From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 9:08 PM 
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org 
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #136 
 
 
champ-l-digest       Thursday, January 14 1999       Volume 01 : Number 136 
 
 
 
In this issue: 
 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve   Long) 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve  Long) 
    Re: Upcoming Champions books 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long) 
    Tolkien Characters 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve    Long) 
    RE: A seriously weird modification to speed 
    Re: Attn: Steve Long 
    Re: Upcoming Champions books 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve   Long) 
    Point balance vs. Power balance 
    Re: Upcoming Champions books 
    Re: GRADUAL EFFECT & HERO CREATOR 
    Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long) 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve  Long) 
    Re: Upcoming Champions books 
    Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase 
    Re: Attn: Steve Long 
    Re: Upcoming Champions books 
    Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve    Long) 
    How to explode 
    Fw: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator 
    Re: How to explode 
    Re: A seriously weird modification to speed 
 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:43:05 -0500 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve   Long) 
 
At 02:22 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote: 
>Joe Mucchiello writes: 
>>  
>> But it doesn't model a burning fire like continuous does.  In fact, this is 
>> one of the places like I said above.  The burning fire does less damage 
>> than the autofire machine gun in the same amount of time but the system 
>> does not model that in terms of cost very well.  Oh, well.  No system is 
>> perfect. 
> 
>Shrug.  My point is that uncontrolled continuous attacks which are not 
NNDs or 
>AVLDs should be cheaper than they are. 
 
I don't know why that should be true.  The continuous attack is more 
dangerous to multiple people.  The NND will only affect one person.  Also, 
there is no defense against the continuous effect, the NND must have a 
common defense which completely negates it.  Apples and oranges. 
 
>> What does saving time and effectiveness have to do with character 
>> conception?  I know you aren't looking at it from that point of view, but I 
>> am.  I find that players looking to maximize their point values don't take 
>> Uncontrolled or Continuous style special effects because they don't hit 
>> hard and fast.  That's their perogative.  You might say that they cost too 
>> much.  Change their cost.  Maybe cut them in half. 
> 
>Saving time and effectiveness have nothing to do with character conception.  
>Neither do point costs, however, so arguments about character conception are 
>irrelevant to point costs. 
 
I'm saying point costs are irrelevant to character conception.  If you want 
a power which sets fire to an area causing damage to anyone who enters, you 
buy the AOE, Continuous, Uncontrolled attack.  Just because Mechanon is 
going shrug off the fire damage doesn't mean it should cost less than the 
straight RKA which cuts Mechanon in half (figuratively, of course).  The +2 
1/2 advantage on the fire attack is what shapes it into a devastating power 
against potentially dozens of normals simultaneously.  The straight attack 
can only fry one normal at a time. 
 
You are comparing the effectiveness of the UnC, Con power with regard to 
attacking a brick.  Using such an attack on a brick is a tactical mistake. 
But when 2 dozen agents come pouring out of a building at you, you'll be 
glad you can start the fire and ignore the agents while taking care of the 
bad guys in front of you. 
 
  Joe 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:14:35 -0500 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve  Long) 
 
At 01:32 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote: 
>Joe Mucchiello writes: 
>>  
>> Okay, well, your problem is actually with the multipower.  Not with 
>> Uncontrolled.  Also, the BBB does tell you to be careful with 0 END 
>> Uncontrolled powers. 
> 
>True in this case. 
>  
>> What is the obvious means of turning the force field off?  I would include 
>> the multipower switching as one of the means to avoid the problem. 
> 
>Ok, define for me _why_ this should be a required method for a force 
field, and 
>not for the fire attack?  To get to a concrete example where this power makes 
>sense: WebMan has various webbing powers, mostly entangles.  However, he can 
>also spray a nice flexible cocoon of webbing on someone, which lasts until it 
>is destroyed (treat as ablative; seems like a reasonable method for 
turning it 
>off). 
 
I didn't mean to imply that the EB is balanced but the FF is not.  I don't 
like Uncontrolled powers in Multipowers, that includes Entangles. 
Entangles are, by definition, uncontrolled.  (Entangle is a point crock, 
but that is not the current discussion.)  I play it that the text in the 
multipower description saying that the power turns off if you switch the 
slot is more important than and overrides the line in Uncontrolled (or 
Entangled) which says it does not turn off. 
 
>Remember, an uncontrolled power _is no longer connected to the player_!  As 
>such, it should _not_ magically detect a multipower shifting... 
 
Fine.  But just because you can construct the power does not mean that it 
is a valid power.  There are things in HERO which can be constructed too 
cheaply and some things which are too expensive.  That's why the GM is 
there.  If your GM doesn't mind you putting all of your powers in a 
Multipower and making them all Uncontrolled, it's his game.  I won't allow it. 
 
>> >Anyway...on to the next issue: 
>> >  
>> I dislike when I see that statement.  Always look at what the attack will 
>> do to a normal before saying "is likely to do no damage at all".  Even a 
>> 5d6 EB is deadly against normals. 
> 
>To quote myself, 'against more typical defenses, it is likely to do no damage 
>at all'.  Implicit there was superhero defenses.  Besides, an 8d6 autofire 
>attack is pretty much invariably more effective against that same normal. 
 
But it doesn't model a burning fire like continuous does.  In fact, this is 
one of the places like I said above.  The burning fire does less damage 
than the autofire machine gun in the same amount of time but the system 
does not model that in terms of cost very well.  Oh, well.  No system is 
perfect. 
 
>> While the uncontrolled attick is turning the martial artist to pulp, the 
>> character who fired it can do other things, like escape.  Aim that EB at a 
>> normal and then run off.  The hero has to help the normal for 5 phases 
>> while you are running off. 
> 
>Sure...they're moderately useful to villians.  As villians aren't required to 
>be point-balanced in any case, this isn't too interesting, plus its probalby 
>more like 2 phases (to dispel the effect) than 5.  In any cases, since the 
>straight energy blast (in one phase) is more effective at turning the martial 
>artist to pulp than the continuous energy blast (over 5 phases), the 
continuous 
>attack doesn't save you any time. 
 
What does saving time and effectiveness have to do with character 
conception?  I know you aren't looking at it from that point of view, but I 
am.  I find that players looking to maximize their point values don't take 
Uncontrolled or Continuous style special effects because they don't hit 
hard and fast.  That's their perogative.  You might say that they cost too 
much.  Change their cost.  Maybe cut them in half. 
 
Who is on this list who doesn't care about point balancing the heroes?  I 
know there are a few GMs on this list only set of Active Point and Defense 
limitations and let the players spend as many points as they want to create 
a character.  I have to try that some time. 
 
>> Order the advantages?  They are not the same power: 
>> a) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), 1D6 
>> RKA, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), Trigger (Leaving the 
>> original AOE), Linked (AOE attack).  (Requires a linked power so that it 
>> will continue to affect the target if they leave the area.) 
>Huh?  No, this is not the power I'm describing. 
>Power (1) sets all the _people_ on fire, but does not attack anyone new 
>entering the area  -- i.e. it is 1d6 UCC RKA with 'AOE radius' applied to 
it.  
>Once the power has gone off, the original area of effect is no longer 
relevant. 
 
I don't know what you mean by "AOE Radius applied to it".  The BBB says 
nothing about Advantaged Advantages, only Limited Advantages.  You cannot 
have a continuous AOE power which does not effect people entering the area 
which specifically limiting it. 
 
a) 1D6 RKA AOE Radius, 1D6 RKA Continuous Uncontrolled Trigger (Phase after 
first phase) linked (AOE attack) 
 
>> b) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out). 
>> (Leaving the area obviously will work too.) 
>Power (2) sets the _area_ on fire, and thus attacks people who are in it. 
They 
>will not continue to be attacked.  This is 1d6 RKA AOE with 'uncontrolled 
>continuous' applied to it. 
 
Again, you can only advantage a power not an advantage.  The power I 
described does exactly what you are saying.  Everyone of your phases that 
anyone is in the AOE, they are attacked by the fire.  If you only want them 
to attacked once by the fire you would have to use a limitation.  Why the 
fire wouldn't continue to burn them, I can't understand. 
  
  Joe 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:09:55 -0500 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
Subject: Re: Upcoming Champions books 
 
At 05:23 PM 1/14/99 -0500, David Stallard wrote: 
>>>Dave Mattingly is working on the Champions genre book right now<< 
> 
>I am looking forward to this more than I have any other Hero System book I 
>can remember. 
 
I'm curious.  The info in the BBB about fire and acid is actually in the 
genre book.  Will any of this stuff be moved into the HSR5?  What kind of 
stuff are you planning to expand upon, Dave?  The original Champions genre 
book is only like 20 pages. 
 
  Joe 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:16:27 -0800 (PST) 
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long) 
 
Wayne Shaw writes: 
>  
> This is a problem with several power advantages.  Try buying straight Area 
> Effect damage causers and actually making them pay for themself.  It's hard 
> enough to make the 8D6 Explosion pay for itself relative to the 12D6 
> straight attack; making the 6D6 Radius do it is next to impossible unless 
> you spend a lot of time fighting ordinary thugs. 
 
Hm...true enough.  Other powers for that list: Autofire (unless bought on 
charges), Indirect, Invisible, Time Delay. 
>  
> Actually, I believe there's no suggestion in the rules that A is legal at 
> all; as written continuous just causes the area to burn, and if you get out 
> of it, you're okay. 
 
True, there's an argument for (A) being impossible to implement, which is not 
exactly idea either.... 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:35:03 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Tolkien Characters 
 
In all the repositories of Hero Characters out there, has anyone  
ever done all the characters from "The Lord of the Rings" 
or "The Silmarillion"? 
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"'My Country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would  
think of saying except in a desperate case.  It is like saying 
'My mother, drunk or sober.'" 
        G.K. Chesterton 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:07:07 -0800 (PST) 
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve    Long) 
 
Joe Mucchiello writes: 
> >Shrug.  My point is that uncontrolled continuous attacks which are not 
> NNDs or 
> >AVLDs should be cheaper than they are. 
>  
> I don't know why that should be true.  The continuous attack is more 
> dangerous to multiple people.  The NND will only affect one person.  Also, 
> there is no defense against the continuous effect, the NND must have a 
> common defense which completely negates it.  Apples and oranges. 
 
Huh?  The continuous attack is only dangerous to multiple people if its an area 
effect.  Personally, I find '20+ PD/ED' at least as common as most NND special 
defenses. 
>  
> I'm saying point costs are irrelevant to character conception.  If you want 
> a power which sets fire to an area causing damage to anyone who enters, you 
> buy the AOE, Continuous, Uncontrolled attack.  Just because Mechanon is 
> going shrug off the fire damage doesn't mean it should cost less than the 
> straight RKA which cuts Mechanon in half (figuratively, of course). 
 
Why not?  The intent of points is to balance characters by _power_, not by 
conception.  If all you're concerned about is conception don't use points at 
all.  Two powers of moderately similar cost should be of moderately similar 
utility. 
  The +2 
> 1/2 advantage on the fire attack is what shapes it into a devastating power 
> against potentially dozens of normals simultaneously.  The straight attack 
> can only fry one normal at a time. 
 
I can kill at least as many normals, for fewer points, with area effect 
autofire killing attack. 
>  
> You are comparing the effectiveness of the UnC, Con power with regard to 
> attacking a brick. 
 
No, I'm comparing its effectiveness with regard to attacking any character with 
near-heroic level defenses.  The breakpoint for equal effectiveness (ignoring 
knockback and other similar effects) depends on the fatigue you spend, but if 
we assume your average uncontrolled attack lasts 4 phases before being put out 
(typical effort to remove one, though I've seen a lot of variation here) you 
need defenses of no more than <active points / 7> to make the single attack 
better -- 9 defenses in your typical starting game.  So not only should it be 
less effective on heroes, it should be less effective on _agents_? 
  Using such an attack on a brick is a tactical mistake. 
> But when 2 dozen agents come pouring out of a building at you, you'll be 
> glad you can start the fire and ignore the agents while taking care of the 
> bad guys in front of you. 
Um...the agents can probably ignore the fire....your average viper agent takes 
a couple turns to go down from 1d6 KAs. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:57:16 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: RE: A seriously weird modification to speed 
 
>So are you saying that as a GM, you wouldn't allow someone to dive for 
cover in the face of a Haymaker? 
 
Essentially, yes.  Dive for Cover is generally an abusive operation when 
used for anything but the original intended purpose...and frankly, I've 
never seen a Haymaker landed on a conscious aware foe that I remember as it 
is, except for the invisible with stretching character.  If they want to 
dodge, let them dodge. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:58:58 -0800 
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> 
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long 
 
At 12:51 PM 1/14/99 EST, SteveL1979@aol.com wrote: 
> I'm still working on the revisions, folx, so if you have suggestions or 
>questions, please keep posting them to my attention. 
 
   Let us all know when it's too late, OK? 
   (I had a couple of ideas a couple of days ago, didn't mention them to 
you because I figured it was too late, and now can't remember what they 
were....  I'll email you directly if I do remember....)  :-] 
- --- 
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!  [Circle of HEROS member] 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm 
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join? 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 07:59:44 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Upcoming Champions books 
 
>If it's not too early, can you maybe give us a sentence or two about each 
>of these so we can tell how they are different?  San Angelo and New 
>MIllennium are both fairly "generic" settings, so if we get any more of 
>those, it seems like it would be overkill.  Hopefully these other 3 
>campaign books you mentioned (Gestalt, Strike Force, Tarot) are specialized 
>and immediately distinguishable from the 2 current campaign worlds. 
 
I can't speak for Tarot, but Gestalt is _anything_ but generic, and I've 
always thought Strike Force had enough clever bits and odd corners to be 
distinctive.  Of course, I think that's true of the New Millenium setting too. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:11:56 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve   Long) 
 
>I didn't mean to imply that the EB is balanced but the FF is not.  I don't 
>like Uncontrolled powers in Multipowers, that includes Entangles. 
>Entangles are, by definition, uncontrolled.  (Entangle is a point crock, 
>but that is not the current discussion.)  I play it that the text in the 
>multipower description saying that the power turns off if you switch the 
>slot is more important than and overrides the line in Uncontrolled (or 
>Entangled) which says it does not turn off. 
 
Unless you're going to do that with Flash and Transform, I think it opens an 
ugly can of worms.  Aid and Transfer lose their benefit when you switch 
slots, because otherwise the Aid problem compounds itself, but if you start 
down this road, multiple attack powers become way too expensive an overhead. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 15:53:15 -0800 
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com> 
Subject: Point balance vs. Power balance 
 
Joe Mucchiello wrote: 
> Who is on this list who doesn't care about point balancing the heroes?  I 
> know there are a few GMs on this list only set of Active Point and Defense 
> limitations and let the players spend as many points as they want to create 
> a character.  I have to try that some time. 
 
I'm one of them.  Though the usual proposal is have the player write the 
character up and then have the GM edit it to balance in power. (Up or down) 
It's a lot of work for the GM if he wants to be completely impartial.  Usually 
it takes a few games before it settles.  My last campaign had characters from 
500 - 1000 points. 
 
The campaign I'm starting soon is the old style point balance. 
 
- -Mark Lemming 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:44:02 EST 
From: SteveL1979@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Upcoming Champions books 
 
In a message dated 1/14/99 6:42:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, why@superlink.net 
writes: 
 
<< The info in the BBB about fire and acid is actually in the genre book. 
Will any of this stuff be moved into the HSR5? >> 
 
  As of the first draft, the "Living In A Dangerous World" material has been 
moved into the core rulesbook, since that's where it belongs.  I suppose that 
various genre books could offer genre-specific expansions to the material, 
though. 
 
Steve Long 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:47:09 -0800 
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> 
Subject: Re: GRADUAL EFFECT & HERO CREATOR 
 
At 02:06 PM 1/14/99 -0600, Guy Hoyle wrote: 
>  
>Gradual Effect seems to be missing from Hero Creator. What's up with 
>that??? 
 
   I think Hero Creator was constructed with just the core rules in mind 
(with a few minor exceptions perhaps, like extended Martial Arts maneuvers). 
   I also think that 5th Edition will probably have Gradual Effect, so when 
the edition of Hero Creator comes out that updates to Hero5, it'll be 
included. 
   Something I'd like to see released at next year's Gen Con would be a set 
of templates for CW/HC that incorporates most of the rules in the Ultimate 
books and other supplements.  (I'm giving it that much lead time, because I 
hope to see a *lot* more Ultimate books in that space of time!) 
- --- 
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!  [Circle of HEROS member] 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm 
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join? 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:03:40 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator 
 
>Ah, the old speed pill.  Just because you can combine the powers and 
>advantages doesn't mean the player is allowed to have the power.  The power 
>Wayne describes is clearly legal.  It only unbalances game play, that 
>doesn't change it legality. 
> 
>This one is fun for the GM, make sure your speed 5 villains all haymaker 
>during the two phases the player is skipping when they go up in speed. 
>(Petty? Yes.) 
 
Ah, but the really clever group takes the pills on the way _in_ to the 
fight.  After all, how often do most super teams find themselves in a fight 
situation without warning?  It happens, but under normal circumstances it's 
not the common situation. 
 
 
>>Of course, this may be more evidence for usable against others being broken 
>>than anything else. 
> 
>No, it is just that UAO should not be connected to Characteristics. 
 
It's not the only place where UAO gets problematic, though.  There's been 
extensive discussion of how efficient a disabling attack Flight UAO can be 
for non-flying characters without a ranged attack. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 08:06:28 -0800 (PST) 
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long) 
 
>Wayne Shaw writes: 
>>  
>> This is a problem with several power advantages.  Try buying straight Area 
>> Effect damage causers and actually making them pay for themself.  It's hard 
>> enough to make the 8D6 Explosion pay for itself relative to the 12D6 
>> straight attack; making the 6D6 Radius do it is next to impossible unless 
>> you spend a lot of time fighting ordinary thugs. 
> 
>Hm...true enough.  Other powers for that list: Autofire (unless bought on 
>charges), Indirect, Invisible, Time Delay. 
 
Ah-yup.  Threshold issues involving defense can make trying to deal with 
that sort of thing a real problem.  It even can come up with Affects Desolid 
if the Desolid character is not depending on the Desolid for the lion's 
share of his defense. 
 
>>  
>> Actually, I believe there's no suggestion in the rules that A is legal at 
>> all; as written continuous just causes the area to burn, and if you get out 
>> of it, you're okay. 
> 
>True, there's an argument for (A) being impossible to implement, which is not 
>exactly idea either.... 
 
Probably not, though there's one way that would seem to work to a point; 
Unselective Target. 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:37:29 -0500 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve  Long) 
 
At 02:02 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Mark Lemming wrote: 
>Joe Mucchiello wrote: 
>> Okay, well, your problem is actually with the multipower.  Not with 
>> Uncontrolled.  Also, the BBB does tell you to be careful with 0 END 
>> Uncontrolled powers. 
> 
>I'm of the opinion if the Multislot gets changed then the power gets 
>dropped.  You wouldn't allow this: 
>60 Multi 
>6u 12d6 EB 
>6u 20/20 armour 
 
Sure, go for it.  Those powers aren't Uncontrolled.  When the EB is active, 
you have no armor though. 
 
>Armour is similar to an uncontrolled FF in that they're both constant. 
>(Of course I have a problem with Armour costing the same as 0 end FF. 
> One stays on, the other doesn't.) 
>If the concept needs the power to keep going then it shouldn't be a multi. 
>EC would be fine. 
 
No, armor is 0 END Persistant FF.  It is not uncontrolled. 
 
>> >So.. perhaps the uncontrolled power only continues to operate if the 
power in 
>> >question is an attack power?  In that case, consider: 
>> >c)  +10/+10 force field, usable against others, uncontrolled 0 END. 
>> >Should this power continue to operate after the multipower is shifted? 
>>  
>> What is the obvious means of turning the force field off?  I would include 
>> the multipower switching as one of the means to avoid the problem. 
> 
>Even with attack powers in my opinion. 
 
I said that in another response. 
 
>> While the uncontrolled attick is turning the martial artist to pulp, the 
>> character who fired it can do other things, like escape.  Aim that EB at a 
>> normal and then run off.  The hero has to help the normal for 5 phases 
>> while you are running off. 
> 
>But if you stun or KO the MA isn't that better?  And there you attacking the 
>bystanders again. 
 
I GM.  I'm use to thinking like the cowardly villains :-) 
 
  Joe 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:40:48 EST 
From: SteveL1979@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Upcoming Champions books 
 
In a message dated 1/14/99 5:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
DBStallard@compuserve.com writes: 
 
<< Hopefully these other 3 campaign books you mentioned (Gestalt, Strike 
Force, Tarot) are specialized and immediately distinguishable from the 2 
current campaign worlds. >> 
 
  You've already had a glimpse of the Strike Force world in the book of the 
same name; I think it's reasonably distinctive.  I haven't read Tarot.  I 
have, OTOH, read the first draft of Scott Bennie's excellent GESTALT setting, 
and it is unquestionably unique and different -- and eminently enjoyable. 
 
Steve Long 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:41:35 -0800 
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> 
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase 
 
At 11:15 AM 1/14/99 -0500, Robert A. West wrote: 
>It has been stated that 5th Edition will clarify the rule that one 
>attack roll may comprise the use of multiple unlinked *powers*.  In the 
>normal case envisioned, this is clear: I fire my EB and Flash at the 
>same target and make the same attack roll for both.  I assume that the 
>following common sense rules apply. 
> 
>1) The combination should make special-effects sense.  If you fire 
>plasma blasts from your hands, using the same hand to fire a 
>conventional firearm is probably not useful. 
 
   I don't think you'll get a whole lot of argument on this one; certainly 
not from me. 
 
>2) The attacks should have the same target.  If one is an area attack, 
>both must be area attacks, unless the special effect clearly militates 
>that they be usable together.  Thus, shooting a gun and throwing a 
>grenade in the same phase is questionable at best.  Shooting a cannon 
>and a coaxial machine gun is fine. 
 
   You mean, the same *type* of target?  It should be perfectly reasonable 
to, say, simultaneously fire two guns at two different targets (albeit at 
an appropriate additional penalty, probably using Sweep as a model). 
 
>3) A single power cannot normally be twice.  For example, I cannot use 
>my RKA twice, even if I pay the END twice.  See autofire if you want to 
>do this. 
 
   Again, there might be certain circumstances where this could be done, 
though again at a sacrifice.  The Power would have to be intrinsic (not 
through a Focus), at different targets (with the aforementioned 
restrictions), and at -1DC per extra use of the Power, as well as make 
special-effects sense. 
 
>4) If a combat level or modifier applies to one attack and not the 
>other, they still use a single roll of the dice, but it is possible for 
>one to hit and the other to miss, based on different OCVs. 
 
   While I call this logical, I think the final ruling will be that the 
worst OCV is the OCV for all attacks.  (I'm not sure where I got that idea 
from, though, so don't count it as gospel.) 
 
>I experimented with this rule in my campaign, inviting people to attempt 
>to break it.  People attempted the following things that I rejected as 
>abusive.  In some cases, I got abused for my rulings, and want to check 
>that I am not being overly strict: 
> 
>A) Using two HTH powers (one normal and one area-effect) and using full 
>STR on each.  I did allow the character to divide STR between the two 
>attacks. 
 
   I'd rule the same way. 
 
>B) Using two separate martial manoeuvres as two attacks. 
 
   Unless being done as a Sweep, or the STR is divided as above. 
 
>C) Using two HTH powers (one normal, one AP) on a single target as a 
>movethrough, and taking the full damage bonus on each attack. 
 
   Righto.  Again, the STR and Velocity damage should be split. 
 
>D) Using two powers, one of which by special effect comes from the head, 
>and the other, by special effect, comes from the tail.  The player's 
>argument is that, since turning around is a zero-phase action, it can be 
>combined with the attack action. 
 
   I agree with your disallowing this on this basis.  Once an attack is 
made, a Zero Phase action may not be performed.  On the other hand, if the 
character's physiology would allow the head and tail to come to bear on the 
same target, that's a different story. 
 
>E) Using the same power twice at half-strength.  The player's argument 
>is that this is similar to a reduced-penetration attack, so not subject 
>to abuse.  I just felt that it was conceptually wrong, except in the 
>case of STR, which is used to *enhance* HTH powers. 
 
   I'm with you here conceptually, though I don't know what benefit the 
player expected to get from doing this. 
- --- 
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!  [Circle of HEROS member] 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm 
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join? 
   http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:46:57 EST 
From: SteveL1979@aol.com 
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long 
 
In a message dated 1/14/99 7:37:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
bob.greenwade@klock.com writes: 
 
<<   Let us all know when it's too late, OK? 
    (I had a couple of ideas a couple of days ago, didn't mention them to 
 you because I figured it was too late, and now can't remember what they 
 were....  I'll email you directly if I do remember....)  :-] >> 
 
	Will do.  It's safe to assume until I tell you to stop that it's OK to keep 
flagging things to my attention. 
	And of course, specific comments (politely phrased, hopefully :) ) or 
questions about anything I've written or am in the process of writing can be 
sent to me at any time, either flagged on the list (if of public interest) or 
directly (if not). 
 
Steve Long 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:33:35 -0800 
From: Shelley Chrystal Mactyre <scm@mactyre.net> 
Subject: Re: Upcoming Champions books 
 
At 07:40 PM 1/14/99 -0500, SteveL1979@aol.com wrote: 
>  You've already had a glimpse of the Strike Force world in the book of the 
>same name; I think it's reasonably distinctive.  I haven't read Tarot.  I 
>have, OTOH, read the first draft of Scott Bennie's excellent GESTALT setting, 
>and it is unquestionably unique and different -- and eminently enjoyable. 
 
Steve is so right -- it's just a wonderful setting.  I can't wait to see 
the finished product!  =) 
 
Shelley Chrystal Mactyre 
http://www.mactyre.net 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:34:23 -0500 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve    Long) 
 
At 03:07 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote: 
>Joe Mucchiello writes: 
>> >Shrug.  My point is that uncontrolled continuous attacks which are not 
>> NNDs or 
>> >AVLDs should be cheaper than they are. 
>>  
>> I don't know why that should be true.  The continuous attack is more 
>> dangerous to multiple people.  The NND will only affect one person.  Also, 
>> there is no defense against the continuous effect, the NND must have a 
>> common defense which completely negates it.  Apples and oranges. 
> 
>Huh?  The continuous attack is only dangerous to multiple people if its an 
area 
>effect.  Personally, I find '20+ PD/ED' at least as common as most NND 
special 
>defenses. 
 
Er.  I was still talking about the fire and then you brought up the NND and 
I was confused. 
  
>> I'm saying point costs are irrelevant to character conception.  If you want 
>> a power which sets fire to an area causing damage to anyone who enters, you 
>> buy the AOE, Continuous, Uncontrolled attack.  Just because Mechanon is 
>> going shrug off the fire damage doesn't mean it should cost less than the 
>> straight RKA which cuts Mechanon in half (figuratively, of course). 
> 
>Why not?  The intent of points is to balance characters by _power_, not by 
>conception.  If all you're concerned about is conception don't use points at 
>all.   
 
The point of powers is model concepts.  The points are a guideline to how 
powerful on concept is compared to the other. 
 
>Two powers of moderately similar cost should be of moderately similar 
>utility. 
 
They are.  Just not against EVERY target.  The Unc, Con attack is better 
against multiple lower powered opponents.  You are comparing the Unc, Con 
attack and the unadvantaged attack against a brick.  Duh, the Unc, Con 
attack has fewer dice and won't be as good.  Do you see my point?  Similar 
utility does not mean against all targets. 
 
>  The +2 
>> 1/2 advantage on the fire attack is what shapes it into a devastating power 
>> against potentially dozens of normals simultaneously.  The straight attack 
>> can only fry one normal at a time. 
> 
>I can kill at least as many normals, for fewer points, with area effect 
>autofire killing attack. 
 
But, that is not a blazing fire.  Are you trying to model a fire, or are 
you just killing things?   
  
>> You are comparing the effectiveness of the UnC, Con power with regard to 
>> attacking a brick. 
> 
>No, I'm comparing its effectiveness with regard to attacking any character 
with 
>near-heroic level defenses.  The breakpoint for equal effectiveness (ignoring 
>knockback and other similar effects) depends on the fatigue you spend, but if 
>we assume your average uncontrolled attack lasts 4 phases before being put 
out 
>(typical effort to remove one, though I've seen a lot of variation here) you 
>need defenses of no more than <active points / 7> to make the single attack 
>better -- 9 defenses in your typical starting game.  So not only should it be 
>less effective on heroes, it should be less effective on _agents_? 
 
Some powers are more effective in certain circumstances than in others. 
You are only comparing the effectiveness against specific targets. 
 
I have to stop responding to this because you are only arguing raw 
effectiveness.  You only want powers that take the opponent down in the 
fewest number of phases.  I am asking the question "What is the special 
effect?"  I want to know why the power exists.  My games are not 
combatfests so I do not think in terms of raw ability.  I like a combat 
where the hero has overcome his limitations.  There are not a lot of power 
combinations if all you want to do is kill your opponent. 
 
>  Using such an attack on a brick is a tactical mistake. 
>> But when 2 dozen agents come pouring out of a building at you, you'll be 
>> glad you can start the fire and ignore the agents while taking care of the 
>> bad guys in front of you. 
>Um...the agents can probably ignore the fire....your average viper agent 
takes 
>a couple turns to go down from 1d6 KAs. 
 
Most people (including agents) will not run through a fire.  They cannot 
tell the difference between a 1d6 KA and a 4d6 KA.  I didn't know Viper 
agents were that fanatic. 
 
  Joe 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:33:15 -0800 
From: Kirk Lund <klund@technologist.com> 
Subject: How to explode 
 
I'm designing a character that has an "explosive" personality.  Well, ok, 
what I mean is if he impacts with something going at a minimum of 
20" velocity I want to fire off an Energy Blast Explosion, No Range.  Now 
Damage Shield doesn't look quite right, nor does Trigger.  Do I simply 
need to combine one of these with some Adv or Lim, or is there some 
completely other way to do it? 
 
Let's go further: He also needs to explode if he's smashed under great 
weight, even if he isn't travelling fast.  Is there a way to make the whole 
thing work with one power and some Advs/Lims? 
 
Thanks, 
Kirk 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 19:39:51 -0500 
From: "Ronald A. Miller" <rabmiller@email.msn.com> 
Subject: Fw: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator 
 
- -----Original Message----- 
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net> 
To: Ronald A. Miller <rabmiller@email.msn.com> 
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:38 PM 
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator 
 
 
>At 07:24 PM 1/14/99 -0500, Ronald A. Miller wrote: 
>> 
>>>SPEED is already continuous.  The only thing Uncontrolled is necessary 
for 
>>>is to disconnect the power from the gadgeteer. 
>> 
>> 
>>Thereby making it better defined as "Independent (-2)" in terms of game 
>>mechanics.  The classic personal gadget cannot be "Uncontrolled", it needs 
>>to be turned on and off, it can be "Independent" giving control to 
whomever 
>>is using it (granted they know how). 
> 
>Well, that would prevent the gadgeteer from doing it.  :-) 
> 
>But, there is is nothing saying that you have to take the Independent 
>limitation.  I think it is easier to just to disallow UAO on 
characteristics. 
> 
>  Joe 
>Did you mean to send this to the list? 
> 
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 20:48:02 -0500 
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> 
Subject: Re: How to explode 
 
At 04:33 PM 1/14/99 -0800, Kirk Lund wrote: 
>I'm designing a character that has an "explosive" personality.  Well, ok, 
>what I mean is if he impacts with something going at a minimum of 
>20" velocity I want to fire off an Energy Blast Explosion, No Range.  Now 
>Damage Shield doesn't look quite right, nor does Trigger.  Do I simply 
>need to combine one of these with some Adv or Lim, or is there some 
>completely other way to do it? 
> 
>Let's go further: He also needs to explode if he's smashed under great 
>weight, even if he isn't travelling fast.  Is there a way to make the whole 
>thing work with one power and some Advs/Lims? 
 
 
15d6 EB, Explosion (+1/2), Damage Shield (+1/2), Only if impacted at 
high speed (20") or with crushing force (-1/2), No Range  (-1/2) 
 
150 AP, 75 real.  
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
"'My Country, right or wrong' is a thing no patriot would  
think of saying except in a desperate case.  It is like saying 
'My mother, drunk or sober.'" 
        G.K. Chesterton 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
Scott C. Nolan 
nolan@erols.com   
 
------------------------------ 
 
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 18:46:52 -0600 
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net> 
Subject: Re: A seriously weird modification to speed 
 
> From: Max Callahan <mcallahan@home.com> 
>  
> Problem: The speed chart causes strange artifacts in combat. IE "If I 
> haymaker now I know it will land 'cause I know my target will  not act 
next 
> segment" Often players will do things simply because its's advantageous 
due 
> to how the phases play out. 
> Extremely Radical Solution that I put out for comment without actually 
> having tried: 
> Get rid of the speed chart entirely. On every segment have each combatint 
> roll a D12, if they roll their Speed or less they get an action.  (As a 
> side note this also removes any problem with changing speed during a turn 
> as instead of changinh your action phases one is simply changing their 
> chance to act per segment.) 
> So, what do you all think? 
>  
I've used this for awhile in my FH game, except that I use a d6 (since SPD 
above 4 is very rare).  It really does not matter what size die you use, 
except that it be higher than the highest current SPD.  A few suggestions 
that we use: 
 
1. Let the GM roll the one and only SPD die.  Everyone with a SPD of the 
number rolled or less gets to go. 
 
2. If someone does not get to go.  They get to add +1 to their SPD.  Reset 
when they get to go.  (Otherwise, you would not believe how boring things 
can get when you roll a lot of high numbers.) 
 
3. Make a "1" the signal to end the turn, not the highest roll.  This makes 
it easier to switch the SPD die, and it means that everyone gets to move on 
the "Phase 12" like in standard Hero. 
 
4. If you really want to be mean, make everyone declare an action before 
you roll :-) 
 
5. Give everyone who held an action a chance to move before you roll. 
 
It has made our FH combats much more fun for everyone.  The SPD 4 guys 
griped for awhile about the old Phase 9/12 double move being gone, but that 
stopped the first time I rolled a bunch of 4s on the SPD die :-)   
 
BTW, all you naysayers talking about plotting out your actions:  If that is 
the way you want to run your game, then by all means, keep using the chart. 
 Some of us don't like that effect, and this is a good solution.   
 
------------------------------ 
 
End of champ-l-digest V1 #136 
*****************************