Week Ending January 3, 1998
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:12:28 EST
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 97-12-27 16:30:15 EST, filkhero@usa.net writes:
> >IMO an important feature of a four-color world (or of any highly
> cinematic
> >world) is the ability to remain heroic while doing things that would
> be
> >profoundly criminal in the real world.
>
> If my players do something that would be profoundly criminal in the
> real world, they may very well be arrested. What "profoundly criminal"
> behavior do you feel is necesary for cinematic worlds?
>From my essay "The Evil that Good Guys Do" which Vox Ludator has kindly
published on his web page (http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html)
* Cinematic heroes tend to ignore the rules; they often don't follow the laws,
*regulations, social norms, and moral standards that apply to ordinary people.
*They are outlaw-heroes, even in cases where their activities are approved of
by
*the authorities and the general population. Conan is a bloody-handed
barbarian. *James Bond is a womanizer and a cold-blooded killer. "Dirty Harry"
is a maverick
*cop who uses a non-regulation .44 Magnum. Even "boy-scout" heroes like
*Superman and Captain America wear funky costumes, beat people up, violate
*FAA regulations, and otherwise behave eccentricly.
* More importantly, the audience cheers on the actions of cinematic heroes
even
*when the authorities and general population don't approve. Furthermore, the
*audience cheers on the outlaw-heroes even when their activities are actual
*crimes that the audience ought to disapprove of - and that the audience
actually
*does disapprove of in real life. Part of the cinematic storyteller's art is
to soften
*and disguise the evil and criminal appearance of the outlaw-hero's actions so
that
*the audience can overlook and forgive the evil nature of those acts. This
allows
*the audience to vicariously enjoy the pleasures of the hero's outlawry
without
*feeling guilt or revulsion.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:12:31 EST
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 97-12-27 17:50:02 EST, GoldRushG@aol.com writes:
> <, If and only if the players and GM define or 'benchmark' the descriptives
> ahead
> of time. Otherwise the players and GM risk developing diverging views about
> what's "really" happening in the game world. >>
>
> And this is a bad thing?
YES. It is a Bad Thing.
> How often do thrtee people perceive the same
> exact
> thing in different ways? All the time! I can tell you from years of taking
> statements and writing police reports that you *never* get the same story
> from
> tow people if they are interviewed separately. That's just an inherent part
> of
> human perception and interpretation. As such, I see nothing wrong with it
in
> a
> game.
Remind me to never ever play a game with you as GM. Even the most diceless and
description based roleplayers over on rec.games.frp.advocacy recognize how
lethal assumption clash can be to a game.
As you say, human eyewitnesses misperceive things. But players, being human,
misperceive the GM in just that way as well. The GM must therefore strive to
be exceptionally clear in his descriptions - as nearly clear as possible as
the actual event. Otherwise what the players will end up with will be a twice-
blurred understanding of a second-hand account rather than the once-fuzzed
understanding of a first-hand account. Ambigious description on the GM's part
will turn the player's understanding of events into the equivalent of hearsay
rather than the equivalent of an eyewitness account.
> Eventually, the players will learn to interpret your descriptions. No
> big thing. But I agree it is up to the GM to be consistent and fair in his
> descriptions.
"Eventually" isn't soon enough. Waiting for the players to "eventually" learn
to interpret your descriptions is like the healing of an old-fashioned
amputation - it's a race between the rotting of the ligatures and the onset of
gangrene. It does sometimes work, but IMO it isn't good technique.
>
> << "Cinematic" is a description of the way the game-world *works* not a
> description of the way the game-world is *described*. >>
>
> You are thinking in too narrow terms (i.e., in gaming convention).
I prefer to think of it as using words precisely.
> A
> cinematic style can be achieved in describing things. Your terminology, use
> of
> "cut scenes" (or scenes in which the PCs are not a part of), epilogues, and
> so
> on, can all be used to good effect, IMO. But they can also be used with
> games
> that are, IMHO, not cionematic at all, like Call of Cthulhu, Aftermath, and
> so
> on.
And this is a good thing?
If you, as GM, say that you are going to run a "cinematic" game, and the
players think "swashbuckling heroics" while you think "film noir with
flashbacks, cut scenes, etc." then you and your players are headed for a
horrible conceptual pile-up.
>
> It all comes down to a matter of preferred style, as you alluded to.
>
> Mark @ GRG
>
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Too much Knockback
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:49:57 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>At 01:32 PM 12/23/97 -0200, Rodrigo Cesar Gevaerd de Faria wrote:
>> I have a ninja-like character, with a quite powerful sword: 3d6K. He
has 30 STR, so a normal hit with his sword would do 5d6K, with an average of
17.5 body. The 3d6 of knockback roll has an average of 10.5, which give us an
average of 7" = 14 meters of knockback. I guess 14 meters is more than half
basketball court... don't you think this is too much ?
I don't think his STR is the cause of quite big knockback, because a
punch with that STR would do no knockback on average. <<
Bob Greenwade Responds:
> That's not really that outrageous. Remember, it's not *just* the STR
that's behind the knockback; the mass of the sword makes quite a contribution
(considering that's what's behind 60% of the base damage).
Like the character's STR, the sword also will do no Knockback on average.
It's the *combination* of the two that is so devastating. And at 5d6K, we
shouldn't be surprised; if someone capable of lifting a small car off the
ground were to hit me at full board with a sword some 5' long, I'd probably
go sailing a ways.
Also, I don't tend to think of Knockback as *necessarily* meaning the
character goes flying through the air. I once got into a brief fight with
someone (back when my body was a little more capable of such things, and my
temper a little more prone to it) and ended it when I smacked him a good one
in the chops. He stumbled back a good six feet before falling to the ground.
That could be considered Knockback (in this case, one inch in game scale).
(Murphy's Rule: in fights between average normals, one successful blow out
of 1296 will send the recipient flying back 8 meters.) <
I think that's the best way to treat Knockback at the low end of the damage
scale, with normals sometimes sending each other stumbling or staggering back
several meters.
I don't like the existing rule where serious damage is concerned. It lacks
the four-color feel of the Thing or Iron Man punching the villain a country
mile. And does anyone remember Wolverine getting punched into orbit during
the X-Men's first encounter with the Shi'ar?
For such attacks, my take is to equate the final "BODY" of the Knockback
after the Knockback dice roll is subtracted, not with inches of distance, but
with a guestimate of the kinetic energy of the body as it goes flying back.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I treat 1 DC as roughly equal to 50
joules, doubling the energy with every additional DC. At 4 BODY of
Knockback, the fellow travels back with a kinetic energy of 400 joules, not a
lot of velocity for a 100 kg mass, less than 3 meters/second. At 12 BODY of
Knockback, that's 100 kJ for a velocity of 45 meters/second, quite a wallop.
Treat the mighty Knockback as projectile motion with the character sailing at
about a 30-degree angle, plug in a fudge factor for air resistance, and I get
a table of numbers ranging into the kilometers for the mightiest of blows.
The distances don't need to be measured out to the last meter, I'd just like
to know generally where the character lands so that, assuming he survives the
blow, I know how long it takes him to get back to the scene of the fight.
The damage inflicted when the character finally lands still follows the
official rules.
I'm also considering tinkering with the dice rolled for Knockback. Say, roll
only 1d6 for Knockback, and Knockback energy is on the average 1/8 to 1/16
that of damage energy, rather than the current average of 1/128 on a result
of 7 on 2d6. Roll one more d6 for a martial arts attack, two more d6 for a
killing attack. Roll an additional d6 for AP attacks of a keenly impaling or
piercing type.
A character throwing for distance has the chance to hurl the body at a more
advantageous 45-degree angle, and is able to put his STR into the throw
rather than dividing it between damage energy and Knockback energy, so he can
achieve even greater distances.
This makes movement powers important for those who love a high-power
slugfest. It's embarrassing to have to hail a cab to get back to the guy who
just energy blasted or threw you.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
From: Firelynx16 <Firelynx16@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:53:23 EST
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< >There's no consensus on STR. It is *NOT* overpriced. It's cost is
>balanced with Power Frameworks. I'm glad it won't be changed, it
>would, litterally, break the system.
Um ... you get literally more than you pay for. It is thus, by definition,
overpriced. Arguments that "it's balanced so that bricks can compete with
energy projectors" are sophistry, because this isn't AD&D -- under the
current system, I can have an energy-projecting brick, AND THERE'S NO REASON
NOT TO! STR pays for itself -- why not jack it up as high as possible?
>>
That's what the GM is for... to make sure her/his players keep their
characters within conception. Strength is, IMHO, correctly priced. A good
way to check the value of its price is to look at the Champions write ups in
HSR. They are all 250pts, and are pretty well balanced amongst themselves,
and the villains and other heros that are listed later in the book. And this
really holds true for all GM approved, balanced, 250pt characters. If you
were to increase the price of Str, Obsidian and Defender would would have to
become weaker than their teammates, either in combat effectiveness, or in
campaign/character effectiveness. And both Obsidian and Defender aren't even
archetype Bricks, since they've both used means other than just buying
straight Str. Just imagine how it would be if they were Bricks bought like
Ogre. You'd either lose a lot of non-combat 'character building' things, or
you'd have a low powered Brick. In Ogre's case, you just have an
underpowered, unbalanced villain. Another way to look at it is to see that of
all these 250pt characters in HSR, those who are Bricks aren't out of balance
with the other 250pt non-Bricks. If people are contending that Str is too
cheap, than the Bricks should be more powerful than an equal cost non-Brick,
and that's just not the case at all. Bricks are actually, in most cases, the
least 'fleshed out' characters, because once they spend their points to make
them equal in power level with everyone else, they, unlike most everyone else,
don't have points left over to buy a lot of Skills and such that round a
character out. For the most part... there are always exceptions.
Just my two cents,
'Lynx
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:57:40 EST
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< YES. It is a Bad Thing. >>
Perhaps I am not making myself clear, then. Nobody I have ever talked to or
gamed with (most of the Hero Games folks, Steve Perrin, Paul Lidberg, Steve
Long, Chris Avellone, Greg Lloyd and Aaron Allston) have a problem or dislike
for the kind of "cinematic" approach I'm thinking of. Again, maybe I am
sending the wrong message here. I'm talking about a style of Gming. I don't
necessarily *advocate* GMing without revealing stats and numbers to the
players, but there is certainly a time for revealing things and a time for
keeping them "secret" for the sake of telling the story.
<< I prefer to think of it as using words precisely. >>
"Cinematic (adj.) -- Dealing with or related to movies, the cinema or
theater."
<< Remind me to never ever play a game with you as GM.>>
It's coments like these that really make me take stock in my participation
on this list, and make me wonder if it's really worth the time and energy I
spend making comments, reading comments, and so on. I thought this was a free
exchange of ideas? If you don't like my ideas, that's fine. You're entitled to
your opinion and to run your games any way you want. But by the same token, so
am I. Can't you find a way to convey your thoughts to me without resorting to
negative comments, insults and other derogatory connotation?
Mark @ GRG
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: New Limitation: Puncture
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:59:30 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
The existing table for wall BODY has bothered me for some time, in part
because so many attacks--an anti-tank round, a focused EB, a human-sized
fist--will usually not make as big as a man-sized hole.
So I came up with a new table for wall BODY, predicated on the making of a
hole 250-300 square cm in area (.025-.030 square meters), or a circle 7-8" in
diameter. That seems a proper size for an AT round or a typical brick's fist
blow. For a wall 64 mm in thickness, the BODY value for that potential hole
(about 1,800 cubic cm of matter) ranges from 2 BODY for ice to 8 BODY for
hard metal. This BODY value depends on the matter's density and on its
relative brittleness, ice being particularly brittle. For every doubling or
halving of the wall's thickness, the BODY improves by +1 or decreases by -1.
Whether the hole can be made larger with greater BODY suffered depends on the
type of attack. If the damage comes from a killing or an AP attack, then the
attack simply blows through. Any target on the other side of the wall hit by
the attack will take the difference in damage, the damage dice of the
original attack less the damage dice required to blow through the wall. I
suppose a parallel with casual STR can be made here--if the attack's BODY
damage exceeds twice the total rD and BODY of the wall struck, the attack
blows through with negligible energy loss.
If the damage comes from an explosion attack, or from a normal attack (such
as a truck crashing into a house wall, a brick tearing the armor from a tank,
a broad-beam EB), then for every additional BODY inflicted, the hole's
surface area doubles. At +5 BODY, the hole made is about 1 square meter,
about the surface area of a typical person--most characters could squeeze
through smaller holes than this, though. Any damage inflicted to targets on
the other side of the wall is a judgement call based on the circumstances.
Maybe the truck crashes clear through the wall, maybe the explosion sends
chunks of stone or shrapnel flying about. It depends on the event.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Weapons & Armor
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 01:06:23 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On December 25, 1997, Filksinger wrote:
> Incidentally, some antitank armor piercing rounds don't make holes
in
armor. Ever here of High Explosive, Plastic (HEP) rounds? They spread
plastic explosive over a small area of a target and detonate it. The
armor flexes in such a way that a piece of it is ripped from the
inner
side to go careening around the inside of the tank, killing the
occupants. <
HEP rounds? Too newfangled for me. I'm still working my way through
my stepfather's copy of the U.S. War Department's Handbook on German
Military Forces, converting WWII weapon systems to the HERO rules.
By the way, I'd rate a 15 DC attack or 5d6 KA (as generated by a 3d6
HKA sword in the hands of a 30 STR character, discussed in another
thread on Knockback), as roughly equivalent to some WWII 50-mm guns,
such as the German Pak 38, capable of dependably penetrating more
than 50 mm of homogeneous armor. That's some sword.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Play by Email
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:46:05 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> I am interested in Champs Play by EMail. Where can I get into a game or
> find guidelines for playing/running such a game?
>
Try www.pbem.com
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
"The CCG is a natural extension of the Operating Sys... Er, Role Playing
System." --- Something I swear Richard Garfield (WoTC) must have said at
some point.
Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 22:56:19 -0800
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Breakable Armor
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
A Kirkland wrote:
>
> At 11:29 97/12/27 -0800, Robert A. West wrote:
> >
> >1) Per HSR p. 106, a focus that provides defenses is automatically hit by
> >any attack that hits the character. I interpret this to mean hitting the
> >character's DCV (or the DCV of the Hex, or whatever applies).
>
> But on p104/105, it states that an inaccessable focus can Not be hit in
> combat.
Actually, you misquote the rules, and moreover do so out of context. It
says on p. 104 how you can take away an Accessible Focus.
An Accessible Focus can be hit by a Grab combat maneuver
(see Combat Maneuvers), or by any ranged attack taking an
extra -2 OCV . . . In either case the attacker must state
before he rolls his Attack Roll that he's trying to hit the
Focus. * * *
The Focus is knocked free if the attacker rolls more BODY
for his atttack than the defender rolls BODY for his Strength.
(For more information, see Disarm).
Clearly, this is not discussing how to destroy a Focus; that topic has
not even been broached yet, and the foregoing rule applies to Breakable
and Unbreakable Foci equally. In the very next paragraph (p. 105), the
contrasting rule for an Inaccessible Focus is stated:
An Inaccessible Focus can't be hit with a Grab or a ranged
attack while the character is in combat. However, an
Inaccessible Focus can be taken away by someone taking one
Turn out of combat. An Inaccessible Focus cannot be taken
away if the character is struggling or resisting.
This obviously refers to hitting the Focus as a Disarm: Inaccessible Foci
cannot be taken away by that method. It has no relevance for attacks
that are intended to break a Focus; otherwise, Breakable and Accessible
would not be independent decisions, and it is reasonably clear from
the construction of the section that they are *intended* to be
independent decisions.
In any event, the rule in the first paragraph of p.105 does not make
Inaccessible Foci immune to non-grab non-ranged attacks, so the question
remains.
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sti@pop3.hip.cam.org>
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@CAM.ORG>
Organization: Stirling Westrup Consulting
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 07:19:49 +0000
Subject: Knockback revised - Was Re: Too Much Knockback
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
So Sayeth Len Carpenter <redlion@voicenet.com&>
> I think that's the best way to treat Knockback at the low end of the damage
> scale, with normals sometimes sending each other stumbling or staggering back
> several meters.
>
> I don't like the existing rule where serious damage is concerned. It lacks
> the four-color feel of the Thing or Iron Man punching the villain a country
> mile. And does anyone remember Wolverine getting punched into orbit during
> the X-Men's first encounter with the Shi'ar?
Yup. One of my favorite scenes from the old X-men.
> For such attacks, my take is to equate the final "BODY" of the Knockback
> after the Knockback dice roll is subtracted, not with inches of distance, but
> with a guestimate of the kinetic energy of the body as it goes flying back. As
> I mentioned in a previous thread, I treat 1 DC as roughly equal to 50 joules,
> doubling the energy with every additional DC. At 4 BODY of Knockback, the
> fellow travels back with a kinetic energy of 400 joules, not a lot of velocity
> for a 100 kg mass, less than 3 meters/second. At 12 BODY of Knockback, that's
> 100 kJ for a velocity of 45 meters/second, quite a wallop.
I *LIKE* this scheme. What's better, it even fits nicely with the underlying
logarithmic scheme of body damage inherent in the rules.
> Treat the mighty Knockback as projectile motion with the character sailing at
> about a 30-degree angle, plug in a fudge factor for air resistance, and I get
> a table of numbers ranging into the kilometers for the mightiest of blows. The
> distances don't need to be measured out to the last meter, I'd just like to
> know generally where the character lands so that, assuming he survives the
> blow, I know how long it takes him to get back to the scene of the fight. The
> damage inflicted when the character finally lands still follows the official
> rules.
I think your post is going into my file of house rules to adopt.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
From: Pat10355 <Pat10355@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 02:43:39 EST
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<<I prefer to think of it as using words precisely.>>
Inventing your own definition to a word and then attacking others for not
adhering to it is not exactly what I'd call "using words precisely."
Besides, there's no need to appropriate "cinematic." The concept you are
talking about already has a name: "suspension of disbelief."
Filmgoers know that real police don't go around blowing people away willy-
nilly, but they're willing to suspend their disbelief to enjoy a Dirty Harry
film.
Likewise, gamers realize that someone who dresses in tights and gets into
fistfights with similarly-dressed "villains" is going to end up in a loony bin
in real life, but they are willing to suspend their disbelief for a fun
evening of Champions.
The question, for both film-makers and GMs, is what level of suspension of
disbelief will the audience accept? Some people want virtually complete
freedom of action for their heroes, while others prefer a film or game closer
to the "real world," with legal limits & consequences to the actions of the
heroes.
Which perspective is correct for your game? Whichever one you and your players
enjoy most, regardless of what other gaming groups may do.
Patrick Sweeney
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:46:17 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, December 27, 1997 1:31 PM, Lizard wrote:
<snip>
>Yup. In comci books, you have "Scientists" -- maybe with some
>specialty that doesn't really matter:You have biologists repairing
>spaceships all the time. But in a 'hard science' game, whether Dr.
>Jones studied astrophysics or chemistry is very important to the
>scenario.
<snip>
In a 'hard science' game, whether Dr. Jones studied astrophysics or
high-energy physics may be pretty important.
Filksinger
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Armored Heroes (OIF vs. OIHID)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 1997 23:52:23 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, December 27, 1997 3:59 PM, Eric Burns wrote:
>I have a quick question for you veterins out there: which way is
>generally more effective for simulating armored heroes (like Iron
>Man), an OIHID on all of the powers, or an OIF Focus? That is to
>say, which of these two limitations better represent the limitations
>that Iron Man, et. al., face in the comic books?
That depends a bit on the style of play and the nature of the armor.
If the armor is readily removed, and particularly if it is hard to
carry around without wearing it, then it should be a focus. However,
if the armor is almost never removed and can be carried around easily,
then it should be OIHID.
Filksinger
From: Pat10355 <Pat10355@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 02:54:56 EST
Subject: Skill Costs
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I've started a new thread on the topic of skill costs in Hero System 5th
Edition to move this discussion into its own arena.
Personally, I like having all the skills cost 3 pts. for a base roll. I don't
think it's necessary to return to the system of having some cost 5 pts., etc.
On the topic of super-scientists, the Scientist skill enhancer allows the PC
to buy lots of different science skills fairly cheaply. With Invention and
Electronics skills, that seems to cover comic-book scientists pretty well.
And allowing biologists to repair starships is more a matter of campaign style
than rules, IMO.
Patrick Sweeney
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 02:26:25 -0600
From: A Kirkland <ajk117@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Re: Breakable Armor
X-Sender: ajk117@mail.usask.ca
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 22:56 97/12/27 -0800, you wrote:
>A Kirkland wrote:
>>
>> At 11:29 97/12/27 -0800, Robert A. West wrote:
>
>> >
>> >1) Per HSR p. 106, a focus that provides defenses is automatically hit by
>> >any attack that hits the character. I interpret this to mean hitting the
>> >character's DCV (or the DCV of the Hex, or whatever applies).
>>
>> But on p104/105, it states that an inaccessable focus can Not be hit in
>> combat.
>
>Actually, you misquote the rules, and moreover do so out of context. It
>says on p. 104 how you can take away an Accessible Focus.
>
> An Accessible Focus can be hit by a Grab combat maneuver
> (see Combat Maneuvers), or by any ranged attack taking an
> extra -2 OCV . . . In either case the attacker must state
> before he rolls his Attack Roll that he's trying to hit the
> Focus....
>
> The Focus is knocked free if the attacker rolls more BODY
> for his atttack than the defender rolls BODY for his Strength.
> (For more information, see Disarm).
... and, if the ranged attack does a breakable focus' def + body, the focus
is destroyed.
With a Grab, the choice of whether or not to do damage to the foci is
up to the attacker ( grab & squeeze vs. grab & control )
>Clearly, this is not discussing how to destroy a Focus;
>that topic has not even been broached yet, and the foregoing rule applies
to Breakable
>and Unbreakable Foci equally.
In order to break it, first you have to hit it. This applies to all foci.
Defensive foci just change the
definition of what is needed to hit it.
> In the very next paragraph (p. 105), the contrasting rule for an
Inaccessible Focus is stated:
>
> An Inaccessible Focus can't be hit with a Grab or a ranged
> attack while the character is in combat. However, an
> Inaccessible Focus can be taken away by someone taking one
> Turn out of combat. An Inaccessible Focus cannot be taken
> away if the character is struggling or resisting.
>
[ snip section on parallels with Disarm ]
Note - "An Inaccessible Focus can't be hit with a Grab or a ranged
attack while the character is in combat."
not can't be disarmed or taken away, but can't be hit at all
>In any event, the rule in the first paragraph of p.105 does not make
>Inaccessible Foci immune to non-grab non-ranged attacks, so the question
>remains.
If you interpret it that way, the following can happen:
Mr Target ( high rPD & rED ), wearing his Tinfoil body armor ( 1/1 armor,
OIF, 1def & 1body ),
is shot at by the combined military forces of the entire world. His armor
is not even dented.
Then the Man On The Street ( 10 str ) punches him, and the armor crumples.
This is, of course, impossible.
The BBB does not say non-grab non-ranged attacks are allowed to hit most
foci at all.
The Focus section is poorly written and self-contradictory. It states that
all defense providing foci are always hit,
And that inaccesible foci can't be hit.
But this is HERO so this is old news. Since the very beginning of HERO, it
has been nessicary
to look past what the writers say, to what they really mean
( and try not to think about the errors they make in the published
characters ).
A foci get less of a limitation than Ablative, as you observed. Therefore,
it is should be less of a problem.
The most coherent means ( short of rewriting ) to make it work is to allow
inaccessible foci to be immune to all normal
combat effects, (not just grabs and ranged attacks).
"Any Focus which provides defenses ..." [and Can Be Hit] "is automatically
hit by any attack that hits the character."
For accessible foci, you may want to use DCV levels, such as are suggested
for shields in the equipment section,
or a similar mechanic. Otherwise the foci Will break.
Remember that GM's can change the rules for dramatic effect, or for a good
SFX.
If you want an EMP to zap Defenders suit, it does.
On the other hand, Flechette-guy ( 1d6 RKA Penetrating ) shouldn't be able
to blast
chainmail right off a person with every shot.
A Kirkland
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 00:32:41 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Saturday, December 27, 1997 8:22 PM, ErolB1 wrote:
<snip>
>From my essay "The Evil that Good Guys Do" which Vox Ludator has
kindly
>published on his web page (http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html)
<snip>
For the most part, these people aren't my favorite movie characters.
Dirty Harry isn't one. Conan both isn't one and, in the movie I saw,
didn't indiscriminately kill people, but only in self defense and when
saving others (not the same as the book Conan, true, but that's one of
the reasons I didn't like the book Conan). James Bond is a character I
like, but isn't a hero so much as an anti-hero.
Regardless, none of these characters prove the point. They are
examples where law breaking is part of a particular hero's methods or
even profession, but they aren't the only heroes, and not all other
heroes either do evil or break the law (not necessarily the same
thing). It is not _necessary_ to break the law to be heroic in
cinematic genres, and it _certainly_ isn't necessary that they do
_evil_.
As for the "goody two shoes" heroes, many of them rarely if ever break
the law, and many do while scrupulously avoiding evil. Wearing strange
costumes, etc, doesn't generally break the law.
BTW, I'll bet Superman breaks a lot fewer laws than you think.
Virtually all such laws apply to _vehicles_, and Superman is not a
vehicle. Additionally, you are assuming that the FAA laws in a
universe where people can fly are the same as ours, which I doubt.
Filksinger
X-Sender: ludator@mail.softfarm.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:41:14 -0600
From: Vox Ludator! <ludator@mail.softfarm.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:58 PM 12/28/97 EST, GoldRushG wrote:
><< The alternative is Fuzion, with it's three different point pools, and no-
>buying-figured-characteristics... >>
>
> Actually you *can* buy up Derived Stats. It's mentioned in the rules, but
>requires GM approval and is generally not recommended. But hey, house rules
>and all...
As I recall, the Fuzion method of buying up figured stats amounts to
something like this:
We'll pretend that Fuzion uses HERO point costs. 5 points of STR buys +1
PD. Ergo, we'll set the cost of PD at 5 points. Similiarly, +1 REC will be
5 points, and +1 STUN will be 2 points.
This paradigm is what I ended up calling on the Fuzion list "The candles
cost the same as the whole cake". Steve's feelings were that the only
reason why one would want to buy Derived Stats alone is that they'd already
maxed out their Primary Stats.
--
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing." -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the SoapVox at http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html
X-Sender: ludator@mail.softfarm.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:41:16 -0600
From: Vox Ludator! <ludator@mail.softfarm.com>
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:18 PM 12/28/97 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> It's coments like these that really make me take stock in my
>> participation on this list, and make me wonder if it's really worth
>> the time and energy I spend making comments, reading comments, and so
>> on. I thought this was a free exchange of ideas? If you don't like my
>> ideas, that's fine. You're entitled to your opinion and to run your
>> games any way you want. But by the same token, so am I. Can't you find
>> a way to convey your thoughts to me without resorting to negative
>> comments, insults and other derogatory connotation?
> Oh, don't be discouraged.
> Erol is forwarding his own, quite unique, opinion. I only know
>one or two with a like opinion on gaming, horrid rules lawyers all.
> But I'm quite convinced he'd be quite unhappy in a game you ran,
>and that you'd be quite unhappy having him for a player. I'd feel quite
>unhappy having him for a player and he would definately not like my games.
> He's a style on his own. Let him have his say and reasize most of
>us are just silently finding his remarks quite rediculous.
You know, Tim, if I was Mark, this message would have been condensed into a
one-word answer: "No." If anything, this struck me as MORE insulting and
derogatory in its intent than Erol's comment -- at least he consistently
uses "I" instead of "we", avoiding the pitfall of speaking for the list in
entirety. Not only have you written a borderline flame ("borderline" on
account that it replaces actual hostility with mere smug contempt), but
you're stamping it with the "Official Hero List POV" insignia; the end
result seems less like an expression of honest opinion than a calculated
character assassination. To paraphrase Mark's question, can't you find a
way to convey your thoughts without resorting to dismissing someone as the
"crazy uncle" of the list that we're merely humoring by deigning to allow
them to share our august company?
I think Mark has every right to be discouraged, because I often feel the
same way, except that I'm (usually) not even the target of the comments in
question; I don't think it's TOO much to ask to think twice about making
potentially hurtful statements (and yes, I say that full knowing I've
flubbed up more than once). There's a difference between expressing a point
and making pointed expressions :/
--
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to
do nothing." -- Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the SoapVox at http://www.io.com/~angilas/soapvox.html
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:31:02 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:34 PM 12/27/97 EST, Doc Tough wrote:
> On a general observation, the new addition should be a compilation and
>clarification of ALL the rules presented without going into the depth that
the
>Ultimate series should be used. This would mean adding the Spirit rules
>(which I find have been very useful for a celestial character in my
campaign),
>cleaned up Venom rules and even the interesting Incomplete rules from the
>List.
While I agree with you in terms of content (except that the Incomplete
rules, in my opinion, should be merely consulted for principle rather than
included as a separate structure), I should point out that what's being
discussed is an entirely new edition of the rules, Doc, not yet another
add-on book.
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:39:03 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero System 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:02 PM 12/27/97 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>> I agree that it's mainly a campaign decision, but in any
>event, -10
>>seems like an obscenely big Limitation. The biggest single
>Limitation
>>given in the book is -2. And besides, what would you apply it to?
>BODY?
>> However, it might do well to have characters with Normal
>Characteristic
>>Maxima pay for Weapon Familiarities even for weapons they pay points
>for.
>
>The negative ten is supposed to represent a Disadvantage, not a
>Limitation.
Well, the original poster stated it as a Limitation, and wrote it in the
format of a Limitation, so...
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 06:52:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Armored Heroes (OIF vs. OIHID)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 07:52 PM 12/27/97 -0500, Eric Burns wrote:
>I have a quick question for you veterins out there: which way is
>generally more effective for simulating armored heroes (like Iron
>Man), an OIHID on all of the powers, or an OIF Focus? That is to
>say, which of these two limitations better represent the limitations
>that Iron Man, et. al., face in the comic books?
Given a choice between those two, go with OIF.
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 97 15:19:08
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Aid and Powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 25 Dec 1997 23:10:21 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>On Thursday, December 25, 1997 7:39 PM, John and Ron Prins wrote:
>
>
>>>True. However, this higher AP ceiling is not the same as giving out
>>>the same points over and over again. It is still the same number of
>>>points.
>>
>>Ah, that is where I differ, and say that it is. If I have a 10 point
>VPP, I
>>can only stick powers with 10 APs into it. I could, for example,
>stick 2 10
>>AP powers, so long as each has a -1 Limitation.
>>
>>Now, if I Aid that VPP to 20 points, I can now stick 2 20 AP powers
>in that
>>pool using the same limitations. BOTH powers have seen an Active
>Point jump,
>>by the same amount, from a single application of an adjustment power.
>This
>>satisifes the definition of 'all powers of the same SFX' rather
>nicely, IMHO.
>>
>
>Try this. I have a 10 pt. VPP, and I put 2 5 pt powers into it, with
>no Limitations at all. Now, I put 10 pts into the VPP. Both powers go
>up by 5 pts, to a maximum of 10 _total_.
>
>So it does get a bit hairier than your example indicates. However,
>after rereading the various
>Adjustment power descriptions, I have decided to go with your
>recommendation. +2 Advantage is required, but should be allowed.
>
>With a BIIIIIIIIIIG stopsign.
Don't forget, chaps and chapesses, that to Adjust a VPP, you'll have to
Adjust both the Pool AND the Control Cost. Further, Absorbtion isn't a
defense, so the guy's still going to take damage (of course the Pool
could have a default of Regeneration...)
So, if I have a Cosmic Pool of 10 pts, I have a Control Cost of 15, and
need to put 3 points to the Control Cost for every 2 points in the
Pool.
So, if I buy 2d6 Absorbtion with the +2 Advantage, and put on a decay
time of 5 mins (+1/2), for a total of 35 pts), specifying that the
points go to the VPP and absorbtion on a 5:2 basis. So, with every 7
pts Absorbed (the average), the VPP goes up by a whopping TWO points.
And for this, I've spent 60 pts total.
I would submit that there are far better ways of spending 60 pts.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
X-Sender: matthew@mail.mactyre.net (Unverified)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:00:01 -0800
From: Matthew Mactyre <mcm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Re: Breakable Armor
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 10:56 PM 12/27/97 -0800, Robert A. West wrote:
>This obviously refers to hitting the Focus as a Disarm: Inaccessible
Foci
>cannot be taken away by that method. It has no relevance for attacks
>that are intended to break a Focus; otherwise, Breakable and
Accessible
>would not be independent decisions, and it is reasonably clear from
>the construction of the section that they are *intended* to be
>independent decisions.
>
>In any event, the rule in the first paragraph of p.105 does not make
>Inaccessible Foci immune to non-grab non-ranged attacks, so the
question
>remains.
The way we have locally interpreted this rule is that an Inaccessible
Focus may not be affected unless the "taker" uses a full turn to
remove it. I wouldn't allow anyone to directly attack a breakable
Inaccessible Focus without first removing it.
Matthew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5
iQCVAwUBNKZ3gGVMPMbkLaa1AQGA/QQAueEjdGLiRsEQ1wddKVQAl/D/CK3QIkTu
wI+1W4UOBvOEMy0vj7Ntf7w4EhmNN/I9R9MGx0ngzRUpurUrRXO8HHAurg/FDuPL
nwm14R25QnlIwz+JlLcpgUd0KcHZDvA+KtsxKScdTSkHddHtpxiyAodG0JKDMYAe
OrhTcrq7Yp4=
=9t4T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matthew Mactyre
mcm@mactyre.net
http://www.mactyre.net
Join us on IRC Dalnet #herochat
X-Sender: shelley@mail.mactyre.net
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 08:09:10 -0800
From: Shelley Chrystal Mactyre <scm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Re: Play by Email
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:16 PM 12/27/97 -0500, John and Ron Prins wrote:
>The nice thing about PBEMs is the chance for thoughtful roleplaying. In a
>room full of other, waiting people, you can often get stuck for ideas or
>good lines. Given some extra time and few drumming fingers :-), you come up
>with better stuff!
Yes, yes, yes! PBEM is really the best forum for roleplaying since
bluebooking -- as a player pointed out, it's online bluebooking.
>Heh. Guess I took too many people, 'cause I started with twelve! It's been
>going for about a month and a half now, with no real signs of slowing down
>(other than the expected 'all players all over creation at Christmas'
>syndrome). Mind you, six of the twelve are what I'd call 'low volume'
>posters (1 response per turn), while the other six will talk your ear off if
>you let them.
>
>The thing that keeps me sane is running a highly structured (2 turns a week,
>no more than 2 posts a day per person), very low-combat environment - the
>players are all crew of an research ship. If I was running a faster paced
>game, I'd sure the heck want fewer players (like 4-6).
John makes a very important point here -- make sure your players are very
clear on guidelines! The only real problems I've had with people flaking
have been when they've either ignored or forgotten my criteria. Don't be
afraid to use a trial period with new players, to see if they're up to it.
In addition to responding directly to turns in terms of conversation, I
required a confusingly-named "turn response" in the G3 game, in which
players had near-complete autonomy in writing up combats and side
adventures in their characters' lives. They were great, but only the
dedicated were up to them! =)
In my games I allow people to post as much as they wish (usually with each
other, but also with NPCs), and that can run up to ten responses per person
per day when we get going. (That's what I meant by an hour/day -- it's
spread out through the day). I ask one player to compile the turns for
posting, for my sanity's sake, and unless I've got the time, weekend days
are off limits. Structure is really important; PBEM tends to be more
free-form than most roleplaying.
And good luck if you run the game -- it's definitely worth it!
Shelley Chrystal Mactyre
www.mactyre.net
From: johnl@vnet.net (John Lansford)
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero System 5th Edition
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:18:15 GMT
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 26 Dec 1997 20:06:12 -0600, you wrote:
>"Not changing the cost of Characteristics" ... which means not changing the
>cost of STR, which means not touching one of only 3 1/2 things you can get
>anywhere near a general consensus on around here as needing to happen (the
>others being clarifying Linked, adding a stratified purchase system to Change
>Environment, and fixing HA's Active Cost, which is connected to STR being so
>cheap).
No way is there even "half consensus" on changing STR costs. All the
characteristics work just fine as currently figured, and I for one
(and a whole lot of others) don't want to go through all the work to
change point totals and figured CHA just because some vocal minorities
want to change something so basic as STR costs.
John Lansford
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/intro.htm
From: johnl@vnet.net (John Lansford)
Subject: Re: Weapons & Armor
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:28:50 GMT
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997 01:06:23 -0500, you wrote:
>
>On December 25, 1997, Filksinger wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, some antitank armor piercing rounds don't make holes
>in
>armor. Ever here of High Explosive, Plastic (HEP) rounds? They spread
>plastic explosive over a small area of a target and detonate it. The
>armor flexes in such a way that a piece of it is ripped from the
>inner
>side to go careening around the inside of the tank, killing the
>occupants. <
>
>HEP rounds? Too newfangled for me. I'm still working my way through
>my stepfather's copy of the U.S. War Department's Handbook on German
>Military Forces, converting WWII weapon systems to the HERO rules.
They've been around since the late 50's.
Another example of AT warheads that don't make (much of) a hole are
the HEAT rounds. These have been around since WWII, and the hole they
make is around the size of a dime. Does terrible things inside the
armor, though.
John Lansford
http://users.vnet.net/lansford/a10/intro.htm
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 28 Dec 97 09:45:00 -0800
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
To: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
b > At 04:07 PM 12/26/97 -0500, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
b > >>Add a new limit "Uses Heroic Combat rules (-10)", sort of like
b > >>"Normal Characteristic Maxima". Character with this limit (default
b > item.
b > >Why not include "Uses Hit Location tables (-10)" while you are at it?
b > >Every other superhero just bounces around, but this guy gets head and
b > leg
b > >injuries.
b >
b > I agree that it's mainly a campaign decision, but in any event, -10
b > seems like an obscenely big Limitation. The biggest single Limitation
b > given in the book is -2. And besides, what would you apply it to?
b > BODY?
I think he probably mean a Physical Limitation worth 10 pts.
b > However, it might do well to have characters with Normal
b > Characteristic
b > Maxima pay for Weapon Familiarities even for weapons they pay points
b > for.
b > ---
I'd like to see the old 'Limmitted Magic' Disadvantage from the old
Fantasy Hero resurected as a more generic 'Limited Powers'
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 28 Dec 97 09:53:02 -0800
Subject: Breakable Armor
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
To: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
r > Subject: Breakable Armor
r >
r > Conclusion, the above character is hit by 3D6K rolling 11 BODY. The
r > Character takes no BODY, since he has 15rDEF. As for the foci:
r >
r > by 1) Both are hit by the attack.
r > by 2 and 3) The Armor has 10rDEF, and so takes 1 BODY.
r > The Shield has 5rDEF, and so takes 6 BODY.
r > by 4) Both foci are destroyed.
r >
r > This cannot possibly be the book intention, yet this is the effect of
r > straightforward application of the rules on pp 105 and 106. I don't
r > think that the above suffers from any "well-chosen example" problems.
r > hope that I am missing something; otherwise, I will have to come up
r > some house rules for breakable foci.
r > --
You're not missing anything. Foci have always worked this way...
most games I've played in, it's been ignored (for armor), when
not ignored, armors have an odd tendency to be defined as indestructable.
:)
I have yet to see a really good fix for it.
My own take on Foci lets you buy some extra BOD for them, but
like I said, it's not really good....
Focus:
<snip focus stuff not relevant to this discussion>...
Breakable: -0 Limitation. The default durability of a focus is
sufficient to withstand average attacks for the campaign in
question. For standard powers, a DEF of Apts/5 is a good
guideline. Breakable foci should not have a DEF greater
than the average damage caused by a pushed, high-end attack
for the game. Foci that provide Special Powers should have
a minimum DEF set at about half the maximum DEF for the
campaign plus 1 DEF/5Apts. Foci that grant a defense, can
use that defense, or their DEF as a Special Power -
whichever is greater. Breakable foci typically lose one
randomly-determined function per hit that does BOD to it. A
Breakable focus can get +2 BOD each time it's mass is
doubled (within reason). This BOD must be eliminated before
functions begin to be lost.
Tough: +1/4 Limitation. Though this focus can be damaged, it
requires considerable effort. The minimum defense for such
a focus should be able to bounce a high-end attack in the
campaign in question on an average roll. Any Standard Power
that exceeds the normal Apts for the game would give the
focus a DEF of Apts/5. A special power might have the
minimum DEF plus 1 DEF/5Apts. A Tough focus that provides a
defense, gets the defense it gives the character plus 1
DEF/5Apts in the power. The DEF of these foci also protects
against BOD Drains and can be hardened by sacrificing 1/5th
of the total DEF. In addition to having a somewhat higher
DEF than normal Breakable foci, a Tough focus must take at
least 2 BOD to disable one function. This amount can be
increased by +2 BOD per doubling of the foci's mass.
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 28 Dec 97 10:08:04 -0800
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
To: Vox Ludator! <ludator@mail.softfarm.com>
> At 10:08 AM 12/27/97 -0800, Opal wrote:
> >Some of Steve Longs' work seems to miss the Hero mark, but he also
> >gets it right pretty often - and he can write. And, I presume he
> >has the time, while, Steve P, Bruce, & George McDonald, do not...
>
> Except that we're talking about The Big Enchilada here, the ISO
> standard for
> HERO system gameplay, if you will. "pretty often" may not cut it. :/
Who would you suggest....
> >There's no consensus on STR. It is *NOT* overpriced. It's cost is
> >balanced with Power Frameworks. I'm glad it won't be changed, it
> >would, litterally, break the system.
>
> Um ... you get literally more than you pay for. It is thus, by
> definition overpriced.
Elemental Controls also get you literally more than you pay for, and
though it's less obvious, so do other power frameworks. Like I said
STR is balanced, just not with individual powers, but with Frameworks.
> Arguments that "it's balanced so that bricks can compete
> energy projectors" are sophistry, because this isn't AD&D -- under the
> current system, I can have an energy-projecting brick, AND THERE'S NO
> REASON NOT TO! STR pays for itself -- why not jack it up as high as possibl
Great accuse of of sophistry *and* playing D&D.... :)
You can have an energy-projecting brick, but you'll find that it
doesn't do so well (point efficency-wise) compared to either bricks
or energy projectors. STR pays for itself only if you want high
figured characteristics. Likewise, EC saves you points only if you
want a set of related powers. Multipower saves you lots of points
while sacrificing relatively little utility if you want a lot of
different attack powers, etc...
The alternative is Fuzion, with it's three different point pools,
and no-buying-figured-characteristics...
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
From: Opal@october.com (Opal)
Date: 28 Dec 97 10:17:06 -0800
Subject: Armored Heroes (OIF vs.
Organization: Fidonet: Red October Alpha * Hero Roleplaying * 408-629-4695 *
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 12-27-97 burns@usmcug.usm.maine.ed wrote to All...
> I have a quick question for you veterins out there: which way is
> generally more effective for simulating armored heroes (like Iron
> Man), an OIHID on all of the powers, or an OIF Focus? That is to
> say, which of these two limitations better represent the limitations
> that Iron Man, et. al., face in the comic books?
>
> -Eric
> ---
Personally, I prefer the Focus Limitation. However, the way
Iron Man is generally written, OIHID (or some simillar +1/4)
limitation makes more sense (note that he does need to have
the armor available to change), mainly because the villains
never peel him out of the thing when the KO him. (OTOH, by
the same token, the villains never seem to peel masks off the
heros either - so do none of them get Secret ID?).
That shouldn't stop you from taking Focus with an armored
PC, though, if that fits your concept better.
___
* OFFLINE 1.58
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:27:00 -0500 (EST)
From: ALONE AT MIDNIGHT <RAVANOS@jcs1.jcstate.edu>
Subject: Breakable, Inaccessable Foci
X-VMS-To: IN%"champ-l@omg.org"
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Wouldn't breakable inaccessable foci still be affected by Area of
Effect or Explosive attacks?
After all, if Grenado sets off a truck load of C-2 around Captain
Aegis enough to vaporize the truck, the captain, and a city block, wouldn't
it be kind of silly if the armor -wasn't- vaporized... (unless it was made
of nigh indestructable ubdatanium or someothersuch substance).
Also, how do you represent items (i.e. the Foci themselves) that carry
certain Disadvantages (like a Hi-Tech suit that takes X2 damage from magnetism,
or 'Unluck'-- I would assume you could apply the same modifer on the
Disadvantage from the Limitation?)
X-Sender: lizard@dnai.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 11:34:28 -0800
From: Lizard <lizard@dnai.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero System 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
At 06:39 AM 12/28/97 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Well, the original poster stated it as a Limitation, and wrote it
in the
>format of a Limitation, so...
>
>
I apologize for the confusion. It was supposed to be Disad, along the
lines of NCM.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNKapwzKf8mIpTvjWEQKrAgCgsmysGntCJU8032uyrWIV0LERhAEAn2YZ
HnsL04MEEJWuRW7J7xiM3kl4
=xQXB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:58:58 EST
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< The alternative is Fuzion, with it's three different point pools, and no-
buying-figured-characteristics... >>
Actually you *can* buy up Derived Stats. It's mentioned in the rules, but
requires GM approval and is generally not recommended. But hey, house rules
and all...
Mark @ GRG
X-Sender: champion@mailhost.cyberhighway.net
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:08:18 -0800
From: Jim Dickinson <champion@cyberhighway.net>
Subject: Re: Play by Email
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 08:09 AM 12/28/97 -0800, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre wrote:
>Don't be
>afraid to use a trial period with new players, to see if they're up to it.
Actually, for my "now snuffed" New Champions PBeM, I asked all interested
players to "audition" for a spot in the game. I presented the first turn
(an intro to the game) and asked them to write "the story" of how their
character becomes involved.
The best submissions won a place in the game. Other submissions were kept
on hand in case one of the original line-up had to bow out.
I think it worked very well, and made for a great 2nd turn. Because I
could see the caliber of writer/player, I had a good idea how well the game
would go. And it did! I still have the turns online for people to read
because they turned out so well!
Good luck in your game!
Jim
X-Sender: matthew@mail.mactyre.net (Unverified)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 12:08:24 -0800
From: Matthew Mactyre <mcm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessible Foci
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 02:27 PM 12/28/97 -0500, ALONE AT MIDNIGHT wrote:
> Wouldn't breakable inaccessable foci still be affected by
Area of
>Effect or Explosive attacks?
> After all, if Grenado sets off a truck load of C-2 around
Captain
>Aegis enough to vaporize the truck, the captain, and a city block,
wouldn't
>it be kind of silly if the armor -wasn't- vaporized... (unless it was
made
>of nigh indestructable ubdatanium or someothersuch substance).
I think the key word here is breakable. If it is bought as breakable,
then such an all inclusive attack would destroy the focus,
inaccessible or not. I can't think of a single time in my Champions
history where this has come up. Blowing up the valiant armored dude
is not a very heroic way to die.
The rules for removing or attacking an inaccessible focus are pretty
clear and cover most of the circumstances I've seen come up in game
play, at least locally. The rules are a guideline for simulating a
specific genre, use them to that end. If something doesn't make
sense, make a house rule to cover it. Shelley and I have mostly the
same house rules, with the exception of dive for cover. I have a
looser interpretation of when it can be used; Shelley sticks much
closer to the book. :-)
Matthew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5
iQCVAwUBNKaxt2VMPMbkLaa1AQEjXAP/ZXJjIoA+v8bby3QtN5ZTVCPZ/T4YQKvx
o26Bs+APnKJyHoVhDmVpj2SRf5v4goZ4LzxsQ1Un+PDUVNRs4gdGyfE4QN+EOPEw
CSfK87t0gExpP7lhEsf/yAD6q43DNMBaXOlGW2ERL0LCQiDC/I4ZDqPY9+QU+Aby
6anElwpVdeo=
=FhBn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matthew Mactyre
mcm@mactyre.net
http://www.mactyre.net
Join us on IRC Dalnet #herochat
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:18:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> It's coments like these that really make me take stock in my participation
> on this list, and make me wonder if it's really worth the time and energy I
> spend making comments, reading comments, and so on. I thought this was a free
> exchange of ideas? If you don't like my ideas, that's fine. You're entitled to
> your opinion and to run your games any way you want. But by the same token, so
> am I. Can't you find a way to convey your thoughts to me without resorting to
> negative comments, insults and other derogatory connotation?
Oh, don't be discouraged.
Erol is forwarding his own, quite unique, opinion. I only know
one or two with a like opinion on gaming, horrid rules lawyers all.
But I'm quite convinced he'd be quite unhappy in a game you ran,
and that you'd be quite unhappy having him for a player. I'd feel quite
unhappy having him for a player and he would definately not like my games.
He's a style on his own. Let him have his say and reasize most of
us are just silently finding his remarks quite rediculous.
-Tim Gilberg
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:40:09 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Subject: KAs and the Stun Lotto
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I've stayed on the side of keeping KAs as they are for some time,
and I will continue as such. I think the Stun Lotto effect is important
for KAs to represent the over or under usefullness of the power. I've
also said it works best when using the hit location charts, as all powers
then have the chance for the large or small stuns.
However, I like the non-Hit Location system. For one, it's
simpler. For another, it allows EBs to be much more dependable and KAs
much more variable, a status quo that I really like. There's some nice
difference between the two.
Yesterday, I thought up a new way to handle KA stun multiples. It
keeps the Stun Lotto, but lessens it. It also makes Increased Stun Mult
both more and less effective.
Roll Bod as normal. Roll the Stun Multiple Die, then compare it
to this chart:
1 -- 1*
2 -- 2*
3 -- 2*
4 -- 3*
5 -- 3*
6 -- 4*
Notice that the upper and lower ends are brought in, and that most
results will now center to 2 and 3. Notice that the average is unchanged.
For a +1 Stun Mult, it becomes:
1 -- 2*
2 -- 2*
3 -- 3*
4 -- 3*
5 -- 4*
6 -- 4*
Notice that we have lost the totally ineffecual blast. Fitting,
as increased Stun Mult is supposed to represent a weapon with real
stopping power. Notice, however, we still don't have the real upper end.
Just an increased chance for the 4* multiplier.
At +2 Stun Mult, it becomes:
1 -- 2*
2 -- 3*
3 -- 3*
4 -- 4*
5 -- 4*
6 -- 5*
Now it is really quite effective. Most attacks will have the 3*
or 4*, and very little chace for a still effective 2*. 5* has appeared as
well. This is a +1 advantage, as well, making it maybe a little
ineffecive for the cost.
For each additional +, just keep going up in numbers, always using
two of each number.
One thing I'd propose is introducing "decreased Stun mult" as a
limitation. Say at -1/2.
At the -1 level:
1 -- 1*
2 -- 1*
3 -- 2*
4 -- 2*
5 -- 3*
6 -- 3*
This really does have less real stopping power.
At the -2 level.
1 -- 1*
2 -- 1*
3 -- 1*
4 -- 2*
5 -- 2*
6 -- 3*
And so on, adding 1's to the bottom. I'd perhaps change the cost
to -1/4, or else a high BOD. low STUN KA gets too cheap. The "decreased
mult" is one of the possibly unbalancing parts of this power.
What does everyone think? I think I'm switching immediately,
myself. I think this will give KAs a much better feel.
-Tim Gilberg
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:28:29 -0800
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Breakable Armor
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
A Kirkland wrote:
[BTW, it is not necessary to reply both to the poster and to the list.]
> The Focus section is poorly written and self-contradictory. It states that
> all defense providing foci are always hit,
> And that inaccesible foci can't be hit.
> But this is HERO so this is old news. Since the very beginning of HERO, it
> has been nessicary
> to look past what the writers say, to what they really mean
> ( and try not to think about the errors they make in the published
> characters ).
No argument, so far. The problem comes with trying to discern the
intention behind the rules as written, or at least to come up with a
treatment that I can live with. To date, I have been underenforcing the
Breakable part of the Breakable Focus limitation by functionally doing
what you recommend. Since I have decided that this is unacceptable, it
is not very helpful to suggest that I continue doing it.
[big snip]
>
> Note - "An Inaccessible Focus can't be hit with a Grab or a ranged
> attack while the character is in combat."
> not can't be disarmed or taken away, but can't be hit at all
And the example in the second column of p.105 gives an example of Powered
Armor that is defined as an Obvious INACCESSIBLE Focus. Obviously, such
a focus can be hit in some fashion. As you have stated correctly, this
cannot be done by *targeting* the Armor, so how is it done? The answer
is given overleaf:
Any Focus that provides defenses to the characater is
automatically it by any attack that hits the character.
Note that the passage says "Any Breakable Focus," not "any Accessible
Breakable Focus." Since there are two rules in apparent conflict, we
have to resolve the conflict. There are two rational options:
1. If we use standard english-language semantics, we note that the two
sections address two very different situations, and therefore the two
passages should be understood to apply to those situations. In the
Accessibility passage, the author clearly sets down a rule that an
Inaccessible Focus cannot be targeted by Grabs or Ranged attacks. By
implication, an xIF *may* be targeted by HTH attacks intended to do
damage. Moreover, and explicitly, a defensive xIF is automatically hit
by any attack that hits the character.
Problem: this turns xIF Armor into Tinfoil Armor, as you so
aptly named it. This is far to severe a penalty, as both you
and I have noted.
2. Your view: a Breakable xIF can never be damaged, unless it is found
hanging on the wall. I infer from your statements that this includes
Area Effect Ranged Attacks and suchlike.
Problem: this makes Breakable xIFs functionally unbreakable,
which destroys the trade-off between Breakable and Unbreakable.
Since I have both technologically-based PCs and magically-based
PCs in my campaign, that balance is important.
I dislike both options, and am searching for a third. There must be some
way, within the *intent* of the rules, to make Breakable Inaccessible
Foci break often enough to matter, while not making them functionally
fragile.
>
> Remember that GM's can change the rules for dramatic effect, or for a good
> SFX.
> If you want an EMP to zap Defenders suit, it does.
I feel *very* strongly that a GM must obey his own rules: to do otherwise
is to start down the slippery slope of favoritism -- the GM rules one way
for players that are good friends and another for players that are only
acquaintences. In this respect I am shaped by experiences during the
early FRP in the New York area, where games were frequently used as means
of punishing people for supporting the wrong WorldCon bid, etc.
Whatever an NPC does in any campaign that I run is explained by a rule
that could, in principle, be exploited by a PC, and vice versa. This is
a point of honor between me and my players. Yes, there are those rare
cases where the GM must intervene, but IMHO the GM should always feel
uncomfortable about having to do so -- if the campaign and adventure were
better constructed, the Deus ex Machina would not be required.
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:35:49 -0800
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero System 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
> At 12:02 PM 12/27/97 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>> >
> >The negative ten is supposed to represent a Disadvantage, not a
> >Limitation.
>
> Well, the original poster stated it as a Limitation, and wrote it in the
> format of a Limitation, so...
Bob, you know perfectly well that the terms "Limitation" and
"Disadvantage" are often carelessly used for one another, especially
since we have the helpful terms Physical Limitation and Psychological
Limitation. I agree that we all should be as careful as possible, but I
think it clear from context that the writer intended a Disadvantage,
since the analogy was made to NCM. Perhaps he was even thinking in terms
of
10 Phys Lim: Subject to Disabling and Hit Location
(default and no point value for Heroic Campaigns)
--
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessible Foci
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:54:18 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sunday, December 28, 1997 11:16 AM, Matthew Mactyre wrote:
<snip>
>I think the key word here is breakable. If it is bought as
breakable,
>then such an all inclusive attack would destroy the focus,
>inaccessible or not. I can't think of a single time in my Champions
>history where this has come up. Blowing up the valiant armored dude
>is not a very heroic way to die.
Sure it is. He was trying to save everyone from the bomb. He could be
carrying it, for example, flying away from the city. Very heroic.
Filksinger
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessable Foci
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:54:27 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> Wouldn't breakable inaccessable foci still be affected by Area of
> Effect or Explosive attacks?
Probably, but I'd still call it a special effects call just to be
safe. There may be some effects where the lim fits but said type of attack
shouldn't logically hurt it.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
"The CCG is a natural extension of the Operating Sys... Er, Role Playing
System." --- Something I swear Richard Garfield (WoTC) must have said at
some point.
Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 14:57:41 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> << The alternative is Fuzion, with it's three different point pools, and no-
> buying-figured-characteristics... >>
>
> Actually you *can* buy up Derived Stats. It's mentioned in the rules, but
> requires GM approval and is generally not recommended. But hey, house rules
> and all...
Actually, it's not mentioned in the basic rules. Or rather the basic
rules hint at it but don't say how to do it.
You have to buy a suppliment and find it in the erratta on the last
few pages of that suppliment.
And in the first Fuzion game published, BGC, it specifically says
you CANNOT buy figured characteristics.
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 16:46:11 -0800
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sunday, December 28, 1997 2:05 PM, Brian Wong wrote:
<snip>
> Actually, it's not mentioned in the basic rules. Or rather the basic
>rules hint at it but don't say how to do it.
> You have to buy a suppliment and find it in the erratta on the last
>few pages of that suppliment.
> And in the first Fuzion game published, BGC, it specifically says
>you CANNOT buy figured characteristics.
In the present version of the online .pdf file, it does tell you how
to buy up Derived Characteristics. It costs exactly the same as to buy
the Base Characteristic that would give you that Derived
Characteristic.
This is one of two things I don't prefer about Fuzion characteristics
over HERO. The other is having different kinds of points, though,
since they can be swapped, I never found this to be a major sticking
point.
Filksinger
X-Sender: matthew@mail.mactyre.net (Unverified)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 17:56:13 -0800
From: Matthew Mactyre <mcm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessible Foci
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 02:54 PM 12/28/97 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>>then such an all inclusive attack would destroy the focus,
>>inaccessible or not. I can't think of a single time in my Champions
>>history where this has come up. Blowing up the valiant armored dude
>>is not a very heroic way to die.
>
>
>Sure it is. He was trying to save everyone from the bomb. He could be
>carrying it, for example, flying away from the city. Very heroic.
Okay, your point. <grin>
I must have missed the first part where this was explained. My point
is that I don't often blow up my player characters nor have I had my
characters blown up in a fashion that would destroy their focuses. I
think the explanation in the book covers most of the circumstances
I've seen in our games. However, special circumstances can require
special rulings.
Matthew
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5
iQCVAwUBNKcDPGVMPMbkLaa1AQE/PAP8D2GL25QK5MmPxbH4C7qy9tw0XGTR4xsV
+plrdGjcsorxBCWBA0iU8Ydh2KWFdUd1GoBQwvbpWr9gZ6pcmUNUng9Ya6HtlIVl
JE9WjFaOYyMc1eYFcKtUUKKJajZdOh4AGWn7XqrzfF1rWRtyOROsISKUie8YZ+vC
1RB+UfQThWc=
=hE5M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matthew Mactyre
mcm@mactyre.net
http://www.mactyre.net
Join us on IRC Dalnet #herochat
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:15:07 EST
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< The alternative is Fuzion, with it's three different point pools, and no-
buying-figured-characteristics... >>
>> Actually you *can* buy up Derived Stats. It's mentioned in the rules, but
requires GM approval and is generally not recommended. But hey, house rules
and all... <<
<< As I recall, the Fuzion method of buying up figured stats amounts to
something like this: >>
But the fact remains -- as was my point -- that you can buy up Derived
Stats. There is nothing written in stone that says you cannot do what you want
to do with Fuzion.
Mark @ GRG
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:15:10 EST
Subject: Misquotes
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:18 PM 12/28/97 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> It's coments like these
No, no, NO. Someone is not using their quoting ability accurately and it is
one day going to cause problems. Tim R. Gilberg did not state that. I stated
that. Just for the record.
Mark @ GRG
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:15:13 EST
Subject: One last note about e-courtesy
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< I don't think it's TOO much to ask to think twice about making potentially
hurtful statements (and yes, I say that full knowing I've flubbed up more than
once). >>
Join the club! :D We all make stupid errors in judgement on occasion. But we
can strive to take responsibility for our outbursts and work to correct them,
and to be more civil in future posts.
Just FYI, I didn't take his message to be insulting toward me. It could have
been a little nicer about the other fellow, true. But in any case all I ask is
for a little patience, a little understanding, and a little consideration when
posting messages to or about me.
If you honestly feel a certain way then by all means I encourage you to post
it, for good or for bad! But understand that there is a nice way to say the
most negative of things.
Understand, too, that I will be much more inclined to take into
consideration a kindly or carefully worded "flame" message than a hurtful,
spiteful, thoroughly insulting one (I generally just dismiss such messages).
It's the well-reasoned messages that I pay careful attention to, even when I
disagree with the poster.
Telling me "Hey, this sucks and you better fix it or you're a pile of crap
and you don't care about us. Your game sucks! I wouldn't feed it to my ex-
wife, let alone line my birdcage with it! Straighten up 'cause you have a
crappy attitude or I'll never buy your books and niether will any of my 10
friends or their 100 friends," etc., will get you the big fat "zero" on the
attention and consideration scale.
Sound exaggerated? You'd be surprised, then, to know that I get that kind of
mail and posts directed at me every so often. Folks who lurk in the superhero
newsgroup know *exactly* what I'm talking about. ;)
The bottom line is that I am here because I *do* care what our fans think.
But I also realize that the Hero Mailing List is but a small percentage of
that fanbase, as are the newsgroup readers, and the Hero fans on AOL, and so
on. But collectively they make a fair percentage of Hero fans, so I do my best
to have a presence in each of those places, to get a feel for what the fans
want, are thinking, etc.
But the quickest way to get me *off* of this list is to simply flame me,
insult me and otherwise show a deep lack of respect for me and my company.
That will show me that *you* people don't give a rats tush about *my* time and
energy spent in this forum.
And a quick note to all of you who *do* mind your manners.... THANK YOU! As
I implied earlier, your messages and feedback are appreciated. I won't promise
to meet every single expectation and answer every single question out there,
but I'll do my best to meet and answer a fair share of them. ;)
Good day. Good health. And good gaming!
Be a Hero!
[ Mark steps down from the podium and walk off stage. A silence falls over
the assembled crowd. And then... ]
Mark @ GRG
From: GoldRushG <GoldRushG@aol.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:15:15 EST
Subject: Derived stats
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< Actually, it's not mentioned in the basic rules. Or rather the basic rules
hint at it but don't say how to do it. >>
Funny. My copy says:
Increasing or Decreasing Characteristics (Primary or Derived)
Characteristics generally may not be increased or decreased directly. However,
certain Talents or Powers that may or may not be available in your campaign
setting may allow you to increase a Characteristic, either temporarily or
permanently. Certain Complications may also decrease a Characteristic. Or, as
last resort, you may attempt to convince your GM to allow you to use Option
Points (pg. 117) in increase a Characteristic at a ratio of five OP for every
point of Characteristic increase.
<< And in the first Fuzion game published, BGC, it specifically says you
CANNOT buy figured characteristics. >>
Understand that a few things have changed in Fuzion since the release of the
first printing of BGC. The Fuzion rules in BGC are not the *exact* same rules
as those used in C:NM, nor are the the same as the Fuzion rules you can
download from the RTG site. However, with that said, you are correct. ;)
Mark @ GRG
X-Sender: ghost@mail.softfarm.com
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:40:17 -0600
From: Bryce Berggren <ghost@softfarm.com>
Subject: The STR & HA Worms
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
(Bryce shakes off the fine coat of ashes that represent what's left of his
clothing after the dynamite exploded, Looney-Toons style).
OK, I stand corrected. The desirability of changing STR's cost does not
have a consensus. I gained this perception over a year ago during a debate,
when my argument that STR's excessive cheapness was "the loose thread in
the sweater" (i.e. even though it could be logically proven that STR was
a 'bargain', you couldn't change its cost without triggering an across-the-board
change in costs of things like EB, HA, CON, BODY, etc. to make sure everything
was finally balanced), very few to no people sided with me, and I was
ventilated like Sonny Corleone. :-/
Now, having said that ... I /do/ have a problem with the statement that "STR
is balanced, against Frameworks." Compare a character with 50 STR vs. his
equivalent bought with a Framework of Powers, and it's a pretty sad sight for
Framework Man. Similarly, saying STR is "just right" period is reality-impaired.
On the subject of HA ... I've been doing some thinking on this. Most people
think that keeping HA at 3 pts./die leads to ridiculously low active-point costs
(agreed). However, jumping it to 5 pts./die without changing STR's cost results
in penalizing players arbitrarily on concept (which, as we've seen in Fuzion's
Figured Characteristic rules, Hero Games really doesn't have a problem with,
but I digress).
I can't help but notice that God, in his infinite wisdom, has placed a number
larger than 3, but smaller than 5. This number also happens to match the cost
of plain-vanilla extra DC as bought in Martial Arts.
Thus, I'm curious: why can't I remember any suggestions to raise HA's cost to
/4/ points per die, and leave it at that?
H. G.
He beats his fists against the posts
and still insists he sees the ghosts
X-Sender: wabbit@globaldialog.com (Unverified)
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 22:45:17 -0600
From: Earl Kwallek <earl@thewarren.mil.wi.us>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero S
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:08 AM 12/28/97 -0800, Opal wrote:
(Large Snip)
>You can have an energy-projecting brick, but you'll find that it
>doesn't do so well (point efficency-wise) compared to either bricks
>or energy projectors.
True...
> STR pays for itself only if you want high figured characteristics.
Untrue. Just figure out the figured characteristic level you want,
and buy the STR to get at least one of those were you want it...
Still I agree that "Fixing" this problem is more of a hassle than
it's worth... Instead fix the costs of HTH attack (HA) to be 5 pts
per DC like all the other attack powers....
>Likewise, EC saves you points only if you want a set of related powers.
Would any gm ALLOW a character whose powers WEREN'T related? I sure
wouldn't. The best balancing factor I've seen for EC's is the house
rule somebody came up with that half of any adjustment power hits the
individual power and the other half hits the EC Cost itself (Affecting
all of the other powers), this nicely simulates the supposed similarity
of these powers (IMHO).
>Multipower saves you lots of points while sacrificing relatively little
utility >if you want a lot of different attack powers, etc...
Which is probably what led to the following in most of our HERO games
around here.
All my attack powers in a MP with u slots.
All my other powers (that are allowed) in an EC.
I'm not saying that there is anything WRONG with this as long as the
GM is reasonably harsh with EC Definitions - I'm not real big on such
loose ones as "EC-Racial Abilities" when your supposedly the last
survivor of your race...
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|Earl A Kwallek | You have the Right to Remain Silent |
|"Student of Everything" | Anything you say WILL be misquoted |
|Earl@TheWarren.Mil.Wi.Us | and used against you... |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 00:05:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: One last note about e-courtesy
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 28 Dec 1997, GoldRushG wrote:
> [ Mark steps down from the podium and walk off stage. A silence falls over
> the assembled crowd. And then... ]
All hell breaks loose?
PS: Nice editorial. I think this list needs that sort of swift kick in
the rear every now and then.
***************************************************************************
* "'Cause I'm the god of destruction, that's why!" - Susano Orbatos,Orion *
* Michael Surbrook / susano@access.digex.net *
* Visit "Surbrook's Stuff' the Hero Games resource site at: *
* http://www.access.digex.net/~susano/index.html *
* Attacked Mystification Police / AD Police / ESWAT *
* Society for Creative Anachronism / House ap Gwystl / Company of St.Mark *
***************************************************************************
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 02:25:56 -0500 (EST)
From: ALONE AT MIDNIGHT <RAVANOS@jcs1.jcstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessable Foci
X-VMS-To: IN%"champ-l@omg.org"
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I can't think of a single time in my Champions
>>history where this has come up. Blowing up the valiant armored dude
>is not a very heroic way to die.
I never said Aegis was a hero... of course, it would be sneaky
of Grenado to blow him up, but hey, can't make the world a better place
without vaporizing a few square feet of concrete!
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Derived stats
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 1997 23:40:48 -0800 (PST)
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>
> << Actually, it's not mentioned in the basic rules. Or rather the basic rules
> hint at it but don't say how to do it. >>
>
> Funny. My copy says:
>
> Increasing or Decreasing Characteristics (Primary or Derived)
> Characteristics generally may not be increased or decreased directly. However,
> certain Talents or Powers that may or may not be available in your campaign
> setting may allow you to increase a Characteristic, either temporarily or
> permanently. Certain Complications may also decrease a Characteristic. Or, as
> last resort, you may attempt to convince your GM to allow you to use Option
> Points (pg. 117) in increase a Characteristic at a ratio of five OP for every
> point of Characteristic increase.
>
Well, I don't know where your copy comes from, but that last
sentence is clearly NOT in my copy of the PUBLISHED rulebook to
Champions the New Millenium. I bought it the day it hit the stores here in
San Francisco.
I'm refering to published stuff here, not web-page stuff.
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 03:51:58 -0500
From: "Kevin J. McClain" <KevLord@worldnet.att.net>
Reply-To: KevLord@worldnet.att.net
Organization: Courts of Kirkwood
Subject: Re: Play by Email
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Jim Dickinson wrote:
> I think it worked very well, and made for a great 2nd turn. Because I
> could see the caliber of writer/player, I had a good idea how well the game
> would go. And it did! I still have the turns online for people to read
> because they turned out so well!
>
I woould like to read them. Where do I find them?
Kev.
Comments: Authenticated sender is <sti@pop3.hip.cam.org>
From: "Stirling Westrup" <sti@CAM.ORG>
Organization: Stirling Westrup Consulting
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 11:00:09 +0000
Subject: Re: Breakable, Inaccessible Foci
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I've been reading this thread with interest, and have just re-read the
rules for Breakable foci in the BBB in the light of the various arguments I've
seen. I have to agree the rules need some tweaking. As I see it, the desired
properties are:
1) Breakable foci should be allowed to be either OAF or OIF, and there should
be a chance for either type to be broken in battle.
2) Foci should not get destroyed in every battle, but minor damage should be
possible. Major battles might scrag most or all of the powers in a focus.
3) Mega- ultimate damage should destroy a breakable foci. If Capt. Armor is
standing on the moon when the Nastyons blow it up, his armor should be
vaporized along with him, no matter how many powers it has.
So, to my mind, the simplest way to achieve these affects with the fewest
changes to the rules would be something along the lines of:
- OAF's can be targetted separately by any attack at -2 OCV.
- OIF's can NOT be targetted separately, but may be affected by any attack
which affects the character.
- Defensive foci are ALWAYS hit by attacks which blow through that defense.
(an ED-only force field doesn't have to check for damage from a PD-only
attack.)
- Breakable OIF's may or may not be protected by other defensive foci,
depending on special effects. I know that the BBB says 'never', but imagine
someones OAF pendant which is bought OIF precisely because it WILL be inside
the force field from her OIF ring when she's in battle... (mabye this should
be 'OAF Layered'. I dunno.) In any case, a focus protected by multiple
defenses gets the largest defense that would apply.
- Every breakable foci has a DEF which is the greater of the largest power in
the foci's active points/5 or the DEF provided by the foci, if any.
- Each non-defensive power in the foci has 0 DEF and a BODY equal to 1 + active
points/10.
- Each defensive power in the foci has the defense it provides (in addition to
the overall DEF for the foci), plus a BODY equal to 1 + active points/10.
Note that this means that a (for example) 10 Active Point Mental Def bracelet
will have 2 Body with 2 overall DEF plus 10 Mental Def. It is DEF 2 vs
physical attacks, and DEF 12 vs mental ones.
- When an attack hits a focus, subtract the DEF of the focus from the BODY of
the attack. If any BODY are left, they are applied in a manner dependent on
the type of attack:
- Killing and Armor Piercing attacks damage a single power.
- Normal attacks keep damaging different powers until all of the body of the
attack has been accounted for.
- Area affect attacks damage ALL powers in a focus.
- Normally, which power is affected is rolled randomly, but maybe there should
be a rule of thumb like:
- Ablative powers are hit first.
- Non-defensive powers are hit next.
- Defensive powers are hit last.
- When an attack hits a power it subtracts its applicable defenses (if any) and
takes the remaining body. How damage to a power is handled is pretty much up
to the GM and the special effects of the power, but I would be inclined to
reduce the effective active points of the power by 10 per body of
damage for variable-strength powers, and tacking on limitations like
Activation rolls (including Jamming or Burnout) for all-or-nothing powers.
Using these rules, and going back to the original post on this topic, we have a
character with:
10/10 rPD/rED armor (30 Active Points) bought as OIF Armor,
5/5 rPD/rED force field (10 Active Points) bought OAF Shield
And someone hits the target for 3d6K rolling 11 BODY.
- The player has 15 rDEF and takes no body.
- The armor is effectively DEF 20, with 4 Body, and ignores the attack.
- The shield is effectively DEF 10 with 2 Body and takes 1 body.
The GM tells the player that a large chunk was taken out of the shield, and it
now has an 11- activation roll (or alternately, is now 3/3 rather than 5/5).
Another attack like that will destroy the shield, but will leave the armor
untouched.
On the other hand, had the character been hit by a 21 Body attack (eep!), then:
- The player has 15 rDEF and takes 6 BODY (and is probably knocked out to
boot).
- The armor takes 1 Body and is 1/4 damaged. The GM imposes a 14- activation
roll.
- The shield takes 11 Body and is vaporized.
Now, needing 21 BODY to damage the armor may seem kinda high, but remember that
this is for a campaign where folks run around with 15 resistant defenses. I
would guess that puts the typical attack at around the 15 DC range, and
thus doing 15 BODY. 21 is a rather hot roll, or someone did a haymaker.
(Your campaign may vary.)
Now that I've written out all of the above, it occurs to me that that some
folks would just rather have the character make a 'saving throw' for the focus
when damage gets through. Give the focus a DEF by the standard rules, and have
the focus make a saving throw of 9+(active/5) with -1 per body getting through.
If it saves, no damage. If it fails, POOF! gone.
--
Stirling Westrup | Use of the Internet by this poster
sti@cam.org | is not to be construed as a tacit
| endorsement of Western Technological
| Civilization or its appurtenances.
From: ErolB1 <ErolB1@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:33:25 EST
Subject: Re: Punching and Stun and such...
Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
In a message dated 97-12-28 01:00:42 EST, GoldRushG@AOL.COM wrote:
> << YES. It is a Bad Thing. >>
>
> Perhaps I am not making myself clear, then.
Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was refering to "the GM and players developing
divergent views about what's 'really' happening in the game world" as being a
Bad Thing. Not the theatrical style of gaming (except insofar as it may lead
to these assumption clashes).
> Nobody I have ever talked to
> or
> gamed with (most of the Hero Games folks, Steve Perrin, Paul Lidberg, Steve
> Long, Chris Avellone, Greg Lloyd and Aaron Allston) have a problem or
> dislike
> for the kind of "cinematic" approach I'm thinking of. Again, maybe I am
> sending the wrong message here. I'm talking about a style of Gming. I don't
> necessarily *advocate* GMing without revealing stats and numbers to the
> players, but there is certainly a time for revealing things and a time for
> keeping them "secret" for the sake of telling the story.
><< I prefer to think of it as using words precisely. >>
> "Cinematic (adj.) -- Dealing with or related to movies, the cinema or
>theater."
In gaming, the term "cinematic" has a specialized jargon meaning. And this is
a gaming discussion. To use the broader general meaning of "cinematic" in
these discussions is like using the term "heroic" to describe a four-color
Champions game: It breeds confusion.
><< Remind me to never ever play a game with you as GM.>>
> It's coments like these that really make me take stock in my participation
>on this list, and make me wonder if it's really worth the time and energy I
>spend making comments, reading comments, and so on. I thought this was a free
>exchange of ideas? If you don't like my ideas, that's fine. You're entitled
to
>your opinion and to run your games any way you want. But by the same token,
>so
>am I. Can't you find a way to convey your thoughts to me without resorting to
>negative comments, insults and other derogatory connotation?
You yourself have come across as beting terribly arrogant in your remarks, and
I've responded by being (deliberately) snide in proportion. If your arrogance
was unintentional then I apologize for my snideness.
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Reply-To: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: Looking for Hero players & GMs
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:49:06 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
<< To that end, I have been considering starting page on our web sitte for
Hero
gamers to find other Hero gamers. A "frind Hero GMs/players classified"
listing of sorts. What do you folks think of that idea? Webmasters, would
you
create a link to such a page? Heck, we could also post listings of Hero
games
scheduled for various cons!>>
I most certainly put one on my home page, as well as on the four pbem pages
that I maintain.
Lisa
Lisa Hartjes
beren@unforgettable.com
Home: http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/daniken/79
"What do you mean, don't press the red button......."
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 06:21:06 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Announcement: Hero System 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:35 PM 12/28/97 -0800, Robert A. West wrote:
>Bob Greenwade wrote:
>>
>> At 12:02 PM 12/27/97 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>>> >
>> >The negative ten is supposed to represent a Disadvantage, not a
>> >Limitation.
>>
>> Well, the original poster stated it as a Limitation, and wrote it in the
>> format of a Limitation, so...
>
>Bob, you know perfectly well that the terms "Limitation" and
>"Disadvantage" are often carelessly used for one another, especially
>since we have the helpful terms Physical Limitation and Psychological
>Limitation. I agree that we all should be as careful as possible, but I
>think it clear from context that the writer intended a Disadvantage,
>since the analogy was made to NCM. Perhaps he was even thinking in terms
>of
>
> 10 Phys Lim: Subject to Disabling and Hit Location
> (default and no point value for Heroic Campaigns)
Actually, no, I didn't know that "perfectly well." I've noticed it
happen on occasion, but generally the context given (the way that the
proposed rule is written) makes it clear what the writer means. In this
case, though, the writer not only said Limitation, but wrote it like a
Power Limitation. It was only after several people (most of them
privately) pointed out that the original poster meant it as a Physical
Limitation, then the 10 made more sense.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
X-Sender: wabbit@globaldialog.com (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 08:28:09 -0600
From: Earl Kwallek <earl@thewarren.mil.wi.us>
Subject: Re: KAs and the Stun Lotto
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:40 PM 12/28/97 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
(Snip)
>
> One thing I'd propose is introducing "decreased Stun mult" as a
>limitation. Say at -1/2.
>
> At the -1 level:
> 1 -- 1*
> 2 -- 1*
> 3 -- 2*
> 4 -- 2*
> 5 -- 3*
> 6 -- 3*
>
> This really does have less real stopping power.
>
> At the -2 level.
>
> 1 -- 1*
> 2 -- 1*
> 3 -- 1*
> 4 -- 2*
> 5 -- 2*
> 6 -- 3*
>
> And so on, adding 1's to the bottom. I'd perhaps change the cost
>to -1/4, or else a high BOD. low STUN KA gets too cheap. The "decreased
>mult" is one of the possibly unbalancing parts of this power.
>
> What does everyone think? I think I'm switching immediately,
>myself. I think this will give KAs a much better feel.
>
I seem to remember a "x1 STUN Multiple" limitation. I think it was a
-1/2 limit (might have been -1) using your system an automatic x1
would ve worth -2 1/2 (-1 1/4 if use the -1/4 per level instead of
-1/2)...
Hmmm, If the original x1 STUN Mult was indeed -1 then your idea for
Reduced STUN mult is certainly good - for what it's worth I thought
the rest of the idea (increased STUN Mult & reducing the STUN Lotto)
were great!
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
|Earl A Kwallek | You have the Right to Remain Silent |
|"Student of Everything" | Anything you say WILL be misquoted |
|Earl@TheWarren.Mil.Wi.Us | and used against you... |
+-------------------------+-------------------------------------+
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 06:32:14 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Armored Heroes
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:17 AM 12/28/97 -0800, Opal wrote:
> On 12-27-97 burns@usmcug.usm.maine.ed wrote to All...
> > I have a quick question for you veterins out there: which way is
> > generally more effective for simulating armored heroes (like Iron
> > Man), an OIHID on all of the powers, or an OIF Focus? That is to
> > say, which of these two limitations better represent the limitations
> > that Iron Man, et. al., face in the comic books?
>
>Personally, I prefer the Focus Limitation. However, the way
>Iron Man is generally written, OIHID (or some simillar +1/4)
>limitation makes more sense (note that he does need to have
>the armor available to change), mainly because the villains
>never peel him out of the thing when the KO him. (OTOH, by
>the same token, the villains never seem to peel masks off the
>heros either - so do none of them get Secret ID?).
>
>That shouldn't stop you from taking Focus with an armored
>PC, though, if that fits your concept better.
A rule that I use (and didn't include in my previous post because I
wanted to include the URL for the rule and didn't have time to locate it)
is found on the website for Sean Fannon's Champions campaign. The URL is
below:
http://www.io.com/~wileyc/champ/cyber.html
I have this rule (with a couple of necessary modifications) in my
manuscript for TUSV, though whether it passes muster and makes it to
publication remains to be seen.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 06:44:48 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: KAs and the Stun Lotto
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:40 PM 12/28/97 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> Yesterday, I thought up a new way to handle KA stun multiples. It
>keeps the Stun Lotto, but lessens it. It also makes Increased Stun Mult
>both more and less effective.
>
> Roll Bod as normal. Roll the Stun Multiple Die, then compare it
>to this chart:
>
> 1 -- 1*
> 2 -- 2*
> 3 -- 2*
> 4 -- 3*
> 5 -- 3*
> 6 -- 4*
>
> Notice that the upper and lower ends are brought in, and that most
>results will now center to 2 and 3. Notice that the average is unchanged.
[Rest of it snipped for space]
This looks like a good system, Tim. However, the average at the base
level *does* change. It goes down slightly, from 2.667 to 2.5. (Not that
I consider this an altogether bad thing, mind you, given the level of extra
ability that KAs have.)
This, I think, is a good way of handling Stun Multipliers that would be
a good alternate method for Hero5.
---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/original.htm
Homepage of the Merry-Go-Round Webring! (Wanna join?)
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bobg/merrhome.htm
Subject: Re: So What Now?
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 97 11:16:27 -0500
x-sender: DFair@pop.worldweb.net
From: David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com>
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 12/24/97 9:11 AM, Bruce Crow (BCROW@cnmc.org) Said:
>
>I agree. The nearest game store I found with Hero stuff (in Rockville abt
>15 miles away) has it in its "obscure" games section with about four
>inches of shelf space worth of material. I though I had hit a gold mine
>when I found it. And Rockville and Silver Spring are not small towns.
>Which reminds me I've wanted to ask Michael Surbrook where he gets
>his Hero Stuff. And don't tell me Baltimore. I'd hate to have to go that far.
Sounds like you are describing Dream Wizards. I live in Damascus (at the
other end of Montgomery County) and found the Game Place
(http://www.gameplace.com/) in Gaithersburg to be very good, lots of
games, lots of gamers. In Wheaton there is a comicbook store called
Barbarian Books which carries a nice selection of gaming stuff, both new
and old (I bought several 3rd edition supplements there last year). Sorry
I don't have any Phone Numbers for you, but they should all be listed in
the yellow pages.
| David A. Fair
Think Different | SDS International
| dfair@sdslink.com
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 14:53:09 -0200 (EDT)
From: Rodrigo Cesar Gevaerd de Faria <gevaerd@laranjeiras.lci.ufrj.br>
Subject: Lost breakable armor mail
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Someone send some rules he made for breakable focus, but I deleted by
accident. Could someone send it to me please ?
Or if there's a site with the log of this mailing list you can send me
the address and I can search for it.
Thanks.
X-Sender: lizard@dnai.com
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 1997 09:16:49 -0800