Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 410
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 12:50 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #410
champ-l-digest Friday, June 18 1999 Volume 01 : Number 410
In this issue:
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Draining Innate abilities
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Castling
Re: Castling
Re: Castling
Re: Castling
Re: Castling
Full Strength Beers (was The Metric System)
Re: Castling
Re: Castling
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:31:25 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
At 06:46 AM 6/18/99 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 12:15 AM 6/18/1999 -0700, Christopher Taylor wrote:
>>OK Champions 5th is comin out, and we all know a little about what it will
>>have different, how bout sounding off on the top 5 things that you wish
>>they had changed or added, whether they did or not?
>
> Mine:
> 1. Remove the "free Energy Blast" (punch/squeeze damage) from TK, and
>reduce its cost to 1:1 STR. (Squeeze damage could be an "add-on" for a
>+1/4 Advantage.)
This would be a good idea. There were reasons why it was done this way
prior to the 4th ed.
> 2. Charges is worth an extra -1/2 Limitation (or +1/2 less Advantage)
>on a Power that normally does not cost END.
Sounds reasonable.
> 3. All of the Powers and Power Modifiers currently found in the Base,
>Vehicle, Computer, Automaton, and Equipment sections near the end of the
>rulebook are moved into the main character construction chapter, with the
>rest of the rules for building these constructs immediately following
>character construction.
And reconciled with PC character construction, a la the Incomplete
Character rules.
> 4. Add +5 points per 2X DNPCs.
Oh! A very good idea that I've never run across or thought of before,
despite several occasions where I had DNPC groups. I don't have my BBB
handy, but now I'm wondering - has a Variable DNPC evern been explicitly
allowed? Every game I've ever run or played in has allowed the "friend in
need for the duration of the adventure" construction, but I'm not sure if
the official DNPC description mentions it.
> 5. SPD rounded down to the next lower integer does not count toward the
>single Figured Characteristic that may be "bought down." (This would be
>rarely used in superheroic games, but good for the occasional heroic-level
>or talented-normal game.)
>
Sounds reasonable. I'm pretty generous with multiple characteristics being
bought down, since I've never played with anyone who abused the
construction. The abuse is clearly possible though. I wouldn't mind seeing
things made a little more flexible while still structured enough to stop
the abusers.
>>2: Area Effect Any have double the hexes, its pathetic as written
>
> I'll agree there; it does become pretty pathetic at its current level,
>compared to the other AE versions.
For the right power, it can be very handy. But no more so than a radius
effect with Selective Target, I'd say, so the drastic difference in area
doesn't seem warranted.
>>4: Reduce the cost of Shrinking to 5 points per level like DI and Growth
>>(reducing the DCV bonus to +1 DCV per level).
>
> Sensible, but logistically difficult in other ways.
>
Shrinking and Growth might never settle into a consistent structure that
works right. It seems worth another try, though. And speaking of free
Energy Blasts wrapped into powers, Shrinking is a darn good offensive power
as written in the 4th edition; I'd be happy to see that eliminated.
>>5: A hard and fast rule on the limit to power that a Transformation can
>>give (active cost limit based on the amount total that can be rolled,
>>perhaps with a way to increase this like with Absorb, Aid, and Transfer).
>
> Yes, this would be a nice thing....
I'd be glad to have it as long as it included the mechanism to increase the
power given. There are too many transformations that increase power in
fiction to just make a blanket ruling that Transform can't do so, or can
only do so to a fixed degree.
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:28:00 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
At 10:31 AM 6/18/1999 -0400, Bill Svitavsky wrote:
>
>>>4: Reduce the cost of Shrinking to 5 points per level like DI and Growth
>>>(reducing the DCV bonus to +1 DCV per level).
>>
>> Sensible, but logistically difficult in other ways.
>
>Shrinking and Growth might never settle into a consistent structure that
>works right. It seems worth another try, though. And speaking of free
>Energy Blasts wrapped into powers, Shrinking is a darn good offensive power
>as written in the 4th edition; I'd be happy to see that eliminated.
Actually, this one isn't so bad. To use the Growth Momentum from
Shrinking, the character has to turn his Shrinking off. Thus, it can only
be used every other Phase (he has to turn it back on the next Phase, and
then wait until the Phase after to use it again), and the character doesn't
get the bonus for Shrinking during the Phases in which it's used. All in
all, I'd call that a nice set of limitations to discourage its abuse. :-]
It's kinda like using Telekinesis to lift someone way up into the air
and let them drop at terminal velocity. This could have been a horrible
problem, until Steve Long came up with a way to limit it in TUM: objects
being moved with TK can only be moved a distance equal to a Standing Throw
each Phase. This allows a 40 STR TK (the maximum under a 60-AP game under
4th Ed) to lift a normal human 12" per Phase; it'd tale 9 Phases to get the
target high enough to drop at terminal velocity. Even with my preference
of a 1:1 cost for TK, with a maximum STR of 60, the telekinetic could only
move the target 20" per Phase, and would take 6 Phases to get the target to
a terminal-velocity altitude. Add to that the 6 segments it'd take for the
character to actually fall from such a height, and the chance of actually
getting that 30d6 of damage delivered goes down somewhat.
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 08:39:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joe Mucchiello <jmucchiello@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Draining Innate abilities
- --- Filksinger <filkhero@deskmail.com> wrote:
> From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
>
> > At 05:00 PM 6/17/99 -0400, David Nasset wrote:
> > >From: Joe Mucchiello [SMTP:jmucchiello@yahoo.com]
> But I do, because I don't GM that way. Why? A variety of reasons. I
> don't always have perfect players, or even complete control over my
> game (such as to be able to kick someone out without losing the
entire
> campaign, or even worse, friends), or various other reasons. I don't
> want to have to argue with someone who doesn't think Power X is
> reasonable and demands that I take it away from Player X because he
> doesn't like the power, its game effects, or the fact that Player X
> got 50 pts extra for free. Or argue with someone who bought a 30 pt
> Power and is expected to reduce the overall power of the character to
> balance things, because the SFX make it equal to a 60 pt Power. Or
> argue with some guy who insists Power X is perfectly reasonable, and
> demands that I make it cheap enough for his character.
Well, I cannot argue with your bad players. IMO, you should let them
have the out of balance power and then make it not worth their while to
use it in game. Give your campaign elephants x2 BODY vs Drain Growth
and then have children complaining that the heroes have killed the
city's elephants. :-)
> I have found that many otherwise reasonable players _need_ rules to
> keep them in bounds, when it comes to some constructs. And some
> otherwise reasonably good GMs need them as well. I don't want a GM to
> have to make those kinds of decisions to run a game, and for the most
> part, HERO doesn't require them too often. All I want is a mechanism
> for properly pricing powers that are generally not going to be
> drainable by most SFX.
But how common are Drains in your games? I don't ever see these kinds
of problems coming up so often. I think you will just get into debates
with you power gamer who wants his alien from Katmi with the Innate HKA
claws.
> The vast majority of SFX will not allow you to steal the size from an
> elephant, the intangibility from an intelligent fog, or the lack of
> needing to breathe of a robot. This means that these powers either
get
> more protection from drain, via SFX, than most other, similar powers,
> or they get drained for stupid reasons. I have played in a number of
> games like this, and, frankly, they sucked.
You still see Drain as stealing points. That's not what it does. I
just removes a troublesome game mechanic. Players usually complain
about Drains stealing stuff. As a GM, I take a more enlightened
approach. :-)
> Or you find a way to make people pay for being immune to a Power when
> using most SFX. Which I have found quite playable, without any of the
> hassles I found playing it your way.
I'd rather see the "Advantaged" advantage in this case. I don't think
you will always know what is Innate and what is not at character
creation. Just like you cannot forsee all SFX interactions at
character creation.
> I prefer to have rules that mostly maintain play balance on their
> own. If I didn't, I'd play FUDGE or something.
And HERO rules mostly do maintain play balance. The section of SFX is
what mucks it up. If you want to know absolutely what can and cannot
happen in play, use GURPS. There is a rule for everything in that
damned system.
> > Drain is the name of HERO Power construct which alters the number
> > of Active Points in a target's specified HERO Power construct. The
> > ghost has a HERO Power construct, Desolidification, which makes it
> > able to move through walls and be immune to most HERO Combat
> > effects. This HERO Power construct defines the ghost's physical
> > nature. To alter its physical nature, you have to remove the HERO
> > Power construct which defines said nature. Whether you Drain the
> > active points from the construct, or remove the construct with
> > Transform, the net result is a change to the ghost's character
> > sheet: Desolification is no longer active/there.
>
> I have decided that I am fighting the wrong battle here. While I
think
> the mechanism for doing this is cleaner by making some powers immune
> to Adjustment powers, say via Innate or some similar Advantage, I
> would be willing to let Drain be the Power to remove powers, even
> Innate ones. But I still want a mechanic that gives me what Innate
> does, vs most SFX of Drain.
Well, I'm glad you no longer think I'm daft for wanting to use drain to
solidify a ghost. I still say Innate will not cover everything you
want to cover. When Wolverine meets Edward Scissorhands' HKA Drain old
Logan is going to cry Innate. ("They're made of ADMANTIUM!!!")
> > >There are many objects that are, simply by their physical
> composition,
> > >already something humans are not. Elephants are big. Helium is
> lighter
> > >than air. Mist is vaporous. Humans need 'Powers' to become these
> things;
> > >Growth, Flight, or Desolidification, respectively.
I was thinking about this again. If Helium lad can control his flight,
i.e. he doesn't just ascend to the stratosphere immediately, then Drain
vs Flight SFX Gravity Manipulation can remove that CONTROL.
> > HERO would be a better system if all characters started as nothing
> > and all of the default powers had to be bought. I do believe a
> > standard human costs 145 points or so to be able to breathe, see,
> > hear, etc.
>
> And would have died long ago. I like the idea, too, but it is much
> harder to work than you might think. Take it from someone who tried
> it.
You just print the default powers on the standard character sheet. If
someone wants to remove one, cross it out. Not that I've tried this.
> > You never did answer how you apply "equal" levels of Shrinking and
> > Growth at the same time. If you use Shrinking UAO on an elephant,
> > the tiny elephant does not lose any hexes of extra reach that if
> > had while normal sized. If you use the Transform, it costs much
> > more.
>
> And if you want to Shrink elephants and humans and cats, then the
need
> to have Shrinking, UAO _and_ Drain Growth ups the cost past
Transform.
> _And_ you get a Power that makes elephants weaker as they shrink, but
> not humans. And other anomalies as bad as the one you mentioned.
Take back your _And_: Transform also makes the elephants weaker. They
no longer have Growth. Just because there is a cheaper way with
Transform does not mean it is the right way. Why not make a character
who only has 1D6 cumulative transforms to accomplish all of his powers?
It's probably cheaper in the long run.
> > >As is often true, the SFX
> > >of truly unusual Powers are never properly defined ("It uses flux
> > >energy."), resulting in no proper way to tell if a Drain Desolid
> works
> > >on a character who is naturally made of mist, and, if it does,
> doesn't
> > >properly explain why it doesn't make clouds solid.
> >
> > Bad GM. No biscuit. Don't allow not properly defined SFX. Or,
> any
> power
> > which is not sufficiently SFXed is affected by things that are
> constructed
> > better.
>
> You could be in a tournament, without time to make certain of the SFX
> of everything. Or you could be using characters from various
> suplements, which often have no SFX. Or which do, but what the SFX
> are capable of is indeterminate, because they aren't real.
Tournament does not make change your chance to make a mistake with
Innate. It would just be that you deny a logical SFX from getting past
Innate because you did not have time to think about it. No real
difference between Innate being there or not.
> And your last statement only make sense if you are talking about the
> SFX of a target power, not the SFX of the Drain. Can "flux energy"
> Drain the Desolidification from fog? Dimensional shifting? Molecular
> decoupling?
Since it is not better defined then the other three, no, no and no.
> > >Even worse is death. If you kill a ghost, then they turn solid. If
> > >you kill a helium life-form, it becomes heavy and falls to the
> > >ground. If you destroy a giant robot, the rubble shrinks to a pile
> > >of metal the size/mass of a human. If you blow the head off a
> > >human-sized steel robot (Density Increase), all the steel in his
> > >body becomes as light as human flesh. Kill Godzilla, and he
> > >deflates like a balloon, kill a spider and it grows to larger than
> > >most dogs.
> >
> > I don't think you'll like this answer either, but death is also a
> > SFX. Besides there is alread a BBB method to deal with this. You
> > could always buy Godzilla with Uncontrolled Growth if you really
> > care about what happens after death. An Uncontrolled Power will
> > outlive its owner.
>
> Far to expensive for the result desired.
It's +1/2 instead of +1/4 on a power which already has +1 for 0 END
Persistent. I don't think that is far too expensive. Afterall you
want the power to be Uncontrolled (lasting after the death of the
character) AND to be immune to most Drains. Sounds underpriced to me.
> > >If an object, _by its physical composition_, has qualities that
> > >humans lack, then changing it so it loses those qualities is
> > >changing its physical composition. Drain is _not_ the correct
> > >power for this.
> >
> > That last sentense I will agree with. Drain is merely _a_ correct
> > HERO Power for that. :-) It is also preferrable in some
instances.
>
> I'll grant you that, if you will give me a _mechanism_ for defining
> "Powers that are impossible to Drain via most SFX." Not, "It depends
> upon SFX", because SFX should only have _minor_ effects, and that can
> be major, and because that answer has ruined one game I was in, and I
> have no intention of accepting it as an answer. It isn't good enough.
But I don't understand what you need "Impossible to Drain with MOST
sfx" advantages. I think I have a hang up the other way. I'd rather
not hear the player whine "But it's Innate, NOTHING can Drain it."
Because when you point out the word most he will say the SFX that you
are using falls under most.
Joe
A thought: How about a "Simple to Drain with any old SFX" limitation,
too? Let's call it Unstable (-1/2).
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:37:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Mine:
> 1. Remove the "free Energy Blast" (punch/squeeze damage) from TK, and
> reduce its cost to 1:1 STR. (Squeeze damage could be an "add-on" for a
> +1/4 Advantage.)
> 2. Charges is worth an extra -1/2 Limitation (or +1/2 less Advantage)
> on a Power that normally does not cost END.
Excellent idea. I always do this as a house rule anyway. (Well, I let
them buy 'Costs END' and 'Charges' both, same thing.) Actually, isn't
'Costs END' part of 'Limited Power'? I forget. If it is its arguably in
the rules already...but spelling it out is a good idea.
> 4. Add +5 points per 2X DNPCs.
Another good one.
> 5. SPD rounded down to the next lower integer does not count toward the
> single Figured Characteristic that may be "bought down." (This would be
> rarely used in superheroic games, but good for the occasional heroic-level
> or talented-normal game.)
Y'know...I *always* interpreted that as 'a single Figured Characteristic
per Primary' and it never really occurred to me that it would be any other
way. I mean, who cares if you buy down your PD *and* your SPD? Or even
your PD and your ED? I always figured that rule was to prevent the 'free
STR' you can get from buying down figured stats...(or is it free CON? I
always forget)
> >For me its simple enough:
> >
> >1: Charges do not cost more than Reduced END cost (whether this be +1 for
> >autofire or the usual +1/2)
>
> I think that a note about the comparative costs should be enough. If
> the listing under Charges points out that a certain level exceeds the
> Advantage bonus for 0 END, nobody will *want* to exceed it.
Alternately, maybe *greatly* increase the number of charges/clips
available when you go into Advantage Land, to the point that when you're
paying the same as for 0 end, you're at the level where you basically
won't run out of charges anyway.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 10:41:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Bill Svitavsky wrote:
> Shrinking and Growth might never settle into a consistent structure that
> works right. It seems worth another try, though. And speaking of free
> Energy Blasts wrapped into powers, Shrinking is a darn good offensive power
> as written in the 4th edition; I'd be happy to see that eliminated.
It'd be nice if they shaved the powers down to their bare minimums and
then included notes (perhaps inthe Champions Genre book?) on how to
achieve 'common comic book power stunts' like the 'Shrinking Punch' or 'TK
Blast'.
J
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:47:19 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
At 10:41 AM 6/18/99 -0500, Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Bill Svitavsky wrote:
>
>> Shrinking and Growth might never settle into a consistent structure that
>> works right. It seems worth another try, though. And speaking of free
>> Energy Blasts wrapped into powers, Shrinking is a darn good offensive power
>> as written in the 4th edition; I'd be happy to see that eliminated.
>
>It'd be nice if they shaved the powers down to their bare minimums and
>then included notes (perhaps inthe Champions Genre book?) on how to
>achieve 'common comic book power stunts' like the 'Shrinking Punch' or 'TK
>Blast'.
>
Yes, that's a good general principle of the Hero System that could be
applied in a few cases where it's been ignored.
Speaking of Growth, I'd be happy to see the returns of the "Includes
Figured Characteristics" Advantage. It makes it a lot easier to create
giants with appropriate stats, and seems more reasonable for Density
Increase as well. The alternative is a mess of multiple Characteristics
Linked to a power. I'm not sure why "Includes Figured Characteristics" was
left out of the 4th edition; is it really so unbalancing?
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:52:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Bill Svitavsky wrote:
> Speaking of Growth, I'd be happy to see the returns of the "Includes
> Figured Characteristics" Advantage. It makes it a lot easier to create
> giants with appropriate stats, and seems more reasonable for Density
> Increase as well. The alternative is a mess of multiple Characteristics
> Linked to a power. I'm not sure why "Includes Figured Characteristics" was
> left out of the 4th edition; is it really so unbalancing?
Well, the only place I saw it was the original GAC, so it may never have
been 'canon' to begin with.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
A train station is where trains stop. A bus station is where buses stop.
Well, I'm at a workstation.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:54:22 -0400
From: Kim Foster <nexus@qx.net>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
>
>Speaking of Growth, I'd be happy to see the returns of the "Includes
>Figured Characteristics" Advantage. It makes it a lot easier to create
>giants with appropriate stats, and seems more reasonable for Density
>Increase as well. The alternative is a mess of multiple Characteristics
>Linked to a power. I'm not sure why "Includes Figured Characteristics" was
>left out of the 4th edition; is it really so unbalancing?
>
>Bill Svitavsky
I'd like to see a "proportional strength" limit on Shrinking personally. It
seems lie most examples of Shrinking characters don't have their full
strength when reduced in size.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:55:08 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
At 11:52 AM 6/18/99 -0400, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Bill Svitavsky wrote:
>
>> Speaking of Growth, I'd be happy to see the returns of the "Includes
>> Figured Characteristics" Advantage. It makes it a lot easier to create
>> giants with appropriate stats, and seems more reasonable for Density
>> Increase as well. The alternative is a mess of multiple Characteristics
>> Linked to a power. I'm not sure why "Includes Figured Characteristics" was
>> left out of the 4th edition; is it really so unbalancing?
>
>Well, the only place I saw it was the original GAC, so it may never have
>been 'canon' to begin with.
>
I thought maybe it showed up again in Champions III, but I'm probably wrong
on that. In any event, a number of other GAC rules got included in the 4th
edition; I wish this advantage had been included as well.
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:10:20 PDT
From: S A Rudy <sarudy@hotmail.com>
Subject: Castling
I have a question of how people would build a particular effect. I've
actually written up these characters before (somewhere), but the result was
awfully messy. I'll do the description first, then mention the issues that
have come up.
The characters are a pair of identical twins. This is *two* PCS, played by
two different players. They have different skill sets, PsychLims etc.
Their main power is "castling". That is, they can physically switch places
(only with each other). The power goes off only if both parties are
willing, or, at least, unresisting (if one PC is, say, unconscous, the other
can pull off the effect, but it takes greater effort).
The issues are (and I just know I'll remember more after I
post this):
- - The power is really split between the two PCs. Conceptually,
unless one PC is unable to use the power, END cost would be
split between the PCs. So should both PCs have to pay full
points for something they really only get half of?
- - Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
distance limit should be based on the mental link between
the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
- - The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
Thoughts?
- -S
- --
|Now you, too can say "I've been to Hellenback!" Just drop by
|http://www.eclipse.net/~srudy/helnback/index.html
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:20:10 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Castling
At 09:10 AM 6/18/99 PDT, S A Rudy wrote:
>I have a question of how people would build a particular effect. I've
>actually written up these characters before (somewhere), but the result was
>awfully messy. I'll do the description first, then mention the issues that
>have come up.
>
>The characters are a pair of identical twins. This is *two* PCS, played by
>two different players. They have different skill sets, PsychLims etc.
>Their main power is "castling". That is, they can physically switch places
>(only with each other). The power goes off only if both parties are
>willing, or, at least, unresisting (if one PC is, say, unconscous, the other
>can pull off the effect, but it takes greater effort).
>
Have you read "Spanner's Galaxy", an '80's miniseries from DC Comics? The
hero was a "castler." I thought it was a pretty great concept.
>The issues are (and I just know I'll remember more after I
>post this):
>
>- The power is really split between the two PCs. Conceptually,
> unless one PC is unable to use the power, END cost would be
> split between the PCs. So should both PCs have to pay full
> points for something they really only get half of?
>
I'd say yes, but they can stick some big limitations on it.
>- Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
> the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
> power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
> proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
> distance limit should be based on the mental link between
> the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
>
You could make a case, then, for building this with Extra-Dimensional
Movement. It's become fairly common for people to use X-Dim for
interplanetary travel; I suppose the same rationalizations could be applied
to a teleporting power which doesn't really work well for movement. If I
were GM, though, I'd probably make you buy the Teleportation.
>- The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
> pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
> take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
> worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
> the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
> GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
>
I'd do this with a Physical Limitation: Takes 1/2 the damage Twin Takes, or
perhaps some variation on Susceptibility.
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:36:07 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Castling
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, S A Rudy wrote:
> I have a question of how people would build a particular effect. I've
> actually written up these characters before (somewhere), but the result was
> awfully messy. I'll do the description first, then mention the issues that
> have come up.
>
> The characters are a pair of identical twins. This is *two* PCS, played by
> two different players. They have different skill sets, PsychLims etc.
> Their main power is "castling". That is, they can physically switch places
> (only with each other). The power goes off only if both parties are
> willing, or, at least, unresisting (if one PC is, say, unconscous, the other
> can pull off the effect, but it takes greater effort).
>
> The issues are (and I just know I'll remember more after I
> post this):
>
> - The power is really split between the two PCs. Conceptually,
> unless one PC is unable to use the power, END cost would be
> split between the PCs. So should both PCs have to pay full
> points for something they really only get half of?
I don't see that...they both get the full power (i.e. they both move,
either one can initiate). You might get a limitation for 'not if other
twin is unwilling'.
> - Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
> the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
> power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
> proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
> distance limit should be based on the mental link between
> the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
This is a case where I would use Extra-Dimensional Movement instead of
Teleportation. Call it 'XDM to a dimension where the twins are in the
swapped places but everything else is the same'. The cost fits a lot more
with the actual usefulness of the power, and the distance thing isn't a
factor anymore.
As for doing the END cost, maybe you should build it as '1/2 End, only if
twin is using the power at the same time' That way each twin pays 1/2 End
if they both decide to castle, or one twin pays full end if the othe ris
unconscious, etc.
> - The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
> pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
> take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
> worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
> the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
> GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
Why not take a 'Susceptibility: Other Twin Being damaged'?
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:40:20 PDT
From: Jesse Thomas <haerandir@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Castling
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 S A Rudy <sarudy@hotmail.com> wrote:
>- The power is really split between the two PCs. Conceptually,
> unless one PC is unable to use the power, END cost would be
> split between the PCs. So should both PCs have to pay full
> points for something they really only get half of?
>
>- Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
> the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
> power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
> proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
> distance limit should be based on the mental link between
> the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
I did something similar using Multiform with a -1 Limitation "Only when used
simultaneously by twin". This way, they each only pay half the point cost
of the power, and you don't have to worry about END cost, ranges, or
hardened barriers. Of course, if you're set on using Teleport, I'd still
apply the -1 Limitation, and let the END costs take care of themselves.
Maybe buy the Teleport at 1/2 END?
>- The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
> pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
> take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
> worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
> the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
> GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
Clever. Might work better as a Susceptibility: (x)d6 Stun damage "whenever
my twin takes damage." A nice GM might even let you waive the dice rolling,
saying you take as much damage as your twin, up to the maximum on the dice
of susceptibility you bought. Of course, this obviously also requires GM
fiat. If he doesn't like that, you can just explain away those cases in
which twin B takes more damage than twin A (from an attack that hits A) as
"telepathic feedback" or some similar nonsense.
Jesse Thomas
haerandir@hotmail.com
_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:40:24 -0400
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Castling
At 09:10 AM 6/18/99 PDT, S A Rudy wrote:
>
>- Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
> the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
> power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
> proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
> distance limit should be based on the mental link between
> the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
Another (very weird) way of building this just occurred to me: each twin
could take a Multiform, the second form being the other twin. The multiform
would take a limitation that the two would have to change forms
simultaneously. It's interesting to think about, but I wouldn't do it this
way. Teleportation or Extra-Dimensional Movement are clearly better choices.
Bill Svitavsky
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:43:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Full Strength Beers (was The Metric System)
Allan Dunbar writes:
> However, many Australians feel it is their solemn duty to demonstrate to
> visiting Americans the strength differences in our beer. This is a matter
> of great personal pride to both Australians and Canadians, who often (I have
> stories from European Tour groups that would scare you) attempt to show each
> other who has the strongest beer, with stomach pumping results.
>
> However, some Americans (mostly Navy personnel) have learned to drink full
> strength (6%+) with the best. [...]
Someday when you'r on this side of the pond, you'll have to come
by our place for a pint of Dark Sleep Chocolate Stout homebrew :-).
We often find that newcomers to our homebrew parties get suckered
in; between the very large glasses and the fact that our beers tend to
be 8-10% alcohol, it's a good thing we're conscientious about making
sure people get home alright...
Once we made a very experimental honey ale (can you say "it's
10pm and we don't have all the ingredients"? I knew you could...)
that took about 6 weeks to mature and ended up being something more
along the lines of a honey wine... fortunately, by the time it got to
that point, we'd been taste-testing it every week for six weeks;
wasn't much left. Have to get around to trying that again some time.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:48:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Castling
> From: S A Rudy <sarudy@hotmail.com>
>
> The characters are a pair of identical twins. This is *two* PCS, played by
> two different players. They have different skill sets, PsychLims etc.
> Their main power is "castling". That is, they can physically switch places
> (only with each other). The power goes off only if both parties are
> willing, or, at least, unresisting (if one PC is, say, unconscous, the other
> can pull off the effect, but it takes greater effort).
>
> The issues are (and I just know I'll remember more after I
> post this):
>
> - The power is really split between the two PCs. Conceptually,
> unless one PC is unable to use the power, END cost would be
> split between the PCs. So should both PCs have to pay full
> points for something they really only get half of?
> - Casting is pretty obviously a variant on Teleportation. On
> the other hand, it's not (in this case) really a movement
> power. The cost goes up according to distance out of
> proportion of the usefulness of effect. Conceptually, the
> distance limit should be based on the mental link between
> the twins, not the physical distance separating them.
>
Each character buys teleportation with the limitation that it's only
usable to exchange places with their twin. Possibly, you might want to
have some equivalent to triggered so that an unconscious character can
still exchange places with a conscious twin. It might be easier to
just say it can't be donw when unconscious.
I'm not sure I understand why you don't consider the castling to be a
Movement power. It is one in my opinion.
> - The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
> pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
> take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
> worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
> the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
> GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
>
Use a susceptibility. Perhaps buy mind link if you want to get that
particular, so one twin knows the details of what's causing the other's
pain. However SFX on the susceptibility is probably sufficient.
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 09:46:02 -0700
From: "James Jandebeur" <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Castling
> The characters are a pair of identical twins. This is *two* PCS, played
by
> two different players. They have different skill sets, PsychLims etc.
> Their main power is "castling". That is, they can physically switch
places
> (only with each other). The power goes off only if both parties are
> willing, or, at least, unresisting (if one PC is, say, unconscous, the
other
> can pull off the effect, but it takes greater effort).
Two powers:
1. Mind Link with the twin. This should probably be bought up to
Extradimensional level, if there is a chance of them being seperated to that
extent. It will have the -1 limitation that the other one must have it, and
if they can't communicate normally (it's only there to get the permission to
switch), it might have, say, a -2 more, making it very cheap. If they can
communicate normally, it's 7 points, I think.
2. heh. Each of them takes Multiform: Turn into the twin. This removes range
(or dimensional, or any other, for that matter) restrictions completely. In
fact, it will be virtually impossible to prevent it by normal means
(Hardened Defenses won't stop it, it's Multiform). If it can be stopped by
those means, it's likely worth a Limitation. The rest is probably worth
about a -1 limitation: both must agree to it, they can't both be the same
person, and so on. This makes the cost half to each of them, which you were
also seeking. About 22 points for each to buy this, if both were 227 points
without the Multiform.
> - The other tricky thing to build was the "my twin feels my
> pain" effect. What I wound up doing was having both PCs
> take the Limitation x1 1/2 stun from most attacks and just
> worked out with the GM that the "extra 1/2" always goes to
> the other PC. This, however, required a house rule (well
> GM fiat anyway) to accomplish.
Technically, this could be done as a Susceptability without any house rules,
but I actually like your method.
JAJ, Gaming Philosopher
http://www.javaman.to/philosopher.html
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #410
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 04:15 PM