Fireg0lem

First, I don't buy that a cybernetic implant should really be OIF. I think it should at most be -1/4 restrainable, or possibly -0. YGMMV. Activation Roll is how you make it roll to activate. The negating attacks part - my suggestion would be to build it as: 75% Damage Reduction, Physical and Energy, Only Applies 5% Reduction Per Damage Class of Incoming Attack (I do strongly suggest linking it to DCs, not AP. DCs are generally a much better measure of how "strong" an attack is). This does assume you can do math in your head relatively well or don't mind using a calculator. You may want to go with something a little simpler otherwise, if you think you will have trouble taking off 35% of an attack's damage or such. Where this gets set would depend on your campaign. In a typical campaign where an on-par adversary would have 12 DC attacks, I would call it -1/2. The reason I suggest this setup is that DR naturally scales with the power of the incoming attack, since it is proportionate reduction. If you build it as scaling static defenses, there will be an odd curve where attacks get less effective as they get stronger until there's a sudden cliff where it stops scaling. The way I built it, it still blocks "most" of the damage from very powerful attacks. It's also expensive but this sounds like it is meant to be a very strong primary defense. The teleporting when hit I think is best done as Knockback Resistance (possibly linked to the same Activation Roll as the defense), plus Teleportation XXm, Trigger with Trigger Automatically Resets Character Does Not Control Activation of Personal Trigger (whenever hit), Activation Roll, Teleports Xm per Y DC of attack (can be whatever), NCC (no control over direction; -1). Possibly it should get Safe Blind Teleport depending on the answer to Lucius's question. Also, the whole thing may need a limitation that it won't reduce the damage of AE's that would hit at both the character's original location and the location they teleport to. I'd probably call that -1/4.

This is quite similar to what our group does, although not exactly the same. We broke Complications into two types: 1) Complications that are "really" Negative Powers, like Vulnerability to Fire (limit on defenses) or the part of Size where you get CV penalties (just take the CV penalties), and you just buy those as negative powers.The general rule here is that these DO need to be "worth" their cost and that they should be things that the GM doesn't need to "work" to make come up. Things that regularly impact your ability to fight or use your skills or powers are supposed to go here. If you can't build it as a negative power for whatever reason, it is a Custom Power with a negative cost equal to it's value as a Complication. 2) Complications that are "plot" complications, like Vulnerability to Kryptonite, Code of Conduct, or the part of size where you have trouble fitting into normal-sized doorways. These follow the convention that everyone should "max out" these complications, and are Complications like in the standard rules. We all know that they are "overpriced" relative to Type 1 Complications or Powers but that's OK because everyone has the same amount. The idea is that Type 2 complications are your bucket of plot hooks which can be whatever you want, and it's the GM's job to use them in interesting ways (as compared to using them to punish your character). Type 1 complications really are "anti-powers" that actively make your character weaker. Obviously there's a bit of fuzziness - in some campaigns Vulnerable to Silver is a Type 1 complication (like in a fantasy game where everyone knows werewolves are hurt by silver and silver weapons are pretty common - meaning that a good portion of antagonists will be able to use this against you), and others where it's a Type 2 complication (like a superhero campaign where people don't typically carry silver bullets around - but an antagonist who figures out that you're a werewolf and not a shapeshifting mutant or whatever might be able to take advantage of it).

If the goal is for him to be using these weapons/armor, then the power to make them is just however you would build the weapons/armor themselves with Focus, and if the focus breaks he needs to make a new one.

I'd completely forgotten about the "Only for triggers" under Trigger - good to remember that one.

I actually think this should be two powers: Some kind of attack - Triggered, LOS, Indirect Detect People Opening This Email - Sense, Targeting, MegaRange, Character Has No Conscious Awareness of Sense (I'd peg this at -1). The limitation on the Detect means that you only "detect" the email being opened for the purpose of the trigger - the character doesn't know that it happened or where they are, but for the purposes of the Triggered power they do know. I think any attempt to get around targeting requirements without using some kind of Detect is going to involve some extreme kludging.

Re: Club Weapon at range? I think your problem is coming from "DC is limited to the DC of the focus" being worth way more than you put it down as; if an ability seems way too expensive, it probably means you built it too expensively. I actually think that limitation should be -2. Also, you need Lockout (Focus's normal powers) so you can't Combined Attack that with a regular attack. You may want Real Weapon and Beam as well.

Re: Converting: "Winged Him" Why not just make it a smallish AoE one hex attack (as suggested), but Link it to the main attack, and give it the limitations "Does 0 Damage Unless Main Attack Misses" and "Only Works Up To X/day" (which I would value at half the limitation of charges).

Re: Changing the roll low to hit and skill check to a roll high to hit and skill chec Honestly, the "made roll by half" thing is not a huge, critically important mechanic; you could just go with "made by 6 or more" and be fine.

Re: Sound of one hand clapping I think it's best done by buying Gestures (both hands) down to Gestures (one hand) on the inherent Clapping ability that people have.

Re: Denying a character his OIF

Re: Campaign Damage Caps, Code vs. Killing & Pulling a Punch If you do decide to try this, a few things to keep in mind: 1) It can be a problem if some people have to hold back most of the time, and others don't; for example, if Superman normally has to use only 10d6... maybe the Flash just has a maximum of 10d6 he uses all the time, and spent his points on stuff like SPD or CVs that he can use all the time. This isn't an insurmountable problem - I would suggest simply not accounting for "extra" power when evaluating characters, so that the points someone who's not powerful enough to need to hold back save go into noncombat abilities or resources or flexibility. 2) Be careful not to have a mechanical disconnect. If the mechanics don't reflect the fluff, the fluff will eventually reflect the mechanics - and that means that if you build typical supervillains to have 20 PD, Superman will quickly figure out he doesn't have to worry about killing them with normal damage attacks. If you want Superman to hold back, you need to make sure typical villains are actually built in such a way that Superman needs to be careful not to kill them when fighting. I would suggest doing this by having typical characters use Damage Reduction (maybe Stun Only) and/or Damage Negation and/or high STUN scores rather than straight-up defenses.

Re: Denying a character his OIF How much of his SPD is through the focus? It's generally a problem when a character builds Sucks Without Focus Man, and if it's something like 2 SPD without and 6 SPD with, fights without the focus are going to be a lot of watching other people do stuff. You might want to talk to the player about changing things to be more fun - having, say, some (but not all) attack powers through a focus, or some CVs, or some (but not all) defenses through a focus all tend, in my experience, to work better, because they tend to lead to "less effective without focus" rather than "nothing to do without focus."

Re: Draining/Aiding SPD and play balance Yep, we did exactly that - SPD is treated as a defensive power for adjustments. We found it completely overpowering otherwise. Also, the speed change rules are a touch wonky. For example, if Target has SPD4, and on phase 2, is drained by 1 pt down to SPD 3, he'll not act again until phase 12 - so he lost 3 actions! I suggest replacing them with the following: If your speed changes, and the next action your new speed would give you is on the same phase as your old speed would let you act, you act then and afterwards use your new speed. If the next action your new speed would give you is after you would already have gotten an action from your old speed, you start using your new speed immediately. If the next action your new speed would give you is before you would already have gotten an action from your old speed, you act on the next phase your old speed would have given you an action and thereafter act with your new speed. If your speed changes again before you get to the point where you would start using your new speed, you drop the "intermediate" speed and treat it as if you had gone directly from your previous speed to your newer new speed.

Re: Bows OK, that sounds pretty reasonable. So the idea would be that the bow you are using sets your DC, and the arrow determines what type of attack you make. Thanks for the input, everyone!

Re: Bows Thanks for all the information, Andy. In particular I'd not considered what type of arrows were fired. It might be a good idea to include some hunting bows that trade out damage for range and accuracy. This also suggests that heavier bows should have pretty high STR minima, which is good - I want to make sure options at that end exist. Also, that you need to be stronger to "ready" a bow than to fire it. I might go with something like "you need +3 over the STR minima to Set, Brace, Ready, or Cover someone with a bow."