Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 180
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 1999 10:11 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #180
champ-l-digest Tuesday, February 2 1999 Volume 01 : Number 180
In this issue:
RE: <FHList> The Necrotron
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Martial artist power
RE: The Necrotron
Re: Martial artist power
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Unity in Nerd Culture
Re: GenCon 99
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Martial artist power
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Martial artist power
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
RE: Unity in Nerd Culture
Re: Foci talk
Re: Multipower Questions
Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World
RE: Unity in Nerd Culture
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:00:41 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
Subject: RE: <FHList> The Necrotron
<snipping my the Necrotron description>
] Yuk! Hehehe!
Well, necromancy's kind of an ugly business so if I'm going to do it, I
should do it all the way.
]
] How about an AOE TK, Non-Selective? Or a low-powered AOE NS Entangle?
Yea, something like this, except instead of doing a STR contest between the
TK and the player's STR every half phase, I'm just going to have them make a
modified STR roll. The entangle is maybe a better mechanic than the grab,
since you could hack your way through. I think I'm going to require
successful CON rolls to do any recovery on account of the nasty nasty smell.
] Some thoughts, though: how much magic do the PCs wield?
Well, the warlock has a pool around 30pts. and about 6 spheres so he's
fairly versatile but not that powerful yet. The Crusader has about 20pts. in
his pool but his magic is focused on cranking up his STR and armour.
Gliding, Force
] Wall, Flight, Entangle could all make the trap easy to bypass.
True. In fact, one of the basic spells in the Life sphere is Bind Undead
which is an entangle against undead. This would certainly make things
easier. If he thinks of it, I'll let him do it.
How
] about adding body parts to the walls like in Aliens?
I've already used these things I call Pendulous Dead. Imagine a torso with
nothing below the rib cage. Now, tie chains to the bottom of the rib cage
and hang the torso from the ceiling by the long chain. Use blood magic to
extend the bones in the hands into long claws. Animate and swing. My players
found these guys very intimidating. When the warlock got grabbed, everybody
freaked right out.
]
] A Cumulative Dispel or Transform would make for a good scene with the
] priest chanting away at the Dispel / Transform while the warriors
] heroicly defend him.
I think the most likely scenario is the warlock using his air sphere's
TK-in-a-cone to push back a path. This is going to be a riot.
Evil Lord BRI
]
]
] qts
]
] Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:02:31 -0600 (CST)
From: gilberg@ou.edu
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
>You used *Shrinking* on a nuke?! You do realise that that's effectively
>what happens in reality, though explosive charges are used? (Read Tom
>Clancy's Sum of All Fears for an entertaining description of this).
>
>GM: So you wanna save your behind by Shrinking the nuke?
>PC: Yep!
>GM: OK, it's now become a critical mass. BOOM!
Would this work according to Shrinking? The power decreases
something's size but also decreases the mass. For the Nuke to reach
critical mass, it would need to be shrunk with it's entire mass.
-Tim Gilberg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 99 13:00:58
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 12:48:14 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
>
>>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:18:05 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>>
>>>Nevertheless, the person with the "Lim: Only in rain" gets to reduce his
>>>pool cost _without any penalty whatsoever, while the person with Charges
>>>has to take additional _severe_ penalties.
>>
>>The two are in no way similar!
>
>
>The two are in no way completely dissimilar, so they must be similar to some
>degree. They are not quite the _same_, true, but your example completely
>ignores my point. In fact, I can use _your_ example, carried to its
>ridiculous extreme, to prove my own point.
>
>>Lets reduce it to a simple case and look at it this way:
>
>OK. However, I'm going more simple than you, to prove my point.
>
><snip an example of why my method doesn't work>
>
>Maggo the Mage has Vancian magic, without a Multipower. He has 10 spells
>memorized simultaneously.
>
>20 12d6 EB, One Charge (-2)
>20 4d6 RKA, One Charge (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 200 pts.
>
>Now, let us suppose that Maggo leaves the limits of Vancian magic behind for
>the limits of ritual based magic, which takes a very long time to cast:
>
>20 12d6 EB, Extra Time (-2)
>20 4d6 RKA, Extra Time (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 200 pts.
>
>The two sets of powers are exactly equal in points. Now, lets suppose I use
>your rules for creating Multipowers. Keeping them _exactly equal_, limiting
>them both in exactly the _same way_ all down the line, I get this:
>
>60 Multipower (60)
>2 u12d6 EB, One Charge (-2)
>2 u4d6 RKA, One Charge (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 70 pts.
>
>20 Multipower (60); Extra Time (-2)
>2 u12d6 EB, Extra Time (-2)
>2 u4d6 RKA, Extra Time (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 30 pts.
>
>Both are additionally limited in that only one spell can be cast at a time,
>but that is the _only_ additional limitation. So, they both start out even,
>but somehow the charges version ends up costing 133% more, for taking on
>_exactly the same limits_.
But it doesn't have exactly the same limits! Just because they have the
same value does *not* mean they are the same.
>Sorry, but I cannot agree that this is fair, as it stands.
If you want to Limit the MP in the first example, then use Charges: 10
Charges, because that's how many times the MP may be used, not one.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:35:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
> GM: So you wanna save your behind by Shrinking the nuke?
> PC: Yep!
> GM: OK, it's now become a critical mass. BOOM!
umm, he said Shrink not Density Increase.
==
=========================== Elliott aka The Egyptoid ==
=== JLA: Justice League Alabama === Central HQ ===========
=== http://www.sysabend.org/champions/elliott/index.html =
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: 02 Feb 1999 15:10:43 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"ML" == Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com> writes:
ML> Of course you can only target Accessible foci. Foci that provide
ML> defense always get hit however.
Foci that provide defense can use those defensive powers instead of their
calculated DEF. A suit of armor that provides 15 DEF has a DEF of 15, not
9.
ML> Donald brought up the point that you have to specifically target foci
ML> as well. Does this mean foci don't get damaged by incidental damage
ML> like Area effects? I'm not sure.
"In either case, the attacker must state before he makes his Attack Roll
that he's trying to hit the Focus."
So I would say that AoE attacks usually do not hit Foci. I think I would
rule that an AoE attack used specifically against a Focus would require
Selective, and that only that Focus is attacked.
Hmmm... I just figured something out. The reason why body armor does not
get destroyed willy-nilly is because while it is hit by the incoming
attack, it is not targeted by the incoming attack.
[...]
ML> It's not completly correct, but I'd probably let the OIF on the reserve
ML> and the slots have OAF on them.
I think Variable Limitation works much better in this regard.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2t1vCgl+vIlSVSNkRAlhsAJ9oosYFhDNRVlfebuSfQPaBPprJWgCg4Edw
9xNko6nr2qcpOie2ZEklqy0=
=iL/i
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ Earth, presumably from outer space.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 12:26:30 -0800 (PST)
From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
> > > I'd also like to know if anyone has had a nuclear bomb situation
in their
> > > games, if the bomb went off, and what happened.
Did it go off? well yes and no.
Meister-villain has rigged seven nukes in a ring around
home city. If demands not met, boom. Well we couldn't meet
his demands, couldn't get at him with his dea-man switch,
and couldn't get at the bombs because of their fail-safes
and idiot-proof rigging, which upon the absence of any
bomb, sets all remaining bombs off. What to do?
Well I was running a green-lantern clone, with a power-gem
that could handle any form of light, electromagnetics, and
TK-like force. My buddy was running a doc-strange type mage.
So we hatched up a plan. With my VPP, I could make us fully
inviso, and fly, and detect the bombs. The mage could make us
desolid, and "deal" with bombs, if he could only touch them.
So I held him, stealthed us in, and he tranformed the plutonium
into gold.
After we sneaked out, we assembled the team and confronted the
villain, and he pulls the switch. The detonators went off,
but it's real hard for gold to go critical, so it was no
worse than a large pipe-bomb at each location.
I know that wasn't what was asked for in this thread, but I
was reminded of that fun adventure.
==
=========================== Elliott aka The Egyptoid ==
=== JLA: Justice League Alabama === Central HQ ===========
=== http://www.sysabend.org/champions/elliott/index.html =
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:11:24 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Martial artist power
> I don't like it. I prefer the levels approach.
> This guy with mystic prowness still can't hit nearly as
> well as he can dodge. How would he build the offensive
> capabilty to hit?
That's the point. When utilizing this incredible defensive
maneuver, you're not attacking.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:09:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: RE: The Necrotron
> From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
>
> ] Some thoughts, though: how much magic do the PCs wield?
> Well, the warlock has a pool around 30pts. and about 6 spheres so he's
> fairly versatile but not that powerful yet. The Crusader has about 20pts. in
> his pool but his magic is focused on cranking up his STR and armour.
>
What kind of system are you using for the magic ?
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:06:13 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Martial artist power
> > And as Rat is sofond of saying, this would be a good campaign to
> >not play in. It is not an unreasonable concept
>
> In your opinion. Rat also happens to be fond of saying that this IS an
> unreasonable concept. :/
Very true, very true. Though I really see nothing unreasonable
with mystical unhittability when combined with the limitations inherent
with Desol.
> For some reason, this turn of phrase reminds me of my sister, who has told
> me before that driving 60 on a 55 road is "perfectly legal". I wasn't aware
> until then that "perfectly" means "in the absence of conservative authorities".
Are you suggesting a Desolid-based superdodge is illegal? What
book says anything like that?
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:08:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
> From: gilberg@ou.edu
>>
> >You used *Shrinking* on a nuke?! You do realise that that's effectively
> >what happens in reality, though explosive charges are used? (Read Tom
> >Clancy's Sum of All Fears for an entertaining description of this).
> >
> >GM: So you wanna save your behind by Shrinking the nuke?
> >PC: Yep!
> >GM: OK, it's now become a critical mass. BOOM!
>
> Would this work according to Shrinking? The power decreases
> something's size but also decreases the mass. For the Nuke to reach
> critical mass, it would need to be shrunk with it's entire mass.
>
Actually, I'm surprised to hear that the GM evidently let the shrinking
affect the power of the blast. It seems a 100D6 Explosion (or whatever the
nuke was defined as) is still a 100D6 explosion whether it comes from
a man sized object or an object 1/32nd the size of a man.
In other words, the shrinking power doesn't inherently 'weaken' the thing
being shrunk.
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:25:13 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Unity in Nerd Culture
> I got no problem with Pente (I don't think I've ever played it, so how
> could I?) and I use the stones myself. The *one* CCG I let myself get
You're missing a great game then. Sheesh, everyone playing these
new fangled games--give me the oldies but goodies like pente and chess.
> sucked into buying cards for was INWO, and that *only* because I enjoyed
> the classic Illuminati game. I use the Pente stones for the groups' action
> tokens. I suppose that's more or less what they're used for in Magic as well.
Hmmmm. The only "card" game I've played wasn't even the
collectable type. It was called Slasher, and it basically tried to enact
a typical slasher-flick with all of the genre conventions--stuff like
never having sex in a slasher-flick.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:20:47 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: GenCon 99
> New money for who,pale face?? Every sucessfull Card Game company or was
Pale face, moi? Learn a bit about your audience before making
such a quote. Not a rebuke, just a bit of irony.
> dumped by Wizard of Co$t or was purchased by them. And some RPG companies
> almost bankrupted because the Magic. Why launch new books if the kids are
> playing Magic? Look for Hero games? They didn't launch any new book since
> they quit from ICE. Now they are returning to the market with 6 new books
> (only 1 for Fuzion)
But it has kept stores in business. Some (not all) can still
carry lots of books basically funded by the card sales. T$R was about
ready to go under anyway, so the Wizards buyout helped--I might not be the
biggest fan of WotC, but I like 'em better than T$R.
Also, some players move over to RPGs after getting into the hobby
though cards. Some, anyway.
Finally, hasn't anyone seen the upside to the downturn by the
major gaming companies? T$R, RTG, FASA, West End, etc have all been
having problems because of various reasons, cards among them. However,
over the past couple of years I've noted an explosion of new companies
coming out with new RPGs. I'm not talking about new card games, I'm
talking about new RPGs--Noir, Feng Shui, The End, among others.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:33:13 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Ell Egyptoid wrote:
>
> > GM: So you wanna save your behind by Shrinking the nuke?
> > PC: Yep!
> > GM: OK, it's now become a critical mass. BOOM!
>
> umm, he said Shrink not Density Increase.
I think that GM forgot that shrinking decreased mass as well.
Side point:
So how much Density Increase usable on others would you need to set off
a suitcase full of plutonium?
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:29:50 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Martial artist power
Tim Gilberg wrote:
>
> > I don't like it. I prefer the levels approach.
> > This guy with mystic prowness still can't hit nearly as
> > well as he can dodge. How would he build the offensive
> > capabilty to hit?
>
> That's the point. When utilizing this incredible defensive
> maneuver, you're not attacking.
I feel there should be a counter. To me, levels with style disads works
cleaner without "weird" mechanics. That way you get the Yin & the Yang. :)
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:51:17 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
>
>You used *Shrinking* on a nuke?! You do realise that that's effectively
>what happens in reality, though explosive charges are used? (Read Tom
>Clancy's Sum of All Fears for an entertaining description of this).
>
>GM: So you wanna save your behind by Shrinking the nuke?
>PC: Yep!
>GM: OK, it's now become a critical mass. BOOM!
It would seem so on the surface, but you are wrong. Shrinking reduces mass
in proportion to the shrinkage, so the critical mass would not be achieved.
Now, if he had Shrinking and DI in proportion, so the mass remained the
same....
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:35:10 PST
From: "Jesse Thomas" <haerandir@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
On Mon, 1 Feb 1999 Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> wrote:
>60 Multipower (60)
>2 u12d6 EB, One Charge (-2)
>2 u4d6 RKA, One Charge (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 70 pts.
>
>20 Multipower (60); Extra Time (-2)
>2 u12d6 EB, Extra Time (-2)
>2 u4d6 RKA, Extra Time (-2)
>and so on for another 8 powers.
>
>Total cost: 30 pts.
>
>Both are additionally limited in that only one spell can be cast at a
time,
>but that is the _only_ additional limitation. So, they both start out
even,
>but somehow the charges version ends up costing 133% more, for taking
on
>_exactly the same limits_.
So, you're asking me why a guy who can cast 10 spells in less than a
minute with no END cost has to pay more than a guy who can only cast one
every 5 minutes?
>Sorry, but I cannot agree that this is fair, as it stands.
Whatever. If you can't see it, you can't see it. I'm satisified with
my interpretation. I've explained it as clearly as I can. It's obvious
you don't agree. We've reached the point of repeating ourselves. It's
time to stop. Some other time, perhaps.
Jesse Thomas
haerandir@hotmail.com
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 17:02:14 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
> Actually, I'm surprised to hear that the GM evidently let the shrinking
> affect the power of the blast. It seems a 100D6 Explosion (or whatever the
> nuke was defined as) is still a 100D6 explosion whether it comes from
> a man sized object or an object 1/32nd the size of a man.
Huh? You
> In other words, the shrinking power doesn't inherently 'weaken' the thing
> being shrunk.
But logic does come into play. For a nuclear explosion, you need
a certain critical mass to get that explosion--the use of this power
reduced the mass to less than critical. Were a GM to follow this up with
a "Too bad, shrinking doesn't do anything to a 100d6 EB because the rules
say it doesn't," well, that's a problem. I'd probably walk out on the
game and campaign. The rules should never get in the way of a good story.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:08:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
Mark Lemming writes:
> Side point:
> So how much Density Increase usable on others would you need to set off
> a suitcase full of plutonium?
Depends how much in the suitcase, and on how fast your DI activates. One level
would probably do it under ideal circumstances.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:23:51 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "ML" == Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> ML> Of course you can only target Accessible foci. Foci that provide
> ML> defense always get hit however.
>
> Foci that provide defense can use those defensive powers instead of their
> calculated DEF. A suit of armor that provides 15 DEF has a DEF of 15, not
> 9.
No argument there. I just was noting that even IIF's that provide defense
get hit anyways. I just wasn't very clear. One further note, the defense
is whatever is higher, though it usually is the defense of the power.
Example: A focus providing 10/0 armor (15 active) would still have 3 def
vs energy.
> ML> Donald brought up the point that you have to specifically target foci
> ML> as well. Does this mean foci don't get damaged by incidental damage
> ML> like Area effects? I'm not sure.
>
> "In either case, the attacker must state before he makes his Attack Roll
> that he's trying to hit the Focus."
>
> So I would say that AoE attacks usually do not hit Foci. I think I would
> rule that an AoE attack used specifically against a Focus would require
> Selective, and that only that Focus is attacked.
>
> Hmmm... I just figured something out. The reason why body armor does not
> get destroyed willy-nilly is because while it is hit by the incoming
> attack, it is not targeted by the incoming attack.
"Any Focus that provides defenses to the character is automatically
hit by any attack that hits the character." BBB softcover pg 106
In our groups we haven't enforced the breakage of foci very often. At least
not in combat. I'm pretty sure one of my PCs would of needed a new leather
jacket after most combats.
> ML> It's not completly correct, but I'd probably let the OIF on the reserve
> ML> and the slots have OAF on them.
>
> I think Variable Limitation works much better in this regard.
Points wind up the same. I prefer the Variable Lim as well, I just wouldn't
insist on it in this case.
This whole discussion is more of an exercise for me. I'm not happy with
the focus rules as written, but if I ignore the breaking rules, I can deal.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:57:20 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
>
>Actually, I'm surprised to hear that the GM evidently let the shrinking
>affect the power of the blast. It seems a 100D6 Explosion (or whatever the
>nuke was defined as) is still a 100D6 explosion whether it comes from
>a man sized object or an object 1/32nd the size of a man.
>
>In other words, the shrinking power doesn't inherently 'weaken' the thing
>being shrunk.
You misunderstood his tactic. For a nuclear weapon to detonate, you must
have a certain quantity of material Q, compressed to a certain density D.
The less material, the greater the density required.
A target with just over the "critical mass" needed for the weapon to go off
would, if shrunk one level, only have 1/8th the mass needed. Without a
massive increase in the density of the material to make up the missing mass,
the weapon would not detonate.
Some objects require a certain mass or size to do their job. Shrinking will
make these objects useless.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:39:22 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
<snip>
>>Both are additionally limited in that only one spell can be cast at a
time,
>>but that is the _only_ additional limitation. So, they both start out
even,
>>but somehow the charges version ends up costing 133% more, for taking on
>>_exactly the same limits_.
>
>But it doesn't have exactly the same limits! Just because they have the
>same value does *not* mean they are the same.
I didn't say that they did. I stated that the Multipower does not add new
limitations by its use to one that it doesn't add to the other.
>>Sorry, but I cannot agree that this is fair, as it stands.
>
>If you want to Limit the MP in the first example, then use Charges: 10
>Charges, because that's how many times the MP may be used, not one.
So, you contend that the Multipower _adds_ functionality to Powers limited
by Charges (by effectively allowing more Charges), that it doesn't add to
Powers limited by other Limitations, and thus Charges should not get same
benefits (by applying the Limitation to the Multipower cost).
Fair enough. However, while I might use that as a rule in my campaign, and
argue for it as a rule for 5th Ed., I don't see it anywhere in the BBB.
Charges needs to be revamped seriously. This is only one example. Additional
clarification on the use of Limitations with Multipowers is also a good
idea. If someone hasn't flagged this for Steve Long yet, someone should.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:20:13 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: LS and their effects on attack damage
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
<snip>
>Side point:
>So how much Density Increase usable on others would you need to set off
>a suitcase full of plutonium?
A suitcase full would immediately go into a minor explosion. The lack of
compression created by the explosives usually used would allow it to spread
out fast enough to only destroy its immediate area, but it could not survive
in such a large mass unless widely scattered.
Of course, you now have plutonium dust and vapor being scattered over a
significant area. Can you say, "lethal secondary radiation due to neutron
bombardment"? I knew you could.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:25:46 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
>But it doesn't have exactly the same limits! Just because they have the
>same value does *not* mean they are the same.
Neither does, in practice, the Charges. One has, in effect "May only fire
Energy Blast 4 times"; the other has "May only fire RKA 4 times". The same
limitation would be "May only use power 4 times"...which is the multipower.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:10:56 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"N" == Nuncheon <jeffj@io.com> writes:
>
>N> Actually, I'd guess 'nonselective' - if you're spreading an EB to fill a
>N> hex, you are not going to be able to target specifically.
>
>After re-reading the description, Spreading is definitely Selective AoE:
>Hex they way it is described, as a separate attack roll is required for
>each separate target within the Hex.
I think you missed what he's saying Rat, and I think on reflection I agree
with him; not that you don't have to target each thing seperately in the hex
(which I always agreed on) but that you don't get to choose _not_ to target
some...for example, if you spread to fill the hex, and the target is holding
a hostage, you have to try and hit both.
That's the difference between Selective and Nonselective remember; just
hitting the area is, well, hitting the area, which spreading clearly doesn't do.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 18:45:46 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: Martial artist power
At 03:06 PM 2/2/99 -0600, Tim Gilberg wrote:
>> For some reason, this turn of phrase reminds me of my sister, who has
>> told me before that driving 60 on a 55 road is "perfectly legal". I
>> wasn't aware until then that "perfectly" means "in the absence of
>> conservative authorities".
>
> Are you suggesting a Desolid-based superdodge is illegal? What
> book says anything like that?
No, because you didn't say it was "perfectly legal", you said it was
"perfectly reasonable". Ergo, I'm suggesting it's ... um ...
"ilreasonable". :]
More specifically, I'm saying it's guaranteed of being "reasonable" only in
a vacuum. All characters are "reasonable" until your GM takes a look at them.
- --
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing." -- attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the SoapVox at http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 15:20:28 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>
>> > Don't forget the -2 for targeting foci. The only advantage you get
>> >with this form of attack is you don't seem to get any negative modifiers
>> >like you get for sweep for attacking multiple targets.
>>
>> Sure, but that's true when aiming at any focus. The issue was whether it
>> was harder to blow multiple OAF slots off than one big OIF. To my take on
>> it, not much, if at all.
>
>Of course you can only target Accessible foci. Foci that provide defense
>always get hit however. Donald brought up the point that you have to
>specifically target foci as well. Does this mean foci don't get damaged by
>incidental damage like Area effects? I'm not sure.
I'd find that a damn silly interpetation. After all, part of the reason
Foci have to be targeted seperately is that they're often significantly
smaller than the character...in fact, in almost all cases but power armor
and the like. Area Effects don't consider how big or small a target is
(except for Selective and Nonselective ones). And who says you can't target
Inaccessible Foci? Why bother to make them breakable otherwise?
Accessiblity has to do (on characters; vehicles are a little different) with
taking them away in combat, i.e. their grabbability. If you can find any
reference that says you can't target IFs for damage, i'd sure like to hear it.
>
>Another thing I re-read in the rules:
>Spreading EB is an optional rule. (Well, everything is really.)
>I leaning toward it being like a non-selective AOE:Hex(s).
That's largely my take on it.
>
>The other part that is wierd is a Multipower is counted as one power when
>breaking foci.
Well, I'd suspect they weren't thinking in terms of the multipower of foci
in that sentence. On the other hand, I've seen one of the three designers
use one in a game, so I somehow don't think they consider it a great evil.
It's just not the common case of a focused multipower.
>
>It's not completly correct, but I'd probably let the OIF on the reserve and
>the slots have OAF on them.
My current feeling how it should be done.
>
>I don't really like the breaking foci rules that much, but that has more to do
>with a past experience. The player brought this in one game:
>1d6 RKA, Area effect, selective, penetrating
>One game was enough.
Personally, I went back to something closer to the old rule where foci have
1 DEF and 1 BODY per ten points (five point breaks get the Body but not the
DEF) and have been much the happier for it.
------------------------------
Date: 02 Feb 1999 19:26:35 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"ML" == Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com> writes:
ML> Example: A focus providing 10/0 armor (15 active) would still have 3 def
ML> vs energy.
But only for itself; you do not get 3 rED out of the Focus. Just
mentioning it so nobody gets any bright ideas. :)
[...]
ML> "Any Focus that provides defenses to the character is automatically
ML> hit by any attack that hits the character." BBB softcover pg 106
Yeah, I know. It makes Foci that provide defenses utterly useless.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2t5e7gl+vIlSVSNkRAjZsAJ48UTJGvBHGy7ACa4FxONbfvmCoVACg373T
JNdC0/MZHRd4kKd8fna53KM=
=O3xa
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 19:35:33 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: RE: Unity in Nerd Culture
>From: bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com (Brian Wawrow)
>>In terms of Magic as an intro to gaming, I
>> have found that for someone who's never
>> really thought about how to approach 'being'
>> a mage, it's a decent intro to the genre.
>> Once you put the idea of dragons and trolls
>> into somebody's head, the math comes
>> easier. I've brought a number of people into
>> Hero, usually via Magic. I've also brought
>> people into Magic that didn't make it to Hero.
>> No problem, they weren't worthy.
I admit that I'm surprised WotC, now that they and TSR are one, haven't
tried to put together a full-blown MAGIC RPG or supplement for AD&D to
entice Magic players into buying their other product.....
"Many bears talk"
"Somehow I wouldn't have reckoned they had a lot to say."
"Talk Goddamn head off. Always got something to say about bees."
- --Jonah Hex and Spotted Balls, JONAH HEX: SHADOWS WEST
_______________________________
An except from the new story "The Smoking Glass Grin" can now be found
at MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj, along with "The Net," a complete story
from the archives....you've been warned.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 17:27:33 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Foci talk
Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
> >Of course you can only target Accessible foci. Foci that provide defense
> >always get hit however. Donald brought up the point that you have to
> >specifically target foci as well. Does this mean foci don't get damaged by
> >incidental damage like Area effects? I'm not sure.
>
> I'd find that a damn silly interpetation. After all, part of the reason
> Foci have to be targeted seperately is that they're often significantly
> smaller than the character...in fact, in almost all cases but power armor
> and the like. Area Effects don't consider how big or small a target is
> (except for Selective and Nonselective ones). And who says you can't target
> Inaccessible Foci? Why bother to make them breakable otherwise?
> Accessiblity has to do (on characters; vehicles are a little different) with
> taking them away in combat, i.e. their grabbability. If you can find any
> reference that says you can't target IFs for damage, i'd sure like to hear it.
BBB softcover: Page 105 first sentence.
"An Inaccessible Focus can't be hit with a Grab or a ranged attack while the
character is in combat."
They probably mean target.
Now they don't say you can't target them with a punch...
The rules that say that any Focus that provides defense is automatically hit
when the character is.
So your 5/5 FF, IIF ring with a whopping 2 def will get blown away by a bullet
doing 6 body. Even if aimed for the head.
And I agree, silly results can be had by following the rules too closely.
I'm hoping Steve Long caught these problems. I hadn't looked at the Foci
rules that closely for quite some time, so I didn't point it out when it
should of been.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: 02 Feb 1999 20:43:01 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
WS> Neither does, in practice, the Charges. One has, in effect "May only fire
WS> Energy Blast 4 times"; the other has "May only fire RKA 4 times". The same
WS> limitation would be "May only use power 4 times"...which is the multipower.
Everyone sing along, now. o/~ Back where we started / Here we go 'round
again / Back where we started / C'mon do it again / Do it again
doitagain...
x2 END on a Multipower reserve means, 'the powers in each slot in this
Multipower cost x2 END to use'. Activation 14- on a Multipower reserve means,
'the powers in each slot in this Multipower have 14- Activation roll'. 4
Charges on a Multipower means, 'the powers in each slot in this Multipower
may be used 4 times'.
If you need to make an exception for Charges, I resubmit that Charges is
the problem, not Multipower.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2t6mkgl+vIlSVSNkRAp3bAJ9H7YG5xmssGomHSCgv3jbbkZflPwCg/UhP
9AtPR4lo3R0CyvXH3hPFMKE=
=1nU5
- -----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: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 21:25:20 -0500
From: "dflacks" <dflacks@ican.net>
Subject: Necromacy Limitation / Fantasy World
Hello Fantasy Hero Players / GMs
I am trying to put together my own campaign world, and have run into a
question. I am not sure what value to give to the following Necromantic
Limitation.
Caster must kill at least 1 Body pip of creatures per 5 points of the spells
active cost.
This is the keystone of Necromancy in my proposed world. Note that human /
sentient sacrifice is not required. A player could choose to be a
necromancer, and restrict himself to cows and horses. Most necromancers
will be NPCs who have no problem with killing people. It is a lot less
suspicious to walk through the city with a group of people than a herd of
cattle.
The nature of magic in my campaign means that the same spell with have
different limitation depending on the mage or cleric involved, but some
limitations are required by the style of magic used. This does mean that I
can not really create a spell book of predefined spells, however.
Before anyone asks, I do not have a web page. I should get around to that
eventually.
Right now I have some very basic history and geography, fairly complete
rules on magic, a set of deities, and several races defined. I also have
some bare bones ideas about martial arts. The rest is still to come. I am
hoping for some inspiration from the lists while I continue finalizing the
Magic rules.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Constructive criticism and questions cheerfully accepted. Flames and
insults automatically trashed.
Daniel Flacks dflacks@ican.net
Give me ambiguity or give me something else
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 18:37:28 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: RE: Unity in Nerd Culture
>>>In terms of Magic as an intro to gaming, I
>>> have found that for someone who's never
>>> really thought about how to approach 'being'
>>> a mage, it's a decent intro to the genre.
>>> Once you put the idea of dragons and trolls
>>> into somebody's head, the math comes
>>> easier. I've brought a number of people into
>>> Hero, usually via Magic. I've also brought
>>> people into Magic that didn't make it to Hero.
>>> No problem, they weren't worthy.
>
>I admit that I'm surprised WotC, now that they and TSR are one, haven't
>tried to put together a full-blown MAGIC RPG or supplement for AD&D to
>entice Magic players into buying their other product.....
Actually I toyed with the idea of a Dominia Hero book, a clever way to get
WOTC cash and buyers interested in Hero products, but when WOTC bought TSR
I dumped the idea. Would have been a lot of work for little return except
contempt from RPG purists anyway.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #180
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 09:28 AM