torchwolf

Re: 6th Ed Hardcopies sighted, ahoy! Repped for nailing it (it had, in fact, nothing to do with neither Cher, battleships, nor the Philadelphia Experiment). Isn't it amazing what very important issues can generate serious and analytical debate in this particular genre?

Re: Blocking or Deflection Allowing Block vs ranged attacks also helps by somewhat sidestepping the "Block as SFX" argument - apparently GMs disagree if a Block is a literal blocking attempt or just a game mechanics element - leaving the aspects more consistently up to the GM. Block vs Deflection: it is probably advantageous to use Deflection against, say, an explosive arrow, but that would now also be up to the GM, if the Block is _described_ as deflecting that arrow rather than just stopping it short somehow (using a shield to stop it dead-on). Generally, there are bound to occur several such situations where Deflection provides better options.

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

Re: 6th Ed Hardcopies sighted, ahoy! I'd go with the Acme Super Electro-Magnet, since reversing the rotation of the earth causes time to run backwards, which would just extend the wait before the books arrive. *wonder if anyone remembers where that came from*

Re: 6E Mess With all due respect for everyone who has commented, it is a game system we are discussing, so the heat that comes from frustration in communication lapses here might be refocused on the issue at hand, namely 6th Edition. Now, I am not sure if I'm correct or not, but it seems to me that we may not be discussing the same thing. Balabanto, you bring up the issue of agents in this discussion of AP, and that you have had campaign caps and lots of House Rules for quite a while. I suspect there is what this discussion comes from. Normally, agents are mowed down pretty quickly, but you want them to keep going for awhile, and you also stated that your average DEF was 20-25 (pretty low). Hero System has been presented as a toolkit to build your own game on. I think you have probably done just that; i.e. built your own system, by modifying the Hero System basic building blocks so extensively that now 6E altered the shape and sizes of those building blocks, they do no longer fit into your modified system without adapters. I can certainly see that the value of Advantages or new mechanics - particularly those that affect defenses and damage suffered - would alter a balance you have constructed to allow, say, agents and supers, to be much closer to each other in effectiveness, and it would probably also be extremely difficult to allow a character with much stronger powers into such a precariously balanced environment. If it works that way, it is an impressive feat. If these assumptions of mine are correct, it will be impossible to judge the effects of the changes in the 6E rules on your campaign, even more so any ancillary effects and secondary impacts on other rules that exist in your campaign. If so, I take it that you meant that you don't want to lose control of the special balance that you have built for your campaign, when you stated that you "don't like to lose". Certainly - you've spent probably enormous amounts of time and energy doing it and it seems to work reliably for you, but strictly speaking it has evolved from your Hero System building blocks, into what is now essentially your own game system, based on Hero. From 5ER through 6E, the Hero System has also evolved, but not likely in the exact same direction. Ergo, we have two game systems descended from the same family tree, only we discuss different systems. If this discussion is to be meaningful, or at least fruitful, it is necessary for others to be informed of the variables known only to you and your gaming group, Balabanto. It is probably as futile to repeatedly state excerpts from 6E, at least until the "which game system?" question is resolved. That said, I may just be completely wrong about all this, and if noone feels that it's useful, please disregard.

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e) That's a different aspect of DN to explore. I, for one, am quite enthusiastic about having a new kind of defensive Power option available.

Re: 6E Mess

Re: 6E Mess It can, however, be interpreted to mean that you would change back (if Knocked Out etc.), unless the Powers that are bought OIAID are also bought as Persistent. That may be up to the GM if he preferred it to be otherwise. If so, it should probably be reduced to a -0 Limitation, but it could also be a House Rule. You choice, really. I think it may be a matter of your strategy. Things are probably more open to abuse from 4th, through 5th, through 6th edition, but constructing many house rules may compound your problem. Steve Long has quite a knack for taking some effort to state things carefully worded, to leave as little room as possible for ambiguity. OTOH, that makes House Rules more likely to clash with the rules. I can see what you mean in some respect, though I looked through my own old House Rules which were written mostly to expand on vague issues; 5ER covered most of those cases, and with 6E there is less than 10% of those House Rules that I really need for any reasonable purpose (an expanded Aura Color Chart complementing UM/PH, and such stuff), and with the APG my amount of House Rules will be reduced even further. I'd suggest you inverse the process, revising your House Rules based on 6E instead of the other way around, if that is indeed how you are going about it. Take notes of the possible abuses Steve Long already identified and make that the basis for your House Rules analysis. From what I've found so far in the 6E rules, I have located some details that I wondered about, but 6E is so well cross-referenced that the solutions to possible problems are mostly covered. Only thing so far is that Mental Damage Negation, Only vs STUN, should probably be reduced to -0. Still, in a campaign with lots of AVAD attacks might motivate a higher Limitation, so there is still nothing fundamentally wrong there. As far as your examples, you seem to be bypassing your Active Point Cap of 70. That would be an Armor Piercing Blast of max 11d6; a Narrow Cone AP Blast max of 9d6? Also, in that case the average defenses could probably be beefed up to 30 or even 35 unless you want really quick fights. If I've misunderstood your issue, please accept my apologies and disregard this post.

Re: Seemingly Silly Things to Model

Re: Ants in your pants [FRED] I'd say maybe the villain himself causes an EGO Drain.

Re: 5e Body of Obsidian So that's what happened! Does that mean the reverse happens if you have Body of Sapphire? Or is that a Quantum leap of reason? (to be continued in Secret Origins of the CU...)

Re: 6th Ed Hardcopies sighted, ahoy! It is always the right time to join. You can look a bit for yourself - I think the sample pages are still accessible:

Re: 6th Ed Hardcopies sighted, ahoy! login > member cp > downloads doesn't work?

Re: Blocking or Deflection Uh. I just had a vision of CheshireDare CatDevil.

Re: 6th Ed Hardcopies sighted, ahoy! Yoohoo! *wild with anticipation* The more I read and reread the pdfs, the more impressed I am, and the more eager I am to get the dead-tree versions... I'll have to order another set, because I'll wear them out. Again, I have to say 6E is the best, tightest, most brilliant, yet. Really.

Re: Blocking or Deflection Either the Breakable/Unbreakable Focus issue - or - GM call. It depends on how the Focus is defined, but as RPMiller said, there is nothing said about the billy club. If he could just use Deflection with any club, it should maybe be an OIF (Club of Opportunity). You have a point there, though that would involve a slight redefinition. I would use House Rule that in such cases I would roll Knockback if the Block is successful, in the interest of verisimilitude (such as it is in the genre). In case of something less powerful than Destroyer's attack, such a Block could be described as having resulted in a glancing blow that only just deflected the attack (and possibly cracked the manhole cover if Joe Q Normal didn't pay points for a Special Manhole Cover). Since Cheshire is a super, and paid for his Billy Club, he should probably get the benefit of the doubt - YMMV.

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages The idea of lesser levels from UM 4e fits nicely with this. The idea was to allow the target to take Mind Control more literally; adjust current thoughts for Telepathy; get more DMCV/EMCV vs Mind Scan-based attacks; etc. How about this: per each level you need that is higher than you roll, the target gets the option to alter the effects slightly. Desired Effect: Target May (with successful EGO Roll): -1 Level influence results in a minor, roundabout way ("forgetting" to remove safety before shooting the first shot when Mind Controlled; attempt to alter a surface thought) OR get +2 to Breakout Roll (target's choice) -2 Levels influence results in a moderate way (using -1 modifier for attack when Mind Controlled; attempt to alter a deep thought) OR get +4 to Breakout Roll (target's choice) -3 Levels influence results in a major way (using -3 modifier for attack when Mind Controlled; attempt to alter a memory) OR get +6 to Breakout Roll (target's choice) You could use the Skilled or a similar Advantage for this ability, or allow the option for free; it doesn't really affect your capability that much, and it gives the target a chance to fight back. A compromise.

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e) Also, the uses of for instance Armor Piercing and Penetrating hitting the Damage Negation and then applying to other defenses (and god forbid, a stacked Damage Reduction! ) would complicate most other solutions than asking the players to leave their roll in GMs view - if you want to calculate the results secretly.

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages I'm having a look at 4th Edition Ultimate Mentalist, also by Steve Long. Some of that stuff never made it to the 5th Edition version. There are some optional Mental Maneuvers that allows you to achieve an effect even if the required result level isn't rolled. Coercion (incremental Mind Control), Mind Probe (Telepathy), Mind Search (Mind Scan) - nothing corresponding to a "partial" Mental Illusion, however that would work. They all allow a target to partially resist, with a lesser effect of the Mental Power required, and 3 extra levels of effect: -1 to -10 -11 to -20 -21 to -30 Below that, no effects. Is this something along the lines you were thinking?

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e) What do you mean, you want to use math in the Hero System? How would anyone on these boards ever think that?

Re: Thoughts on Damage Negation (6e)

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages Understood. Suggestions so far seem very useful to me.

Re: Proposal for new mental power advantages Option for No time bonuses (+1/2 per level down Time Chart): Postponed Breakout Roll?

Re: Making a master Table Booklet There is also the issue of trademarks, which would definitely apply to at least those items which carry the name of the game or the system. Steve Long has commented on the issue of the extent of the distribution, as far as the "harm of sales" goes. If you want a definitive answer you might want to describe exactly what you want to do and for whom; if your players already have the books and you just make them a service by compiling tables they already have, it's a whole other issue than if they get the Table Booklet so they won't have to buy the books. Only Steve Long or possibly someone else on DOJ can give you a definite answer, and only if you describe your intent and the circumstances, so you might want to put this under Company Questions. Generally, DOJ seem quite friendly and agreeable if you want to do something reasonable, but of course they also want to avoid pirated material floating around the Internet.

Re: Seeing in the dark The drawback for having an active sense is that it is detectable by a passive sense; you become an emitter of light. You could always have both an active and a passive version of the same sense - for an additional, active Normal Sight that would then cost either 25 pts (5ER) or 35 pts (6E). It is not specifically stated if you can use a sense passively as well if you buy Transmit, but you probably could do that instead if possible, since it would just cost 2 pts (5ER and 6E) for just 1 Sight sense, or 5 for all Sight senses. Yes you would, unless it is ruled possible to buy Transmit for Sight and switch between active and passive. The rationale for that could be some bioluminiscent or flourescent layer, much like a cat's eyes glow in the dark only actually transmitting light enough to see by, only active when light conditions trigger it.