Derek Hiemforth

It looks like maybe these went away somewhere along the line, although I see that @Spence apparently re-added the Converting Characters document several years ago.

I still have the others (Animals, Combat Example, Example Characters from Other Genres, and Talent Creation).  Is there any interest in adding these back?

13 minutes ago, Spence said:

 

Emphasis mine

 

Yes, yes, YES!

 

 

This is what Champions Complete did, and it seemed to work fine, as far as I've ever heard.   

9 hours ago, Sketchpad said:

I was thinking about what I'd like to see for Hero last night and I realized a big book of Talents (and maybe Perks) would be pretty useful. Even if they were Powers-As-Talents, I really think a book of this level would be handy. Each chapter could dive into one of the big concepts (Fantasy, Action, Supers, Sci-Fi, Horror, etc.) with a bunch of new Talents to choose from. Some may emulate what other games called "Class Abilities," while some may be original to the Hero System. Size could be around the HS Skills book that came out. 

I like this idea.  I'd suggest only putting the Talent descriptions and the critical "how this actually works in play" information in the main part of the book.  The "under the hood" details of how the Talent was constructed from other Powers and such, I would put in an appendix at the back of the book (or maybe even put it in a free PDF download for folks who are interested, and don't put it in the book itself at all). 

46 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Tri Stat seemed similar to GURPS. The thing is once I saw how they broke everything down, it seemed more complex than it was worth. Granted I never completed character generation nor have I ran even a mock battle to see its value.

I think the biggest issues with GURPS are lack of granularity in its 4-stat core characteristics, and that it generally doesn't scale up as well as I'd like (which is why I think Hero is a better universal system).  Hero has a bit of the opposite problem (not scaling down), but to a much lesser degree than I think GURPS has scaling up.

13 minutes ago, fdw3773 said:

For me, the Tri-Stat system of Mind/Body/Soul didn't seem a good fit for the superhero genre.  [snip ] it had a "square peg-round hole" vibe to it when compared to other systems like Champions, DC Heroes, or even Villains & Vigilantes that is also statistic light.

(added emphasis mine).  I love DC Heroes for supers, and that's actually one of the things I liked about Tri-Stat.  Their Body/Mind/Soul stats reminded me very much of how DC Heroes categorizes stats into Physical, Mental, and Mystical.  Granted though, Tri-Stat collapses them all down into only three stats (instead of just using those concepts to categorize stats), and I can see how that might be not granular enough.  I actually have that issue with using GURPS for supers; the stats don't seem granular enough to me.

Interesting that folks are down on the Tri-Stat system.  I admit I never actually played it (or the d20 version of SAS), but reading it, it made a pretty favorable impression on me.  It seemed pretty similar to Hero System in a lot of ways.  I'm curious what Hero System fans disliked about it.  Was it a matter of the similarities being only skin-deep, while the differences ran all the way to the core?  

I wonder how well Champions Universe: News of the World sold back in the day.  A chunk of that book was similar to this idea (updating existing characters to show their growth over time). Similar things have been in a couple other books too.  I wonder whether they were strong sellers.

Personally, I don't have any interest in a product that shows the same character in different editions of the rules, but I can see where it might make a good PDF product for folks who would dig it.   

1 hour ago, Ninja-Bear said:

The more confusing question about Link (to me) is that wasn’t at one time Linked meant that you couldn’t just use only part of the Linked? You had to use both parts. 

It wasn't clear. Many people interpreted it the way you describe, but it wasn't necessarily written that way.  5E made it explicit how it works.

35 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

I'm curious as to the background of Elisha Mulraven. I wasn't able to find info about him on the Internet. Anyone else know anything? If so, is there anything in his story to suggest a supernatural element?

AFAIK, he's a fictional character who only exists in Champions. So whatever background is in the Champions Universe material is the only background there is.

11 minutes ago, DShomshak said:

Someone has already found Masonic origins and an arcane street layout.

Because of course they have!  🤣🤣🤣

7 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

What, exactly, does targeting establish if not the ability to target?

To me, it establishes that you can attack with full OCV.  And I think that may also be part of why Clairsentience doesn't establish Line of Sight.

For any "normal" attack (one without LOS targeting), then even if you have the target sighted with your Clairsentience (and are therefore perceiving them with a Targeting Sense), you still might need your attack to be Extended Range or Indirect or who knows what in order to be able to attack effectively, even if you have your full OCV.

But with a LOS attack, if Clairsentience established LOS, then it would also bypass all of those other issues for free. That would make Mental Powers with Clairsentience much more powerful than "physical" powers with Clairsentience.

Also, it's "Line of Sight," not just "Point of Sight."  You not only need to see what you're aiming at... you also need to see what's between here and there.

I think I have to question the premise that automatons have some semblance of intelligence (with a lower-case "i") and therefore have a mind.  They have an INT Characteristic (upper-case "I") and therefore have some way to measure how sophisticated they are in terms of how many commands they accept.  A regular computer, likewise, has an INT, but no "mind."  They have built in programs, or they can be operated, but can't "think" in any meaningful way.

Only if they have EGO (i.e., only if they are an A.I.) can they think for themselves and really be said to have a "mind."  Since the effect of Mental Powers is measured against EGO, they may not work on automatons/machines that don't have EGO.  If they do, the GM will substitute INT for EGO as needed, but even in this case, I don't think that really implies that the automaton or computer has a "mind" per se. The game is just using the machine's complexity as a "stand-in" for a mind.

12 minutes ago, pinecone said:

"Regular robots are "drones' Special robots are powered by Zarkonite! These Zee robots will conquer the world!

Maybe the robots could be the Zarkonoids!

EDIT: Apparently, Pinecone and I were sharing a hive mind at the same moment... 

3 hours ago, pinecone said:

I Think I would build it in two parts. 

Yep, that's what I'd do too.  A VPP for Characteristics and miscellaneous Powers, and (at least one) build based on Cramming for Skills.

1 hour ago, unclevlad said:

That makes clear that perception is a factor, and thus implicitly incorporates range mods to perception.

But not to the attack roll, which was the original question.

Also, perception is much more under GM discretion than combat range modifiers are.  If you fire an ordinary ranged weapon from 32m away, you're going to be at -4 to hit even if you can see the target clearly.  But if the GM thinks you can see the target clearly, then you don't have to attempt a PER Roll at all, despite the fact that you would get a -4 for range if the GM made you roll.  

Are you looking for any particular power levels / point totals / edition of the rules?

2 hours ago, iamlibertarian said:

I will definitely look into the Optional Expanded Cramming. Would that work with the more Physical options though, like +OCV/DCV or Sharpshooter? Or 'wired reflexes'? Or add to INT, or add active GPS to the character? I am trying to put together some sort of true Cyberpunk character that would then be fit into a Champions game.

Technically, no; you'd need to use a small VPP or something for Characteristics and other miscellaneous Powers.  This ability can easily get expensive.  But then, that's probably fair, because it can also easily get super-useful!   

I would probably build something around Cramming (using the Optional Expanded Cramming rules from Hero System Skills, page 145), and something like Speed Reading, or Overall Skill Levels to reduce the time it takes to Cram.

1 hour ago, foolishvictor said:

If Sapphire, (CC page 197) is caught in a 6 Body, 6 Def entangle then she should be able to use her "Power Bolt 1" 12D6 Blast to try to escape, correct?  She would not have to rely on strength (hopefully.)  Champions Complete does not go into detail regarding when a Haymaker can be used.  In contrast 6E2 p68 states that " Although Haymaker applies to any attack..."  which suggests that Sapphire could Haymaker her "Power Bolt 1" to 16D6.

 

That said, one could argue that a Haymaker requires the character setting themselves up to deliver a more effective attack.  To use the example of Sapphire again, if she tries to haymaker her Power Bolt 1 while entangled, the entangle would prevent her from doing so but it would not prevent a regular use of the Power Bolt 1 ability.  It would also not prevent her from pushing her Power Bolt 1 ability to escape the entangle.

 

I think the important aspect to all of this is that the entangle power needs to be effective but balanced.  Your response suggests that using Haymaker as a way of escaping Entangle weakens Entangle powers generally in a way that was not intended.  Is that correct?  

I was less clear than I should have been when I said I wouldn't allow Haymaker against a physical entangle either.  Yes, Sapphire can use her Power Bolt 1, and yes, she can Haymaker it.

What I'm saying I wouldn't generally allow (as a GM; other GMs may see it differently) is Haymakering a normal escape attempt, where the entangled character applies their STR (or EGO, in the case of a mental entangle) to try and break the entangle from the inside. If the character's powers and SFX allow them another way to attack, and it seems reasonable to use that attack while entangled (such as your example with Sapphire and her Power Bolt I), then it may very well also be reasonable for them to Haymaker that attack.

I'm thinking more of a situation where Arrowhead (CC page 202) hits Green Dragon (CC page 205) with his Glue Arrow Entangle.  Green Dragon can't use his Martial Arts maneuvers to attack the entangle because they require him to move. He might be able to use the Escape maneuver against other SFX of entangles, but it doesn't make any sense for it to work against glue.  Pretty much all Green Dragon can do is use his 25 STR to break free. Against Arrowhead's 4DEF, 4d6 Entangle, he'll probably be able to get out eventually, but it may take a while.

This doesn't strike me (pun intended) as a situation where Green Dragon can "Haymaker" exerting his STR.  Any extra effort he might bear down and put into giving it everything he's got sounds more to me like a Push than a Haymaker.

Again, though... it's often about SFX.  Change the circumstances slightly, and give me a good rationale, and I might allow it.   

19 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

Yeah and that's the idea I had that led to posting this thread: what was once amazing and super powered stuff is now mundane and ordinary.  I wrote both The Island of Dr Destroyer and the upcoming Champions Begins with the assumption that every superhero is also carrying around a smart phone of some sort (probably a cheap disposable so they can't be tracked in their secret identity, but still)

Agreed, and to be clear, when I posted above about paying CP for your iPhone, I was joking.    Regardless of what the rules say, I completely agree that we're now at a point where smartphones are so pervasive that paying CP to carry them would feel like paying CP for clothing or food or something...

12 hours ago, foolishvictor said:

I decided to take a crack at it:

Nice!  👍

Might need a bigger MP reserve, though.  Technically, you can maintain that phone call (Mind Link) while also having the light on, using the navigation and translator apps, etc. 

1 hour ago, foolishvictor said:

Second, in my opinion any character with the "destitute" limitation should not own a car unless they also are hunted by repo men (and women...)

I dunno... having been in that position myself before, I sort of think you might have a car, but if you do, the awful car you'll have will add at least as much financial burden to your Destitute state (car insurance, vehicle registration, constant repairs, terrible gas mileage, etc.) as it provides any kind of help. Without enough money to maintain it, having a car is almost more of a curse than a blessing...

Totally agreed, though, that you shouldn't have a good car...   

Damage Over Time is included in "Advantages That Directly Affect Damage" (6E2 pg. 98), unless the GM rules it isn't for some reason. The Damage Over Time also needs to include the Target's Defenses Only Apply Once modifier because it's an AVAD (NND) attack (per the 6E rules FAQ).

The total of "Advantages That Directly Affect Damage" is therefore +3½ instead of +2½ (or +½). The Power's Active Point cost counting only those Advantages would be 67, so each added DC translates at a rate of 22½ per 1d6 on the Damage Class Table (6E2 pg. 97) So the +3 DC from the martial maneuver translates to +½d6 being added.

Because a Damage Over Time attack is "fire and forget," (it requires no maintenance on the attacker's part, the END cost is paid when it is fired, etc.), the amount of damage it inflicts in each increment is also determined when it is initially used.  Therefore, the damage in the initial Segment would be 3½d6, and the damage in the following Segments would also be 3½d6.

Now, having said all that, I think I should also point out that this construction combines several "Caution Sign" and "GM's Permission" elements, and ends up with the character getting +1 OCV or +2 RNG, plus 11½ CP worth of added Damage Classes if they were bought separately, all for the low, low price of 4 CP for the martial maneuver. So this build definitely seems worthy of some close GM scrutiny.   

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

Unless this changed in the last,couple of editions, arent the BODY or DEF scores of Foci dependent on the number of AP within the individual focus?  Sort of a temptation to have a tougher, more durable focus in exchange for losing all your powers at once?

It's equal the AP of the largest power divided by 5.  So having a bunch of powers in the Focus doesn't matter.  Well, except that for each BODY damage a Focus takes, it loses a Power.  So if it only has one, one BODY will break it, while multiple will let it lose Powers while other Powers still work. 'Course, a Power Framework counts as one Power for this purpose, so it doesn't help much...

On 4/5/2021 at 9:59 AM, Old Man said:

Best urban fantasy I’ve read is Neverwhere, but it’s a one-off. Were I to run an urban fantasy campaign I’d probably add two cups of Constantine, half a pound of John Wick, three heaping tablespoons of Feng Shui, and a dash of X-Files. Put it all in a blender and set to “purée”. 

Though your idea sounds a bit darker in execution, I ran a game that was sort of similar to this in spirit.  It was kind of a blend of The X-Files (find the truth) and Men in Black (conceal the truth), but for monsters and magic instead of aliens, and run by occult secret societies instead of government-sponsored agencies.