just the name of his GM who may or may not have anything to do with the online community. I see you did post something in this thread almost 2 weeks ago. Sorry I didn’t remember that by the time I responded to the OPs last post. Looking back at your posts it seems as if we pretty much agree, so I’m not sure why your getting bent out of shape, since most of my arguments would not apply to you. If you and I disagreed strongly and if I had known you were the GM in question and that you were in fact present, I would have told you to read those passages. Um, wow. Actually, my entire post to jwpacker was aimed at jwpacker. As I said before, I didn’t even realize who you were or that you were here. I was, in fact, trying to answer the OP, by pointing out the fact that question he asked is answered in the book. As far as snarky innuendo I don’t believe I aimed any at you, especially not intentionally. You seem to have been personally offended by things I said to two different people, not to you. Sorry I accidentally offended you by answering a question and wading into an argument with somewhat entrenched viewpoints.

Re: Ultimate Suppresser It may not be the topic of the thread, but it is a legitimate point. A Suppress power with no advantages might be workable in that low power of a campaign, but will be very limited as to what it can do. A Suppress VPP might be useful, but is going to be extremely weak and eat up most of your points. Oh, and 1d6 of Normal Damage (unless you meant 1d6k) is going to be useless in most non-powered games. That power wouldn't scare people in a 50 point Horror campaign, let alone in a world where supers exist (even extremely low powered supers).

Re: Fun looking toy Does the site you got the picture from say what it does? That might help us...

Re: One HELL of a poker game... Groan... I actually meant to do both, but I have the short term memory of a goldfish.

Re: Evaluation on an ability: Bounce Back And unless it has Invisible Power Effect then the PCs are going to SEE that his FF is down, whether he's "not KO'd but sort of KO'd" or just "regular Con stunned".

Re: Not "Secret", not "Public", just "Identity" You might want to have Zac actually read the Champions book. Particularly page 48 and page 68. The book actually says if all of your DNPCs know who you are, or if you have no loved ones, and your job isn’t an inconvenience, then you are getting extra points for free and should be forced to buy off the Disad. Remember, a Disadvantage that doesn’t disadvantage you is not worth any points. If your GM is going to force you to roleplay Secret ID issues often, even though you don’t want to, he is either not doing a good job as a GM or, at the very least, is not explaining what he expects of you or the campaign very well. I have trouble understanding why a GM would force issues on players that they really don't want to play. Doesn't sound like a fun way to start a campaign to me. If you think those issues have to be part of the campaign, then that should be pre-established. I can't fathom punishing a player for not having super crazy inconvenience issues built into their character. “Sorry, generally speaking in world's I GM when something get broken someone out there starts looking for someone to sue.” And that’s fine as long as the players understand that BEFORE engaging in the campaign. In fact having an ID related Social Disadvantage should probably be mentioned in the campaign guidelines. And yes, if a GM doesn’t establish that ahead of time, and then punishes players who didn’t take one by giving them the exact same problems as thought that did, then that is a very bad GM. You seem to not be able to understand that not having a Secret ID Disadvantage does not necessarily mean you don’t have a secret ID, it just means that the player does not want to have to constantly focus on that as part of their game every darn session. I guess in your campaign that really might not work, but you seem to imply that it won’t work in any campaign, which just isn’t true.

Re: Help with a power Should instant really be worth -1/2? The reason I ask is that generally when you Stretch, the body part that stretches can be targeted and attacked. I believe even with the “Does Not Cross Intervening Space” Advantage the end point of the Stretch can still be attacked (though I could be wrong). It seems like adding “-1/2 Instant” may actually reduce your chance of taking damage, which just doesn’t seem right to me… I don’t have my book on hand, so sorry if I’m misunderstanding or overlooking something obvious.

Re: Your Gaming Group's Jargon Many of our gaming terms are actually movie quotes or old jokes, many of which we used anyway, but have taken on specific meaning with certain friends when gaming. “I attack him with hummus.”: Referencing Oz’s suggestion to attack the Mayor with hummus on the show Buffy. It’s usually said by one of us to make fun of someone who just made a really stupid or sarcastic suggestion. “Testicles Rising” (Usually said in a high-pitch voice): Often said when a player does something foolish that actually causes harm to their own player. It’s a reference to Mr. Furious in Mystery Men. “He’s terribly mysterious”: Also from Mystery Men. Often used when the GM is having trouble describing something, especially a character. “I'm your density!” Inevitably said after a botched interaction skill role, especially seduction. I know there’s more, but I’m blanking at the moment…

Re: Worth a thousand words? I got quozaxx for ya.

Re: Restrainable Limitation Just a single point before bed, though I might post more on this later. To me, the biggest difference between Flight and Restrainable Flight, is the whether or not you plummet out of the sky and take significant damage from hitting the ground when Entangled. To me this is worth a -1/2 cost break in many Super games.

Re: Immunity to Electric Attacks Looks at Hugh's post..."What he said"

Re: Restrainable Limitation I think the big difference is "restrainable" powers are affected by entangles and such as well. An innate (not bought as a Foci) ranged attack, such as Energy Blast, can be used against an Entangle but not against a grab, barring GM fiat for common/dramatic sense. What about movement powers? A flying character can be grabbed by the arms or legs while in the air, but that doesn’t mean they will instantly plummet to the earth, unless flight is for some reason restrainable. Also, a grabbed character is at reduced OCV, but can still attack their grabber, within reason. Say you have both arms pinned in bear-hug; you can still kick with your full strength, headbutt the person, etc. Now put Restrainable on STR. You can’t do anything, even try to escape. As far as “bite” being restrainable for a humanoid character…I’d allow it if the person really wanted to limit themselves. Even if they don’t make bite restrainable, though, I’m still not going to let them bite someone who has them “grabbed” by the legs! But they may be able to bite someone else in the same hex; remember, grabbed characters, can, by RAW, attack people other than those grabbing them. Common and dramatic sense is the only way to deal with this kind of thing.