Derek Hiemforth

Re: Is there any consistency in 5th Ed.? So don't use it. It seems to me like your nose is kinda out of joint, just because you disagree with one of Steve's rules rulings. No need to be sore; if you disagree with the ruling, just shrug, write "Move Throughs count as attacking into "adjacent" hexes for the purpose of no-range Area Effect attacks" into your house rules, and move on. No biggie. FWIW, I see logic in both positions. You have a valid point in that the actual attack part of a Move Through occurs when the attacking character is "adjacent" to the target. Steve has a valid point in that a hex that's 10" away from where you started your Half-Phase does not have the same sense of being "point blank range" as the hex next to where you started your Half-Phase. Personally, I think it's great to have official rulings we can disagree with. For many years, getting an official ruling to a HERO System rules question was only slightly easier than walking the wings of a flying roc. I'd much rather know what the "official" position is (even if I then choose not to follow it), rather than being left to guess and argue.

I don't really agree with this view (I can think of way too many valid reasons to Link something to a Constant Power), but I would certainly say that it's rarely appropriate to Link something to a Persistent Power.

Not all that much better. 11% instead of 6%...

Assuming you're talking about a Limitation (as opposed to a Disadvantage), some older books refer to "foulable wings" or some such as a Limitation. It's the same thing as Restrainable from 5E. Its description says how it limits the character.

I think the current standard Haymaker is better. Bricks already have a sizable advantage due to the nature and cost of STR. Making Haymaker a damage multiplier just makes that edge larger. In your example, saying the 30d6 attack can only do a max of 120 STUN and 40 BODY isn't particularly limiting, because it would only be expected to do 105 STUN and 30 BODY on average anyway. (There is only a 6% chance of doing 120 STUN on 30 dice.) If anything, I would lessen the existing Haymaker by saying it adds +4DC, up to a maximum of twice the original attack. So a 12d6 attack would be increased to 16d6, but a 2d6 attack would only be increased to 4d6.

Yet another way to word Monolith's excellent definitition would be, "An Elemental Control is used when there is a single superpower that requires multiple game mechanics to define it." A single superpower. That's the key. It doesn't really have anything to do with giving someone free points for having a tight character concept. It has to do with having a mechanism for joining several Powers into a single effect. That's why Spider-Man's Clinging and Leaping are not together in a "Spider Powers" Elemental Control. They share a common motif and a common origin, but they are not literally the same superpower. The little tendrils that come out of his flesh and allow him to cling to surfaces (in the movie version) have nothing to do with his leaping. However, his Entangle and his Swinging could be together in an Elemental Control. They are literally the same superpower. He shoots webbing. He can truss someone up with it, or he can swing from it, but either way, it's exactly the same superpower in the game world. That's why Adjustment Powers affect EC's like they do; they're literally Draining a single ability. Logically, Aid should affect them positively in the same way, but it's easy to see why it doesn't from a game balance perspective. That's probably also why the "must cost END" stipulation is in there. I would have probably set it up a bit differently, saying that either all the Powers must cost END, or none should cost END. Logically, if Spider-Man's webbing taxes his web fluid END Reserve or what have you, then any use of webbing should tax the END Reserve. If it's literally the same superpower, it's hard to imagine how one use of it would cost END while another did not. (Though it's not impossible... I would probably allow END-costing Stretching and non-END-costing PD Damage Reduction in a "Malleable Body" Elemental Control, for example.)

Re: I wouldn't say that... If you made the reserve equal to the sum of the three largest slots, then it wouldn't be mathematically the same as three separate Multipowers anymore (unless the three Multipowers just happened to have all had identical reserves). I'm talking about making the new reserve the sum of the three old reserves. Probably not, depending on the points (see above). But theoretically, yes. Another reason for keeping them separate to enforce the SFX. It may not be logical within their conception for them to be able to maintain three A powers. I'm not sure what you mean by this...

I recently built an electrical character with three Multipowers. One is her ability to handle the flow of electricity, either out (attacks) or in (absorbtion with linked defense only against electricity). The second is her ability to travel via electricity (leaping, teleport over conductive material, and megascale teleport over conductive material). The third is her ability to assume an electrical form, either partially (force field) or completely (desolidification). Mathematically, I guess it wouldn't make any difference whether they were split into three Multipowers or lumped into one huge one where none of the slots took up the whole reserve. But keeping them separate better suits the SFX (and keeps me from the temptation of letting her attack powers creep higher... )

I agree wholeheartedly. It's inconceivable to me that they allow reviews with blatant errors in fact, particularly from someone who is so well known for slandering Hero. Imagine if Roger Ebert posted a movie review of Return of the King, in which he wrote: "Return of the King is the story of Elvis Presley (played with compelling subtlety by Don Knotts), who returns to Memphis as a vampire bent on winning a thrilling NASCAR race against a beautiful young female racing phenom (enchantingly played by Harvey Fierstein.) Only the laughable special effects mar this directorial debut by Britney Spears." Think the Chicago Sun-Times would print it? Somehow I doubt it. I can appreciate RPG.net wanting to allow reviewers to express honest opinions even when they're not flattering. But allowing this kind of error-strewn and comically prejudiced (in the literal meaning of the word: pre-judged) review just destroys their credibility. After this, why should I believe anything I read at RPG.net? For all I know, it might be as much of a fairy tale as this is...

You can hit multiple times if you roll multiple 3's. The wording about only hitting once per "burst" of Autofire is just logical. Since you make only one Attack Roll when you attack with an Autofire burst, and since the first shot of the burst only hits on a 3 (because of the Blazing Away), and since the remaining shots in the burst only hit if you exceed the roll you needed to get on the Attack Roll, of course the remaining shots all miss; you needed to roll a 3 on the Attack Roll, so logically you can't do better than that and have any additional shots hit. If you fired another Autofire burst, then 1 shot out of that burst could hit, etc. Now, whether you have to declare the number of shots you'll use ahead of time, or whether you can make them one-by-one and see if each one hits before deciding whether to shoot another one, is not clear. You should post that question for Steve in the 5th Ed. Questions section. (My hunch is that you will have to declare them all up front, but I've been wrong before. )

I actually feel sorry for this person. Seriously. I mean, how empty is your life and how desperate are you for attention when you have nothing better to do than: Going to the trouble of buying a book for a game you don't play "Reading" it (in some way) Writing a scathing "review" of it Going to the web site for the company that publishes it and joining their community forum Drawing the attention of those who do enjoy the game, knowing in advance that they will (understandbly) mock you That's genuinely pathetic. I honestly have pity for this person. They've taken many hours out of their life, all so they can be abused rather than ignored. I fervently hope I never get to a place where my life is so devoid of positive reinforcement, that I would seek out scorn in place of indifference... where my life is so empty of enjoyment that the best thing I can think of to do is obsess over games I dislike. It's actually very sad.

Per the description in H5E, Club Weapon may not work with all weapons. It's meant primarily for muscle-powered melee killing weapons like swords and axes. Whether it works with other weapons is up to the GM. I wouldn't allow the specific Club Weapon maneuver with a firearm. If someone wanted to hit a target in melee with a firearm, I'd just give them a small amount of bonus dice of normal damage (2d6-4d6, depending on size/weight of the firearm) for wielding a metal object. I wouldn't translate the killing damage of the firearm in any way.

No, this is also an "OK if the GM permits" thing. Check out the last paragraph in the first column on page 204.

Well, yeah. That's why I described it as a "joking comment."

Nothing, really. In the days prior to H5E's release, people were pondering what to call it as a nickname. (The 4th Edition was called the "BBB," which stood for "Big Blue Book.") Steve made a joking comment in passing to the effect of, "You can call it "Fred" for all I care, as long as you buy a copy." Presto. Everyone was calling it "Fred." After the fact, some folks started devising acronyms to fit it. The most popular seem to be "Fifth Rules EDition" or "Fifth Revised EDition."

But it just replaces it with other arbitrariness, like the cost of Bestow. I have no objection to new Powers and such per se; I've created some myself. But I don't think this is a case where a new Power is needed. This is one of the main things Usable By Others exists for.

This rocks on toast. Excellent job!!

Let me start off by saying that I wouldn't change the existing mechanics. Although they may seem somewhat confusing at first, they're not that confusing when you get used to them. Also, any clarity gained by changing the mechanics would be offset by the fact that, if the players had a question about how something worked, they could no longer consult the rulebook for the answer (because the info in the rulebook would work differently). Having said that, he's a thing I came up with, oh, ten years ago probably, for making Killing Attack a Power Advantage instead of a separate Power, and for changing how it worked. Take it for whatever it's worth. Killing Attack This Advantage transforms an Energy Blast into a Killing Attack. This Advantage can ONLY be applied to Energy Blast, not to Hand-to-Hand Attack (HA) or any other Power. An Energy Blast with this Advantage causes more BODY damage than a normal Energy Blast, and the damage it causes (both BODY and STUN) is applied against the target's Resistant Defenses only. A Killing Attack's BODY damage is counted the same way as an Energy Blast's, except that 1 BODY is added to the BODY count on each die. In other words, a die roll of 1 counts as 1 BODY instead of 0, a roll of 2-5 counts as 2 BODY instead of 1, and a roll of 6 counts as 3 BODY instead of 2. The STUN damage is counted as it is for a normal Energy Blast -- by adding up the pips shown on the dice. A Killing Attack must be defined as Ranged (RKA) or Hand-to-Hand (HKA). If it is defined as an RKA, it works as described above with a range of 5x the Character Points in inches. If it is defined as an HKA, it does not receive a No Range Limitation, but the user may add his STR to the attack at a ratio of 1d6 per 7.5 STR (or 7.5 STR above the STR Min in cases where that is applicable). The most that can be gained from additions for STR, Martial Arts, etc. (all of which function as the current KA rules, except that the ratio is 7.5 per 1d6 instead of 15 per 1d6) is equal to the original attack (for a total max of 2x the original attack). Killing Attacks take a +1d6 penalty when rolling for Knockback. * Killing Attack Cost Multiplier: +1/2 If you use Killing Attacks with this method, the usual net result is Killing Attacks that have less extreme swings in results, do a bit more BODY than traditional Killing Attacks, and do a bit less STUN than traditional Killing Attacks. For example, let's compare them in a fairly typical Champions environment, with 60 Active Point attacks and average defenses of 25 (of which, say, 15 is Resistant). The traditional Killing Attack will be 4d6, rolling an average of 14 BODY and 36 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from the BODY and the total DEF from the STUN, that leaves 0 BODY and 21 STUN after defenses. This newfangled Killing Attack will be 8d6, rolling an average of 16 BODY and 28 STUN. Subtracting the rDEF from both the BODY and the STUN, that leaves 1 BODY and 13 STUN after defenses. As you can probably guess, the basic goal of this mechanism is to turn Killing Attack into something you use to kill/destroy things... not something you hope to use to knock things out by hitting the STUN lotto. However, it is not wildly different in its results from the existing Killing Attack results, so it doesn't change play balance tremendously.

Hey Steve - Does the exception for weapons apply only to things like creating equipment lists, or can a character use the same rule? For example, if I'm building a throwing axe for my Champions character, can I build it with HA and Ranged? Thanks!

Hey Steve - The Rules FAQ, under Hand-to-Hand Attack, says, "Q: Can a character apply the Ranged Advantage to an HA, thus creating an attack usable at Range to which he can add his STR? A: No. Once he adds the Hand-To-Hand Attack Limitation, he’s signifying that the attack can’t be used at Range." However, UMA says (on page 187), "Many weapons are built as Normal Damage attacks instead of Killing Damage attacks. In the chart above, Normal Damage weapons are built with the Hand-to-Hand Attack Power, while Killing Damage weapons are built with the Hand-to-Hand Killing Attack Power. Thrown weapons take the Ranged Advantage (+1/2). Ranged-only Killing-damage weapons are built with the Ranged Killing Attack Power." (added emphasis mine) Does one of these supercede the other? If I'm reading it correctly, UMA says that you can apply Ranged to a HA, while the Rules FAQ says you cannot. Are weapons a special case? Does it make any difference whether it's a Heroic campaign or a Superheroic campaign? Thanks!

Yes, I guess the Sticky does cover it. Good point. I didn't mean to imply you did anything wrong. I just picked a cost out of the air for the purposes of the write-up. Definitely the cost woud vary. I'm not sure on this one. By my reading of Gradual Effect, I would assume that if a target was hit by 1d6 Transform with a 1 week Gradual Effect, then hit with it again a minute later, then again one minute after that, then the Gradual Effect would mean that the first die kicks in 1 week later, the second die 1 week plus 1 minute later, the third die 1 week plus 2 minutes later, etc. Nothing says you can only be under the influence of one occurance of Gradual Effect at a time. I was just going by the time interval you mentioned -- "several days." I agree it might work better as one day. I dunno... I might leave it random. Different people often require different amounts of exposure to a disease before catching it. It would work either way.

I was thinking about this some more, and realized that Dr. Anomaly's excellent solution probably needs a few more tidbits to work as desired. 1. In addition to granting LS: Immune to Clone Virus and Duplication, the Transform would also need to pass on the Transform itself in order to keep spreading the disease. 2. The Transform needs to be Uncontrolled (in addition to Continuous) so that the infecter doesn't have to focus their actions on just infecting people. 3. The Transform should also be Persistent and Always On (so the infecter can't stop infecting people). 4. If it isn't airborne, then it should be No Range and possibly "Requires Skin-to-Skin Contact." How does this look? Cost Power END 18 The Clone Virus: Major Transform 1d6 (People into themselves, but adding this virus and the Life Support and Duplication powers below, Healed back by medical treatment of the disease), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Sticky (+1/2), Continuous (+1), Invisible Power Effects (Fully Invisible; +1) (75 Active Points); Gradual Effect (1 Week; -2), Always On (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Requires Skin-to-Skin Contact (-1/4) 14 The Duplicate: Duplication (creates 500-point form), Cannot Recombine (+0) (100 Active Points); 1 Charge which Never Recovers (-4), No Conscious Control (-2) [Notes: At this point level, the Duplication can create a clone of a character up to 500 points. The clone is an exact duplicate, except that it does not have the Duplication power. If the clones are not carriers of the disease, then it also lacks the Transform. If the clones can catch the disease themselves (even though the "parent" character is now immune), then it also lacks the Life Support.] 2 Immune To Reinfection: Life Support (Immunity to The Clone Virus)

Jack Butler's Global Guardians PBEM web site has a good questionaire at http://www.globalguardians.com/stuff/champions/questionaire.html

Nice build, Dr. Anomaly!