Steve Long

I just answered that for you a day or two ago.

That’s up to the GM. There are plenty of game balance considerations involved, and I can think of lots of situations where most GMs would say, “Hell no.” But there are some, such as the one you describe, where a GM might be fine with it.

...aaaand done! The Hawaiian Mythology chapter of Mythic Hero is now complete. Clocking in at 28,000 words, it features five gods with character sheets, dozens of others without, a whole mess of heroes, several monsters, and a complete system of Hawaiian magic. Well, OK, to be fair, I have three or four more books I want to read -- but for some damn fool reason I didn't bring them out to the RV along with all the others. So I'll take care of that this summer after I'm back in the house. On to the next chapter: Canaanite Mythology! A somewhat broad and sometimes vague topic, but I think I can handle it. That oughtta be enough to hold me until I'm back in the house, but if not I have books on Incan and Inuit mythology out here too.

I don’t currently have access to all of my books and materials, which have been packed up as part of my home renovation project, so I reserve the right to edit or change this answer at a future time. The character pays all the END he wants to devote to the power when he prepares it. When the power is activated, it “runs off of” that “pool” of END until the pool is depleted, at which point the Constant power stops working. Obviously the potential for serious game imbalance exists here, so the GM should monitor the situation carefully and forbid (or change) any uses of Delayed Effect that seem problematic to him.

See 6E1 270.

1. Typically a Hole In The Middle “uses up” part of the power it affects — in this case, the first DC of the Explosion. It does not “extend” the power further than what’s been bought. However, the GM is certainly free to alter this if he feels doing so won’t harm game balance. 2. My initial impression is that I may have miscalculated by adding that first 2m in the second paragraph you cite. However, before I say so definitively, I want to review my notes from way back then, and they’re all packed away in storage until my home remodeling project is finished. So I’ll revisit this in a few months when normal living conditions have been restored.

If a character has a normal height of 1 inch, then first you build the character with all the abilities you'd expect for that size -- which includes selling back abilities to represent loss of capability, or simulating them with Physical Complications. Then, to represent the character "Growing" to normal size, you buy whatever abilities you need to "counteract" what you lose or gain from "Shrinking," making sure to apply Costs Endurance if appropriate. For example, you might buy Change Environment (+12 to PER Rolls to see character), Side Effect (-12 DCV). You may need to work with the GM, especially when it comes to "turning off" Physical Complications, but it shouldn't be too hard to work out. That's how I'd do it, anyway. Reasonable minds may differ.

In the case of this build, and also with things like "Laser Cutting Torch," a 1 point RKA with Penetrating is guaranteed to do 1 point of damage -- unless, of course, the target has Resistant defense that's Impenetrable.

Yes, he can -- unless, of course, the GM says no.

Ah, I see. Let me try this again, less succinctly. The rules for Duplication state, “Duplicates do not have the Power Duplication themselves, nor any ability to create other Duplicates, unless they pay for it separately.” So the answer is no. However, there’s no reason a GM couldn’t come up with an Advantage to allow this, and I’ll certainly consider including an optional Advantage for it in the slooooowly progressing APG3.

No, I would not.

1. Yes, that's just a Limited Power Limitation that you'd apply, with a value set by the GM based on how common that special effect is in the campaign. You might look at the Defense Power Limitation Only Works Against [Limited Type Of Attack] for guidelines for the value. 2. The easiest way would be to buy Armor Piercing as a naked Advantage with a Limitation that it doesn't work against defenses of that special effect. That way you'd get the AP for the full value of the attack against other defense special effects.

Since this is a "how to" rather than a rules question, I've moved it to the Discussion board where anyone can answer.

I can't comment on Champions Complete; I didn't write it and don't currently have a copy available. In the 6E rules, the ability to switch between two Skill Rolls for a Required Roll is something the GM can allow. The unspoken assumption is, of course, that these two rolls will be fairly different. Logic, common sense, and dramatic sense all tell us that choosing two rolls based on the same Characteristic would generally be pointless -- the character would be getting 1/4 less Limitation for no real benefit. The example provided in the core rulebook, of a choice between Acrobatics and Danger Sense, is the sort of thing this modifier is intended for. The GM can certainly allow the choice you describe if he wants to, of course, but it seems pretty counterintuitive to me. This might make a good topic for general conversation on the Discussion board -- I suggest posting it there, if you haven't already.

Since this is a "how to" rather than a rules question, I've moved it to the Discussion board where anyone can reply.

A. Yes, using those two Mental Powers would qualify as a Combined Attack. (The GM might choose not to allow it in his campaign, of course.) B. For this situation, adapt the rules for Multiple Attacks in the bottom left corner of 6E2 76. So yes, you'd make one Attack Roll against the target's DCV, not against the DCV 3 of an Area.

No. As noted in the CE rules, "If applicable, the combat effect includes forcing an affected character to make at least one Characteristic, Skill, or PER Roll." That's just not always applicable, as in a couple of the examples you cite.

That's entirely up to the GM. Some GMs might see that as a cheesy attempt to scrounge points, some might see it as legitimate, and others might suggest a different way of modeling that altogether. If you haven't already, I suggest posting this as a topic on the "Discussion" board. I'm sure you'll get lots of useful input and ideas.

I don’t currently have access to all of my books and materials, which have been packed up as part of my home renovation project, so I reserve the right to edit or change this answer at a future time. Standard HERO System rounding rules apply when the effects of an Adjustment Power are halved because they’re applied to a defensive ability. So, Healing BODY with an effect roll of 5 halves to 3; Simplified Healing of 15 STUN, 3 BODY halves to 8 STUN, 2 BODY.

1. It's entirely up to the GM what characters are "legal" for his campaign. Though I (and I think most GMs) would say, "If you want to play an AI, it's an AI so sophisticated you build it using the normal character creation rules; you can't use the Equipment rules for creating AI Computers." 2-3. Again, what's "legal" in this case is up to the GM. There are certainly Powers and other elements in the HERO System that let you build such abilities. But whether the GM will let you use 'em is another thing altogether.

I'm leaving that entirely to the GM. However, I will point out that as a matter of rules logic, I don't think your answer A can be correct; the damage from a Susceptibility comes from the Susceptibility, not some form of Limited attack that other characters buy. Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time imagining that I would charge characters points for something as utterly common as a squirt gun or bottle of water. The fact that in this case the water has a negative effect against one character (based on that character's choice) doesn't somehow "weaponize" water, requiring everyone to now pay Character Points every time they grab a bottle of Dasani at the local convenience store.

Typically "Dispel Summon" -- a Dispel built to work against a specific Power, Summon -- is sufficient. But this is definitely a case where you should check with your GM. In a game with lots of conjuring of demons and elementals and whatnot, the GM might want the banishment spells to be more precisely defined.

First, let me state that I am very sick right now, so my brain may not be working correctly, and therefore I reserve the right to edit this answer on that basis, along with the "most of my books are currently packed away" reservation I typically make these days. In the case of Simplified Healing, the maximum that a character can roll on the dice is 6 STUN per die and 2 BODY per die. Given that both Characteristics are subject to the “halving” rule for “defensive Characteristics,” that amount gets cut in half after the roll, of course. So in the case of Simplified Healing 4d6, the maximum is 24 STUN, 8 BODY. When applied to a character, that would result in 24 STUN, 4 BODY being Healed. If that doesn't fully answer your question, please PM me or post a follow-up. I'm crawlin' back into bed.

As promised, I have just updated the first post in this file to include an updated 6E1-2 errata listing through today.

I'm sorry, but I don't answer game design/philosophy questions.