Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 217
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 10:13 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #217
champ-l-digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 217
In this issue:
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: it's all about defense
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: [ Re: Help me with a few concepts]
Re: it's all about defense
Re: [ Re: Help me with a few concepts]
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: it's all about defense
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: it's all about defense
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: it's all about defense
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 10:52:50 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| I don't want to restart the flame war, but are you actually claiming
| that a taser is as deadly as a Police Special? That a hit to the head
| or vitals can be considered lethal to the average man with an average
| roll?
Actually, yes. It is unlikely, but as I stated the last time around, a
solid electric shock can induce cardiac arrest. If that is not remedied
quickly, it will be fatal.
Maybe a 1/2d6 would be a better base power in a 4-color game.
Or a small EB with a large Stun-only EB somehow tied to it and dependent on
the small EB doing damage... NND?
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21XHSgl+vIlSVSNkRAm4JAKDbPjTXqQiSsWYFewUdIjOePPrgyQCfYMa+
N7L9tCnik+4+ZgASYHR8LL8=
=9lj1
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 10:58:09 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Black Bishop <BISHOP@bdc2.sirnet.it> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| But there is another problem : Another player wanted to do a character that
| an use his claws to fight and he told me "Well, if someone broke my claws I
| can't use 'em (Like Wolverine versus Sabretooth lately) so why I can't get
| a -1/4 limitation ???
As far as Focus is concerned, breakability comes after accessibility. Can
someone steal his claws? If the answer is 'no', they are not a Focus.
If he wants claws that are not a Focus but can still be broken, the value
of the limitation depends on how frequently they will be broken. If they
are broken every session, I could see upwards of a -1 bonus. Once in a
blue moon? -0, sorry.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21XMRgl+vIlSVSNkRAs6SAJ4wR+gNzhckY1M24Lj4b2AO0SkzHwCgrYdn
MrECnFg8UAzpKeLdlECQ8YI=
=Ubgx
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:04:35 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
> > Simple, and very 4-color. Why penalize this character for a very
> >4-color conception?
>
> The "very 4-color" route would be 0 END. I'm fairly certain I've seen more
> 4-color characters run out of ammo (usually at a dramatically appropriate
> moment, a la "no more web fluid!") than fatigue themselves by firing a
> completely external weapon.
Nah, you always see those characters take a quick breather,
ducking behaind a handy mailbox or dumpster before popping out for another
few shots. 0 END would be quite 4-color, but this conception is not at
all invalid, or uncommon, for a 4-color world.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:55:42 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 03:48 PM 2/25/99 +0100, Black Bishop wrote:
>Hi Folks =)
>I had a lot of problems lately with the Focus question :
>ok I will try to explain
>
>1) there were in our campaign a guy that had the power to use his bones to
>create really sharp blades
>that's ok I suppose and does not require Focus of course
>But there is another problem : Another player wanted to do a character that
>an use his claws to fight and he told me "Well, if someone broke my claws I
>can't use 'em (Like Wolverine versus Sabretooth lately) so why I can't get
>a -1/4 limitation ???
>(Like Panthera in a sourcebook that I can't remember)
For the record, I rewrote Pantera's claws to remove the focus effect.
Generally speaking, this sort of thing is a special effects matter.
>I'd agree with it I think it is right but I am not really sure about it
>Like it, the Lady Skorpion, a mutant that has a scorpion tail, would a -1/2
>Limitation (OIF) 'cause "it is simpler to break my tail that his claws no ?
>and I couldn't use my venom powers without it"
>and I think it is right again no ?
I can see Restrainable on this (Entangle or Disable the tail, and it can't
be used), but not Focus. Generally speaking, one should be capable of
reliably removing a Focus in between a Turn and a minute (and that's being
generous with time constraints), without surgery and/or special tools. I
would consider all this limb-breaking to be impromptu surgery. :]
> Well, now, reading the Robot PG idea, one of my players decided to
> create ? one
> He wanted to use Automaton Rules (and I agree with it)
> But now... the weaponry... I think it should be an OIF... am I Right?
If it's modular (can be removed according to the constraints above), it
would be a focus. If it's permanently bolted into the character's form (i.e.
no more removable than any other part of his body), it's not a Focus.
- --
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 12:53:43 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| As you may remember, I'm running a FH game where magic is done with VPP's.
| The problem I'm running into is that as the pools get bigger, I'm starting
| to see some ridiculous rPD's on the characters. The crusader now averages
| about 20rPD across his body.
This is what campaign guidelines are for. If the campaign guidelines say
'max PD: 15', it means max PD: 15.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21Y4ngl+vIlSVSNkRAk31AJ4pQhp3/XL+aCMSFuLY0BUjTaROOQCcCf9t
dbLlfSHPsRL9PqelnRYZlLU=
=dgWG
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:33:25 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
>Yep, that is a good second choice. The reason I shy away from that is that
>the ratio of Stun to Body is not as extreme as I think it should be. I
>suppose Reduced Penetration could be used to get around that....
That's what I would recommend. If someone were going for extreme realism, I
might give it a BODY Drain, assuming that you allowed Drains to kill in your
campaign. This would allow for the fact that if you get hit too many times
in too short of period, you die, but if you are given a few hours to recover
each time, you could get hit fairly frequently without dying. The burns,
though nasty, are not bad enough that 10 would kill an average man;
therefore, they may not be "BODY" damage, the same way that the inevitable
bruises you would get when being pummeled unconscious are not always BODY
damage, if your PD is higher than the BODY damage of each punch.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 99 12:13:12 MST
From: ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> * Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com> Wed, 24 Feb 1999
> | Ok, call it half-normal body or something.
>
> Hero has no such animal.
Reduced Penetration is pretty close.
So is a partially 'limited,' say, 6d EB, 3d of which are: 'STN only -0'...
> Damage is either 'normal' or 'killing'. So
> rather than going with a needlessly complex linked power structure (see
> another post), I suggest using a small RKA with a big Stun Multiplier.
Anything over a pip would be pushing it, but I wouldn't mind ducking
under the minimum cost for it... and it get's to ignore normal ED...
Not sure if that's good or bad...
y'know, maybe some people just have a Susceptability to being TASERed...?
> --
> Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
> Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
> PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 14:40:36 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| each time, you could get hit fairly frequently without dying. The burns,
| though nasty, are not bad enough that 10 would kill an average man;
Thing is, it is not the burns that are the lethal (at least not the most
lethal) aspect. It is the shock itself inducing cardiac arrest. It
happens rarely enough to make it very difficult to accurately model real
stun guns and prods and such. I figure it is easier to use a Killing
Attack for the base, so that the Body damage increases with each hit,
making it more likely that successive shocks will induce cardiac arrest.
For a more realistic effect, you can either wing it or slap a limitation on
the KA that says that this 'damage' is healed more quickly than normal.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21ac0gl+vIlSVSNkRAqGFAJ9fvm4ttGEK/PwnC+0tzMVWiz/cEgCfYeFM
rBrjAE2C3q5Qy6xRNwvc6SM=
=2Fhj
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 99 12:30:17 MST
From: ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [ Re: Help me with a few concepts]
Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> wrote:
> Then again, this is for a comic-book tazer. The real thing is more complex
> and expensive:
>
> * Base: 1/2d6 RKA, No Range, NND: Electrical Insulation (such as heavy
> winter clothing, ballistic fabric body armor, etc), NND Does Body Damage.
> * Stun Effect: 5d6 EB, NND: Base RKA must do at least 1 point of Body
> damage, No Range.
> * Long-term Effect: 5d6 Dexterity Drain, Recovery 5/Minute, NND as Stun
> Effect.
>
> The EB and Drain can be increased as voltage increases; the base RKA should
> remain the same unless amperage is increased (unlikely in a hand-held unit).
Wow, that's a very complete analysis. I just have to wonder if it's not
a bit beyond the pale. I mean, guns and knives, just for instance, in
Hero simply do STN and BOD damage, yet, IRL, such a wound will impair
movement, cause bleeding, get infected, and could include nerve
or other damage that inflicts long-term or permanent impairment, not
to mention post-traumatic stress...
There's no need for that sort of detail, especially in a game, /especially/
in a superhero game, where combat tends to be a tad idealized anyway.
So guns, knives, and poisons (for that matter), can be KAs, and TASERs
and the like can be STN-only EBs (and really nasty ones could be
Rpen or straight EBs...) or NNDs.
The kind of detail above would be very apropriate in an heroic game
that used the Bleeding and Disabling optional rules, though... Probably
as an adjunct to those rules, rather than built into the power...
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:41:49 -0800
From: david_mckee@FileMaker.COM (David McKee)
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
Hi Brian!,
>So, I think I'm going to yank the armour/force field spells from everyone's
>grimoires and replace them with alternative defenses. For example damage
>As you can imagine, I'm expecting heavy resistance from the players. Does
How about a surprise campaign event?
I'm not sure how your game world/magic system works, but it seems
to me that your magic is a mystical elemental force that can be
shaped in your world.
You also seem to indicate that even though these characters seem
to me to be veterans/high level, you want them to still be
"accessible" to mundane dangers. This would mean to me that
magic should be less powerful, or concentrated.
I would allow the characters to keep the spells, for now, and
immediately start working on a master plot. Have some dark
force plot to take control of "magic" at the source, and
throw your players into the center of the maelstrom.
Design the module such that if the evil person succeeds, then
all magic would be under her/his/its control. If the
players succeed, magic is somehow fundamentally effected
by the evil person's method of trying to wrest control.
As such, magic is changed, and all characters (player or
otherwise) have to redesign, recoup, or even *relearn* magic.
At that point, you can keep closer control of the effect
magic has, and also have a valid and reasonable explanation
for why "magic can't do that anymore."
Hope this helps! =)
- -Dave
>G'Day all,
>
>As you may remember, I'm running a FH game where magic is done with VPP's.
>The problem I'm running into is that as the pools get bigger, I'm starting
>to see some ridiculous rPD's on the characters. The crusader now averages
>about 20rPD across his body. So, he's all but invincible against normal
>weapons. Likewise, the warlock's force field is getting too big to ...
>[ahem] fit the genre.
>
>So, I think I'm going to yank the armour/force field spells from everyone's
>grimoires and replace them with alternative defenses. For example damage
>reduction, extra BOD, extra non-resistant PD and so on. I'll still allow
>force walls but I want to ditch the huge personal force fields in the
>interest of keeping mundane weapons dangerous.
>
>As you can imagine, I'm expecting heavy resistance from the players. Does
>anybody have any helpful suggestions for other ways I can deal with this?
>
>Oh, by the way, thanks to everyone who helped me with the mechanics for the
>zombie stew in my Necrotron adventure. My players were really intimidated by
>the whole mess. They procrastinanted for an hour, trying to find something
>to do that didn't involve going down... into the pit.
>
>Thanks,
>BRI
>
>Brian Wawrow
>Financial Models Company
>
>"Do or do not. There is no try."
>- Yoda
>
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 16:01:31 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [ Re: Help me with a few concepts]
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| There's no need for that sort of detail, especially in a game, /especially/
| in a superhero game, where combat tends to be a tad idealized anyway.
I know that, which is why I presented the simple, less realistic, but
entirely more playable version first.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21borgl+vIlSVSNkRApWAAJwP/ALz98Wz0xYpLqgDzmWvJnIzfwCgl7UR
PRoUqQ8AmR9KVU04791FBss=
=vMNW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ returned to its special container and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ kept under refrigeration.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:00:41 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>* shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw) Wed, 24 Feb 1999
>| So make it a normal attack. That'll still do Body, but won't do it to
>| everyone, every time. Under your way if you tasered most people once a day
>| for six days they'd be dying, and it doesn't work that way.
>
>As I said, the ratio of Stun to Body of normal attacks is not in keeping
>with what tazers do, and applying Stun Multiple to EB is... something you'd
>find in European Enemies :).
Then do as you suggested and apply reduced penetration. But as it is, the
killing attack misrepresents the attack at least as badly as just calling it
Stun Only would.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:55:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
On 25 Feb 1999, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> * "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
> | each time, you could get hit fairly frequently without dying. The burns,
> | though nasty, are not bad enough that 10 would kill an average man;
>
> Thing is, it is not the burns that are the lethal (at least not the most
> lethal) aspect. It is the shock itself inducing cardiac arrest. It
> happens rarely enough to make it very difficult to accurately model real
> stun guns and prods and such. I figure it is easier to use a Killing
> Attack for the base, so that the Body damage increases with each hit,
> making it more likely that successive shocks will induce cardiac arrest.
>
> For a more realistic effect, you can either wing it or slap a limitation on
> the KA that says that this 'damage' is healed more quickly than normal.
That's actually a good idea. I'm not sure that the BODY damage would last
as long as BODY damage from being cut, either - if I got shocked by a
taser 6 times, is it going to take as long for me to heal as getting shot
twice? I don't think so. Maybe the possibility of killing would best be
done as a Major Transform (person to person in cardiac arrest)? This
would also have the advantage of making it explicit that you couldn't,
say, use a taser/stungun/whatever to, say, cut things, break down walls,
etc. (OK, you could do that with 'only vs living beings' as well I
suppose)
If you wanted the chances to go up as you shocked the person more, make
part of the Transform cumulative. Thus the more times you shock the
person the more likely it is that they'll go into cardiac arrest. Of
course, Transform BODY damage doesn't heal very quickly either. Hmm.
At a guess, the drain recovery rates would be tweakable to provide
something approaching the 'realistic' values.
On the other hand: if it's for a comic-book campaign, nobody is going to
die from a taser unless it suits the writers, so call it a 0-point
limitation: 'can be lethal under certain circumstances'.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:03:04 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
>So, I think I'm going to yank the armour/force field spells from everyone's
>grimoires and replace them with alternative defenses. For example damage
>reduction, extra BOD, extra non-resistant PD and so on. I'll still allow
>force walls but I want to ditch the huge personal force fields in the
>interest of keeping mundane weapons dangerous.
>
>As you can imagine, I'm expecting heavy resistance from the players. Does
>anybody have any helpful suggestions for other ways I can deal with this?
Change the cost of the Force Fields instead. Like TK, this just happens to
be an effect that is unpreportionately powerful in that kind of setting, and
needs to be handled appropriately.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 16:21:37 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| That's actually a good idea. I'm not sure that the BODY damage would
| last as long as BODY damage from being cut, either - if I got shocked by
| a taser 6 times, is it going to take as long for me to heal as getting
| shot twice? I don't think so. Maybe the possibility of killing would
| best be done as a Major Transform (person to person in cardiac arrest)?
CHEEZE!
I'd suggest using Drain before Transformation, except that a Drain cannot
kill -- for that you use a Killing Attack (duh :).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21b7hgl+vIlSVSNkRAoLXAKCtMOAckwuOFZc/m6X5sylji2Rt9gCdFQew
tUZ7ys7hELx6zwRhYb3KuhM=
=c7Rs
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:56:03 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com>
Subject: RE: it's all about defense
In fact, the situation is like this. These are veteran players but fairly
new characters who have started at low point levels. By the end of our next
session, they will just be getting up to 150pts. This is the end of the
campaign's prologue section. See, I'm trying some new stuff in this
campaign, including using VPP's for magic. At this point, the crusader has a
15pt. pool and the warlock has a 30pt. pool. Even at these relatively low
levels, force fields and armour, combined with physical armour, ensures that
neither of them will take any BOD from anything but the heaviest of
non-magical attacks. You just can't get much damage past 20rPd unless you've
got a 5 or 6D6 HKA.
So, the fact that we're approaching the end of the prologue means that this
is an excellent time to review the campaign restrictions/house rules and
change what needs changing. I don't really want to use a plot device to
trick the players out of their armour, I'm going to make them see why it's
better to avoid huge DEF If I want to run them up against a more powerful
spellcaster with a 60pt. pool or something, how are they going to deal with
a 60rPD force field? If I ditch the big DEF's and replace them with things
like extra BOD or damage reduction then most attacks will do a little damage
instead of none.
]
] I'm not sure how your game world/magic system works, but it seems
] to me that your magic is a mystical elemental force that can be
] shaped in your world.
]
] You also seem to indicate that even though these characters seem
] to me to be veterans/high level, you want them to still be
] "accessible" to mundane dangers. This would mean to me that
] magic should be less powerful, or concentrated.
]
] I would allow the characters to keep the spells, for now, and
] immediately start working on a master plot. Have some dark
] force plot to take control of "magic" at the source, and
] throw your players into the center of the maelstrom.
]
] Design the module such that if the evil person succeeds, then
] all magic would be under her/his/its control. If the
] players succeed, magic is somehow fundamentally effected
] by the evil person's method of trying to wrest control.
]
] As such, magic is changed, and all characters (player or
] otherwise) have to redesign, recoup, or even *relearn* magic.
]
] At that point, you can keep closer control of the effect
] magic has, and also have a valid and reasonable explanation
] for why "magic can't do that anymore."
]
] Hope this helps! =)
] -Dave
]
]
]
]
] >G'Day all,
] >
] >As you may remember, I'm running a FH game where magic is
] done with VPP's.
] >The problem I'm running into is that as the pools get
] bigger, I'm starting
] >to see some ridiculous rPD's on the characters. The crusader
] now averages
] >about 20rPD across his body. So, he's all but invincible
] against normal
] >weapons. Likewise, the warlock's force field is getting too
] big to ...
] >[ahem] fit the genre.
] >
] >So, I think I'm going to yank the armour/force field spells
] from everyone's
] >grimoires and replace them with alternative defenses. For
] example damage
] >reduction, extra BOD, extra non-resistant PD and so on. I'll
] still allow
] >force walls but I want to ditch the huge personal force fields in the
] >interest of keeping mundane weapons dangerous.
] >
] >As you can imagine, I'm expecting heavy resistance from the
] players. Does
] >anybody have any helpful suggestions for other ways I can
] deal with this?
] >
] >Oh, by the way, thanks to everyone who helped me with the
] mechanics for the
] >zombie stew in my Necrotron adventure. My players were
] really intimidated by
] >the whole mess. They procrastinanted for an hour, trying to
] find something
] >to do that didn't involve going down... into the pit.
] >
] >Thanks,
] >BRI
] >
] >Brian Wawrow
] >Financial Models Company
] >
] >"Do or do not. There is no try."
] >- Yoda
] >
]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:27:56 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 03:48 PM 2/25/99 +0100, Black Bishop wrote:
>Hi Folks =)
>I had a lot of problems lately with the Focus question :
>ok I will try to explain
>
>1) there were in our campaign a guy that had the power to use his bones to
>create really sharp blades
>that's ok I suppose and does not require Focus of course
>But there is another problem : Another player wanted to do a character that
>an use his claws to fight and he told me "Well, if someone broke my claws I
>can't use 'em (Like Wolverine versus Sabretooth lately) so why I can't get
>a -1/4 limitation ???
>(Like Panthera in a sourcebook that I can't remember)
>I'd agree with it I think it is right but I am not really sure about it
>Like it, the Lady Skorpion, a mutant that has a scorpion tail, would a -1/2
>Limitation (OIF) 'cause "it is simpler to break my tail that his claws no ?
>and I couldn't use my venom powers without it"
>and I think it is right again no ?
Well, if someone breaks my arm, I can't use that either. The defining
factor of a Focus is not that it can be broken, but that it can be taken away.
I suppose, though, that you could grant a -1/4 Limitation for something
that is obvious, targetable, and breakable like an OIF, but can't be removed.
>Well, now, reading the Robot PG idea, one of my players decided to create
one
>He wanted to use Automaton Rules (and I agree with it)
>But now... the weaponry... I think it should be an OIF... am I Right ?
>Please tell me if I am right
If you're the GM, then you're right. Generally speaking, though, a
robot PC could have any level of Focus that the player and GM agree are
appropriate, from the flimsiest OAF to no Focus at all.
- ---
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, 25 Feb 1999 17:25:29 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
> Then do as you suggested and apply reduced penetration. But as it is, the
> killing attack misrepresents the attack at least as badly as just calling it
> Stun Only would.
I'm getting the impression that Rat is really after the stun
lotto effect here. How about a -0 modifier on the KA, damage treated like
normal damage?
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:37:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: RE: it's all about defense
> From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com>
> As you can imagine, I'm expecting heavy resistance from the players. Does
> anybody have any helpful suggestions for other ways I can
> deal with this?
So, you're actually looking for help to convince your players, rather than
a in-game rationale for what happens to their spells, correct ?
> In fact, the situation is like this. These are veteran players but fairly
> new characters who have started at low point levels.
>
> So, the fact that we're approaching the end of the prologue means that this
> is an excellent time to review the campaign restrictions/house rules and
> change what needs changing.
If they're veteran players, just explain it to them as you have below.
You believe the game will be more fun if the characters can be challenged
by mundane weapons. Otherwise, give your counter-example of NPC's with
the high defenses. But actually, the trick here is to avoid having to
escalate in order to provide the players with a decent challenge.
> I don't really want to use a plot device to
> trick the players out of their armour, I'm going to make them see why it's
> better to avoid huge DEF If I want to run them up against a more powerful
> spellcaster with a 60pt. pool or something, how are they going to deal with
> a 60rPD force field? If I ditch the big DEF's and replace them with things
> like extra BOD or damage reduction then most attacks will do a little damage
> instead of none.
Sounds reasonable to me. Particularly since you're still allowing damage
reduction and extra body... If you were really being hard-nosed, you wouldn't
even have to do that.
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:26:47 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
>
>> Now, I know that you think that the burns from a taser should be
>> considered a killing attack, though I still do not know why they
>> couldn't be a normal attack, since they also create burns and can kill
>> if used over and over again. But do you really think a 1d6, the same
>> as a .32 caliber pistol, is appropriate?
>
> Actually, he stated that this would be a good fictional taser.
I'm not certain I understand. Are you claiming that fictional tasers are
more lethal than real-world tasers?
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:12:27 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
> > Actually, he stated that this would be a good fictional taser.
>
> I'm not certain I understand. Are you claiming that fictional tasers are
> more lethal than real-world tasers?
Quite possibly.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:04:41 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>* "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
>| That's actually a good idea. I'm not sure that the BODY damage would
>| last as long as BODY damage from being cut, either - if I got shocked by
>| a taser 6 times, is it going to take as long for me to heal as getting
>| shot twice? I don't think so. Maybe the possibility of killing would
>| best be done as a Major Transform (person to person in cardiac arrest)?
>
>CHEEZE!
>
>I'd suggest using Drain before Transformation, except that a Drain cannot
>kill -- for that you use a Killing Attack (duh :).
Be nice if everyone was as sure that Drains couldn't kill as you are, Rat,
but that's not the case. And yes, I've heard your argument about it before.
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 20:14:15 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| I'm getting the impression that Rat is really after the stun
| lotto effect here.
More or less. Tazers do a little bit of physical damage (burns) and *HUGE*
quantities of shock damage. That's what you get when you hit someone with
around 100mA at 200kV -- and if you think that is absurdly high, top-line
stun guns pump out 300kV from just a couple of 9v batteries.
For comparison, household current is 1A at 110-120 Volts, and an
executionary 'electric chair' is 7-12A at 2,000-2200 Volts (though that
varies from state to state). A defibrillator is 50 Amperes at 5kV. That's
right, that's more power than an electric chair. Admittedly, an electric
chair's current is sustained for 60-90 seconds, whereas a defibrillator's
current lasts for microseconds.
A current as low as 75mA can induce cardiac arrest, even in an otherwise
healthy individual.
| How about a -0 modifier on the KA, damage treated like normal damage?
Only if you think sticking your finger in a power socket should be treated
as such :).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21fVngl+vIlSVSNkRAnlSAJsEr+H2MzhPZ8d9OFoa5K44fBlxUgCg1Ex1
wlz0m+kkLOc1fpx5hc7wc5U=
=/8Dd
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ of skin.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:59:19 -0800
From: "Jim Dickinson" <ethernut@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
>
> As far as Focus is concerned, breakability comes after accessibility. Can
> someone steal his claws? If the answer is 'no', they are not a Focus.
>
I don't buy into that specific statement, Rat. Wyvern's wings are taken with the focus limitation... Are you saying that his wings can be taken away? Why not grant the limitation because his wings can be rendered unusable with an entangle, grab, etc.?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:15:32 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Jim Dickinson wrote:
> > As far as Focus is concerned, breakability comes after
> > accessibility. Can someone steal his claws? If the answer is
> > 'no', they are not a Focus.
>
> I don't buy into that specific statement, Rat. Wyvern's wings are
> taken with the focus limitation... Are you saying that his wings can
> be taken away? Why not grant the limitation because his wings can be
> rendered unusable with an entangle, grab, etc.?
It's a bad idea to use a published character for a rules question.
They often violate the rules. Instead of using Focus, think of
the limitation that Wings give. I think most people place it at
- -1/2. Hey, that's the same as OIF!
Focus is a better limitation for items that can be taken away
without hurting the character. If there is someway to disable
a power through fairly normal means, give the character a
limitation. Just don't call it a focus.
- -Mark
------------------------------
Date: 25 Feb 1999 22:32:49 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* "Jim Dickinson" <ethernut@earthlink.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
| I don't buy into that specific statement, Rat.
By the book, a Focus can be taken away from its owner. That is the only
thing that determines if it is a Focus or not.
| Wyvern's wings are taken with the focus limitation... Are you saying that
| his wings can be taken away?
I'm saying his wings are not a Focus.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21hXggl+vIlSVSNkRAig/AKCqDUkqQVGlhkz8eXcdkS4wJn6EEwCgqNlk
Nz05XTONGS9EFAC8QefM3uU=
=s3pR
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 00:47:49 -0600
From: Rob Rutherford <mirage@dhc.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> * Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
> | I'm getting the impression that Rat is really after the stun
> | lotto effect here.
>
> More or less. Tazers do a little bit of physical damage (burns) and *HUGE*
> quantities of shock damage. That's what you get when you hit someone with
> around 100mA at 200kV -- and if you think that is absurdly high, top-line
> stun guns pump out 300kV from just a couple of 9v batteries.
>
> For comparison, household current is 1A at 110-120 Volts, and an
> executionary 'electric chair' is 7-12A at 2,000-2200 Volts (though that
> varies from state to state). A defibrillator is 50 Amperes at 5kV. That's
> right, that's more power than an electric chair. Admittedly, an electric
> chair's current is sustained for 60-90 seconds, whereas a defibrillator's
> current lasts for microseconds.
>
> A current as low as 75mA can induce cardiac arrest, even in an otherwise
> healthy individual.
>
> | How about a -0 modifier on the KA, damage treated like normal damage?
>
> Only if you think sticking your finger in a power socket should be treated
> as such :).
There are other factor to take into acount, like frequeny, (tasers I
think are between 20 KhZ and 60 KhZ, I don't know what an electric chair
is.). And yes just a few mA can induce cardiac arrest, but only if the
current reached the heart. Hint don't go grabbing car battery terminals
if you have cust on both hands. :-)
And since electricity is so unpredictable, the stun lotto is in some
respect accurate. But tasesr are far less lethal the say a .22. but the
GM's should decide for thenselves how dangerous one really is.
Personally I would go for the write up in the book (5D6 NND), just to
keep everything somewhat standard.
Rob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 06:34:45 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 05:59 PM 2/25/99 -0800, Jim Dickinson wrote:
>>
>> As far as Focus is concerned, breakability comes after accessibility. Can
>> someone steal his claws? If the answer is 'no', they are not a Focus.
>>
>
>I don't buy into that specific statement, Rat. Wyvern's wings are taken
with the focus limitation... Are you saying that his wings can be taken
away? Why not grant the limitation because his wings can be rendered
unusable with an entangle, grab, etc.?
I'm definitely with Rat on this one. The basic meaning of the Focus is
that the Power comes from something other than the character himself, and
as such it can be taken away without surgery.
Look at the third paragraph under "Accessible or Inaccessible?," fourth
sentence: "IF removing a Focus would cause damage, or removing the Focus
would require surgery, then it is not really a Focus, and the character
receives no bonus." Also, the last sentence in the same paragraph:
"Normally claws (natural or artificial) are not a Focus, unless they can be
removed."
Using Focus to represent claws, wings, and other body parts is a misuse
of the Limitation. Instead, use the Restrainable Limitation from HSA1, or
just Gestures from the main rules (which amount to the same thing IMO).
- ---
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
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #217
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 10:36 AM