bigbywolfe

Re: Altered Autofire I’m not sure I agree with your #1 point. I’ve had friends in the Marines and Air Force both tell me that the only reason they ever use full automatic is for cover or suppression fire, because it is simply inaccurate unless firing into a dense crowd (This is not accounting for mounted weapons or ones that regularly use tripods, simply assault rifles or other commonly carried arms). Even the best made modern assault rifles tend to “pull” either left or right and most detrimentally, up. Unless firing into a crowd looking for any target, if your first two or three rounds don’t hit your target you’re probably not going to hit it at all unless you sweep back and forth repeatedly. This might not be entirely accurate, but that’s my understanding as relayed to me from several military sources. Also, #3 seems odd. A single carefully aimed attack (headshot) would, I would think, have a better chance to get a “critical hit” as a wild spray of bullets. Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by that. I like you’re idea about strength being involved in the equation, but perhaps it shouldn’t replace DEX. What if the STR min to use a weapon was increased if used on automatic? A character strong enough to carry and shoot (a single shot from) an M-16 (a fairly light assault rifle) might not be able to handle the multiple recoil of firing it on automatic. Then they would suffer the regular penalty for not being strong enough to use a weapon properly. Just a thought.

Re: Altered Autofire Sean's idea can also be combined with autofire as already written. You want to be able to shoot 20 bullets instead of 5? Instead of each "shot" (read: attack) being one bullet at 2d6rka or whatever, have each attack be defined has a tight burst of 4 bullets and up it by 4 or 5 Damage Classes. You get the increased damage, can still shoot 5 targets (because, seriously, if you wanted to shoot 20 different people with an autofire that'd just be ridiculous), and you're using the RAW. I'm not saying you have to do it this way, but it would sure be easier than trying to juryrig a house rule. Then again, if it's not what you are looking for or doesn't fit the "feel" of your campaign, that's fine too. Adaptability is the best thing about Hero.

Re: Calm the Storm If change environment can create a storm (make rain, fog, etc.) it seems that CE "make sunny weather" would be just as legit.

Re: Stormy Relations Knockout: Drop the mother being involved and this would work perfectly as he has no knowledge of who his father was or of the source of his powers. As far as what he would be the god of? That’s kinda tough. Maybe the God of Blunt-Force Trauma. God of Fisticuffs (he is a boxer). Patron Saint of Construction Workers. Something along those lines. It’d probably be hard to convince him of his deity-spawned origins, however.

Re: Hero is TK projection of kid in coma Thanks for the wiki research Hugh. I have to agree with you, the background is pretty much total SFX, unless the kid can wake up and the "projection" will simply cease to exist. Since the OP gives no indication that this would be an issue, build the character normally and deal with his connection to the kid with Disads, background story, etc.

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question Okay. That's why I asked "Isn't OCV considered a "figured characteristic", or am I missing something?" in my first post. Thank you for the clairification.

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question :confused:But what's that have to do with the discussion? Aren't we talking about defense, particularly DCV? So what does buying DEX that DOESN'T affect DCV have to do with anything? It seems like an extreme case of compairing apples to oranges (or maybe pineapple to grapes in this case). Am I missing something? I'm just trying to figure out what he means and how it applies to the post he responded to...

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question +1DEX, No Figured Characteristics, would not give +1OCV, would it? Isn't OCV considered a "figured characteristic", or am I missing something?

Re: The Fear Thing and the Child It was suggested to me that my previous post may have been an extreme response, or something that should have been handled through the use of private messaging. If I offended anyone, including the individual I was responding to, I apologies. It was not my intention to personally attack the individual, or target them or their point of view as being less legitimate than anyone else’s. My response was largely due to the fact that I was offended. I found the implication that what anyone in our group had to say was somehow less important than anyone else’s opinions or posts, specifically that we were “wasting time” and “wasting space”, particularly rude. My response, however, responded in kind with a curtness that was overly rough and arguably rude itself. Again, I apologize. On a separate note, it would be interesting to hear what someone outside of our group thinks of the character in general, whether they read the linked campaign material, or simply post their response based on the character sheet provided.

Re: Poison's Champions Art Thread I believe "nunchucku", commonly called “nunchucks”(sp?) in the west refers specifically to the weapons that are basically two tonfas (short sticks) connected by a short length of chain or rope. This may not be the actual definition, and perhaps “nunchucku” is actually a variety of chained or swinging weapons, but I don’t believe so…

Re: Free equipment side discussion. I think one of the best arguments against such an optional rule has already been stated and is simply this: Almost, if not all, existing optional rules "stack" onto the RAW. This would not. It would drastically change the RAW and would take up a significant amount of space if placed in the core rule book rather than in the few genres where it would be most applicable. It is not simply a matter of "adding more specific tool to the box." "An optional rule that applies scale to equipment" could be very useful, especially if you want to avoid rolling massive amounts of dice, but it would change combat and interaction between various types of characters at a core level, changing the entire dynamic of how the Hero System works, from character creation, through game play. While this may be acceptable, or maybe even desirable in some games or genres, the fact that something extremely similar can be simulated using the RAW, makes this fall so far into the realm of "house rules" that I don't see it ever being legitimized, even as an optional rule, regardless of its "good points" or how much I (or anyone else) like the idea for certain settings.

Re: The Fear Thing and the Child You don't necessarily need background information on the campaign to comment on/review a character. Many people put characters up for review for campaigns that haven’t even started yet, so background wouldn’t even be available. For example, many characters put up for review have Hunted, Rivals, or Subject to Orders as Disadvantages. These are often not explained, and in no way impair the ability of anyone to review the character. The background of “being a supers campaign” would be the most you would possibly need, and that should be fairly obvious by the point level.

Re: Poison's Champions Art Thread Wow...just wow.

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question I said "ALMOST" and "usually" for a reason, I know there are exceptions. Also, his example of sitting in a chair is not "immoble". True, I didn't account for an 18- roll, but I wasn't stating absolutes either.

Re: CSL's, while surprised and DCV question It should almost never be zero. I would think the least amount would usually be 3DCV, which is the same as a 1 hex AoE. If you put DCV at zero, the attacker could not miss, no matter what, which is ridiculous. Even at point blank range people miss occasionally.

Re: Lingering Teleport TheInexplicable: I don't know if that's what the OP was looking for, but I found it very helpful! Thanks.

Re: Poison's Champions Art Thread Poison: the lighting affect of the shine from the light saber is excellent.

Re: Merry Christmas! Spreading Good Will Merry Christmas...Whether you like it or not!: Mind Control 10d6 (standard effect: 30 points) (Human class of minds), Telepathic (+1/4), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Invisible to Fully Invisible Group (+1/2), Cumulative (+1/2), Sticky (+1/2), Continuous (+1), No Normal Defense ([standard]; Defense is being an constant Grinch/Scrooge/etc. with no holiday spirit EVER; +1), Mobile (+1), Area Of Effect (344" Radius; +1 3/4), Two-Dimensional (-1/4), Based On EGO Combat Value (Standard Defenses apply; +1), Attacker Chooses Defense (+1/2) (500 Active Points); Window Of Opportunity (once per Month; window remains open for 1 Season; Only during the "holiday season"; -1 1/4), Extra Time (5 Minutes, Only to Activate, -1), Based on CON (Defense: ED; -1), Gradual Effect (5 Minutes; -3/4), Set Effect (Only to spread good will and Christmas cheer; -1/2), Always On (-1/4), Incantations (-1/4) 500AP, 83RP How's that? EDIT: Just realized I put Telepathic and Incantaitions on the same thing. But I figure the MC can have Telepathic, since you are not verbally commanding them to have a good Christmas, and Incantations since you still have to talk to the person to "spread the cheer"

Re: Empowered by Adam Warren My point about throwing vs driving was about something said in the source material and actual physics, not about game mechanics.

Re: Empowered by Adam Warren freakboy6117: Thanks for the clairifications.

Re: Free equipment side discussion. The general idea reminds me of the weapon/defense differences between characters and various size/classes of vehicles in the old Star Wars RPG. I like it, but it might be to big of change for a regular rule. I like the idea of it as an optional rule, preferably with at least one prebuilt model.

Re: Empowered by Adam Warren

Re: Empowered by Adam Warren Brilliant. Wouldn’t that depend entirely on how hard you were capable of throwing the car? I mean, if a baseball pitcher can throw a ball at 90+ miles an hour, I’m pretty sure Superman could throw a car faster than 70mph (the speed she lists in that study). Also, wouldn’t that have more to do with physics (speed and mass) than superpowers? I know a regular person can’t throw a car, but it’s a matter of varying speeds for an object of the same mass. I’m not trying to argue, I’m just wondering what the heck knowledge of bondage gear has to do with an energy draining harness…Are energy draining devices normal bondage equipment in that universe? Are demons considered “suprahuman”? Is there a difference between “normal” super powers and mystical powers/beings in this universe? Again, just curious. Also, does the comic ever give a reason for the “supra” thing? At first I just thought you couldn’t type… It wouldn't have to be "merely knowledge of known suprapowered bings." You could have KS:known superbeings, KS:superpowers, CuK:superheros/villains, and any combination of the three, plus any other similar background skill. It just depends on how specified you want the background skills to be. “To deduce her opponents plan and win the day.” It sounds like she needs the deduction skill, with a knowledge/professional/science skill as a complimentary roll. Is “suprahuman” studies (is that really what it’s called, or does she just talk that way?) considered a “particular field of science” (the HDv3 definition of what a SS covers)? It’s not a really important point, they cost the same, I’m just wondering about your definition. My thinking on it, explained using a Marvel comics example. Wolverine has fought with just about everyone in the Marvel universe and has run across almost every type of power imaginable. I’d say he would have a fairly high KS: Superpowers (I mean, he’s been attacked by most of them). Reed Richards, on the other hand, is a scientist, and has used his knowledge of science and how it applies to the manifestation of superpowers (gamma dampeners/accelerators on the Hulk, Cosmic Ray knowledge to cure several X-men of Fantastic Four-like cosmic mutations, etcetera). That, in my mind, would be a SS:superpowers. We may just be arguing semantics. Again, it’s not a huge deal either way, I’m just curious about how the source material defines it, and your choice of definition.

Re: The thumb-lighter trick Hadn't thought about burning himself. That's even better.

Re: The thumb-lighter trick lol I like the first of your three builds, but I have to ask, why use standard effect? The reason I ask is that it seems (how I’m reading it anyway) that standard effect will do 1 BODY. If you’re going to use that you might as well use RKA instead of EB. I think it would be funny (if somewhat annoying) to have to roll for damage. Have you ever tried to light a dry piece of paper and the match goes out first? Just a thought…