bigbywolfe

Re: Free equipment side discussion. There are two different discussions going on here. Some people are talking about the OPs suggestion, a genre specific scale that further differentiates "Supers" from "Normals." When it has been pointed out that this is very genre specific and should be included, if anywhere, in a genre book, others have piped up and pointed out how many other uses it has and that it should be in the main rules. I may be stating the obvious, but I wanted to point it out because some earlier posters seemed to be talking past each other. As far as a “superhero scale” goes, that sounds like it could work. I see absolutely no need for it, since supers often have 5 to 6 times the points of the mooks they face, and 10 points of rDEF (which would take most of a 2d6K using Standard Effect, in other words, most guns) is really not that expensive. It sounds like a great house rule, I can see campaigns where it could add to the feel the GM is looking for, but it certainly doesn’t make it into the realm of core-rule-book optional rules. As far as the, “we can use scale for anything,” approach, where to start? If it is not only an optional rule, but the scale has to be defined specifically by each GM, then no two groups of gamers using the “Optional Character Scale” rules will ever be able to join in a single campaign without redefining the very world both groups played in. People have argued that it is easily stackable with the other optional rules. I disagree. Most of the optional rules are fairly, if not very, well predefined; especially the optional combat rules, (which this scaling would seem to most affect). Hit Locations can be easily added to combat in virtually any genre and the options for bleeding or tracking wounds can be easily “stacked” onto that. Differing levels of unpaid for defense simply does not stack onto the existing rules with ease, particularly if there is no standard to the scale.

Re: Area of Effect Defense Susan Storm style "force fields" would be Force Walls in game terms. You can't attack through them, which the OP specifically mentions. That's something that I've seen get confused a lot; game Powers and their effect vs common usage of terms.

Re: END cost for Defender LOL, thanks Chris, we really dropped the ball on this one. How could we forget EDM.

Re: Hero is TK projection of kid in coma If he’s saying they are not books, that's a whole discussion on what is or is not literature. If he’s saying they aren’t funny, that’s just an inane point to make. “Comic” stems from “comedy,” which despite the modern connotation, does not simply mean “funny”. Comedy is, traditionally, the opposite of Tragedy, not the opposite of “serious” or “realistic.”

Re: END cost for Defender Shouldn't his jet boots be built with charges? I mean, it's the boots that are flying right? (There, will that help?)

Re: Area of Effect Defense He's saying you can buy AoE without buying any of the Usable On Others advantages; hence, the disagreement. I’d argue that even using UOO is massively over-effective and underpriced, which is why Defensive powers are usually not shared, at least not without a very careful review from your GM and an understanding that it probably won’t be accepted in any “official” game or even with other groups of gamers.

Re: Calm the Storm For those of us without the Grimoire, what do skeletons, zombies, and aqueducts have to do with building "Calm the Storm" as a power that actually calms a storm, say, over a city, without building a plateau in the center of it and having undead run around? Would this work for any genre other than fantasy? Most GMs in a Champions game probably wouldn't give Storm of the X-Men a x1/3 cost break, or allow her to control the undead. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm very confused...

Re: Area of Effect Defense 225%. Sounds like a lot. In reality, it’s not very much at all. +2.25 worth of advantages to make a self only power usable for quite a number of people is not overpriced. Using AoE as you suggest, one character could buy the defense for an entire party. With 3 players (let’s just ignore any NPCs that need protection) either 60 point build I made as examples would cost the same as each player buying 10PD/10ED themselves, without all the limitations. Doesn’t look unbalancing, does it? But with 6 players, the whole team is now getting all the rDEF they will probably need, for half the cost of them buying it individually. Plus it can be used on NPCs. And you’re complaining that this costs too much? Being able to us a self-only power on anyone in a given area (AoE version), or even only on x8 the number of people (with the UOO mode)l is easily a +2.25 set of advantages, if not much, much more. How is that arguably “no advantage”? I kind of feel like the argument is, “I could only use this power on myself, now I can use it on anyone! Man, I spent a lot of points for no good reason.” The way you are suggesting the build would be obviously abusive in many if not most situations. Heck, the way I built it, which is closer to book legal (if you include glossing over the “this may be unbalancing warning” and a specific “this basically is unbalancing if you use it with Defensive Self Only Powers warning” as being book legal) is obviously risking massive abuse. Now if you, as GM, have never had an issue with it, good for you. I, however, would argue that a build being basically abusive off the bat, unless massive limitations are put on it, as a “non-stupid” reason for a rule. “Rules that are actually stupid deserve to be ignored.” You haven’t established that it is stupid. You say it’s overpriced, but ignore, or don’t refute evidence that it is either underpriced, highly abusive/over-powering, or both. “I'm the player/GM. I'm the customer. And so is the OP.” No one is arguing that, and no one is arguing your (or the OP’s) right to completely disregard every rule in the book, for any reason. But part of communication is generally addressing facts and explaining opinions, something that I feel I’ve done with examples and thorough (I hope) explanations. I’m not a psycho rule lawyer, I just happen to agree with them in this case. Rule of thumb to keep in mind: If there are two ways to build the exact same effect the more expensive is usually correct (though you may feel this is a “stupid” rule, in which case it will be ignored anyway). Just had another thought as I was about to post. Defense in the Hero System is generally always cheaper than the attack. I mean, 6 rDEF bought with a FF is 6 points, versus 6 BODY (1d6K maxed, or 2d6K: standard affect) would cost 15-30 points. I believe one of the reasons the book puts so many warnings on the UOO defense, (or any other form of sharing defense) is because the established defenses are already less than half the cost of the related attacks. Adding the ability to share personal defense might make it cost more for one person, but makes defense, in and of it self, massively cheaper for a group. If that isn’t a convincing argument for game balance, then I’m not sure you’ll accept anything as “not-stupid”. I’m not calling it a house rule. That’s what a blatant deviation from the rules is. There’s nothing wrong with that, it’s just what it is. Not sure what the “(call it "house" if you must)” is about.

Re: Heroic Level Hit Locations Nice catch Thia, I hadn't even caught that one.

Re: Super Shield I know Wolverine's claws went right through one of the students force fields in Astonishing X-Men, though his fist couldn't. I think it's important to note the difference between Force Fields in comics (which can have a thousand different SFX) and Force Fields in game terms (which can also have a thousand different SFX, yet is a base power).

Re: Altered Autofire It's page 479 for in 5er for anyone following along. Good catch. I have to agree with your assumption that the STR Min shown is probably for using autofire, if for no other reason than adding +5 to some of them would put many of them near or over the NCM, though it would be nice to know for sure.

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question I have already been corrected, but duly noted, again, anyway.

Re: Area of Effect Defense Thanks for ignoring the rest of the comment. I guess I find it funny trying to apply strict rules on an broken build that already ignores the RAW. Either way, it is still more effective, and hence more unbalancing, than trying to use the UOO method on everyone involved.

Re: Free equipment side discussion. I know, I was being snarky. Sorry...

Re: Area of Effect Defense "A character can buy a UOO power with the Advantage Ranged, giving that power the standard Range of 5” x Active Points, but in that case he has to have Line Of Sight to a recipient to grant a power to him. (A character can substitute the Range Based On STR or Limited Range Advantages for Ranged, if he prefers.)" I was just trying to emphasize that LOS was still required even with Range being bought... You're right, I totally missed that point. That makes AOE even more obviously broken.

Re: A temporary universal portal But 10" isn't far enough to walk in a single phase for many characters if they are in a combat situation, unless they use non-combat movement and leave themselves vulnerable. Plus, if the "gate" at both ends of the "tunnel" stay open until there is no one left inside, then there'd be the increased risk of enemies being able to jump through after them if they had a straggler holding things up. True, it probably wouldn't really come up that often, and I would probably agree with you and just rule it SFX, but it is something to consider.

Re: Free equipment side discussion. 1) They take 6 BODY 18 STUN 2) They take 6 BODY 18 STUN 3) They take 6 BODY 18 STUN This is arguably how it should be. Anything else is a house rule.

Re: Area of Effect Defense

Re: Altered Autofire

Re: Lose Weakness Isn't Find Weakness stackable by default? Wouldn't forcing them to re-roll Find Weakness to have the same bonus as they did the first time they use it effectively prevent them from ever stacking the ability? If so, the Lose Weakness you are trying to build seems a little more powerful than I first thought (at least if find weakness is common in your games), since it stops your defenses from being reduced to 1/4 or even 1/8. Perhaps you should buy Lack of Weakness with a number of Limitations. Maybe custom adders to represent "only after Find Weakness has been successfully used once" and "Allows for a new Find Weakness Roll after initial attack". I don't know, just a thought.

Re: Altered Autofire I'm sure I didn't miss it, since I've read FRED from cover to cover, however I don't quite have it memorized yet . A lot of my posting is done from work and I don't always have my book. I was responding to the suggestion of using STR instead of DEX for OCV when using autofire, which seemed extreme to me. It appears my idea was not as great as I thought, since it was probably simply a half-remembered rule floating around the back of my head . EDIT: Not sure why that split the quote...

Re: 6E art? Saying "anime" is a genre is like saying "Cartoons" is a genre. Lets make "Cartoon Hero" We need the Simpsons, Family Guy, Bug Bunny, Mickey Mouse, South Park...hmm, what else. Do we count the Cartoons based on Comic books? Oh, and we definitely need to fit The Little Mermaid and Aqua Team Hunger Force in the same book. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well, same with Anime Hero...

Re: Area of Effect Defense When discussing the best way to do something we tend to try to use the RAW. This is not because we have to, but because if everyone posted all of their responses based entirely on a myriad of house rules then nothing would ever get accurately communicated. Plus, stating a rule is "stupid" is fine if it's an opinion, not so much if it's stated as a fact to support an argument. It borders on argumentative without supporting your take on the matter. Edit: Almost forgot, most rules, even the ones you consider "stupid", generally have a reason. Most often the reason is either for game balance, or simply following the idea of reasoning from effect, the core principle of the Hero System. If you take a look I’m sure you’ll find a logical, “non-stupid” reason for the rule, even if you disagree with it.

Re: Comment on this character I'd say being submerged in acid may be more than an AoE. That would almost qualify as an environmental effect, just like standing in the middle of a blazing fire arguably would be. Now, having acid douse, or wash over the character (versus being somehow held under in a pool of it), that's something else. Of course, unless a whole tub of acid is dropping straight on them from above it's likely, in comic terms anyway, that Cap's shield would protect him from at least some the effects of a flood of acid. I would see no problem applying aspect of the shield to AoE attacks, as long as the GM made it clear that do to “common and dramatic sense” some AoEs would totally ignore it. That, and as already mentioned; Limited Coverage has been in every build except the Op’s. Hyper-Man: The OP did have a DEX roll. “Armor (13 PD/13 ED) (39 Active Points); Requires A DEX Roll (-1/2), OIF Unbreakable (-1/2)” BNakagawa: I also thought you were referring to Hyper-Man’s build. Perhaps that’s because you were responding directly to him several times with no frame of reference.

Re: Altered Autofire I didn't mean to imply that you could place a "called shot" with autofire. My point was that you are adding to the chance to hit as well as the chance of getting a critical hit. This does not seem right to me. If we accept the increase chance to hit due to "I'm firing that many more bullets, one of them's gotta hit" that's fine, but why should it get more of a chance for critical damage than simply firing one shot with the weapon?