Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 145
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Monday, January 18, 1999 12:36 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #145
champ-l-digest Monday, January 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 145
In this issue:
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: superleap attacks
Re: superleap attacks
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
A Few Questions
Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: superleap attacks
Re: Batman's CAK (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Broken Kingdoms
Re: Killing Codes (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Re:Exceeding DC/AP (was Att: Steve Long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:22:17 -0700
From: Curtis A Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> Crises also did s a fine job of demolishing the validity of an otherwise
> decent book (Infinity Inc.) and stuck another one with constant patching and
> repatching (The Legion of Super-Heroes). That made me rather less than
> thrilled with it.
Crisis itself killed the Infinitors, but it was that *@$#!! Byrne that
screwed up the Legion with his reboot of Superman, with no Superboy. The
only other 'patch' was Supergirl, and that was handled fairly well. I
gave it up at the end of the Levitz run, so I don't know of anything
after that.
- -Mhoram
- --
What is called glory, I think, is mostly the relief you feel after
you've fought and lived through battle without getting maimed.
- -Harry Turtledove Krispos Rising
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:36:34 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Character: Barrow-Wight
The Barrow-Wight
18 DEX 24
14 INT 4
20 EGO 20
35 PRE 25
3 SPD 2
Characteristics Cost: 75
192 5D6 Drain,0 END,[Ranged,Only 2d6] ,Affects Real World
32 15 STR Telekinesis, No Range, Only as if a body (-1),0 END,
Affects Real World
15 Images, Normal Sight, Normal Hearing, Only to Form
Self-Image (-2), No Range, 0 END, Affects Real World
15 Night Vision
10 Astral Vision
2 WF,Common Melee
6 2 Levels: Swords,tight group
Powers Cost: 272
Total Cost: 347
Base Points: 75
20 Distinctive Features,"Undead Warrior",not concealable,major
25 Physical Limitation,"Bound to Barrow",all the time,fully
20 Psychological Limitation,"Hatred of Life",very common,strong
35 Susceptibility,"Sunlight",very common,per phase,3D6
10 Vulnerability,"Magic Weapons (as Consume Spirit)",uncommon,
x2 effect
162 Dead Hand Bonus
Disadvantages Total: 272
Experience Spent: 0
Total Points: 347
The Barrow-Downs are a field of great barrow-mounds east of
the Old Forest, also known as Tyrn Gorthad. The mounds
were first built in the First Age, by the wandering forefathers
of the Three Houses of the Edain, and are thus much revered
by they Dunedain, who continued to bury their dead there until
the fall of Cardolan in Third Age 1409. Around 1636, the
barrows were inhabited by evil wights sent by the Witch-King
of Angmar, and the downs have had an evil reputation ever
since.
The wights themselves are immaterial creatures, who are
nonetheless capable of being seen and exerting a grip
like iron. Their most feared power, however, is their ability
to weaken a foes. This can be done with but a glance, but
the power is far more sure with a touch.
Barrow-wights do not slay their enemies outright, but
rather drain them and take them back into their barrows
where they then sacrifice their foes to the power of Sauron
in an unhallowed ritual.
NOTES:
Many people will have noticed that I stole the barrow-wight
from the Spirit Rules article in HERO System Almanac I.
That is because I think it is very well done. I have changed
a few things, discussed below.
Many will object to the use of the Spirit rules. I agonized
about other ways to do it (there are many) but decided
that in -my- campaign, this is the way I'd do it. I -like-
the Spirit rules for limited applications, and this is one
of them.
I don't much like the way the Spirit Rules handle disadvantages,
so I've used normal HSR disadvantages for this character.
I've based the character (like all characters in this series) on
a 75-point base. I also lowered the wight's SPD to 3.
I've given the STUN Drain 5d6 effect with a touch, but 2d6
at range. This is because when Frodo first tries to run, he
feels weak, but only passes out when the wight clamps its
hands on him.
I eliminated "Repelled by Holy Symbols" because there
aren't any in The Lord of the Rings. I eliminated "Watched
by Forest Spirits" because Tom Bombadil's arrival had
more to do with Frodo's incantation than with Tom's watchfulness.
I increased the Vulnerability to Magic Weapons to x2 because
Sting just beat the hell out of that wight...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 18:12:24 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>> Crises also did s a fine job of demolishing the validity of an otherwise
>> decent book (Infinity Inc.) and stuck another one with constant patching and
>> repatching (The Legion of Super-Heroes). That made me rather less than
>> thrilled with it.
>
>Crisis itself killed the Infinitors, but it was that *@$#!! Byrne that
>screwed up the Legion with his reboot of Superman, with no Superboy. The
>only other 'patch' was Supergirl, and that was handled fairly well. I
>gave it up at the end of the Levitz run, so I don't know of anything
>after that.
In practice, I gather the exclusion of Superboy was an editorial decision as
much as it was Byrne's though. But yes, the Legion continuity was way too
wrapped around a certain concept of Superboy and Superman, and there were
artifacts of it all over the place. Some of them were well embedded in the
history and not always easy to pluck out. Trying to substitute Valor for
Superboy did _not_ work well. In fact, even though the continuity was
completely torn up, I think Zero Hour was a godsend to the Legion.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 04:49:43 -0600
From: Todd Hanson <badtodd@home.com>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Hey Scott...?
Did you maybe forget something important here?
Like... his desolid? (or were you just donating all of those extra
'affects real world' points?)
Todd
Scott Nolan wrote:
> The Barrow-Wight
>
> 18 DEX 24
> 14 INT 4
> 20 EGO 20
> 35 PRE 25
> 3 SPD 2
> Characteristics Cost: 75
>
> 192 5D6 Drain,0 END,[Ranged,Only 2d6] ,Affects Real World
> 32 15 STR Telekinesis, No Range, Only as if a body (-1),0 END,
> Affects Real World
> 15 Images, Normal Sight, Normal Hearing, Only to Form
> Self-Image (-2), No Range, 0 END, Affects Real World
> 15 Night Vision
> 10 Astral Vision
> 2 WF,Common Melee
> 6 2 Levels: Swords,tight group
>
> Powers Cost: 272
> Total Cost: 347
>
> Base Points: 75
> 20 Distinctive Features,"Undead Warrior",not concealable,major
> 25 Physical Limitation,"Bound to Barrow",all the time,fully
> 20 Psychological Limitation,"Hatred of Life",very common,strong
> 35 Susceptibility,"Sunlight",very common,per phase,3D6
> 10 Vulnerability,"Magic Weapons (as Consume Spirit)",uncommon,
> x2 effect
> 162 Dead Hand Bonus
>
> Disadvantages Total: 272
> Experience Spent: 0
> Total Points: 347
>
> The Barrow-Downs are a field of great barrow-mounds east of
> the Old Forest, also known as Tyrn Gorthad. The mounds
> were first built in the First Age, by the wandering forefathers
> of the Three Houses of the Edain, and are thus much revered
> by they Dunedain, who continued to bury their dead there until
> the fall of Cardolan in Third Age 1409. Around 1636, the
> barrows were inhabited by evil wights sent by the Witch-King
> of Angmar, and the downs have had an evil reputation ever
> since.
>
> The wights themselves are immaterial creatures, who are
> nonetheless capable of being seen and exerting a grip
> like iron. Their most feared power, however, is their ability
> to weaken a foes. This can be done with but a glance, but
> the power is far more sure with a touch.
>
> Barrow-wights do not slay their enemies outright, but
> rather drain them and take them back into their barrows
> where they then sacrifice their foes to the power of Sauron
> in an unhallowed ritual.
>
> NOTES:
>
> Many people will have noticed that I stole the barrow-wight
> from the Spirit Rules article in HERO System Almanac I.
> That is because I think it is very well done. I have changed
> a few things, discussed below.
>
> Many will object to the use of the Spirit rules. I agonized
> about other ways to do it (there are many) but decided
> that in -my- campaign, this is the way I'd do it. I -like-
> the Spirit rules for limited applications, and this is one
> of them.
>
> I don't much like the way the Spirit Rules handle disadvantages,
> so I've used normal HSR disadvantages for this character.
>
> I've based the character (like all characters in this series) on
> a 75-point base. I also lowered the wight's SPD to 3.
>
> I've given the STUN Drain 5d6 effect with a touch, but 2d6
> at range. This is because when Frodo first tries to run, he
> feels weak, but only passes out when the wight clamps its
> hands on him.
>
> I eliminated "Repelled by Holy Symbols" because there
> aren't any in The Lord of the Rings. I eliminated "Watched
> by Forest Spirits" because Tom Bombadil's arrival had
> more to do with Frodo's incantation than with Tom's watchfulness.
> I increased the Vulnerability to Magic Weapons to x2 because
> Sting just beat the hell out of that wight...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
> a system shows a lack of honesty."
> Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Scott C. Nolan
> nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 99 07:04:42 -0400
From: John P Weatherman <asahoshi@nr.infi.net>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 1/18/99 5:36 AM
>I increased the Vulnerability to Magic Weapons to x2 because
>Sting just beat the hell out of that wight...
Just to nit-pick, Frodo didn't have Sting at that point. He
received it from Bilbo at Rivendale, after Bree, Weathertop
and the Battle at the Fords (where he lost his own Barrow
sword, like Merry's).
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:50:03 -0500
From: "Ronald A. Miller" <rabmiller@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: superleap attacks
> Don't buy it as a superleap attack. Instead buy it as a ranged
>physical energy blast with the SX as you leaping at the target and
>bouncing back. Gear it to the amount of damage you would normally do if
>you were leaping at the target and apply appropiate advantages and
>limitations.
It just seems like this is a long way around, I'll work it out and see what
happens... I also want the character (Skyshot) to be "in there" once he
attacks this way. I've given him Savate so he can make a wonderful initial
attack (and Presence Attack as well) and then get down to business HTH with
the target(s).
Miller
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:46:59 -0500
From: "Ronald A. Miller" <rabmiller@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: superleap attacks
Mark Lemming wrote:
>Problem with that version, is what if you want to bounce off and land
>somewhere else. Maybe you want flight with the limitation that you
>have to land between phases and enough turn-mod levels to do a quick
>turn around.
I appreciate this, but how is this simpler than the Superleap approach?
It's not the leaping, it the attack itself. A flying Move By/Through will
be the same mechanistically as a Superleaping one, eh? And with flight I
could theorhetically change my path at any given moment, whereas with
Superleap, I can't (adding realism).
>
>Also, Damage resistance isn't going to do a bit of good. Extra PD
>would be a lot better. (Unless you're attacking a Sea Urchin)
Ah, yes, you just gave me a Moment Of Clarity. When I wrote this I was, in
fact, thinking of a specific case. Instead of Damage Resistance, read
"Armor", the extra PD might be allowable in the form of a triggered (flinch)
Force Field (more or less like Sam Guthrie's).
Miller
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:06:49 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
>From: mhoram@relia.net (Curtis A Gibson)
>>Crisis itself killed the Infinitors
Gee, and according to Roy Thomas, low sales killed the Infinitors....low
sales that were a problem even before the Crisis (Hey, we Infanitors
were a loyal bunch, but we weren't *that* large a group....)
"A trial without witnesses is like the Euro, a monetary system without
the benefits of paper money or coin--what's the fun of that?"
- --Harry Shearer
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:03:23 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
>From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
>>Crises also did s a fine job of demolishing the
>> validity of an otherwise decent book (Infinity
>> Inc.) and stuck another one with constant
>> patching and repatching (The Legion of
>> Super-Heroes). That made me rather less
>> than thrilled with it.
I don't think INFINITY INC. got 'demolished' (and I was the biggest
I-INC fan you can find) by CRISIS--and as for the LEGION books needed
repatching, it would not have been necessary if Marv Wolfman's original
intentions had been followed, with all the heroes *remembering* the
multiverse (thus the Legion could still b inspired by Supes as a
boy....)
"A trial without witnesses is like the Euro, a monetary system without
the benefits of paper money or coin--what's the fun of that?"
- --Harry Shearer
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 05:01:27 -0000
From: "David Cooper" <raven@neteze.com>
Subject: A Few Questions
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE429F.9ABC0840
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I remember reading a few days ago about a now update for CW. Has anyone =
heard when that will be coming out. Also has anyone been working on new =
templates for different games. I heard of one for Cyberpunk, but it =
isn't out yet.
Thanks
- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE429F.9ABC0840
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3511.1300"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I remember reading a few days ago =
about a now=20
update for CW. Has anyone heard when that will be coming out. Also has =
anyone=20
been working on new templates for different games. I heard of one for =
Cyberpunk,=20
but it isn't out yet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>Thanks</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
- ------=_NextPart_000_000A_01BE429F.9ABC0840--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:09:17 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
At 12:49 AM 1/18/1999 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"D" == Damon <Michael> writes:
>
>D> Set any limits you want, and stick to them as firmly as you like. But
>D> tell your players *ahead of time* what the limits are going to be.
>
>Up until about a week ago I thought that if a GM says his campaign has a
>12DC cap as one of its guidelines, his campaign has a 12DC cap as one of
>its guidelines. You are now telling me that this is not the case at all.
I am not telling you any such thing. You do understand that the word
"guideline" does not mean "inviolable rule, carved in stone and equally
applicable in every conceivable situation"?
If a GM has a 12DC cap as a campaign "guideline", he or she may choose to
enforce it absolutely (in which case I no longer think of it as a
"guideline", but so long as he's clear about it up front...), or in most
cases, or only in certain cases (again, no problem as long as players know
in what situations the cap will be in effect). It's up to the GM to decide
how and when to set campaign limits and to determine the situations to
which those limits will apply; the GM's word is Law and all that. I have
said repeatedly, Do as thou wilt, but keep the players informed up front.
In other words, Rat, *your way of doing things is correct* as long as
you've informed the players ahead of time what to expect from DC caps and
other limits of your campaign. Perhaps you are just choosing not to
listen. Maybe I should give up as well.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:06:07 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
At 04:49 AM 1/18/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hey Scott...?
>
>Did you maybe forget something important here?
>
>Like... his desolid? (or were you just donating all of those extra
>'affects real world' points?)
He's a spirit. They don't buy desolid. One of the reasons
many people dislike the Spirit rules.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:29:23 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
At 04:46 PM 1/17/1999 -0800, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>>Set any limits you want, and stick to them as firmly as you like. But tell
>>your players *ahead of time* what the limits are going to be. Don't forbid
>>them the full use of a set of abilities *you* approved at the start of the
>>game, just because *you* didn't foresee a possible application of those
>>abilities to get past a campaign limit or restriction *you* failed to
>>mention in the first place.
>
>I can't agree with this. There is such a thing as following the letter
instead of the spirit of a rule, and I think spotting a loophole in what
the GM set up and using it against him without finding out if he considered
this was kosher is simple abuse of process, and ought to be smacked around.
It's often one of the worst signs of a compulsive power gamer.
>
>If the GM clearly wants to limit damages to the 12DC range, and sets
things up to do that, but through an oversight misses a way around it you
can regularly, what are you doing by utilizing that but making things hard
on him and moving against his desires for the campaign? What excuse is
there for that?
Actually, Wyane, I agree pretty much 100% with what you said here, and I
apologize if my earlier posts had given the impression I wouldn't.
The point I was trying to make was that the players shouldn't be penalized
because the GM did any of the following things:
1) Didn't bother to establish a DC cap or other campaign limits until
mid-game, at which point he decides on a limit that denies the character
full use of abilities he bought and paid for in good faith.
2) Established a DC cap in his mind but didn't tell players what it was, or
that it existed. Players would only find out during the course of the game
that they'd spent more points on attack Powers and combat abilities that
they'd be able to use.
3) Told players there was a 12 DC cap in place, but *not* explained where
the cap comes in. This may give some players the idea that a 12d6 Normal
Damage, or 4d6 Killing Attack, is the maximum *base* attack damage, but is
still modifyable with combat manuevers such as Offensive Strike or
Haymaker; other players may assume that no combination of
attack/manuever/other bonus will *ever* allow damage beyond the 12 DC cap.
Either interpretation *could* be legitimate, so the GM should have made it
clear at the start which interpretation he'd use.
None of this means I think it's okay for players to twist the GM's rulings
to allow things he or she *clearly* did not intend. Players should
certainly obey the spirit of the GM's campaign rules, rather than the
letter, as long as (a) the GM does the same, and (b) the GM has made an
honest effort to inform the players of his or her intent.
I can't help but feel that the onus for establishing the campaign
boundaries are on the GM, but it *is* hard to anticipate every possible
situation in advance. Most [decent] players will cut the GM some slack if
they believe he's sincerely tried to keep them informed ahead of time, and
not let them waste points on abilities they'd have no chance to use in his
game. As for complusive power gamers...not much can be done about them.
They'll always be looking for an angle.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 07:51:10 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
At 07:03 AM 1/18/1999 -0500, thomas deja wrote:
>I don't think INFINITY INC. got 'demolished' (and I was the biggest
>I-INC fan you can find) by CRISIS--and as for the LEGION books needed
>repatching, it would not have been necessary if Marv Wolfman's original
>intentions had been followed, with all the heroes *remembering* the
>multiverse (thus the Legion could still b inspired by Supes as a
>boy....)
It's quite possible I'm overlooking something here, but I think this
reasoning is flawed. Only the 50 heroes who "stood at the dawn of time"
remembered the pre-Crisis universe, nor would they have had much incentive
to spread their knowledge to the general public, or even the larger hero
community. What would be the point of telling everyone that their present
universe wasn't the one they had started in (at least, not entirely), or
that millions of people on Earth no longer existed, having been wiped out
and replaced by the merging of five universes?
It seems to me that one of two things must be true:
1) No members of the Legion were present at the "dawn of time" so none of
them remember the pre-Crisis universe. (Actually, I seriously doubt this
was the case, and I could check it easily if I wanted to dig my copy of
Crisis out of storage. Pardon my laziness.)
2) Some members of the Legion were present at the dawn of time, and will
remember the pre-Crisis universe after they return to the 30th Century.
However, not all members of the Legion were present. Those who weren't
will have no idea who Superboy was, will not recall ever having met him,
and certainly cannot have been inspired by him.
Hmmm...actually, Superboy may not have been a Crisis casualty, now taht I
think about it. I'm not much of a Legion follower, but my roommate was for
a long time. Wasn't there a post-Crisis story that established the whole
Superboy history as having existed in a pocket universe of the Time
Trapper's devising -- a universe *not* absorbed or destroyed by the Crisis
because of its "artificial" nature? I know there were exceptions to the
"total" elimination of parallel universes, including the JSA's ongoing
battle against Ragnarok, and the Captain Carrot universe (DC's excuse for
this being that it wasn't an "alternate universe", it was a "parallel
dimension"...sheesh!)
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 09:07:21 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
At 07:04 AM 1/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 1/18/99 5:36 AM
>
>>I increased the Vulnerability to Magic Weapons to x2 because
>>Sting just beat the hell out of that wight...
>
>Just to nit-pick, Frodo didn't have Sting at that point. He
>received it from Bilbo at Rivendale, after Bree, Weathertop
>and the Battle at the Fords (where he lost his own Barrow
>sword, like Merry's).
Thought of that the instant after I hit "Send". I was hoping
nobody'd notice. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:42:19 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Campaign guidelines/Damage caps
At 07:29 AM 1/18/1999 -0600, Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
>2) Established a DC cap in his mind but didn't tell players what it was, or
>that it existed. Players would only find out during the course of the game
>that they'd spent more points on attack Powers and combat abilities that
>they'd be able to use.
Sorry; that should have read "more points...*than* they'd be able to use."
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:42:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>> From: Darrin Kelley <backflash@mindspring.com>
>
> Scott Bennie wrote:
>
> > I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
> > (examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
> > batarangs).
>
> Yes, I agree. But both Batman and Superman use those attacks in very careful
> manners. As should any character with a strong Code Against Killing.
>
> But there have been all too many circumstances in Champions games where I
> have seen Killing Attacks used simply because of mechanical convenience. The
> "STUN lotto" comes immediately to mind....
>
>
Use a fixed STUN multiple for the STUN lottery. Actually, IMO ANY attack
should be used with care if you have a Code Against Killing. There's not
much difference between 12D6 Energy Blast and 4D6 RKA to a normal.
Curt Hicks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:48:13 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
At 07:54 PM 1/17/99 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>"D" == Damon <Michael> writes:
>
>D> Campaign guidelines and limits are a good thing; AP and DC restrictions
>D> are a good way to structure some of those limits. But they *don't*
>D> suddenly come into play in the middle of a game.
>
>No?
>
>I have 40 Strength and an Offensive Strike maneuver which means I can
>usually do a 12D6 strike as my most powerful attack. Another character
>hits me with an Aid that increases my Strength to 65. Are you as the GM
>going to let me throw around 17D6 punches in your 12DC campaign?
>
>If you say, "yes," what is the point of having a DC cap if you are not
>going to use it?
I'd certainly say yes -- the DC cap is for character construction. The
situation you describe is a matter of teamwork.
At the same time, though, I'd closely examine that Aid at the time the
second character was constructed, to make sure it wasn't going to be abused
(by which I mean used in such a way that the Martial Brick above does this
in every battle; it should be left as a "desperation maneuver").
To forbid the second character from using his Aid on the first *for no
reason other than campaign point caps* is unfair, illogical, and violation
of genre.
- ---
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: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:55:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Somebody:
> >
> >A 12d6 normal EB is a killing attack when used against someone
> >with insufficient defenses.
>
Wayne Shaw:
> Sure, but the likelyhood of 'sufficient defenses' changes rather seriously.
> Normals are liable to be in serious trouble against either, but in the
> context of normal superhero campaigns, people exhibiting superhuman (or even
> near-human Batman type abilities) can reasonably be expected to be able take
> one without serious injury, but not the other. A particularly careful and
> extreme CAK character in my campaign might be cautious using a 12D6 EB
> versus a martial artist villain he wasn't too familiar with...but I wouldn't
> consider him remiss if he didn't. I _would_ consider him so with the
> killing attack.
>
I agree that 'in the context of normal superhero campaigns' this is true;
because in 'normal superhero campaigns' players always buy their defenses
up, regardless of whether or not they actually have any justification to
or not. (Note that I am not talking about common sense precautions such
as armor or a reinforced suit, that should be obvious when considering
power level.) However, I still don't see the difference between starting off
with a 12D6 EB and a 4D6 RKA when a character has a CAK.
Curt Hicks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 06:21:44 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: superleap attacks
At 10:47 PM 1/17/99 -0800, Mark Lemming wrote:
>Rick Holding wrote:
>>
>> Ronald A. Miller wrote:
>>
>> > Next subject, please: Has anybody out there tried to simulate an
>> > attack that is geared around jumping (Superleaping) at an
>> > opponent, and bouncing OFF him causing (I'd say) Move By damage?
>> > I would say that this would require some levels in Superleap to
>> > perfect the 180 degree move off the target and maybe an Acrobatics
>> > roll to enhance the attack's chances. I think, too, that a
>> > separately bought Damage Resistance can be employed to minimize
>> > the Hero's damage if the Acrobatics roll is successful.
>> Comments?
>>
>> Don't buy it as a superleap attack. Instead buy it as a
>> ranged physical energy blast with the SX as you leaping at the target
>> and bouncing back. Gear it to the amount of damage you would
>> normally do if
>> you were leaping at the target and apply appropiate advantages and
>> limitations. (There you go, Bob. Right terminology for ya.)
>
>Problem with that version, is what if you want to bounce off and land
>somewhere else. Maybe you want flight with the limitation that you
>have to land between phases and enough turn-mod levels to do a quick
>turn around.
Here's an alternate method that I just thought of:
Buy Superleap, with the +1/4 Advantage Bouncable. For each Skill Level
used, the character can strike something in mid-leap and change direction
(somewhat like the way Energy Blasts are Bounced).
One could even add the Cumulative Advantage to this, and allow the
character to increase his Leaping by the amount of his Superleap with each
Bounce (and there you have Bouncing Boy!).
It's probably a little tweakish, but it's also probably a good starting
point for finding the "right" way. :-]
- ---
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: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:34:17 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
<<-----Original Message-----
From: thomas deja <tdj723@webtv.net>
I think many writers until Moench felt that whereas Superman was Clark
Kent's alter-ego, Bruce Wayne's was Batman. Having Bruce realize he
needed to grow as a human being was one of the few positives to grow out
of the whole Knightfall sequence....>>
apart from those way-cool martial arts battles. .
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:14:27 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Batman's CAK (and long DC continuity rant)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin <griffin@txdirect.net>
> "Hypertime."
>
>I hate it.
>
>Damon
>
>
>
well it looks lie aplot device, but i like things like this in general.
non-linear time, double-sided divergent/convergent timelines, and so forth,
can al
be very cool in the right setting. but, it sounds like it's just a one-word
'shutupfanboy'
phrase.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:24:42 -0600
From: redbf@ldd.net (bobby farris)
Subject: Broken Kingdoms
I am going to be starting a fantasy campaing using Broken
Kingdoms and wondered if anyone else has used the Broken Kingdoms
setting for a fantasy campaign? Does anyone have a map of it? All I have
is a VERY crude one.
Does anyone have any helpful suggestions or neat little tricks
for runnging a fantasty campaign?
ANY help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 01:31:37 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Killing Codes (was Bad Habits of Poor Gamers)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin <griffin@txdirect.net>
>For what it's worth, I'd allow a character with Superman's track record to
>have a 20 point CAK before *and* after such an extreme event...but he would
>suffer psychological trauma for quite a while afterward, and would not be
>entitled to any more points* for it, since it would just be a side effect
>of his original CAK.
>
from memory, after this he gained a split personality for a while
(gangbuster II)
, and flew off into space. then he found warworld. yup, trauma.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1999 11:06:22 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"CH" == Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se> writes:
CH> Actually, IMO ANY attack should be used with care if you have a Code
CH> Against Killing. There's not much difference between 12D6 Energy Blast
CH> and 4D6 RKA to a normal.
Similarly, there is little difference between the two if the target is,
say, Grond.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2o1v9gl+vIlSVSNkRAuLDAJ9EPPZze+smECQYR2eDfQ0JaaapbACg9Tig
upBqPYxuuyKcRHfyjbZGsw4=
=lrTG
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 1999 11:04:53 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
BG> To forbid the second character from using his Aid on the first *for no
BG> reason other than campaign point caps* is unfair, illogical, and violation
BG> of genre.
It is fair and logical to allow some characters in a 12DC campaign to have
24d6 Energy Blasts and 8d6 Killing Attacks, but not others.
I will remember that next time you tell me that one of my interpretations
is grotesque.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2o1ulgl+vIlSVSNkRAiCKAKCVQwN1JkkgljWfEh9HMLSrLQ8qyACeKwAy
gwk16/F88k8k8yjt9Y7G0aU=
=z4oS
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:39:54 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
>Hey Scott...?
>
>Did you maybe forget something important here?
>
>Like... his desolid? (or were you just donating all of those extra
>'affects real world' points?)
No he's using the spirit rules, which I really dislike. Really really
dislike, and hope they leave out of the system. They arent needed and make
there to be two classes of characters (oh joy, back to the pre 4th edition
rules).
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:35:35 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
- -----Original Message-----
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
>I agree that 'in the context of normal superhero campaigns' this is true;
>because in 'normal superhero campaigns' players always buy their defenses
>up, regardless of whether or not they actually have any justification to
>or not. (Note that I am not talking about common sense precautions such
>as armor or a reinforced suit, that should be obvious when considering
>power level.) However, I still don't see the difference between starting
off
>with a 12D6 EB and a 4D6 RKA when a character has a CAK.
>
>Curt Hicks
eb- more knockback. . . edge of building. . arrgh! splat.
I'd actually base it on special effect and damage to date,
or the c's experience with the attack. Note batman's view
of guns, despite other options being potentially as deadly,
well you could argue they are, anyway. . .
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 02:31:41 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
here let me cover your gaffe- Hey guys, what the hell is an adain? *L*
- -----Original Message-----
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Tuesday, January 19, 1999 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Character: Barrow-Wight
>At 07:04 AM 1/18/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>Scott Nolan nolan@erols.com 1/18/99 5:36 AM
>>
>>>I increased the Vulnerability to Magic Weapons to x2 because
>>>Sting just beat the hell out of that wight...
>>
>>Just to nit-pick, Frodo didn't have Sting at that point. He
>>received it from Bilbo at Rivendale, after Bree, Weathertop
>>and the Battle at the Fords (where he lost his own Barrow
>>sword, like Merry's).
>
>Thought of that the instant after I hit "Send". I was hoping
>nobody'd notice. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
>a system shows a lack of honesty."
> Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Scott C. Nolan
>nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 10:42:10 +0000
From: Gary & Kim Miles <miles.kim.gary@mcleodusa.net>
Subject: Re:Exceeding DC/AP (was Att: Steve Long)
Tim Gilberg wrote:
Yup. With an AID or Haymaker, etc. The way I see it, the DC
> limits are both for creation and play. But certain attacks/powers I will
> allow to go over limits, with permission. But, when combining two attack
> powers characters will be held to their own personal limits.
>
> For example, if someone only has a 10 DC (50 AP) attack, then the
> most a combined attack could be is 50 AP. AID can up anything, however.
>
> > If you say, "yes," what is the point of having a DC cap if you are not
> > going to use it?
>
> AIDs are a special case. Would you dissallow a Haymaker that was
> more than 12 DC?
>
Well, I had a PC in my campaign once who had a strength that put his regular
punch at the campaign Damage Cap. _But_ his primary attack was a move-through,
which would have put him over the damage limit. Since he specifically told me
that the move-through was his main attack, I told him to either drop his
strength (which would have lowered his punch below the DC) or artificially
limit the move-through damage to the DC.
Gary
>
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #145
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:12 PM