Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 65

Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 65
Desmarais, John
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 1998 11:45 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #65

champ-l-digest Thursday, December 3 1998 Volume 01 : Number 065

In this issue:

Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Emma Peel of the 'Avengers' TV show
My take on the Squeeze Attack
Re: Unfinished Power Set!
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS
Re: The Canadian Shield
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
[none]
Re: Unfinished Power Set!
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: squeezing damage
Re: My take on the Squeeze Attack
Re: Independent Limitation
Re: CHAR: Kulilin
Re: Independent Limitation

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 16:46:02 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

At 12:14 PM 12/3/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>>>>Powers bought with the Independent(-2) limitation go away when Dispelled,
>>>>Drained, or Suppressed to zero (or below the powers' minimum costs,
>>>>depending on GM), and don't come back.
>>
>> I'd say it's more of an interpretation of the printed rule (and one that
>>I might follow, depending on the specifics of how the Dispel/Drain/Suppress
>>is applied).
>
>
>But it does say it specifically for Dispel against Independent Items under
>the Dispel power. Not for the others, and not for places or people with
>Independent powers on them (I think this is an oversight), but it does say
>it for those.

Yeah, I'd only looked at the description of Independent when answering
that and had missed that point; I stand corrected. And I agree that what
you cite as an oversight probably is exactly that.
- ---
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, 3 Dec 1998 18:23:54 -0600
From: "Logan" <logand@cyberramp.net>
Subject: Re: squeezing damage

- -----Original Message-----
From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 5:53 PM
Subject: Re: squeezing damage

>>To be specific, a FH character with chain armour gets
>>grabbed and squeezed by a 25 STR zombie. Do I give him
>>the full DEF of the armour?
>
>That's a damn good question. I'm glad it came up on the
>list instead of in the heat of a game. I'm very interested in
>getting some sage advice on this.
>
>Here's my initial reaction, which I won't be offended if
>someone pops this idea, but here goes: It sounds like the
>SFX of your armor sound like they'd be bypassed by the SFX
>of their attack. But bypassing Normal Defense is the province of
>the advantage AVLD, not regular combat STR.

In my last tabletop game, we pretty much ruled that SFX could hose you
regardless of specific power limitations and advantages.

For example, we had a "weather-wizard" (cadged with modifications from
Aquarius of the Zodiac Conspiracy) who had a "wind shield" built as a force
field / force wall. There wasn't a specific limitation saying that his force
field wouldn't work vs hand to hand or grappling attacks, but he got tagged
by a brick who just walked up and grabbed him and then punched him. GM's
ruling was that since the special effects of his force field was a "wind
shield", then a regular punch would ignore the force field entirely! Ouch!
But that was the way the character had been built.

He invested some points thereafter in a padded suit of armor (5-6 PD) to
give him some small protection against attacks like that. :)

Just my experience.

- -Logan

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --
"God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable
game of His own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective
of any of the other players,* to being involved in an obscure and complex
version of poker in a pitch-dark room, with blank cards, for infinite
stakes, with a Dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who
_smiles all the time_."
-Neil Gaimen and Terry Pratchett
_Good Omens_
*i.e., everybody.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:33:49 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Emma Peel of the 'Avengers' TV show

Since THE AVENGERS is my favorite TV show of all time, and Emma my first
crush, let me give you a few suggestions:

1) a MASSIVE Kung-Fu package (at least 25 points; Emma was nothing if
not a true master of that discipline)

2) High Intelligence--we're talking about a woman, who at the age of 20,
took over her father's industrial concerns and kept them a success.

3) High Dex--close to normal characteristic Maxs, if not a little
higher.

4) Business Skills like bureaucratics--see above.

5) Anthropology and several 'soft sciences'--Emma's husband was an
anthropologist and acheologist, and she herself was always well versed
and read.

6) High COM--I'd put her at 20, but then I'm prejudiced.

7) High society and several contacts--Emma prior to being Steed's
partner was very prominent in society and business.

8) Distinctive Features--Besides being beautiful, Emma's icy demeanor
and arch delivery made her near unforgettable.

9) Rarely takes anything seriously--in her wry British way, Emma never
let anything keep her down.

10) Curious--Even when on vacation (MURDERSVILLE), Emma could never
leave well enough alone.

11) Professional Rival: John Steed--their relationship (and I'm one who
believes they were knocking the boots) always had an element of
one-upsmanship.

"'Remember, Boo-Boo...we only have one weakness."
"What's that, Rat Fink?"
"mmmmm.....Bullets."
--Rat Fink and Boo-Boo, RAT FINK A BOO BOO
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "My Worst Break Up" can now be found at
MAKE UP YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:46:06 -0500
From: "Marc" <games@nassau.cv.net>
Subject: My take on the Squeeze Attack

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BE1EED.2F7F31E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would consider a squeeze attack as an NND attack. Not vs Rigid Armor =
or Force Fields (unless the normal attack would breech the defence

A Character with tough skin being squeezed would treat the squeeze as an =
NND (50 STR =3D 50 Points, 50 points =3D ??D5 NND)
A character with metalic armor being squeezed would treat the attack as =
(50 Str =3D 50 Points =3D 10D6, Does 10D6 pget past the armor? Yes =
??D6 NND/ NO treat damage normally. <<The character in the armor was =
jerked, twisted, banged in a way to casue damage.>>)

Hope you understand what I wrote.

Mister D.

_________________________________________________________________________=
_____________________________________
IN CHARACTER. Home of my characters and soon (or later) my BPEM =
campaign

HTTP://www.liii.com/~dragon

- ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BE1EED.2F7F31E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>I would consider a squeeze attack as =
an NND=20
attack. Not vs Rigid Armor or Force Fields (unless the normal attack =
would=20
breech the defence</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A Character with tough skin being squeezed would =
treat the=20
squeeze as an NND (50 STR =3D 50 Points, 50 points =3D ??D5 =
NND)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>A character with metalic armor being squeezed would =
treat the=20
attack as (50 Str =3D 50 Points =3D 10D6,  Does 10D6 pget past the =
armor? =20
Yes ??D6 NND/ NO treat damage normally.  <<The character in =
the armor=20
was jerked, twisted, banged in a way to casue =
damage.>>)</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Hope you understand what I wrote.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2>Mister D.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000=20
size=3D2>________________________________________________________________=
______________________________________________<BR>IN=20
CHARACTER.  Home of my characters and soon (or later) my BPEM=20
campaign</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2><A=20
href=3D"http://www.liii.com/~dragon">HTTP://www.liii.com/~dragon</A></FON=
T></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2></FONT> </DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0057_01BE1EED.2F7F31E0--

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 14:26:16 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Unfinished Power Set!

At 11:10 AM 12/3/98 -0500, Jason Sullivan wrote:
>Here's an unfinished power set I'vebeen working on for the 'unstoppable
>super soldier.' He can resist pain and recover from the pain of injury
>rather quickly.
>
> +20 STUN, Only to aid in recoveries when unconcious (-1/2)
> Is this legal? And if so, in what order does it recover?

It doesn't recover, because it's never really lost. It would basically
mean that the character gets to recover STUN and END every Phase and every
post-12 as long as he goes no lower than -30 STUN, and is GMO'd only at -50.

> + CON (straight + or Absorption)
> Only for use in recoveries. This needs much elaboration.

I'll say it does. I don't even know what you're trying to get at here!
:-]

>15 Armor (15 PD, 15 ED), Ablative (-1), Does not protect against
>falling damage (-1/4), Not vs. Area of Effect/Explosive attacks (-1/4),
>Attacks still penetrate (-1/4), Only when under extreme stress or Enraged
>(-1/4) "Biological Invulnrability"
> You can nick him down, chunk by chunk. Major body trauma is very
>effective in negating this power's effects.

I think I'd combine the falling and AE/Ex Limitations into a single
- -1/4, though on the other hand the extreme stress/Enraged Lim could
probably be increased to -1/2 unless he's Enraged a lot, or you figure it'd
be unlikely that he'd find the Power useful in non-stressful situations.

> 6 +10 STR, Can only be used when character pushes his STR (-1/2),
>Only when under extreme stress or Enraged (-1/4) "Biological Adrenaline
>Rush"

Might Increased END Cost be appropriate here?

> 20 +10 DEX; Only to determine who goes first and for CV (-1/4), Only
>when under extreme stress or Enraged (-1/4) "Biological Adrenaline Rush"

For simplicity, I'd suggest separating this into +10 Lightning Reflexes
+3 8-point Combat Skill Levels, and +3 w/DCV.

> 8 +10 PRE; Only for PRE attacks (-1/4), Fear/Intimidation only
>(-1/4), Only when exhibiting 'unnatural' powers (-1/2), Only when under
>extreme stress or Enraged (-1/2) "Fear Factor"
> It tends to get very frightening when you impale someone with a
>harpoon, stick knives into his chest, and he still marches after you,
>bloodied, but very upset.

I think that this would fall under the "exhibits power" category of
modifiers for Presence Attacks.
Everything else looks OK to my eye.
- ---
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, 03 Dec 1998 16:49:02 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

At 12:17 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>From: J. Alan Easley <alaneasley@email.com>
>
>
><snip>
>>No, the only mention under Dispel refers to Independent powers placed in
>>items or objects. This does not necessarily include Independent powers
>>placed on people or places unless you interpret that to be the same thing.
>>Which you shouldn't because item and object only comprises one-third of the
>>noun possibilities. "A noun is a person, place or thing." :-)
>
>
>I agree about the wording, but disagree about the interpretation. You _must_
>include people and places. Otherwise, how do you ever take away an
>Independent power on a person or place? It may not be necessary to do this
>for a place, but it seems a requirement for a person. If not, then the
>player gets a -2 Limitation (because the points in the power can be lost
>permanently) on a power that can't be lost.

Well, if the character containing the Independent Power is not the same
person as the one who paid the Points, and the former character dies, then
the latter character loses the Points.
- ---
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, 03 Dec 1998 17:08:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: NEED IDEAS: FUN WITH NAZIS

At 02:35 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Ell Egyptoid wrote:
>> So, Germany didn't have enough helium to lift a zeppelin.
>
>Umm, he said "Fun with Nazis", not "Historical Germany"
>
> YMMV :)

Of course, this particular batch of Nazis might've smuggled the hydrogen
out of the US, eh? :-]

>When Herr Goehring says, "we own the world and space,"
> we heil, heil, right in Herr Goehring's face.

Thank you! That's the one line in that song (Spike Jones' greatest
hit!) that I've never been able to quite make out.
- ---
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, 3 Dec 1998 20:18:28 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: The Canadian Shield

> THE CANADIAN SHIELD
>
> EASTERN TEAM MEMBERSHIP: Arctic Fox (leader), Alouette, Huron, Mindstar,
> Slapshot
> WESTERN TEAM MEMBERSHIP: Mountie (leader), Chinook, Live Wire, Rad, Yukon Jack
>

Rad?

Tell me this is the inside joke I think it is? Did he originally
land in Calgary?

-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 17:00:33 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

At 12:49 PM 12/3/98 -0800, James Jandebeur wrote:
>> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can* happen,
>>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>
>
>How about this: If I take "Does not work in magnetic field", that only means
>that my power *can* be shut off by a magnetic field. It doesn't mean it
>*must* happen in the run of the game. Does anyone actually accept that?

I do. If a character says, "That hydroelectric dam is filled of the
kind of magnetic field that would shut down my battlesuit, so I'll just
stand guard out here," then he's experienced the Limitation without
actually suffering from the shutdown.

>> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent Focus
>>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an opportunity
>>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the Limitation
>>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be
>>rebuilt or replaced with the same character points, but an Independent one
>>cannot. The character would just have to do without it for a while.
>
>This, however, is in no way different from the character losing an
>Irreplacable Focus for a time. They have to make due, but the focus will be
>back or will be replaced by an item or power of equivalent points. Or it
>won't, and the character has just gone through a dramatic change, but not
>one that should cause a loss of points and a disparity with the other
>characters in the same game. Cap's shield is at the bottom of the ocean, but
>he came up with a reasonable replacement eventually. And will probably get
>the shield back eventually. He is not reduced in points in the meantime,
>however. Independent is not required for this plot idea: in fact, if you
>want the character to be able to make due in the interem and go in for
>strict cost accounting, it can get in the way. And if you don't go in for
>cost accounting, it just doesn't matter (and the Limitation should, again,
>not be worth that much, since the points are the only thing it affects and
>points don't matter as much in your game).

Well, first of all, the rulebook makes no mention of an Irreplaceable
Focus (at least, not in my copy).
Second, taking away any Focus that is not Independent (and not giving it
back, whether right away or ever) still means that the experience points
spent on it can be re-spent on a replacement. This can be done right away
or in due time, and the replacement can identically match its predecessor
or be completely different, depending on the specifics of the campaign, but
it can still be done. This could not be done with an Independent item;
when the item is gone, for however long that is, so are the points.

>Independent should be taken on items (or other powers) that are not central
>to the character, and you should expect to lose them. Say, for example, some
>trinket you have as part of your background which is not important to you.
>If you don't lose it, well, you just got lucky and didn't get penalized for
>your -2 limitation any more than the person who buys the regular focus.
>Great! I've left characters with Independent items for entire the entire run
>of a fantasy game, myself. But don't count on it.

On this part, I agree wholly. Power Armored Guy with an Independent
battlesuit would be good and well screwed should his suit be taken away,
even for only one adventure. Independent might be OK for some
high-falutin' sensor, or a single weapon made from alient technology, but
not for the whole piece.
- ---
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, 3 Dec 1998 10:34:17 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

>I usually don't allow Independant in superhero games, because:
>1) I hate taking powers away from players permanently
>2) Players hate it when you take away their powers permanently, even if
> they asked for it by taking Independant.
>
>So, to avoid bad feelings, I avoid Independant.

This is what I meant about Gold Kryptonite. For those who are two young,
Gold Kryptonite used to be a variety of kryptonite that could permanantly
take superpowers away from a Kryptonian. The problem with it as a
limitation is that it's either nothing more than a boogyman (i.e. you're
never going to actually use it on the player) or it cripples the character
indefinitely. That's always seemed very problematic to me.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:50:42 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

> I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can* happen,
>doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
> My own tendency would be to let the character have the Independent Focus
>for a while, then take it away for a period, and then have an opportunity
>to get it back. It would be during the absent period that the Limitation
>of its being Independent would be underscored; a normal Focus could be

But how is this different from an Indestructible focus, which also can't be
replaced except by getting the original back? This is the problem, it looks
like some people are proposing giving an extra -2 Limitation for situations
that would occur with one of the two standard kind of Foci without Independent.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:37:23 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: squeezing damage

>Hi guys,
>
>I'm back with a question actually related to Game. If a PC's armour is
>'soft' by special effect or GM decree, how do we deal with squeezing
>damage. To be specific, a FH character with chain armour gets grabbed
>and squeezed by a 25STR zombie. Do I give him the full DEF of the
>armour? I've already instituted a rule that soft armour gives only half
>protection against the Stun of normal physical attacks, should I go
>further? Would it be fair to only give half DEF for BOD of normal
>physical attacks as well?

Is there any parallel advantage to having soft armor, or is the person just
getting penelized for their SFX? Personally, if your PD can protect you
against falls and crushes, I don't see why soft armor shouldn't.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 19:26:32 -0800
From: James Jandebeur <james@javaman.to>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

> >One of the examples given somewhere was basically an enchanted "tatoo"
> or
> >ritual scar that granted power to the possessor. It could be destroyed
> by
> >cutting the flesh, breaking the magical design.
>
> If wings are OAF, then tattoos are OIF.

Neither wings nor tattoos are foci, as it requires doing body to the
characters to remove them. Or is that an old version of the rules?

JAJ

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:22:04 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

>One of the genre conventions is power loss; sometimes it's temporary,
>but sometime's it's forever. Powergirl in the DCU just got somewhat
>depowered for no good reason; Donna Troy is constantly getting her
>powers taken away, albeit it only lasts until the next writer has a
>clever idea. It's an excellent source of tragedy, if that's what
>you want in your game.
>
>Is this feasible in an RPG? Can it ever work?

Depends. Power loss tends to be like character death; it's either a
temporary (though sometimes temporary can be for a while) precursor to a
'Radiation Accident' or it's the sign of a character who is considered to
outlive their usefulness, and are about to shuffle off to, at best,
supporting character roles. As such, it probably is used...or not...much as
character death.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:30:19 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

>In a message dated 12/2/98 9:45:27 PM Eastern Standard Time, james@javaman.to
>writes:
>
>> Comic book example of why Foci are generally not Independent: Iron Man has
>> had his armor destroyed on multiple occasions. This leaves him helpless for
>> a time. Also, he has been caught and attacked while not wearing the armor
>on
>> a number of occasions, or had it stolen, or other such occurrences. If it
>> was Independent, he would be a normal human being because he would have
>sunk
>> so many points into it that are now gone into nothingness.
>
>So, are you saying Iron Man's armor is actually a OIF gadget pool with a
>"powers only change in a lab" limitation? This sounds like independent, with
>the temporary loss of power...
>
Uh, no, it sounds like typical non-indestructable foci. When you do destroy
those they don't repear instantly after all.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 19:40:00 -0800
From: "Hilary" <kabuki@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: [none]

unsubscribe

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 10:47:35 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Unfinished Power Set!

>Here's an unfinished power set I'vebeen working on for the 'unstoppable
>super soldier.' He can resist pain and recover from the pain of injury
>rather quickly.
>
> +20 STUN, Only to aid in recoveries when unconcious (-1/2)
> Is this legal? And if so, in what order does it recover?

I assume by this just mean this extends how much in the hole someone can be
and still get recoveries. If so, yes, I'd say it's legal...and you didn't
give enough limitation value for it. i'd call it a -1.

>
>34 6d6 Stun AID, 0 END (+1/2), Persistant (+1/2), Self Only (-1/2),
>Only when under extreme stress or Enraged (-1/4) "Biological Resistance
>Factor" SFX- Various chemicals are released in the soldier's system to
>negate the debilitating effects of pain.

Uhrm. You realize that persitant doesn't do much good by itself in this
case; you need Continuous or some such, too. if you don't want him to
consciously turn it on, you'll also need Triggered. I won't go into my
reflexive grumble about the price of Aid, or discuss some of the bookkeeping
problems with this.

>
> + CON (straight + or Absorption)
> Only for use in recoveries. This needs much elaboration.
>

Why not just add to Recovery? This seems pretty odd.

>
>15 Armor (15 PD, 15 ED), Ablative (-1), Does not protect against
>falling damage (-1/4), Not vs. Area of Effect/Explosive attacks (-1/4),
>Attacks still penetrate (-1/4), Only when under extreme stress or Enraged
>(-1/4) "Biological Invulnrability"
> You can nick him down, chunk by chunk. Major body trauma is very
>effective in negating this power's effects.

I don't understand the 'Attacks still penetrate' Lim.

>
> 6 +10 STR, Can only be used when character pushes his STR (-1/2),
>Only when under extreme stress or Enraged (-1/4) "Biological Adrenaline
>Rush"

I'm beginning to wonder what translates as 'Extreme Stress'. If it's any
combat I'm getting a bit dubious here. I also think I'd just buy it Costs
Extra END rather than the slightly dodgy 'Pushes' Limitation.

>
> 20 +10 DEX; Only to determine who goes first and for CV (-1/4), Only
>when under extreme stress or Enraged (-1/4) "Biological Adrenaline Rush"

I know Steve Long did this in DC. It's also a bad idea. Other than skill
rolls you've now covered most of the uses of DEX.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:02:20 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

Sorry about the following quote, I have lost track of just who to credit it
to.

>Since I was quoting from the BBB, I was using the rules as they appear
>in the BBB, which do require that you buy Independent powers as Foci.
>However, I agree that there are ways that you can rewrite the rule that
>make more sense. This is why the Golden Rule of Gaming is that all the
>rules in the book are merely guidelines. And why we have this list.

The rules in the BBB version 4.2 do NOT require that you buy Independent
powers through Foci, though they often are. You(?) need to reread the
Independent section
completely.

Alan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:06:04 EST
From: ErolB1@aol.com
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

In a message dated 98-12-03 18:17:05 EST, james@javaman.to writes:

> > I have to go along with Guy here. Just because something *can* happen,
> >doesn't mean that it *must* happen.
>
>
> How about this: If I take "Does not work in magnetic field", that only
means
> that my power *can* be shut off by a magnetic field. It doesn't mean it
> *must* happen in the run of the game. Does anyone actually accept that?

I do. If the character never enters a magnetic field, either due to luck or to
cautious play, then that's what happens: The character never enters a magnetic
field & his power never shuts down. All the GM has to do, IMHO, is give the
character a 'fair chance' to enter a magnetic field accidently and to give the
villains a 'fair chance' to put the character into a magnetic field.

Consider it this way: Your player's characters are all mortal (unless they've
bought some sort of special 'Unkillable' ability). Does this mean that you
*must* kill off *all* the PCs in the course of the campaign?

Or consider a character who bought an unusual defense (Power Defense, say)
with a 14- activation. It happens that the character ends up having to use
Power Defense only couple of dozen times in the course of the campaign - and
each time he made his activation roll. (He was a lucky player, but not unduly
so.) Would you accept this? Or would you start arranging things so that the
character kept getting hit with power-defense-required attacks until he failed
his activation roll?

> When the something that *can* happen is the only reason that it is worth the
> limitation, it follows that it *must* happen for both game balance and
> drama.

I put less stock in 'drama' than some GMs.

> Otherwise, it is not worth a limitation: you know the rule on that.
> Independent is a limitation because you can lose the points. If you don't
> lose the points, it does not limit the character. Because of this, I see no
> reason to assume that you are NOT going to lose it.

Nor is there any reason to assume that you ARE going to lose it.

If your players take 'Secret ID' for their characters, do you play this as
meaning that the characters' Secret ID *will* be revealed sometime in the
campaign? Or do you play it that the characters must from time to time act so
as to prevent their Secret ID's from being revealed? I play it the latter way,
and I play Independent the same way.

> The assumption that you
> will seems perfectly natural: you are effectively requesting that the GM
> takes it away at some point by saying he can.

If the PC keeps his Independent item locked up in a secret vault 90% of the
time, then I'm not going to engineer a special break-in into that vault just
because an 'Independent' item is within it. Some GM's are 'dramatic' that way,
but I'm not.

The other 10% of the time that the PC has the item out and in use, it will be
subject to the usual chances of being stolen or destroyed, but I'm not going
to engineer a special attack on the item just because it's Independent. Again,
I'm not 'dramatic' that way.

> Note that above I said it doesn't limit the character if it is not lost.
> Independent does nothing more from the character's viewpoint from what an
> Irreplacable Focus does: the character is no more protective of the
> Independent item than the Irreplacable item, unless the Independent item is
> some trinket. The difference is that the player is saddled with that anxiety
> as well. So, maybe it is worth the bonus, without losing it, but it's still
> not something I am interested in taking.

Well, I play Irreplacable Foci as being "Recovery guaranteed or your points
back." Independent doesn't have this guarantee, which is why it's worth more
as a limitation.

> Independent should be taken on items (or other powers) that are not central
> to the character, and you should expect to lose them. Say, for example, some
> trinket you have as part of your background which is not important to you.
> If you don't lose it, well, you just got lucky and didn't get penalized for
> your -2 limitation any more than the person who buys the regular focus.
> Great! I've left characters with Independent items for entire the entire run
> of a fantasy game, myself. But don't count on it.

Right. My point is that the GM shouldn't use his gameworld-warping powers to
guarantee that the character *doesn't* get lucky and *does* lose the trinket.

Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow

------------------------------

Date: 03 Dec 1998 22:04:13 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: squeezing damage

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"L" == Logan <logand@cyberramp.net> writes:

L> GM's ruling was that since the special effects of his force field was a
L> "wind shield", then a regular punch would ignore the force field
L> entirely! Ouch! But that was the way the character had been built.

If a GM did that to me, I would pack up my stuff right there and leave.

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNmdRK4JfryJUlUjZEQLOlwCgvJycA7ymrBSNTCQd9Y5xMv8LL+gAn0Qc
zYU+Yk2ZS8wZLc+L/3GPThie
=nVQV
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\

------------------------------

Date: 03 Dec 1998 22:27:16 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: My take on the Squeeze Attack

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

"M" == Marc <games@nassau.cv.net> writes:

M> I would consider a squeeze attack as an NND attack. Not vs Rigid Armor
M> or Force Fields (unless the normal attack would breech the defence

'scuse me? 'Grab and Squeeze' is a basic combat maneuver that does normal
Strength damage as far as the BBB is concerned, not an NND.

- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNmdWk4JfryJUlUjZEQIY7ACgtrdXVOIdI1PWDKu5m3ZodOOfwxwAoLp6
XnkNuJWAh/Lm1YXgBdnuo9oC
=/PH2
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 18:51:15 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

From: Jesse Thomas <haerandir@hotmail.com>

>
>
>ON Thu, 3 Dec 1998 "James Jandebeur" wrote:
>(as an example of an Indpendent Power that was "not a Focus")
>
>>One of the examples given somewhere was basically an enchanted "tatoo"
>or
>>ritual scar that granted power to the possessor. It could be destroyed
>by
>>cutting the flesh, breaking the magical design.
>
>
>If wings are OAF, then tattoos are OIF.

That's why wings are not considered OIF anymore. The rules for Foci
specifically forbid Foci that require damage to a person to remove. They
also require that the power can be physically removed, then handed back and
used by the character again. This forbids both permanently attached wings
and tattoos.

>It seems to me that the Independent limitation is based on the
>assumption that you will use it to create a Focus-based power. It even
>says so in the second paragraph: "The primary use of the Independent
>Limitation is for making special items." (BBB, p. 108) Granted, they
>don't say you can't, but semantic analysis shows that they assumed that
>you would, even up to wording the Dispel power to support that
>assumption.

They may have assumed that you would, but they stated outright that
Independent does _not_ have to be an item. Furthermore, it has been used in
many books for powers that were _not_ part of an item.

>As for a Power that is Independent but not a Focus, I've only seen one
>legitimate example of such a thing: The "Odin granted us a gift" power
>mentioned on the list earlier today. If a god or other powerful being
>instills you with a power that has no outward sign, then it can be
>Independent but not a Focus. It can only be destroyed by a
>Transformation or other Adjustment Power.

_Any_ power can be destroyed by Tranformation. And only Dispel can destroy
Independent powers.

>In effect, you are the Focus
>of a power that belongs to someone else. Then, the points you spend on
>the power become something more in the nature of a Perk. "I paid 10
>points for permission to use Zeus' thunderbolts!"

No, if powers are granted by someone else, they are _not_ generally
Independent. If that was the case, then anyone whose power was from some
other source would have Independent as a Limitation.

>I, as a GM, would reduce the value of Independent if the only way to get
>rid of it was through an uncommon power, such as Dispel or Drain vs.
>Blessings of the Gods. Better yet, I, as a GM, would never let a player
>take an Independent power to begin with. At least not without a really,
>really good Persuasion roll.

That is a good policy.

Filksinger

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 22:16:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Kulilin

On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:

> At 11:26 AM 12/3/98 -0500, Michael Surbrook wrote:
> >[another Dragonball Z character. Note, I may stop posting these since the
> >next character (Piccolo) is 975 points, and they are only going to go up
> >from there. UNless you all want to see 1000+ point walking engines of
> >destruction...]
>
> As a reminder in case it makes you feel any better, Michael, for TUV I
> adapted the Devourer of Worlds from Robot Warriors and came up with a
> (literal) monster of 1297 points. Of course, the thing stands a kilometer
> tall and eats planets for a living, so that's not *too* ridiculous.

Right. Okay. Well, I'm hoping my "Perfect Cell" will beat your "Devourer
of Worlds" (1297 to... 1500? 2000? Dunno, but he's got 430 points in
Characteristics alone...).

But you do have 998 meters on him... OTOH: Perfect Cell can blow up
planets too... (90 BODY, right?)

> >10 Distinctive Features: Short, bald monk with six dots on his
> > forehead and no nose (C)
>
> I've only seen a couple of episodes, so I'm not sure, but is this ever
> actually used against him in the story, or even commented upon?

Not really, but many of the DBZ designs are written to be a litte more
'complete' than a straight adaption of the manga series would give. I'm
including logical disads and skills with each character for possible
gaming purposes.

Michael Surbrook / susano@otd.com
http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 21:02:23 -0600
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Limitation

><snip>
>>No, the only mention under Dispel refers to Independent powers placed in
>>items or objects. This does not necessarily include Independent powers
>>placed on people or places unless you interpret that to be the same thing.
>>Which you shouldn't because item and object only comprises one-third of
the
>>noun possibilities. "A noun is a person, place or thing." :-)
>
>
>I agree about the wording, but disagree about the interpretation. You
_must_
>include people and places. Otherwise, how do you ever take away an
>Independent power on a person or place? It may not be necessary to do this
>for a place, but it seems a requirement for a person. If not, then the
>player gets a -2 Limitation (because the points in the power can be lost
>permanently) on a power that can't be lost.
>
>Filksinger

No you don't have to include people and places. Places are specifically
included in the Independent rules as having to be destroyed for the
Independent power to be gone. Why would Dispel destroy a place simply
because it has an Independent power working in it?

As I stated in a previous post, the method of destruction of the Independent
power that isn't put in an item or a place is open to discussion and
negotiation. In a
Fantasy Hero game, a Magician could place a Flight spell on himself and make
it permanent and buy it as an Independent power. The GM and the player's of
the game should get to decide just what destroys it since it isn't spelled
out in the rules, just what would get rid of it forever(ultimately of course
the decision is the GM's). Even if you do insist on using the rule from the
Dispel description as the removal method just how many balanced games are
going to have someone walking around with a Dispel that is powerful enough
to overcome the TOTAL active points in a character? To me I wouldn't allow
an Independent power placed on a person to be dispelled as its only way to
get rid of it. That would be too unlikely to ever happen.

Alan

------------------------------

End of champ-l-digest V1 #65
****************************

Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 03:31 PM