Eyes up here, soldier!

[Christopher]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Actually getting a +30 PRE result is very hard. We can asume super have at least 15 PRE themself, so 45 is needed. That requires 13d6 PRE attack including modifiers for a good chance to get there.

 

And this may fall under "Very Inapropirate Setting" and most other positive modifiers require active actions on part of the character(interaction roll), often violent ones. So unless the target is succeptible for such offers it might not even be enough for a +20.

 

If he has a fitting complication, then he could be so out of his mind he drops his defense (at least for a moment).

[brionl]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

I might have to do a write-up of Sexy Girl.

 

Don't forget her nemesis, Manly Man!

[Midas]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

I don't think such an ability would be able to drop DCV to zero, half seems a reasonable maximum reduction.

 

 

Actually, it would be rare, but possible. What was the Li'l Abner character's name "Stupefyin' Wilson" or some such? "Stupefying" is the approriate adjective here.

 

But now we're getting into Xanthian Panty Flash territory, which is more of a stun effect.

 

So let's go there. Zero end, Fully invisible NND, defense is the somewhat nebulous "immune to distraction." Limited: max stun is equal to target's CON. Short range, side effect (NCC 8-, so that it sometimes affects allies and bystanders). Make it say 4d6eb, so it will affect mooks, but a boss just shrugs it off (unless he has the lech complication).

[Lucius]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Actually, it would be rare, but possible. What was the Li'l Abner character's name "Stupefyin' Wilson" or some such? "Stupefying" is the approriate adjective here.

 

But now we're getting into Xanthian Panty Flash territory, which is more of a stun effect.

 

So let's go there. Zero end, Fully invisible NND, defense is the somewhat nebulous "immune to distraction." Limited: max stun is equal to target's CON. Short range, side effect (NCC 8-, so that it sometimes affects allies and bystanders). Make it say 4d6eb, so it will affect mooks, but a boss just shrugs it off (unless he has the lech complication).

 

Stunning Beauty - literally.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Just try it on a palindromedary, though

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Inspired by Derek's response in the 'Tow Cable/Harpoon from Star Wars' thread, I think this might be something better suited to being a reaction of the other character's Disads than an ability on the part of the attractive character. Someone with a Psych Lim like Womanizer or Lecherous would have to make an EGO check or suffer combat penalties (made worse if the attractive character were actually making an effort to be distracting, perhaps).

 

I recall a Swashbuckling Adventures game where the DM arbitrarily gave every male PC a penalty to attack rolls against a female villain just because of her provocative attire. Since my character had never once been lewd, lascivious, or lecherous in the last, oh, six levels of play, it kind of annoyed me that he would take such liberties with my character's personality.

[phoenix240]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

There's a character in one of our games with a similar "power" though its something she does allot more consciously. Its built as bonus Pre much like "Distracting Costume". The dice determine the effect but the player is free to determine the "color" of the reaction depending on their character's nature. It might be lecherous distraction or moral outrage or just a "What the-!?" reaction to being...flashed in the middle of a fight.

[Christopher]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

I recall a Swashbuckling Adventures game where the DM arbitrarily gave every male PC a penalty to attack rolls against a female villain just because of her provocative attire. Since my character had never once been lewd' date=' lascivious, or lecherous in the last, oh, six levels of play, it kind of annoyed me that he would take such liberties with my character's personality.[/quote']

Adding in a Disad is something different from being affected by a power. I can't really tell what is the chase in the scenario you describe.

 

If she had a power to drain/supress OCV or perhaps a change environment with that effect, Only vs Men then this is the way her power works (unless you character is established gay).

If she has no power, then this was indeed bad GMing.

[phoenix240]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Adding in a Disad is something different from being affected by a power. I can't really tell what is the chase in the scenario you describe.

 

If she had a power to drain/supress OCV or perhaps a change environment with that effect, Only vs Men then this is the way her power works (unless you character is established gay).

If she has no power, then this was indeed bad GMing.

 

Players tend to be more sensitive to their characters being manipulated by sexuality/attractiveness than other means, even fear, IME. That's one of the reasons I interpret the Pre power I posted earlier as I do.It results in less animosity. Though I basically agree with you. If, in Hero terms, the NPC has extra Pre defined as "frightening looks" PC wouldn't get to ignore it because they're players didn't think the NPC looked scary enough or their player had never acted frightened before.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Players tend to be more sensitive to their characters being manipulated by sexuality/attractiveness than other means' date=' even fear, IME. That's one of the reasons I interpret the Pre power I posted earlier as I do.It results in less animosity. Though I basically agree with you. If, in Hero terms, the NPC has extra Pre defined as "frightening looks" PC wouldn't get to ignore it because they're players didn't think the NPC looked scary enough or their player had never acted frightened before.[/quote']

 

On the other paw, this is where appropriate limitations on the power come into play. A completely asexual character (like, say, a robot or certain aliens) shouldn't so much as bat an eyelash (where applicable) at such.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Actually, it would be rare, but possible. What was the Li'l Abner character's name "Stupefyin' Wilson" or some such? "Stupefying" is the approriate adjective here.

 

But now we're getting into Xanthian Panty Flash territory, which is more of a stun effect.

 

So let's go there. Zero end, Fully invisible NND, defense is the somewhat nebulous "immune to distraction." Limited: max stun is equal to target's CON. Short range, side effect (NCC 8-, so that it sometimes affects allies and bystanders). Make it say 4d6eb, so it will affect mooks, but a boss just shrugs it off (unless he has the lech complication).

 

I think her last name was "Jones," at least in the movie...

[Enforcer84]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

Inspired by Derek's response in the 'Tow Cable/Harpoon from Star Wars' thread, I think this might be something better suited to being a reaction of the other character's Disads than an ability on the part of the attractive character. Someone with a Psych Lim like Womanizer or Lecherous would have to make an EGO check or suffer combat penalties (made worse if the attractive character were actually making an effort to be distracting, perhaps).

 

I recall a Swashbuckling Adventures game where the DM arbitrarily gave every male PC a penalty to attack rolls against a female villain just because of her provocative attire. Since my character had never once been lewd, lascivious, or lecherous in the last, oh, six levels of play, it kind of annoyed me that he would take such liberties with my character's personality.

 

I tend to disagree, unless your character purchased a defense for that. (perhaps not possible in the game, so my argument is only hero centric)...I'm not of the mind that PC's are immune to behavioral attacks.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

I tend to disagree' date=' unless your character purchased a defense for that. (perhaps not possible in the game, so my argument is only hero centric)...I'm not of the mind that PC's are immune to behavioral attacks.[/quote']

 

Defense is 'not being a womanizer, lech or similar'.

 

AFAIK, there was no mechanical way to generate what the DM did in the system in question (it wasn't HERO), he just decided 'guys are distracted by the boobs, deal'. As my character had been utterly asexual up to that point, it grated. Not that it mattered, I still kicked her ass, but still, it was somewhat grating.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

I'd just call this a 'casual PRE attack' vs. the opposite sex.

 

[Christopher]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

A completely asexual character (like' date=' say, a robot or certain aliens) shouldn't so much as bat an eyelash (where applicable) at such.[/quote']

That is something you would have to define on the sheet. Your concept is a emotionless robot, but normal heros are supposed to be subjected to fear, breath one very common atmosphere, be normally social (in the limits for their skills), having normal human interaction abilites ... and being seduceable by "one common gender".

You can make this with a Complication (emotionless Robot; Psych; Total), or with a Power (Champions 6E has "Emotionless, Mental Defense 40 Points, Only vs. Emotion based powers [-2]"); and maybe generally high Ego (to work against charm) and Presence (will you doubt that this monotonous talking robot will shoot you once he counted back to zero? Or will he be easily irritated by what you say?).

 

Back to the thematic:

Perhaps we should take a look what "Defensive Presence" you might have to deal with. From champions 6E (defenders and their enemys), I figure the following target values are out there:

15 - pretty much the minimum, only Kinetik has less. Or Armadillo outside of his Armor.

18 - Green Dragon; Well, Martial Artist.

20 - Defender, Irconclad, Tachyon - they all know how to work with a small crowd (Defender from being a C.E.O. and team leader, Ironcald from being a gladiator; Tachyon from being a teacher); Witchcraft is here too (not so sure why, she is depicted as the most reserved of all champions; perhaps that she is as pretty as talisman, but not willing to show or use it play a part here; or it the general certainity one needs when dealing with magic?)

25 - Saphire (she is a musician, so she needs that much to survive the "Casual PRE" of a full concert hall), Ogre (he is big, tough and knows it. You know it too. Or perhaps ignorance/a simple mind is a bliss here too?), Talisman (partially Self Centered, partially pretty and knows how to use it and partially dealing with "forces beyond mortal understanding").

[phoenix240]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

That is something you would have to define on the sheet. Your concept is a emotionless robot, but normal heros are supposed to be subjected to fear, breath one very common atmosphere, be normally social (in the limits for their skills), having normal human interaction abilites ... and being seduceable by "one common gender".

 

I think what Crosshair Collie is saying is that the character in question up until that point hadn't displayed any lecherous (or sexual) tendencies at all and the villainess didn't have any special abilities so the entire penalty was pure GM fiat.

 

That said, I'd be leery about someone using a Disadvantage to get sweeping immunity like "Can't be emotionally manipulated". Disadvantage/Complications should generally be more negatives for the character than benefits even if they offer a small bonus. For instance, Totally Blind would make the character "immune" to visual flashes and powers that require sight to work (like allot of common sfx for Comeliness and Striking Appearance) but they would still lose out of on so much (and have to purchase allot to compensate) that benefit is pretty small and situational.

 

Edit: Personally, I'm looking forward to whatever advanced social mechanics might be in the APG 2. That is one of Hero's weaker area, IMO.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Eyes up here, soldier!

 

The view is just fine down here, Commander!