Derek Hiemforth

I also think this is the best way to go.

Re: Changes from 4th to 5th Edition No, but it is the creation of an effect from nothing. Also, Images has an existing mechanism for PER modifiers, making it easy (if you wish) to define exactly how bright the light is, etc. I'm not too keen on this one either, mainly just from a simplicity point of view. We still use the 4th Edition versions in our games. I imagine the reason it was rolled into Transform was to make the core rules less superhero-centric. I have no problem with the concept. My only point of disagreement with the 5th Edition paradigm is saying that you can't use Growth, Shinking, or DI with Always On to simulate the effect if you want to. There are a lot of advantages to doing it the 5th Edition way, not the least of which is that you don't have to buy every element of the effect if you don't want to. Perhaps you have a spry giant who shouldn't get as big a DCV penality or something. Not buying Growth lets you work around this. But on the other hand, if you do want everything that Growth includes, I see no reason not to let you buy it as Growth, Always On if you want to. I allow either method in my games, though I tend to build things the 5th Edition way myself.

Y'know... you're allowed to ignore it. I call it 5E or H5E all the time.

The villain Shatter from Gold Rush Games' Enemies of San Angelo also has a very similar effect, though it's extra-dimensional.

I think JmOz is saying that this isn't an NND attack, and that these defenses would completely negate the attack in addition to the target applying whatever the usual defense was. If I'm right in that assessment, I'd give -1/4 for it.

If you have Duplication with Ranged Recombination, does the base character need to have LOS to the Duplicates in order to recombine them, or do they just need to be within the range and not protected by Hardened barriers? (Or for that matter, do all the Duplicates need to have LOS with each other?) Thanks!

Block isn't an attack.

I think the idea is that Demonsong wants the Blocker to still retain hold of the attacker's hand so the attacker can't use it again without breaking free. That part requires a Grab. If you just want it to look cool without keeping hold of the attacker, then I agree it's just a special effect for Block.

Re: Re: But Steve said... 1st Edition: 1981. 2nd Edition: 1982. Elapsed time: 1 year. 2nd Edition: 1982. 3rd Edition: 1984. Elapsed time: 2 years. 3rd Edition: 1984. 4th Edition: 1989. Elapsed time: 5 years. 4th Edition: 1989. 5th Edition: 2002. Elapsed time: 13 years. At this rate of increase, the elapsed time between 5th and 6th Editions would be 31 years. Check back in 2033.

Re: Catch the punch? Yes. (Sort of. ) There's no pre-built maneuver with Block and Grab (which is presumably what you'd want for this effect). But there are rules for designing such a maneuver. Run out and buy it!

It would depend on what you wanted the missile to do. It would certainly be an Automaton, because you couldn't STUN the missile (for example). It would have whatever DEX and SPD you wanted it to have for chasing the target. Flight. Killing Attack (probably HKA since it would have to hit the target) possibly with Explosion, and definitely with 1 Charge, Charge Never Recovers, and a big-ass Side Effect that using it destroys the missile. IR Vision if you wanted it to be heat-seeking. A simple Computer for a guidance system, with an INT for basing PER rolls on, and probably just a single program (seek and destroy target).

Good idea: To allow a player to have a character with the same abilities as Green Arrow. Bad idea: To allow a player to have a character with the same abilities as Green Lantern.

Thanks!

Re: Disregard previos post. Let's try this version of the question Page 348, metarule number 5: "One Power should not be used to do what another Power already does." That's why.

I think the best solution for "tracking" attacks is Summon. Design the missiles as little characters (probably automatons with computer guidance) with their own Flight, HKA, etc., and simply Summon them and sic them on the target.

Although this is technically legal per the FAQ, I encourage much caution and GM oversight to ensure that this doesn't break the "A Limitation that doesn't limit the power isn't worth a bonus" metarule. It would be very easy to abuse this setup. For example, let's say you want a 12d6 Energy Blast as your only attack power. You don't really care about having, say, an RKA power too. You just want an Energy Blast. You buy this: 60 Energy Blast 12d6 However, if you wanted to be a weasel, you could do this: 27 Multipower (60 point reserve), Extra Time: 1 Turn to Change Slots (applied to reserve cost only, not slot costs; -1 1/4) 6u Energy Blast 12d6 6u RKA 4d6 Total Cost: 39 You save 21 points, and all you do with it is simply don't change slots. You get the RKA for free (less than free; you actually save points) and you just use it like a 12d6 EB. This is a very simple example. The basic point is just that it's a good idea to be careful with this kind of thing and make sure it's genuinely restrictive before allowing it.

There should probably be a way to differentiate between a Focus that's obvious all the time, and one that's obvious only when it's in use. Trouble is, you run into cultural issues. For example, a handgun is always obvious when used. If you shoot somebody, it's clear that the little thingy in your hand that went boom with a flash and a cloud of smoke was responsible. And in our society, it's also obvious when not in use. Virtually everyone knows what a gun looks like, will know that they should take it from you if searching you for weapons, etc. But in, say, an alien culture or a primitive culture, it wouldn't be obvious that a gun was a weapon when it wasn't being used. Perhaps it might be worth an extra -1/4 Limitation if the function of an Obvious Focus is also obvious to the prevailing culture in the campaign, even when the Focus was not in use. (Or you could rule that it was obvious in that manner by default, and apply -1/4 less Limitation if it wasn't, etc.)

I don't see any reason not to allow this, given a sufficient justification. If you want to get really tricky, you might require them to keep (for Skills that have rolls) at least a 1-point Familiarity with the Skill, to show that (despite how long it may have gone without use or study) they do still know more about it than a total newbie. This would also allow them to buy it back again (if desired) for fewer points, showing that it's easier to "brush up" on a skill you once knew than it is to learn it from scratch.

And here's another: 1 Recoverable Charge, with the defined way of recovering the charge being to let it cool down.

Actually, The Ultimate Mystic has never been published. The earlier version was called (accurately) The Ultimate Super-Mage. I believe Steve has indicated that when it's redone, part of the reason for retooling it and renaming it The Ultimate Mystic is to make it more applicable to non-super spellcasters.

I'd suggest putting the spells in a Multipower, then putting Charges on the Multipower as a whole (assuming we're talking about some reasonably low number of Charges). This means they can only use the Multipower itself "X" times, though they could use any slots they wished whatever number of times adds up to "X". You might add an additional -1/4 Limitation that they have to decide in advance how to allocate the Charges. To deal with Charges only recovering once a day, you could make them Recoverable Charges. The means of Recovering them would be to simply re-memorize them. If you really want to avoid Charges and just come up with a more roleplaying-driven means of dealing with it, you might just use the real-life considerations of memorization. In other words, mages write their spells down for the same reason anyone writes anything down: so they can look it up again if they forget. This doesn't necessarily mean that the spells go away in a D&D fashion memorization... it might just be more like actors in a play (for example). When I was in high school and college, I did a lot of theater. In college, I did the play The Crucible. As Reverend Hale, I had a couple hundred lines. I had to study them to memorize them in the first place. After that, I just had to brush up on them once or twice during the week between weekend performances. While I was involved in doing the play, I had no trouble remembering them. However, within a few weeks/months after the play closed, I couldn't have told you many of them, and now (years later) I can't remember more than a couple. Magic might work the same way. Mages study their spellbooks simply to ensure that they're remembering them right... not because of some mystical quality to the spells that makes them fade from the caster's mind instantly after casting. Perhaps you could apply a gradually an increasing penalty to the caster's Magic Skill roll as time passes since the last time they cast or studied a given spell.

I suspect that a lot of this kind of thing is intended to be covered by the "generic" Ultimate books, rather than making FH-specific ones. For example, warriors would be pretty well covered by The Ultimate Martial Artist and The Ultimate Brick. Mages and priests covered by The Ultimate Mystic and The Ultimate Mentalist. Rogues covered by The Ultimate Skill (and bits of the same books that cover warriors), etc.

Lemme let ya in on a secret about players... They want to play. They may bellyache about learning something new, but the bottom line is, they'll play whatever someone else is running! If you're a decent GM, and they have an opportunity to play in a game instead of running one or going without, they'll play in it.

I had to delay it a bit while working on Champions Battlegrounds and some real life stuff. I should have the manuscript done soon, and off to Steve for fitting into the works in between his mammoth 300,000 word opuses (opii?).

It wouldn't take a Killing Attack to break bones. It would just require doing BODY damage. If you hit a normal (2 PD) with a 3d6 normal attack, they'll take BODY on an average roll. The GM is certainly within their purview to say they broke a bone as the SFX of taking BODY damage.