Talon

It's definitely a complex issue, and one that would take a decent amount of text to cover thoroughly. On one hand, I can see why they didn't address it in Terran Empire -- in many games it's just a background thing, it's not like this is SFB where starship construction is in the forefront. On the other hand, it is something that a lot of players like to do or think about, and some attention to the issue would have been nice.

There basically isn't any info on this in official products (I recall a couple vague guidelines in different areas). You're pretty much on your own for deciding what makes sense for your campaign.

I'd also allow it, but would (as always, but perhaps moreso than usual) talk with the player about how those points are spent.

There was a tiff which (I believe) has been resolved. If you go to the HD forum, the templates should be there.

CULTURE CLUB .......... IN ......... SPAAAAAAAAAAACE!!!!!!!!!!

To answer your questions about FHG: FHG is "just" a bunch of spells, for a single magic system. However, it's a /large/ number of spells, with options for each that make them easily to adapt to other systems. The biggest problem with FHG, IMO, is that the spells are not particularly balanced with respect to one other. Other than GM eyeballing, there isn't an easy way to rate the spells based on power level. If you let players pick spells willy-nilly from the book, you could end up in trouble.

It is an actual rule, but the HD method is a little non-obvious. For any characteristic you want to buy Advantages or Limitations on, buy that part of the characteristic as a Power, then make sure "Add to Primary Characteristic" is selected. See sample character.

Star Hero is excellent (and a decent read), and it will probably encourage you to get Terran Empire, which is an excellent read.

HKAs tend to be more powerful, because their BODY damage is only stopped by armor. If most characters wear armor, HAs do slightly more STUN damage -- if the average armor is enough that people aren't taking a lot of BODY, normal attacks will take them down earlier. (For example, a 1d6 HKA does 9.3 STUN on average, while a 3d6 HA does 10.5.) I once used a group of NPCs who all had normal attacks and did notice the STUN difference -- it wasn't unbalancing but it was there. OTOH, if it's a low-armor game, HKAs will be much better as people will be dying left and right.

The alternative, if you want simple, is to use Clairsentience and apply a common-sense "they can be shot down" limitation and not worry about the details too much. That makes more sense than X-Ray Vision or Telescopic though.

Since they are actual physical objects large enough to be shot at and destroyed, I'd suggest designing them as Automatons (with Flight, Radio Transmit to send images, Stealth as needed) and using Summon to create them.

For anyone interested in the Firefly 'verse, http://www.fireflyfans.net has a link on their front page to Serenity deckplans someone produced for a d20 Modern game. Very useful if you can ignore the square grid.

Hm, let me see if I understand you: -- Any attack has a chance to be blocked by the swords, but might get through -- Any attack that gets blocked will still do damage if it exceeds the DEF + BODY of the swords If this is what you want, then the power to use is probably Force Field. Buy a Force Field with PD and ED equal to the DEF + BODY of the swords, and with an Activation Roll to represent the fact that the swords don't always protect the caster. The Ablative Limitation will have the Activation Roll decrease each time damage gets through (i.e., when a sword is destroyed). Representing the exact DEF + BODY of the swords isn't technically part of the power, but could be done as a special effect.

Just adding BODY to a spell means that the caster gains extra BODY while the spell is in effect. If you want the swords themselves to have a BODY stat, you shouldn't be using Force Wall (which by definition has no BODY). The spell you describe should probably be something like (not including extra limitations like extra time, etc.): Cost Power END 77 Wall of Swords: (Total: 125 Active Cost, 77 Real Cost) FW (5 PD/5 ED; 6" long and 1" tall) (35 Active Points); Linked (RKA; -1/2), No Range (-1/2) (Real Cost: 17) plus RKA 2d6, Hole In The Middle (+1/4), Area Of Effect (2" radius; +3/4), Continuous (+1) (90 Active Points); No Range (-1/2) (Real Cost: 60) 12

Since RSR penalties are almost always there, I probably wouldn't allow PSLs to apply. I would and have allowed complementary skills though.

I seem to recall that USPD has guidelines for creating emotions with Mind Control.

What I'd like to see is something I'm sure Steve is going to do -- careful attention paid to the FAQ answers so that the resulting text is clear and concise. Right now the FAQ is something of a mess, just because it grew one question at a time (as FAQs pretty much do I guess).

That triple BODY score rule is pretty much what TUV says -- 0 BODY is "not working", -BODY is totalled, and -2x BODY is scrapped. Seems like you could do the rest with "Vulnerability to all attacks, only to render nonfunctional" or extra BODY, only after it stops working.

There are a lot of opportunities for minimaxing in the FREd weapons chart, alas.

I think the Always On method makes the most sense; and if it's "whenever the character needs it or concentrates on it briefly", it's probably not worth a Limitation for "Only When". I think the important thing is not to focus on how the character perceives the power as being activated, but instead look at what game mechanic method of activation makes the most sense.

I'd capitalize it.

Good points KS. I do, however, feel obligated to occasionally put something in a scenario that points out to the group "if you had a broader range of skills, this would be easy -- instead you have to fight all these guys." Having a similiar issue in my D&D game -- no straight spellcasters, so at 13th level they only have access to 5th level spells (and that just barely).

I've had trouble with this kind of power -- if it just has Side Effects that waste the character, the character uses it to take out every Big Bad Guy knowing that it's worth the sacrifice and that his teammates will back him up. In theory, you could make the power waste the character for a longer period of time (character loses powers for a week, for example)...but then the player might get bored sitting around with no powers for a while. Having the power decide when it is a last ditch situation is a bit annoying to the players, because it's basically the GM making the call -- unless the power has a clear purpose (such as wanting to slay demons in particular). In short, you want to make sure that the player isn't just trying to get around campaign DC limits and that the power will be used in a way that makes the game better, not worse.

Put me in the "opposite" camp...I want players in heroic games to be purchasing high skills rolls -- or rather, I want the range of possible skill rankings to be as large as possible, since it's so much more important in distinguishing characters from each other. My usual range tops out at around 25- (All-time legendary skill user).

I used this idea for Non-Euclidean Man (which has been created independently by several people, and posted/published before by others). My version had Invisibility, Teleport, Growth, and Shrinking all with IPE. You could measure at 6' tall...as he walked through a mousehole. He'd be across the street, but then somehow he'd punch you. Fun times. The way I ruled his Invisibility is that he got the benefits (CV reduction for people attacking him), but other characters wouldn't realize that they had a reduced CV.