Week Ending January 24, 1998
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sti@pop3.hip.cam.org>
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@CAM.ORG>
Organization: Stirling Westrup Consulting
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:28:14 +0000
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
So Sayeth qts <qts@nildram.co.uk&>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:03:10 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> >So Sayeth qts <qts@nildram.co.uk&>
> >
> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:19:52 -0500, Joe Claffey Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >If you are talking fantasy literature, you are entirely correct. This thread
> >started as a discussion of the problems I was having translating the AD&D
> >treasure tables to Hero System, with emphasis on the difficulties of potions of
> >polymorph.
>
> True, but I was making the point that the AD&D effect was not true to
> the source.
Granted, but I am more interested in solving the build problem than in trying
to excuse it away.
> >> Try Summon, and make an Ego Roll to avoid going wild.
> >This is a novel use of Summon, but it does have real problems. You have to
> >summon something with a given form,
>
> You can use the +2 Advantage 'Summon Anything' here.
>
> >but with all of your knowledge and skills,
> >and then *YOU* have to vanish. What is the limitation *I cease to exist while
> >power is in effect* worth? Sounds like about a -5 or so to me...
>
> If you go this route, then I'd say it's a zero limitation, as the
> advantages equal the disadvantages (who'd suspect that cat of being the
> Dread Lord Ged?). I have to say that I'm not sure of this mechanism and
> have not had cause to use it, as I normally play truer to type.
> Hopefully the 5th Edition will work out this kink.
>
Hopefully by banning the use. After some thought, I've decided that I would,
as a GM, totally disallow it. The same use of the power, as far as I can
see allows me, with a 60 active point ability, to summon a 300 point version of
myself, who can afford to have a 75 point summon to get a bigger version of
himself... Sure many campaigns have active point limitations on abilities, but
not all.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sti@pop3.hip.cam.org>
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@CAM.ORG>
Organization: Stirling Westrup Consulting
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:28:16 +0000
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
> On Friday, January 16, 1998 10:42 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> Simple.
>
> Some things can be readily done in the real world. Some cannot. If
> something cannot be readily done in the real world, then it needs an
> SFX that allows it-- magic, super science, etc. If this SFX isn't as
> readily available as normal technology is in, say, the US, then it
> cannot be built by pure skill-- it requires that you create it with a
> Power.
This clashes with my basic philosophy of GMing. In a world with magic, creating
a wand is no more and no less strange than hammering molten metal into a sword.
They need to be covered by the SAME build rules. Better yet, I know of fantasy
worlds (the DarkSword trilogy comes to mind) where there are wand shops on
every corner and swordsmithery is an arcane and forbidden skill.
What on earth does it matter whether or not OUR world has magic?
And I should point out that there is no reason in OUR world, why a techie
couldn't build bazookas, so the argument falls flat right there. Shoulder
mounted missile weapons are hardly super-science.
> Allowed methods in a campaign are up to the GM.
And hard working GMs would appreciate a rules system so that they don't have to
keep making arbitrary rulings. Note I am not advocating a hard and fast rule
that says 'wands take 1 week per 5 active points to make', but a rules
system that models the process of how any technology (be it magic,
psionics, our tech, mideval tech) creates useful tools in such a way that the
GM plugs some values in when he creates his game world, and a set of guidelines
fall out.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:19:16 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 16, 1998 1:06 PM, qts wrote:
>On 13 Jan 98 20:18:04 -0800, Opal wrote:
>
<snip>
>>Let's see:
>>
>>40 Multipowr
>> 4 u 20" Flight
>>14 u 20/20 Force field, 1/2 END
>>24 u 12d EB
>>--
>>82
>
>This should cost a max of 52 = 40 + (3x(40/10))
>
Look again.
40 Multipower
4 u 20" Flight (40 active Points)
14 u 20/20 Force Field, 1/2 END (50 Active Points)
24 u 12d6 EB (60 Active Points)
--
82 Total Points
This is basically a shorthand way of writing this:
40 Multipower
4 u 20" Flight (40 Active Points)
4 u 16/16 Force Field, 1/2 END (40 Active Points)
4 u 8d6 EB (40 Active Points)
10 u +4/4 Force Field, 1/2 END (10 Active Points)
20 u +4d6 ED (20 Active Points)
--
82 Total Points
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 23:26:57 -0500
From: Basil Varian <BVarian@bellatlantic.net>
Organization: Home
Subject: Looking for New Power Mechanics
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
How would you work a Power which allows a character to feed on strong
negative emotions and grow stronger through it, like an emotional
vampire. Hatred and Fear feed it and make it physically stronger.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:16:18 -0500 (EST)
From: ALONE AT MIDNIGHT <RAVANOS@jcs1.jcstate.edu>
Subject: It's time!
X-VMS-To: IN%"champ-l@omg.org"
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I'm running a high fantasy game very soon, but I've stumbled into a
few problems.
One of my characters is a pseudo-vampire who can change into a bat,
a wolf, and a mist form. He has invested in a 60 pt multipower pool with
ultra slots.
Another one of my characters is a fae-elf. He wants a pseudo-drgaon
familiar (of D&D fame). I said he could have it (sand the magic resistance).
If anyone out there would like to take a stab at statistics for the
bat, wolf, and mist forms as well as a pseudo-dragon, please E-mail me.
Thank You,
Jason Sullivan
P.S. I just picked up 3 Champions books for a dollar a piece! Wow!
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: nolan@pop.erols.com
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:18:12 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@pop.erols.com>
Subject: Re: It's time!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:16 AM 1/18/98 -0500, ALONE AT MIDNIGHT wrote:
> I'm running a high fantasy game very soon, but I've stumbled into a
>few problems.
>
> One of my characters is a pseudo-vampire who can change into a bat,
>a wolf, and a mist form. He has invested in a 60 pt multipower pool with
>ultra slots.
> Another one of my characters is a fae-elf. He wants a pseudo-drgaon
>familiar (of D&D fame). I said he could have it (sand the magic resistance).
>
> If anyone out there would like to take a stab at statistics for the
>bat, wolf, and mist forms as well as a pseudo-dragon, please E-mail me.
Check out the Hero Bestiary. As the commercial says "It's in there."
Scott
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 02:32:43 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 17, 1998 11:49 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
> On Friday, January 16, 1998 10:42 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> Simple.
>
> Some things can be readily done in the real world. Some cannot. If
> something cannot be readily done in the real world, then it needs an
> SFX that allows it-- magic, super science, etc. If this SFX isn't as
> readily available as normal technology is in, say, the US, then it
> cannot be built by pure skill-- it requires that you create it with
a
> Power.
Further in this note, I realize that I was not understood. To clarify,
where it says, "If this SFX isn't as readily available as normal
technology is in, say, the US, then it cannot be built by pure
skill...", read it to say, "If this SFX isn't as readily available _in
the campaign world_ as normal technology is in, say, the US, then it
cannot be built by pure skill..."
<<This clashes with my basic philosophy of GMing. In a world with
magic, creating
a wand is no more and no less strange than hammering molten metal into
a sword.
They need to be covered by the SAME build rules. Better yet, I know of
fantasy
worlds (the DarkSword trilogy comes to mind) where there are wand
shops on
every corner and swordsmithery is an arcane and forbidden skill.
What on earth does it matter whether or not OUR world has magic?>>
You misunderstood. In that campaing, magic wand creation _is_ as
available as normal technology in the US, therefore it would be a
skill roll to create potions, as they would be "standard equipment",
thereby requiring no points to have.
<<And I should point out that there is no reason in OUR world, why a
techie
couldn't build bazookas, so the argument falls flat right there.
Shoulder
mounted missile weapons are hardly super-science.>>
As I pointed out above, you misunderstood my point.
> Allowed methods in a campaign are up to the GM.
<<And hard working GMs would appreciate a rules system so that they
don't have to
keep making arbitrary rulings. Note I am not advocating a hard and
fast rule
that says 'wands take 1 week per 5 active points to make', but a rules
system that models the process of how any technology (be it magic,
psionics, our tech, mideval tech) creates useful tools in such a way
that the
GM plugs some values in when he creates his game world, and a set of
guidelines
fall out.>>
My corrected post above give this. If it is readily available in the
campaign world, like modern tech is in the US, then it is created with
a skill roll. It requires no points, because it is "standard
equipment". If it is _not_ readily available in the campaign world,
then it requires points, and you need a power to make it.
This is based upon a judgment you, as a GM, have already made. If a
player can have an item X for free for his character, rather than pay
points for it, then item X can be made with skill. Otherwise, it
requires a power.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 98 10:53:50
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:01:37 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>So Sayeth qts <qts@nildram.co.uk&>
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 02:01:35 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>>
>> >So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
>> >
>> >
>> >I like this, in general, but it needs a proper set of rules. For instance, how
>> >do you model a Fletcher? He makes charges for bows. Are they independant? How
>> >about a swordsmith. What's a sword cost in real points? 6 or 8? Why does it
>> >take more/less time to make a 6-point sword than to make a 6-point potion?
>>
>> These aren't magic items
>
>So what? In Heroic campaigns what in one genre is a mage PC creating wands for
>the whole party is, in a different genre, a Techie creating bazookas for the
>whole party... Different SFX, exact same rules problem.
Ah right, I think I misunderstood you. In that case, the answer is very
different: make it up! You're the GM.
>> >Its tricky though, so I don't expect to be happy with the rules I'm working
>> >on for a while yet. For example, can a swordsmith make a 6d6K sword?
>>
>> Sure, for a giant. For a human, he'd need to enchant it or use
>> enchanted ore, or be favoured by the gods.
>
>Why? I am looking for a rule system here, not a bunch of random
>jurisprudence... IE, show me some mechanics other than "GM says". As has been
>pointed out MANY times on this list, if thats all you need, then you don't need
>Hero Sys rules at all.
If you want a sword to do 6d6K, it's your game. The Rules are there as
a base upon which you can build, not a limit within which to stay.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 98 10:56:11
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:28:14 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>So Sayeth qts <qts@nildram.co.uk&>
>
>> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:03:10 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>>
>> >So Sayeth qts <qts@nildram.co.uk&>
>> >
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jan 1998 21:19:52 -0500, Joe Claffey Jr. wrote:
>> >>
>> >If you are talking fantasy literature, you are entirely correct. This thread
>> >started as a discussion of the problems I was having translating the AD&D
>> >treasure tables to Hero System, with emphasis on the difficulties of potions of
>> >polymorph.
>>
>> True, but I was making the point that the AD&D effect was not true to
>> the source.
>
>Granted, but I am more interested in solving the build problem than in trying
>to excuse it away.
Agreed. If you do find a good solution, let us know.
>> >> Try Summon, and make an Ego Roll to avoid going wild.
>
>> >This is a novel use of Summon, but it does have real problems. You have to
>> >summon something with a given form,
>>
>> You can use the +2 Advantage 'Summon Anything' here.
>>
>> >but with all of your knowledge and skills,
>> >and then *YOU* have to vanish. What is the limitation *I cease to exist while
>> >power is in effect* worth? Sounds like about a -5 or so to me...
>>
>> If you go this route, then I'd say it's a zero limitation, as the
>> advantages equal the disadvantages (who'd suspect that cat of being the
>> Dread Lord Ged?). I have to say that I'm not sure of this mechanism and
>> have not had cause to use it, as I normally play truer to type.
>> Hopefully the 5th Edition will work out this kink.
>>
>
>Hopefully by banning the use. After some thought, I've decided that I would,
>as a GM, totally disallow it. The same use of the power, as far as I can
>see allows me, with a 60 active point ability, to summon a 300 point version of
>myself, who can afford to have a 75 point summon to get a bigger version of
>himself... Sure many campaigns have active point limitations on abilities, but
>not all.
That I can understand.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 98 11:00:36
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:19:16 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>On Friday, January 16, 1998 1:06 PM, qts wrote:
>
>>On 13 Jan 98 20:18:04 -0800, Opal wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>>Let's see:
>>>
>>>40 Multipowr
>>> 4 u 20" Flight
>>>14 u 20/20 Force field, 1/2 END
>>>24 u 12d EB
>>>--
>>>82
>>
>>This should cost a max of 52 = 40 + (3x(40/10))
>>
>
>
>Look again.
>
>40 Multipower
>4 u 20" Flight (40 active Points)
>14 u 20/20 Force Field, 1/2 END (50 Active Points)
>24 u 12d6 EB (60 Active Points)
>--
>82 Total Points
>
>This is basically a shorthand way of writing this:
>
>40 Multipower
>4 u 20" Flight (40 Active Points)
>4 u 16/16 Force Field, 1/2 END (40 Active Points)
>4 u 8d6 EB (40 Active Points)
>
>10 u +4/4 Force Field, 1/2 END (10 Active Points)
>20 u +4d6 ED (20 Active Points)
>--
>82 Total Points
It looks like my earlier message got lost in NetSpace. (Opal: this is
why I prefer to send to both list and author).
As far as I'm aware, you cannot have part of a power inside a
multipower. A power outside a MP may be L**k*d to one inside (but not
vice versa) HSR 114-115.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 10:20:28 -0500 (EST)
From: ALONE AT MIDNIGHT <RAVANOS@jcs1.jcstate.edu>
Subject: Re: It's time!
X-VMS-To: IN%"champ-l@omg.org"
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> If anyone out there would like to take a stab at statistics for the
>>bat, wolf, and mist forms as well as a pseudo-dragon, please E-mail me.
>Check out the Hero Bestiary. As the commercial says "It's in there."
>Scott
Unfortunately, every single gaming store I've visited does not
carry HERO games. They deny it's very existance.
I did manage to find a comic book store that had three yellowed but
basically all right Champions modules tucked away in a milk crate.
Due to my lack of experience with the HERO system, and my limited
knowledge of how to gauge animal stats, and no form of reference (other
than the three animals in Champs), I am practically clueless as to where to
begin.
Sure... A wolf has fangs w/ reduced penetration, a bat restrainable
flight and echo location, and a mist form Desolidification with disadvantages,
but I still don't know what their stats should be.
Thus, I throw myself on the mercy of my more experienced player
fellows. I am clueless, and I really want my first champions game to work...
(I figure I can get by making most of the 'fantastic' creatures...
No one can gripe about the Gibber-Fetches! :) )
Growing more desperate,
Ravanos aka Jason
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 07:36:17 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for New Power Mechanics
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:26 PM 1/17/98 -0500, Basil Varian wrote:
>How would you work a Power which allows a character to feed on strong
>negative emotions and grow stronger through it, like an emotional
>vampire. Hatred and Fear feed it and make it physically stronger.
I'd just call that an Aid with a high maximum, and a Limitation
(probably -1/2) that it only works near people experiencing fear and
hatred, and is proportional to the amount of emotion being experienced.
Possibly, that could also be paid for with a Dependence on said emotions.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 18 Jan 1998 15:22:57 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "RH" == Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au> writes:
RH> But we are not talking about a normal person!!!
We are arguing over skill levels that a normal person can by, the same
basic skill levels that a speedster can buy. What we are arguing about is
allowing that speedster to get something out of his skill levels that a
normal person does not, the SAME basic skill levels that the normal person
buys.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMJkn56VRH7BJMxHAQHuFgQAymltxcjd5taysZLI/j8PaAGNprph9KBb
jLwyhxbYXjFxQNunMmQG5nHLCkewNOnBXB+zrl/f7dM5GaqVedhpNvZiYlalcIKY
yIMHtweaHPoI6Gq6mldp2gKkQlqpe+b8vaFM12hkv+EUMSXqrWh5BpHrLskMkGb7
OCts7PJBIyk=
=YSkB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Dropped messages
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 12:39:24 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Has anyone been sending messages to me, either directly or carbon
copied, lately? My email software sorts messages to me from the list
into its own folder, and lately it has been filled with messages
where, at most, a single word survives, no recipient is listed, and
sometimes even the sender is deleted.
Since some messages sent directly to me have survived, I suspect these
are messages carbon copied to me.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 18 Jan 98 13:46:02 -0800
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 01-15-98 qts@nildram.co.uk wrote to All...
q > On 14 Jan 98 23:34:04 -0800, Opal wrote:
q >
q > >Same goes for F/X, if Ice Knight has all ice-based powers, he's
q > >virtually helpless against the nefarious Defroster, while Equinox
q > >with both Fire- and Ice- based powers can torch Defroster like
q > >a Christmas tree in july. Ice Knight saves more points putting
q > >everything he has in an EC, while Equinox has his powers split
q > >up into an Ice-based Framework, and a Fire-based Framework, and
q > >doesn't save as many.
q >
q > Actually, Equinox has one Framework, but VSFX (+1/4) on his powers.
q > This is very near the example given on p 99 of HSR
q > qts
q > ---
No 'actually', but yes that is also a valid construct, and likewise,
gives up some points for the extra flexibility.
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 18 Jan 98 13:50:04 -0800
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
q > From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
q > > q > >
q > > q > >40 Multipowr
q > > q > > 4 u 20" Flight
q > > q > >14 u 20/20 Force field, 1/2 END
q > > q > >24 u 12d EB
q > > q > >--
q > > q > >82
q > > q >
q > > q > This should cost a max of 52 = 40 + (3x(40/10))
q > > q > qts
q > >
q > >Actually, it would be 74 - there's a 40, 50, & 60 pt slot each,
q > >not 3 40pt slots. But, though clearly ineficient, it is a legal
q > >construct....thus meeting tbarrie's challenge.
q >
q > Where does it say that the points in a multipower power can exceed the
q > points in the multipower itself? One of the drawbacks of a MP is that
q > it limits the total AP of the effects within the MP.
q >
Right there under 'multipower,' I'm pretty sure. The extra points are
effectively not in the mulitpower. This is similar to linking a power
to a slot.
q > Note the example on p114 of the HSR - when the player wishes to
q > increase the power of an effect by 2AP, he has to increase the size of
q > the MP by 2 pts.
q > qts
In that case the cost would likely be identical - increasing the slot
2 pts would cost 2 pts, and because of rounding, increasing the reserve
would also cost only 2pts...
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:37:10 EST
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 98-01-16 17:11:12 EST, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net wrote:
> No ammount of "Mechanics" skill levels will allow me or you or anyone else
> to assemble a car's engine in under 10 seconds. This is completely outside
> the realm of skill levels. They do not allow you to perform tasks faster
> (though they do reduce the number of times you may need to try), and adding
> a limitation will not change that.
I'm not completely convinced of that... It seems to me that this is the sort
of thing that would fall under the "Extraordinary Skills" optional rule on p
19 of the BBB.
The minimum "Extraordinary Skill" penalty is a -10, and this feels about right
for a one-step reduction on the Time Chart - a typical "Scotty". Additional
reductions on the Time Chart I'd put at -5 per step, although I could see
arguments for making them either more expensive (-10 per additional step) or
cheaper (-2 per additional step).
An "only to reduce time penalties" limitation would run between -1 and -2
IMHO, so call it -1.5. A speedster who could perform tasks 5 hour tasks in 12
seconds, 4 steps down on the Time Chart would need 10+(3x5) = 25 levels to
counteract the -25 penalty for acting so quickly. 25 general levels cost
250 pts active and 100 real pts with the -1.5 limitation. This is expensive,
but not outrageously so for a top-level speedster built on several hundred
points. And after all, we are talking about the ability to perform 1500 times
faster than a normal human.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:03:52 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sunday, January 18, 1998 3:05 AM, qts wrote:
>
>As far as I'm aware, you cannot have part of a power inside a
>multipower. A power outside a MP may be L**k*d to one inside (but not
>vice versa) HSR 114-115.
Actually, the section you mention is unclear on the subject. However,
I thought there were characters in some 4th Ed. products that do as
the character above has.
Sorry, no I cannot recall who. Besides, its a moot point, as
forbidding it would only serve the purpose of putting those points
into the multipower, thereby making the character more efficient.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 18 Jan 1998 18:19:43 -0500
Lines: 34
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "E" == ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com> writes:
E> 4 steps down on the Time Chart would need 10+(3x5) = 25 levels to
E> counteract the -25 penalty for acting so quickly. 25 general levels cost
E> 250 pts active and 100 real pts with the -1.5 limitation. This is
E> expensive, but not outrageously so for a top-level speedster built on
E> several hundred points.
Exqueeze me? 250 active points points is not outrageous? That exceeds the
60AP/12DC guideline for starting supers by more than 400%. It is not
outrageous, it is absurdly expensive for an ability with generally limited
utility.
Besides, the "Extraordinary Skill" rule is generally not for use in supers
games where one has powers that have similar effects. It is intended for
over the top heroic games.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMKOC56VRH7BJMxHAQGynAQAmrlX0xzGax4Uq7mC9IRyz32SzuhWIkOa
ABnCd2VW1r4F8B1tBhnfzgVRUS7SjsxYDco0KBxmfS/tbekpBKBj5chLfsjl+vo4
O8g/cve0lZ6Bcx59+1aQvNmhKxMT7yODZ/JnqJzmfJ4QFh0hnqxlX3XV4qU188HL
LliRG69+ZHg=
=EsjA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:44:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> RH> But we are not talking about a normal person!!!
>
> We are arguing over skill levels that a normal person can by, the same
> basic skill levels that a speedster can buy. What we are arguing about is
> allowing that speedster to get something out of his skill levels that a
> normal person does not, the SAME basic skill levels that the normal person
> buys.
And that's not the issue. The issue is that before *any* use of a
skill is allowed, be it normal speed, faster, or whatever, it must be
feasible for the skill to be used that way. It doesn't matter what you
are trying to do, unless your character has some concept that would allow
the use of that skill in that way, it isn't allowable.
Speedsters, by the nature of the powers they have paid lots of
points for, get the minor SFX advantage of being able to use skills in
ways that normal people cannot -- sometimes. There are other SFX that
have the same sort of minor SFX advantages.
There is also the other issue of using skills in less time than
they normally take. This is an issue not only for Speedsters, but for any
and all characters. There needs to be guidlines for determining what size
penalty is needed for taking less time to perform a skill than is normal.
There are many examples of this type of thing that are quite
usable by people without any sort of power. Diffusing a complex bomb in 1
phase rather than 1 minute. Writing a paper in 30 minutes instead of the
4-5 hours it should take (can be done, and well). Slapping a dinner
together for Vito Corleone in 10 minutes as that's all the warning you
have.
What about Auto Racing Pit Crews. A tire should take about, oh, 5
minutes to change. IF you take away the jack time, 1 minute. They change
them in 5 or so seconds. We need a mechanic to allow for this.
All I'm saying is that anyone can perform a skill faster than
normal. Some can do so to a much larger extent as it is feasible that
they can actually physically move or think that fast. People that can't,
as they have no abilities to suggest such, are limited as to just how fast
they can perform a skill.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:48:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> An "only to reduce time penalties" limitation would run between -1 and -2
> IMHO, so call it -1.5. A speedster who could perform tasks 5 hour tasks in 12
> seconds, 4 steps down on the Time Chart would need 10+(3x5) = 25 levels to
> counteract the -25 penalty for acting so quickly. 25 general levels cost
> 250 pts active and 100 real pts with the -1.5 limitation. This is expensive,
> but not outrageously so for a top-level speedster built on several hundred
> points. And after all, we are talking about the ability to perform 1500 times
> faster than a normal human.
Whoa there. That is *way* too expensive for the sort of utility
that is gained. Try again.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sti@pop3.hip.cam.org>
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@CAM.ORG>
Organization: Stirling Westrup Consulting
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:08:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
> On Sunday, January 18, 1998 10:03 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>
> <<I expect that you don't believe that there should be a set of
> guidelines for the above, or fail to see any need. I see this
> as a difference in philosophy. I want any 'Universal' role
> playing system to be able to model each and every object that
> players ever interact with in the universe in game terms, and to
> be able to give some rough guidelines on how they interact in that
> universe. >>
> I don't necessarilly think that there should be no guidelines. I do,
> however, think that such guidelines are so campaign dependent that no
> more than vague guidelines should be given in the rules, if any. Such
> guidelines would probably be thrown out entirely by me in my
> campaigns, for example, because I wouldn't consider them appropriate
> for my games.
Well, I admit that any build-system build-system that I am likely to create is
far more likely to model all of the sorts of campaigns I run than all that
anyone runs, but that is more of an effect of the fact that I know what my
particular needs in this area are. I haven't been able to get you to tell me
yours, so <shrug>.
> <snip an example of someone trying to build something very difficult
> with skill>
>
> <<Now, the above numbers are off the top of my head, but it seems that
> every campaign I run, I have to stop and invent a set of such rules,
> and I'm getting tired of it. I've now built enough build-systems that
> I feel I should create a system for building build-systems, and I'm
> gonna do it. My gripe is just that such a thing is, IMHO, a major need
> in the current rules and it would be nice to have something cannonical,
> rather than home-brew.>>
>
> Above you say that you have to stop and invent the rules every
> campaign. This is precisely my point. If even your campaigns are not
> consistent enough to allow for a single set of rules to be reused,
> then I don't think that the Hero system can do much better.
No, I said that so far I have stopped and made new rules, not that that was my
only option. Creating a build system system was always an (obvious to me)
option, but I wasn't willing to invest the time and/or energy (it is harder to
create). Besides, I find it is usually better to create several instances of
the object you wish to generalize over so that you have some idea of the
parameter space.
> So, I guess you would have to say I am against such guidelines
> _because_ Hero is supposed to be universal, and I don't believe that
> such guidelines can be.
Hero contains an entire set of powers that can be configured for different
uses in different campaign worlds. I imagine that if they hadn't already been
shown to you you'd have the exact same oppinion of them. Why should universal
build guidelines be any harder to create or use than a system of universal
powers? In fact, I expect it will be quite a bit easier.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 19 Jan 1998 10:21:29 -0500
Lines: 40
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "E" == ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com> writes:
>> Exqueeze me? 250 active points points is not outrageous? That exceeds
>> the 60AP/12DC guideline for starting supers by more than 400%.
E> It's not outrageous for a *top-level speedster* - e.g. a Flash-clone or
E> other DC-style speedster built on close to 1000 pts.
1000 points is not the "a few hundred points" you previously mentioned.
And the cost is still absurd compared to the utility.
[...]
>> Besides, the "Extraordinary Skill" rule is generally not for use in supers
>> games where one has powers that have similar effects. It is intended for
>> over the top heroic games.
E> Says who?
The rulebook, right up there with disallowing the use of combat skill
levels increasing DCs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMNvdZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEO2AQAtphbTnloQOQ5J+lizVY2a8JUjuTPqOTY
WR5yQJUSsvPxAbjg3FP2RLCS1vMEtIsYWN8dw4mrjdRSKmpjYJAVRAKVougeN0dh
fA0ES2aiQHIK6fJbSX5rEntWztEwll9Z9ssxg9NR3vxlIyHBkK0IooRV4eC0ou2i
43uWmJHWmiE=
=jRPY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:02:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Explosives
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Len Carpenter writes:
> Reminds me of the old debate in DRAGON magazine over which is better in
> modeling falling damage in AD&D, kinetic energy or momentum.
> Incidentally, on the subject of wound ballistics, what I've read
> emphasizes KE more than momentum in assessing wound damage, with velocity
> of the projectile being more crucial than its mass.
Depends what kind of ballistics we're talking about. Rule of thumb for
terminal ballistics against armor is <velocity>*<projectile length>*<projectile
density>.
> Sounds a little low, according to what I've read. For an 8 STR normal who
> doesn't know how to throw a punch, 20-30 J might be reasonable, but not
> for a healthy 10 STR man who's been in a scrap or two. 100 J I would call
> a good, solid punch, but not damned impressive, considering that martial
> artists can achieve hand speeds exceeding 15 m/sec. I've you can cite a
> source that places a punch's KE at about 20 J, I'd like to know of it.
Sorry, was just working with straight math. However, a 15 m/s punch is less
than 100 joules; your hand doesn't weight 0.9 kilos.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 19:33:10
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 19 Jan 1998 01:43:52 +0000, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
>
>> On Saturday, January 17, 1998 11:49 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>>
>> So Sayeth Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net&>
>>
>> > On Friday, January 16, 1998 10:42 PM, Stirling Westrup wrote:
>> >
>> > Simple.
>> >
>> > Some things can be readily done in the real world. Some cannot. If
>> > something cannot be readily done in the real world, then it needs an
>> > SFX that allows it-- magic, super science, etc. If this SFX isn't as
>> > readily available as normal technology is in, say, the US, then it
>> > cannot be built by pure skill-- it requires that you create it with
>> > a Power.
>>
>> Further in this note, I realize that I was not understood. To clarify,
>> where it says, "If this SFX isn't as readily available as normal
>> technology is in, say, the US, then it cannot be built by pure
>> skill...", read it to say, "If this SFX isn't as readily available _in
>> the campaign world_ as normal technology is in, say, the US, then it
>> cannot be built by pure skill..."
<megasnip>
>Now, the above numbers are off the top of my head, but it seems that every
>campaign I run, I have to stop and invent a set of such rules, and I'm getting
>tired of it. I've now built enough build-systems that I feel I should create a
>system for building build-systems, and I'm gonna do it. My gripe is just that
>such a thing is, IMHO, a major need in the current rules and it would be nice
>to have something cannonical, rather than home-brew.
In a Superhero/Star Trek game, inventors can invent/discover things
overnight EOT (this is the Schimmelhorn Effect). In a Heroic campaign,
generally the PCs don't get to make items which cost CPs, further, they
should not be allowed to invent beyond-camapign technology; as for
normal items, use your common sense.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 19:57:41
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 18 Jan 98 13:50:04 -0800, Opal wrote:
> q > From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
> q > > q > >
> q > > q > >40 Multipowr
> q > > q > > 4 u 20" Flight
> q > > q > >14 u 20/20 Force field, 1/2 END
> q > > q > >24 u 12d EB
> q > > q > >--
> q > > q > >82
> q > > q >
> q > > q > This should cost a max of 52 = 40 + (3x(40/10))
> q > > q > qts
> q > >
> q > >Actually, it would be 74 - there's a 40, 50, & 60 pt slot each,
> q > >not 3 40pt slots. But, though clearly ineficient, it is a legal
> q > >construct....thus meeting tbarrie's challenge.
> q >
> q > Where does it say that the points in a multipower power can exceed the
> q > points in the multipower itself? One of the drawbacks of a MP is that
> q > it limits the total AP of the effects within the MP.
> q >
>
>Right there under 'multipower,' I'm pretty sure. The extra points are
>effectively not in the mulitpower. This is similar to linking a power
>to a slot.
Well, I've treble-checked, and haven't spotted it. Please cite the
exact paragraph where it says you can. Yes, you can link (oops :}) a
power to one within a MultiPower ('Extra Powers for a Slot', p 115).
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 19:58:42
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:03:52 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>On Sunday, January 18, 1998 3:05 AM, qts wrote:
>
>>
>>As far as I'm aware, you cannot have part of a power inside a
>>multipower. A power outside a MP may be L**k*d to one inside (but not
>>vice versa) HSR 114-115.
>
>
>Actually, the section you mention is unclear on the subject. However,
>I thought there were characters in some 4th Ed. products that do as
>the character above has.
>
>Sorry, no I cannot recall who. Besides, its a moot point, as
>forbidding it would only serve the purpose of putting those points
>into the multipower, thereby making the character more efficient.
More to the point, it serves the GM by capping the APs.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 23:06:48 +0000
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Filksinger wrote:
>
> On Sunday, January 18, 1998 3:05 AM, qts wrote:
>
> >
> >As far as I'm aware, you cannot have part of a power inside a
> >multipower. A power outside a MP may be L**k*d to one inside (but not
> >vice versa) HSR 114-115.
>
> Actually, the section you mention is unclear on the subject. However,
> I thought there were characters in some 4th Ed. products that do as
> the character above has.
>
> Sorry, no I cannot recall who. Besides, its a moot point, as
> forbidding it would only serve the purpose of putting those points
> into the multipower, thereby making the character more efficient.
>
> Filksinger
I've been using a similar construct for years, but I'm not sure where it's
made that official. I've always used it for those powers that have two or
three powers and one needs those extra active points to make it workable. I'm
99% positive that Hero Maker would create that construct. I just haven't used
that HM for awhile now, so I can't just test it out right now.
-Mark
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:24:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I've been using a similar construct for years, but I'm not sure where it's
> made that official. I've always used it for those powers that have two or
> three powers and one needs those extra active points to make it workable. I'm
> 99% positive that Hero Maker would create that construct. I just haven't used
> that HM for awhile now, so I can't just test it out right now.
Hero maker supports the construct in this way, yes.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 19:34:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Speedsters, by the nature of the powers they have paid lots of
> >points for, get the minor SFX advantage of being able to use skills
> in
> >ways that normal people cannot -- sometimes. There are other SFX
> that
> >have the same sort of minor SFX advantages.
>
> I do not accept that the ability to do in a minute what the best
> normals can do in a day is a "minor SFX advantage". I would call that
> a major advantage, and requires that you pay points.
I wasn't saying that points wouldn't be spent. What I was saying
is that Speedsters have the capability to try to use their skills in this
fashion. However, they still have to worry about negative skill
modifiers, just like everyone else. These modifiers can be pretty
substantial, and will take a good number of points in skill levels to
negate. The only thing to decide is the negative modifier per time step
-- negative 2 or 3 sounds good to me.
Note. Speedsters, even without the skill levels, can still
*attempt* to go really fast. If they roll a 3 they'll even suceed. We
all know how common *that* occurs, though.
> Even fairly minor effects like heating your environment take a power.
> The ability to do things impossible to normal men should require a
> power.
Not necessarily. Certain power tricks that normals cannot do can
be done be someone who happens to have, say, an EB. Are you saying this
should not be the case?
> All of which can be easily dealt with under the rules. The bomb has a
> base time to disable of 1 phase, but at -5 for dificulty. You have
> only a phase, so you take the penalty. Similarly, writing a paper is
> done in extra time, to get it done well. Everything you describe above
> can be explained by people generally taking extra time to do well, or,
Nah. Many of these are just rushing a normal job. Otherwise
skill time estimates will have to be lowered across the board, and
penalties added, to suggest that all skill usage actually takes "extra
time". This is a mess.
> in the case of the dinner, cobbling something together rather than
> taking the proper time. Not everything can be "cobbled together", and
> no matter how good he is, he could not operate at that speed
> indefinitely, because he would have to take the time to actually cook
> the other dishes, while this was put together with what was on hand.
Hopefully, but not for sure. So you grab the Prego and Canned
Mushrooms and hope that the spices you add mask the canned flavor. You
might get lucky. Maybe not.
> Race cars use knock-off hubs. A knock-off hub is designed for extra
> fast removal. Additionally, I would reduce the base time to do many
> tasks because of the number of people helping-- race crews are
> _crews_.
And they all take one part of the job. If one misses his roll,
it's generally just on that one section.
> A race crew member who was given my car, my jack, and my tire iron
> could _not_ get that tire changed in anything like five seconds.
> Indeed, give him a professional jack and power tools to remove the lug
> nuts and he _still_ couldn't get it done nearly that fast.
Forget the jack part. No skill roll is required there, except for
the driver making a driving roll to park on the right mark.
The rest, however, can be easily represented by bonuses to skill
levels given by the equipment being used. Add to that individual skill
levels, and the tire crews can probably do their task at 2 steps down a
time chart. Of course, if they miss their roll they do something like
strip a nut or cross thread a bolt, causing all sorts of problems.
> Furthermore, things like power tools, knock-off hubs, and assistants
> (where practical) would reduce the base time to do a task. The
> mechanic for doing this already exists.
But they could be used just to do a better job. I think these, as
I said, are best represented with skill levels -- skill levels that can be
used to decrease penalty for "rushing" a skill.
> That is too great an advantage to give people based upon SFX. If the
> ability to warm an area costs points, then the effects you describe
> for super speed are too much to give away for free.
As I pointed out above, this is not actually free. It comes with
penalties to the skill rolls and the expenditure of many other points.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:21:38 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
On Monday, January 19, 1998 6:32 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
<snip>
>
>>> Besides, the "Extraordinary Skill" rule is generally not for use
in supers
>>> games where one has powers that have similar effects. It is
intended for
>>> over the top heroic games.
>
>E> Says who?
>
>The rulebook, right up there with disallowing the use of combat skill
>levels increasing DCs.
>
And where, pray tell, is that? I'm afraid I don't see that in my BBB,
and am pretty sure I never did. Maybe your edition is different.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Explosives
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 22:25:38 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
On Monday, January 19, 1998 9:22 AM, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Len Carpenter writes:
<snip>
>> Sounds a little low, according to what I've read. For an 8 STR
normal who
>> doesn't know how to throw a punch, 20-30 J might be reasonable, but
not
>> for a healthy 10 STR man who's been in a scrap or two. 100 J I
would call
>> a good, solid punch, but not damned impressive, considering that
martial
>> artists can achieve hand speeds exceeding 15 m/sec. I've you can
cite a
>> source that places a punch's KE at about 20 J, I'd like to know of
it.
>
>Sorry, was just working with straight math. However, a 15 m/s punch
is less
>than 100 joules; your hand doesn't weight 0.9 kilos.
Actually, a punch contains more joules than are determined by the mass
of your hand times it's velocity, if done at all correctly. The
muscles pushing behind it contribute, not due to mass, but because of
their own STR. If this were not true, then a jab would do more damage
than a hook, because it is faster.
Additionally, you're arm is also moving, so even if the energy were
determined solely by velocity and mass it would still be higher than
you think, basing your calculations upon the mass of the hand.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:14:42 EST
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
In a message dated 98-01-19 10:22:56 EST, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net writes:
> >>>>> "E" == ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com> writes:
>
> >> Exqueeze me? 250 active points points is not outrageous? That exceeds
> >> the 60AP/12DC guideline for starting supers by more than 400%.
>
> E> It's not outrageous for a *top-level speedster* - e.g. a Flash-clone or
> E> other DC-style speedster built on close to 1000 pts.
>
> 1000 points is not the "a few hundred points" you previously mentioned.
Except that I did *not* mention "a few hundred points." My words were "several
hundred points." I consider "several hundred" to fall somewhere in the range
500-1000. That's "close to 1000 pts," no?
>
> And the cost is still absurd compared to the utility.
>
> [...]
>
> >> Besides, the "Extraordinary Skill" rule is generally not for use in
> supers
> >> games where one has powers that have similar effects. It is intended
for
> >> over the top heroic games.
>
> E> Says who?
>
> The rulebook, right up there with disallowing the use of combat skill
> levels increasing DCs.
>
What page? "Extraordinary Skills" (p19) says "This optional rule allows a GM
to run a more fantastic campaign with amazing feats not possible in the real
word or even most adventure fiction" - and that sure sounds like skill use in
four-color superheroes to me. "Combat Skill Levels" (p22) describes use of
CSL's for increasing DCs as "usually only used in Heroic campaigns" - but I
don't see any mention of Extraordinary Skills there or any way that this
applies to Extraordinary Skills. Especially since the "Extraordinary Skills"
rule pretty clearly applies only to *non* Combat skills and skill levels.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 09:17:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 20 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> TRG> I wasn't saying that points wouldn't be spent. What I was saying
> TRG> is that Speedsters have the capability to try to use their skills in
> TRG> this fashion.
>
> You seem to be missing (or ignoring) the point here: the ability to even
> try to use their skills this way is something they should pay for. Buying
> other powers with "super speed" as a special effect does *not* sufficiently
> justify this. It allows them to do those things quickly. But unless a
> power is purchased in specific regard to use of skills, the character does
> not have that ability, no more than a character that buys an Energy Blast
> with "fire" as the special effect can have a fire RKA without paying for
> it.
I'm beginning to think no one sees my mail. (sniff)
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 20 Jan 1998 11:57:25 -0500
Lines: 32
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> I wasn't saying that points wouldn't be spent. What I was saying
TRG> is that Speedsters have the capability to try to use their skills in
TRG> this fashion.
You seem to be missing (or ignoring) the point here: the ability to even
try to use their skills this way is something they should pay for. Buying
other powers with "super speed" as a special effect does *not* sufficiently
justify this. It allows them to do those things quickly. But unless a
power is purchased in specific regard to use of skills, the character does
not have that ability, no more than a character that buys an Energy Blast
with "fire" as the special effect can have a fire RKA without paying for
it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMTXcp6VRH7BJMxHAQHGcwP/dtOaA+Kz75kg/SrVbvRk98PyRjgrpWCn
y1fCLLXzVocn6V6T+LhBigNz+LJt6cRMmpTXbQ8OduJUAfYSRGEfKCwfiR5iTSQp
FzQsMSX63ngd6G78H02F7IX8sh1N4lSWAFs53LEDTXTwTNu+V1h96T+G22kZmIIl
vhg5u4fGLGI=
=OheF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:25:38 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> I wasn't saying that points wouldn't be spent. What I was saying
> TRG> is that Speedsters have the capability to try to use their skills in
> TRG> this fashion.
>
> You seem to be missing (or ignoring) the point here: the ability to even
> try to use their skills this way is something they should pay for. Buying
No, I saw that point but chose to disagree. The ability, when
coupled with proper negatives to the roll, easily falls under SFX
advantages given by powers. Perhaps something like the "Use Power" skill
from Fuzion might be appropriate.
> other powers with "super speed" as a special effect does *not* sufficiently
> justify this. It allows them to do those things quickly. But unless a
And attempt to do other things as SFX. This just isn't worth
much. Abilities that are worth a lot, when viewed by the GM for their
combat effectiveness, should be payed for appropriately. Also, things
that don't fall under appropriate skills should be covered with a small CE
and/or Transformation attack. It is just things that are normally covered
by simple skill rolls still are, no matter what speed they go at.
> power is purchased in specific regard to use of skills, the character does
> not have that ability, no more than a character that buys an Energy Blast
> with "fire" as the special effect can have a fire RKA without paying for
> it.
Yes, but this character can probably light a fire to keep other
warm, light someone's cigarette, create enough light to read in a dark
room, etc.
Minor SFX bonuses.
Now, to the second issue. What about skills that are done more
quickly by normal people. (Things that they can conceivably move fast
enough to do). For example, the rushed cook or the Racing Pit Crew.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:30:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >I thought there were characters in some 4th Ed. products that do as
> >the character above has.
> >
> >Sorry, no I cannot recall who. Besides, its a moot point, as
> >forbidding it would only serve the purpose of putting those points
> >into the multipower, thereby making the character more efficient.
>
> More to the point, it serves the GM by capping the APs.
I don't know, I see some uses. It's especially useful for
characters with small amounts of Movement or Defenseive powers outside the
MP, for all the time use, that can be augmented by those inside when
Attack Powers aren't needed.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 20 Jan 1998 18:54:06 -0500
Lines: 43
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> Now, to the second issue. What about skills that are done more
TRG> quickly by normal people. (Things that they can conceivably move fast
TRG> enough to do). For example, the rushed cook or the Racing Pit Crew.
For the first, the rushed cook. Cooking properly is a task that is
normally peformed more slowly than "full speed". If it takes X ammount of
time for something to cook, you cannot change that without ruining the
food. Thus, a trained chef will pace himself -- and get a small pile of
bonuses to his skill roll. The "rushed cook" will not pace himself, and
not get the bonuses, but he will get the food out in the minimum possible
time.
For the second, the pit crew. Like the chef, a mechanic will take his time
and do it right the first time. Sure, he could whip the wheels off your
car in under a minute, but he will not. He will take his time and do the
job right -- and get himself a small pile of bonuses to his skill roll.
The pit crew is not a single mechanic, it is a team that will not pace
itself, will whip the tires off in the minimum time possible, but will not
get those bonuses.
Neither of these are examples of normal people doing things faster than
normal, they are examples of normal people not taking their time to think
about what they are doing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMU5HJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEzLwP/RRVLti5/SXZIzJQ724XURYKg2c6nYQz8
RUox3oiZaRoCqkFbK7eRYP98c2A5bF1BMiNTkYi1o3ig/+GtkQKdUjbpdmnIJCQx
idDqdtkiik2LslHCylkQHdClWzYUX3ojdEUSWig+2GpMQHn8RHypTTykdlAEe4b0
3gUCLW0U8Og=
=16Ji
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 20:34:40 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
Rat writes:
>Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> Now, to the second issue. What about skills that are done more
>> quickly by normal people. (Things that they can conceivably move fast
>> enough to do). For example, the rushed cook or the Racing Pit Crew.
>
>For the first, the rushed cook. Cooking properly is a task that is
>normally peformed more slowly than "full speed".
This is clearly wrong. It takes Martin Yan less time to dice a carrot
than it does for me. I can't even attempt a skill roll to do it in 5
seconds. Similarly, I can't fold a potsticker in 2.0 seconds, but I've
seen people do it in restaurants. [background info: I can perform both
tasks with better than default skill... just not this well]
Tasks have base time/skillroll, but that's for someone merely competent.
The GM has to make a call about doing it faster.
>If it takes X ammount of
>time for something to cook, you cannot change that without ruining the
>food.
But here, the reason it takes time for something to cook is, the
transformation attack (stove: uncooked food to cooked food) has a constant
rate...
>For the second, the pit crew. Like the chef, a mechanic will take his time
>and do it right the first time. Sure, he could whip the wheels off your
>car in under a minute, but he will not.
And you can't do it in less than 12 seconds, unless you've been specially
trained. I suppose you could call it a specific "fastchange tire" skill,
with a base time of 1 phase each for removal/installation.
But then you'd have to let Speedsters buy specific fastskills. Would that
be okay? Say, -3 base to the skill roll per timechart shift?
Donald
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:16:42 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
> Neither of these are examples of normal people doing things faster than
> normal, they are examples of normal people not taking their time to think
> about what they are doing.
Which is the definition of hurrying. Basically you are saying
that any skill actually takes very little time and that what most people
consider the required amount of time to use a skill is actually a level up
the time chart with a bonus. This is ludicrous. It is much more logical
to put a skill use at the normal, average amount of time and allow for
characters to hurry, at a penalty of course.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 06:24:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
Someone please make a comment that considers some of the ideas I
presented. If they don't work I want to know why. These were the standard
CE, the nonstandard area->time CE, and an alternate skill/time system
which allows made/missed rolls to modify time-to-completion, as well as
modeling "continuous effort."
I want to make the best effort I can at a continuous effort skill system,
but I need the enlightened help of the list members to do it. In other
words, I'll never be fully confident of ad hoc systems until the Rats and
Tims of the world rip at it from all sides like a piece of meat. Most all
ideas can stand some improvement.
For those who have forgotten:
Each 1 a skill roll is made by: -10% cumulative to default skill time.
This means -10%, get the result, then another -10% if made by 2. Can
become tedious, but what about the results? Does anyone have a better
solution?
Each 1 a skill roll is missed by: +50% cumulative to the par time,
allowing for continuous effort until success is obtained.
For characters who are deliberately hurrying, we could use a geometric
penalty approach like the ones presented so far on the list.
I would like to see some sort of continuous effort system in 5th edition.
I don't like the Chiron 1-hour lockpick syndrome.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 07:55:05 EST
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
In a message dated 98-01-18 18:42:05 EST, trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu writes:
>> An "only to reduce time penalties" limitation would run between -1 and -2
>> IMHO, so call it -1.5. A speedster who could perform tasks 5 hour tasks in
12
>> seconds, 4 steps down on the Time Chart would need 10+(3x5) = 25 levels to
>> counteract the -25 penalty for acting so quickly. 25 general levels
cost
>> 250 pts active and 100 real pts with the -1.5 limitation. This is
expensive,
>> but not outrageously so for a top-level speedster built on several hundred
>> points. And after all, we are talking about the ability to perform 1500
times
>> faster than a normal human.
>
>
> Whoa there. That is *way* too expensive for the sort of utility
> that is gained. Try again.
Would you consider it reasonable if the costs were halved? (i.e. 125
pts active/50 pts real for 4 levels up on the Time Chart). The active
pt cost would still be high but the real cost would then be close to
something you yourself suggested for a super-speed power: You
suggested 10 pts/level on the Time Chart, and this would give 20 real
points for the first level on the Time Chart and 10 real pts/level
afterwards.
If you do think that half cost would be reasonable, then I agree with
you - sort of. I think that *all* skills are overpriced by a factor of 2
(including skill levels but excluding martial arts and skill enhancers).
IMC I have a house rule that cuts skill costs in half.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 21 Jan 1998 12:55:47 -0500
Lines: 60
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> Neither of these are examples of normal people doing things faster than
>> normal, they are examples of normal people not taking their time to think
>> about what they are doing.
TRG> Which is the definition of hurrying. Basically you are saying
TRG> that any skill actually takes very little time and that what most
TRG> people consider the required amount of time to use a skill is actually
TRG> a level up the time chart with a bonus.
That is *exactly* what I am saying. Well, almost... not every skill takes
very little time.
Most people in the real world do not do their jobs in the minimum time
possible. They slow down, take a step back, look at the whole situation,
think about the best way to go about doing it. Only then do they actually
get into the actual work, and even then they take it one step at a time.
Those that do not tend to spend more time in damage control, cleaning up
the messes they have made than in actually getting anything accomplished.
Proper Planning Prevents Piss-Poor Performance.
Remember, "professional" level with a skill is 11-. In order not to screw
up half the time when something critical happens -- which is likely to get
most people fired right quick -- you need those extra time bonuses.
So what I would consider the "normal" time to perform a task includes the
time I will take to plan out how I will go about doing it. After I have
done that job frequently it becomes almost a reflex -- I have bought a few
skill levels to go with my PS: Sysmonster. With those levels I can do
those things faster, not because I am working faster per se, but because I
do not need to step back and plan out how to do it becase I have done that
so frequently it is a reflex.
And now, I get to your pit crew analogy. Swapping the tires of an F-1 is a
reflex for them. They do not step back and think about how to swap the
tires, they just jump in and do it by rote. They do not get any extra time
bonuses, but an experienced pit crew member will have picked up a few skill
levels to balance that. Those skill levels do not change the minimum time
they need to do the job; they allow the crew to do the job in the minimum
time without screwing up.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMY2oZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGvsgP/Uw1+8TFnku5P+fm8gB/HECBqXO/hfdbs
GnUyB6BIe7PcHKil+fnfdnkuoAmB+158eCNM0//ojhPJ1MW+q3tYJEbjw9mgmsdD
urxL53ZVPkJhS6kwGQfY0WUhYyN3zQkgaxZGOfi2Z102GE83w1zbQTaKUgWe3Udd
oj4A6x6fpDg=
=6X3J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 21 Jan 1998 13:07:27 -0500
Lines: 47
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DT" == Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org> writes:
>> For the first, the rushed cook. Cooking properly is a task that is
>> normally peformed more slowly than "full speed".
DT> This is clearly wrong. It takes Martin Yan less time to dice a carrot
DT> than it does for me.
Right, he *takes* less time to do it, because he has a skills and skill
levels you do not have. To wit, you are comparing your 8- familiarity with
his 13- professional skill with some form of stage presence as a
complimentary roll. This does not affect the *minimum* time required to do
it. Martin Yan is skilled enough that he does not need extra time bonuses;
you are not as skilled, so you do need them to keep yourself in one piece.
And I did say that, "cooking properly is a task that is normally performed
more slowly than 'full speed'." "Yan Can Cook" is *not* an example of
normalcy.
By the by, Martin Yan is one of the funniest of the TV cooks around. And
yes, he does occasionally hurt himself.
[...]
DT> But then you'd have to let Speedsters buy specific fastskills. Would
DT> that be okay? Say, -3 base to the skill roll per timechart shift?
I do not want to see it as a list of penalties, I want to see it as a power
with something resembling a clearly defined ratio of cost to time.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMY5XJ6VRH7BJMxHAQG1LQP/TgDR5kJbHINevKTHWETU5Xl91iGLt/kM
o6ngBQC6nGP6uLzZBhfEyrgtk8ML6hnz7KTcqNX6rjLrg4pszUur8RaHcmVTnaXc
XSx98EsOPXk57BJAk/1qZsTGLMIxrsPXe1OSNLVvrmjE2cyVgB9SdCelP0JUs6Eh
GW5KqamZFWY=
=R8j2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Tim R. Gilberg\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 98 18:53:17
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10
On Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:30:09 -0600 (CST), Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> >I thought there were characters in some 4th Ed. products that do as
>> >the character above has.
>> >
>> >Sorry, no I cannot recall who. Besides, its a moot point, as
>> >forbidding it would only serve the purpose of putting those points
>> >into the multipower, thereby making the character more efficient.
>>
>> More to the point, it serves the GM by capping the APs.
>
>
> I don't know, I see some uses. It's especially useful for
>characters with small amounts of Movement or Defensive powers outside the
>MP, for all the time use, that can be augmented by those inside when
>Attack Powers aren't needed.
OK, are there any 'official' characters that use this construct?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 21 Jan 1998 14:43:17 -0500
Lines: 42
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Let me describe it a little differently: minimum time required to perform a
task is not the same thing as the (minimum) time required for any
individual to perform that task. Martin Yan needs 5 seconds to chop a
carrot; Donald Tsang needs, say, a minute to do the same. These times are
their individual required times to perform the task well, but neither of
them are the absolute normal minimum time required to do it (though I'd say
that Martin Yan comes damn close).
So, for the sake of argument, assume that 3 seconds is the normal minimum
time required to chop a carrot. Martin Yan with his effective 16- or
better skill will rarely slice a finger when working that quickly. No
extra time bonus for the extra 2 seconds, sorry. But with a 16- effective
skill level he does not need it.
Donald with his effective non-professional 8- to 10- or so would hurt
himself more often than not if he tried to work that fast, so he takes
longer to do the job. He may not think of it that way, but that is how the
game mechanics work. The minute he takes doing the job is enough for three
levels on the time chart (give or take, its close enough), pushing his
effective skill level to 11- to 13-. Not shabby at all.
Okay, this does break one thing: you aren't supposed to get extra time
bonuses for familiarities. It is an exmample of how the system works, not
a ruling.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMZP1J6VRH7BJMxHAQHWkgQAhlxLzxeaf43Eo61onQpwIwMWVednYuk4
O6bDWm3Nrf5a8DNxfiNhskK5AyuaKlpRvru9QTPwEiOU23Wy+/MPMk9BsZQB8uzq
VJqv4MmdhEURYdzgL0U9L1vbXD5aQx54Lkx8jWs0NEzYhn0II4rS57/o97WmUJCg
xbMr7878ZkU=
=vLkX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:16:11 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
Rat writes:
>Let me describe it a little differently: minimum time required to perform a
>task is not the same thing as the (minimum) time required for any
>individual to perform that task. Martin Yan needs 5 seconds to chop a
>carrot; Donald Tsang needs, say, a minute to do the same. These times are
>their individual required times to perform the task well, but neither of
>them are the absolute normal minimum time required to do it (though I'd say
>that Martin Yan comes damn close).
>
>So, for the sake of argument, assume that 3 seconds is the normal minimum
>time required to chop a carrot. Martin Yan with his effective 16- or
>better skill will rarely slice a finger when working that quickly. No
>extra time bonus for the extra 2 seconds, sorry. But with a 16- effective
>skill level he does not need it.
Now let's say our individual is... The Flash. Or anyone more than double
the speed of Martin Yan. The "there is a minimum time for any individual
to perform a given task" theory falls apart in a universe where there
isn't really a maximum speed (yeah yeah, 12, but one can buy autofire on
the appropriate things the appropriate number of times...)
>Donald with his effective non-professional 8- to 10- or so would hurt
>himself more often than not if he tried to work that fast, so he takes
>longer to do the job.
The problem is, 8- is better than 10%, and 10- is 50%. I don't think
I can dice a carrot in 5 seconds even 1 time in 100, no matter how many
finger cuts I'm willing to ignore. And don't try to claim that dicing
a carrot is -6 to my skill roll, either.
>Okay, this does break one thing: you aren't supposed to get extra time
>bonuses for familiarities. It is an exmample of how the system works, not
>a ruling.
A better ruling would be that, for this kind of task, you're automatically
penalized a couple of time chart levels.
Donald
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 21 Jan 1998 18:20:36 -0500
Lines: 28
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DT" == Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org> writes:
DT> Now let's say our individual is... The Flash. Or anyone more than
DT> double the speed of Martin Yan. The "there is a minimum time for any
DT> individual to perform a given task"
You forgot a word: there is a *NORMAL* minimum time for any individual to
perform a given task. Everything in Hero has "human normal" as a baseline.
Unless The Flash has a power that allows him to perform a given task faster
than the normal minimum time, he is stuck at that human normal baseline.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMaCwJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEtUgP+Mpm1oEXNvsQA+xY4TbyCsBasy3ez11KN
zjcDF84BqaPWIz67zCraEYFrBEv6HwdU2w9xPXt/K3Hk/BkLZzFIGL742ShtggWS
BXEqM//aJZdfV03zT4mkxpJYQY5ekUq/S16Mc2M15UPLFewaw+0rWyPbJo8t/BgQ
ZuOGrwzSkuk=
=uv8n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:00:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Okay guys!
Two or three weeks ago I promised you my benchmark tables, but I forgot my
web address (embarassing, but I've had alot to deal with this past month).
Anyway, I just got the address from someone so here it is.
This is the first version of "my" benchmarks. They have since been through
at least one revision, but this should give you a good idea of what I'm
thinking about. I put "my" in quotes because much of the wording is
derivative of other games - mostly DC Heroes, some Fuzion and a touch of
Marvel. Most of the examples are conversions from DC Heroes and Marvel
Superheroes.
I welcome all comments. I'd be particularly interested in rewording some
of the characteristic definitions to make them more descriptive of what
they actually do.
Anyway, here goes:
http://www.library.miami.edu/staff/regalado/BENCHweb.html
Take care,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: KaosLlama <KaosLlama@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:06:55 EST
Subject: My Champion Page
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
http://members.aol.com/kaosllama/index.html
currently in the works.. some stuff allready there
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 17:22:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
aregalad@miami.edu writes:
> This is the first version of "my" benchmarks. They have since been through
> at least one revision, but this should give you a good idea of what I'm
> thinking about. I put "my" in quotes because much of the wording is
> derivative of other games - mostly DC Heroes, some Fuzion and a touch of
> Marvel. Most of the examples are conversions from DC Heroes and Marvel
> Superheroes.
>
> I welcome all comments. I'd be particularly interested in rewording some
> of the characteristic definitions to make them more descriptive of what
> they actually do.
This isn't a table of benchmarks (which would tell you how to _determine_
attributes), this is just a table of representative abilities. Benchmarks
should be defined in terms of tasks (i.e. a 60 strength can lift 100 tons, and
is 1000 times as strong as a normal person. Give similar examples for other
attributes). Incidentally, your strength table is wrong, because MSH/OHTMU
stats for maximum lifting ability _lie_ (i.e. demonstrated ability exceeds
listed ability, frequently by orders of magnitude).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 20:41:29 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: aregalad@miami.edu, champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
Howdy,
> This isn't a table of benchmarks (which would tell you how to _determine_
> attributes), this is just a table of representative abilities. Benchmarks
> should be defined in terms of tasks (i.e. a 60 strength can lift 100 tons, and
> is 1000 times as strong as a normal person. Give similar examples for other
> attributes).
Well, if you look at the other tables they DO define stats in terms of
tasks, although I am not too pleased with some of these definitions.
Sometimes I don't find them specific enough. If you have specific
suggestions on how to improve this wording, that would be great. STR is
the one table that isn't a true benchmark table because it doesn't NEED
benchmark tables. The exact weight that you can lift is already listed in
Champions.
Anyway, I really worked long and hard on coming up with these tables. If
you have specific commentary and constructive criticism about this work -
I would LOVE to hear it, but I'm not interested in hearing one sentence
dismissals of it. It doesn't piss me off, but I don't think it helps me
any.
> Incidentally, your strength table is wrong, because MSH/OHTMU
> stats for maximum lifting ability _lie_ (i.e. demonstrated ability exceeds
> listed ability, frequently by orders of magnitude).
Okay, my STR benchmark table is not wrong. It is right in that it matches
the MSH and OHTMU, and that is all I aimed to do with these tables. If you
want to say that MSH and OHTMU are wrong that is fine, but that discussion
is one I'm not interested in.
Take care,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:02:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
aregalad@miami.edu writes:
>
> Anyway, I really worked long and hard on coming up with these tables. If
> you have specific commentary and constructive criticism about this work -
> I would LOVE to hear it, but I'm not interested in hearing one sentence
> dismissals of it. It doesn't piss me off, but I don't think it helps me
> any.
Ok, fair enough.
Expressing benchmarks by comparing them to established superheroes is not
generally helpful. Most comic book publishers aren't too consistent about what
a given character can really do in any case, and there is plenty of room for
argument. Instead, it would be useful if benchmarks were established for
consistency with the game system -- for example, doubling your velocity gives
+2 DCV (if relying on velocity for DCV) and thus this can be taken as
reflecting the relationship between reaction time and DEX.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:41:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
> > Anyway, I really worked long and hard on coming up with these tables. If
> > you have specific commentary and constructive criticism about this work -
> > I would LOVE to hear it, but I'm not interested in hearing one sentence
> > dismissals of it. It doesn't piss me off, but I don't think it helps me
> > any.
>
> Ok, fair enough.
>
> Expressing benchmarks by comparing them to established superheroes is not
> generally helpful. Most comic book publishers aren't too consistent about what
> a given character can really do in any case, and there is plenty of room for
> argument. Instead, it would be useful if benchmarks were established for
> consistency with the game system -- for example, doubling your velocity gives
> +2 DCV (if relying on velocity for DCV) and thus this can be taken as
> reflecting the relationship between reaction time and DEX.
Hmm...I agree with you about expressing benchmarks strictly on a basis of
comparison to existing superheroes. The thing is that the superhero
examples are completely secondary to "my" tables. Every stat (with the
exception of STR which already has well defined lift benchmarks and hence
doesn't need them) has a stat definition which gives an incremental
description of characteristics in relation to the world around them - not
in relation to Spider-Man, Superman, or anybody else. The reason I
included the superhero examples in my tables is because I thought it would
be fun to see where they fall, and because some of my players find it
useful to have those comparisons handy. If the superhero examples really
bother you don't read them. Just concentrate on the descriptions.
Again, these descriptions are hardly original. They are taken from DC
Heroes, MSH, Fuzion, and even a little from White Wolf. In those games
benchmark tables are very helpful in terms of defining human limits for
superheroes. They give players an idea of what they are buying. Benchmarks
like the ones you describe are not useful in this fashion. Anybody can see
that buying X amount of DEX makes you Y times more effective. I think it
is more useful to say that an X DEX means that your character joins the
ranks of an Olympic level gymnist. This provides a mental picture which
helps people define their characters in a consistant fashion during
creation. If these tables and the descriptions used work so well in other
games - why not in Champions?
Take care,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 21:41:08 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
On Wednesday, January 21, 1998 11:36 AM, Donald Tsang wrote:
<snip>
>Now let's say our individual is... The Flash. Or anyone more than
double
>the speed of Martin Yan. The "there is a minimum time for any
individual
>to perform a given task" theory falls apart in a universe where there
>isn't really a maximum speed (yeah yeah, 12, but one can buy autofire
on
>the appropriate things the appropriate number of times...)
Almost. Keep in mind that Rat and my objections are giving a
"speedster" free what a normal cannot even buy, no matter how many
penalties he takes. He gets a superhuman ability "free".
>
>>Donald with his effective non-professional 8- to 10- or so would
hurt
>>himself more often than not if he tried to work that fast, so he
takes
>>longer to do the job.
>
>The problem is, 8- is better than 10%, and 10- is 50%. I don't think
>I can dice a carrot in 5 seconds even 1 time in 100, no matter how
many
>finger cuts I'm willing to ignore. And don't try to claim that
dicing
>a carrot is -6 to my skill roll, either.
I agree. However, even if he was willing to take numerous penalties,
he wouldn't be able to cut the carrot in only a second. Not even if he
was even more skilled than he is.
Additionally, if you are unable to cut that carrot 99% of the time in
only the three seconds described, then, assuming that you have an 8-,
the time penalty must be a -5, at least. If that is the case, then for
him to be able to succeed 85% of the time, he would have to have a
skill roll of 18-. That seems a bit high.
What is needed here is either a) a new power, or b) a new skill
modifier (which normal humans simply buy less of), or c) in this
particular case, a new skill.
>>Okay, this does break one thing: you aren't supposed to get extra
time
>>bonuses for familiarities. It is an exmample of how the system
works, not
>>a ruling.
>
>A better ruling would be that, for this kind of task, you're
automatically
>penalized a couple of time chart levels.
I'm not certain I understand that suggestion. Would it give a very
fast chef a reasonable roll to do things extra fast, but preventing
him from doing things ridiculously fast, while preventing you from
doing as well as he does no matter how hard you try, while
simultaneously preventing speedsters from getting abilities that
normals don't have for free?
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 07:50:41 EST
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
In a message dated 98-01-21 14:46:38 EST, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net writes:
> Let me describe it a little differently: minimum time required to perform a
> task is not the same thing as the (minimum) time required for any
> individual to perform that task. Martin Yan needs 5 seconds to chop a
> carrot; Donald Tsang needs, say, a minute to do the same. These times are
> their individual required times to perform the task well, but neither of
> them are the absolute normal minimum time required to do it (though I'd say
> that Martin Yan comes damn close).
>
> So, for the sake of argument, assume that 3 seconds is the normal minimum
> time required to chop a carrot. Martin Yan with his effective 16- or
> better skill will rarely slice a finger when working that quickly. No
> extra time bonus for the extra 2 seconds, sorry. But with a 16- effective
> skill level he does not need it.
You're forgetting that Martin Yan would get a +10 bonus or so when chopping a
carrot:
+3 to +5 Routine
+1 to +3 Character has extensive knowledge of the object of his skill roll
+1 to +3 Using good equipment in connection with the skill roll
+1 to +3 Excellent conditions for performing the Skill
Arguably Martin Yan is using that +10 against the -10 "Extraordinary Skill"
penalty for chopping that carrot in one Phase rather than one Turn.
>
> Donald with his effective non-professional 8- to 10- or so would hurt
> himself more often than not if he tried to work that fast, so he takes
> longer to do the job. He may not think of it that way, but that is how the
> game mechanics work. The minute he takes doing the job is enough for three
> levels on the time chart (give or take, its close enough), pushing his
> effective skill level to 11- to 13-. Not shabby at all.
Donald doesn't get quite as much of a bonus - +6 say rather than +10 - because
his equipment isn't quite as good and he isn't so intimately familiar with it.
So his 8- familiarity becomes an effective 14- roll - not shabby, but not
nearly good enough to go below the base time of 1 Turn. (And if he takes a
full minute, he gets an additional +1 for a 15- roll)
>
> Okay, this does break one thing: you aren't supposed to get extra time
> bonuses for familiarities. It is an exmample of how the system works, not
> a ruling.
Er, p26 of my copy of the BBB states that Skill Modifiers *do* give bonuses to
Familiarities - and it gives taking extra time as an example.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:32:44 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 12
One of the perennial problems that there has been disagreement on in the
Hero System has been how to define the alteration of the pull gravity.
Here's a thought I just had on the topic.
Gravity is, essentially, a pulling of objects toward the earth with a
certain amount of STR. (Granted, the mechanics of gravity are somewhat
different that STR, but bear with me here.) So let's try this:
Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
effect halves the pull of gravity, giving those in the area an effective +5
STR for purposes of lifting (though they'd hit just as hard) and
subtracting 1" from the falling velocity (from 5" per segment to 4", and
down, going to adding segments per inch once 1"/seg was passed).
Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
new Power which is the equivalent of Suppress (which I think should be done
anyway); call it, say, Assist. Every 5 points of effect doubles the pull
of gravity, giving those in the area an effective -5 STR for purposes of
lifting (though they'd hit no harder) and adding 1" to the falling velocity
(from 5" per segment to 6", and up).
Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
trick of changing the direction of gravity.
Responses?
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:43:35 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 13
> Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
>effect halves the pull of gravity, giving those in the area an effective +5
>STR for purposes of lifting (though they'd hit just as hard) and
>subtracting 1" from the falling velocity (from 5" per segment to 4", and
>down, going to adding segments per inch once 1"/seg was passed).
I tried a similar proposal a while back called Mass Reduction. As I recall,
it never went over. This effect could be simulated by a simple Aid to STR,
Area Effect, Not for STR Damage. I think that Suppressing the falling
acceleration should be possible, but we'd have to agree on the point cost of
falling velocity (40" Flight, 0 END Uncontrolled, Area Effect (whole world),
UAO, Single Direction (towards center of planet), Acceleration 5"/Segment
only) before you could suppress it.
> Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
>new Power which is the equivalent of Suppress (which I think should be done
>anyway); call it, say, Assist. Every 5 points of effect doubles the pull
>of gravity, giving those in the area an effective -5 STR for purposes of
>lifting (though they'd hit no harder) and adding 1" to the falling velocity
>(from 5" per segment to 6", and up).
Same deal; Drain vs. STR, Not for Damage Purposes.
> Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
>trick of changing the direction of gravity.
>
> Responses?
Well, I think it could all be covered by Change Environment, as long as we
had three categories of CE (like we do for Transform):
Cosmetic: Extremely minor changes in the environment (ambient light turns green)
Minor: Create Light, Electromagnetic Fields, etc
Major: Slipperyness zones, Gravity Changes, Heavy Rain, etc.
While I liked the stratification of the CE posted in the 'proposed' rules
set a while back, keeping it to just a few strata and giving GMs license to
'come up with the effects' is probably best (what am I saying!!! eek!).
Of course, the costs for all this <shrug>?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"By all that's unholy, the Enigma Force has given Captain Universe the power
to back up his sickening platitudes!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"champ-l@omg.org\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 98 18:36:45
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:32:44 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> One of the perennial problems that there has been disagreement on in the
>Hero System has been how to define the alteration of the pull gravity.
>Here's a thought I just had on the topic.
> Gravity is, essentially, a pulling of objects toward the earth with a
>certain amount of STR. (Granted, the mechanics of gravity are somewhat
>different that STR, but bear with me here.) So let's try this:
>
> Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
>effect halves the pull of gravity, giving those in the area an effective +5
>STR for purposes of lifting (though they'd hit just as hard) and
>subtracting 1" from the falling velocity (from 5" per segment to 4", and
>down, going to adding segments per inch once 1"/seg was passed).
> Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
>new Power which is the equivalent of Suppress (which I think should be done
>anyway); call it, say, Assist. Every 5 points of effect doubles the pull
>of gravity, giving those in the area an effective -5 STR for purposes of
>lifting (though they'd hit no harder) and adding 1" to the falling velocity
>(from 5" per segment to 6", and up).
> Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
>trick of changing the direction of gravity.
How about the obvious one: Indirect Telekinesis?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:44:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 15
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> One of the perennial problems that there has been disagreement on in the
> Hero System has been how to define the alteration of the pull gravity.
> Here's a thought I just had on the topic.
> Gravity is, essentially, a pulling of objects toward the earth with a
> certain amount of STR. (Granted, the mechanics of gravity are somewhat
> different that STR, but bear with me here.) So let's try this:
>
> Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
> effect halves the pull of gravity, giving those in the area an effective +5
> STR for purposes of lifting (though they'd hit just as hard) and
> subtracting 1" from the falling velocity (from 5" per segment to 4", and
> down, going to adding segments per inch once 1"/seg was passed).
> Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
> new Power which is the equivalent of Suppress (which I think should be done
> anyway); call it, say, Assist. Every 5 points of effect doubles the pull
> of gravity, giving those in the area an effective -5 STR for purposes of
> lifting (though they'd hit no harder) and adding 1" to the falling velocity
> (from 5" per segment to 6", and up).
> Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
> trick of changing the direction of gravity.
Why not just use Change Environment for all three features? Something
along the expansions to Change Environment that are listed in Almanac 2...
Change Environment: Low Gravity - every 2 points of effect subtracts 0.2
G from the gravity in the are of effect, reduces the rate of falling by 1"
per segment, and decreases the effective weight of anything in the area by
20%.
Change Environment: High Gravity - every 2 points spent increases gravity
by 0.2 G, falling speeds by 1" per segment, and effective weights by 20%.
Personally, I think that Change Environment desperately needs expansion.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:48:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 16
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, John and Ron Prins wrote:
> While I liked the stratification of the CE posted in the 'proposed' rules
> set a while back, keeping it to just a few strata and giving GMs license to
> 'come up with the effects' is probably best (what am I saying!!! eek!).
Hmm? Does this ML have a Digest? I just signed on, and missed the
'proposed' rules set you're referring to...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:44:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Subject: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
for review purposes...
Lasting and Extended Duration
-----------------------------
The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
effect.
A variation on Lasting: One can toy around with the conditions needed
for an attack to Last in order to generate more exotic possibilities - A
Lasting attack could be made vulnerable to attack, in which case it would
behave in a manner similar to Entangle; until the Lasting power's BODY is
destroyed, it continues to affect the target (this would only be viable if
the Lasting power cost no END to maintain).
Related to this is the concept of the Extended Duration; this is a
Constant or Lasting Power that has had the frequency of END payments moved
down the time chart (this is, BTW, far less abusive than applying a
Reduced END Cost to the power, and has some very useful side effects).
A side-benefit is that this would effectively replace the Continuing
Charges rules; a Charge of a Constant Power is normally good for one
Phase, but by applying Extended Duration to it, you can stretch out the
time that that charge is good for. This could be thought of as an
advantageous form of Gradual; while the duration of each "use" of the
power gets stretched out, the effects still take place on a turn-by-turn
basis.
Maintenance Costs
-----------------
One could easily go with a Reduced Maintenance Cost; this would
effectively be Reduced END Cost which only applies to a Constant or
Lasting power, and then only to END costs used to keep the power active.
Unfortunately, 1/2 END cost is listed as a +1/4 Adv., so reducing it
further would violate the convention of having all Advantages in
one-quarter increments... Likewise, Increased END Cost could be applied
specifically to the cost needed to activate the power.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:11:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> "champ-l@omg.org" wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:32:44 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
> > Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
-snip-
> > Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
-snip-
> > Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
-snip-
>
> How about the obvious one: Indirect Telekinesis?
Why "Indirect"?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:06:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Dataweaver writes:
> Why "Indirect"?
Because as a rule gravitational forces aren't affected by walls.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 13:14:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Dataweaver writes:
> With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
> some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
> for review purposes...
>
> Lasting and Extended Duration
> -----------------------------
> The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
> IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
> attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
> which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
> for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
> target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
> effect.
Technically, this is what 'uncontrolled' does.
>
> A variation on Lasting: One can toy around with the conditions needed
> for an attack to Last in order to generate more exotic possibilities - A
> Lasting attack could be made vulnerable to attack, in which case it would
> behave in a manner similar to Entangle; until the Lasting power's BODY is
> destroyed, it continues to affect the target (this would only be viable if
> the Lasting power cost no END to maintain).
>
> Related to this is the concept of the Extended Duration; this is a
> Constant or Lasting Power that has had the frequency of END payments moved
> down the time chart (this is, BTW, far less abusive than applying a
> Reduced END Cost to the power, and has some very useful side effects).
> A side-benefit is that this would effectively replace the Continuing
> Charges rules; a Charge of a Constant Power is normally good for one
> Phase, but by applying Extended Duration to it, you can stretch out the
> time that that charge is good for. This could be thought of as an
> advantageous form of Gradual; while the duration of each "use" of the
> power gets stretched out, the effects still take place on a turn-by-turn
> basis.
This is also less abusive than continuing charges (yes victoria, my force field
with 2 recoverable continuing charges, each lasting 1 minute, is a -1/4
limitation. Of course, my GM will throw things at me if I buy this power).
I've been a fan of this one for some time (probably +1/4 per step on the time
chart; double cost for uncontrolled attacks).
>
> Maintenance Costs
> -----------------
> One could easily go with a Reduced Maintenance Cost; this would
> effectively be Reduced END Cost which only applies to a Constant or
> Lasting power, and then only to END costs used to keep the power active.
> Unfortunately, 1/2 END cost is listed as a +1/4 Adv., so reducing it
> further would violate the convention of having all Advantages in
> one-quarter increments... Likewise, Increased END Cost could be applied
> specifically to the cost needed to activate the power.
Uncontrolled zero END powers are a bit of a problem in H4 anyway.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:36:16 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:14 PM 1/22/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Dataweaver writes:
>> With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
>> some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
>> for review purposes...
>>
>> Lasting and Extended Duration
>> -----------------------------
>> The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
>> IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
>> attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
>> which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
>> for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
>> target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
>> effect.
>
>Technically, this is what 'uncontrolled' does.
I don't think so. With Uncontrolled, the character puts a certain
amount of END into the Power, and its just keeps on feeding off that END
until it runs out. With this Advantage (if I understand correctly) the
Power just keeps affecting the target indefinitely, like an Entangle.
Of course, I could be misunderstanding the proposal (it wouldn't be the
first time; in the past 2 months I've changed my tune on how Linked works
in Hero4 and whether Skill Levels can be used to reduce time penalties).
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:46:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Fancy meeting you here... =)
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Dataweaver writes:
> > The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
> > IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
> > attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
> > which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
> > for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
> > target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
> > effect.
>
> Technically, this is what 'uncontrolled' does.
Upon a closer examination of what a Constant Power is like, I'll agree
with this.
> > A variation on Lasting: One can toy around with the conditions needed
> > for an attack to Last in order to generate more exotic possibilities - A
> > Lasting attack could be made vulnerable to attack, in which case it would
> > behave in a manner similar to Entangle; until the Lasting power's BODY is
> > destroyed, it continues to affect the target (this would only be viable if
> > the Lasting power cost no END to maintain).
Without "Lasting", this would be a stand-alone Advantage similar to the
"Attachable" Adder in the fan-written Fuzion "Heroic Abilities" plug-in.
> > Related to this is the concept of the Extended Duration; this is a
> > Constant or Lasting Power that has had the frequency of END payments moved
> > down the time chart (this is, BTW, far less abusive than applying a
> > Reduced END Cost to the power, and has some very useful side effects).
> > A side-benefit is that this would effectively replace the Continuing
> > Charges rules; a Charge of a Constant Power is normally good for one
> > Phase, but by applying Extended Duration to it, you can stretch out the
> > time that that charge is good for. This could be thought of as an
> > advantageous form of Gradual; while the duration of each "use" of the
> > power gets stretched out, the effects still take place on a turn-by-turn
> > basis.
>
> This is also less abusive than continuing charges (yes victoria, my force field
> with 2 recoverable continuing charges, each lasting 1 minute, is a -1/4
> limitation. Of course, my GM will throw things at me if I buy this power).
> I've been a fan of this one for some time (probably +1/4 per step on the time
> chart; double cost for uncontrolled attacks).
On the subject of Charges, I would also recommend terminating it at 33+
Charges (how, exactly, is an EB with 100 shots better than an EB with No
END Cost?)
> > Maintenance Costs
> > -----------------
> > One could easily go with a Reduced Maintenance Cost; this would
> > effectively be Reduced END Cost which only applies to a Constant or
> > Lasting power, and then only to END costs used to keep the power active.
> > Unfortunately, 1/2 END cost is listed as a +1/4 Adv., so reducing it
> > further would violate the convention of having all Advantages in
> > one-quarter increments... Likewise, Increased END Cost could be applied
> > specifically to the cost needed to activate the power.
>
> Uncontrolled zero END powers are a bit of a problem in H4 anyway.
Consider treating these the same way that you would treat an unhealing
Transform; namely, set a relatively common circumstance that cancels out
the Power.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:03:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Reply-To: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Almost. Keep in mind that Rat and my objections are giving a
> "speedster" free what a normal cannot even buy, no matter how many
> penalties he takes. He gets a superhuman ability "free".
No, not actually. As I pointed out, the ability to *attempt*
these skills at Superhuman speed, which would require many points in Skill
Levels to make effective, can be explained as a minor benifit of SFX. The
actual usefulness of doing these things is next to nil. It really is a
SFX benefit, analigous to a Fire-based EB character being able to make a
little light to read by and light up a cigarette.
> What is needed here is either a) a new power, or b) a new skill
> modifier (which normal humans simply buy less of), or c) in this
> particular case, a new skill.
None of the above. Only allow increased speed skill attempts if
it is in-character for whoever is making the attempt. Martin Yan has been
chopping carrots for ages, and had experience with getting faster (Kinda
goes along with buying up a skill roll). The pit crew has specifically
practiced changing tires faster than normal _and_ have equipment that
helps them do this. The rushed Grad Student is used to writing papers
quickly (too much partying as an undergrad) and therefore can try to write
that 10 page "short" paper in only an hour or so.
This is something that has to be looked at in a "what is
physically possible?" light. A Speedster, who can run at a few hundred
miles per hour and various other things can obviously _move_ fast enough
to do these things. You still need a skill roll, and without some major
expenditure on skill levels this isn't going to work often.
> I'm not certain I understand that suggestion. Would it give a very
> fast chef a reasonable roll to do things extra fast, but preventing
> him from doing things ridiculously fast, while preventing you from
> doing as well as he does no matter how hard you try, while
> simultaneously preventing speedsters from getting abilities that
> normals don't have for free?
We have it now! It's just subject to GM Common Sense. "No, your
normal with a familiarity with mechancs cannot change the oil in 1 phase,
even if you _did_ roll a 3-." (Actually, even a Speedster would have
problems here, as the oil only drips so fast.) Let's try that one again:
"No, your pit crew member cannot change his tire in 1 turn without any of
his special pit tools. I don't care that you did roll a 3-." "Yes, your
Speedster can try . . . What? Failed the roll? You don't seem to remeber
the bolts bending in quite that fashion."
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:17:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Reply-To: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Subject: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
* As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
more expensive.
* Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
* Gameplay can be sped up by replacing the current rules for Complementary
Skills with a single bonus to the 'primary skill' roll based on the
complementary skill level (+1 for every 2 full points over a 10-, with a
minimum of a +1; Familiarities cannot be used as complementary skills).
* Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a +1 with up
to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
complementary skills.
* Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting (other
than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them into a
single skill.
* Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
* Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
appropriate, such as "Background")
* "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
skill.
* Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
* A few of the powers look like their default condition should be 'Always
On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Extra Limbs.
It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
Duplication.
* Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
(Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
and Invisibility); add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
* Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
* Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
* Allow versions of Damage Reduction that are analogous to Flash Defense
and Power Defense.
* Extract the "Beam Attack" limitation from the Limited Power limitation,
and incorporate it into the description of EB; likewise, incorporate the
+1 STUN Multiple into the descriptions of HKA and RKA.
* Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
* Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
'one-way', etc.
* Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
applied to attacks which have no range".
* Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
Framework, as per Almanac 1.
* For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
* For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
effect for the modifier to be applied. Also, consider organizing
modifiers according to the required states, so that all Advantages that
are applied only to Attacks are listed together, etc.
* Charges should never be more than a +1/2 Advantage, and kill the 4x
Clips rule.
* Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
of Focus.
* Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
* Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
* Uncontrolled No END and Persistent attacks need a limiting condition
added to them.
* A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the Sense
is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is detectable
by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect for senses?),
and Speech (which allows the Sense Group to be used as a communications
channel - a chameleon-like race could, for instance, use color patterns to
speak.
* Add another Power Structure, "Attachable", which cost an additional 5
points per 1d6 of "durability" (explained below); the attack (which must
be Constant and No END Cost) sticks with the target until it fades or is
detroyed. Decide whether or not the attachment is vulnerable to attack;
if so, it will have a BODY and DEF determined from the "durability" dice
in a manner similar to Entangles. If not, it will last a number of turns
equal to the BODY of the "durability" dice minus an appropriate defense
(usually Power Defense, but it can vary depending on the nature of the
attachment).
Comments?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:29:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Dataweaver writes:
> Fancy meeting you here... =)
Heh. You're the newcomer.
> Without "Lasting", this would be a stand-alone Advantage similar to the
> "Attachable" Adder in the fan-written Fuzion "Heroic Abilities" plug-in.
Oddly enough, I was the original author of that advantage (along with a couple
of other minor things in that plugin; JADs credits aren't the best). Much the
same wording would work in H4.
>
> On the subject of Charges, I would also recommend terminating it at 33+
> Charges (how, exactly, is an EB with 100 shots better than an EB with No
> END Cost?)
Because for +3/4 you can get 64 shots with an autofire attack, and it takes a
+1 to get zero END cost on a regular autofire.
> > Uncontrolled zero END powers are a bit of a problem in H4 anyway.
>
> Consider treating these the same way that you would treat an unhealing
> Transform; namely, set a relatively common circumstance that cancels out
> the Power.
They already have that limitation, it's intrinsic to 'uncontrolled'.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:35:55 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:44 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
>some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
>for review purposes...
BOING!!! ;-]
>Lasting and Extended Duration
>-----------------------------
> The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
>IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
>attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
>which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
>for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
>target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
>effect.
OK, the distinction you're making here is, like, Energy Blast vs
Entangle, or Change Environment vs Transform?
How much of an Advantage do you see Lasting as being? Say, +1?
>A variation on Lasting: One can toy around with the conditions needed
>for an attack to Last in order to generate more exotic possibilities - A
>Lasting attack could be made vulnerable to attack, in which case it would
>behave in a manner similar to Entangle; until the Lasting power's BODY is
>destroyed, it continues to affect the target (this would only be viable if
>the Lasting power cost no END to maintain).
OK, so like, I have a 6d6 EB with Lasting, and do 20 STUN and 5 BODY
with it. You continue to suffer from the STUN damage, and any BODY damage,
until the damage is somehow removed? Is that at least close?
>Related to this is the concept of the Extended Duration; this is a
>Constant or Lasting Power that has had the frequency of END payments moved
>down the time chart (this is, BTW, far less abusive than applying a
>Reduced END Cost to the power, and has some very useful side effects).
>A side-benefit is that this would effectively replace the Continuing
>Charges rules; a Charge of a Constant Power is normally good for one
>Phase, but by applying Extended Duration to it, you can stretch out the
>time that that charge is good for. This could be thought of as an
>advantageous form of Gradual; while the duration of each "use" of the
>power gets stretched out, the effects still take place on a turn-by-turn
>basis.
Rather than seeing Extended Duration as a replacement for Continuing
Charges, you could just see them as an extension of the Continuing Charges
chart over to Powers that aren't on Charges.
Letting a character pay a +1/2 Advantage to only have to pay END on a
Power once per Turn doesn't seem outrageous to me; after all, for that same
+1/2 Advantage he wouldn't have to pay END at all. (This is part of the
reason that I like my adjustment to the Reduced END Chart -- +1/2 for 1
END, +3/4 for 0 END -- though I also understand protests that this is too
profound a change for 5th Ed. I do still like it as a variant, though.)
>Maintenance Costs
>-----------------
>One could easily go with a Reduced Maintenance Cost; this would
>effectively be Reduced END Cost which only applies to a Constant or
>Lasting power, and then only to END costs used to keep the power active.
>Unfortunately, 1/2 END cost is listed as a +1/4 Adv., so reducing it
>further would violate the convention of having all Advantages in
>one-quarter increments... Likewise, Increased END Cost could be applied
>specifically to the cost needed to activate the power.
I think I see what you mean here. Yes, some kind of mechanic to allow
for this would be nice.
Perhaps 6th Edition will officially introduce the idea of +1/8
Advantages and -1/8 Limitations. (Then again, perhaps not.)
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 16:41:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Dataweaver writes:
> Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
>
> * As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
> character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
> character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
> more expensive.
Bleh. Not that 'round at every stage' doesn't get kind of amusing.
> * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
Not worth the effort.
> * Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting (other
> than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them into a
> single skill.
The difference is the class of transport familiarities used ;). Agreed they
should probably be combined.
> * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
These are usually handled as 'physical limitations' -- I've considered adding
'social limitation' as a third category, with descriptions matching the ones
under physical limitation.
> * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> appropriate, such as "Background")
Distinctive features might also fit here.
> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> skill.
Also usually handled as physical limitation.
> * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be 'Always
> On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Extra Limbs.
> It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
> where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
> Duplication.
'Always on' generally doesn't make sense for persistent powers, since there is
usually no limitation for having them on (or if there is, you usually take it
as 'distinctive features: 4 arms' or some such).
> * Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
> (Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
> and Invisibility); add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
Not convinced that 'sense powers' is a coherent group.
> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> applied to attacks which have no range".
This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the 'no
range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> Framework, as per Almanac 1.
Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
> limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
Hm..given that this is intrinsic to 'costs END', this should probably be -1/4.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:02:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Dataweaver writes:
> > * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> > lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
> Not worth the effort.
What effort?
> > * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> > the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> > characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
> These are usually handled as 'physical limitations' -- I've considered adding
> 'social limitation' as a third category, with descriptions matching the ones
> under physical limitation.
They should be worth a lot less, due to their (potentially) much more
transitive nature; I'd drop point costs to one-point increments. Also,
I'd base the descriptions off of psychological limitation instead.
> > * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> > skill.
> Also usually handled as physical limitation.
I have touble seeing "Doesn't know how to drive a car" as being worth 5
points, when "Transport Familiarity: Cars" only costs one.
> > * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be 'Always
> > On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Extra Limbs.
> > It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
> > where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
> > Duplication.
> 'Always on' generally doesn't make sense for persistent powers, since
> there is usually no limitation for having them on (or if there is, you
> usually take it as 'distinctive features: 4 arms' or some such).
...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
On and Instant Change: Always On.
> > * Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
> > (Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
> > and Invisibility); add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
> Not convinced that 'sense powers' is a coherent group.
They are all dependent - very heavily - on the Sense Groups mentioned
under Enhanced Senses.
> > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > applied to attacks which have no range".
> This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the 'no
> range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
Not just 'can', but 'must'.
> > * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> > Framework, as per Almanac 1.
> Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
It depends on how you view Frameworks; I view them as a way of
encapsulating Powers, rather than "merely" lumping a bunch of powers
together.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:28:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Cc: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com&> champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Dataweaver writes:
> They should be worth a lot less, due to their (potentially) much more
> transitive nature; I'd drop point costs to one-point increments. Also,
> I'd base the descriptions off of psychological limitation instead.
Well, all disadvantages probably should have 1 point increments; I've
considered reducing the value of all disadvantages by 5 points; if this reduces
value to 0 value becomes 1.
>
> > > * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an
> > > Everyman skill.
> > Also usually handled as physical limitation.
> I have touble seeing "Doesn't know how to drive a car" as being worth 5
> points, when "Transport Familiarity: Cars" only costs one.
'Doesn't speak English' is easily a -15 to -20 point disad (in a game set in
the US, and depending what your native language is), even though 'language:
English' only costs 3 points for full fluency.
> ...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
> there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
> On and Instant Change: Always On.
Well, always on doesn't make sense for instant powers. Actually, I'd be in
favor of removing the 'always on' limitation entirely; any persistent power can
be declared as 'always on', which means you cannot turn it off (nor can you be
forced to do so) at no additional limitation; this may qualify you for physical
limitations or unusual looks based on the special effect of the always on
power.
> > > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > > applied to attacks which have no range".
> > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the
> > 'no range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> Not just 'can', but 'must'.
So an 8d6 EB damage shield, currently 60 active/real, would become 60 active/40
real? Not necessarily a bad thing, just checking if this is your intent.
>
> > > * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> > > Framework, as per Almanac 1.
> > Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
>
> It depends on how you view Frameworks; I view them as a way of
> encapsulating Powers, rather than "merely" lumping a bunch of powers
> together.
A framework does not turn multiple powers into a single power. Also, you
cannot put a framework inside another framework -- does this mean you can't
have a 'usable on others' power inside a multipower?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:58:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Dataweaver writes:
> > ...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
> > there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
> > On and Instant Change: Always On.
>
> Well, always on doesn't make sense for instant powers. Actually, I'd be
> in favor of removing the 'always on' limitation entirely; any persistent
> power can be declared as 'always on', which means you cannot turn it off
> (nor can you be forced to do so) at no additional limitation; this may
> qualify you for physical limitations or unusual looks based on the
> special effect of the always on power.
Sounds good; unfortunately, all movement powers, Duplication,
Extra-Dimensional Movement, FTL Travel, Instant Change, Missile Deflection
& Reflection, and Multiform are all listed as Persistent powers.
Personally, I think that the movement powers (except Superleap and
Teleport) need to be changed to Constant, as should FTL Travel, and the
rest need to be changed to Instant. Furthermore, Extra-Dimensional
Movement and FTL Travel should probably be added to the Movement Category.
> > > > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > > > applied to attacks which have no range".
> > > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the
> > > 'no range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> > Not just 'can', but 'must'.
>
> So an 8d6 EB damage shield, currently 60 active/real, would become 60
> active/40 real? Not necessarily a bad thing, just checking if this is
> your intent.
It is.
> > > > * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> > > > Framework, as per Almanac 1.
> > > Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
> >
> > It depends on how you view Frameworks; I view them as a way of
> > encapsulating Powers, rather than "merely" lumping a bunch of powers
> > together.
>
> A framework does not turn multiple powers into a single power. Also, you
> cannot put a framework inside another framework -- does this mean you can't
> have a 'usable on others' power inside a multipower?
True enough.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:19:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 01:14 PM 1/22/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> >Dataweaver writes:
> >> With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
> >> some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
> >> for review purposes...
> >>
> >> Lasting and Extended Duration
> >> -----------------------------
> >> The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
> >> IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
> >> attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
> >> which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
> >> for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
> >> target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
> >> effect.
> >
> >Technically, this is what 'uncontrolled' does.
>
> I don't think so. With Uncontrolled, the character puts a certain
> amount of END into the Power, and its just keeps on feeding off that END
> until it runs out. With this Advantage (if I understand correctly) the
> Power just keeps affecting the target indefinitely, like an Entangle.
Yes and no; it's very similar to "Attachable", except that it constantly
needs to be fed END by the character or it quits, and it will last more
than one phase. Perhaps "Lasting" was a bad name for it; instead,
consider it to be a variant form of Attachable. Upon further thought, I'd
further revise the description by saying that the 'attachment' might be
either Breakable or Unbreakable, similar to Focus (give it a BODY and DEF
equal to Active Points/5, and further allow the Attachable power to take
the various Entangle options).
> Of course, I could be misunderstanding the proposal (it wouldn't be the
> first time; in the past 2 months I've changed my tune on how Linked works
> in Hero4 and whether Skill Levels can be used to reduce time penalties).
Don't worry about it; this is the third time in twelve hours that I've
revised this particular concept.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 20:29:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 01:44 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
> >With the news of the upcoming Hero System 5th Edition, I've been woking on
> >some ideas to improve the game, which I'd like to bounce off of this list
> >for review purposes...
>
> BOING!!! ;-]
>
> >Lasting and Extended Duration
> >-----------------------------
> > The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very muddled.
> >IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those that
> >attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once, but
> >which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is that,
> >for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on the
> >target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type of
> >effect.
>
> OK, the distinction you're making here is, like, Energy Blast vs
> Entangle, or Change Environment vs Transform?
> How much of an Advantage do you see Lasting as being? Say, +1?
As mentioned elsewhere, I've completely revised this particular
proposal... The distinction I had in mind was along the lines of Darkness
vs. Entangle.
> >A variation on Lasting: One can toy around with the conditions needed
> >for an attack to Last in order to generate more exotic possibilities - A
> >Lasting attack could be made vulnerable to attack, in which case it would
> >behave in a manner similar to Entangle; until the Lasting power's BODY is
> >destroyed, it continues to affect the target (this would only be viable if
> >the Lasting power cost no END to maintain).
>
> OK, so like, I have a 6d6 EB with Lasting, and do 20 STUN and 5 BODY
> with it. You continue to suffer from the STUN damage, and any BODY damage,
> until the damage is somehow removed? Is that at least close?
Relatively. Of course, before that could happen the attack would already
have to be Constant Zero-END (possibly even Uncontrolled); so it's
actually less of a problem than existing mechanics.
> Rather than seeing Extended Duration as a replacement for Continuing
> Charges, you could just see them as an extension of the Continuing Charges
> chart over to Powers that aren't on Charges.
That sounds about right.
> I think I see what you mean here. Yes, some kind of mechanic to allow
> for this would be nice.
> Perhaps 6th Edition will officially introduce the idea of +1/8
> Advantages and -1/8 Limitations. (Then again, perhaps not.)
6th Edition? Boy, are _you_ eager... ;)
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:16:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
> > On the subject of Charges, I would also recommend terminating it at 33+
> > Charges (how, exactly, is an EB with 100 shots better than an EB with No
> > END Cost?)
>
> Because for +3/4 you can get 64 shots with an autofire attack, and it takes a
> +1 to get zero END cost on a regular autofire.
Mix this with doubling the advantage cost of charge advantage for
autofire attacks or double the maximum advantage level to be +1.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 21:24:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
> > > * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> > > lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
> > Not worth the effort.
> What effort?
Effort of counting them towards Disads. The sheets are complex
enough.
> > > * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> > > the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> > > characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
> > These are usually handled as 'physical limitations' -- I've considered adding
> > 'social limitation' as a third category, with descriptions matching the ones
> > under physical limitation.
> They should be worth a lot less, due to their (potentially) much more
> transitive nature; I'd drop point costs to one-point increments. Also,
> I'd base the descriptions off of psychological limitation instead.
Um. If the disadvantage is lost, it is either bought off with
points or replaced with something else. That's pretty standard. Changing
the points structure of disads will be too large a "feel" change.
And it won't work of Psych lims simply because an Ego roll will
_not_ allow one to get out from the restrictions. Therefore, it's a
physical lim.
> > > * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> > > skill.
> > Also usually handled as physical limitation.
> I have touble seeing "Doesn't know how to drive a car" as being worth 5
> points, when "Transport Familiarity: Cars" only costs one.
I don't, considering that no one actually has to pay for TF: Cars.
That's a pretty big limitation in a modern society. Look at it this way.
The ability to breath Oxygen doesn't cost anything, but everyone has it.
Therefore is it worth nothing to not be able to breath it.
> ...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
> there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
> On and Instant Change: Always On.
How are these powers at all valid?
> > > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > > applied to attacks which have no range".
> > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the 'no
> > range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> Not just 'can', but 'must'.
Changing the point cost for something that can already be
problematic. As is, no range comes with Damage Shield and it should stay
that way.
> > > * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> > > Framework, as per Almanac 1.
> > Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
>
> It depends on how you view Frameworks; I view them as a way of
> encapsulating Powers, rather than "merely" lumping a bunch of powers
> together.
Fine, but as the word "framework" is implied in Champions, this
wouldn't work. Put them together into one construction with differing
modifiers. How's that?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 19:50:51 -0800
From: Samuel.Bell@Eng.Sun.COM (Sam Bell)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
Aldo: It was fun reading your page. I hope you don't mind my criticism.
I think it is all but impossible to impose any sort of order onto the
rambling, self-contradictory information we get from the comics reguarding
superhero's power levels, but it is fun to try.
Here's my two cents:
Your characteristics and skill level benchmarks don't seem to match up.
For example, let's say I'm "competent" in the Int department (I like to
think so). You define competent Int as 13-17, so if I buy an Int-based
skill it will be on 12-, which you define as "Heroic" level. It seems to
me that people with competent level stats who buy the base level of a
skill should be merely competent, not heroic.
Your benchmarking of stats has a few weird spots. Her's the ones I found:
Strength:
Captain Britain at 25 Str? Even if we accept the OHOTMU's putting
him in the 2-ton range that should be 31 Str. How he punched out the
Juggernaut with just 2-ton strength is a mystery to me, but I saw it happen.
In general, the OHOTMU's strength number are way below what has been
observed in the comics. There's a long essay on this in the FAQ for my
write-ups if you have that (write me if you don't).
Dexterity:
In general, I think trying to peg Dex onto gymnastic ability is silly. If
anything, it should be pegged to hand-to-hand combat ability. Gymnastics
is just another Dex-based skill and shouldn't get so much attention. To
put it another way, juggling is a dex-based skill too, but just because I'm
a heroic level juggler doesn't mean I have 15-17 dex.
In specific: Shadowcat has the same dex as the Thing? Darkseid has more dex
than Nightwing? Titanium Man has more dex than Mockingbird??? Let's face it,
the guys who come up with stats for game systems screw up sometimes.
Resistance:
A pd-ed in the 41 to 45 range is defined as "...possessed by entities existing in
environs beyond our understanding", but they can easily take Stun from a 3d6 RKA.
Galactus, at 35pd, often takes Stun from 1.5d6 Hand Guns. Who needs the Ultimate
Nullifier? A few infantry companies should put him down in no time.
Thor, who has to worry about ordinary bullets, is in the same category with Superman?
Colossus is less resistant to damage than Batman???
I think that last one bears repeating. Colossus is less resistant to damage than Batman???
Damage Classes:
Dr Strange actually has a pretty good punch (I think Wong gave him some pointers).
For instance, he KO'ed Korvac with one punch.
Iron Man's primary attack is called 'Repulsor Rays', not 'Pulse Bolts'
A straight punch from J'Onn J'Onnz does more damage than Galactus?
Thor does 15d6 when he throws Mjolnor??? He can't even destroy a 6" diameter tree
in a single blow. With an average roll he can't even DENT a large vault door!!!
What's Loki's problem? Just lock this guy in a bank vault and he'll suffocate before
he can get out!
-Sam
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:51:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> > > > * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> > > > lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
> > > Not worth the effort.
> > What effort?
>
> Effort of counting them towards Disads. The sheets are complex
> enough.
How would that make the character sheets more complex? Just account for
lowered characteristics as if they were Disads, the same way you do with
Poverty (the negative form of Money).
> > > > * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> > > > the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> > > > characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
> > > These are usually handled as 'physical limitations' -- I've considered adding
> > > 'social limitation' as a third category, with descriptions matching the ones
> > > under physical limitation.
> > They should be worth a lot less, due to their (potentially) much more
> > transitive nature; I'd drop point costs to one-point increments. Also,
> > I'd base the descriptions off of psychological limitation instead.
>
> Um. If the disadvantage is lost, it is either bought off with
> points or replaced with something else. That's pretty standard. Changing
> the points structure of disads will be too large a "feel" change.
>
> And it won't work of Psych lims simply because an Ego roll will
> _not_ allow one to get out from the restrictions. Therefore, it's a
> physical lim.
It wouldn't _be_ a psych lim, so the mechanics wouldn't be quite the same;
what I was referring to was "Intensity of reactions - moderate, strong, or
Total"; although now that I think about it, this might be modelled better
as a variation of Distinctive Features.
> > > > * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> > > > skill.
> > > Also usually handled as physical limitation.
> > I have touble seeing "Doesn't know how to drive a car" as being worth 5
> > points, when "Transport Familiarity: Cars" only costs one.
>
> I don't, considering that no one actually has to pay for TF: Cars.
> That's a pretty big limitation in a modern society. Look at it this way.
> The ability to breath Oxygen doesn't cost anything, but everyone has it.
> Therefore is it worth nothing to not be able to breath it.
In a society where TF: Cars isn't an Everyman skill, it costs one point to
purchase it. Why, then, is _not_ having it worth 5 points (at _least_) in
a society where it _is_ an Everyman skill? (note that the 5 points assumes
that it occurs infrequently and impairs slightly; something like not
knowing how to speak would be worth 20 to 25 points...)
> > ...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
> > there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
> > On and Instant Change: Always On.
>
> How are these powers at all valid?
They're not; that's the point.
> > > > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > > > applied to attacks which have no range".
> > > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the 'no
> > > range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> > Not just 'can', but 'must'.
>
> Changing the point cost for something that can already be
> problematic. As is, no range comes with Damage Shield and it should stay
> that way.
Why? It complicates the system by adding an (IMHO) unneccessary special
case.
> > > > * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> > > > Framework, as per Almanac 1.
> > > Definately not a framework; possibly an advantage.
> >
> > It depends on how you view Frameworks; I view them as a way of
> > encapsulating Powers, rather than "merely" lumping a bunch of powers
> > together.
>
> Fine, but as the word "framework" is implied in Champions, this
> wouldn't work. Put them together into one construction with differing
> modifiers. How's that?
"one construction"? Please clarify...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:22:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
> > Effort of counting them towards Disads. The sheets are complex
> > enough.
>
> How would that make the character sheets more complex? Just account for
> lowered characteristics as if they were Disads, the same way you do with
> Poverty (the negative form of Money).
An unneeded addition to the disad side when a simple negative
number in the Char cost would suffice. Also, would needlessly handicap
certain concepts by allowing them less disad points, in essence.
> > And it won't work of Psych lims simply because an Ego roll will
> > _not_ allow one to get out from the restrictions. Therefore, it's a
> > physical lim.
>
> It wouldn't _be_ a psych lim, so the mechanics wouldn't be quite the same;
> what I was referring to was "Intensity of reactions - moderate, strong, or
> Total"; although now that I think about it, this might be modelled better
> as a variation of Distinctive Features.
Ah, ok. As it is it can be modeled with Physical Lim as is. I
personally want to keep it this way (I wan't to avoid large changes in the
rules) but I wouldn't be too averse to a Social Limitation category.
> In a society where TF: Cars isn't an Everyman skill, it costs one point to
> purchase it. Why, then, is _not_ having it worth 5 points (at _least_) in
> a society where it _is_ an Everyman skill? (note that the 5 points assumes
> that it occurs infrequently and impairs slightly; something like not
> knowing how to speak would be worth 20 to 25 points...)
You can't equate the cost of having something (especially when
it's something that is intrinsic) with the cost of not having that
something. In this case, not being able to breathe oxygen, which everyone
can do for free, would be a no-point Disad.
Not being able to drive is a large disadvantage that would vary
from Character to Character. Someone with flight or other major movement
would be less hindered. Also, characters in less urban areas will be more
disadvantages.
> > How are these powers at all valid?
>
> They're not; that's the point.
Ah. But any GM can see that and point out to his/her characters
why they can't do that.
> > Changing the point cost for something that can already be
> > problematic. As is, no range comes with Damage Shield and it should stay
> > that way.
>
> Why? It complicates the system by adding an (IMHO) unneccessary special
> case.
Hmmm? Explain.
> > Fine, but as the word "framework" is implied in Champions, this
> > wouldn't work. Put them together into one construction with differing
> > modifiers. How's that?
>
> "one construction"? Please clarify...
Like how they are in HSA1. One advantage with different levels
and modifiers covers both aspects.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:24:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Reply-To: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > > On the subject of Charges, I would also recommend terminating it at 33+
> > > Charges (how, exactly, is an EB with 100 shots better than an EB with No
> > > END Cost?)
> >
> > Because for +3/4 you can get 64 shots with an autofire attack, and it
> > takes a +1 to get zero END cost on a regular autofire.
Hmm... Autofire _does_ tend to throw a monkeywrench into the works,
doesn't it?
> Mix this with doubling the advantage cost of charge advantage for
> autofire attacks or double the maximum advantage level to be +1.
Actually, it might be better to remove the "No END Cost" feature from
Charges altogether and drop the bonuses by a further -1/2.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:35:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
> > Mix this with doubling the advantage cost of charge advantage for
> > autofire attacks or double the maximum advantage level to be +1.
>
> Actually, it might be better to remove the "No END Cost" feature from
> Charges altogether and drop the bonuses by a further -1/2.
But then Charges can run into AP limit problems if they take No
End. I'd just go with the increased limit to Charges advantage for
Autofire Attacks.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:41:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Rick Holding wrote:
> -- Dataweaver wrote:
>
> > > > > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only
> > > > > be applied to attacks which have no range".
> > > > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take
> > > > the 'no range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or
> > > > whatever?
> > > Not just 'can', but 'must'.
> > >
> > > So an 8d6 EB damage shield, currently 60 active/real, would become 60
> > > active/40 real? Not necessarily a bad thing, just checking if this is
> > > your intent.
> >
> > It is.
>
> Actually, if you read the description of damage shield, the no
> range modifier is automatically applied. You are not allowed to get any
> points back for it.
I know; I was proposing a change.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: CptPatriot <CptPatriot@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 01:06:38 EST
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
I don't see the problem in just using Telekinesis w/ Indirect & Area Effect.
It simulates it just fine when you don't take into account
that the STR doesn't affect all masses equally.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Woodie" <woodrow.w.smith@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:25:49 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 12
On Thursday, January 22, 1998 8:02 PM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>> I don't, considering that no one actually has to pay for TF: Cars.
>> That's a pretty big limitation in a modern society. Look at it
this way.
>> The ability to breath Oxygen doesn't cost anything, but everyone
has it.
>> Therefore is it worth nothing to not be able to breath it.
>
>In a society where TF: Cars isn't an Everyman skill, it costs one
point to
>purchase it. Why, then, is _not_ having it worth 5 points (at
_least_) in
>a society where it _is_ an Everyman skill? (note that the 5 points
assumes
>that it occurs infrequently and impairs slightly; something like not
>knowing how to speak would be worth 20 to 25 points...)
Imagine a man who lives in a world where no one can speak except him.
Should he pay 20-25 pts for this ability, because in a world where
everyone does speak he would take that many as a Disadvantage? If he
is the only man in the world to speak language X, then it is only
worth 4pts for idiomatic command, but it is worth 20-25 pts in
Disadvantages when everyone does have it except him. Similarly, and on
a similar scale, having the ability to drive in a world where no one
drives is only worth 1 pt, but not having it in a world where everyone
drives is worth 5.
In a world where everyone drives, not being able to is a significant
Disadvantage, worth much more than 1 pt. Bad guys constantly escape.
Everyone expects you to be able to get to someplace 10 miles away
within an hour. Jobs can be difficult to get or hold, because you
can't reach them. You are always the last one to reach any emergency,
by a considerable period of time.
Yes, I do think it is worth 5 pts.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:01:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 13
>
> Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
>
> * As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
> character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
> character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
> more expensive.
This would get the 'Hero is too complex' people even more uppety.
> * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
Sounds like pre 4th edition. I prefer the current method.
> * Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting (other
> than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them into a
> single skill.
Good idea. Combat Vehicle Operation.
> * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> appropriate, such as "Background")
Rather I think the Disad list needs to be expanded upon to include
GURPS ideas like Addiction, Duty, Social Stigma, etc. Some of these can be
simulated under the current system, but it gets complex.
> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
I'd like to see an active, controllable version of
Luck Manipulation that can be used to bless or curse others.
> * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be 'Always
> On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Extra Limbs.
> It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
> where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
> Duplication.
I can see extra limbs effects that are not always on, and duplication
that is always on (though that may be best with follower, save that followers
are NPC's).
> * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
> of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
As an optional rule only, this doesn't fit many campaign concepts.
> * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
> Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
> Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
> through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
> 'one-way', etc.
In mo opinion, Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall should all be
combined into one power, which various mods to make the others.
The base power should resemble Force Field in mechanics and cost.
> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> applied to attacks which have no range".
"Nova" is a 6 year old girl with a problem. Whenever anyone touches
her she explodes out in a lethal blast of energy.
I can see other effects where touching sets off and energy blast,
RKA, and others.
> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
> limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
>
This is MOOT. Anything you desire can be a 'limited power'. It's only
not moot in terms of including more 'examples' of limited.
> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
I'd like to see entangles that can be attacked by stats other
than Str. Such as Dex, Int, Ego, or Pre.
> * A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the Sense
> is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is detectable
> by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect for senses?),
visable
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 02:16:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 14
Howdy Sam!
> Aldo: It was fun reading your page. I hope you don't mind my criticism.
> I think it is all but impossible to impose any sort of order onto the
> rambling, self-contradictory information we get from the comics reguarding
> superhero's power levels, but it is fun to try.
Heh, I tend to agree. With the exception of one or two cases the character
stat examples are taken directly from the MSH and DC Heroes games. Some
_I_ don't agree with, but I didn't feel like taking the trouble to "fix"
them. As I expressed earlier, they are not the crux of my attempts at
coming up with benchmark tables. They are merely an interesting aside.
Still, you make some interesting points regarding the stuff I am concerned
about, and I DO appreciate your input, so on we go. :]
> Your characteristics and skill level benchmarks don't seem to match up.
> For example, let's say I'm "competent" in the Int department (I like to
> think so). You define competent Int as 13-17, so if I buy an Int-based
> skill it will be on 12-, which you define as "Heroic" level. It seems to
> me that people with competent level stats who buy the base level of a
> skill should be merely competent, not heroic.
This is a VERY good point which I intend to consider! Thanks!
I definitely think this should be the case for INT. I might argue that it
is not so important for the other stats because you are getting alot more
than just skill rolls for your buck (at least w/stats like DEX).
> Your benchmarking of stats has a few weird spots. Her's the ones I found:
>
> Strength:
>
> Captain Britain at 25 Str? Even if we accept the OHOTMU's putting
> him in the 2-ton range that should be 31 Str. How he punched out the
> Juggernaut with just 2-ton strength is a mystery to me, but I saw it
> happen.
Well, as I said - I'm not to keen on discussing discrepancies w/character
examples. As far as I'm concerned those are the MSH and DC Heroes peoples
mistakes - not mine. Still, I'll say a few words on some of these. Captain
Britain is a character I'm not very familiar with. MSH gives him a
Strength of Remarkable (if I remember correctly) which allows him to lift
up to one ton casually. This is about a 25 STR. If he pushes he can still
hit that 2 ton limit that you mention from the OHOTMU. I'm not saying I
agree with it, but that is what Marvel claimed at the time and that is
what I was going by.
> In general, the OHOTMU's strength number are way below what has been
> observed in the comics. There's a long essay on this in the FAQ for my
> write-ups if you have that (write me if you don't).
I've heard all the arguments concerning this, but I would love to
read your FAQ anyway.
> Dexterity:
>
> In general, I think trying to peg Dex onto gymnastic ability is silly. If
> anything, it should be pegged to hand-to-hand combat ability. Gymnastics
> is just another Dex-based skill and shouldn't get so much attention. To
> put it another way, juggling is a dex-based skill too, but just because I'm
> a heroic level juggler doesn't mean I have 15-17 dex.
I've thought about this too. Actually, this is precisely the type of thing
I'm concerned about for most of the benchmark tables. I DO think the
wording could be tightened up a bit and that better descriptions could be
developed. Thats why I ask for input. :]
About the DEX thing. I see your point, but I do think there is SOME merit
to using gymnastic ability as an index for DEX benchmarks. The reason for
this is that DEX gives you OCV and, more importantly, DCV. This implies
some measure of jumping around and dodging - especially in the very visual
genre of comics. When a benchmark table says that such and such can move
with the agility of an Olympic gymnast suggests a certain level of
physical ability which helps to visualize DCV. Its different w/a juggler
or a video game whiz. Those activities are more a product of manual
dexterity - not body agility. To be a heroic juggler you really only need
a high skill level, not a high stat. Still, I think you make a good point
about needing to define DEX in a fashion that more completely captures the
complexity of the stat.
> In specific: Shadowcat has the same dex as the Thing? Darkseid has more dex
> than Nightwing? Titanium Man has more dex than Mockingbird??? Let's face it,
> the guys who come up with stats for game systems screw up sometimes.
Well, thats what they said. :] Again, their screw-ups have little bearing
on the actual benchmarks. For the record, though, it MIGHT be feasible for
Titanium man to have a higher DEX than Mockingbird. Lets say that
Titanium Man's suit gives him an enhanced DEX of 18. This gives him a 6
OCV and DCV. Now, Mockingbird probably has a DEX of 17 by MSH standards.
This also gives her a 6 OCV and DCV. So far the only advantage that T-Man
has over Mocky is first strike capibilities. I'll assume that Mocky has a
higher speed, though. By my benchmarks she would probably have a 4 SPD and
T-Man would have a 3. I'm also assuming that T-Man has one or two combat
levels at most. Mocky has scads of M-Arts. One of her maneuvers in
undoubtedly a Martial Dodge. She also probably has several combat levels
(maybe 3 w/Martial Arts + one or two DCV levels). Combine all the
modifiers from all the different sources and you could have a VERY
impressive OCV/DCV advantage for Mocky. She could even have a cool though
bubble like:
o0(Titanium Man moves incredibly fast for a lumbering hunk of
metal! Well, he may have the technological advancements, but I've got the
training. That means that I may not have much in terms of raw power, but I
know how to use what I've got, and that makes all the difference!)
Seriously, I often think that people get too bogged down with straight DEX
scores and forget about the intricacies of the HERO system.
As for Nightwing and Darksied? Don't ask. DC Heroes DOESN'T have the ways
out I just described for Mocky. DEX IS far more important in that game,
yet they decided that discrepancy should exist. [shrug]
Shadowcat and Thing? Same thing. I have no idea. I will say this, though.
Alot of people suggest that thing is REALLY slow, but even w/my lower
scale I would give him a 3 SPD and about a 13 DEX. He may be made of
stone, but he is more that strong enough to lug that body of his around
w/out feeling it. He is also combat experienced. I think he gets short
changed most of the time. Still, I think you are right. Shadowcat should
have a DEX at LEAST on the level of a Mockingbird.
> Resistance:
>
> A pd-ed in the 41 to 45 range is defined as "...possessed by entities
> existing in environs beyond our understanding", but they can easily take
> Stun from a 3d6 RKA.
Yeah, but to some extent this is part of the genre. Silver Surfer would
probably feel Human Torch's RKA, and unless you are talking Nova Blast
this is not going to be much more than 3d6. This inconsistency doesn't
bother me as long as I'm certain that the 3d6 RKA won't/can't KILL
someone with stats in this range. Besides, you are forgetting about all
the extra's that people like the Celestials probably have - Damage
Reduction being one of them.
> Galactus, at 35pd, often takes Stun from 1.5d6 Hand Guns. Who needs the
> Ultimate Nullifier? A few infantry companies should put him down in no
> time.
Again, this is Galactus walking around in his jamies. Galactus probably
has Damage Reduction as well as Damage Resistance, Force Fields, Energy
Absorption, etc. I'd also hate to see the size of his VPP.
> Thor, who has to worry about ordinary bullets, is in the same category with
> Superman?
WAIT a minute. Since when does Thor have to worry about normal bullets?
I would definitely put them in the same category based on the punishment
both take. If Thor DOES have to worry about bullets, then treat him like
Wonder Woman and don't buy him Damage Resistance. As far as Superman goes,
I think it works pretty elegantly. We all know that Superman is vulnerable
to magic, but it seems to me that this only means that he can FEEL it. He
still seems to be able to take blows that would kill a human being from
magical attacks, but he bleeds instead of shrugging them off. Well, what
if Supes has a kryptonian body that gives him a 30 PD and ED. On top of
that he has his invulnerablity field which gives him 75% Damage Reduction
for both PD and ED as well as full Damage Resistance? Both of these powers
have the limitation "doesn't work against magic." I think this works
pretty well.
> Colossus is less resistant to damage than Batman???
>
> I think that last one bears repeating. Colossus is less resistant to damage
> than Batman???
Nope, but this is normal PD and ED and does not include his armor. I
should have made clear. That conversion comes from Colossus' END stat. The
game treats his armor seperate. I WOULD consider that Batman might have a
higher CON. It might be more difficult for damage to get through the
armor, but once it does Colossus might not have the CON of the better
trained Batman. Then again, I'm not a Colossus expert. :]
> Damage Classes:
>
> Dr Strange actually has a pretty good punch (I think Wong gave him some pointers).
> For instance, he KO'ed Korvac with one punch.
Okay, so give him some martial arts. :]
> Iron Man's primary attack is called 'Repulsor Rays', not 'Pulse Bolts'
I know, but he also has pulse bolts. :]
> A straight punch from J'Onn J'Onnz does more damage than Galactus?
If you go with the stats in the books - yes. Keep in mind that STR is the
one stat where you can actually find "offical" benchmarks in almost every
game.
> Thor does 15d6 when he throws Mjolnor??? He can't even destroy a 6" diameter
> tree in a single blow. With an average roll he can't even DENT a large
> vault door!!! What's Loki's problem? Just lock this guy in a bank vault
> and he'll suffocate before
> he can get out!
Yeah, I think alot of this has to do with the BODY and Defene HERO assigns
to things. Sometimes I think its kind of screwed. Its VERY easy for even
the weakest of superheroes to punch through brick walls. All you have to
do is 8 body. In the comics, if Daredevil punches a brick wall his hand
will hurt. By the same token, its really hard for the strongest of
characters to break things like bank vaults. When you start justifying the
insane number of dice that it would take to routinely do such things,
combat starts to get REALLY unbalanced. I'm not sure what I gave Mjolnor
in the tables I posted, but my most recent version gives Mjolnor as hurled
by the mighty Thor 18d6. I think in terms of combat effects this is a
pretty good aproximation. Also, my conversions would give Thor something
like 7 or 8 combat levels (In MSH their is a Fighting characteristic
which I equate w/combat levels. Thor has an Unearthly Fighting). In a
pinch he could use those for damage and boost that up to a 22d6 attack.
Push it and he gets a 24d6 attack. If he rolls average BODY on that attack
he is one away from destroying that bank vault!
Take care and thanks for your comments,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:29:09 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 15
Hello;
A discussion on the newsgroup brings this point up for me.
What should the 'base point levels' be for 5th edition.
I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
But changing the base points as follows:
Normal: 15
Skilled Normal: 30
Competant Normal: 50
Hero: 75
Standard SuperHero: 125
High Powered SuperHero: 175
I suggest these to allow for 'background skills'
The current point suggestions in 4th edition were set in 3rd edition
before a fully developed skill system existed.
The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the concept
beyond it's limits.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 01:58:04 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 16
Hello;
Just wanted to remind everyone that the 5th edition questionaire Hero
Games mentioned is up on their website. Send yours in ASAP. I just did so
myself. If anyone wants to know what I said, you can email me for it. But I
doubt I'll get a request. We on this list seem to be a rather opinionated
lot who only like to listen to ourselves. :)
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 04:07:21 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 17
Brian Wong wrote:
>
> Hello;
>
> A discussion on the newsgroup brings this point up for me.
>
> What should the 'base point levels' be for 5th edition.
>
> I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
> But changing the base points as follows:
>
> Normal: 15
> Skilled Normal: 30
> Competant Normal: 50
> Hero: 75
> Standard SuperHero: 125
> High Powered SuperHero: 175
>
> I suggest these to allow for 'background skills'
>
> The current point suggestions in 4th edition were set in 3rd edition
> before a fully developed skill system existed.
<and so on...>
Actually, as far as the various levels of normals go, I find that
there are generally very few skills necessary to 'flesh them out'. At
least insofar as purchaseing them with points. Obviously, any average
person will have a wide variety of 'skills' and interests which would
seem to require scads of points to cover them all. But it is not really
so. Many if not most of Joe Averages day-to-day 'skills' may be
familiarities or not even worth points at all! This isn't to say that
people can't do things, just that they can't do them at a high success
rate in stressful situations. Also, remember that anyone who has lived
long enough to have gained skills and knowledge and life experience will
also have lived long enough to gain disadvantages; Not even counting the
AUTOMATIC Normal CHAR Max for 20 points in superhero games, there are
always relationships, phobias, I'd wager that just about EVERYBODY ALIVE
would have to have at least 5-10 points of some sort of psych. lim., and
so on. In fact, if I want a normal NPC in my game (else why the hell
would I bother writing one up, eh?), I find that throwing in a minimum
of 5-10 points in disadvantages really helps to give a real sense of
individuality.
Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that Normals
have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10 baseline
Stat is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals 'destined
for greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the primary
stats by 2 each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges
and even personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend
to have.
I think the levels set for the various 'normal' levels in the book
work just fine, and I have further always considered the standard
starting levels in the Book to be quite sufficient for beginning
players. And that's actually the point. Experienced GMs and players
will do whatever they damn well please anyway, so the guidelines are
primarily for the beginning or less experienced Hero players. To which
purpose I think that the suggested levels given in the Book are
perfectly fine where they are.
Just my $.02
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:46:24 -0600
From: Henry Faust <drfaust@sprynet.com>
Subject: Simple question about Move By's
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 19
I a real simple question about move bys and move thrus. The rule says that the
damage for a move by is 1/2 STR + 1die for every 10m/yds moved. Now my question
is are they talking about velocity say 30m/sec or the distance the hero traveled
before attacked him, say 10m ? The BBB used velocity (V) which made rule easier
to understand. suggestions, rulings ... is this spelled out any better anywhere
else?
Henry Faust
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:51:01 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 20
> Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com> writes:
> Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that Normals
> have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10 baseline
> Stat is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals 'destined
> for greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the primary
> stats by 2 each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges
> and even personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend
> to have.
>
Is that actually official ?
Curt
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:09:24 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:29 AM 1/23/98 -0800, Brian Wong wrote:
>Hello;
>
> A discussion on the newsgroup brings this point up for me.
>
>What should the 'base point levels' be for 5th edition.
>
>I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
>But changing the base points as follows:
>
>Normal: 15
>Skilled Normal: 30
>Competant Normal: 50
>Hero: 75
>Standard SuperHero: 125
>High Powered SuperHero: 175
>
>I suggest these to allow for 'background skills'
No, I think we should leave them as they are: 0, 25, 50, 75, 100, 150.
>The current point suggestions in 4th edition were set in 3rd edition
>before a fully developed skill system existed.
Actually, they were set in 1st Edition, but that's beside the point.
>The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
>character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
>try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
>power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the concept
>beyond it's limits.
Don't forget that the system of Disadvantages is also better developed
under the 4th Edition. To give just one example, Unusual Looks has become
Distinctive Features; can now include a variety of things and even be taken
more than once. It's very likely that Conditional Distictive Features will
be added as well in the 5th Edition. Then you also have Reputation and
Rivalry, which didn't exist under the 3rd Edition (except in Robot
Warriors, and maybe one or two others). Accidental Change and Dependence
were added to 3rd Edition as afterthoughts, but are now a part of the 4th
Edition.
I've found that there's a lot to be said for basing superheroes on 100
points, but allowing 200 points in Disadvantages under the new rules. The
additional points from those Disadvantages can be spent on those extra
Skills under the now-improved Skill system, as well as on Talents and minor
Powers that help round out the character.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 10:14:05 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 21
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> > * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> > Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> > appropriate, such as "Background")
> Rather I think the Disad list needs to be expanded upon to include
> GURPS ideas like Addiction, Duty, Social Stigma, etc. Some of these can be
> simulated under the current system, but it gets complex.
You might want to drop by my website then. Later today (1/23) I should be
posting my expanded Hero Disadvantages list, which used GURPS disads as a
base. It does include Duty, Addiction, Vows, Secret and so on, as well as
a large listing of Psych and Phys Limsn. Let me know what you think.
***************************************************************************
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion *
* Michael Surbrook / susano@access.digex.net *
* Visit "Surbrook's Stuff' the Hero Games resource site at: *
* http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/index.html *
* Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:39:17 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 06:17 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
And tossing in my tuppence worth blow-by-blow.
>* As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
>character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
>character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
>more expensive.
Not a bad suggestion, considering that a mention of this as an option
would take up about one paragraph, or at most two.
>* Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
>lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
Not a bad idea. The existing "only lower one" rule has been around long
enough now, though, that it'll probably stay.
>* Gameplay can be sped up by replacing the current rules for Complementary
>Skills with a single bonus to the 'primary skill' roll based on the
>complementary skill level (+1 for every 2 full points over a 10-, with a
>minimum of a +1; Familiarities cannot be used as complementary skills).
This could be an option.
>* Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a +1 with up
>to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
>complementary skills.
Sensible. Better yet, for 1 point you can purchase +1 with the use of
any two Skills together, as long as one is being used as a Complementary
Skill for the other.
>* Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting (other
>than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them into a
>single skill.
The explanation I give in TUSV is, I believe, the one that will be used.
Combat Driving is used for situations in 2-D environments, such as on land
or the surface of the water, while Combat Piloting is for 3-D environments,
such as in the air, space, or underwater.
>* Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
>the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
>characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
I think this could be done with Quirks.
>* Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
>Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
>appropriate, such as "Background")
Bad idea! Bad, bad idea! ;-]
These are all Character Disdvantages, and should remain that way.
>* "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
>skill.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's already done, or has been. -1
point (in the Skills column) for every Everyman Skill not had. If it's not
in 4th Edition, though, I agree that it should be in 5th.
>* Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
See above re: Disdvantages. (But a better cross-referencing between the
two would be a help.)
>* A few of the powers look like their default condition should be 'Always
>On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Extra Limbs.
>It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
>where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
>Duplication.
Yes, this would be a nice point of clarification.
>* Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
>(Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
>and Invisibility); add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
I'll agree here. In fact, based on some of his past writings, I think
Steve may be doing exactly this.
>* Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
>of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
That's there. It just needs to be mentioned somewhere other than just
the Delayed Effect Advantage.
>* Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
>treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
Agreed.
>* Allow versions of Damage Reduction that are analogous to Flash Defense
>and Power Defense.
I'm pretty sure Steve has already proposed that idea somewhere (though I
don't recall where). It'll probably be in 5th Edition.
>* Extract the "Beam Attack" limitation from the Limited Power limitation,
>and incorporate it into the description of EB; likewise, incorporate the
>+1 STUN Multiple into the descriptions of HKA and RKA.
Yes, absolutely! Either that, or expand how these Limitations can be
applied to other Powers.
>* Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
>Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
That was in HSA1 (as you may already know), and is a good candidate.
>* Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
>Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
>Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
>through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
>'one-way', etc.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps a couple of examples
would help.
>* Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
>applied to attacks which have no range".
"...either normally, or with the No Range Limitation."
Agreed.
>* Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
>Framework, as per Almanac 1.
And, hopefully, write it a little more clearly. (I don't use that
framework because I have such a hard time understanding it.)
>* For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
>END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
Good idea. That should be done for *every* Power.
>* For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
>effect for the modifier to be applied. Also, consider organizing
>modifiers according to the required states, so that all Advantages that
>are applied only to Attacks are listed together, etc.
I agree with the first part; however, I favor leaving all of the
Advantages together in simple alphabetical order. It makes them easier to
cross-reference.
>* Charges should never be more than a +1/2 Advantage, and kill the 4x
>Clips rule.
I disagree about the 4x Clips rule, though I do agree that *some* extra
care should be taken to better balance increased Charges and simple 0 END.
>* Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
>of Focus.
Agreed. I *definitely* do not like having the armor and weapon
Modifiers so far away from the construction rules. Ditto the special
abilities and such for Automatons, Bases, Computers, and Vehicles. All
rules for the creation of characters and other entities should be in one
place in the book.
>* Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
>limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
Agreed re: OHID. It's no longer common enough for a full listing.
As for Non-Persistent, Costs END is already a -1/2 Limitation, and
encompasses Non-Persistent. Thus, Not-Persistent should be -1/4 (which is
what I give in in TUSV).
>* Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
Entangle already acts as a defense against incoming attacks.
>* Uncontrolled No END and Persistent attacks need a limiting condition
>added to them.
Sounds good.
>* A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the Sense
>is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is detectable
>by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect for senses?),
>and Speech (which allows the Sense Group to be used as a communications
>channel - a chameleon-like race could, for instance, use color patterns to
>speak.
Radar and Active Sonar can generally act for Active Senses; when they
won't work, Visible Power Effect would be the way to go.
And I think that Speech is going to be considered a Sense, Normal Speech
falling under the Hearing Sense Group. Speech for other Sense Groups isn't
a bad idea, as long as there's a note that the character must have the
means of generating the mode of speech -- in your example, the
chameleon-like race would have to have an appropriate level of Shape Shift
in order to change color, *and* take Speech as a "sense" in order to make
"intelligible" color patterns.
>* Add another Power Structure, "Attachable", which cost an additional 5
>points per 1d6 of "durability" (explained below); the attack (which must
>be Constant and No END Cost) sticks with the target until it fades or is
>detroyed. Decide whether or not the attachment is vulnerable to attack;
>if so, it will have a BODY and DEF determined from the "durability" dice
>in a manner similar to Entangles. If not, it will last a number of turns
>equal to the BODY of the "durability" dice minus an appropriate defense
>(usually Power Defense, but it can vary depending on the nature of the
>attachment).
I'm not sure what the use of this would be. Is there an example of it
in fiction somewhere?
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:44:36 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 07:02 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> 'Always on' generally doesn't make sense for persistent powers, since
>> there is usually no limitation for having them on (or if there is, you
>> usually take it as 'distinctive features: 4 arms' or some such).
>...but appropriate reasons can be concocted. While I agree with you here,
>there's something qualitatively different about Damage Resistance: Always
>On and Instant Change: Always On.
YAMA (Yet Another Meaningless Anecdote): I once had an NPC, named
Professor Entropy, who had Instant Change (at the 10-point level), Always
On. The effect (both game and Special) was that his clothing and
appearance were constantly changing (since he was SPD 6, this happened
every 2 seconds).
>> > * Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
>> > (Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
>> > and Invisibility); add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
>> Not convinced that 'sense powers' is a coherent group.
>They are all dependent - very heavily - on the Sense Groups mentioned
>under Enhanced Senses.
Steve's already proposed such a group of Powers in HSA2, and has made
mention of it in TUM.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:50:28 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:49 PM 1/23/98 -0800, Rick Holding wrote:
>-- Dataweaver wrote:
>
>> > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
>> > applied to attacks which have no range".
>> > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the
>> > 'no range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
>> > Not just 'can', but 'must'.
>> >
>> > So an 8d6 EB damage shield, currently 60 active/real, would become 60
>> > active/40 real? Not necessarily a bad thing, just checking if this is
>> > your intent.
>>
>> It is.
>
> Actually, if you read the description of damage shield, the no range
>modifier is automatically applied. You are not allowed to get any points
back for
>it.
That, I believe, is why this is being suggested as a change. As it is,
a Drain Damage Shield gets the same Advantage as an Energy Blast Damage
Shield, even though a normal Drain has no Range while a normal Energy Blast
has range.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 10:50:30 -0500
Lines: 32
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 22
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "BW" == Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com> writes:
BW> I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
I agree. Unlike the average superhero comic, where the protagonist is a
single character, a role-playing game usually has 3-6 protagonists, the
PCs. Keeping the starting points where they are requires characters to
specialize somewhat, giving each character particular strengths and
weakneses. This encourages teamwork, as team members cover each other's
weak and blind spots.
If that is not the kind of game you want to run, or if you want to run a
game with more powerful characters, feel free to change the point levels.
But for the majority of games, the "standard" point totals work well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMi8RZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGLtQQAr6Ys/sz7i+kXgdG4aNb4mecsKlCcBv9k
MqR+NVXzR9ej5n0+lA/xsqrq++2GXZFjP7Qwx7xjYzr5/apNaf2Qdbf18jazeCh+
YSjBNsEem73iaMfdxgwT4IV1JVU4cql+3EABoqPUZMrMNp9ht5Bz7PB4ZikjQutN
l48+u9z3Qjg=
=53yU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:08:37 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:06 AM 1/23/98 EST, CptPatriot wrote:
>I don't see the problem in just using Telekinesis w/ Indirect & Area Effect.
>
>It simulates it just fine when you don't take into account
>that the STR doesn't affect all masses equally.
That would be perfect if STR in Hero was linear. But it's not.
If two STR 10 forces pull in the same direction, then it becomes a total
of STR 15, not STR 20. Add a third STR 10, and it becomes STR 18; it takes
four STR 10 forces working together to make STR 20.
So suppose we use that TK in an area. First, we have to determine how
much STR gravity has. It seems to have a STR based on how much mass an
object has, since overcoming it requires more STR for larger objects, but
for the sake of argument let's assume that Gravity is STR 10 on the humans
being affected. You turn on your gravitic TK to increase the gravity, and
use 10 STR. Gravity is now doubled. To quadruple it, you need to simulate
3x STR 10, which (on a logarithmic scale) is 18.
So far, so good. But what happens when you're on another planet, and
the gravity is half as strong (equivalent to STR 5)? You need half as much
TK to do anything there. If gravity is double Earth's, you need twice as
much. (This may legitimately be accurate to your concept of the
character's Power, and I can't really say that you'd be wrong, though it
doesn't at all work for how I perceive gravity control would work).
And how is this going to affect that piano over there? It takes more
STR to lift a piano than a human being. If it normally takes 20 STR to
lift a piano (OK, quiet down, this is just for the sake of argument), then
adding that 10 STR TK that doubles gravity for Humans is only going to add
25% for the piano (to 22 STR or some such).
Now we use my method. I Aid (or, rather, Assist) the gravity in the
area by 2d6, and get a result of 5. +5 to Assist Gravity doubles the
gravity. The humans are now twice as heavy, and so is the piano, and it
works the same no matter what the base gravity.
Granted, adding a gravity element to Change Environment would probably
work just as well, if not better. The TK method is the worst choice,
though.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 08:11:36 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: In for the long haul...
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 08:29 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> Perhaps 6th Edition will officially introduce the idea of +1/8
>> Advantages and -1/8 Limitations. (Then again, perhaps not.)
>
>6th Edition? Boy, are _you_ eager... ;)
Well, with no major cost changes in 5th Edition, we're just going to
have to wait that long -- like 2005 or so.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <b1tlbx98@pop1.sympatico.ca>
From: "Vance Scott" <b1tlbx98@pop1.sympatico.ca>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 11:11:58 -500
Subject: Re: Building A Super Hero World
Reply-to: vances@sympatico.ca
CC: champ-l@omg.org
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 14
> However I'm not sure I like such an explaination. A lot of my
> world is about paradigm shifts. Wherin each super has literally stepped
> outside reality. The simple fact that they don't live under the same laws
> of physics and biology that normals do could also have something to do with it
> simply not being part of reality for them to be militarized.
>
> A Super in my world is very much a product of destiny. There is no
> 'Super Gene'. 'Super Tech' is more 'science outside the bounds of science'
> than it is 'advanced technology', and therefore not useful outside it's
> limited applications. So an advanced nation could spend all it's resources
> trying to build super-gadgets and simply never get anywhere. But some kid
> in his garage could put a few tin cans together, stick a battery in it,
> and twist a few wiires; and if by his very nature it was meant to be, he'd
> create the paradigm shift needed to give him a 'Cosmo Ray Gun'.
A neat concept for a superhero world.
Vance Scott
Vanquisher of all foes
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 11:45:47 -0500
Lines: 198
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 25
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> * As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
D> character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
D> character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
D> more expensive.
Yuck. More math to deal with.
D> * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
D> lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
Enh... this can lead to some nasty abuses.
D> * Gameplay can be sped up by replacing the current rules for Complementary
D> Skills with a single bonus to the 'primary skill' roll based on the
D> complementary skill level (+1 for every 2 full points over a 10-, with a
D> minimum of a +1; Familiarities cannot be used as complementary skills).
I do not see this as a dramatic change.
D> * Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a +1 with up
D> to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
D> complementary skills.
Um... this is a 3-point skill level.
D> * Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting
D> (other than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them
D> into a single skill.
One teaches you to operate in two dimensions, the other teaches you to
operate in three dimension.
D> * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
D> the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
D> characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
This is largely campaign dependant.
D> * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
D> Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
D> appropriate, such as "Background")
But they are not perqs, they are disadvantages.
D> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
D> skill.
No. Since "Everyman" skills are free, not having one is likewise "free".
D> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
This beggars using Unluck as a power.
D> * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be
D> 'Always On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and
D> Extra Limbs.
Mr. Fantasic has "Extra Limbs" that are not always on. Remember, it is
easier to add a modifier to a power than it is to remove it.
D> It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
D> where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
D> Duplication.
Not if you do not make the aforementioned change.
D> * Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
D> (Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
D> and Invisibility);
I do not see this as particularly necessary, and I dislike the idea of
adding Flash and Flash Defense to that category. They work like other
standard powers.
D> add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
Maybe... that needs a bit of thought because they do not work quite like
other adjustment powers.
D> * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
D> of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
As many as you can spend Endurance.
D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
Why?
D> * Allow versions of Damage Reduction that are analogous to Flash Defense
D> and Power Defense.
Too expensive for the effect. Just by more of the relevant defenses.
D> * Extract the "Beam Attack" limitation from the Limited Power limitation,
D> and incorporate it into the description of EB; likewise, incorporate the
D> +1 STUN Multiple into the descriptions of HKA and RKA.
Agreed; that is where they should be.
D> * Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
D> Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
(I think) Superleap does not normally require an attack roll -- if it did
you could not leap and attack in your action phase, as the attack roll
would end your action phase.
D> * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
D> Constant Powers that affect others;
This is just a special effect of "AoE: Line".
D> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
D> applied to attacks which have no range".
No. You would be unable to buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield.
D> * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
D> Framework, as per Almanac 1.
No. Their uses are radically different. They are not the same thing.
D> * For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
D> END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
It is listed, just not in a table.
D> * For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
D> effect for the modifier to be applied.
If a power is active, all of its advantages and limitations are active
simultaneously.
D> * Charges should never be more than a +1/2 Advantage, and kill the 4x
D> Clips rule.
I would rather see a better balance between Charges and Zero Endurance cost.
D> * Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
D> of Focus.
No; these modifiers are not for use in all campaigns, so they should not be
in with the description.
D> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power,
Fourth edition *separated* it from Limited Power.
D> and add a new -1/2 limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
You mean "Instant". Hmm... that might actually be valid in its own right,
listed or referenced from "Increased Endurance" much as "Persistant" is
listed with "Reduced Endurance".
D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
Strength.
D> * Uncontrolled No END and Persistent attacks need a limiting condition
D> added to them.
They have one; go read Uncontrolled.
D> * A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the Sense
D> is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is detectable
D> by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect for senses?),
D> and Speech (which allows the Sense Group to be used as a communications
D> channel - a chameleon-like race could, for instance, use color patterns to
D> speak.
Yeah, I can see some of this. :)
D> * Add another Power Structure, "Attachable", which cost an additional 5
D> points per 1d6 of "durability" (explained below); the attack (which must
D> be Constant and No END Cost) sticks with the target until it fades or is
D> detroyed.
It is called "gradual effect", the version that is in Fantasy Hero.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMjJOZ6VRH7BJMxHAQE/QwP/YUKv0nDyEURQLL/Sa1skdHON0T4NLHHs
AU5W8dD1G0CDHXMJrcfnkhk/zBr93OCJ+mahxCNohGpy2stSq72ec3Gip190xned
yk8RhemQYfkZMR8TnXRKwszm2nk9a9N2IWRda4OzR2J6kPhrhKQsK+29fjmyCRBP
FzxF5QsX+PM=
=LiCR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 11:48:18 -0500
Lines: 26
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>> How about the obvious one: Indirect Telekinesis?
D> Why "Indirect"?
Because normally the source of a power is the user of that power. Indirect
moves the source point to somewhere else.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMjJ0J6VRH7BJMxHAQGC+AQAjpFfqZGN4S5zvcwCjs6yS+sb/5Ujl+wN
j2Xl3PWZb8ud3gvFgcD49lfs5Nv3pO/oyxg+N7qh6RI8AvWaeiV8Je6orLSj06Q1
/7ACnPHvLGn4KcP1n2L0HP4V2aRgLg+o/1aL+Rl442BBDvCiAGAcw8Sw3KLd7ekI
DnqHgqoT8dI=
=DOGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Simple question about Move By's
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 11:55:06 -0500
Lines: 30
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 24
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "HF" == Henry Faust <drfaust@sprynet.com> writes:
HF> I a real simple question about move bys and move thrus. The rule says
HF> that the damage for a move by is 1/2 STR + 1die for every 10m/yds
HF> moved. Now my question is are they talking about velocity say 30m/sec
HF> or the distance the hero traveled before attacked him, say 10m ?
Say you have a character with 30" of Running. From a dead stop, he
performs a Move By on an opponent 5" away. Standard acceleration is
5"/inch moved, so in 5" he can accelerate to a velocity of 25"(/phase).
He does damage based on 25"/phase velocity.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMjLZ56VRH7BJMxHAQGF3gQAsuQngmJK2NCHs6MOjDbT/chvdbUMBcyD
Ot16vx1PXuDiGnbO+yExLBkh3rIKwGKZyEbVjpT5COowZfQhIDXoaV/WDGnPPIPk
HYzOTChEBjIdQ9n4R6uqRf4gL+toYPs2I6oJDHbJpcXVrSHf08rBN1PIvOEqQ0/t
RtHIcGwu69c=
=4SN7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 11:56:11 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 26
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> No, not actually. As I pointed out, the ability to *attempt*
TRG> these skills at Superhuman speed, which would require many points in
TRG> Skill Levels to make effective, can be explained as a minor benifit of
TRG> SFX.
Then what is the minor detriment that should accompany the minor advantage?
SFX advantages are generally supposed to have accompanying SFX limitations.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMjLqp6VRH7BJMxHAQGNAgQAnJTax2R6Jjaa3fcPOAO9+fGtcem0FmDI
c39A40Bb9NCxSaPMKxtet8dEg9fML8vIFAaNaIGzKF3pKoPzdY1HygmQG16b7HVG
Lu4DWitDOmMaBQSqej+2LJr1xfpmDt236i+tVx2qno8DK5ASM5x34BhJkVs7eVmc
tNE/eadRs9I=
=yV9C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:20:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 28
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
> D> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> D> skill.
>
> No. Since "Everyman" skills are free, not having one is likewise "free".
Nope, not having 'everyman' skills is a disadvantage, of varying value
depending on the skill and the campaign.
>
> D> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
>
> This beggars using Unluck as a power.
Like its usable as one now? The entire luck/unluck thing bears some looking
at.
>
> D> * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the
> number D> of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
>
> As many as you can spend Endurance.
Nah, there's an (int/5) limitation which has been floating around in FH for
ages, and which is referred to in the description of 'delayed effect'. I
forget if the actual int/5 limitation is anywhere in the BBB, though.
>
> D> * Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
> D> Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
>
> (I think) Superleap does not normally require an attack roll -- if it did
> you could not leap and attack in your action phase, as the attack roll
> would end your action phase.
It doesn't require an attack roll, it requires a to-hit roll ;). Most of the
time it is ignored, but superleap _does_ require rolling to hit the target hex.
>
> D> * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied
> to D> Constant Powers that affect others;
>
> This is just a special effect of "AoE: Line".
Well, it might be a special effect of AoE: radius, hole in the middle, or
several other powers; also, a 'wall' could be less than one hex wide.
> D> * For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
> D> END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
>
> It is listed, just not in a table.
Actually, much of this information _is_ in a table, right before the
descriptions of the powers.
> D> * Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the
> description D> of Focus.
>
> No; these modifiers are not for use in all campaigns, so they should not be
> in with the description.
So? Expendable foci also aren't in use in all campaigns, and are included in
the description of focus.
> D> and add a new -1/2 limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
>
> You mean "Instant". Hmm... that might actually be valid in its own right,
> listed or referenced from "Increased Endurance" much as "Persistant" is
> listed with "Reduced Endurance".
Nah, 'non-persistent' means 'shuts off when stunned or KOd'. Instant is also a
legitimate limitation, though it doesn't always make much sense.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 09:44:36 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 29
Capt. Spith wrote:
Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that Normals
have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10 baseline Stat
is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals 'destined for
greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the primary stats by 2
each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges and even
personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend to have.
Is that actually in 4th edition, or was it in an earlier one? I don't remember
seeing it anywhere in the BBB, but since it is a great idea, it should
definitely be in the 5th ed.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 23 Jan 1998 13:24:27 -0500
Lines: 64
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 30
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
AJ> Like its usable as one now? The entire luck/unluck thing bears some
AJ> looking at.
I think I might have used the wrong word, there. Sorry. Making Unluck a
"talent" makes it plausible to use it as a power.
[...]
AJ> Nah, there's an (int/5) limitation which has been floating around in FH
AJ> for ages, and which is referred to in the description of 'delayed
AJ> effect'.
Two points:
1. That is a campaign-dependant limit.
2. It is a limit of the number of active spells a character may have, not
the number of active powers he may have.
What was described was a limit to the number of powers that may be active,
and that already exists: whatever you can spend the end to maintain.
[...]
AJ> It doesn't require an attack roll, it requires a to-hit roll ;). Most
AJ> of the time it is ignored, but superleap _does_ require rolling to hit
AJ> the target hex.
Technically speaking, an attack roll and a to-hit roll are synonymous. I
hate exceptions. :)
[...]
AJ> Well, it might be a special effect of AoE: radius, hole in the middle,
AJ> or several other powers; also, a 'wall' could be less than one hex
AJ> wide.
And an AoE: Line can be less than one Hex wide, as a special effect.
[...]
AJ> So? Expendable foci also aren't in use in all campaigns, and are
AJ> included in the description of focus.
Expendable Foci may be used in any campaign that allows foci (which is just
about all of them). The weapons limitations are not used in every campaign.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Business Edition
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMjgU56VRH7BJMxHAQGE3QP/eSj299DH3MHp5DmUyhR3DjQ6rKwVmmua
8J8AvaAi9zGK76ozvt9SKND36MauB02PTKe4PKXqkh3oE736ri9KW4Ro9PKqXen9
Niqze9bQ6CqyEY5A8uEnqGgueUcGy8EWnYToMTIeWtXWEkc1DhDaPTvEjXCWggDk
F64mHbHXXtA=
=IDdZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 12:39:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
solid costs the END/phase).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 19:03:36
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:11:40 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk> "champ-l@omg.org" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 08:32:44 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>>
>> > Decrease Gravity: Suppress Gravity, Area Effect. Every 5 points of
>-snip-
>> > Increase Gravity: Aid to Gravity, Area Effect -- or, we can devise a
>-snip-
>> > Redirect Gravity: A simple Change Environment should suffice for the
>-snip-
>>
>> How about the obvious one: Indirect Telekinesis?
>
>Why "Indirect"?
Because it doesn't appear to be originating from the direction of the
character.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:08:26 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Darien Phoenix Lynx writes:
> > Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
> >
> > A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
> > solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
> > solid costs the END/phase).
> >
> Buy desolid with the advantages 'persistent' and 'trigger' -- the triggering
> condition is 'if stunned or knocked unconscious'. Then, take the limitation
> 'costs END to turn off' (-1/4; it is less limiting than always on). Result: 90
> active, 72 real points.
Trigger on KO? Do you need that if it's persistent?
Suppose I want to make it cost X4 END; how do I add that in there? It's
*really* hard for this character to interact with the real world (and no
attacks are bought "affects physical world").
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 19:11:40
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: 5th Ed: Heroic vs Superheroic
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 33
I've been putting together some of the recent threads and would like to
open the following suggestion for the 5th Ed.
There should be a difference between Superheroic games and Heroic
games: the former should be based on STAT/5, the latter on STAT/3.
BTW I include CV and SPD.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Marc Seebass" <kitsune-bi@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:16:34 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 32
-----Original Message-----
From: aregalad@miami.edu <aregalad@miami.edu>
To: champ-l@omg.org <champ-l@omg.org>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Friday, January 23, 1998 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
>Howdy Sam!
>
>> Aldo: It was fun reading your page. I hope you don't mind my criticism.
>> I think it is all but impossible to impose any sort of order onto the
>> rambling, self-contradictory information we get from the comics
reguarding
>> superhero's power levels, but it is fun to try.
>
>Heh, I tend to agree. With the exception of one or two cases the character
>stat examples are taken directly from the MSH and DC Heroes games. Some
>_I_ don't agree with, but I didn't feel like taking the trouble to "fix"
>them. As I expressed earlier, they are not the crux of my attempts at
>coming up with benchmark tables. They are merely an interesting aside.
>Still, you make some interesting points regarding the stuff I am concerned
>about, and I DO appreciate your input, so on we go. :]
>
>> Your characteristics and skill level benchmarks don't seem to match up.
>> For example, let's say I'm "competent" in the Int department (I like to
>> think so). You define competent Int as 13-17, so if I buy an Int-based
>> skill it will be on 12-, which you define as "Heroic" level. It seems to
>> me that people with competent level stats who buy the base level of a
>> skill should be merely competent, not heroic.
>
>This is a VERY good point which I intend to consider! Thanks!
>I definitely think this should be the case for INT. I might argue that it
>is not so important for the other stats because you are getting alot more
>than just skill rolls for your buck (at least w/stats like DEX).
>
>> Your benchmarking of stats has a few weird spots. Her's the ones I found:
>>
>> Strength:
>>
>> Captain Britain at 25 Str? Even if we accept the OHOTMU's putting
>> him in the 2-ton range that should be 31 Str. How he punched out the
>> Juggernaut with just 2-ton strength is a mystery to me, but I saw it
>> happen.
>
Captain Brittan's strenght has increased over the years. He's changed from a
week brick/Energy projector, to a full fledged brick.
The old book was probably thinking of his strenght when he had the amulet
and staff.
>Well, as I said - I'm not to keen on discussing discrepancies w/character
>examples. As far as I'm concerned those are the MSH and DC Heroes peoples
>mistakes - not mine. Still, I'll say a few words on some of these. Captain
>Britain is a character I'm not very familiar with. MSH gives him a
>Strength of Remarkable (if I remember correctly) which allows him to lift
>up to one ton casually. This is about a 25 STR. If he pushes he can still
>hit that 2 ton limit that you mention from the OHOTMU. I'm not saying I
>agree with it, but that is what Marvel claimed at the time and that is
>what I was going by.
>
>> In general, the OHOTMU's strength number are way below what has been
>> observed in the comics. There's a long essay on this in the FAQ for my
>> write-ups if you have that (write me if you don't).
>
>I've heard all the arguments concerning this, but I would love to
>read your FAQ anyway.
>
>> Dexterity:
>>
>> In general, I think trying to peg Dex onto gymnastic ability is silly. If
>> anything, it should be pegged to hand-to-hand combat ability. Gymnastics
>> is just another Dex-based skill and shouldn't get so much attention. To
>> put it another way, juggling is a dex-based skill too, but just because
I'm
>> a heroic level juggler doesn't mean I have 15-17 dex.
>
>I've thought about this too. Actually, this is precisely the type of thing
>I'm concerned about for most of the benchmark tables. I DO think the
>wording could be tightened up a bit and that better descriptions could be
>developed. Thats why I ask for input. :]
>
>About the DEX thing. I see your point, but I do think there is SOME merit
>to using gymnastic ability as an index for DEX benchmarks. The reason for
>this is that DEX gives you OCV and, more importantly, DCV. This implies
>some measure of jumping around and dodging - especially in the very visual
>genre of comics. When a benchmark table says that such and such can move
>with the agility of an Olympic gymnast suggests a certain level of
>physical ability which helps to visualize DCV. Its different w/a juggler
>or a video game whiz. Those activities are more a product of manual
>dexterity - not body agility. To be a heroic juggler you really only need
>a high skill level, not a high stat. Still, I think you make a good point
>about needing to define DEX in a fashion that more completely captures the
>complexity of the stat.
>
>> In specific: Shadowcat has the same dex as the Thing? Darkseid has more
dex
>> than Nightwing? Titanium Man has more dex than Mockingbird??? Let's face
it,
>> the guys who come up with stats for game systems screw up sometimes.
>
>Well, thats what they said. :] Again, their screw-ups have little bearing
>on the actual benchmarks. For the record, though, it MIGHT be feasible for
>Titanium man to have a higher DEX than Mockingbird. Lets say that
>Titanium Man's suit gives him an enhanced DEX of 18. This gives him a 6
>OCV and DCV. Now, Mockingbird probably has a DEX of 17 by MSH standards.
>This also gives her a 6 OCV and DCV. So far the only advantage that T-Man
>has over Mocky is first strike capibilities. I'll assume that Mocky has a
>higher speed, though. By my benchmarks she would probably have a 4 SPD and
>T-Man would have a 3. I'm also assuming that T-Man has one or two combat
>levels at most. Mocky has scads of M-Arts. One of her maneuvers in
>undoubtedly a Martial Dodge. She also probably has several combat levels
>(maybe 3 w/Martial Arts + one or two DCV levels). Combine all the
>modifiers from all the different sources and you could have a VERY
>impressive OCV/DCV advantage for Mocky. She could even have a cool though
>bubble like:
>
> o0(Titanium Man moves incredibly fast for a lumbering hunk of
>metal! Well, he may have the technological advancements, but I've got the
>training. That means that I may not have much in terms of raw power, but I
>know how to use what I've got, and that makes all the difference!)
>
>Seriously, I often think that people get too bogged down with straight DEX
>scores and forget about the intricacies of the HERO system.
>
>As for Nightwing and Darksied? Don't ask. DC Heroes DOESN'T have the ways
>out I just described for Mocky. DEX IS far more important in that game,
>yet they decided that discrepancy should exist. [shrug]
>
>Shadowcat and Thing? Same thing. I have no idea. I will say this, though.
>Alot of people suggest that thing is REALLY slow, but even w/my lower
>scale I would give him a 3 SPD and about a 13 DEX. He may be made of
>stone, but he is more that strong enough to lug that body of his around
>w/out feeling it. He is also combat experienced. I think he gets short
>changed most of the time. Still, I think you are right. Shadowcat should
>have a DEX at LEAST on the level of a Mockingbird.
>
>> Resistance:
>>
>> A pd-ed in the 41 to 45 range is defined as "...possessed by entities
>> existing in environs beyond our understanding", but they can easily take
>> Stun from a 3d6 RKA.
>
>Yeah, but to some extent this is part of the genre. Silver Surfer would
>probably feel Human Torch's RKA, and unless you are talking Nova Blast
>this is not going to be much more than 3d6. This inconsistency doesn't
>bother me as long as I'm certain that the 3d6 RKA won't/can't KILL
>someone with stats in this range. Besides, you are forgetting about all
>the extra's that people like the Celestials probably have - Damage
>Reduction being one of them.
>
>> Galactus, at 35pd, often takes Stun from 1.5d6 Hand Guns. Who needs the
>> Ultimate Nullifier? A few infantry companies should put him down in no
>> time.
>
>Again, this is Galactus walking around in his jamies. Galactus probably
>has Damage Reduction as well as Damage Resistance, Force Fields, Energy
>Absorption, etc. I'd also hate to see the size of his VPP.
>
>> Thor, who has to worry about ordinary bullets, is in the same category
with
>> Superman?
>
>WAIT a minute. Since when does Thor have to worry about normal bullets?
>I would definitely put them in the same category based on the punishment
>both take. If Thor DOES have to worry about bullets, then treat him like
>Wonder Woman and don't buy him Damage Resistance. As far as Superman goes,
>I think it works pretty elegantly. We all know that Superman is vulnerable
>to magic, but it seems to me that this only means that he can FEEL it. He
>still seems to be able to take blows that would kill a human being from
>magical attacks, but he bleeds instead of shrugging them off. Well, what
>if Supes has a kryptonian body that gives him a 30 PD and ED. On top of
>that he has his invulnerablity field which gives him 75% Damage Reduction
>for both PD and ED as well as full Damage Resistance? Both of these powers
>have the limitation "doesn't work against magic." I think this works
>pretty well.
>
>
>> Colossus is less resistant to damage than Batman???
>>
>> I think that last one bears repeating. Colossus is less resistant to
damage
>> than Batman???
>
>Nope, but this is normal PD and ED and does not include his armor. I
>should have made clear. That conversion comes from Colossus' END stat. The
>game treats his armor seperate. I WOULD consider that Batman might have a
>higher CON. It might be more difficult for damage to get through the
>armor, but once it does Colossus might not have the CON of the better
>trained Batman. Then again, I'm not a Colossus expert. :]
>
>> Damage Classes:
>>
>> Dr Strange actually has a pretty good punch (I think Wong gave him some
pointers).
>> For instance, he KO'ed Korvac with one punch.
>
>Okay, so give him some martial arts. :]
>
>
>> Iron Man's primary attack is called 'Repulsor Rays', not 'Pulse Bolts'
>
>I know, but he also has pulse bolts. :]
>
>> A straight punch from J'Onn J'Onnz does more damage than Galactus?
>
>If you go with the stats in the books - yes. Keep in mind that STR is the
>one stat where you can actually find "offical" benchmarks in almost every
>game.
>
>> Thor does 15d6 when he throws Mjolnor??? He can't even destroy a 6"
diameter
>> tree in a single blow. With an average roll he can't even DENT a large
>> vault door!!! What's Loki's problem? Just lock this guy in a bank vault
>> and he'll suffocate before
>> he can get out!
>
>Yeah, I think alot of this has to do with the BODY and Defene HERO assigns
>to things. Sometimes I think its kind of screwed. Its VERY easy for even
>the weakest of superheroes to punch through brick walls. All you have to
>do is 8 body. In the comics, if Daredevil punches a brick wall his hand
>will hurt. By the same token, its really hard for the strongest of
>characters to break things like bank vaults. When you start justifying the
>insane number of dice that it would take to routinely do such things,
>combat starts to get REALLY unbalanced. I'm not sure what I gave Mjolnor
>in the tables I posted, but my most recent version gives Mjolnor as hurled
>by the mighty Thor 18d6. I think in terms of combat effects this is a
>pretty good aproximation. Also, my conversions would give Thor something
>like 7 or 8 combat levels (In MSH their is a Fighting characteristic
>which I equate w/combat levels. Thor has an Unearthly Fighting). In a
>pinch he could use those for damage and boost that up to a 22d6 attack.
>Push it and he gets a 24d6 attack. If he rolls average BODY on that attack
>he is one away from destroying that bank vault!
>
>Take care and thanks for your comments,
>
>Dragonfly
>
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:30:39 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Speedster Trick: Skill levels vs. time penalties.
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Then what is the minor detriment that should accompany the minor advantage?
> SFX advantages are generally supposed to have accompanying SFX limitations.
>
A tendency to wear things out quickly. When they mess up a skill,
they usually don't notice a mistake until way too late. "You say the
Headlights go in *front*, eh?" I'd say they'd have problems attempting
to do things anything but fa, for some concepts. Though this might
actually be worth some points back.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:03:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Darien Phoenix Lynx writes:
> Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
>
> A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
> solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
> solid costs the END/phase).
>
Buy desolid with the advantages 'persistent' and 'trigger' -- the triggering
condition is 'if stunned or knocked unconscious'. Then, take the limitation
'costs END to turn off' (-1/4; it is less limiting than always on). Result: 90
active, 72 real points.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:12:50 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 5th Ed: Heroic vs Superheroic
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 07:11 PM 1/23/98, qts wrote:
>I've been putting together some of the recent threads and would like to
>open the following suggestion for the 5th Ed.
>
>There should be a difference between Superheroic games and Heroic
>games: the former should be based on STAT/5, the latter on STAT/3.
>
>BTW I include CV and SPD.
I could see that as an option for Skill Rolls, but not for CV. And even
so, I'd only give 8+STAT/3 for Skill Rolls in strictly heroic campaigns,
not for heroic-level characters in superheroic campaigns.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 21:13:30
Reply-To: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:35:36 -0800 (PST), Brian Wong wrote:
>> >>>>> "BW" == Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com> writes:
>>
>> BW> I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
>>
> That's a misquote of me. Taken out of context it's misleading.
>I said the active point limits need to stay the same. Ie, the current power
>level is good. BUT you need more points to build it in.
> At current, 250 points is NOT ENOUGH to build a character at a 50
>active point 5.5 spd game. WHY? Because it forces you to having no background
>skills.
No, it apparently forces YOU into not having any background skills. Personally, I've
had campaigns that worked just fine with fully fleshed-out characters built on less then
typical points (100 base + 100 disads). I've also played in campaigns where the
characters will built on (what I considered to be) a HUGE number of points (250 points
base + disads) that had characters with no background skills at all (not one of the
funner campaigns I've been in).
> Therefore you need about 25 more points for the purpose of buying up
>the background skills/perks.
Then, as GM, make the base for your campaign 125 points. Personally, I have no
complaints with the 100 point base.
> Just look at the 250 point characters in the BBB. They may be at the
>right power level. But they are sadly lacking in detail. At 250 points after
>getting basic stats and powers, you can even afford a single ProfSkill for
>your secret ID.
Hmmm, looks like they pretty well run the full range actually.
Seeker, no Prof Skill, but also no profession. Has appropriate skills to represent his
background though.
Obsidian. Again, no profession, so no PS, but does have about 15 points spent on
skills to represent his background (oddly enough though, he doesn't really have any of
the skills that I would think would be used to indicate a noble upbringing)
Quantum. Has the right PS and Perk for her profession,although I would have spent a
few more points for some science skills to reflect her schooling in medice (but then, I've
always thought her STR DEX and CON were higher than they should have been - oh
well, different strokes for different folks).
Jaguar. The man is nothing but skills.
Defender. Born a memeber of the idle rich, but well educated. Has a selection of
skills/perks to represent this; and, due to a math error, still have 5 pionts left if someone
wants to add a few background bits.
Solitaire. Has no real "social" background.
>> I agree. Unlike the average superhero comic, where the protagonist is a
>> single character, a role-playing game usually has 3-6 protagonists, the
>> PCs. Keeping the starting points where they are requires characters to
>> specialize somewhat, giving each character particular strengths and
>> weakneses. This encourages teamwork, as team members cover each other's
>> weak and blind spots.
>>
> As I said, keep the power levels where they lie, but give more points
>to do it in, so you can buy skills.
> The current 250 point setting with the 50 active point limit was
>set in the 3rd edition days before you needed a skill to drive a car. Back then
>you could just write it into the origin story and it worked.
> When 4th edition added a skill system. They kept the 250 point idea,
>but failed to either lower the power level (so you'd have points left for
>skills) or come up with a way to get the new skills needed for background.
> In basic 3rd edition the entire skills list was:
>Acrobatics (10/2), Climbing (5/2), Computer Programing (5/2), Detective
>Work (5/2), Disguise (5/2), Find Weakness (10/5), Luck (*/5), Martial
>Arts (=Str), Security Systems (5/2), Skill Levels (3,5,8,10), Stealth (5/2),
>Swinging (5/2).
>
> That was it. No KS, SS, perks, talents, etc.
> Yet the game still had 100 base plus 150 in disads.
>In those points you had the same power level you have today under 4th edition.
>Yet no background skills to worry about.
> A quick look at the BBB characters showed they were built under 3rd
>edition philosophy, not 4th.
> IE, they all lacked any true detail in background skills.
You left out Bureaucratics, City Knowledge, Demolitions, Driving, Escape Artist,
Forensics, Gadgeteering, Languages, Linguist, Paramedic, Pilot, Profeesional Skills,
Sciences, Scientist, and Streetwise. All of which were added to the game system in
1982.
>> If that is not the kind of game you want to run, or if you want to run a
>> game with more powerful characters, feel free to change the point levels.
>> But for the majority of games, the "standard" point totals work well.
>>
> NO, the standard point totals don't fit the standard power levels at
>all, unless you build 2d characters with little background detail.
What are you talking about? There is no "standard power level" unles the GM set one.
If you're players can't build a fleshed out character on the points you've alloted them,
then YOU, as the GM of your game, can either give them more points, encourage them
the slightly lower the power levels exhibited in the game, or help them use the points
they have more efficiently. The problem you've described is not a problem with the
rules, but a problem with your campaign. I have never had any serious difficulty
building a character with all of the background skills I wanted built on a 100+Disads
framework.
It has been my experience that there are always those players who, no matter how
many points you "give" them, will still not be able to build a flesh-out characters; just like
there will always be those players who "need" to have more points.
When you write-up your villians, are they fully flesh-out character? If not, then your
players probably feel the need to scrimp on background skills just to keep up. If so,
then encourage your players to scale down their powers slighty. If this leads to
everyone not being able to roll as large a handful of dice as they feel the should be,
then up the base points IN YOUR CAMPAIGN.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 98 21:27:27
Reply-To: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:05:02 -0800, Sam Bell wrote:
>Here's the FAQ: trimmed down to just the parts about power levels and the
>character list.
>4.1 Why are they so much tougher than characters in my campaign?
>A: No particular reason. There are campaigns at many different
> power levels out there. I think the Champions games tend to
> be too 'balanced' relative to genre fiction. In the comics,
> Superman teams up with Black Canary but in Champions most
> players don't enjoy playing underpowered characters. I've
> made some progress overcoming this in my group, but that's
> a subject for another FAQ.
>
>4.2 Why are they so much tougher than Champions Universe characters?
>A: No particular reason. Again, while they are more expensive than
> CU characters, they're often not as combat effective.
There's another answer that fits for both of these questions that I didn;t see addressed
in your FAQ. Almost every character seen in comics represents an experienced (in
some case VERY experienced) character. Not just insofar as how lonf the official
company line says the character has been active, but you also have to consider the
length of time a character has ben published. I've noticed that for many DC and Marvel
characters, each major change in writer (I'll ignore any writer who wrote the book for
less than two years) brought a slight change (usually an increase) in displayed power
levels. This phenonenom is most evident with Superman, who has to have some
major plat device to tone him down every couple of decades.
So, why is the Thing tougher than a typical brick in most Champions games, he's not a
250 points character anymore (after all, saving the universe is worth a bunch of XPs).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:30:12 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:45 AM 1/23/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>D> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
>D> skill.
>
>No. Since "Everyman" skills are free, not having one is likewise "free".
I think you misunderstood here, probably because you didn't read the
further discussion on this.
Take language as perhaps the most sparkling example: Everyone gets a
language for free. But if a character doesn't have a language, that's
definitely a Disadvantage.
>D> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
>
>This beggars using Unluck as a power.
I don't understand this remark; please explain.
>D> * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
>D> of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
>
>As many as you can spend Endurance.
No, the general heroic-level rule is INT/5, though that rule is not in a
very easy-to-find place.
>D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
>D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
>
>Why?
Presumably, so END Reserves and regular END get equal treatment, as they
should.
>D> * Allow versions of Damage Reduction that are analogous to Flash Defense
>D> and Power Defense.
>
>Too expensive for the effect. Just by more of the relevant defenses.
One might as well eliminate Damage Reduction altogether, and just make
characters "buy more of the relavant defenses" (PD and ED). No, if it's
too expensive, just reduce the cost -- or let one Damage Reduction factor
affect both Power and Flash attacks for the same cost as others (PD, ED,
Mental) do alone.
>D> * Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
>D> Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
>
>(I think) Superleap does not normally require an attack roll -- if it did
>you could not leap and attack in your action phase, as the attack roll
>would end your action phase.
Read the third paragraph of the description of Superleap.
>D> * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
>D> Constant Powers that affect others;
>
>This is just a special effect of "AoE: Line".
That's my thought as well. I can think of no reason to not apply it.
However, I rather like the opaquity and other elements suggested.
>D> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
>D> applied to attacks which have no range".
>
>No. You would be unable to buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield.
Not exactly. You could still buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield,
with the No Range Limitation.
>D> * For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
>D> END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
>
>It is listed, just not in a table.
Not all of the Powers, as given in the HSR, are quite clear on this point.
>D> * For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
>D> effect for the modifier to be applied.
>
>If a power is active, all of its advantages and limitations are active
>simultaneously.
Again, you misunderstand; compare this proposal to the one just above to
see what is meant by "state." (To give an example that would be painfully
obvious, it would make little or no sense to make a Damage Shield Force
Wall, because Damage Shield would only apply to a Power with the Attack
"state," and a Force Wall does not have that "State.")
>D> * Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
>D> of Focus.
>
>No; these modifiers are not for use in all campaigns, so they should not be
>in with the description.
I disagree strongly. All Character, Power, and Device construction
tools should be in one place. I was very surprised to find the Automaton,
Base, Computer, Vehicle, and Weapon construction rules so far from the main
construction rules, and I'm tired of having to flip halfway across the BBB
to get to them.
>D> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power,
>
>Fourth edition *separated* it from Limited Power.
Did it? It seems to me that this was always a separate Limitation, but
then again I lost my 1st and 3rd Edition books long ago.
>D> and add a new -1/2 limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
>
>You mean "Instant". Hmm... that might actually be valid in its own right,
>listed or referenced from "Increased Endurance" much as "Persistant" is
>listed with "Reduced Endurance".
You have me totally lost here on your trail of thought.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:32:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Darien Phoenix Lynx writes:
> Trigger on KO? Do you need that if it's persistent?
Sure do; otherwise when you switch it off (by paying END) it stays off.
>
> Suppose I want to make it cost X4 END; how do I add that in there? It's
> *really* hard for this character to interact with the real world (and no
> attacks are bought "affects physical world").
There's no good way of doing this.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:42:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
>
> A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
> solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
> solid costs the END/phase).
Buy the desolid with 0 END, persistant, always on. Buy off the
alway on portion with Costs END, maybe with an activation roll, whatever.
The Champs legality is a little questionable, but I've found it to work
well and not to be unbalancing. The other option is a variable
limitation, but this is way too expensive for the given effect.
Example: In the second Champions game I played, back in the fall
of 1991 and just two hours after my first game of Champions, we were
involved with an X-Men adventure.
Cyclops was written up with a technique like I describe above.
-12D6 EB, 0 END, persistant, always on. (100 active, 67 real).
-Buy off Always On, OIF Goggles (simplified, yes)
(33 active, 22 real).
It seems to work for me.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:45:48 -0600
From: Todd Hanson <badtodd@dacmail.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Darien Phoenix Lynx wrote:
> Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
>
> A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
> solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
> solid costs the END/phase).
Desolid, 0 end, persistant, -1/4 variable limitation.
the 'variable' limitation can be 2 things:
1 -1/2 always on
2 - 1/2 costs end
Todd
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: scm@mail.aci.net
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:46:33 -0800
From: Shelley Chrystal Mactyre <scm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Steve Long on #herochat!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Mr. Dark Champions himself is going to be in #herochat on dal.net on
February 1, from 1-2 PM PST to talk about his upcoming projects, offer
advice, and respond to questions. For more information, check out the
#herochat homepage at:
http://www.mactyre.net/scm/Herochat.html
Although I must admit, you're more than likely to find him in the channel
*before* February 1st. Who was that masked "DarkChamps" nick, anyhow? <grin>
Thanks again to everyone who's been working to make #herochat a success!
It's probably the only IRC channel where striptease is discussed purely on
a Hero System rules basis. =)
Shelley Chrystal Mactyre
http://www.mactyre.net
A flung stone has always been a fool's favorite means of putting himself on
a level with the wise.
-- Edgar Pangborn
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:42:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> >
> > Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
> >
> > * As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end of
> > character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
> > character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
> > more expensive.
> This would get the 'Hero is too complex' people even more uppety.
Even as an optional rule?
> > * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
> I'd like to see an active, controllable version of
> Luck Manipulation that can be used to bless or curse others.
Technically, this _can_ be done by Transforming someone into a Lucky (or
Unlucky) person... Although I prefer to use Transform as a last resort
when creating new effects.
> > * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
> > of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
>
> As an optional rule only, this doesn't fit many campaign concepts.
Naturally.
> > * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
> > Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
> > Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
> > through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
> > 'one-way', etc.
>
> In mo opinion, Armor, Force Field, and Force Wall should all be
> combined into one power, which various mods to make the others.
> The base power should resemble Force Field in mechanics and cost.
Armor: Force Field, No END Persistent;
Force Wall: Force Field, Area Effect (Wall - see below)
> > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > applied to attacks which have no range".
>
> "Nova" is a 6 year old girl with a problem. Whenever anyone touches
> her she explodes out in a lethal blast of energy.
RKA (No Range, Explosive, Damage Shield).
> I can see other effects where touching sets off and energy blast,
> RKA, and others.
But what does the attack target?
> > * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
> > limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
> >
> This is MOOT. Anything you desire can be a 'limited power'. It's only
> not moot in terms of including more 'examples' of limited.
OTOH, I really don't think that Only in Hero ID is special enough to be
listed seperately, as it currently is.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:49:50 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
-- Dataweaver wrote:
> > * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > applied to attacks which have no range".
> > This isn't actually true, though. Is the intent that you can take the
> > 'no range' limitation on damage shields, if bought with EB or whatever?
> > Not just 'can', but 'must'.
> >
> > So an 8d6 EB damage shield, currently 60 active/real, would become 60
> > active/40 real? Not necessarily a bad thing, just checking if this is
> > your intent.
>
> It is.
Actually, if you read the description of damage shield, the no range
modifier is automatically applied. You are not allowed to get any points back for
it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:59:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> The current point suggestions in 4th edition were set in 3rd edition
> before a fully developed skill system existed.
>
> The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
> character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
> try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
> power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the concept
> beyond it's limits.
Actually, I'd suggest more use of seperate point-pools, as originally
introduced in Dark Champions and used extensively in Fuzion.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:28:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
>
> > > * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> > > Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> > > appropriate, such as "Background")
> > Rather I think the Disad list needs to be expanded upon to include
> > GURPS ideas like Addiction, Duty, Social Stigma, etc. Some of these can be
> > simulated under the current system, but it gets complex.
>
> You might want to drop by my website then. Later today (1/23) I should be
> posting my expanded Hero Disadvantages list, which used GURPS disads as a
> base. It does include Duty, Addiction, Vows, Secret and so on, as well as
> a large listing of Psych and Phys Limsn. Let me know what you think.
Addiction would be better modelled as a lesser form of Dependence, in much
the same way that Enraged is a lesser form of Berserk and Watched is a
lesser form of Hunted.
Disadvantages, IIRC, never cost you points; in the case of Dependence,
totals that end up as positive point values should be reduced to zero and
considered character flavor.
Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how bothersome the
bothersome the job tends to be.
Quirk: worth 0 pts, and you can have as many as you wish.
Vow: These actually _are_ Psych Limits, and should be listed as such.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:34:25 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: Further H5 suggestions
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> > * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power, and add a new -1/2
>> >limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
>> >
>> This is MOOT. Anything you desire can be a 'limited power'. It's only
>>not moot in terms of including more 'examples' of limited.
>OTOH, I really don't think that Only in Hero ID is special enough to be listed
>seperately, as it currently is.
If you don't mind me piping up, I would have to disagree with this statement. I
can give you at least three examples of OHID in mainstream comics: Thor, Captain
Marvel, and Iron Man (although some might argue about the last). OHID is a very
specific, genre-necessary mechanic, and it has enough inherent limitations and
bonuses that it should not be simply folded into the Limited Power disadd.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:35:36 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >>>>> "BW" == Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com> writes:
>
> BW> I'd argue for leaving the active point limit suggestions where they lie.
>
That's a misquote of me. Taken out of context it's misleading.
I said the active point limits need to stay the same. Ie, the current power
level is good. BUT you need more points to build it in.
At current, 250 points is NOT ENOUGH to build a character at a 50
active point 5.5 spd game. WHY? Because it forces you to having no background
skills.
Therefore you need about 25 more points for the purpose of buying up
the background skills/perks.
Just look at the 250 point characters in the BBB. They may be at the
right power level. But they are sadly lacking in detail. At 250 points after
getting basic stats and powers, you can even afford a single ProfSkill for
your secret ID.
> I agree. Unlike the average superhero comic, where the protagonist is a
> single character, a role-playing game usually has 3-6 protagonists, the
> PCs. Keeping the starting points where they are requires characters to
> specialize somewhat, giving each character particular strengths and
> weakneses. This encourages teamwork, as team members cover each other's
> weak and blind spots.
>
As I said, keep the power levels where they lie, but give more points
to do it in, so you can buy skills.
The current 250 point setting with the 50 active point limit was
set in the 3rd edition days before you needed a skill to drive a car. Back then
you could just write it into the origin story and it worked.
When 4th edition added a skill system. They kept the 250 point idea,
but failed to either lower the power level (so you'd have points left for
skills) or come up with a way to get the new skills needed for background.
In basic 3rd edition the entire skills list was:
Acrobatics (10/2), Climbing (5/2), Computer Programing (5/2), Detective
Work (5/2), Disguise (5/2), Find Weakness (10/5), Luck (*/5), Martial
Arts (=Str), Security Systems (5/2), Skill Levels (3,5,8,10), Stealth (5/2),
Swinging (5/2).
That was it. No KS, SS, perks, talents, etc.
Yet the game still had 100 base plus 150 in disads.
In those points you had the same power level you have today under 4th edition.
Yet no background skills to worry about.
A quick look at the BBB characters showed they were built under 3rd
edition philosophy, not 4th.
IE, they all lacked any true detail in background skills.
So the real question here is:
Do we want to encourage 3d characters with detailed backgrounds?
Or do we want 2d cardboard cutouts with little flavor?
If we want the 3d characters, we need an allotment of points for
the background. Either that or we need to lower the suggested power level
so you have enough points left over after building the Super ID (powers/stats,
or whatever) to build the background.
Am I the only one who notices how much more fleshed out a Fantasy Hero
character is? Without having to spend all those points on powers, the average
FH character, even a wizard; has from 25 to 50 points after the Adventurer ID
is built to buy things like KS: Farming or KS: History of Kalduvian Wars or
whatever other background things...
The only time I've ever seen the same effect in a Super Hero game has
been when I have given out more points than needed for the power level. Thus
my players end up having 'points left over' which end up in things like
KS: Geography of the Amazon River Basin, or whatever else fits the BACKGROUND.
> If that is not the kind of game you want to run, or if you want to run a
> game with more powerful characters, feel free to change the point levels.
> But for the majority of games, the "standard" point totals work well.
>
NO, the standard point totals don't fit the standard power levels at
all, unless you build 2d characters with little background detail.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:43:21 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> Capt. Spith wrote:
> Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that Normals
> have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10 baseline Stat
> is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals 'destined for
> greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the primary stats by 2
> each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges and even
> personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend to have.
>
> Is that actually in 4th edition, or was it in an earlier one? I don't remember
> seeing it anywhere in the BBB, but since it is a great idea, it should
> definitely be in the 5th ed.
>
On page 58 of Champions II, a suppliment to 2nd edition, it is 10 for
an average man. It was the same on page 133 of the BBB. I have never seen the
'8' stat item in print, but have been hearing this rumor since 1985.
Page 133 of the BBB lists all 8's for an INCOMPETANT normal. An average
person is at all 10's.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: 5th Ed: Heroic vs Superheroic
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:54:06 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >I've been putting together some of the recent threads and would like to
> >open the following suggestion for the 5th Ed.
> >
> >There should be a difference between Superheroic games and Heroic
> >games: the former should be based on STAT/5, the latter on STAT/3.
> >
> I could see that as an option for Skill Rolls, but not for CV. And even
> so, I'd only give 8+STAT/3 for Skill Rolls in strictly heroic campaigns,
> not for heroic-level characters in superheroic campaigns.
One of the things I like about Hero is a consistant system across all
genres. So I'd definatly vote no to this one.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:57:37 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > The current point suggestions in 4th edition were set in 3rd edition
> > before a fully developed skill system existed.
> >
> > The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
> > character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
> > try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
> > power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the concept
> > beyond it's limits.
>
> Actually, I'd suggest more use of seperate point-pools, as originally
> introduced in Dark Champions and used extensively in Fuzion.
That's close to what I'm advocating.
Save for that Fuzions strict point allocations make several concepts difficult
without seriously shifting the pools around. Even though that can be done with
GM approval, it looks messy.
So I say just add morepoints, but keep the power levels at their
current settings.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:05:02 -0800
From: Samuel.Bell@Eng.Sun.COM (Sam Bell)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-> From aregalad@miami.edu Thu Jan 22 23:09:29 1998
->
->
-> > In general, the OHOTMU's strength number are way below what has been
-> > observed in the comics. There's a long essay on this in the FAQ for my
-> > write-ups if you have that (write me if you don't).
->
-> I've heard all the arguments concerning this, but I would love to
-> read your FAQ anyway.
I'll tack the FAQ onto the end.
-> Lets say that
-> Titanium Man's suit gives him an enhanced DEX of 18.
Nope. The Titanium man has always been slow and ponderous. The MSH
just dropped the ball here.
->
-> As for Nightwing and Darksied? Don't ask. DC Heroes DOESN'T have the ways
-> out I just described for Mocky. DEX IS far more important in that game,
-> yet they decided that discrepancy should exist. [shrug]
->
-> Shadowcat and Thing? Same thing. I have no idea. I will say this, though.
-> Alot of people suggest that thing is REALLY slow, but even w/my lower
-> scale I would give him a 3 SPD and about a 13 DEX. He may be made of
-> stone, but he is more that strong enough to lug that body of his around
-> w/out feeling it. He is also combat experienced. I think he gets short
-> changed most of the time. Still, I think you are right. Shadowcat should
-> have a DEX at LEAST on the level of a Mockingbird.
I put the Thing at 14 Dex. After all, he was an outstanding football player
and a world-class pilot.
->
-> > Thor, who has to worry about ordinary bullets, is in the same category with
-> > Superman?
->
-> WAIT a minute. Since when does Thor have to worry about normal bullets?
All his life. He has to twirl his hammer and deflect the bullets, because
he isn't bulletproof. I've got a Thor collection going back to the Journey
into Mystery days and I don't recall a single bullet bouncing off him. Strange
but true.
-> I would definitely put them in the same category based on the punishment
-> both take. If Thor DOES have to worry about bullets, then treat him like
-> Wonder Woman and don't buy him Damage Resistance. As far as Superman goes,
-> I think it works pretty elegantly. We all know that Superman is vulnerable
-> to magic, but it seems to me that this only means that he can FEEL it. He
-> still seems to be able to take blows that would kill a human being from
-> magical attacks, but he bleeds instead of shrugging them off. Well, what
-> if Supes has a kryptonian body that gives him a 30 PD and ED. On top of
-> that he has his invulnerablity field which gives him 75% Damage Reduction
-> for both PD and ED as well as full Damage Resistance? Both of these powers
-> have the limitation "doesn't work against magic." I think this works
-> pretty well.
So is the level you put Superman on supposed to be an average of his resistance
against normal and his resistance against non-normal attacks?
->
-> > A straight punch from J'Onn J'Onnz does more damage than Galactus?
->
-> If you go with the stats in the books - yes. Keep in mind that STR is the
-> one stat where you can actually find "offical" benchmarks in almost every
-> game.
I think it is time to abandon the books.
->
-> > Thor does 15d6 when he throws Mjolnor??? He can't even destroy a 6" diameter
-> > tree in a single blow. With an average roll he can't even DENT a large
-> > vault door!!! What's Loki's problem? Just lock this guy in a bank vault
-> > and he'll suffocate before
-> > he can get out!
->
-> Yeah, I think alot of this has to do with the BODY and Defene HERO assigns
-> to things. Sometimes I think its kind of screwed. Its VERY easy for even
-> the weakest of superheroes to punch through brick walls. All you have to
-> do is 8 body. In the comics, if Daredevil punches a brick wall his hand
-> will hurt. By the same token, its really hard for the strongest of
-> characters to break things like bank vaults. When you start justifying the
-> insane number of dice that it would take to routinely do such things,
-> combat starts to get REALLY unbalanced.
I've been in plenty of long running games where 20-25d6 attacks were common.
It's not as impossible as many people seem to think.
-> I'm not sure what I gave Mjolnor
-> in the tables I posted, but my most recent version gives Mjolnor as hurled
-> by the mighty Thor 18d6. I think in terms of combat effects this is a
-> pretty good aproximation. Also, my conversions would give Thor something
-> like 7 or 8 combat levels (In MSH their is a Fighting characteristic
-> which I equate w/combat levels. Thor has an Unearthly Fighting). In a
-> pinch he could use those for damage and boost that up to a 22d6 attack.
-> Push it and he gets a 24d6 attack. If he rolls average BODY on that attack
-> he is one away from destroying that bank vault!
->
Perhaps you could post some of your full write-ups. It's hard to discuss
one stat or power in isolation.
-Sam
Here's the FAQ: trimmed down to just the parts about power levels and the
character list.
3.0 How are the write-ups done?
4.0 Why are the characters so powerful?
4.1 Why are they so much tougher than characters in my campaign?
4.2 Why are they so much tougher than Champions Universe characters?
4.3 Why did you give character X Str Y, when the Marvel Handbook says
they should have Str Z?
8.0 What write-ups are available?
3. How are the write-ups done?
A: Usually I read the appropriate reference work (Who's Who in the DC
Universe or The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe) if the
character has an entry, then I write them up, attempting to include
as many of their powers as possible. Sometimes I will leave a power
out if the character seems to have lost it or if it particularly
silly. I usually don't include powers/skills that have only been
seen once.
My priorities (in order) are:
1) Represent what is portrayed in the comics.
2) Conform with the relevant reference (OHotMU or DC's Who's Who).
3) Keep relative power levels consistent with other comics characters
(Thor should be stronger than the Thing, Batman should be a
better detective than Nightwing).
4) Keeping relative power levels consistent with typical Champions
games (the Hulk should be a tough brick, Mon-El should not be a
be a push-over).
Note that the last item is definitely my lowest priority, so I try
to "call 'em like I see 'em" even if the resulting power level is
too high (or too low) for successful interaction with most campaigns.
(See question #4).
Since the comics often contradict each other and the reference
materials I often have to just pick a number based on totally
personal preference. This is very often the case with the more
intangible stats (Int, Ego, Pre, Com).
4. Why are the characters so powerful?
See below. As a general comment, most of these write-ups aren't
all that powerful, they are just very expensive, and that is
because I'm not trying to shave points here, I'm trying to
accurately translate the comics. Most numbers were arrived
at by comparing the character I'm working on with other characters
already written up. For instance, I gave the Human Torch an
18d6 EB. Now, when the Human Torch has blasted Colossus in the
past, Colossus was unaffected, so Colossus should have at least
a 63 ed. Colossus was given a 75 Str, so when I write-up Juggernaut,
I'll make sure that he can beat a 75 Str brick, since we know
that Juggernaut can beat Colossus, etc. Of course, with all
the interactions in comics it would be all but impossible to
do write-ups that mirror every interaction ever shown, since
the comics themselves aren't very consistent, but I try.
4.1 Why are they so much tougher than characters in my campaign?
A: No particular reason. There are campaigns at many different
power levels out there. I think the Champions games tend to
be too 'balanced' relative to genre fiction. In the comics,
Superman teams up with Black Canary but in Champions most
players don't enjoy playing underpowered characters. I've
made some progress overcoming this in my group, but that's
a subject for another FAQ.
4.2 Why are they so much tougher than Champions Universe characters?
A: No particular reason. Again, while they are more expensive than
CU characters, they're often not as combat effective.
4.3 Why did you give character X Str Y, when the Marvel Handbook says
they should have Str Z?
A: The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe is a wondeful book.
I have great admiration for Mark Gruenwald and Peter Sanderson,
however, the strengths are wrong at the high end. They do not
correspond to what has been shown in the comics, time and time
again. Let's use the Thing for an example. The OHOTMU says he
can lift 85 tons. 85 tons sounds like a lot, but it corresponds
to a block of stone 2.77m on a side. Ben uses rocks that size
to throw at people, one handed. If we figure backwards for
champions str (85 tons = 58.66 Str) things get worse. Ben can't
uproot a medium sized tree (5def 8 bod) in a single phase,
he can't crush a howitzer barrel (6 def 8 body) with his bare
hands: is this the blue-eyed idol o' millions?
Another problem is that all the brick's strengths come out too
close together if we figure backwards from OHOTMU:
OHOTMU figured str
Doc Samson 50 tons 54.83
Colossus 75 tons 57.75
Thing 85 tons 58.66
Thor 100 tons 59.83
In the comics, Thor is significantly stronger than Colossus, and
2.08 str is not significant enough, IMHO (Yes, I know all about
the logarithmic nature of Champs Str, I just think that Thor is
more than 1.333 times stronger than Colossus).
So what to do? I needed a yardstick from which to measure power
levels, and strength seemed the best. After all, which is better,
Vision's heat vision or the Human Torch's blast? It is hard to tell
from the comics. But it is clear that Wonderman is stronger than
Powerman, even though the two never arm-wrestled. How do we know?
Because there have been enough contests of strength down the years
to accurately gauge everyone's relative Strs (even though the
absolute values are vague). I had to make an executive decision
and arrived at this formula:
Write-up's Str= Greater Of [ Str figured backwards from OHOTMU value,
OHOTMU value in tons]
Not only does this address the problems mentioned above, but it has
the important benefit of 'feeling right' to me. 85 Str sounds about
right for the Thing and 58.66 doesn't, IMHO. I could have done it
any number of other ways, but I had to pick one, and this is what I
picked. Many people don't like this, and I don't blame them. As
soon as they come up with a better way to do it, then write-up and
post 200+ characters using their system, I'll be happy to sit back
and offer my constructive criticism.
=======================================================================
8. What write-ups are available?
A: Here's what is available, as of today:
All Star Squadron
143 Wing
145 Sandy
153 Tiger
228 Atom (v1)
229 Amazingman
229 Wildcat
239 Hourman
242 Tarantula
271 Dr Midnite
276 Airwave
279 Iron Munro
280 Crimson Avenger
290 Liberty Belle
304 Judomaster
308 Sandman
312 Atom (v2)
323 Firebrand II
327 Fury
328 Starman
337 Hawkwoman
341 Hawkman
348 Commander Steel
363 Shining Knight
415 Robotman
497 Dr Fate (v1)
526 Superman (v1)
558 Uncle Sam
695 Flash
695 Superman (v2)
720 Johnny Quick
1164 Dr Fate (v2)
1497 Spectre
Avengers
314 Falcon
322 Hawkeye
337 Mockingbird
344 Scarlet Witch
378 Tigra
385 Wasp
399 Black Knight
416 Black Panther
449 Black Widow
496 Yellowjacket
505 Jocasta
518 Quicksilver
545 Sif
579 She_hulk
609 Captain America
640 Starfox
727 Wonderman
777 Vision
778 Hercules
833 Iron_man
1217 Thor
Fantastic Four
635 Thing
645 Invisible Woman
697 Mr Fantastic
787 Human Torch
Frightful Four/Fearsome Five
257 Mammoth
272 Medusa
290 Gizmo
368 Dr Light
395 Shimmer
436 Trapster
442 Wizard
578 Psimon
607 Sandman
631 Brute
Hamner's Mercenaries
181 Discus
181 Stiletto
271 Boomerang
276 Blizzard
286 Constrictor
294 Bluestreak
318 Blacklash
367 Porcupine
469 Force
493 Spymaster
Infinity Inc
214 Dr Midnight
232 Hourman
254 Wildcat II
261 Brainwave Jr
325 Silver Scarab
332 Mr Bones
369 Fury
372 Nuklon
372 Star Spangled Kid
374 Northwind
401 Obsidian
476 Jade
Justice League of America
292 Ice
325 Green Arrow
380 Blue Beetle
390 Hawkwoman
399 Hawkman
401 Black Canary
408 Fire
423 Rocket Red
482 Aquaman
513 Dr Light
535 Mr Miracle
546 Batman
571 Elongated Man
628 Power Girl
752 Wonder Woman
758 Maxima
827 Flash
1055 Martian Manhunter
1661 Superman
Legion of Superheroes
217 Matter Eater Lad
262 Invisible Kid II
355 Magnetic Lad
356 Bouncing Boy
387 Invisible Kid
395 Phantom Girl
405 Star Boy
414 Atmos
423 Lightning Lad
429 Lightning Lass
434 Polar Boy
439 Tellus
439 Tyroc
441 Dream Girl
442 Duo Damsel
480 Cosmic Boy
496 Shadow Lass
498 Chemical King
504 Sun Boy
539 Karate Kid
545 Kent Shakespeare
546 Timber Wolf
548 Ferro Lad
573 Colossal Boy
589 Braniac-5
631 White Witch
661 Saturn Girl
705 Dawnstar
707 Blok
738 Sensor Girl
752 Ultra Boy
810 Chamelion Boy
905 Shrinking Violet
1088 Element Lad
1213 Wildfire
1583 Superboy
1617 Mon El
1650 Supergirl
Legion of Super Villains
85 Ron Karr
148 Tarik
195 Spider Girl
203 Radiation Roy
271 Hunter
282 Mist Master
330 Saturn Queen
350 Lightning Lord
351 Esper Lass
358 Magno Lad
367 Silver Slasher
374 Titania (LSV)
397 Chameleon Chief
403 Tyr
448 Sun Emperor
557 Lazon
615 Micro Lad
642 Cosmic King
901 Nuetrax
1312 Ol Vir
Marvel Misc
210 Colleen Wing
224 Captain Ultra
227 Angar
259 Dreadknight
261 Aguila
267 Batroc
313 American Eagle
343 Ant Man
353 Darkstar
363 Armadillo
379 Dreadknight
386 Arabian Knight
405 Doc Samson
408 Arkon
416 Daredevil
456 Deathlok
472 Attuma
496 Crimson Dynamo
503 Darkoth
552 Abomination
629 Annihilus
636 Dragon Man
679 Blaastar
694 Spiderman
707 Captain Marvel
777 Ares
1047 Dr Doom
1168 Beta Ray Bill
Masters of Evil
198 Egghead
226 Melter
248 Piledriver
248 Thunderball
249 Bulldozer
284 Shocker
296 Screaming Mimi
333 Scorpion
349 Titania
358 Yellowjacket
362 Wrecker (v2)
365 Black Knight 2
368 Beetle
372 Fixer
398 Baron Zemo 2
422 Baron Zemo 1
423 Tiger Shark
429 Wrecker (v1)
445 Mr Hyde
486 Blackout
526 Whirlwind
582 Radioactive Man
592 Grey Gargoyle
617 Moonstone
686 Executioner
690 Goliath
884 Klaw
907 Enchantress
1044 Absorbing Man
Serpent Society
138 Cottonmouth
179 Coachwhip
218 Boomslang
232 Bushmaster
246 Rock Python
253 Sidewinder
261 Puff Adder
276 Diamondback
290 Anaconda
292 Black Racer
293 Rattler
297 Asp
315 Diamondback (Post SSS)
321 Death Adder
395 Cobra
Spider-Foes
244 Eel
297 Black Cat
374 Killer Shrike
405 Electro
455 Kraven
496 Hobgoblin II
684 Venom
X-Foes
261 Callisto
348 Mystique
379 Pyro
474 Deathbird
610 Sabretooth
738 Apocalypse
770 Black Queen
954 Juggernaut
X-Men
320 Boom Boom
349 Domino
351 Shatterstar
362 Shadowcat
372 Warpath
410 Havok
421 Sunspot
427 Psylocke
437 Beast
450 Siryn
466 Sunfire
472 Nightcrawler
479 Cannonball
490 Marvel Girl
511 Banshee
542 Archangel
550 Cyclops
557 Colossus
637 Cable
710 Prof X
713 Wolverine
793 Storm
=======================================================================
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 17:20:20 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Rook wrote:
If we want the 3d characters, we need an allotment of points for
the background. Either that or we need to lower the suggested power level
so you have enough points left over after building the Super ID
(powers/stats, or whatever) to build the background.
I think that this problem fishtails into the "What Dex is too high?" thread that
was going around a few weeks ago. By shifting Dex and Speed scores down a notch,
the characters would have those additional points for background Skills and
Perks. By making the averages be 18 and 4.5, rather than 23 and 5.5, the players
will have saved those 25 points that you are asking for.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:04:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
My experience with continuing attacks in H4 is that nobody buys them, unless
either (a) they're NND/AVLD, or (b) they're on continuing charges. The reason
is fairly obvious; for 60 active points I can buy a 12d6 EB (which will do
quite a lot of stun to most characters), for 62 points I can buy a 5d6
continuing EB (which will, on average, _never_ knock most characters out, and
will cost huge amounts of endurance in addition). This is somewhat similar to
why I never see autofire except on charges. In addition, setting someone on
fire (and thus doing damage to _them_, every phase) is just more useful than
setting a hex on fire.
So, how to fix this? Dump the current writeups; add the following new ones.
+1/2: attachable: allows a constant power to 'follow' a chosen target about,
with no new actions or attack rolls required. For a power with 'extended
duration' the cost of attachable is equal to the cost of extended duration. A
reasonably obvious means of canceling the power must be available. Double cost
for powers which go against an unusual defense (i.e. NND).
+1/2: continuing: this power lasts as long as you pay END for it, provided the
target remains inside the area you can reach with the power. If applied to an
area effect attack power, will attack anyone entering the area. A continuing
power remains at a fixed _location_, not on a fixed target; to get it to follow
a target about, apply 'attachable'. Double cost for powers which go against an
unusual defense.
+var: extended duration: +1/4 for +1 phase, +1/4 per step on the time chart.
The first level is free on powers which are normally constant.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Firelynx16 <Firelynx16@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:21:38 EST
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 98-01-23 15:53:58 EST, you write:
> Please offer me the wisdom to build the following:
>
> A character who is always desolid--this is his natural state. He can turn
> solid, but it's hard, and only for limited periods of time (i.e. turning
> solid costs the END/phase).
>
This may not be completely legal, but you could get your Desolid 0 End,
Persistant, Always On, and then buy a Suppress Desolid, Only on self. That
way the Suppress would keep you solid as long as you kept paying End.
'Lynx
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:27:56 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: Hero System Mailing List <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> > You might want to drop by my website then. Later today (1/23) I should be
> > posting my expanded Hero Disadvantages list, which used GURPS disads as a
> > base. It does include Duty, Addiction, Vows, Secret and so on, as well as
> > a large listing of Psych and Phys Limsn. Let me know what you think.
This is going to sound stupid, but are you suggestions based on what I
said above, or what I actually posted?
> Addiction would be better modelled as a lesser form of Dependence, in much
> the same way that Enraged is a lesser form of Berserk and Watched is a
> lesser form of Hunted.
Except Dependence doesn't quite work. The intervals are too close
together. A more 'canon' way to do it (as suggestion in Dark Champions)
is to model drug addictions as a mix of Phys and Psych lims.
> Disadvantages, IIRC, never cost you points; in the case of Dependence,
> totals that end up as positive point values should be reduced to zero and
> considered character flavor.
True. But some Dependencies do work better as Phys. Lims. Especially
things like "Must immerse self-daily".
> Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how bothersome the
> bothersome the job tends to be.
I guess you are basing your comments of my material... ^_^. Any
suggestions? My numbers were derived straight from GURPS.
> Quirk: worth 0 pts, and you can have as many as you wish.
No... I like the idea of 1 pt each, max of 5. Allows players to round off
that extra few points when the disads don't totally add up to 5 or 0. For
example, when you have 250 points to buld your PC and your disads end up
at 248 or something. They also add a nice bit of 'color'.
> Vow: These actually _are_ Psych Limits, and should be listed as such.
Well, it's not like I was proposing any offical changes. ^_^ Yeah, I
admit that Vows could be Psych Lims, but then, I do make the statement
"use as you see fit".
***************************************************************************
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion *
* Michael Surbrook / susano@access.digex.net *
* Visit "Surbrook's Stuff' the Hero Games resource site at: *
* http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/index.html *
* Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 03:20:50
Reply-To: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:39:40 -0800 (PST), Brian Wong wrote:
>> What are you talking about? There is no "standard power level" unles the GM set one.
>>
> It's in the campaigning section of the BBB. I'll get a page number tommorow if
>you want.
> It's the section were they suggest active point limits and such.
>
And there you've given yourself. As you said, they SUGGEST active point limits. If you don't like their
suggestions, then DON'T USE THEM. The suggestions in the book reflect the campaigns of the folks who
playtested the game, not every campaign that ever was. Again, this is not a problem with the RULES. This is a
problem YOU have with the suggested campaign limits.
Why are you so concerned over material that's from the Champions Sourcebook section of the BBB? This
material is not part of the core rules, and from what the kids at Hero Games have said, won't even appear in fifth
edition as they want the rules to be a book unto themselves.
>> When you write-up your villians, are they fully flesh-out character? If not, then your
>> players probably feel the need to scrimp on background skills just to keep up. If so,
>> then encourage your players to scale down their powers slighty. If this leads to
>>
> You've just stated my argument.
>
>at 250 points, the power level needs to be scaled down to below the current recommendation
>of 50 active points.
> If not, raise the points to more than 250.
>But the two don't match each other.
>
They're recommendations, not rules.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:24:25 -0500
From: Basil Varian <BVarian@bellatlantic.net>
Organization: Home
Subject: Probability Manipulation ?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
How do I simulate Marvel's "Longshot" and his Probability Manipulation
Power in Champions? Simply giving him Luck doesn't cut it.
Currently, I've broken the Champs rules by making Luck a Power and
placing it in a Multipower with Overall Level Bonuses (+1 Overall Level
bonus per '6' rolled). Is there a better way?
Also, will this Power (or its equivalent) be addressed in the upcoming
5th Ed.?
Thanks,
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:05:19 -0500
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-16
From: dwtoomey@juno.com (David W Toomey)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>>D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration
>Powers
>>D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Presumably, so END Reserves and regular END get equal treatment, as
>they
>should.
???
They already do. Read End Reserve. It *clearly* states this.
David W Toomey
dwtoomey@juno.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:22:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Buy desolid with the advantages 'persistent' and 'trigger' -- the triggering
> condition is 'if stunned or knocked unconscious'. Then, take the limitation
> 'costs END to turn off' (-1/4; it is less limiting than always on). Result: 90
> active, 72 real points.
Why trigger if it has persistent?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Probability Manipulation ?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 21:55:14 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> How do I simulate Marvel's "Longshot" and his Probability Manipulation
> Power in Champions? Simply giving him Luck doesn't cut it.
> Currently, I've broken the Champs rules by making Luck a Power and
> placing it in a Multipower with Overall Level Bonuses (+1 Overall Level
> bonus per '6' rolled). Is there a better way?
>
> Also, will this Power (or its equivalent) be addressed in the upcoming
> 5th Ed.?
>
I doubt it will be, since they said they plan as few as possible
mods.
However a request for such a power was on my response to the
questionaire they have on their webpage.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:21:54 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 23, 1998 1:07 AM, Brian Wong wrote:
>Hello;
>
> Just wanted to remind everyone that the 5th edition questionaire
Hero
>Games mentioned is up on their website. Send yours in ASAP. I just
did so
>myself. If anyone wants to know what I said, you can email me for it.
But I
>doubt I'll get a request. We on this list seem to be a rather
opinionated
>lot who only like to listen to ourselves. :)
Be glad to see it.
Actually, I was thinking that maybe we should create petitions.
Certain things, like a final ruling on the GLD, we can get a lot of
agreement on.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:25:23 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
> >character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
> >try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
> >power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the concept
> >beyond it's limits.
>
> I've found that there's a lot to be said for basing superheroes on 100
> points, but allowing 200 points in Disadvantages under the new rules. The
> additional points from those Disadvantages can be spent on those extra
> Skills under the now-improved Skill system, as well as on Talents and minor
> Powers that help round out the character.
An interesting idea. So you would agree with me that more total points
are needed? Yet you feel that rather than raise base points, raise the number
of allowed disadvantages?
I've actually had several people tell me that even if it stayed at a
total of 250, they'd like to see more base points and less disads.
Personally I think the natural amount of disad points for most concepts
tends to run from 125 to 150. Beyond that the concept starts to get stretched.
But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:26:41 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 23, 1998 6:04 AM, Curt Hicks wrote:
>
>> Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com> writes:
>> Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that
Normals
>> have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10
baseline
>> Stat is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals
'destined
>> for greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the
primary
>> stats by 2 each releases all kinds of points for skills and
knowledges
>> and even personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know
tend
>> to have.
>>
>
>Is that actually official ?
>
Hard to say. They were rather unclear in 3rd Ed, and I don't think
they ever ruled in 4th. My favorite official ruling from 3rd Ed, and
the one I use in all of my games, is that an 8 is completely average
for adults, while a 10 is completely average for a _healthy_ adult
between the ages of 17 and 50. Thus, the unhealthy and aged bring the
average down.
Additionally, the official 3rd Ed ruling was that women had some
stats, such as STR and BODY, lower than 10, but made up for it with
increased CON (because they are healthier), EGO, and END.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:32:55 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 23, 1998 8:17 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
<snip>
>
>D> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an
Everyman
>D> skill.
>
>No. Since "Everyman" skills are free, not having one is likewise
"free".
>
Being unable to do what others can isn't a Disadvantage? You actually
are claiming that not having _any_ native language is not a
Disadvantage?!?
<snip>
>D> * Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the
description of
>D> Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target
hex.
>
>(I think) Superleap does not normally require an attack roll -- if it
did
>you could not leap and attack in your action phase, as the attack
roll
>would end your action phase.
Reread the description of Superleap.
<snip>
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:06:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Hank's Arm
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I have a player who wants to make an intriguing character: someone who's
*arm* is possessed. The arm has various evil abilities like telekinesis,
STR to TK drain, etc. The arm has his own intelligence, but the person
(Hank) he's attached to is just a regular guy. The arm has bullied the
normal guy around and generally gets his evil way. Here are some of the
interesting properties:
* The two are physically attached but have separate minds, values etc.
* They have separate "STUN" and "BODY" totals for the purposes of
determining damage.
* If Hank gets knocked out or goes to sleep the arm can still work.
* If the arm gets knocked out, Hank is free for a while.
* The arm is a much smaller target (Shrinking),
* but doesn't take excessive knockback because he's linked to Hank--they
take the same knockback
* The arm can move Hank a little bit if he's knocked out, but mostly Hank
carries the arm around.
What do you think?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:07:04 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>
> Capt. Spith wrote:
> Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that Normals
> have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10 baseline Stat
> is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals 'destined for
> greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the primary stats by 2
> each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges and even
> personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend to have.
>
> Is that actually in 4th edition, or was it in an earlier one? I don't remember
> seeing it anywhere in the BBB, but since it is a great idea, it should
> definitely be in the 5th ed.
My bad. Actually, I looked back and found that as the default level
for Incompetent Normal in the character examples section. However, that
simply leaves it to the GM/players to decide which level to apply to
"Average Joe". Children are also defined in that section, so the
"Incompetent" level would be above that. Perhaps the the "Incompetent"
level might apply to the average, commonly out-of-shape 'background'
figures in a world/game, while the 0-point level 'Normal' normal might
refer to the major NPC's in the world/game that are commonly involved in
scenarios and adventures.
Interectingly, the only difference between the 'incompetent' and the
'normal' base character sheets is the CHAR levels (8s in primaries
instead of 10s) and I think a point in the skills area and a 5-point
disad for the 'normal' normal. Thus effectively, they could be
virtually identical characters, aside from the physical heartiness.
Even the STAT rolls would be the same.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:39:40 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > That's a misquote of me. Taken out of context it's misleading.
> >I said the active point limits need to stay the same. Ie, the current power
> >level is good. BUT you need more points to build it in.
> > At current, 250 points is NOT ENOUGH to build a character at a 50
> >active point 5.5 spd game. WHY? Because it forces you to having no background
> >skills.
>
> No, it apparently forces YOU into not having any background skills. Personally, I've
> had campaigns that worked just fine with fully fleshed-out characters built on less then
> typical points (100 base + 100 disads). I've also played in campaigns where the
> characters will built on (what I considered to be) a HUGE number of points (250 points
> base + disads) that had characters with no background skills at all (not one of the
> funner campaigns I've been in).
>
Ok, can you build a character at 250 points at the power level of the BBB characters
(50 active points, 5.5 speed, etc.) and still have points for a fully fleshed background?
Either more points are needed, OR the power level needs to go down.
The current point level DOES NOT match the current power level unless you skip
background skills. Your thrid sentence hints at this very problem itself.
>
> >> I agree. Unlike the average superhero comic, where the protagonist is a
> >> single character, a role-playing game usually has 3-6 protagonists, the
> >> PCs. Keeping the starting points where they are requires characters to
> >> specialize somewhat, giving each character particular strengths and
> >> weakneses. This encourages teamwork, as team members cover each other's
> >> weak and blind spots.
> >>
> > As I said, keep the power levels where they lie, but give more points
> >to do it in, so you can buy skills.
> > The current 250 point setting with the 50 active point limit was
> >set in the 3rd edition days before you needed a skill to drive a car. Back then
> >you could just write it into the origin story and it worked.
> > When 4th edition added a skill system. They kept the 250 point idea,
> >but failed to either lower the power level (so you'd have points left for
> >skills) or come up with a way to get the new skills needed for background.
> > In basic 3rd edition the entire skills list was:
> >Acrobatics (10/2), Climbing (5/2), Computer Programing (5/2), Detective
> >Work (5/2), Disguise (5/2), Find Weakness (10/5), Luck (*/5), Martial
> >Arts (=Str), Security Systems (5/2), Skill Levels (3,5,8,10), Stealth (5/2),
> >Swinging (5/2).
> >
> > That was it. No KS, SS, perks, talents, etc.
> > Yet the game still had 100 base plus 150 in disads.
> >In those points you had the same power level you have today under 4th edition.
> >Yet no background skills to worry about.
> > A quick look at the BBB characters showed they were built under 3rd
> >edition philosophy, not 4th.
> > IE, they all lacked any true detail in background skills.
>
>
> You left out Bureaucratics, City Knowledge, Demolitions, Driving, Escape Artist,
> Forensics, Gadgeteering, Languages, Linguist, Paramedic, Pilot, Profeesional Skills,
> Sciences, Scientist, and Streetwise. All of which were added to the game system in
> 1982.
>
>
None of those skills are in the third edition rulebook. If you want, I can
fire up my scanner, save it as a gif, and email it to you.
Champions II & III were add ons to the rules.
>
> >> If that is not the kind of game you want to run, or if you want to run a
> >> game with more powerful characters, feel free to change the point levels.
> >> But for the majority of games, the "standard" point totals work well.
> >>
> > NO, the standard point totals don't fit the standard power levels at
> >all, unless you build 2d characters with little background detail.
>
> What are you talking about? There is no "standard power level" unles the GM set one.
>
It's in the campaigning section of the BBB. I'll get a page number tommorow if
you want.
It's the section were they suggest active point limits and such.
> When you write-up your villians, are they fully flesh-out character? If not, then your
> players probably feel the need to scrimp on background skills just to keep up. If so,
> then encourage your players to scale down their powers slighty. If this leads to
>
You've just stated my argument.
at 250 points, the power level needs to be scaled down to below the current recommendation
of 50 active points.
If not, raise the points to more than 250.
But the two don't match each other.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 00:31:26 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 23, 1998 3:59 PM, Brian Wong wrote:
>>
>> Capt. Spith wrote:
>> Also remember that the official 4th ed. conjecture is that
Normals
>> have an average of 8 in primary CHARs rather than 10. The 10
baseline Stat
>> is intended for average beginning Stats for individuals
'destined for
>> greatness' or sumesuch. So buying down (on average) the
primary stats by 2
>> each releases all kinds of points for skills and knowledges
and even
>> personal equipment, which some 'normals' I actually know tend
to have.
>>
>> Is that actually in 4th edition, or was it in an earlier one? I
don't remember
>> seeing it anywhere in the BBB, but since it is a great idea, it
should
>> definitely be in the 5th ed.
>>
> On page 58 of Champions II, a suppliment to 2nd edition, it is 10
for
>an average man. It was the same on page 133 of the BBB. I have never
seen the
>'8' stat item in print, but have been hearing this rumor since 1985.
> Page 133 of the BBB lists all 8's for an INCOMPETANT normal. An
average
>person is at all 10's.
The '8' stat, as you call it, was in Justice Inc, as the average
adult, with the 10 being healthy adult (though it may have been
average person vs average adult, I cannot recall). It may or may not
have been elsewhere.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:17:54 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >> What are you talking about? There is no "standard power level" unles
> >>the GM set one.
> > It's in the campaigning section of the BBB. I'll get a page number
> > tommorow if you want.
> > It's the section were they suggest active point limits and such.
> >
> And there you've given yourself. As you said, they SUGGEST active point
> limits. If you don't like their suggestions, then DON'T USE THEM. The
> suggestions in the book reflect the campaigns of the folks who playtestedi
> the game, not every campaign that ever was. Again, this is not a problem
> with the RULES. This is a problem YOU have with the suggested campaigni
> limits.
>
> Why are you so concerned over material that's from the Champions Sourcebooki
> section of the BBB? This material is not part of the core rules, and from
> what the kids at Hero Games have said, won't even appear in fifth
> edition as they want the rules to be a book unto themselves.
>
A section setting SUGGESTED point levels and power levels is vital to
helping a new game get going. It therefore is not only needed, but neds to be
set at numbers that allow for 3-dimensional characters.
> >> players probably feel the need to scrimp on background skills just to
> >> keep up. If so, then encourage your players to scale down their powers
> >> slighty. If this leads to
> >>
> > You've just stated my argument.
> >
> >at 250 points, the power level needs to be scaled down to below the current
> >recommendation of 50 active points.
> > If not, raise the points to more than 250.
> >But the two don't match each other.
>
> They're recommendations, not rules.
>
I never said they were hard core rules written in stone.
I'm saying they are the standard, put forth as suggested, and therefore what
one is most likely to encounter.
But they are broken.
SO:
"The suggested point levels and power levels needs to adjusted at one end or
the other so that when one builds a character using the suggested point
levels they can build that character up to the suggested power level and
still have points left over for a suggested number of suggested background
skills."
I suggest that that modification be made to the suggested 5th edition.
Happy?
Clear enough?
Or do you find that the current 'suggested' point levels used in
combination with the current 'suggested' power levels still leave enough
points for you to include background skills?
Or do you feel that having background skills as part of the
'suggested' way of putting together a character on the 'suggested' point
level using the 'suggested' power level is a bad idea?
Or do you feel the book should 'suggest' nothing at all?
Or should I 'suggest' that you're just argueing this with semantics
to play word games.
After all, you keep stating the same thing I feel, that a GM should
adjust the game to give a power level and point level that allows background
skills. I'm just 'suggesting' that the 'suggestions' in the book also do
this, so that new players/GM's will find it easier to set levels that give
more developed characters rather than just give combat munchkins.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 01:19:28 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Friday, January 23, 1998 9:36 PM, Brian Wong wrote:
<snip>
>
> An interesting idea. So you would agree with me that more total
points
>are needed? Yet you feel that rather than raise base points, raise
the number
>of allowed disadvantages?
>
> I've actually had several people tell me that even if it stayed at a
>total of 250, they'd like to see more base points and less disads.
>
> Personally I think the natural amount of disad points for most
concepts
>tends to run from 125 to 150. Beyond that the concept starts to get
stretched.
I personally prefer games at 150 base and 100 disadvantages. I've
never figured out why Superheroes have twice as many Disadvantages as
Heroes, even though they are not running on twice as many points.
Additionally, I find that 100 pts is the point at which most character
concepts get bent out of shape. Maybe if I could have more points in
each catagory, I'd change my mind, but I'm not certain.
> But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
Actually, a larger selection of disads would have a similar effect to
having more allowed points per category. I think I prefer it.
Yes, I do. Rather than try to continue to force Disadvantages into
categories that already exist, I'd like more categories.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 04:23:10 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Cc: aregalad@miami.edu, champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Howdy,
> I'll tack the FAQ onto the end.
Cool! Thanks a bundle.
> -> Lets say that
> -> Titanium Man's suit gives him an enhanced DEX of 18.
>
> Nope. The Titanium man has always been slow and ponderous. The MSH
> just dropped the ball here.
You are probably right. Still, I think I showed how somebody with the
stats I gave Mockingbird could have a slightly lower DEX and STILL make
T-Man look slow and ponderous by comparison.
> I put the Thing at 14 Dex. After all, he was an outstanding football player
> and a world-class pilot.
Yeah, I can see that.
> -> > Thor, who has to worry about ordinary bullets, is in the same category with
> -> > Superman?
> ->
> -> WAIT a minute. Since when does Thor have to worry about normal bullets?
>
> All his life. He has to twirl his hammer and deflect the bullets, because
> he isn't bulletproof. I've got a Thor collection going back to the Journey
> into Mystery days and I don't recall a single bullet bouncing off him. Strange
> but true.
Hmmm...have you ever seen Thor take a bullet (or read a thought bubble
that showed him worring about one)? Just because he twirls his hammer to
deflect them doesn't mean he CAN'T take them - at least to some degree.
Maybe he has low level Damage Resistance? Anyway, I'm not arguing w/you, I
just want to understand Thor better.
> So is the level you put Superman on supposed to be an average of his
> resistance against normal and his resistance against non-normal attacks?
No. The level I put Supes at is his straight PD, ED, CON, BOD, REC, END
and STUN w/out the benefits of his invulnerability powers. Basically, its
the level of his BODY score from DC Heroes. Invulnerability is a seperate
power in that game.
> -> > A straight punch from J'Onn J'Onnz does more damage than Galactus?
> ->
> -> If you go with the stats in the books - yes. Keep in mind that STR is the
> -> one stat where you can actually find "offical" benchmarks in almost every
> -> game.
>
> I think it is time to abandon the books.
Again, this isn't a concern for me. I'm not trying to make accurate
conversions right now - just benchmarks. The characters are ranked
according to the only "official" stats I have. I wanted to keep them that
way so that people wondering how I made the conversions could go to those
sources and see my logic. As I have stated, I don't always agree w/the
books, but I'm also not too concerned about stats for characters that are
not my own.
> I've been in plenty of long running games where 20-25d6 attacks were common.
> It's not as impossible as many people seem to think.
I've been in them too. I don't like them. I don't think its hard, I just
think that power level is unecessary. Nothing wrong w/it of course, its
just not for me.
> Perhaps you could post some of your full write-ups. It's hard to discuss
> one stat or power in isolation.
I don't really have full write-ups, although I have been considering doing
one or two (maybe Superman, Spider-Man, Thor, Captain America and Batman
- some of my faves). If I do these I'll send them to you.
Take care and thanks again,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Shelley Chrystal Mactyre\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:05:06
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Steve Long on #herochat!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:46:33 -0800, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre wrote:
>Mr. Dark Champions himself is going to be in #herochat on dal.net on
>February 1, from 1-2 PM PST to talk about his upcoming projects, offer
>advice, and respond to questions.
What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
California time?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"champ-l@omg.org\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:06:25
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: 5th Ed: Heroic vs Superheroic
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:12:50 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 07:11 PM 1/23/98, qts wrote:
>>I've been putting together some of the recent threads and would like to
>>open the following suggestion for the 5th Ed.
>>
>>There should be a difference between Superheroic games and Heroic
>>games: the former should be based on STAT/5, the latter on STAT/3.
>>
>>BTW I include CV and SPD.
>
> I could see that as an option for Skill Rolls, but not for CV.
Why not?
> And even
>so, I'd only give 8+STAT/3 for Skill Rolls in strictly heroic campaigns,
>not for heroic-level characters in superheroic campaigns.
Agreed - that's why I said 'games', not 'characters'.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 03:12:08 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Just wanted to remind everyone that the 5th edition questionaire
>
> Be glad to see it.
>
Here's what I sent them:
I actually got a couple requests, so whatever. I guess we need more junk to
flame each other on. As if there wasn't enough already. :)
Hero System. 5th Edition Questionnaire
1) List the top 5 powers you think need fixing, in descending order of importance. Optional: list how to fix them, or
precisely what needs fixing.
Hmm.
1 Regeneration. Do it like in Fuzion.
2 Change Environment. GIve it more options, like say, SuperSpeed actions
in an area ("I use my superspeed to read all the books in this room").
3 Slick power. Needs a power that forces a certain stat roll X be made
every phase in order for a victim to do condition Y.
4 Entangle that can be attacked by Stat X. Such as a mental entangle,
Dex entangle, or even Pre Entangle.
5 Adjustment powers should be default against a chosen special effect,
with and advantage needed to be able to affect a given power
regardless of special effect.
2) List the top 5 Limitations that need fixing, in descending order of
importance. Optional: list how to fix them, or precisely what needs
fixing.
Describe both versions of linked that are often discussed, and what
each of the two would be worth.
3) List the top 5 Advantages that need fixing, in descending order of
importance. Optional: list how to fix them, or precisely what needs
fixing.
The only change I want is a definable advantage. The reverse of
'limited'. give it a few examples and put a magnifying glass on it.
Make it clear the value is GM assigned.
4) List any rules you think need fixing, in descending order of importance.
Optional: list how to fix them, or precisely what needs fixing.
Change OCV + 11 - DCV = roll needed to
OCV +11 - 3d6 = DCV you hit. Obvious? Not a change? you'd
be suprised at how often I've been told it wasn't legal.
The value's are the same; it just lets a GM hide DCV's.
COM - give this stat more in game effects. Maybe even a
few skills for it like Interlock has (Wardrobe and Style?).
5) The following list includes some of the major rules extensions or
modifications that have been presented in Hero products.The list is
not exhaustive; feel free to add specific items (list the book where
found) and rate them. Rate each of the following in terms of whether
or not you'd like to see them in Hero System 5th Edition.
Optional: list specifically what you want fixed, and how to fix it.
1 -- Do not include in any fashion
2 -- Include with heavy changes (and describe suggested changes)
3 -- Include with moderate changes (and describe suggested changes)
4 -- Include with minor changes (and describe suggested changes)
5 -- Include as is
Hero System Almanac I
_5_ Spirit rules
_5_ Negative Characteristics information
_5_ Usable On Others rewrite
_5_ Revised Time Table, Gradual Effects, and new Adv and Lims,
Aura color chart
_4_ Ref'ing The Disadvantages
--- Fill it out to cover the full list, with generic
advice to GM's on how to handle disads.
Hero System Almanac II
_3_ Change Environment extensions
--- Make it fuller, and discuse unusual uses of the
power such as "Speedster Tricks", outlining how
such things can be done.
_5_ Senses extensions and clarifications
_5_ Requires a Skill Roll extension
_5_ Drugs and Poisons
Dark Champions/An Eye For An Eye
_5_ new Weapon Maneuvers
_5_ new Skills
_5_ new Perks and Talents
_5_ new Hit Locations
Other rules modification/extension
(list book where found): _____________________
6) Which of the following rules subsystems should receive significant
expansion and revision in a separate book? (Note: Future Ultimate
books or genre books may deal with these subjects in greater
detail.) Use the 1-5 rating scale provided in the previous question.
_5_ Weapon creation
_5_ Base creation
_5_ Vehicle creation and combat
_5_ Gadget creation
_5_ Animal creation
_5_ Automata and robot creation
_5_ Computers & AI creation
___ Other: _______________
7) Marketing Stuff:
Rate importance of the following to your purchasing decision of the Hero
System 5th Edition (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important):
Most of these won't affect MY decision. But this is how I feel they will
effect new players choices. (I'm a long timer Hero player, so my choice
will be made on material content.)
_5_ Flyers for the game stores to put up in window/wall displays.
_4_ Quality of cover artwork
_4_ Quality of interior artwork
_4_ Quantity of interior artwork
_5_ Price
_1_ Hardcover (more expensive)
_1_ Softcover (less expensive)
_0_ CD-ROM version available
8) Please list any other thoughts you may have about the Hero System 5th
Edition.
A lot of the advice in Strike Force on team design, game design etc.
has proven very useful over the years. Make it less genre specific
and include it in a GMing section.
Update the suggested point levels to include for fuller backgrounds
on PC's who are built at the suggested active point level limits.
I would recommend the base points be changed to:
Normal: 15
Skilled Normal: 30
Competant Normal: 50
Heroic: 75
Standard Super Hero: 125
High Powered Super Hero:150
With this modification, the totals listed for disads would stay the
same. I find that when I make a Heroic character I have a much fuller
developed background skill list than I when I make a 250 point Super Hero.
At 250 points, I just barely have enough points to buy most of the basic
powers I need, and often can't even afford the professional skill of the
secret identity.
Return of Questionnaires: Please send them via mail to Hero Plus Dept. Q,
P.O. Box 699, Aptos, CA 95001-0699. Or
email them to herogames@aol.com; we'd appreciate RTF files if possible, but
we'll also take text files.
.designates a registered trademark of Hero Games. Permission to reproduce
this questionnaire is hereby granted as long as it remains complete.
)1998 Hero Games. All rights reserved.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:21:34
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:25:49 -0800, Woodie wrote:
>Imagine a man who lives in a world where no one can speak except him.
>Should he pay 20-25 pts for this ability, because in a world where
>everyone does speak he would take that many as a Disadvantage? If he
>is the only man in the world to speak language X, then it is only
>worth 4pts for idiomatic command, but it is worth 20-25 pts in
>Disadvantages when everyone does have it except him.
Not necessarily. In the first example, he'd not get any Disadvantage
points, because it isn't a disadvantage, nor would he have to pay a
like number of points, because it isn't that useful. In the second,
again, he wouldn't get so many points, because it isn't much of a
limitation - after all, he could learn the other language. If he
couldn't speak at all (Dumb: Frequently, Greatly), then that would be
worth points.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:26:55
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:01:04 -0800 (PST), Brian Wong wrote:
>> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
> I'd like to see an active, controllable version of
>Luck Manipulation that can be used to bless or curse others.
What's wrong with Luck UAO, Costs End?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"champ-l@omg.org\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:32:04
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:39:17 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>>* Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
>>the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
>>characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
>
> I think this could be done with Quirks.
How about using Physical Limitation: Obvious Low social class, or
Distinctive Features: OLSC ? (DF can be mannerisms etc)
Remember that a PL is supposed to represent anything that the character
*can't* do. This is a variation on 'Completely Unfamiliar with Earth
Culture', after all. That said, I'd go for the DF as this allows the
people with whom the character interacts the choice of actions.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:38:07
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:04:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>My experience with continuing attacks in H4 is that nobody buys them, unless
>either (a) they're NND/AVLD, or (b) they're on continuing charges. The reason
>is fairly obvious; for 60 active points I can buy a 12d6 EB (which will do
>quite a lot of stun to most characters), for 62 points I can buy a 5d6
>continuing EB (which will, on average, _never_ knock most characters out, and
>will cost huge amounts of endurance in addition). This is somewhat similar to
>why I never see autofire except on charges.
How about a Continuous, Cumulative 2d6 Dispel? Eventually, it'll get
any power. Or a Continuous Drain?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 11:40:27
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 18:04:34 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>So, how to fix this? Dump the current writeups; add the following new ones.
>+1/2: attachable: allows a constant power to 'follow' a chosen target about,
>with no new actions or attack rolls required. For a power with 'extended
>duration' the cost of attachable is equal to the cost of extended duration. A
>reasonably obvious means of canceling the power must be available. Double cost
>for powers which go against an unusual defense (i.e. NND).
This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
half-phase action to maintain, though.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 05:37:04 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 23:01:04 -0800 (PST), Brian Wong wrote:
>
> >> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
> > I'd like to see an active, controllable version of
> >Luck Manipulation that can be used to bless or curse others.
>
> What's wrong with Luck UAO, Costs End?
>
It doesn't give the unluck side of the issue.
What I want to see is probability manipulations.
This almost goes hand in hand with my idea of a slick power.
That is a power that can be used to force it's victim to make a stat roll X
every phase and / or time they attempt action Y, with failure resulting
in consequence Z.
I would want all of X, Y, and Z to be definable.
I also see an entangle that is broken out of using a given stat X rather than
Str or an attack power. So that you could do 'Ego entangles' or even 'Pre
entangles'.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: PING of GRG or Herogames
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 05:42:36 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Hello;
Anyone know if either GRG and/or Herogames is still
watching this mailing list?
Are we just blowing steam talking about 5th edition ideas or is
someone with official input quietly watching to see if any of us says
something of interest?
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: mlknight@pop.mindspring.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 09:23:21 -0500
From: Michelle Knight <mlknight@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Steve Long on #herochat!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>California time?
We're talking California time. I'm not sure what that is in relation
to GMT, but that's 4-5 PM Eastern Standard Time, or 4-5 AM your
time if I'm correct. See you there. :)
Michelle
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:34:12 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 5th Ed: Heroic vs Superheroic
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:06 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 13:12:50 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
>>At 07:11 PM 1/23/98, qts wrote:
>>>I've been putting together some of the recent threads and would like to
>>>open the following suggestion for the 5th Ed.
>>>
>>>There should be a difference between Superheroic games and Heroic
>>>games: the former should be based on STAT/5, the latter on STAT/3.
>>>
>>>BTW I include CV and SPD.
>>
>> I could see that as an option for Skill Rolls, but not for CV.
The DEX/3 formula for OCV/DCV (and EGO/3 for ECV, as well as additional
options found in TUM) (1) is very well established, (2) gives nice variable
breakpoints when coupled with the 5-point gaps for Skill Rolls, and (3) is
just the right distance so that having a godawful advantage (or
disadvantage) in CV between the fast end and the slow end doesn't mean you
have to spend an outrageous amount (a big amount yes, but not outrageous as
such things go).
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:42:46 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:25 PM 1/23/98 -0800, Brian Wong wrote:
>> >The current power level suggestions fit to the 250 point character if that
>> >character chooses not to get more than a very few background skills. But
>> >try to squeeze in background and flavor and one is forced into a lower
>> >power level, or lots of nit picky limitations that often stretch the
concept
>> >beyond it's limits.
>>
>> I've found that there's a lot to be said for basing superheroes on 100
>> points, but allowing 200 points in Disadvantages under the new rules. The
>> additional points from those Disadvantages can be spent on those extra
>> Skills under the now-improved Skill system, as well as on Talents and minor
>> Powers that help round out the character.
>
> An interesting idea. So you would agree with me that more total points
>are needed? Yet you feel that rather than raise base points, raise the number
>of allowed disadvantages?
It has worked fairly well for me. Take a look at the Justifiers (URL
below). All of these folks are built fairly well on 100+200. I'll grant
that a couple of them may seem a bit Disad-heavy in that they have problems
that might seem overwhelming, but on the whole I'd call the lot of them
pretty well fleshed-out.
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/justify.htm
> I've actually had several people tell me that even if it stayed at a
>total of 250, they'd like to see more base points and less disads.
I'd put this under the heading of Different Strokes.
> Personally I think the natural amount of disad points for most concepts
>tends to run from 125 to 150. Beyond that the concept starts to get
stretched.
Actually I think that was the tendency around 3rd Edition -- though I
did make a couple of nice 100+200 characters under 3rd.
> But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
There are at least a couple of Disad categories that could be brought in
from GURPS and/or Fuzion. One that folks have been requesting for a long
time, to give just one example, is Social Limitation (this would've come in
handy for Bob Ramsey of the Justifiers, who is an ex-con).
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 06:59:40 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:21 PM 1/23/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>Actually, I was thinking that maybe we should create petitions.
>Certain things, like a final ruling on the GLD, we can get a lot of
>agreement on.
That there *should* be a final ruling on the GLD, I'm pretty sure is a
unanimous feeling.
As to what that ruling should be, I doubt we will get much more than a
general consensus. I asked about a year and a half ago, and a simple
majority agreed with me that the -1/2 Limitation *should* work as it did in
3rd Edition, where both Powers had to be used together and in proportion.
A plurality also agreed with me that a -1/4 Limitation would be good for a
"one-way Linked." If I asked again now, though, I might get a different
response.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:24:35 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: US Time Zones (was: Steve Long on #herochat!)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:46:33 -0800, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre wrote:
>
>>Mr. Dark Champions himself is going to be in #herochat on dal.net on
>>February 1, from 1-2 PM PST to talk about his upcoming projects, offer
>>advice, and respond to questions.
>
>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>California time?
California time. I believe that the time difference from the UK is 8
hours.
A quick reference for non-Americans, the Time Zones in the continental
US are:
Pacific (West Coast)
Mountain (Rockies)
Central (Plains)
Eastern (East Cost)
Anecdotally, the national television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, UPN,
and the WB) all broadcast satellite feeds for the Eastern, Mountain, and
Pacific Time Zones; viewers in the Central Time Zone get the Eastern feed.
Thus times for shows on network promos are usually given as something like,
"tomorrow night at eight, seven Central."
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:26:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> I personally prefer games at 150 base and 100 disadvantages. I've
> never figured out why Superheroes have twice as many Disadvantages as
> Heroes, even though they are not running on twice as many points.
>
> Additionally, I find that 100 pts is the point at which most character
> concepts get bent out of shape. Maybe if I could have more points in
> each catagory, I'd change my mind, but I'm not certain.
I agree. At 150 points base and 100 points in disads, the player ends up
buying the disads that will best defeine the character. The more
important Psych Lims, Susceptabilites, and Vulnerabilites, etc. You don't
get the "Hmmm... I need 13 points... can I have another Hunted?"
> Yes, I do. Rather than try to continue to force Disadvantages into
> categories that already exist, I'd like more categories.
I agree. I like some of the Disads from Gurps. Social, Secret, Duty... I
also like how GURPS spells out what certain Phys Lims do as well. That's
why I made my disad list. See
http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/newdisads.html for more.
***************************************************************************
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion *
* Michael Surbrook / susano@access.digex.net *
* Visit "Surbrook's Stuff' the Hero Games resource site at: *
* http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/index.html *
* Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:31:13 EST
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 98-01-24 08:43:19 EST, rook@shell.infinex.com writes:
<<Anyone know if either GRG and/or Herogames is still watching this mailing
list?
Are we just blowing steam talking about 5th edition ideas or is someone with
official input quietly watching to see if any of us says something of
interest?>>
Well, I can't speak for Mark or Steve P., but I'm certainly watching the
list with a great deal of interest, and have been for some time. I have a
nice thick stack of printed-out comments from the HML, and I update my 5th Ed.
working outline just about every week.
To those of you, such as Bob Greenwade and Michael Surbrook, who have passed
particular HML comments or ideas on to me directly, I owe special thanks.
Thanks, guys. I really appreciate your help.
Everyone please keep the comments and suggestions coming! All constructive
input is good input. And be sure to fill out the questionnaire on the Hero
Games webpage; that's the best way to make your comments and suggestions,
since it makes them easiest for us to catalog.
Steve Long
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:17:37 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Reply-To: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 23 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count all
> D> lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
>
> Enh... this can lead to some nasty abuses.
Neg; buying high STR and/or CON while keeping DEF, REC, END, and STUN at
the values they would have gives you a net increase in ability for a net
decrease in points, true; but the Disad cap limits exactly how much of
this you can do - and if you max out on your Disad cap in this manner,
you don't get points for other disads. Besides; any GM who willingly
approves such an obviously abusive design deserves what he gets.
> D> * Gameplay can be sped up by replacing the current rules for Complementary
> D> Skills with a single bonus to the 'primary skill' roll based on the
> D> complementary skill level (+1 for every 2 full points over a 10-, with a
> D> minimum of a +1; Familiarities cannot be used as complementary skills).
>
> I do not see this as a dramatic change.
It reduces multiple die rolls into a single roll.
> D> * Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a +1 with up
> D> to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
> D> complementary skills.
>
> Um... this is a 3-point skill level.
No; the 3-point version works with any of the three skills individually;
this version would only work when the skills are being used in conjunction
with each other.
> D> * Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting
> D> (other than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them
> D> into a single skill.
>
> One teaches you to operate in two dimensions, the other teaches you to
> operate in three dimension.
Is this a valid enough difference to treat them as different skills?
(Maybe...)
> D> * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> D> the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> D> characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
>
> This is largely campaign dependant.
So list some campaign-dependent suggestions.
> D> * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> D> Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> D> appropriate, such as "Background")
>
> But they are not perqs, they are disadvantages.
But they are of the same type; all of the above deal more with the
character's standing in society than with any innate qualities. And
there's a precedence for listing disads in with the perks; see Money...
> D> * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> D> skill.
>
> No. Since "Everyman" skills are free, not having one is likewise "free".
Not knowing how to drive is worth _no_ points?
> D> * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
>
> This beggars using Unluck as a power.
Why not? Allow Disads in general to be used as powers, but use the
absolute value of their cost when doing so.
> D> * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be
> D> 'Always On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and
> D> Extra Limbs.
>
> Mr. Fantasic has "Extra Limbs" that are not always on. Remember, it is
> easier to add a modifier to a power than it is to remove it.
99% of all creatures with extra limbs effectively have them with Always
On, just like 99% of all attacks that use Charges cost no END to use. And
I'd allow a character to cancel the "Always On" nature of Extra Limbs or
END Reserve with a +1/2 Advantage and a good explanation.
> D> It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
> D> where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
> D> Duplication.
>
> Not if you do not make the aforementioned change.
Please explain to me how Instant Change: Always On makes the least bit of
sense.
> D> * Expand the list of Power Categories to include Sense Powers
> D> (Clairsentience, Darkness, Enhanced Senses, Flash, Flash Defense, Images,
> D> and Invisibility);
>
> I do not see this as particularly necessary, and I dislike the idea of
> adding Flash and Flash Defense to that category. They work like other
> standard powers.
They are all based off of the Sense Groups.
> D> add Dispel and Suppress to Alteration Powers.
>
> Maybe... that needs a bit of thought because they do not work quite like
> other adjustment powers.
Jumping doesn't work exactly like the other Movement Powers, but it's
included with them anyway, because it's similar enough.
> D> * Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
> D> of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
>
> As many as you can spend Endurance.
I meant "spell out the optional rules that Delayed Effect refers to".
> D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
> D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
>
> Why?
So that Draining one point of END Reserve doesn't knock out 10 END.
> D> * Allow versions of Damage Reduction that are analogous to Flash Defense
> D> and Power Defense.
>
> Too expensive for the effect. Just by more of the relevant defenses.
Same could be said about Physical Damage Reduction vs. PD, etc; let the
players decide if it's too expensive (and if it is, lower the price).
> D> * Extract the "Beam Attack" limitation from the Limited Power limitation,
> D> and incorporate it into the description of EB; likewise, incorporate the
> D> +1 STUN Multiple into the descriptions of HKA and RKA.
>
> Agreed; that is where they should be.
We agreed on something? ;)
> D> * Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
> D> Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
>
> (I think) Superleap does not normally require an attack roll -- if it did
> you could not leap and attack in your action phase, as the attack roll
> would end your action phase.
It does; make an attack roll against the target hex...
> D> * Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
> D> Constant Powers that affect others;
>
> This is just a special effect of "AoE: Line".
Could be, except that someone could easily be standing in the same hex as
the wall and not be affected by it.
> D> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> D> applied to attacks which have no range".
>
> No. You would be unable to buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield.
Yes you could, if you buy the EB with the +1/2L "No Range".
> D> * Change Usable On Others and Usable By Others into a single Power
> D> Framework, as per Almanac 1.
>
> No. Their uses are radically different. They are not the same thing.
See Almanac ! (2?) for more on this idea.
> D> * For each Power, list the "state" of the power (Constant/Instant, Costs
> D> END/No END/Persistent, Area Effect, Attack, Defense, etc.)
>
> It is listed, just not in a table.
I meant come up with a standardized method of listing it, so that it can
be quickly and easily identified.
> D> * For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
> D> effect for the modifier to be applied.
>
> If a power is active, all of its advantages and limitations are active
> simultaneously.
Can you apply "Always On" to an Instant Power that costs END? I thought
not... Like the previous suggestion, this has to do with presentation
more than content.
> D> * Charges should never be more than a +1/2 Advantage, and kill the 4x
> D> Clips rule.
>
> I would rather see a better balance between Charges and Zero Endurance cost.
That's the idea.
> D> * Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
> D> of Focus.
>
> No; these modifiers are not for use in all campaigns, so they should not be
> in with the description.
Why not? "Only in Hero ID" isn't intended for use in all campaigns, but
it's listed along with the rest...
> D> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power,
>
> Fourth edition *separated* it from Limited Power.
It shouldn't have.
> D> and add a new -1/2 limitation (non-Persistent) to Limited Power.
>
> You mean "Instant". Hmm... that might actually be valid in its own right,
> listed or referenced from "Increased Endurance" much as "Persistant" is
> listed with "Reduced Endurance".
No, I mean non-Persistent; it acts like a normal Constant power, konking
out when the character does.
> D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>
> Strength.
Not the same thing; that's like saying that Body and Stun are "Physical
Defense" and "Energy Defense". I'm thinking of something along the lines
of "No-Stick(tm) Surface".
> D> * Uncontrolled No END and Persistent attacks need a limiting condition
> D> added to them.
>
> They have one; go read Uncontrolled.
I stand corrected.
> D> * Add another Power Structure, "Attachable", which cost an additional 5
> D> points per 1d6 of "durability" (explained below); the attack (which must
> D> be Constant and No END Cost) sticks with the target until it fades or is
> D> detroyed.
>
> It is called "gradual effect", the version that is in Fantasy Hero.
Not even _close_ to being the same thing; unless the version in Fantasy
Hero is drastically different from the version in Almanac 1(2?), what it
does is slow down the rate at which a constant power affects a target -
"attachable" has nothing to do with the rate at which a constant power
affects the target; instead, it deals with how difficult it is to get rid
of the effects of a power...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:27:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 14:11:40 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
> >Why "Indirect"?
>
> Because it doesn't appear to be originating from the direction of the
> character.
And regular Telekinesis does?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 24 Jan 98 10:01:00 -0800
Subject: In for the long haul...
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
t > From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
t > Subject: In for the long haul...
t >
t > Lasting and Extended Duration
t > -----------------------------
t > The rules for powers with effects continuous effects are very
t > IMHO, there are two very distinct types of continuing attacks - those
t > attack the target continuously, and those that attack the target once,
t > which continuously affect the target after that. The difference is
t > for the second variety, line-of-sight etc. need not be maintained on
t > target. I would propose a "Lasting" Advantage to represent this type
t > of effect.
Isn't this difference already covered - the former being Continuous, and
the latter Uncontrolled?
t > Related to this is the concept of the Extended Duration; this is a
t > Constant or Lasting Power that has had the frequency of END payments
t > down the time chart (this is, BTW, far less abusive than applying a
t > Reduced END Cost to the power, and has some very useful side effects).
t > A side-benefit is that this would effectively replace the Continuing
t > Charges rules; a Charge of a Constant Power is normally good for one
t >
What would the cost be? With 0 END out there for a +1/2 Advantage,
I can't see a lot of characters taking this.
t > Maintenance Costs
t > -----------------
t > One could easily go with a Reduced Maintenance Cost; this would
t > effectively be Reduced END Cost which only applies to a Constant or
t > Lasting power, and then only to END costs used to keep the power
t > active.
t > Unfortunately, 1/2 END cost is listed as a +1/4 Adv., so reducing it
t > further would violate the convention of having all Advantages in
t > one-quarter increments... Likewise, Increased END Cost could be
t > applied specifically to the cost needed to activate the power.
Unfortunately, though it might fit some concepts, this idea is a little
too minor to fit in the +/- 1/4 costing structure for Advantages &
Limitations....
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:01:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 06:17 PM 1/22/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>
> >* Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a +1 with up
> >to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
> >complementary skills.
>
> Sensible. Better yet, for 1 point you can purchase +1 with the use of
> any two Skills together, as long as one is being used as a Complementary
> Skill for the other.
Same concept, different price...
> >* Explain the difference between Combat Driving and Combat Piloting (other
> >than the class of Transport Familiarities used), or combine them into a
> >single skill.
>
> The explanation I give in TUSV is, I believe, the one that will be used.
> Combat Driving is used for situations in 2-D environments, such as on land
> or the surface of the water, while Combat Piloting is for 3-D environments,
> such as in the air, space, or underwater.
Hmm... I think I'll be looking forward to TUSV... =)
> >* Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
> >the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
> >characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
>
> I think this could be done with Quirks.
"Quirks", as in GURPS-style Quirks? Actually, it's been suggested by
others that a "Social Disad" be added to handle such things as "Social
Stigma", "Duty", and the like... (although I'd personally prefer to see
Duty as a new Disad, mirroring Hunted/Watched in purchasing scheme)
> >* Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> >Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
> >appropriate, such as "Background")
>
> Bad idea! Bad, bad idea! ;-]
> These are all Character Disdvantages, and should remain that way.
At least seperate them out within the Disads section; after all, there are
a few occasions where they should be treated as fundamentally different
than other Disads (Side Effects come to mind...)
> >* "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an Everyman
> >skill.
>
> I'm not 100% sure, but I think that's already done, or has been. -1
> point (in the Skills column) for every Everyman Skill not had. If it's not
> in 4th Edition, though, I agree that it should be in 5th.
It's not, and I'm beginning to think that that's a good thing.
> >* Give rules for use in Heroic campaigns for setting limits on the number
> >of powers that a character can have turned on at one time.
>
> That's there. It just needs to be mentioned somewhere other than just
> the Delayed Effect Advantage.
Exactly.
> >* Add a +1/2 Advantage ("No attack roll required") to the description of
> >Superleap, removing the need for an Attack Roll to hit the target hex.
>
> That was in HSA1 (as you may already know), and is a good candidate.
Actually, I noticed that I had it pencilled into HS4, but I completely
forgot where I had gotten it from.
> >* Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
> >Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
> >Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
> >through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
> >'one-way', etc.
>
> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps a couple of examples
> would help.
Teleport: Continuous, Usable On Others, Area Effect: Wall to create a
portal between two locations; Extra-Dimensional Movement: Continuous,
Usable On Others, Area Effect to create a dimensional gateway; EB:
Continuous, Area Effect: Wall to create a wall of searing energy...
> >* For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
> >effect for the modifier to be applied. Also, consider organizing
> >modifiers according to the required states, so that all Advantages that
> >are applied only to Attacks are listed together, etc.
>
> I agree with the first part; however, I favor leaving all of the
> Advantages together in simple alphabetical order. It makes them easier to
> cross-reference.
Perhaps include a summary table for Advantages the way they do for Powers,
and either alphebetize the table/categorize the descriptions or categorize
the table/alphebetize the descriptions...
> >* Incorporate the various weapon and armor Modifiers into the description
> >of Focus.
>
> Agreed. I *definitely* do not like having the armor and weapon
> Modifiers so far away from the construction rules. Ditto the special
> abilities and such for Automatons, Bases, Computers, and Vehicles. All
> rules for the creation of characters and other entities should be in one
> place in the book.
BTW, will TUSV be dealing with just vehicles, or will it also cover bases?
Computers? Automatons?
> >* Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>
> Entangle already acts as a defense against incoming attacks.
Rephrasing: Consider adding a "Defense against Entangle" - for characters
that entangles have difficulty sticking to, for instance...
> >* A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the Sense
> >is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is detectable
> >by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect for senses?),
> >and Speech (which allows the Sense Group to be used as a communications
> >channel - a chameleon-like race could, for instance, use color patterns to
> >speak.
>
> Radar and Active Sonar can generally act for Active Senses; when they
> won't work, Visible Power Effect would be the way to go.
> And I think that Speech is going to be considered a Sense, Normal Speech
> falling under the Hearing Sense Group. Speech for other Sense Groups isn't
> a bad idea, as long as there's a note that the character must have the
> means of generating the mode of speech -- in your example, the
> chameleon-like race would have to have an appropriate level of Shape Shift
> in order to change color, *and* take Speech as a "sense" in order to make
> "intelligible" color patterns.
Good point...
> >* Add another Power Structure, "Attachable", which cost an additional 5
> >points per 1d6 of "durability" (explained below); the attack (which must
> >be Constant and No END Cost) sticks with the target until it fades or is
> >detroyed. Decide whether or not the attachment is vulnerable to attack;
> >if so, it will have a BODY and DEF determined from the "durability" dice
> >in a manner similar to Entangles. If not, it will last a number of turns
> >equal to the BODY of the "durability" dice minus an appropriate defense
> >(usually Power Defense, but it can vary depending on the nature of the
> >attachment).
>
> I'm not sure what the use of this would be. Is there an example of it
> in fiction somewhere?
Drug patches (they continue to administer the drug until removed), homing
beacons; one of Iron Man's foes once slapped a device onto Iron Man's
armor that made him go desolid until he figured out a way to destroy the
gizmo. There are, however, better ways to do this, as I've mentioned
since.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:14:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> >OTOH, I really don't think that Only in Hero ID is special enough to be listed
> >seperately, as it currently is.
>
> If you don't mind me piping up, I would have to disagree with this
> statement. I can give you at least three examples of OHID in mainstream
> comics: Thor, Captain Marvel, and Iron Man (although some might argue
> about the last). OHID is a very specific, genre-necessary mechanic, and
> it has enough inherent limitations and bonuses that it should not be
> simply folded into the Limited Power disadd.
What inherent bonuses and drawbacks does it have that "Limited Power:
Conditional (only works in Hero ID)" doesn't?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:21:10 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> An interesting idea. So you would agree with me that more total points
> are needed? Yet you feel that rather than raise base points, raise the number
> of allowed disadvantages?
>
> I've actually had several people tell me that even if it stayed at a
> total of 250, they'd like to see more base points and less disads.
>
> Personally I think the natural amount of disad points for most concepts
> tends to run from 125 to 150. Beyond that the concept starts to get stretched.
Hmmm. I haven't found it to be as such for all characters, but
definately for some. I started playing Champs with 275pt characters (100
base + 175 disad) and have kept about there for awhile. My last campaign,
however, was 100 base + 175 or so disads, and if more points were needed I
gave out a Hero Bonus. Also, if 175 points of disads resulted in
"stretches", I gave a Hero Bonus. I really wanted characters that fit
concept without being hamstrung by points, but still having room to grow.
It worked well, but maybe that's because I actually designed the majority
of the characters. (Newbies and Convicted Rules Lawyers)
> But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
I don't think this is really a problem. Any "added" disads would
merely be derivatives of what already exists. Things like dependence,
vow, etc, are all easily covered by the existing lims. I would like to
see Social Limitation added, however.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 24 Jan 98 10:25:02 -0800
Subject: Further H5 suggestions
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
t > From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
t > Subject: Further H5 suggestions
t > Continuing my Fifth Edition suggestions...
t >
t > * As an option, allow fractional point costs, and round off at the end
t > character creation (if ever). Considering the official "round in the
t > character's favor" policy, this would tend to make existing characters
t > more expensive.
Ugh... considering the 'compatibility' clause, they probably won't go
for this.
t > * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count
t > all lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
Hmmmm.... What do the 'STR is underpriced' people think of this?
t > * Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges
t > the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
t > characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
Disads have already been used to cover Discrimination (Distinctive, I
think it was), but I could see adding a 'Social Disadvantage' - Reputation
could be incorporated into it.
t > * Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
t > Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something
t > appropriate, such as "Background")
I'd hate to see two types of Disads (3 if you use the negative char
above) - but I could see grouping them together.
t > * "Ignorance": Allow characters to get points for not having an
t > Everyman skill.
t > * Relocate Unluck to the Talents section, to keep it near Luck.
Again, it's an unneeded complication, keep the Disads together, but
maybe 'group' them.
t > * A few of the powers look like their default condition should be
t > 'Always On', rather than 'Persistent'; specifically, END Reserve and Ex
t > Limbs.
Then you'd need a 'can be turned off' Advantage for such powers...
You can always put Always on on such powers.
t > * A couple possible additions to Enhanced Senses: Active Sense (the
t > Sense is like Radar, in that it generates its own radiation which is
t > detectable by others - or should this simply be a Visible Power Effect
t > senses?), and Speech (which allows the Sense Group to be used as a
t > communications channel - a chameleon-like race could, for instance, use
t > patterns to speak.
Very good. I'd like to see an 'Active' limitation, and the return &
broader aplication of the old 'Can Transmit'
t > Comments?
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:26:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> You've just stated my argument.
>
> at 250 points, the power level needs to be scaled down to below the current recommendation
> of 50 active points.
> If not, raise the points to more than 250.
> But the two don't match each other.
Agreed. However, lowering the power level isd _not_ the answer.
I think the average should be at around 60 pts, with the max somewhere
above that. (I've allowed a 150 AP power, but that was a heavily limited
NPC Villian -- see The Mutant File.) As is, the various powers can barely
affect the physical world. 60 points tends to allow for a decent amount
of collateral damage, though more might be nice. (Kinda analagous to
Bell's arguments.)
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:28:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: Hero System Mailing List <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> > > You might want to drop by my website then. Later today (1/23) I should be
> > > posting my expanded Hero Disadvantages list, which used GURPS disads as a
> > > base. It does include Duty, Addiction, Vows, Secret and so on, as well as
> > > a large listing of Psych and Phys Limsn. Let me know what you think.
>
> This is going to sound stupid, but are you suggestions based on what I
> said above, or what I actually posted?
What you actually posted. Overall, an interesting set you provided
there...
> > Addiction would be better modelled as a lesser form of Dependence, in much
> > the same way that Enraged is a lesser form of Berserk and Watched is a
> > lesser form of Hunted.
>
> Except Dependence doesn't quite work. The intervals are too close
> together. A more 'canon' way to do it (as suggestion in Dark Champions)
> is to model drug addictions as a mix of Phys and Psych lims.
Mmm... true point.
> > Disadvantages, IIRC, never cost you points; in the case of Dependence,
> > totals that end up as positive point values should be reduced to zero and
> > considered character flavor.
>
> True. But some Dependencies do work better as Phys. Lims. Especially
> things like "Must immerse self-daily".
Also true.
> > Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how bothersome the
> > bothersome the job tends to be.
>
> I guess you are basing your comments of my material... ^_^. Any
> suggestions? My numbers were derived straight from GURPS.
Sure!
Risk
----
Inconvenient: +0
Hazardous: +5
Extremely Hazardous: +10
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:28:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> Actually, I was thinking that maybe we should create petitions.
> Certain things, like a final ruling on the GLD, we can get a lot of
> agreement on.
But no agreement on which way it should be decided. Don't turn
this form into a battleground.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:57:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > One teaches you to operate in two dimensions, the other teaches you to
> > operate in three dimension.
>
> Is this a valid enough difference to treat them as different skills?
> (Maybe...)
I'd say yes. These really are different ways of thinking.
> > This is largely campaign dependant.
>
> So list some campaign-dependent suggestions.
This would go well in a Social Disadvantage category.
> > But they are not perqs, they are disadvantages.
>
> But they are of the same type; all of the above deal more with the
> character's standing in society than with any innate qualities. And
> there's a precedence for listing disads in with the perks; see Money...
Which should be moved to the disads sections. It helps to have
all of them in one place for cross referencing. It's bad enough having to
flip around as is.
> > This beggars using Unluck as a power.
>
> Why not? Allow Disads in general to be used as powers, but use the
> absolute value of their cost when doing so.
Can be incredibly unbalancing. Give out, say, a *2 Stun vs fire,
ranged, for what . . . 30 points?
> > I do not see this as particularly necessary, and I dislike the idea of
> > adding Flash and Flash Defense to that category. They work like other
> > standard powers.
>
> They are all based off of the Sense Groups.
Which isn't actually how the powers are divided. They are
seperated by their mechanics, not what differing parts of the rules they
may or may not affect.
> > Maybe... that needs a bit of thought because they do not work quite like
> > other adjustment powers.
>
> Jumping doesn't work exactly like the other Movement Powers, but it's
> included with them anyway, because it's similar enough.
Actually, Jumping could work just fine as a limited form of
flight, as could Gliding and Swimming. Or, alternately, for a
no-hit-roll-required Jump use a limited Flight.
> > D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
> > D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
> >
> > Why?
>
> So that Draining one point of END Reserve doesn't knock out 10 END.
Bad idea. END reserve is incredibly cheap as-is. The fact that
it is more succeptable to drains, etc is one of its few balancing
features.
> > D> * Extract the "Beam Attack" limitation from the Limited Power limitation,
> > D> and incorporate it into the description of EB; likewise, incorporate the
> > D> +1 STUN Multiple into the descriptions of HKA and RKA.
> >
> > Agreed; that is where they should be.
>
> We agreed on something? ;)
Amazing as it is, I'm going with both you and Rat on this one.
> > D> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > D> applied to attacks which have no range".
> >
> > No. You would be unable to buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield.
>
> Yes you could, if you buy the EB with the +1/2L "No Range".
Like I said, the cost works as it is now. I might see putting an
extra +1/2 advantage onto attacks that have no range by default to become
Damage Shield.
> > If a power is active, all of its advantages and limitations are active
> > simultaneously.
>
> Can you apply "Always On" to an Instant Power that costs END? I thought
> not... Like the previous suggestion, this has to do with presentation
> more than content.
Possibly on the above. It just would be worth less of a
limitation, if any, because it _will_ turn off -- but only when KOed.
> > D> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power,
> >
> > Fourth edition *separated* it from Limited Power.
>
> It shouldn't have.
It should have because it is a relatively common disadvantage.
The point of Limited Power is to collect those various Limitations that
aren't common enough to get or need their own listing. OIHID is common
enough to be its own Limitation. I'd pull Costs END out to its own
section as well.
> > D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
> >
> > Strength.
>
> Not the same thing; that's like saying that Body and Stun are "Physical
> Defense" and "Energy Defense". I'm thinking of something along the lines
> of "No-Stick(tm) Surface".
Which is best done with limited STR. (Only vs Grabs and
Entangles, -1).
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:58:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Because it doesn't appear to be originating from the direction of the
> > character.
>
> And regular Telekinesis does?
Of course. It's both Visible and Direct, so there is an obvious
connection.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:53:30 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > > One teaches you to operate in two dimensions, the other teaches you to
> > > operate in three dimension.
> >
> > Is this a valid enough difference to treat them as different skills?
> > (Maybe...)
>
> I'd say yes. These really are different ways of thinking.
I can go with that...
> > > This is largely campaign dependant.
> >
> > So list some campaign-dependent suggestions.
>
> This would go well in a Social Disadvantage category.
Yes, it would.
> > > But they are not perqs, they are disadvantages.
> >
> > But they are of the same type; all of the above deal more with the
> > character's standing in society than with any innate qualities. And
> > there's a precedence for listing disads in with the perks; see Money...
>
> Which should be moved to the disads sections. It helps to have
> all of them in one place for cross referencing. It's bad enough having to
> flip around as is.
So split Money up into Money and Poverty?
> > > This beggars using Unluck as a power.
> >
> > Why not? Allow Disads in general to be used as powers, but use the
> > absolute value of their cost when doing so.
>
> Can be incredibly unbalancing. Give out, say, a *2 Stun vs fire,
> ranged, for what . . . 30 points?
Note that said Vulnerability would only last one Segment; You'd have to
add Continuous for anything beyond that - minimum cost of 60 points - and,
_far_ more importantly, said Disad-as-Power would need a good explanation
and GM approval...
> > > I do not see this as particularly necessary, and I dislike the idea of
> > > adding Flash and Flash Defense to that category. They work like other
> > > standard powers.
> >
> > They are all based off of the Sense Groups.
>
> Which isn't actually how the powers are divided. They are
> seperated by their mechanics, not what differing parts of the rules they
> may or may not affect.
Umm... I think I may have missed something here; are you telling me that
"these powers must specify a Sense Group that they will deal with" is
_not_ a mechanic?
> > > D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration Powers
> > > D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > So that Draining one point of END Reserve doesn't knock out 10 END.
>
> Bad idea. END reserve is incredibly cheap as-is. The fact that
> it is more succeptable to drains, etc is one of its few balancing
> features.
If you consider it to be so unbalanced, change the actual price of END
Reserve to 2 END per point... (which may not be a bad idea anyway...)
> > > D> * Change the description of Damage Shield to read "this can only be
> > > D> applied to attacks which have no range".
> > >
> > > No. You would be unable to buy an Energy Blast with Damage Shield.
> >
> > Yes you could, if you buy the EB with the +1/2L "No Range".
>
> Like I said, the cost works as it is now. I might see putting an
> extra +1/2 advantage onto attacks that have no range by default to become
> Damage Shield.
Hmm... a valid alternative; I really don't know which would be better...
> > > If a power is active, all of its advantages and limitations are active
> > > simultaneously.
> >
> > Can you apply "Always On" to an Instant Power that costs END? I thought
> > not... Like the previous suggestion, this has to do with presentation
> > more than content.
>
> Possibly on the above. It just would be worth less of a
> limitation, if any, because it _will_ turn off -- but only when KOed.
"less" of a limitation? To be forced to expend END every phase that you
are conscious? Hail the mighty Coma-man! (No, that would be a Constant
power that costs END; I really have trouble picturing an Energy Blast that
is _not_ constant, but is always on - does it automatically fire every
phase?)
> > > D> * Incorporate Only in Hero ID into Limited Power,
> > >
> > > Fourth edition *separated* it from Limited Power.
> >
> > It shouldn't have.
>
> It should have because it is a relatively common disadvantage.
> The point of Limited Power is to collect those various Limitations that
> aren't common enough to get or need their own listing. OIHID is common
> enough to be its own Limitation. I'd pull Costs END out to its own
> section as well.
I agree about Costs END; but I really don't see Only in Hero ID as being
any more common than Only Works in Water or Only Works in Daylight.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:00:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, David W Toomey wrote:
> >>D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration
> >Powers
> >>D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
> >>
> >>Why?
> >
> > Presumably, so END Reserves and regular END get equal treatment, as
> >they
> >should.
>
> ???
> They already do. Read End Reserve. It *clearly* states this.
I quote: "A character can also use Aid, Absorption, or Transfer to feed
END into an END Reserve; in this case, the END is treated like normal END
that costs 2 END for 1 Character Point. For example, if a character
Absorbed 11 Character Points of END, this would only be 22 END, not 110."
Note that absolutely nothing is said about Dispel, Drain, Suppress, or
Transfer being used to siphon END out of an END Reserve.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:04:28 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> > D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>> >
>> > Strength.
>>
>> Not the same thing; that's like saying that Body and Stun are "Physical
>> Defense" and "Energy Defense". I'm thinking of something along the lines
>> of "No-Stick(tm) Surface".
>
>Which is best done with limited STR. (Only vs Grabs and
>Entangles, -1).
In my game we use levels in DCV w/Limitation -1 Against Entangles and Grabs
only. We didn't like the strength option as it still takes time to use
which a defense usually wouldn't.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:12:11 -0600
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>>>D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration
>>Powers
>>>D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Presumably, so END Reserves and regular END get equal treatment, as
>>they
>>should.
>
>???
>They already do. Read End Reserve. It *clearly* states this.
>
>
>
>David W Toomey
Some powers yes. but not Drain or Transfer used to suck END out of an END
Reserve.
I personally like it being easier to Drain an END Reserve, mainly because
it was the only way my team was able to capture Dr. Destroyer. He later
escaped of course. But also because if it is cheap to buy it should be
cheap to drain.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 12:21:38 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:17 AM 1/24/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> D> It would also be nice to label certain powers as being "active" - powers
>> D> where 'always on' makes no sense, such as Shapeshift, Multiform, and
>> D> Duplication.
>>
>> Not if you do not make the aforementioned change.
>
>Please explain to me how Instant Change: Always On makes the least bit of
>sense.
Did you miss my post re: Professor Entropy?
>> D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>>
>> Strength.
>
>Not the same thing; that's like saying that Body and Stun are "Physical
>Defense" and "Energy Defense". I'm thinking of something along the lines
>of "No-Stick(tm) Surface".
Couldn't this be as Special Effect of Double Jointed?
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:42:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >Which is best done with limited STR. (Only vs Grabs and
> >Entangles, -1).
>
> In my game we use levels in DCV w/Limitation -1 Against Entangles and Grabs
> only. We didn't like the strength option as it still takes time to use
> which a defense usually wouldn't.
Good point, though if the entangle is broken by casual STR it
takes no time. Hmmm. Maybe both together in a framework?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:52:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > > > This is largely campaign dependant.
> > >
> > > So list some campaign-dependent suggestions.
> >
> > This would go well in a Social Disadvantage category.
>
> Yes, it would.
Hmmm. Maybe we can get a concentrated effort from the list to
convince Hero on the inclusion of Social Disadvantage in 5th ed.
Are you listening, Steve Long.
> > Which should be moved to the disads sections. It helps to have
> > all of them in one place for cross referencing. It's bad enough having to
> > flip around as is.
>
> So split Money up into Money and Poverty?
Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
levels spelled out, yes.
> > Can be incredibly unbalancing. Give out, say, a *2 Stun vs fire,
> > ranged, for what . . . 30 points?
>
> Note that said Vulnerability would only last one Segment; You'd have to
> add Continuous for anything beyond that - minimum cost of 60 points - and,
> _far_ more importantly, said Disad-as-Power would need a good explanation
> and GM approval...
Just like any power. However, there is no reason to add
unbalancing features to the system. And the above would work just fine if
a friend happened to have Fire Powers he could fire off after you fired
your vulnerability ray. And just how would Hunted, UAO work?
> > Which isn't actually how the powers are divided. They are
> > seperated by their mechanics, not what differing parts of the rules they
> > may or may not affect.
>
> Umm... I think I may have missed something here; are you telling me that
> "these powers must specify a Sense Group that they will deal with" is
> _not_ a mechanic?
Hmmm. Just not the most important, IMO. I can see an argument
for that, though. We'll have to wait and see what Long decides.
> > Bad idea. END reserve is incredibly cheap as-is. The fact that
> > it is more succeptable to drains, etc is one of its few balancing
> > features.
>
> If you consider it to be so unbalanced, change the actual price of END
> Reserve to 2 END per point... (which may not be a bad idea anyway...)
Possible, possible. Though it is a little less usefull in certain
ways than regular END, it is also moreso. I'd perfer to keep it as-is,
however.
> > Like I said, the cost works as it is now. I might see putting an
> > extra +1/2 advantage onto attacks that have no range by default to become
> > Damage Shield.
>
> Hmm... a valid alternative; I really don't know which would be better...
I perfer the status quo, though I'd be against anything that
reduces the cost of any Damage Shields.
> > Possibly on the above. It just would be worth less of a
> > limitation, if any, because it _will_ turn off -- but only when KOed.
>
> "less" of a limitation? To be forced to expend END every phase that you
> are conscious? Hail the mighty Coma-man! (No, that would be a Constant
> power that costs END; I really have trouble picturing an Energy Blast that
> is _not_ constant, but is always on - does it automatically fire every
> phase?)
Hmmm. OK, it might just be worth -1/2. Though technically it
will be worth less *points* as it no longer will have to counteract
"always on". And an EB need not be constant to be always on. It would
just fire every phase. Or continuous fire, but it wouldn't stick with the
target and would need to be retargeted every phase.
> I agree about Costs END; but I really don't see Only in Hero ID as being
> any more common than Only Works in Water or Only Works in Daylight.
Hmmm. I see it much more often than the above two, mostly as it's
how I usually model a BattleSuit. Heck, I see it more often than Side
Effects or Variable Limitation, and no one wants to put those in Limited.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 21:19:24
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: US Time Zones (was: Steve Long on #herochat!)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:24:35 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:46:33 -0800, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre wrote:
>>
>>>Mr. Dark Champions himself is going to be in #herochat on dal.net on
>>>February 1, from 1-2 PM PST to talk about his upcoming projects, offer
>>>advice, and respond to questions.
>>
>>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>>California time?
>
> California time. I believe that the time difference from the UK is 8
>hours.
Thanks to all who responded. I guess it's going to be a late night.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:23:54 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 3:28 AM, qts wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jan 1998 22:25:49 -0800, Woodie wrote:
>
>>Imagine a man who lives in a world where no one can speak except
him.
>>Should he pay 20-25 pts for this ability, because in a world where
>>everyone does speak he would take that many as a Disadvantage? If he
>>is the only man in the world to speak language X, then it is only
>>worth 4pts for idiomatic command, but it is worth 20-25 pts in
>>Disadvantages when everyone does have it except him.
>
>Not necessarily. In the first example, he'd not get any Disadvantage
>points, because it isn't a disadvantage, nor would he have to pay a
>like number of points, because it isn't that useful. In the second,
>again, he wouldn't get so many points, because it isn't much of a
>limitation - after all, he could learn the other language. If he
>couldn't speak at all (Dumb: Frequently, Greatly), then that would be
>worth points.
If he has no language he can speak at all, then he _is_ dumb, by
definition. He may be able to learn to speak, but that doesn't prevent
him from being dumb. After all, the ability to learn to read doesn't
prevent you from being illiterate (Frequently, Slightly).
As for the value, I don't know how to rate that one well. If being
illiterate is frequent, then not speaking would be more frequent, but
that isn't an option. I could argue for All the Time or Frequently,
but can't really pin it down either way.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Steve Long on #herochat!
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:26:56 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 5:36 AM, Michelle Knight wrote:
>At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>>California time?
>
>
> We're talking California time. I'm not sure what that is in
relation
>to GMT, but that's 4-5 PM Eastern Standard Time, or 4-5 AM your
>time if I'm correct. See you there. :)
-08:00 GMT.
If you are using Win95, then double click on your clock and select
Time Zone.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:46:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
> I quote: "A character can also use Aid, Absorption, or Transfer to feed
> END into an END Reserve; in this case, the END is treated like normal END
> that costs 2 END for 1 Character Point. For example, if a character
> Absorbed 11 Character Points of END, this would only be 22 END, not 110."
> Note that absolutely nothing is said about Dispel, Drain, Suppress, or
> Transfer being used to siphon END out of an END Reserve.
I think that common sense would dictate what goes in and what goes out
should be treated the same way. So, Drains etc would work off of the 2
END per 1 Character Point scale. Although, this *is* anotehr area where a
decent explination is needed.
***************************************************************************
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion *
* Michael Surbrook / susano@access.digex.net *
* Visit "Surbrook's Stuff' the Hero Games resource site at: *
* http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/index.html *
* Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:47:29 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Here's an idea for a campaign where different characters in the same
group have different point levels.
It has been noted many times that players tend to max out the
Disadvantages, preferring high-powered characters with many
disadvantages over lower powered characters with fewer. Clearly, they
think that the Disadvantages more than pay for themselves.
However, players and GMs in campaigns where the characters were of
different power levels report that they can be very fun. So, how about
if we adjust things a bit, to make it more "even"?
Give the players in your group one of two options- a 150 base pts
character with 100 pts in Disadvantages, and a 100 pts base character
with 200 pts in Disadvantages. This may make many players choose a
lowered power character rather than a higher powered character. If
players tend to always take one or the other, adjust the points to
"sweeten the deal".
What do you think?
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:05:49 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 8:35 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On 23 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>>
<snip>
>
>> D> * Complementary Skill Levels: for 2 points, you may purchase a
+1 with up
>> D> to three skills, but only when they are being used together as
>> D> complementary skills.
>>
>> Um... this is a 3-point skill level.
>
>No; the 3-point version works with any of the three skills
individually;
>this version would only work when the skills are being used in
conjunction
>with each other.
Good idea. It helps to organize skills that go together because they
are actually being assembled into a profession. For example, a
professional cheat. He has Gambling, Sleight of Hand, and PS:
Mathematics. He also has two levels that only apply with complementary
skills. If he tries to calculate the odds in a new game, he gets the
levels because he uses Gambling and Mathematics together, he is much
better at palming cards than he is at picking pockets, etc.
Some of this effect comes directly from complimentary skill rolls
themselves, but a little extra never hurt.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:15:17 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 9:26 AM, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
<snip>
>
>> But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
>
>
> I don't think this is really a problem. Any "added" disads would
>merely be derivatives of what already exists. Things like
dependence,
>vow, etc, are all easily covered by the existing lims. I would like
to
>see Social Limitation added, however.
They may be derivatives, but adding more categories would make it
easier to design some concepts. A character who is already at his
limit for Phys Lim or Susceptibility might want to add a "Dependence"
or "Addict" Disadvantage, but not be able to. Similarly, a character
at the limit for Psych Lim might still want to take "Duty".
Additionally, flesh out some of the others. A character might have
multiple secrets that they want to keep, so allow people varying
levels of Secret, with Secret ID being the 15 pointer in most
superhero campaigns (frequently, strong). Any number of superheroes
have teammates who know their Secret ID, but not X.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: conch.msen.com: mjo set sender to mjo@dojo.mi.org using -f
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:16:35 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mike O'Connor" <mjo@dojo.mi.org>
Reply-To: "Mike O'Connor" <mjo@dojo.mi.org>
X-Organization: :noitazinagrO-X
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
For one campaign that I started, I had characters start out as 50
point talented normals. The idea was for the characters to get their
powers and disadvantages as part of the scenario. They were to end up
with 150 points base + 150 disadvantages. By having the characters
have to roleplay themselves pre-powers, it worked out well. The
players were forced to design human beings, not power plants, and were
rewarded for it (with the 150 base vs. 100 base). A variation might
be helpful for some people's campaigns.
--
Michael J. O'Connor | WWW: http://dojo.mi.org/~mjo/ | Email: mjo@dojo.mi.org
InterNIC WHOIS: MJO | (has my PGP & Geek Code info) | Phone: +1 248-848-4481
=--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--=
"I like maxims that don't encourage behavior modification." -Calvin
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 14:18:08 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
To: champ-l@omg.org <champ-l@omg.org>
Cc: Hero System Mailing List <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Saturday, January 24, 1998 9:39 AM
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
<snip>
>
>> > Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how
bothersome the
>> > bothersome the job tends to be.
>>
>> I guess you are basing your comments of my material... ^_^. Any
>> suggestions? My numbers were derived straight from GURPS.
>
>Sure!
>
>Risk
>----
>Inconvenient: +0
>Hazardous: +5
>Extremely Hazardous: +10
Don't forget, superheroes get this one for free for superheroing.
Otherwise the power gamers will be trying to get points for simply
being a superhero.:)
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:38:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
>
> > I quote: "A character can also use Aid, Absorption, or Transfer to feed
> > END into an END Reserve; in this case, the END is treated like normal END
> > that costs 2 END for 1 Character Point. For example, if a character
> > Absorbed 11 Character Points of END, this would only be 22 END, not 110."
> > Note that absolutely nothing is said about Dispel, Drain, Suppress, or
> > Transfer being used to siphon END out of an END Reserve.
>
> I think that common sense would dictate what goes in and what goes out
> should be treated the same way. So, Drains etc would work off of the 2
> END per 1 Character Point scale. Although, this *is* anotehr area where a
> decent explination is needed.
Agreed; all I was suggesting was that they clarify their intent (if it is,
indeed, that what goes in and what goes out should be treated the same
way; otherwise, either change it so that they _are_ treated the same, or
explain why not).
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 98 22:47:08
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Steve Long on #herochat!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 13:26:56 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>On Saturday, January 24, 1998 5:36 AM, Michelle Knight wrote:
>
>
>>At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>>>California time?
>>
>>
>> We're talking California time. I'm not sure what that is in
>relation
>>to GMT, but that's 4-5 PM Eastern Standard Time, or 4-5 AM your
>>time if I'm correct. See you there. :)
>
>-08:00 GMT.
>
>If you are using Win95, then double click on your clock and select
>Time Zone.
I tend to use OS/2 most of the time. My only reason for using W95 at
the moment is Wing Commander: Prophecy.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:53:43 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> > > Which should be moved to the disads sections. It helps to have
> > > all of them in one place for cross referencing. It's bad enough having to
> > > flip around as is.
> >
> > So split Money up into Money and Poverty?
>
> Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
> levels spelled out, yes.
I would not want to see Poverty incorporated into Social Lim.
> > > Can be incredibly unbalancing. Give out, say, a *2 Stun vs fire,
> > > ranged, for what . . . 30 points?
> >
> > Note that said Vulnerability would only last one Segment; You'd have to
> > add Continuous for anything beyond that - minimum cost of 60 points - and,
> > _far_ more importantly, said Disad-as-Power would need a good explanation
> > and GM approval...
>
> Just like any power. However, there is no reason to add
> unbalancing features to the system. And the above would work just fine if
> a friend happened to have Fire Powers he could fire off after you fired
> your vulnerability ray. And just how would Hunted, UAO work?
It wouldn't; just like Side Effect (Hunted) doesn't work. But that
doesn't make Side Effects that use Disads wrong across the board...
> > > Like I said, the cost works as it is now. I might see putting an
> > > extra +1/2 advantage onto attacks that have no range by default to become
> > > Damage Shield.
> >
> > Hmm... a valid alternative; I really don't know which would be better...
>
> I perfer the status quo, though I'd be against anything that
> reduces the cost of any Damage Shields.
Problem with the status quo is that it biases against Ranged Powers; why
take Damage Shield: EB when you can get the exact same effect from Damage
Shield: HA for fewer points?
> > > Possibly on the above. It just would be worth less of a
> > > limitation, if any, because it _will_ turn off -- but only when KOed.
> >
> > "less" of a limitation? To be forced to expend END every phase that you
> > are conscious? Hail the mighty Coma-man! (No, that would be a Constant
> > power that costs END; I really have trouble picturing an Energy Blast that
> > is _not_ constant, but is always on - does it automatically fire every
> > phase?)
>
> Hmmm. OK, it might just be worth -1/2. Though technically it
> will be worth less *points* as it no longer will have to counteract
> "always on". And an EB need not be constant to be always on. It would
> just fire every phase. Or continuous fire, but it wouldn't stick with the
> target and would need to be retargeted every phase.
And what happens when you run out of targets?
Keep in mind that this character would be experiencing a _continuous END
drain_ every waking moment! the second he goes under, the power shuts off;
then he wakes up again and the power reactivates, knocking him out
again... it makes no sense.
Actually, this is something of a moot point; the current rules state that
a Power must be bought to 0 END Persistent before it qualifies for the
Always On limitation. All we have to do is to redefine a number of the
offending Powers to be Instant instead of Persistent - such as Instant
Change or Extra-Dimensional Movement.
> > I agree about Costs END; but I really don't see Only in Hero ID as being
> > any more common than Only Works in Water or Only Works in Daylight.
>
> Hmmm. I see it much more often than the above two, mostly as it's
> how I usually model a BattleSuit. Heck, I see it more often than Side
> Effects or Variable Limitation, and no one wants to put those in Limited.
A battlesuit would be modelled as Limited Power: Only While In Battlesuit;
using Only In Hero ID for battlesuits is only in-genre in a superhero
campaign - and battlesuits _can_ exist in other campaigns, where you don't
_have_ the civilian/hero dual life concept.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:06:25 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 10:23 AM, David W Toomey wrote:
>>>D> * Change the description of END Reserve to state that Alteration
>>Powers
>>>D> treat the END as if it cost 1/2 pt per END.
>>>
>>>Why?
>>
>> Presumably, so END Reserves and regular END get equal treatment,
as
>>they
>>should.
>
>???
>They already do. Read End Reserve. It *clearly* states this.
>
Almost. It states that powers that feed _into_ an END Reserve do this,
but not powers that take points out of the reserve. That these are
powers that feed the reserve is stated so clearly that it leaves a
question about those other powers.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 15:11:43 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, January 24, 1998 11:19 AM, Remnant wrote:
>>> > D> * Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>>> >
>>> > Strength.
>>>
>>> Not the same thing; that's like saying that Body and Stun are
"Physical
>>> Defense" and "Energy Defense". I'm thinking of something along
the lines
>>> of "No-Stick(tm) Surface".
>>
>>Which is best done with limited STR. (Only vs Grabs and
>>Entangles, -1).
>
>
>In my game we use levels in DCV w/Limitation -1 Against Entangles and
Grabs
>only. We didn't like the strength option as it still takes time to
use
>which a defense usually wouldn't.
But it doesn't take any time when the Casual STR breaks the Entangle.
Using your suggestion, the amazing Teflon man would be able to avoid
an attack, but if it still got him he wouldn't get out any easier than
anyone else. If we create a defense that acts like PD, ED, or Power
Defense, then we have the problem that a high-defense Entangle will
still hold the Teflon man indefinitely, but it takes less damage to
destroy the Entangle _after_ you overpower the Def.
With STR, you get a character who ignores wimpy Entangles and easily
escapes stronger ones. Seems to fit well for me.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:17:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
> >On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
> >> > Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how
> >> > bothersome the job tends to be.
> >>
> >> I guess you are basing your comments of my material... ^_^. Any
> >> suggestions? My numbers were derived straight from GURPS.
> >
> >Sure!
> >
> >Risk
> >----
> >Inconvenient: +0
> >Hazardous: +5
> >Extremely Hazardous: +10
>
> Don't forget, superheroes get this one for free for superheroing.
> Otherwise the power gamers will be trying to get points for simply
> being a superhero.:)
Clarification: This factor should represent the job's annoyance factor; if
they are always calling upon you to do a job, but it never bothers you
because you _like_ the jobs they're giving you, it's worth no points; if
the jobs that they give you tend to take you away from what you would
prefer to be doing, pay the standard price for how often this occurs. If
the job involves possible injury doing something that you dislike doing,
add five points to the disad. If the job is potentially fatal and
involves you in something you'd rather not be involved in, add 10 pts to
the disad.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 11:37 AM