Derek Hiemforth

I'd buy it as an Energy Blast or RKA vs ED, Area Effect Cone, No Range. If anything takes BODY damage from it, it's caught on fire.

Re: Cost of Armor

 

Originally posted by Southern Cross

Of course,if you state that all Powers built with the "Costs END" Limitation are Visible by default,Armor with the "Costs END" Limitation has the same Real Cost as an equally-effective Force Field.

Oh sure, drag LOGIC into this whydontya?!?

Originally posted by GamePhil

However, here Armor is the more valid construct, so Rule 6 doesn't apply because they are not equally valid. It fits exactly what you want without tweaking.

And the problem in this construction is not metarule 6... it's the cost of Armor. Once you start letting people take Visible (and especially letting them take Costs Endurance) on Armor, then you might as well get rid of Force Field, because no one in their right mind would buy it.

 

Why would I buy this:

 

20PD/20ED Force Field -- 40 points

 

When I could buy this:

 

20PD/20ED Armor, Costs Endurance (-1/2), Visible (-1/4) -- 34 points.

 

The cost relationships between Armor, Force Field, and PD/ED/Damage Resistance are messed up, IMO. It really would make more sense to combine these into a single Defense power that could be customized with Advantages and Limitations like Resistant and Costs END and Visible, etc.

I think the Philosopher has the right of it. If you really want an effect like this in your game, you need to do something to customize the world to make it possible. Another construct that might be useful is to define your world such that everyone is automatically assumed to have Vulnerability to Death Effects: 2x BODY for no points.

Originally posted by DoctorItron

I think that dispelling twice someone's starting BODY would cause death

This is not technically legal. You cannot use Dispel on Characteristics. (5E, page 99)

Originally posted by JmOz

I beleive in the concept of simplicity of design

So do I. Pointing out that you can stack up baroque constructs that are more expensive than simple ones does not invalidate metarule 6, because such obviously contrived constructs can't be reasonably argued to be "equally valid."

 

Build it the most logical or elegant way. If (and only if) you're not sure what the most logical or elegant way is, or if you have multiple ways that seem equally logical or elegant, then (and only then) you're best off using the most expensive one in order to avoid potential abuse.

I think people worry too much about the meaning of metarule 6, to be honest. I think it's just there to say, "If you're trying to simulate an effect, you're not sure exactly how it "should" be done, and you're considering multiple ways of building it, then you can most safely avoid potential abuse by going with the most expensive way."

 

For example, let's say you're building a teleporter, and you want to give them the trick of sticking their arm through a mini-spacewarp and punching people (from any direction) up to a certain distance away. You have STR of course, and you also buy Stretching. Stretching has some Indirect aspects by default, but this effect is really Indirect, so you decide you should apply the Advantage. What do you apply it to? STR or Stretching? There are logical arguments for either one.

 

This is where metarule 6 becomes useful. If you're not sure, apply it to whichever one is more expensive.

Originally posted by Super Squirrel

Just what does this mean?

Ingenue: An ingenuous or naive girl or young woman.

 

(Ingenuous: Characterized by an inability to mask your feelings; not devious; lacking in sophistication or worldliness.)

Re: Multiple Force Field slots in a multipower?

 

Originally posted by Rerednaw

I recall there's a rule about redundant slots in a multipower.

Yep. The rule is "It's okay."

 

Seriously, it looks like you're remembering wording from 3rd Edition Champions, which said on page 38, "Unlike Elemental Controls, redundant slots are quite all right in a Multipower; in fact, one of the traditional uses of a Multipower is to have two different Energy Blasts (say, one normal and one Explosion) without having to pay so many Power Points."

 

It looks like that wording (along with the rules saying that redundant slots in ECs were forbidden) was removed in 4E and 5E.

Originally posted by slaughterj

Entangle as described by various people here is what we've used, but unlike Derek, I've always been annoyed that Mental Defense didn't somehow factor into defending against this, though I haven't put any effort into trying to create a "fix" for this.

There's a fix in 5E already if you want one. On page 110, while describing how to build a Mental Paralysis-type power, it says that you can apply a -1/2 Limitation if you want the target's Mental Defense to add to their EGO for purposes of breaking free.

Originally posted by Peregrine

PRIMUS - Paranormal Research and Investigation Mission of the United States (CU p. 43)

In the 4th Edition and older Champions Universe, the acronym was "Primary Response and Interdiction Military Unified Service."

 

I like the new one better.

Originally posted by Glen Sprigg

Oh, man...I actually have that thing. HAVOC, it was called.

Actually, (says Derek the Pedantic) it was called Trouble For Havoc. (It's on my Big List Of All Hero Books linked in the sig below.)

Yeah, we've got two "sleepers" in our current group, and I played for years with another. It would be one thing if the game was boring and putting them to sleep, but it seems (to me, anyway) that it's not all that related to how interesting the game is...

I think I'm pretty reasonable about what I'll allow in an EC. For me, the key is the whole "one Adjustment Power affects all" thing. As long as every slot in an EC makes clear logical sense for it to be affected by anything that Drains another slot, then I'll allow it... whether it costs END or not.

 

For example, Damage Reduction is not normally allowed in ECs. But if you were building Blobbo the Rubber Man, and had an EC of Rubbery Body that included Stretching and Leaping (bouncing), I'd also let you include PD Damage Reduction, because it's exactly the same special effect. (Heck, I'd even let you include Extra Limbs, but it'd probably mess up your point balancing. )

Re: How would you define Mental Paralysis?

 

Originally posted by Rerednaw

Which would you use and why?

I'd use Entangle with the modifiers. (Takes No Damage From Physical Attacks is the third one.) I think it's the most elegant solution, because it literally does what you're after: it forces the target to stand still unless they can break free with their mind. Each of the others has problems, IMV.

• Mind Control: This one gets weird because the target can subtract their Mental Defense, which isn't analogous to a physical Entangle (wherein the target's defense is irrelevant). Also, it can make it harder to affect a low-EGO character with a hyperactive personality than it is a high-EGO character with a more sedate personality. Impulse (the bratty little Flash clone) might have a low EGO but a severe aversion to standing still, while Professor X has a huge EGO but doesn't mind being motionless. It might end up actually being easier for Impulse to break out than it is for Professor X, and that's probably not what you're after. (This effect is often used specifically to stop people like Impulse.)
  
• Drain vs EGO: This one doesn't do anything to actually make them be motionless. They can still move easily, provided they have reason (or someone gives them reason). Plus, Power Defense is applied to it, which seems weird for an Entangle-type effect.
  
• Transform: I'd stay away from this one on the grounds that there are at least two other ways to build the effect with varying degrees of success (Entangle and Mind Control), and you should generally avoid using Transform to duplicate the effects of other Powers. Plus, it defaults to working against BODY instead of EGO, which isn't quite right, and they get Power Defense against it, which (as with Drain) seems kind of weird.

So to some extent, the Entangle method is just the one with the least problems.

I think it looks fine. I'd suggest defining it as a Special Power that's Persistent and doesn't cost END. Making it a Special Power will make it harder for jokers to stick it in a Multipower.

H5E. page 203: "Characters cannot purchase Special Powers and Talents in Power Frameworks, except with the GM's permission."

 

H5E, page 204: "Normally, all slots in an Elemental Control should cost END or have the Reduced Endurance Advantage. You cannot buy powers which inherently cost no END (for example, FTL Travel) as a slot in an EC unless they take the Limitation Costs END or the GM permits it."

 

These are two different rules. The first applies to all Power Frameworks, the second only to Elemental Controls. The first doesn't have anything to do with END, per se. You would still need GM permission to put a Special Power or Talent in a Power Framework, whether it cost END or not.

Speaking of GURPS books, I happen to have a copy of the uber-rare GURPS The Prisoner up on Ebay at the moment if anyone's interested.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=2547&item=3122361138&rd=1

Originally posted by keithcurtis

IIRC, Bad Medicine for Dr. Drugs had a decent map of a high school. I don't think it was as bad as some are saying, but I could be looking back with nostalgic glasses.

Yeah, I didn't think it was all that bad, either. (Especially considering that it came out during the heyday of Marv Wolfman and George Perez's work on The New Teen Titans, when young hero comics were the craze.)

 

Heck, Aaron Allston credits it as an inspiration for his excellent GURPS Supers adventure, School of Hard Knocks, so it can't be all bad.

Originally posted by winterhawk

Being the dork that I am, I actually sent away for it...I have it scanned if anyone would like to see it.

Sure!

Nato, how did you know??

 

Also, FYI, someone scooped on the Strike Force already via the Buy It Now option. Sorry, gang!

I know folks are often looking for this book, so I just thought I'd let ya' know there was one up for grabs...

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=2548&item=3122372452&rd=1

Yep, looks like Steve just took the Joint Break maneuver, and added the 1-point Target Falls element in exchange for an extra -1 to OCV.

It's on page 46 of The Ultimate Martial Artist.

Originally posted by archer

Yes, I played alongside a guy who did this regularly.

Did this campaign have a GM?