Folkert

They missed Watchmen when it was first published. They missed the Great Darkness Saga, Legends, Millennium, and Invasion!. They missed the original Crisis on Infinite Earths. Assuming that they didn't start regularly reading comics until they were 5, they completely missed Superman's death and return, Batman's crippling, and Hal Jordan's turn to villainy/madness, as well as the War of the Gods, Panic in the Sky, Bloodlines, Worlds Collide (DC vs. Milestone Comics), Zero Hour, and Underworld Unleashed.

Over at Marvel, they missed the Mutant (Morlock) Massacre, Kraven's Last Hunt, the Armor Wars, Inferno, Atlantis Attack, and the Acts of Vengeance. Assuming again that they didn't start regularly reading comics until they were 5, they also missed the X-Tinction Agenda (when Genosha's anti-mutant government was finally overthrown), the Infinity Gauntlet (and War and Crusade), X-Cutioner's Song (Stryfe and the release of the Legacy Virus), Maximum Carnage, Fatal Attractions (where Wolvie had his adamantium torn out by Magneto, and we later learned he'd always had those claws), the Phalanx Covenant, the Clone Saga, and the Age of Apocalypse.

Emerald Twilight and the Clone Saga.

Ah, to be born in 1990.

;)

Sorry about butting in here, but are you sure about this, Dr. A?

[...] Comprehend 1 (understand several languages at once, but can only speak one at a time) costs two points, [...]

The most common interpretation I've seen used (in RL and on ATT) is that Comprehend 1 allows you only one of these two options, but not both. (Which, in turn, would drive the cost up to 4pp for two ranks or 16 languages.)

A decision has been made!

Owing to conflicting reports in Ultimate Power on certain Toughness Draining effects, the following rule on object Toughness is in effect for FC PbP: Any object reduced to a Toughness of -6 or less is effectively destroyed.

Many thanks for the answer!

Hadn't expected an answer so soon after the "back burner" status update, so I did not check here earlier. :)

[...] Can I get a rundown on how individual posts work, because I hadn't realized that was an option. [...]

I don't think there are any special rules - besides the usual "no snappy one-liners!".

Make that thread the "Neurologic Annual" (or the "Neurologic 0" if you prefer that): A look behind the scenes - the story we always wanted to tell but couldn't fit into the regular series - the man behind the mask (incl. special friends and enemies) ...

Just posting to say my character (Wesley Knight) is not willingly inactive. Waiting for my thread to continue in Southside, also trying to get into another thread. Sorry if this is off topic for this thread.

Why not start a personal thread for Wesley somewhere?

An out-of-continuity post every now and then in such thread can serve to further develop the character a bit and/or shed some light on his past while letting the judges know the PC is not inactive at the same time.

Any new developments?

Congratulations, Dr. A !

Who wants an easy start, anyway? ;)

I think UP has some suggestions as to that. Give me a moment to get my copy and look it up.

[Edit] UP (p86) suggests that the lack of olfactory senses is a -3 DB while no tactile senses is a -4 DB. It also notes that, as usual, the final worth depends on possible existence of other senses to compensate and the GM's judgement.

Mimic (all powers) is 4 points a rank.

Sorry, somehow had " (all traits) " in mind when I wrote that and didn't re-check. :(

Not a GM so I can't give any definite answers, but here's my opinion:

First, the device seems a bit off. Device 12 gives you 60pp: Comprehend (4pp) + Mimic (51pp) + Protection (12pp) = 67pp

Second, I think Quick Change should be okay.

Third, 12 ranks of Protection from the device combined with a -1 Toughness character go above the cap. With the maximum trade-off of +4/-4 here you could go with a Defense +2 / Toughness +10, but the PC would be at +11 Toughness.

Thanks, Dr. A!

That's exactly what I wanted to hear. (Well, not exactly, but you know what I mean. )

I think I'll let everything stay in the containers I assigned because, thematically, they make sense and it fits if, because of their interwoven nature, either all powers or none go.

Won't touch the first parts since I've said I'd stop here (though I'd still have a number of things to say regarding them).

So, are higher-ranked thing allows in a lower-ranked Container? Certainly.

This is all fine, Dr. A., but that wasn't really my concern. And neither is how exactly Morph will be regulated (via DB or Flaw *), but what effect being part of lower-ranked container has on a higher-ranked power regarding the standard trait effects.

* The basic issue stays the same either way:

Morph 6 [humanoids (+30 to disguise); PF: Precise; Flaw: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP] in a rank 1 container

or

Morph 2 [humanoids (+10 to disguise); PF: Precise; Drawback: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP] in a rank 1 container.

While at the same time the whole "Drawbacks as free bonus points because they never come into play" issue never came up.

Character Creation Guidelines, # 11 Players may not purchase more than 2 ranks of Improved Critical per Attack power (i.e. a max critical threshold of 18-20).

Makes one think there shouldn't have been a PC with more ranks of Improved Critical in play after that rule was established. Hmmm.

Now, I certainly don't demand perfection. How could I since I am so very far removed from that state myself? But things like this and some others make me keep my doubts.

But these are my misgivings, mine alone to bear and decide what to do with, and thus I suggest returning to the original issue at hand. :)

I see I wasn't clear enough.

You've never been in a game where a character, at start, seemed fine, but in the course of play showed to have some combination of things that made them a game breaker?

More than I care to admit (or remember). [in fact, I am known/despised (take your own pick) for wanting to continue fiddling with a PC till it fits my vision even after a game starting.]

My doubts regarding "being tested for balance" and the implied "the results of such tests being subsequently applied" concern this site.

RPGs are living and evolving things. Rules change as they're tested.

No doubt about that (and no objection at all), but there's got to be a certain standard (a ruleset of any version, if you will) to go by.

What if the player came back? Having an (old) flawed Morph and a (new) DBed Morph in game at the same time seems a bit strange, especially since I have my misgivings abouts this part:

[...] they're not being used and thus not being tested for balance.

And do remember that the rule's not being invalidated, I'm just expressing my disagreement with it. There is a difference.

Got me here. I was about to rephrase my post a bit to make it clearer what I tried to refer to, but saw that you had already replied.

(The whole matter is still not without its problems, though. Very unfortunately, but that's a different matter. )

Plus, I didn't approve either of those, so my "this is my opinion" still stands

Oh, absolutely, but since you didn't put that part in until after I took the quote this was nothing I could have adressed in my post.

Yeah, but neither of those characters are active, so it's probably not best to go by them (since they're not being used and thus not being tested for balance).

This I find way interesting. Both went successfully through the standard approval process here. In both cases the full-round Action flaw was not objected to and now these decisions are being invalidated just because the player didn't post anymore? :shock:

I'd be more concerned about whether requiring a full round action to morph is worth a -3 Flaw. I'd say it's more a Drawback, like on Super-Senses (so full round would be a -3pp Drawback).

Well, two of the more recent instances of Morph with a higher Action rate had it both approved as flaws, so that's what I went with. (Mongel Angel and Exile)

Another container question concerning the following:

Touch of Chaos [Container; 5 PP] (Origin: Bestowed) (Source: Chaos)

- Enhanced Feat 1 [Attractive 1; 1 PP]

- Feature 1 [Lady Luck (never loses at games of chance); 1 PP]

- Morph 6 [humanoids (+30 to disguise); PF: Precise; Flaw: Action –3 [Full-round Action]; 3 PP]

I've just been told that a build like above "shouldn't" be done as its only effect is to make the 6 ranks of Morph more easily nullified/drained since it is now part of Rank 1 container which can be nullified as a whole.

Is this correct?

Vaalus might be a "tad" occupied with RL matters. :)

Hush, Dr. A!

Congratulations, Vaalus and family!!!

My thinking was that the alternate powers essentially draw their power from the original dynamic power. If I didn't allocate points to the original blast power, then their is no power to be an alternate of.

So if I put all my points into Super-Strength and Flight, could I use one of the alternate blasts while still flying/ being super strong?

I am afraid the answer to that is 'no'.

You can't put (for example) dynamically 2pp into Blast and the remaining 18pp into Super Strenght/Flight and then AP a 20pp Alternate Power off that 2pp Blast.

To put it a bit simpler: Think of those standard (non-dynamic) AP as APs on the whole dynamic 'pool', meaning you can either use one of the alternate Blasts or distribute that 20pp pool between the dynamic powers standard Blast, Super Strength and Flight.

Hope this makes it a bit clearer! :)

Also if I allocate points into the base Blast power, I could use one of it's Alternate powers instead [...]

Shouldn't this be "Also if I [don't] allocate points into the base Blast power, I could use one of it's Alternate powers instead [...]"? (Since it is "either or" with ordinary Alternate Powers.)

And the total cost comes up to 27pp: 20 (Base Power) +1 (Base Power made dynamic) +2 (2 AP) +4 (2 Dynamic AP)

Can I put a Power Loss Drawback (-1) directly into a "Container" structure to bring the overall cost down to conform to the standard 5pp per 5pp?

Example: A "Racial Traits" container with powers that amount to 6pp, but one of which is subject to a Power Loss DB (-1). Would this be okay?

Thanks!

Knock-knock!

Anybody there? :P

I'll make the flaw "Probably Limited -1 (Mental search only)" then.

;)