Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 218
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 7:42 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #218
champ-l-digest Friday, February 26 1999 Volume 01 : Number 218
In this issue:
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Skill Web (was Re: Aberrant)
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Help me with a few concepts
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
variable power pools
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: it's all about defense
RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: variable power pools
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: it's all about defense
Re: CHAR: Cybermen
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: Robot PCs
Re: it's all about defense
Re: Reincarnating at 11 or less...
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Hero at Origins 99?
I'm Back! So, what have I missed?
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: variable power pools
Re: Robot PCs
Re: it's all about defense
Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Re: it's all about defense
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 10:38:50 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Rob Rutherford <mirage@dhc.net> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| Personally I would go for the write up in the book (5D6 NND), just to
| keep everything somewhat standard.
And hope your GM isn't an ex-EE major like I am :).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21sAKgl+vIlSVSNkRAkTLAJ9YDrPeSkGRf3uX58oKRzf2RJ1gzwCdFntz
JS87zSySXu1FjfCtoCt0W0M=
=4yjr
- -----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 08:55:54 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
> 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).
OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
understanding how this works....
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:53:45 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
>* Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net> Thu, 25 Feb 1999
>| Drain cannot kill?
>
>Adjustment powers function on Active Points. How many Active Points does 0
>Body cost? None. How many Active Points does -1 Body cost? None. If you
>cannot buy or sell it for Active Points, an Adjustment Power cannot affect
>it.
So you believe that when you sell off stats below 0 you get no points back?
And that it is not possible to drain any statistic or power below 0?
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:01:08 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
Christopher Taylor wrote:
>
> > 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).
>
> OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
> matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
> effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
> understanding how this works....
Then you might as well call it "No Range" or "8 Charges".
- -Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:41:41 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 08:55 AM 2/26/99 -0800, Christopher Taylor wrote:
>> 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).
>
>OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
>matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
>effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
>understanding how this works....
Something which is OAF can be disarmed in combat, and taken away
completely after combat. EXAMPLE: Dumbo's magic feather (at least,
psychosomatically).
Something which is OIF cannot be disarmed, but can be taken away after the
fight. EXAMPLE: A rocket pack.
Something which is Restrainable (-1/2) CAN be disarmed (effectively), but
can NOT be taken away after the fight. EXAMPLE: Wings.
Got it?
- --
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:03:12 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Skill Web (was Re: Aberrant)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
>Curt Hicks writes:
>
>> I think the complementary skill rolls in Hero take the place of the skill
>> web in Shadowrun. The only use for a Hero 'skill web' I see would be to
>> clarify what skills are complementary to each other.
>
>Well, that and group skill levels, since any group skill level is supposed
to
>be with a related set of skills.
Well, as the rules stand now, and assuming minimal changes, yes. A Language
Chart-like modification to skill costs would also work, but that would be a
moderate change at least, rather than a minimal one.
It would, however, have the advantage of solving at least some of the
problems observed in the costs of skill based characters in a super-power
oriented game.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 13:53:26 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
| >Adjustment powers function on Active Points. [...]
Thank you for posting a private message to a public mailing list.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21u2lgl+vIlSVSNkRAloYAKDw8uQcFBEiHYyfbiI6owKcKwTl9wCg19JF
px3/7ZUIXJYMZI4pus6/R7g=
=C6lH
- -----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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:48:32 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
But Restrainable has neither the cost nor the effect of the focus.
Typically, it indicates something like wings which are obviously the source
of the power, can be disabled by a Grab or an Entangle, but can't be taken
away. Hence, it is an OAF that can't be removed, if you want to look at it
that way, and is worth half the Limitation of the OAF.
Going further with that logic, if the Restrainable power weren't obviously
restrainable, it would be an IAF that couldn't be taken away: halving the
Focus value, it becomes a -1/4.
If it's the equivalent of an OIF that can't be taken away, well, since
Inaccessable Foci can't be restrained, it would get no bonus. Same for
IIF's.
But, I'm just babbling, now.
JAJ, GP
>OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
>matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
>effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
>understanding how this works....
------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 13:23:36 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does
| it matter so much to you what the name is?
Linked has the same bonus. Are you going to say his wings are Linked?
The name of the limitation usually you *EXACTLY* how the power is
restricted. That's it.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21uaogl+vIlSVSNkRAv3eAJ9rea1h3NzJGjhNzeOE8Vn+baqHkQCguvR/
55+YSTxdtuvDTVGVsd3iyQ4=
=qb+p
- -----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 12:02:58 -0700
From: "Terry Wilcox" <terry@arcane.com>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
>OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why
does it
>matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
>effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am
I not
>understanding how this works....
Restrainable doesn't have the same effect as focus.
A focus can be taken away. A bad guy can make off with Captain
America's shield, so the shield is a focus.
Compare that to the original Angel (before he turned blue). His wings
are part of him. They're not a focus because they can't be taken away.
You can restrain them, but you're not actually taking them away. If I
was creating Angel, I'd buy extra limbs and put gestures on my flight.
On the claws-as-a-focus issue, saying that claws are a focus because
they can be broken is the same as saying that Cyclops' eyes are a
focus because they can be poked out with a stick.
A focus is something that isn't part of you. It's a tool.
Terry Wilcox
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:00:03 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
>-----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.
Exactly. The burns are incidental; they can be ignored, the way a man with
an 8 PD pummelled into unconsciousness by a 4d6 attack ignores the bruises.
They are SFX of taking STUN damage.
>It
>happens rarely enough to make it very difficult to accurately model real
>stun guns and prods and such.
Aye, there's the rub.:) Of course, that applies to everything, but such is
life (as opposed to role-playing games).
>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.
Which is why, if the GM doesn't mind using them to kill, I'd suggest a BODY
Drain.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:12:51 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
It's kind of like gestures and incantations. The limitation values are the
same for both but they're different limitations, aren't they? Having
restrainable wings is actually more like gestures than focus since a grab or
entangle shuts down the power, dig? Oddly enough, flight that requires
gestures throughout its use is also a -1/2 limitation. A harness with
mechanical wings would have both the OIF [-1/2] and the wings [-1/2] disad.
] > 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).
]
] OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same
] cost, why does it
] matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
] effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it
] exist? Or am I not
] understanding how this works....
]
] --------------------------------------------------------------
] ------------
] Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
] Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
] --------------------------------------------------------------
] ------------
]
------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 13:20:37 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Help me with a few concepts
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Rob Rutherford <mirage@dhc.net> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| There are other factor to take into acount, like frequeny, (tasers I
| think are between 20 KhZ and 60 KhZ,
Frequency is the frequency an alternating current (AC) alternates polarity.
The abbreviation is kHz (Hz is Hertz) -- like I said, hope your GM isn't an
ex-EE major :).
Tazers and stun guns are DC, their current does not alternate polarity,
thus the concept of frequency is meaningless.
Household current is 60Hz in the US, 50Hz in the UK. You will rarely find
AC anywhere but household current; everything else is DC.
60kHz is at the low end of the AM radio band (AM radio is 54kHz to 170kHz).
| I don't know what an electric chair is.).
DC.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21uX0gl+vIlSVSNkRAsTrAKDfsEKR3oEylDs+aW5G5JmeZTeRoACfWd95
z1RyLNCcvClRVo11GmpDNZQ=
=tHgu
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:45:13 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
>| OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does
>| it matter so much to you what the name is?
>
>Linked has the same bonus. Are you going to say his wings are Linked?
>
>The name of the limitation usually you *EXACTLY* how the power is
>restricted. That's it.
Well, since he went on to mention in the portion you chopped out that he
believed they also did the same things, that's hardly a fair response.
If you want to argue that Restrainable and Focus don't do the same thing,
that's fine, though.
JAJ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:34:03 -0500
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com>
Subject: variable power pools
A couple of months ago, during the last instance of the horrible 'linked'
debate, the issue of firing attack powers in parallel was raised. The idea
being that if you have two attack powers that aren't linked or anything and
both could be active simultaneously, you could fire both at the same target.
The legality of this was hotly debated and left in the 'to be decided by
house rules' pile.
So, assuming that house rules allow this, what are the nuts and bolts of
opening two powers in a VPP and shooting them at the same time. Example.
PlasmaPunk has a plasma-based 60pt. cosmic power pool. He opens a 4D6RKA
with -1 worth of limitations, thus he's used 30pts. of real cost in his
pool. Then, he opens an 8D6EB Explosive with another -1 worth of limits, so
his pool is full. Now, can he fire both? Do both attacks have to have the
same target? Do they both use the same attack roll? If both have a skill
roll as part of their limits, do they use the same skill roll? Would you add
the active points together for the penalty on the skill roll?
Has anyone dealt with this kind of thing?
BRI
Brian Wawrow
Financial Models Company
"Do or do not. There is no try."
- - Yoda
------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 15:04:23 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| The name of the limitation usually you *EXACTLY* how the power is
| restricted. That's it.
Ahem. The name of the limitation usually TELLS you *EXACTLY* how the power
is restricted.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21v5Ggl+vIlSVSNkRAhOEAJ9y7bb5VgwB5dNG8NPBiLppV7sEFwCePDpz
VmDJ0lEtpf5u/jQdhv79sUo=
=JJjR
- -----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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 11:11:55 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 08:55 AM 2/26/99 -0800, Christopher Taylor wrote:
>> 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).
>
>OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
>matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
>effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
>understanding how this works....
The main reason to name it differently is to avoid confusion.
If I say that an attack is Armor Piercing but treat it like Penetrating,
then it's really Penetrating even though I'm calling it Armor Piercing.
All my referring to it as Armor Piercing achieves is confusing people.
Similarly, if it doesn't work like Focus, then don't call it Focus or
people will get confused.
- ---
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: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 12:32:44 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>
>>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.
That is a distinct possibility. However, you might just create a DEF cap.
After all, you should have had one to begin with, but, since you were in a
fantasy rather than a superhero setting, didn't believe it necessary. I
submit that it is, now.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 13:28:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: RE: FOCUS ?!?!?!
On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Christopher Taylor wrote:
> > 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).
>
> OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
> matter so much to you what the name is?
Because the name is what tells you what the limitation is. OIF is the
same limitation value as Requires a Skill Roll, but they have completely
different effects.
If you put the Focus limitation on a power, it means that power can be
taken away without harming the character. Wings are therefore not a
focus, unless they're on a jetpack or something like that. (I suppose
that if a character could shed their wings and have them grow back - like
a lizard losing it's tail - then you might call them a focus.)
> If restrainable has the same
> effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist?
It doesn't have the same effect as a Focus.
OIF: You can tell that the power comes from a Focus. If the person is
helpless, you can take the Focus away in one turn out-of-combat.
Restrainable: You can prevent the person from using the power by
keeping them from using the appropriate part of their body.
Examples: Flight
No limitations: Like Superman - up, up, and away!
OIF: Like a Legion of Super-Heroes Flight Ring - you fly like Superman but
you can't do it if someone takes the ring away.
Restrainable: Like Angel - you fly by moving your body, so if you can't
(for example) flap your wings, you can't fly.
Clearer now?
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: 26 Feb 1999 16:40:50 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: variable power pools
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@fmco.com> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| The legality of this was hotly debated and left in the 'to be decided by
| house rules' pile.
Fifth edition makes it official: you can use more than one power in a
single attack (and please, there is no such thing as an 'attack power';
there are powers used to make attacks, a few of which may also be used as
defenses).
| So, assuming that house rules allow this, what are the nuts and bolts of
| opening two powers in a VPP and shooting them at the same time.
Zero, you may perform exactly *ONE* attack action during your action phase,
regardless of how many powers you activate.
One, you have to have sufficient Endurance to use the powers (one figures
that this is a given).
Two, each power is applied against defenses individually. That is, if you
have two 6D6 Energy Blasts, you roll 6D6 twice, and defenses are applied
separately. Powers which affect defenses are applied last.
Three, Stun does not combine for purposes of Stunning. Ie, the multiple
powers are treated like hits from an Autofire attack rather than a
coordinated attack.
Now we get into the not quite set in stone issues. These are my opinions,
and I think they go a long way towards keeping things balanced.
Four, Knockback is figured much like multiple hits from an Autofire attack:
Body from the power that does the most Body + 1 for each additional power
that does any Body. How many knockback dice are rolled is based on the
power that does the most Body. If it is an RKA, 3d6; if it is an EB, 2d6.
Five, total damage classes from all powers used in an attack cannot exceed
campaign guidelines. This is now the most controversial idea. I believe
that this is the only thing that keeps this from utterly unbalancing the
game.
All that said and done, here are the answers.
| Example. PlasmaPunk has a plasma-based 60pt. cosmic power pool. He opens
| a 4D6RKA with -1 worth of limitations, thus he's used 30pts. of real cost
| in his pool. Then, he opens an 8D6EB Explosive with another -1 worth of
| limits, so his pool is full. Now, can he fire both?
Yes, but he is still limited to 12DCs (assuming a 12DC campaign) worth of
powers in his attack. Any combination is allowed, so long as the total DCs
in the attack do not exceed the campaign maximum for attacks.
| Do both attacks have to have the same target?
Yes; there are multiple powers being used, but it is one attack action.
| Do they both use the same attack roll?
Yes; see previous.
| If both have a skill roll as part of their limits, do they use the same
| skill roll?
No; each power uses its own skill roll.
| Would you add the active points together for the penalty on the skill
| roll?
No; see previous.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21xTigl+vIlSVSNkRAjGTAJ4oDfX7dRfYtNMntAkostLMFvsXxACgkCvU
qE/UG0JQx5uvoZM2rtLWYrM=
=rMvc
- -----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: 26 Feb 1999 16:44:14 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
* "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
| Well, since he went on to mention in the portion you chopped out that he
| believed they also did the same things, that's hardly a fair response.
For the first time in this list's history I have some 30 people saying the
same thing I did. You might not think it is fair, but everyone else does.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE21xWugl+vIlSVSNkRAgKOAJ9ZfGQZWk48GsznrW5heHLSSBBqKACeN2e4
3ujI0WP5xNrs+l2CVNsaAI8=
=OXeW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:05:37 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
>
>From: Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com>
>
>
>>
>>>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.
>
>That is a distinct possibility. However, you might just create a DEF cap.
>After all, you should have had one to begin with, but, since you were in a
>fantasy rather than a superhero setting, didn't believe it necessary. I
>submit that it is, now.
Though not a bad idea, that doesn't necessarily address the issue that even
with a cap, the force field may be an overly cheap way to make yourself
resistant to damage compared to other methods.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 99 22:54:39
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Cybermen
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:21:35 -0500 (EST), Michael Surbrook wrote:
>Cybermen are artifical life forms grown from seeds. Nappa creates a
>half-dozen to fight the Z-fighters in an effort to have some sport before
>taking over the earth.
Awww.... there was me thinking you were doing the Dr Who cybermen.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:35:07 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
The original poster made the statement about how "if they are the same level
of limitation, why call them different names". He then went on to express
the feeling that the two limitations were the same in their effects.
Taken by itself, the first statement is absurd, as many people on this list
did, indeed, gleefully point out. Taken together, as they should have been
taken, they make perfect sense. I will dispute, of course, and in fact DID
dispute that the limitations were the same, but I will NOT dispute that
limitations that have the same bonus and the same effect should be called
the same thing. That's silly.
But that is what the hypothetical 30 people were disputing, if they were
taking his entire comment into account.
The fact is, the statement was wrong, but it was wrong because they don't do
the same thing.
JAJ, GP
- -----Original Message-----
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
To: Champions <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Friday, February 26, 1999 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>* "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to> Fri, 26 Feb 1999
>| Well, since he went on to mention in the portion you chopped out that he
>| believed they also did the same things, that's hardly a fair response.
>
>For the first time in this list's history I have some 30 people saying the
>same thing I did. You might not think it is fair, but everyone else does.
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQE21xWugl+vIlSVSNkRAgKOAJ9ZfGQZWk48GsznrW5heHLSSBBqKACeN2e4
>3ujI0WP5xNrs+l2CVNsaAI8=
>=OXeW
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>--
>Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
>Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \
>PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 99 23:17:09
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Robot PCs
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:39:26 -0500, David Stallard wrote:
>One of my players is considering playing a Robot character. This idea
>started out as a generic Gadgeteer type, but now the character wants to be
>some sort of sentient machine that can repair/enhance itself to meet
>different situations.
How about the Spirit Rules?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 18:18:57 -0500
From: "Dave Mattingly" <dave@haymaker.win.net>
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
What if magical and normal defenses didn't stack? That way, the first 20
points or so of a spell would just be catching up to what's already there.
Dave Mattingly
http://haymaker.org
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 99 23:15:03
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Reincarnating at 11 or less...
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 21:20:20 -0800, Jim Dickinson wrote:
>> Actually I've had the idea of a reincarnation skill which
>> determines how much is
>> passed on... and how fast you reincarnate... to the next self for
>> a long time,
>> hmmm how to implement this in hero.
>
>
>That just sounds so definitely odd to have levels of proficiency in reincarnating...
>
>"No! No! Send HIM in first...he is better at reincarnating than I am!!!"
The Computer is your friend.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 99 22:59:39
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 15:48:20 +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 ???
How often are they going to get broken? The claws can't be easily
removed from the character, and are thus not a Focus; OIHID is a
possible.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:48:48 -0500
From: David Stallard <DBStallard@compuserve.com>
Subject: Hero at Origins 99?
Any chance that Hero Games will be at Origins 99? I think I saw somewhere
that Hero was hoping to have preview copies of Hero System 5th Edition
available at GenCon, which leads me to believe they don't plan to be at
Origins. Last year Hero said that they were skipping Origins because
GenCon is bigger and they wanted to concentrate on being ready for that (or
something like that). It sounds like they're confident that 5th Edition
won't be ready until late Q2 at least, but I don't know if any other
releases will be out around that time (not sure what's happening with New
Millennium supplements, but I use that setting so I'd be happy to see it
crank back up). I'm assuming that having a new product to release is a
motivator for companies to show up at cons, but I'd be happy to see them
either way.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:54:50 PST
From: "Jack Scarecrow" <themadharlequin@hotmail.com>
Subject: I'm Back! So, what have I missed?
Hello Fellow Sentients,
I am back. It's been a few months.
Were they any character posts or significant conversations since I
left?
Has anyone left the list?
I have oodles of ideas to share once I get used to being on the
list again.
Hope to hear from you soon.
Jason
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:08:58 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
>> > 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).
>>
>> OK stop me here if Im wrong but... if they have the same cost, why does it
>> matter so much to you what the name is? If restrainable has the same
>> effect as a focus can and has the same cost why does it exist? Or am I not
>> understanding how this works....
>
>Then you might as well call it "No Range" or "8 Charges".
But they do the same thing basically dont they? That would be the point
of the sentance that started "If restrainable has the same
effect as a focus..."
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:22:13 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: variable power pools
>| The legality of this was hotly debated and left in the 'to be decided by
>| house rules' pile.
>
>Fifth edition makes it official: you can use more than one power in a
>single attack (and please, there is no such thing as an 'attack power';
>there are powers used to make attacks, a few of which may also be used as
>defenses).
You know if we keep this up we will end up in the realm of Wizards of the
Coast and their godawful rulesmongering for Magic: the Gathering. The game
used to be fun until they made so many rules that no mere mortal can know
them all. IRS agents look at the M:TG rules books and run screaming.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:52:27 -0800
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Robot PCs
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 14:39:26 -0500, David Stallard wrote:
>
>>One of my players is considering playing a Robot character. This idea
>>started out as a generic Gadgeteer type, but now the character wants to be
>>some sort of sentient machine that can repair/enhance itself to meet
>>different situations.
>
>How about the Spirit Rules?
>
>qts
Oh, ick. Don't say that! :0
They shouldn't be necessary, anyway. Just take a small variable pool and
then also set some points aside at the beginning to be used to buy new
things (as the GM allows, of course). Always take some of your points and
set them aside to continue this process. If you run out of points, you have
reached the limit of your ability to enhance yourself.
Self-repair would probably be a bit of Regeneration, of course. Maybe an Aid
bought in the VPP or Multipower, instead.
JAJ, GP
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 99 23:12:55
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: it's all about defense
On Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:54:27 -0500, Brian Wawrow wrote:
>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.
Why bother? Remember the thread about Gandalf and Tolkein? Every time
they use a high-powered spell, Major Bad Guy sends some Major Muscle to
eliminate this threat. They learn to moderate their power usage.
You are enforcing END rules aren't you? send LOTS of critters at them,
then, when they're low on END, the major nasties turn up...
Put them in situations where they can't use their spells - enforce the
Limitations. Maybe the Crusader is too dependent upon his deity's
power, so the deity sends him on a quest without (or with only a
subset) of his power. And why is the pool under the PCs control? It
should be the deity that controls it (Great Fromash, save us from these
monsters!)
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:14:46 -0800
From: Nic Neidenbach <naneiden@iswest.com>
Subject: Re: FOCUS ?!?!?!
At 11:45 AM 2/26/99 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>>
>If you want to argue that Restrainable and Focus don't do the same thing,
>that's fine, though.
>
Restrainable evolved from the idea of having Wings as Focus. If you look at
the villains produced by Hero Games years ago, before the introduction of
Restrainable, you'll see the use of OAF (and sometimes OIF) was the norm.
Wings as a focus is logical from the standpoint of it being something the
character had to use in order for the power to work. However, it breaks
down when you look at the fact that they can't actually be taken away like
a focus is supposed to be.
Obvious Restrainable should be the first choice for the limitation. But, I
think that arguing that using the focus imitation to represent wings
instead of restrainable is similar to using No Range is getting away from
being a positive discussion. If someone asks for advice, or asks why people
prefer a certain definition, its better to state a clear reason than to
start getting belligerent. Restrainable is a much better choice of
limitation for wings than is Focus, but lets be frank, no one would ever
dream of using Charges or No Range.
Remember, the idea here should be to present new ideas in a supportive
atmosphere. Lets avoid making people feel bad should their opinions or
ideas not mesh with our own.
Just my observation,
- -Nic
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 15:20:17 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
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.
>
>That is a distinct possibility. However, you might just create a DEF cap.
>After all, you should have had one to begin with, but, since you were in a
>fantasy rather than a superhero setting, didn't believe it necessary. I
>submit that it is, now.
I have always just capped certain powers and made others not available
(watch the fun when a wizard casts Density Increase on himself... cheap,
terrifying, suddenly, he's unstoppable with a minor defensive spell or item).
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #218
*****************************
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