phookz

Re: Requires A Skill Roll: Skill Vs. Skill Contests?

I think it would be the same limitation as the normal Requires a Roll. In general, making it a skill-vs-skill contest shouldn't change the value of this limitation - it's a wash. Some opponents will have a lower skill, some a higher. If this were put on a character with an very low or very high roll you might consider altering the value of the limitation, but I think it's probably just splitting hairs at that point.

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

I think there is a disconnect, and I don't think I've been clear on my objections to some of the builds suggested. I will try to clear that up here.

For purpose of this post, consider three individuals: an attacker, who is providing the covering fire, a defender, who is being suppressed with the covering fire, and a target, who the attacker is providing the covering fire for.

There are two approaches to this - one is that the attacker provides a suppression fire that seeks to keep the defender from making an effective attack. This has been the approach that I have focused on so far in this thread. The alternative approach is for the attacker to provide covering fire that is distracting in some way. Both of these are viable approaches.

For the first option, I would suggest the following:

There is already a Suppression Fire manuever, see 6E2 p91. With this maneuver, the attacker takes -2 OCV and has to fire max Autofire for every segment of his phase into the designated area(s). If the defender attempts to move, and this includes making an attack, the defender is automatically attacked (with the -2 OCV).

I think this fits the SFX described in the OP. The idea is to provide covering fire. Now this maneuver is a little different in that it doesn't provide a DCV bonus to the target, but it's a good place to start.

If you want an OCV bonus to the Suppression Fire you should have to pay points for it (buy CSLs). If you read the text of Suppression Fire, there really isn't a choice to make - the suppression fire doesn't actually hit the defender unless the defender attempts to move or attack. The choice is either don't move and suffer no ill effects from the suppression fire, or move and suffer the attack. You cannot choose to ignore the effects of Suppression Fire.

So how do we get the DCV bonus to the target? Let's go back to the SFX. The SFX is that the covering fire is really good - it's going to be tough to pull this off without getting shot at. We have that covered already with the Suppression Fire and CSLs to increase the OCV with it, but we want to make it tough, even if you do get shot at, to get the shot off. That's why I suggested the Drain/Suppress that requires a PRE attack. That to me is the perfect fit for this SFX. If you have Captain Fearless & Bulletproof, he's probably not going to be impacted by this - he has tons of PRE and knows that your puny bullets can't hurt him. That fits the power. This also works well for gritty realistic campaigns. Some characters are still not going to be afraid of the attack - that should be representable somehow and PRE is the best way to do that.

To put it another way, what if the SFX was shooting a jet of flame, flame so hot that nobody would dare to try and fire for risk of getting burned. Would this make sense to affect a Fire Elemental? Would they care how hot your flame was? What is the difference if it's bullets? Some defenders are not going to care.

I would build it as follows (similar post #25):

5 Covering Fire: Change Environment (-4 to Range Modifier), Area Of Effect (4 2m Areas; +1/2) (18 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Requires use of Suppression Fire Maneuver; -1), OIF (Gun of Opportunity; -1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (-2 OCV; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Requires Successful PRE Attack at Targets Base PRE Level; -1/2)

Now, if the SFX was that the attack was distracting... that would be a different build. Looking at the OP, it's tough to say which way they were really thinking. Without some examples it's tough to say what is distracting about the attack. It's clearly a gun wielding character, so there is the implication of bullets and whatnot. I would suggest something like the following:

6 Distracting Fire: Change Environment (-4 to Range Modifier), Area Of Effect (4 2m Areas; +1/2) (18 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Requires use of Suppression Fire Maneuver; -1), OIF (Gun of Opportunity; -1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (- 2 OCV; -1/2)

It's still using Suppression Fire. The target will receive an effective +4 DCV due to the range penalty modifier, and the defender will have to risk being attacked. Note that the second one is more expensive. It's more expensive because it's not based on a PRE attack. It will work against pretty much anyone, the SFX is that the shots are distracting - either kicking up dust, paper, whatever, or even shooting the character in the face.

I'd be fine with either approach. There are no hidden advantages in this - any bonus to Suppression Fire will have to be bought as CSLs to Suppression Fire. The first approach is a better fit if the desired SFX is that the defender needs to avoid the attack. That approach is limited in effectiveness because the defender may not care that you're shooting him.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Sounds cool.

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

Actually' date=' there's also a supposition here that a target who isn't actually [i']hurt[/i] by an attack can't, in any way, be affected by it. Who says that Superman isn't a little distracted and put off by all those bullets bouncing off him (maybe that's part of why he stands there and takes the bullets until the goons are done firing--besides the obvious impressiveness of the feat). I mean, driving rain wouldn't necessarily hurt you either, nor would you likely be "fearful" of it, but would you be doing your best target practice while standing in it? A skilled attacker giving cover fire might well be able to nail the Brick in a way that'd make it difficult for him to make an attack at full normal effectiveness, even if he couldn't hurt the Brick. Reminds me of some anime or something....

In Superman returns Superman takes a shot in the eye and doesn't even blink - I think it's fair to say he's not distracted by the shot:

I think it's just his passive way of making a PRE attack.

That being said, I'm okay with the concept of a character so good with whatever weapon that he can provide a distraction.

Re: Character outlines from old character sheets

Just found these quite by accident when playing with the Fabrica de Herois site:

http://fabricadeherois.blogspot.com/search/label/FHX/

Re: B1 Battle Droid for Hero 4th.

Heh - that's pretty funny. Watching that just angers me with how badly Lucas blew that one. I'd actually forgotten how most of the damage done to the battle droid army was done by accident. Then later in the film Anakin accidentally takes out the command ship. What the h*** was Lucas thinking?

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

You could, I suppose, get to the same effect by removing that limitation, putting on "Targets (Not User) Choose Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Hail of Lead Against Them Individually" (-3/4) <- the -3/4 is based on this being worse than Lockout, since with Lockout the user could choose which power works

 

Hail of Lead: +(some OCV, depending on how many different attacks this is supposed to apply to), Only When Combine Attacking An Autofire Attack and Suppression Fire (-? depending on where the OCV is coming from), Targets (Not User) Chooses Whether User Gets the Benefit of This Power or Suppression Fire Against Them Individually (-3/4).

 

I can see the merits to this approach.

I'm not following what the +? to OCV is for; is this instead of that 1/2 DCV vs the Autofire attack?

I think where we differ is that we're reading two different things into the way this power's SFX works. You are reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around' date=' scaring people so that they aren't as effective at fighting" and I'm reading it as "Spray a bunch of bullets around, so that people have to either duck or risk getting shot." Basically, whether the OCV penalty is coming from intimidation only and Captain Courage can just walk through the effect with no drawback even if he's not bulletproof, or coming from practical self-defense.[/quote']

 

I think both of your examples are really the same thing. The people are scared into ducking because they don't want to risk getting shot. In either event, how does this work against the guy who simply chooses not to duck?

 

This looks like a form of PRE attack to me, and if I were GM I would apply modifiers based on the perceived lethality of the attack. Take Superman as an example - he knows that he is bulletproof, and it's his schtick to stand there and just bounce bullets off of his chest. Because of that I think that would incur penalty dice to the presence attack - probably 1 or 2d6. Supes isn't going to be cowed by a guy with a revolver - it's classic Superman and that makes sense. Then you've got other characters who are calm even when under heavy fire (seen this in a dozen war movies, the bad guy in Avatar was the same way) - they have oodles of PRE for defense, like the fearless talent Hyper-Man quoted. I think a PRE based attack would be a better fit for this.

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

Where are you coming from on it being an advantage? The limitation is that the target gets to choose whether they'd rather take the -4 OCV that the power would normally cause' date=' or the 1/2 DCV against the autofire attack (which represents ignoring the suppression). If that limitation wasn't there, the target would always take -4 OCV unless they had enough defense to ignore the autofire attack. Clearly this limitation is limiting. I suppose you could argue it should be a -0, although I disagree, but I have no idea how it's [i']better[/i] to give the target the option.

I missed that the -4 OCV was only vs the autofire attack; that was pointed out already by Bodkin Odds. I agree that it is not an advantage in this construct, but I'm not comfortable with it as a limitation either. There's a bit of an end-around side effect of this that makes the autofire attack more potent.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Every trait that uses as much energy as intelligence' date=' does.[/quote']

 

I don't buy it. Evolutionary theory says that random mutations occur, and those that provide an advantage will tend to win out due to survival of the fittest. If this is the case, then it is entirely possible that non-advantageous traits will make it in, even ones that use a lot of energy. It's not a perfect system - there isn't someone evaluating the results and kicking out those with less than some minimal efficiency.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Here's a link that works

Oops - fixed it. Thanks, have some rep!

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Better is subjective. Using that kind of logic, why do people play Superheroes, or Pulp, or Fantasy? Storytelling is about the human experience - it's our only frame of reference. Even when we try and tell something that is different from human, it's the fact that we are human and can compare that to being human that gives it meaning. Why would Science Fiction have to be different to be better?

Re: Internal Computer

It's the Galactic Police, for a Champion's game. Why can't they have a super-firewall. Sure, a hacker might get in now and then, but it's a GM plot device at that point.

I don't think there would be any need for the computer rules - it sounds like SFX to me.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

Well' date=' except that octopi and corvids don't make tools -- they take advantage of the existing physical properties of items in their environment. Reshaping things to our purposes is exclusive to humans and our closest relatives, and displays an imagination that other creatures on our planet at least appear to lack.[/quote']

 

How close are crows?

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/

This crow spontaneously bent a wire to create a hook so that it could retrieve a food-containing bucket. By the way, watch the video - it's really quite amazing.

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

That's a good point; I didn't notice that the first time through.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

A great many features of the Star Trek Universe exist for the sole purpose of providing cover for the limitations of special effects. The above rationalization is just window dressing for a series in which most of the 'aliens' had to be played by human actors. Likewise' date=' the ubiquity of 'artificial gravity' in Star Trek (and [i']many[/i] other SF tv shows) is really just a concession to the fact that there's no cheap way for Hollywood to do 'artificial weightlessness.' Ironically, it's cheaper to use real gravity and pretend it's artificial.

 

I've often wondered (and I still wonder) why so many SF-RPG's seem to trapped in this exact same paradigm for no reason whatsoever.

It's still easier. Sure, we're not stuck with a SFX budget, but it's easier to imagine aliens that look like us. It's easier to work out the logistics of inter-species interactions if we're all (or mostly all) similar in body composition.

But even more than that is we will tend to imagine things that we are familiar with. We are familiar with bipeds and gravity. It's easier for us to imagine it.

Re: Aliens: everything you know is... well, "wrong" doesn't even begin to cover it.

I just wonder: if you have an immobile life form with no manipulatory limbs' date=' how is intelligence going to give it a survival/reproductive advantage? How would intelligence be selected for in such a species?[/quote']

 

Not every evolutionary trait provides an advantage. Those traits with advantages tend to have a higher probability of propagating with the species, but not always. It's entirely possible that intelligence could evolve accidentally.

Re: Dragons

I think it came from D&D, but I'm not sure.

With regards to Unicorns an wizardry, I think it's a matter of preference and design for a game world. There certainly is no requirement for Dragon's to be wizards - I prefer them not to be, personally, but why not. I think it comes down to what the barrier to wizardry is - is it a racial barrier, or a minimum intelligence, or something else entirely? It's really up to the world designer.

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

Suppression Fire: Drain OCV 6 1/2d6' date=' Standard Effect Rule ((-4 OCV); +0), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Being Immune to The Gunfire Used; All Or Nothing; +0), Constant (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (64 2m Areas; +1 1/2) (227 Active Points); One Use At A Time (-1), Must Be Combine Attacked With an Autofire Attack, And Can Only Include Hexes Into Which the Autofire Attack is Fired (-1), Targets May Take Half DCV Against Autofire Attack to Ignore Suppression Fire's Effect (-1/4)[/quote']

 

I'm with Hyper-Man on the issue of creating a fear based attack like this. But I'm more concerned that this boils down to either a -4 OCV or 1/2 DCV against the target. Draining someone's DCV to 1/2 could be VERY expensive for high DCV characters, and this, if allowed, wouldn't even take Power Defense into account.

 

I wouldn't allow a build like this - that 1/2 DCV limitation looks more like an advantage to me.

 

You could go for an AOE Cone Change Environment to increase the range penalty, say 32m on a side (+1/2). Require Suppressive Fire (-1/2), OIF Gun of Opportunity (-1/2). Link it to PRE attack at target's PRE (-1/4). The GM can then adjudicate the PRE attack based on the target. For the Fearless character, you're going to have a very tough time scaring them. For characters with extremely high defenses relative to the attack, the GM can apply modifiers as he/she sees fit; Superman is not going to be impressed by a .22 cal Suppression Fire:

5 Cover Fire: Change Environment (+4 to Range Penalty), Area Of Effect Nonselective (32m Cone; +1/2) (18 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Requires Suppression Fire Maneuver; -1), OIF (Gun of Opportunity; -1/2), Limited Power Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (Requires Successful PRE attack at Target's PRE level; -1/2), Side Effects, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (-2 OCV; -1/2)

 

Note: The current build of Hero Designer (build 20100617) has the cost for Range Modifier incorrect - it has it at 5 pts per level instead of 3. A bug has already been posted and it should be fixed on the next release. The example above uses the 3 pt per level from 6E1 p175.

Re: B1 Battle Droid for Hero 4th.

Is that... Heromaker? That brings back some memories

Looks pretty good. A couple of comments:

• I never pictured the battle droids as being very strong - they didn't appear to be stronger than the average human to me, but maybe I missed something.
  
• I wouldn't have thought they had swimming - they don't look like they would float well
  
• I like the binary language - only able to understand, not speak seems to me like it would be -1, but I'm not sure.
  

Well done.

Re: Who is sticking to 4th or 5th Ed HERO

Actually' date='after reading the description of the Blur! character,I think that the character could be built with an Persistent Change Environment with Personal Immunity that reduces OCV by 4 and is Always On.[/quote']

 

That's an interesting take on it, but what about ranged attacks?

Re: Cover Fire ability. Comments?

I like the Change Environment approach. I was thinking maybe a Drain-based Suppress, but using Power Defense doesn't really make sense. Hyper-Man brings up a good point that a brick or automaton might shrug off the bullets - in that case would this really work against them? I think a PRE attack might be the best approach. The GM could provide modifiers for the perceived lethality of the attack against the defender.

Re: Who is sticking to 4th or 5th Ed HERO

That's why I brought up the whole Forest and Trees thing. Because there IS an Objective Better.

Objective better based on what criteria? How do you even define objective better in this case? There is no objective better here. There are changes to the system; whether or not the changes were necessary is completely subjective. Whether or not the changes were improvements is completely subjective. If they aren't, then the implication to all of those who don't agree is that they are either uninformed or irrational. I find that a bit condescending, and I prefer 6E.

Re: Who is sticking to 4th or 5th Ed HERO

The advantages gained compared to what is lost and has to be homeruled is a more trouble than it is worth to me. period

There is certainly nothing wrong with that, or really any position.

I did go back and look at the new complication rules again - I never noticed, or maybe forgot that I noticed, how it was changed in 6E. Mathematically it's still the same but I think it's actually more confusing now than it was.

Instead of saying you receive X base points + up to Y points in complications, you now get up to X points but you have to have Y matching points in complications, and for every 1 CP by which you don't meet the matching complications amount reduces your total points by 1.

Mathematically it's the same, but I think it was simpler before.

Re: Who is sticking to 4th or 5th Ed HERO

The way complications work now is actually a bigger deal to me. I preferred the more open ended system where if you were willing to take more problems you got more abilities. Always evened out for me.

I think I may have missed something when I read the rules. I thought complications worked basically the same as disadvantages did. Have I missed something? I'll have to check the rules again when I get home.

Re: Character outlines from old character sheets

There's some good stuff here as well:

http://www.comicartfans.com/GalleryRoom.asp?GSub=1334