Week Ending January 31, 1998
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 09:38:42 +1000
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by topaz.cqu.edu.au
From: happyelf <jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
X-Sender: jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:20 AM 1/24/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:39:40 -0800 (PST), Brian Wong wrote:
>
>>> What are you talking about? There is no "standard power level" unles the GM set one.
>>>
>> It's in the campaigning section of the BBB. I'll get a page number tommorow if
>>you want.
>> It's the section were they suggest active point limits and such.
>>
>
>
>And there you've given yourself. As you said, they SUGGEST active point limits. If you don't like their
>suggestions, then DON'T USE THEM. The suggestions in the book reflect the campaigns of the folks who
>playtested the game, not every campaign that ever was. Again, this is not a problem with the RULES. This is a
>problem YOU have with the suggested campaign limits.
>
>Why are you so concerned over material that's from the Champions Sourcebook section of the BBB? This
>material is not part of the core rules, and from what the kids at Hero Games have said, won't even appear in fifth
>edition as they want the rules to be a book unto themselves.
>
yes, but by SUGGESTING low active point limits, they SUGGEST that the
game shouldn't be used for big ap-but-erally-cool powers.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:34:21 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:01 PM 1/24/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> >* Introduce some more 'negative Perks' (specifically, priveleges denied to
>> >the character that the Everyman takes for granted; useful for creating
>> >characters who are slaves or ex-cons).
>>
>> I think this could be done with Quirks.
>
>"Quirks", as in GURPS-style Quirks? Actually, it's been suggested by
>others that a "Social Disad" be added to handle such things as "Social
>Stigma", "Duty", and the like... (although I'd personally prefer to see
>Duty as a new Disad, mirroring Hunted/Watched in purchasing scheme)
Either could be done, depending on the severity.
>> >* Relocate DNPC, Hunted/Watched, Public ID, Reputation, Rivalry, and
>> >Secret ID to the Perks section (and rename the section to something more
>> >appropriate, such as "Background")
>>
>> Bad idea! Bad, bad idea! ;-]
>> These are all Character Disdvantages, and should remain that way.
>
>At least seperate them out within the Disads section; after all, there are
>a few occasions where they should be treated as fundamentally different
>than other Disads (Side Effects come to mind...)
A table like that in the Hero4 Powers section might be handy. I could
go for it, at any rate.
>> >* Add a new +1 Advantage (Area Effect: Wall) which can only be applied to
>> >Constant Powers that affect others; follow the rules given under Force
>> >Wall and apply the effects of the power to anything attempting to pass
>> >through the wall. This can be expanded with options such as 'opaque',
>> >'one-way', etc.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Perhaps a couple of examples
>> would help.
>
>Teleport: Continuous, Usable On Others, Area Effect: Wall to create a
>portal between two locations; Extra-Dimensional Movement: Continuous,
>Usable On Others, Area Effect to create a dimensional gateway; EB:
>Continuous, Area Effect: Wall to create a wall of searing energy...
The first two can be done with a Gate (from Mystic Masters and
elsewhere, possibly made into a straight +1/2 Advantage), and the last with
a simple Limitation on the AE: Line Advantage.
>> >* For each Advantage and Limitation, list the "states" that must be in
>> >effect for the modifier to be applied. Also, consider organizing
>> >modifiers according to the required states, so that all Advantages that
>> >are applied only to Attacks are listed together, etc.
>>
>> I agree with the first part; however, I favor leaving all of the
>> Advantages together in simple alphabetical order. It makes them easier to
>> cross-reference.
>
>Perhaps include a summary table for Advantages the way they do for Powers,
>and either alphebetize the table/categorize the descriptions or categorize
>the table/alphebetize the descriptions...
That could work.
>BTW, will TUSV be dealing with just vehicles, or will it also cover bases?
>Computers? Automatons?
Only cursorily. Some of the rules will be applicable to them, but it
won't cover them directly.
>> >* Consider adding an "Entangle Defense".
>>
>> Entangle already acts as a defense against incoming attacks.
>
>Rephrasing: Consider adding a "Defense against Entangle" - for characters
>that entangles have difficulty sticking to, for instance...
Couldn't this be done with just extra DCV vs Grabs & Entangles?
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:43:42 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:52 PM 1/24/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> > > > This is largely campaign dependant.
>> > >
>> > > So list some campaign-dependent suggestions.
>> >
>> > This would go well in a Social Disadvantage category.
>>
>> Yes, it would.
>
> Hmmm. Maybe we can get a concentrated effort from the list to
>convince Hero on the inclusion of Social Disadvantage in 5th ed.
>
> Are you listening, Steve Long.
I think we're probably there already. (Of course, one of the first
sample Social Disadvantages would probably be Public ID.)
>> > Which should be moved to the disads sections. It helps to have
>> > all of them in one place for cross referencing. It's bad enough
having to
>> > flip around as is.
>>
>> So split Money up into Money and Poverty?
>
> Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
>levels spelled out, yes.
I disagree here. Poverty should be its own Disadvantage, though it
probably would only need a paragraph or two in the text.
>> > Like I said, the cost works as it is now. I might see putting an
>> > extra +1/2 advantage onto attacks that have no range by default to become
>> > Damage Shield.
>>
>> Hmm... a valid alternative; I really don't know which would be better...
>
> I perfer the status quo, though I'd be against anything that
>reduces the cost of any Damage Shields.
I like the extra +1/2 Advantage to attacks that already have no range
for a similar reason that I like an extra -1/2 Limitation to Powers that
use Charges and already don't cost END.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 16:50:28 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 04:53 PM 1/24/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> Hmmm. I see it much more often than the above two, mostly as it's
>> how I usually model a BattleSuit. Heck, I see it more often than Side
>> Effects or Variable Limitation, and no one wants to put those in Limited.
>
>A battlesuit would be modelled as Limited Power: Only While In Battlesuit;
>using Only In Hero ID for battlesuits is only in-genre in a superhero
>campaign - and battlesuits _can_ exist in other campaigns, where you don't
>_have_ the civilian/hero dual life concept.
Any particular problems with Sean Fannon's "Battlesuit" Limitation?
For those who don't know where to find it, the shorthand of it is that a
battlesuit takes much longer than a turn to remove (without permission),
and often has security systems on it; but it is subject to system failure
from STUN damage even if no BODY gets through its defenses. (I can give
the URL of where it can be found on the WWW at some later time if someone
wants it.)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:19:18 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: US Time Zones (was: Steve Long on #herochat!)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:19 PM 1/24/98, qts wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 07:24:35 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
>>At 11:05 AM 1/24/98, \"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 23 Jan 1998 14:46:33 -0800, Shelley Chrystal Mactyre wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mr. Dark Champions himself is going to be in #herochat on dal.net on
>>>>February 1, from 1-2 PM PST to talk about his upcoming projects, offer
>>>>advice, and respond to questions.
>>>
>>>What is PST in relation to GMT? Are we talking Hawaii time or
>>>California time?
>>
>> California time. I believe that the time difference from the UK is 8
>>hours.
>
>Thanks to all who responded. I guess it's going to be a late night.
Only unusually if you're an "early to bed" type like I am. If I'm doing
the math right, this will be 9-10 pm GMT.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:42:25 -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, January 24, 1998 2:15 PM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
<snip>
>> Just like any power. However, there is no reason to add
>> unbalancing features to the system. And the above would work just
fine if
>> a friend happened to have Fire Powers he could fire off after you
fired
>> your vulnerability ray. And just how would Hunted, UAO work?
>
>It wouldn't; just like Side Effect (Hunted) doesn't work. But that
>doesn't make Side Effects that use Disads wrong across the board...
Actually, they both work.
Hunted, UOA
"Now, I curse you in the name of Tindalos! The Hounds of Tindalos will
track you down and consume your soul! They will follow you until the
end of time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Side Effect (Hunted)
"You have tried to Summon the Master, mage, but you have failed. He
sent us to destroy you instead. You will never be rid of us!"
<snip>
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 20:20:15 -0600
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
>But it doesn't take any time when the Casual STR breaks the Entangle.
>Using your suggestion, the amazing Teflon man would be able to avoid
>an attack, but if it still got him he wouldn't get out any easier than
>anyone else. If we create a defense that acts like PD, ED, or Power
>Defense, then we have the problem that a high-defense Entangle will
>still hold the Teflon man indefinitely, but it takes less damage to
>destroy the Entangle _after_ you overpower the Def.
>
>With STR, you get a character who ignores wimpy Entangles and easily
>escapes stronger ones. Seems to fit well for me.
>
>Filksinger
I think we are shooting for different effects. My view of Teflon Man is
that if the Entangle hits him good enough then he shouldn't have an easier
time of getting out. That is why I picked extra DCV as the answer. It is
also the cheapest way I can think of, probably too cheap.
My problems with using STR as an Entangle Defense are:
1) Entangles with Backlash, if Teflon Man doesn't break the Entangle he gets
hit with damage.
2) Entangle Walls, instead of simply slipping through himself, Teflon Man
breaks the Entangle totally removing it.
3) Entangles on other characters, Teflon Man would be able to break other
characters out of their Entangles.
4) Is very expensive for low STR characters.
If the above problems don't bother you, I understand. I would then still
suggest a Damage Shield instead of STR to make it more fair between
characters of differing STR levels who use this power. You can make the
Damage Shield an Armor Piercing or Penetrating. Or even a Cumulative
Dispel, although people often disagree about using Dispel this way.
How about Desolid. For 40 Active/20 Real you can get near immunity to
Entangles.
Maybe a Teleport UAO, Damage Shield, Entangles and Characters who have
grabbed you only.
Finally I would like to add that I don't favor an Entangle Defense as a new
power. For the very reason we have just come up with. There are plenty of
good and not-so-good ways of making a defense against Entangles. Which one
you pick depends on personal preference, the exact house rules your game
uses, and hopefully, most importantly on the SFX you are trying to
represent.
Be a Hero.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 24 Jan 1998 21:50:06 -0500
Lines: 35
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-----
>>>>> "R" == Remnant <easleyap@mobis.com> writes:
R> I think we are shooting for different effects. My view of Teflon Man is
R> that if the Entangle hits him good enough then he shouldn't have an
R> easier time of getting out. That is why I picked extra DCV as the
R> answer. It is also the cheapest way I can think of, probably too cheap.
Not too cheap, and it is *exactly* the way I would do it. Remember,
*EVERYTHING* in Champions has special effects. In this case, Mr. Teflon(R)
has DCV skill levels with the special effect, "attacks hit, but slide off."
[...]
R> How about Desolid. For 40 Active/20 Real you can get near immunity to
R> Entangles.
How about not. Desolidification is *NOT* a defense power.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMqoWZ6VRH7BJMxHAQFbEAP+J0qnLDug5aw6VBbp6ZwyK6MTKvNGrbhx
pS2G+es1Ve2vonisf1Sx5gbd0eQFy8X8Zcb8bS3uNXNfRR2PbmSFQjKLeG43UIlv
xc5fXPxOdwIGq2EmfN4OFP5xNWbG6/Glwgi1WyxVcovXLMJ8eQgo3bAu+Bkbm7UJ
xVCnyWnXh+s=
=ABk6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Entangle Defense was (Re: Further H5 suggestions)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:35:31 -0600
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
>R> How about Desolid. For 40 Active/20 Real you can get near immunity to
>R> Entangles.
>
>How about not. Desolidification is *NOT* a defense power.
I don't like it either. I prefer the extra DCV for simplicity and points
spent. For my own characters and villains I prefer the Damage Shield
variants.
I would like to better understand why Desolidification is not a defense
power, actually I would like to understand what defines something as a
defense power. I'm not being difficult I'm just probably being dense. I've
never heard of a group of powers referred to as "defense powers." If I had
to create a group called "defense powers" on my own I would probably put it
in that classification I would also consider it to be in other groups as
well because of the other effects that it gives.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:27:56 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> They may be derivatives, but adding more categories would make it
> easier to design some concepts. A character who is already at his
> limit for Phys Lim or Susceptibility might want to add a "Dependence"
> or "Addict" Disadvantage, but not be able to. Similarly, a character
> at the limit for Psych Lim might still want to take "Duty".
>
> Additionally, flesh out some of the others. A character might have
> multiple secrets that they want to keep, so allow people varying
> levels of Secret, with Secret ID being the 15 pointer in most
> superhero campaigns (frequently, strong). Any number of superheroes
> have teammates who know their Secret ID, but not X.
You know, I've never really seen a point to Disadvantage Category
Limits. It seems to hinder possibly valid concepts. I've never enforced
them.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:36:27 -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
> <<Anyone know if either GRG and/or Herogames is still watching this mailing
> list?
>
> Are we just blowing steam talking about 5th edition ideas or is someone with
> official input quietly watching to see if any of us says something of
> interest?>>
>
> Well, I can't speak for Mark or Steve P., but I'm certainly watching the
> list with a great deal of interest, and have been for some time. I have a
> nice thick stack of printed-out comments from the HML, and I update my 5th Ed.
> working outline just about every week.
> Everyone please keep the comments and suggestions coming! All constructive
> input is good input. And be sure to fill out the questionnaire on the Hero
> Games webpage; that's the best way to make your comments and suggestions,
> since it makes them easiest for us to catalog.
>
Ok, that's all I wanted to know. Naturally I don't expect you to
stick your noses in it. But I'm glad to know you're monitoring. If we do
hit upon some good ideas in here I'd like to know that they stand a chance of
seeing print, instead of just being steam venting on our part. :)
And if I've already filled out the questionaire, any format you'd like
to see "Additional Ideas" come in as?
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:07:46 -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, January 24, 1998 8:09 AM, SteveL1979 wrote:
<snip>
> Everyone please keep the comments and suggestions coming! All
constructive
>input is good input. And be sure to fill out the questionnaire on
the Hero
>Games webpage; that's the best way to make your comments and
suggestions,
>since it makes them easiest for us to catalog.
You might have someone code that page as a form, rather than just
test. Better yet, code it as a form that can then be saved, so that
people don't have to download it, fill it out, and mail it. If they
can reach your webpage, they have it right there.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 01:07:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> Hunted, UOA
> "Now, I curse you in the name of Tindalos! The Hounds of Tindalos will
> track you down and consume your soul! They will follow you until the
> end of time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Get it right. The Hounds hunt you from the *begining* of time. Oh, and
start thinking about moving to one of those 'modern' poured houses with no
corners.
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:18:28 -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
> >> But with a larger selection of disads I might revise that opinion.
> >
> > I don't think this is really a problem. Any "added" disads would
> >merely be derivatives of what already exists. Things like
> dependence,
> >vow, etc, are all easily covered by the existing lims. I would like
> to
> >see Social Limitation added, however.
>
>
> They may be derivatives, but adding more categories would make it
> easier to design some concepts. A character who is already at his
> limit for Phys Lim or Susceptibility might want to add a "Dependence"
> or "Addict" Disadvantage, but not be able to. Similarly, a character
> at the limit for Psych Lim might still want to take "Duty".
>
> Additionally, flesh out some of the others. A character might have
> multiple secrets that they want to keep, so allow people varying
> levels of Secret, with Secret ID being the 15 pointer in most
> superhero campaigns (frequently, strong). Any number of superheroes
> have teammates who know their Secret ID, but not X.
>
I have to agree here as well. I've always allowed multiple secret or
public ID's.
Also splitting some of the very broad cataorgies down a bit would
help to add to add flavor.
After all, on the other end of things we certainly don't have a power
system so broad as "Attack power, Defense Power, Movement Power, Sense Power,
Environment Power". Though if we worked hard enough, we could collapse the
entire powers system into those four, I doubt any of us want that.
So why do it on the disadvantages side?
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:22:06 -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
>
> For one campaign that I started, I had characters start out as 50
> point talented normals. The idea was for the characters to get their
> powers and disadvantages as part of the scenario. They were to end up
> with 150 points base + 150 disadvantages. By having the characters
> have to roleplay themselves pre-powers, it worked out well. The
> players were forced to design human beings, not power plants, and were
> rewarded for it (with the 150 base vs. 100 base). A variation might
> be helpful for some people's campaigns.
>
GURPS Supers has an idea like this. You're supposed to create a
100 point normal (equiv to a 50+50 Hero character), then add the Hero ID
onto it to build your 500 (100+100 Hero equiv) to 600 (100+150 equiv) point
character.
The idea has had mixed reviews in their system, but the basic
theory is a good one.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Duty/Sns of Duty (was Re: Further H5 suggestions)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:30:16 -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
> >> > Duty/Sense of Duty: add another variable representing how
> bothersome the
> >> > bothersome the job tends to be.
> >
> >Sure!
> >
> >Risk
> >----
> >Inconvenient: +0
> >Hazardous: +5
> >Extremely Hazardous: +10
>
> Don't forget, superheroes get this one for free for superheroing.
> Otherwise the power gamers will be trying to get points for simply
> being a superhero.:)
I'd have to disagree here.
After all, this disad could set up how and why a given character is a Super Hero
After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
years (Duty).
And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
Duty).
So I think such a disad if anything is very suited to the Super Hero
Hero genre.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:44:41 +1000
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by topaz.cqu.edu.au
From: happyelf <jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
X-Sender: jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I have to agree here as well. I've always allowed multiple secret or
>public ID's.
> Also splitting some of the very broad cataorgies down a bit would
>help to add to add flavor.
> After all, on the other end of things we certainly don't have a power
>system so broad as "Attack power, Defense Power, Movement Power, Sense Power,
>Environment Power". Though if we worked hard enough, we could collapse the
>entire powers system into those four, I doubt any of us want that.
> So why do it on the disadvantages side?
>
More specific categories give people a feel for the concept. While hero
bases itself on the 'no explanation supplied' rationale, it's okay to get people thinking about the different implications- or 'perspectives' on various powers.
Actually i'd like a group of disadvantages more like reverse powers- more dice
and stuff involved. It's not always a good idea, but it helps to quantify the
situation. I suppose most would be a derivitive of different uses of suseptable and
dependant, but. . . .
>Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
> __
>/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
>\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
>
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:48:10 -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
> >> your vulnerability ray. And just how would Hunted, UAO work?
> >It wouldn't; just like Side Effect (Hunted) doesn't work. But that
> >doesn't make Side Effects that use Disads wrong across the board...
>
> Actually, they both work.
>
> Hunted, UOA
> "Now, I curse you in the name of Tindalos! The Hounds of Tindalos will
> track you down and consume your soul! They will follow you until the
> end of time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
>
This could also be followers, or summon, ussable against others,
making the person summon the hounds, who are not controllable and thus
likely to attack their summoner.
> Side Effect (Hunted)
> "You have tried to Summon the Master, mage, but you have failed. He
> sent us to destroy you instead. You will never be rid of us!"
>
Side effect Summon does this already.
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:55:46 +1000
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by topaz.cqu.edu.au
From: happyelf <jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
X-Sender: jonesmj@topaz.cqu.edu.au
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:22 PM 1/24/98 -0800, you wrote:
>>
>> For one campaign that I started, I had characters start out as 50
>> point talented normals. The idea was for the characters to get their
>> powers and disadvantages as part of the scenario. They were to end up
>> with 150 points base + 150 disadvantages. By having the characters
>> have to roleplay themselves pre-powers, it worked out well. The
>> players were forced to design human beings, not power plants, and were
>> rewarded for it (with the 150 base vs. 100 base). A variation might
>> be helpful for some people's campaigns.
>>
> GURPS Supers has an idea like this. You're supposed to create a
>100 point normal (equiv to a 50+50 Hero character), then add the Hero ID
>onto it to build your 500 (100+100 Hero equiv) to 600 (100+150 equiv) point
>character.
> The idea has had mixed reviews in their system, but the basic
>theory is a good one.
>
Well i've done 'genre' enhancements before 'okay you're a bunch of
normals sharing a cable can when sudenly. . . .. ' and so forth,
and it makes for good characters in many ways. BUT, remember a 250
point character can be anything, many aren't even human at all.
I think 250 points is okay, the idea above makes good begining heros,
i'm leery of adding anything to the 'base points'- Remember there is
such a thing as a 'high powerhero' who gets. . .375 or something?
alls you have to do is go
hard on what disads you let them get. . You might even find people
used to starting at 250 who *gasp* don't get the maximum points
when they get to make higher power heros.
>Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
> __
>/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
>\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
>
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:59:54 -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
> <snip>
> > Everyone please keep the comments and suggestions coming! All
> constructive
> >input is good input. And be sure to fill out the questionnaire on
> the Hero
> >Games webpage; that's the best way to make your comments and
> suggestions,
> >since it makes them easiest for us to catalog.
>
>
> You might have someone code that page as a form, rather than just
> test. Better yet, code it as a form that can then be saved, so that
> people don't have to download it, fill it out, and mail it. If they
> can reach your webpage, they have it right there.
>
Agreed. I used forms extensively on my V&V website, and it made
submissions much easier to deal with when all the data came in exactly as
I wanted to see it.
That site is at http://www.infinex.com/~rook/LLNW.html
Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
__
/.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
\(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 03:35:21 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> You know, I've never really seen a point to Disadvantage Category
> Limits. It seems to hinder possibly valid concepts. I've never enforced
> them.
I heartily agree. Though I believe there is a purpose for Category
Limits, at least conceptually. Just as with the old system of reduced
bonuses for multiple disads from the same disad, it is a method of
trying to prevent players from abusing disadvantages to their
advantage. Uh, yeah I meant to say that. I mean it is potentially
unbalancing to have a character with too many high-effect but 'uncommon'
susceptibilities and/or vulnerabilities. However, any GM worth his salt
(or worth his 3-5 points in PS;GM), should be able to a)moniter disads
and not allow frivolous ones or 'stacking' of 'snaller' disads and/or
b)make sure that disads taken are properly capitalized on. I.E. if a
character has 4 'uncommon' vulnerabilities that all do 2X BODY and STUN,
then you should probably expect at least one of these to show up about
every adventure, or even every game.
BTW, I never impose category limits on disads; I feel that if a
character LEGITIMATELY needs 75 points in Psych lims, so be it. I
merely require that the player plays the character true to the disads,
and I've seen it done succesfully. And if a player wants to take 75
points in susceptibilities, I make sure that the character runs into a
'bad' substance plenty often.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 03:44:41 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
happyelf wrote:
> I think 250 points is okay, the idea above makes good begining heros,
> i'm leery of adding anything to the 'base points'- Remember there is
> such a thing as a 'high powerhero' who gets. . .375 or something?
>
> alls you have to do is go
> hard on what disads you let them get. . You might even find people
> used to starting at 250 who *gasp* don't get the maximum points
> when they get to make higher power heros.
I have found that when given a Character Point Total _Range_ (as
opposed to simply an upper limit) I have tended to take a lower-point
character. I.E. in a game where the requested point range was 225-260,
my character started at 243.
I have also found that it seems to be very uncommon for experience to
be spent on buying off disads; in one game, I was the *only* player
(over a course of 4 years) that actually spent XP on reducing my disad
total. I believe that if disads were played on a little more by GMs
(I'm just as guilty of going soft as the next guy, mind you), players
might be more likely to decide that reducing disads is another way to
increase overall character effectiveness.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:26:55 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Brian Wong wrote:
> I'm saying they are the standard, put forth as suggested, and therefore what
> one is most likely to encounter.
> But they are broken.
> SO:
> "The suggested point levels and power levels needs to adjusted at one end or
> the other so that when one builds a character using the suggested point
> levels they can build that character up to the suggested power level and
> still have points left over for a suggested number of suggested background
> skills."
>
> I suggest that that modification be made to the suggested 5th edition.
>
> Happy?
> Clear enough?
>
> Or do you find that the current 'suggested' point levels used in
> combination with the current 'suggested' power levels still leave enough
> points for you to include background skills?
> Or do you feel that having background skills as part of the
> 'suggested' way of putting together a character on the 'suggested' point
> level using the 'suggested' power level is a bad idea?
( petty sarcasm snipped >:-)> )
After skimming over the Champions and Villians in the Sourcebook
section of the BBB, I have two conclusions to make.
First, it seems to me that each of the characters DOES seem to be
built reasonably well-rounded (escept maybe Ogre, but it's not in his
concept to be well-rounded), including anywhere from 3 to 20+points in
skills, both combat and other. Which I think is absolutely fine for
precisely the reason that is my second conclusion.
Second, the 'suggested' guidelines in the book are intended for
*beginning heroes*. The BBB, indeed any RPG system's rulebook, must be
primarily geared towards the beginning player. Obviously, if - say - a
brand new role-playing system was introduced into the market, it would
fare very poorly if it assumed that everyone already knew what was what
and catered to the 'experienced' player. Thus, the character examples
and the power level suggestions given in the BBB are geared towards the
beginning player, since experienced players already know what works and
what doesn't.
It is also intimated in a couple of places in the Book (if not stated
outright) that player characters are generally considered to be
beginning heroes, as is assumed in most game systems I have
encountered. This being the case, I find a power level (as evidenced by
the BBB's examples) of 10-12 damage classes to be perfectly sufficient,
and still leave points available for background skills. Also remember
that beginning players or more specifically beginning GMs may be less
likely or able to accomodate too much detail in a character's design,
background-wise, thus a few important skills to cover the primary points
(job, concept-related skill(s), fanatic hobby(s)) should be plenty. As
players and GM all gain experience (both XP and experience with the
system), more points can be spent fleshing out backgrounds and otherwise
developing the minutia of one's character.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 04:40:42 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Filksinger wrote:
>
> Here's an idea for a campaign where different characters in the same
> group have different point levels.
<rationale snipped>
> Give the players in your group one of two options- a 150 base pts
> character with 100 pts in Disadvantages, and a 100 pts base character
> with 200 pts in Disadvantages. This may make many players choose a
> lowered power character rather than a higher powered character. If
> players tend to always take one or the other, adjust the points to
> "sweeten the deal".
>
> What do you think?
Interesting idea, but I always come back to the idea that disads - in
concept - ARE, in fact, worth their points. If used to the full extent
of their 'worth', that is.
Another idea might be to set up a ratio of disadvantage points to
character points like, say 1:3 - every 5 points of disads gives 15
points for character building, with no 'base' points, and perhaps
harsher consequences for disads.
For example try making 'uncommon' disads affect every other session,
'common' ones every session and 'very common' every _encounter_ (or at
least more than once per session). Try rolling for frequency of hunteds
or DNPCs twice or thrice per adventure.
This would give, say, a 250 point character 83 points in disads, but
they would all MEAN something. A 150 point character would only have 50
points in disads, thus lower power would actually be more balanced by
not having those 23 points in disads.
I have no idea how 'balanced' this example would be, but I already
like the concept.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 05:05:40 -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
>
> Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > You know, I've never really seen a point to Disadvantage Category
> > Limits. It seems to hinder possibly valid concepts. I've never enforced
> > them.
>
> I heartily agree. Though I believe there is a purpose for Category
> Limits, at least conceptually. Just as with the old system of reduced
> BTW, I never impose category limits on disads; I feel that if a
> character LEGITIMATELY needs 75 points in Psych lims, so be it. I
> merely require that the player plays the character true to the disads,
> and I've seen it done succesfully. And if a player wants to take 75
> points in susceptibilities, I make sure that the character runs into a
> 'bad' substance plenty often.
>
I both agree and disagree.
If we're looking at all this as suggested power levels (50 active), suggested
base points (100), and suggested disads (150, 50/cat), then I think
having a suggestion of where best to balance in at is a good idea. Though
I think it should be a suggestion to players to spead about, rather than a
suggestion to GM's to set a limit at X.
However if we look at it as hard and fast rules, drop it.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 05:08:32 -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
>
> happyelf wrote:
>
> > I think 250 points is okay, the idea above makes good begining heros,
> > i'm leery of adding anything to the 'base points'- Remember there is
> > such a thing as a 'high powerhero' who gets. . .375 or something?
> >
> > alls you have to do is go
> > hard on what disads you let them get. . You might even find people
> > used to starting at 250 who *gasp* don't get the maximum points
> > when they get to make higher power heros.
>
I think if the suggested limit is kept at 250, then the suggested
power level of 50 active needs to be lowered to say, 40 or 45.
A suggested power level limit of 50 active gives you heroes who at a
suggested point limit of a suggested 250 points are not going to have
enough points to get much in the way of a suggested background.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 09:53:10 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Svitavsky <bsvitavs@bu.edu>
Subject: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I'm planning to run a pirate campaign soon, and in preparation went
looking through my various versions of fencing rules: AC#12, ICE's
Campaign Classics Pirates supplement, the BBB, and Ninja Hero. I decided
to go with the Ninja Hero maneuvers, but to expand on them so I could
break fencing down into different styles a la Pirates. Having fenced for a
couple of years myself, the lack of a riposte maneuver became glaringly
apparent.
I'm considering adding a riposte maneuver using the optional NH rules for
multiple non-exclusive maneuver bases. This is the first time I've
actually used those rules, and it's been an adventure. Using the NH errata
from Aaron Allston's web site, I finally figured out how the costs work,
and created:
Riposte 1/2 Phase, -2 OCV, +0 DCV, Block/Strike, Abort. Cost: 5 pts.
The optional rules are pretty explicit in warning how unbalancing these
multiple-base maneuvers can be, though. All my pre-4th edition versions of
fencing had no problem creating a riposte, but I suspect Aaron Allston
probably gave these things a bit more thought.
What experiences have other people had with multiple base maneuvers? Do
you think a riposte really will be unbalancing? Am I going to end up with
absurd battles consisting of an unbroken stream of ripostes? Should I
declare a riposte simply to be a block followed by a thrust next phase?
Finally, does the Ultimate Martial Artist add any new wrinkles to this?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 07:31:23 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Disad Category Limits
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:27 PM 1/24/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> You know, I've never really seen a point to Disadvantage Category
>Limits. It seems to hinder possibly valid concepts. I've never enforced
>them.
Same here. (Actually, I've enforced a category limit once, but didn't
feel right about it and would have relented later had I the opportunity.)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:49:05 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: 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
On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> That said, I think that eliminating the figured part of Figured
> Characteristics might be a good idea, but I don't want to see the
> whole system retconned this way.
Eh? Who said anything about changing the "whole system"? We're talking
about a change so minor it barely deserves to be called a "minor change".
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:54:02 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: 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
On 13 Jan 1998, Opal wrote:
> Let's see:
>
> 40 Multipower 60 Multipower
> 4 u 20" Flight 6 u 30" Flight
> 14 u 20/20 Force field, 1/2 END 5 u 20/20 FF, 1/2 END
> 24 u 12d EB 6 u 12d EB
> -- --
> 82 77
> Saves 5 points and gives you and extra 10" flight 'free'
But your former example has a 50 pt and 60 pt slot in a 40 pt
Multipower (which isn't illegal per se, it's just meaningless).
Based on the costs you've used, I'm assuming your intent was
that the former character has 10 pts of his Force Field and
20 pts of his Energy Blast bought outside of the Multipower -
but then that character is considerably more powerful than
the second, so of course he's going to be more expensive.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:55:11 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 14 Jan 1998, Remnant wrote:
> >"Saving" points without any limiting factor to justify it may be a "part of
> >the system", but it's not really part of the system's PHILOSOPHY. Things
> >like the Basic Law of Disadvantages/Power Limitations express a clear
> >desire from the system creators that You Get What You Pay For.
>
> I didn't say "without any limiting factor", I said "that don't limit your
> character that much." Every case that I can think of limits your character
> for saving points, in some possible situation.
Okay, I'll bite. How does a 20 STR limit a character more than a 10 STR?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:02:52 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >I don't see the problem in just using Telekinesis w/ Indirect & Area Effect.
> >
> >It simulates it just fine when you don't take into account
> >that the STR doesn't affect all masses equally.
>
> That would be perfect if STR in Hero was linear. But it's not.
> If two STR 10 forces pull in the same direction, then it becomes a total
> of STR 15, not STR 20. Add a third STR 10, and it becomes STR 18; it takes
> four STR 10 forces working together to make STR 20.
> So suppose we use that TK in an area. First, we have to determine how
> much STR gravity has. It seems to have a STR based on how much mass an
> object has, since overcoming it requires more STR for larger objects, but
> for the sake of argument let's assume that Gravity is STR 10 on the humans
> being affected. You turn on your gravitic TK to increase the gravity, and
> use 10 STR. Gravity is now doubled. To quadruple it, you need to simulate
> 3x STR 10, which (on a logarithmic scale) is 18.
Yep, this simulates this ability just fine.
> So far, so good. But what happens when you're on another planet, and
> the gravity is half as strong (equivalent to STR 5)? You need half as much
> TK to do anything there. If gravity is double Earth's, you need twice as
> much. (This may legitimately be accurate to your concept of the
> character's Power, and I can't really say that you'd be wrong, though it
> doesn't at all work for how I perceive gravity control would work).
Is this supposed to be a planet-hopping campaign, then? For a standard
super-hero game, gaining or losing effectiveness on other planets pretty
obviously falls into the "minor effects of SFX" category. If operation
on other planets is going to be common, buy enough to work on the heaviest
planet you're likely to encounter and add a Limitation "limited by
strength of available gravity wells".
> And how is this going to affect that piano over there? It takes more
> STR to lift a piano than a human being. If it normally takes 20 STR to
> lift a piano (OK, quiet down, this is just for the sake of argument), then
> adding that 10 STR TK that doubles gravity for Humans is only going to add
> 25% for the piano (to 22 STR or some such).
Buy more than 10 STR, and add a Limitation "limited by mass of affected
object".
> Now we use my method. I Aid (or, rather, Assist) the gravity in the
> area by 2d6, and get a result of 5. +5 to Assist Gravity doubles the
> gravity. The humans are now twice as heavy, and so is the piano, and it
> works the same no matter what the base gravity.
> Granted, adding a gravity element to Change Environment would probably
> work just as well, if not better. The TK method is the worst choice,
> though.
It simulates the ability near-perfectly and doesn't require any
modifications to the rule. That doesn't spell "worst" to me.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:06:30 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> I personally prefer games at 150 base and 100 disadvantages.
I'm partial to 150 base and no limit on Disadvantages, with most
characters having somewhere between 100 and 150 pts of Disads.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:10:19 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 aregalad@miami.edu wrote:
> Hmmm...have you ever seen Thor take a bullet (or read a thought bubble
> that showed him worring about one)?
Not that I can think of off-hand.
> Just because he twirls his hammer to deflect them doesn't mean he CAN'T
> take them - at least to some degree. Maybe he has low level Damage
> Resistance? Anyway, I'm not arguing w/you, I just want to understand
> Thor better.
I'd probably buy Thor with low or no resistant defense, but with Damage
Reduction. As I see it, shooting Thor is sort of like trying to stop
a charging elephant with a small-calibre handgun (but worse) - the bullets
aren't going to ricochet or anything, but unless you get a lucky hit,
it's going to take a _lot_ of shots to bring him down.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:11:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 24 Jan 1998, Opal wrote:
> t > * Allow more than one figured characteristic to be lowered, but count
> t > all lowered characteristics toward the Disadvantage Limit.
>
> Hmmmm.... What do the 'STR is underpriced' people think of this?
It would make high STR even more literally a Disadvantage than it is now.
No thanks.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:13:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >It wouldn't; just like Side Effect (Hunted) doesn't work. But that
> >doesn't make Side Effects that use Disads wrong across the board...
>
> Actually, they both work.
>
> Hunted, UOA
> "Now, I curse you in the name of Tindalos! The Hounds of Tindalos will
> track you down and consume your soul! They will follow you until the
> end of time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
>
> Side Effect (Hunted)
> "You have tried to Summon the Master, mage, but you have failed. He
> sent us to destroy you instead. You will never be rid of us!"
Actually, I just thought of those. They'd need some point working
to be balanced, but perhaps something similar could be put into 5th
edition. Or maybe a Transform would be best -- seems point balanced
enough to add a Hunted.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:14:46 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> It has been noted many times that players tend to max out the
> Disadvantages, preferring high-powered characters with many
> disadvantages over lower powered characters with fewer.
Possibly influenced by the fact that every single sample character
in the BBB maxed out their Disads, giving the impression that this
is standard. In 3rd Edition, where there was no such max, the
sample characters had a good range of point totals (as, for that
matter, did the PCs in the campaign I ran back then); it seemed to
work fine.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:18:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty (was Re: Further H5 suggestions)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> years (Duty).
> And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> Duty).
>
> So I think such a disad if anything is very suited to the Super Hero
> Hero genre.
And they work great as Psych lims. That is the way to simulate
these, not any new Disads. (We don't need them, we're crowded enough as
is.) A Social Lim could cover some of them, and I think the Demon could
be covered by Physical Lim.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:25:00 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I think if the suggested limit is kept at 250, then the suggested
> power level of 50 active needs to be lowered to say, 40 or 45.
But the problem here, as I pointed out, is that Heroes are
ineffective compared to the outside world. They can't effect the scenery
with their powers and don't seem really "super". This is fine for a
low-powered concept game, but games that try to simulate the comics, even
with beginning heroes, should be at the 60 pt or greater range.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:31:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> What experiences have other people had with multiple base maneuvers? Do
> you think a riposte really will be unbalancing? Am I going to end up with
> absurd battles consisting of an unbroken stream of ripostes? Should I
> declare a riposte simply to be a block followed by a thrust next phase?
As is, I think it is quite unbalanced. It is much more effective
that *any* other maneuver or act because you can attack and defend all at
once.
I'd simply define it as a Block followed by a quick strike.
However, you could go the power route and create a Damage Shield to make
up the effect. Or define it as Lots O'Levels of DCV, SFX of ripostes.
> Finally, does the Ultimate Martial Artist add any new wrinkles to this?
I'll have to look. Don't quite remember.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:42:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
> > levels spelled out, yes.
>
> I would not want to see Poverty incorporated into Social Lim.
Hmmm. I think it really does belong in that category, should that
category exist. Possibly with a mention of where to look in the Wealth
section in Perks.
> > I perfer the status quo, though I'd be against anything that
> > reduces the cost of any Damage Shields.
>
> Problem with the status quo is that it biases against Ranged Powers; why
> take Damage Shield: EB when you can get the exact same effect from Damage
> Shield: HA for fewer points?
Not a worry anymore, with HA being removed from the system. Next.
> > Hmmm. OK, it might just be worth -1/2. Though technically it
> > will be worth less *points* as it no longer will have to counteract
> > "always on". And an EB need not be constant to be always on. It would
> > just fire every phase. Or continuous fire, but it wouldn't stick with the
> > target and would need to be retargeted every phase.
>
> And what happens when you run out of targets?
You fire at the ground, into the air, at that car, at that
mailbox, at that . . .
> Keep in mind that this character would be experiencing a _continuous END
> drain_ every waking moment! the second he goes under, the power shuts off;
> then he wakes up again and the power reactivates, knocking him out
> again... it makes no sense.
You'd need some sort of suppression field. Or perhaps, it stays
off just fine, but once it is turned on it doesn't turn off until you drop
from exhaustion.
> > Hmmm. I see it much more often than the above two, mostly as it's
> > how I usually model a BattleSuit. Heck, I see it more often than Side
> > Effects or Variable Limitation, and no one wants to put those in Limited.
>
> A battlesuit would be modelled as Limited Power: Only While In Battlesuit;
> using Only In Hero ID for battlesuits is only in-genre in a superhero
> campaign - and battlesuits _can_ exist in other campaigns, where you don't
> _have_ the civilian/hero dual life concept.
Fine and dandy, but I've seen the limitation often enough to make
it worth keeping separate. And I've also seen it in a lot of other uses,
such as Shapechangers and Symbiotes.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:46:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Hmmm. Maybe we can get a concentrated effort from the list to
> >convince Hero on the inclusion of Social Disadvantage in 5th ed.
> >
> > Are you listening, Steve Long.
>
> I think we're probably there already. (Of course, one of the first
> sample Social Disadvantages would probably be Public ID.)
One can hope.
> > Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
> >levels spelled out, yes.
>
> I disagree here. Poverty should be its own Disadvantage, though it
> probably would only need a paragraph or two in the text.
Hmmm. Why? Because it has some rules applications beyond most
Social Lims, I guess. Right?
> I like the extra +1/2 Advantage to attacks that already have no range
> for a similar reason that I like an extra -1/2 Limitation to Powers that
> use Charges and already don't cost END.
Hmmm. I keep both as are, but YMMV . . .
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:50:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Entangle Defense was (Re: Further H5 suggestions)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >R> How about Desolid. For 40 Active/20 Real you can get near immunity to
> >R> Entangles.
> >
> >How about not. Desolidification is *NOT* a defense power.
Rat, Rat, Rat. There's no such things as Defense Powers, there
are just Powers that act as a defense. [severely tongue-in-cheek]
> I would like to better understand why Desolidification is not a defense
> power, actually I would like to understand what defines something as a
> defense power. I'm not being difficult I'm just probably being dense. I've
> never heard of a group of powers referred to as "defense powers." If I had
> to create a group called "defense powers" on my own I would probably put it
> in that classification I would also consider it to be in other groups as
> well because of the other effects that it gives.
I'd say defense powers are any powers that can act to defend the
character, plain and simple. In this case, Desolidification definately
*is* a defense power. In fact, I'd like to see some examples of it acting
as such, say as a Super Dodge, in the 5th edition.
And I think Desolid, only to escape from entangles, provides no
defense (-1 or -1 1/2) would work great as part of the framework with the
extra STR and the extra levels of DCV. It would allow one to escape from
entagles and grabs (oops, add grabs to the above lim) without affecting
the entagle itself (important), while not being too expensive.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:18:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
Subject: H5 and Maxima
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
A few more H5 suggestions:
Add a new Disad similar to Characteristic Maxima in that it applies a rule
to a character in a Superheroic campaign that normally gets applied to
everyone in a Heroic Campaign: The character can have no more than (INT/5)
powers active at one time. This Disad is unavailable in Heroic Campaigns,
and is further unavailable in a Superheroic campaign to any character that
wouldn't be inconvenienced by it. Variations and weaker versions of this
might exist; the roll could be based on EGO/5 or PRE/5, for instance; or
the divisor could be changed - INT/10 would be worth more points as a
Disad, and INT/3 would be worth less. In a Heroic campaign, and with
explicit GM permission, you might be able to take a non-standard limit by
paying the difference in costs.
Modify the Normal Characteristics Maxima Disad as suggested in An Eye For
An Eye, but with one change; you may select any Characteristic, not just
Primary Characteristics, and the relevant characteristic maximum is raised
by 50%, not raised to 30. Modify Age so that it explicitly subtracts from
Characteristic Maxima, and apply the effects of Age _after_ applying the
effects of the modified NCM.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:37:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> The first two can be done with a Gate (from Mystic Masters and
> elsewhere, possibly made into a straight +1/2 Advantage), and the last with
> a simple Limitation on the AE: Line Advantage.
Hmm... I missed the Gates...
> >Rephrasing: Consider adding a "Defense against Entangle" - for characters
> >that entangles have difficulty sticking to, for instance...
>
> Couldn't this be done with just extra DCV vs Grabs & Entangles?
It doesn'tjust make it harder to be grabbed; it makes it more difficult
for the grabber to keep his hands on you. The suggestion of STR only vs.
Entangle _does_ seem to handle this nicely (much like Presence Defense
from earlier editions was dropped in favor of PRE only vs. Presence
Attacks...)
Oh, that reminds me; how about expanding on the Presence Attack stuff?
Specifically, allowing for COM Attacks (so that the Characteristic is
something other than color...).
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 14:03:16 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:46 PM 1/25/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> > Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
>> >levels spelled out, yes.
>>
>> I disagree here. Poverty should be its own Disadvantage, though it
>> probably would only need a paragraph or two in the text.
>
> Hmmm. Why? Because it has some rules applications beyond most
>Social Lims, I guess. Right?
Actually, quite the opposite. Structurally, Poverty is much more like
"Negative Money" than something that would fit into a Social Lim frame
(assuming, of course, that Social Lim, like its Physical and Psych cousins,
has a two-characteristic tier system).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:13:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 1998 2:15 PM, Dataweaver wrote:
>
>
> >On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Just like any power. However, there is no reason to add
> >> unbalancing features to the system. And the above would work just
> fine if
> >> a friend happened to have Fire Powers he could fire off after you
> fired
> >> your vulnerability ray. And just how would Hunted, UAO work?
> >
> >It wouldn't; just like Side Effect (Hunted) doesn't work. But that
> >doesn't make Side Effects that use Disads wrong across the board...
>
>
> Actually, they both work.
>
> Hunted, UOA
> "Now, I curse you in the name of Tindalos! The Hounds of Tindalos will
> track you down and consume your soul! They will follow you until the
> end of time! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
>
> Side Effect (Hunted)
> "You have tried to Summon the Master, mage, but you have failed. He
> sent us to destroy you instead. You will never be rid of us!"
You forget that both of these would have limited durations...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:20:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 1998 8:09 AM, SteveL1979 wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
> > Everyone please keep the comments and suggestions coming! All
> constructive
> >input is good input. And be sure to fill out the questionnaire on
> the Hero
> >Games webpage; that's the best way to make your comments and
> suggestions,
> >since it makes them easiest for us to catalog.
>
>
> You might have someone code that page as a form, rather than just
> test. Better yet, code it as a form that can then be saved, so that
> people don't have to download it, fill it out, and mail it. If they
> can reach your webpage, they have it right there.
While you're at it, set up online forms so that Hero Plus orders can be
placed immediately and over the Internet. See the sjgames site for a good
model of how to do this... (and I'm still waiting for something to be set
up to allow newly purchased e-books to be downloaded over the Internet...)
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 17:00:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > > Make Poverty a subset of the Social Disadvantage, with differing
> > > levels spelled out, yes.
> >
> > I would not want to see Poverty incorporated into Social Lim.
>
> Hmmm. I think it really does belong in that category, should that
> category exist. Possibly with a mention of where to look in the Wealth
> section in Perks.
It belongs in that category about as much as Berserk and Enraged belong in
Psychological Limitations.
> > > I perfer the status quo, though I'd be against anything that
> > > reduces the cost of any Damage Shields.
> >
> > Problem with the status quo is that it biases against Ranged Powers; why
> > take Damage Shield: EB when you can get the exact same effect from Damage
> > Shield: HA for fewer points?
>
> Not a worry anymore, with HA being removed from the system. Next.
Really? Why? I've always seen HA being related to EB the same way that
HKA is related to RKA - HA has no range, but works in conjunction with
your STR.
> > Keep in mind that this character would be experiencing a _continuous END
> > drain_ every waking moment! the second he goes under, the power shuts off;
> > then he wakes up again and the power reactivates, knocking him out
> > again... it makes no sense.
>
> You'd need some sort of suppression field. Or perhaps, it stays
> off just fine, but once it is turned on it doesn't turn off until you drop
> from exhaustion.
But that's not what Always On _is_; Always On is "your power cannot be
shut off". Hmm... now that I think about it, a character with an
Always-On EB would be _dead_, because said EB _wouldn't_ shut off when he
loses consciousness - it starts draining from his STUN, uses that up, and
then starts draining from his BODY until he dies. And this would start
happening the instant this power is bestowed on him. This makes be think
of the Black Queens from the Wild Cards universe...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 15:43:02 -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, January 25, 1998 1:13 PM, Dataweaver wrote:
>You forget that both of these would have limited durations...
So they exaggerated.:)
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:03:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > > I would not want to see Poverty incorporated into Social Lim.
> >
> > Hmmm. I think it really does belong in that category, should that
> > category exist. Possibly with a mention of where to look in the Wealth
> > section in Perks.
>
> It belongs in that category about as much as Berserk and Enraged belong in
> Psychological Limitations.
Why would money not belong there? It's obviously a limitation
having to do with Social Ideas. A lack of money is Socially Limiting in a
society where money is important. Simlar to Soc Lim: Ex-Con or Soc Lim:
Slave. Heck, this category should of course get Reputations as well.
> > Not a worry anymore, with HA being removed from the system. Next.
>
> Really? Why? I've always seen HA being related to EB the same way that
> HKA is related to RKA - HA has no range, but works in conjunction with
> your STR.
And it is too cheap. [No arguements here, please. Hero Games has
said that HA, as it is known, is *gone*. Even if you don't agree, Hero
5th will not have this power]. There is a replacement based off of EB.
see the Digital Hero page on the Hero Games Web Site.
> But that's not what Always On _is_; Always On is "your power cannot be
> shut off". Hmm... now that I think about it, a character with an
> Always-On EB would be _dead_, because said EB _wouldn't_ shut off when he
> loses consciousness - it starts draining from his STUN, uses that up, and
Well, it wouldn't exactly be "always on". This would be its own
variety of Limited Power, probably worth about -1/2 or -1.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:06:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > I didn't say "without any limiting factor", I said "that don't limit your
> > character that much." Every case that I can think of limits your character
> > for saving points, in some possible situation.
>
> Okay, I'll bite. How does a 20 STR limit a character more than a 10 STR?
That's easy. The first payed 10 points for STR, the second
didn't.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 19:50:39 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>
> > > > I would not want to see Poverty incorporated into Social Lim.
> > >
> > > Hmmm. I think it really does belong in that category, should that
> > > category exist. Possibly with a mention of where to look in the Wealth
> > > section in Perks.
> >
> > It belongs in that category about as much as Berserk and Enraged belong in
> > Psychological Limitations.
>
> Why would money not belong there? It's obviously a limitation
> having to do with Social Ideas. A lack of money is Socially Limiting in a
> society where money is important. Simlar to Soc Lim: Ex-Con or Soc Lim:
> Slave. Heck, this category should of course get Reputations as well.
Likewise, Berserk is obviously a limitation having to do with
Psychological Ideas. So why isn't it a Psychological Limitation?
OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
> > > Not a worry anymore, with HA being removed from the system. Next.
> >
> > Really? Why? I've always seen HA being related to EB the same way that
> > HKA is related to RKA - HA has no range, but works in conjunction with
> > your STR.
>
> And it is too cheap. [No arguements here, please. Hero Games has
> said that HA, as it is known, is *gone*. Even if you don't agree, Hero
> 5th will not have this power]. There is a replacement based off of EB.
> see the Digital Hero page on the Hero Games Web Site.
Didn't find the replacement. Where is it?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 21:15:59 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Why would money not belong there? It's obviously a limitation
> > having to do with Social Ideas. A lack of money is Socially Limiting in a
> > society where money is important. Simlar to Soc Lim: Ex-Con or Soc Lim:
> > Slave. Heck, this category should of course get Reputations as well.
>
> Likewise, Berserk is obviously a limitation having to do with
> Psychological Ideas. So why isn't it a Psychological Limitation?
Added mechanics for frequency with regularly specified details.
Also, it could simulate things that aren't necessarily Psychological in
detail. (Though give me time to figure something out.)
> OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
> Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
And Poverty. While Poverty has set "levels", it would be better
simulate through a two part system that Social Limitation would obviously
have. There isn't a major effect to really go with Wealth, just like
there is no special mechanic or roll or whatnot needed for Poverty.
> > And it is too cheap. [No arguements here, please. Hero Games has
> > said that HA, as it is known, is *gone*. Even if you don't agree, Hero
> > 5th will not have this power]. There is a replacement based off of EB.
> > see the Digital Hero page on the Hero Games Web Site.
>
> Didn't find the replacement. Where is it?
Did you find the Digital Hero section -- their on-line magazene?
It's in one of the earlier volumes. I believe it is under Redifining the
EB, or somesuch. It's not about HA per se.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:19:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> > OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> > Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
> > Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
>
> And Poverty. While Poverty has set "levels", it would be better
> simulate through a two part system that Social Limitation would obviously
> have. There isn't a major effect to really go with Wealth, just like
> there is no special mechanic or roll or whatnot needed for Poverty.
Well... in a game that considers "Doesn't know how to drive" to be a
Physical Limitation, I guess you could call "Doesn't have any money" a
Social Limitation; but I don't like it...
> > > And it is too cheap. [No arguements here, please. Hero Games has
> > > said that HA, as it is known, is *gone*. Even if you don't agree, Hero
> > > 5th will not have this power]. There is a replacement based off of EB.
> > > see the Digital Hero page on the Hero Games Web Site.
> >
> > Didn't find the replacement. Where is it?
>
> Did you find the Digital Hero section -- their on-line magazene?
> It's in one of the earlier volumes. I believe it is under Redifining the
> EB, or somesuch. It's not about HA per se.
I found Digital Hero, but the article you refer to wasn't there.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: ctaylor@pop.cyberis.net
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 20:34:06 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@cyberis.net>
Subject: Re: Berserk
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> Likewise, Berserk is obviously a limitation having to do with
>> Psychological Ideas. So why isn't it a Psychological Limitation?
>
> Added mechanics for frequency with regularly specified details.
>Also, it could simulate things that aren't necessarily Psychological in
>detail. (Though give me time to figure something out.)
I built a mentalist with always on telepathy, he was built with an enraged
when anyone in a certain range berserked, sort of a sympathetic power, not
psychological, it was due to his mental link.... voila :)
----------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 22:35:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > And Poverty. While Poverty has set "levels", it would be better
> > simulate through a two part system that Social Limitation would obviously
> > have. There isn't a major effect to really go with Wealth, just like
> > there is no special mechanic or roll or whatnot needed for Poverty.
>
> Well... in a game that considers "Doesn't know how to drive" to be a
> Physical Limitation, I guess you could call "Doesn't have any money" a
> Social Limitation; but I don't like it...
Actually, both would be Social Limitations if that category
existed. As it is, Psych Lims are for things that are changeable with an
Ego roll, Physical lims for those things that aren't.
But seriously, what is so wrong with Poverty as a Social
Limitation. Money is a construct of society, and not having any leads to
problems relating to dealing with said society. Pretty simple. Anything
involving Economics, Sociology, etc will be Social Lims.
> > Did you find the Digital Hero section -- their on-line magazene?
> > It's in one of the earlier volumes. I believe it is under Redifining the
> > EB, or somesuch. It's not about HA per se.
>
> I found Digital Hero, but the article you refer to wasn't there.
Doh! I just looked, and it's no longer there. They have cleaned
up a bit, I guess. Caught me by surprise. I'm asking if there is any way
to get limited-time access to the older articles for purposes of
downloading and printing. Maybe I can convince them to allow someone to
set up an archive site.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:26:30 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Lifted from Casey McGirt's article "The Wonders of Energy Blast", once
posted on the Digital Hero page:
<snip>
The Punch of Power - Replacing HTH Attack
Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast with the
No Range limitation. Energy Blast, however, has the advantage of adhering
to the '5 active points/die' standard that is commonplace in the game. For
those that would prefer an alternative to HTH Attack, try this addition to
Energy Blast:
* Energy Blast can either be defined as an independent attack, or as
adding to a single other attack method. At the gamemaster's option,
players may choose to add to general Strength damage, rather than one
specific attack (such as Strike, Haymaker, etc.). The Energy Blast
must take the same advantages and limitations that are in the attack
added to, including inherent ones (thus, No Range must be taken when
adding to Strength). The type of Energy Blast (physical or energy)
must match the attack that it is added to, and follows the same
guidelines. Since other attacks generally cannot be spread or bounced,
Energy Blast loses these abilities when paired with another attack.
This ruling allows HTH attacks that are more balanced with other attacks,
in terms of Endurance, active points, and the like.
</snip>
The article goes on to discuss Energy Blast in conjunction with TK, and the
following optional advantages and limitations:
Killing Blast (+1/4) - goes against resistant defenses for purposes of
doing BODY.
Dual Beam (+1/2) - allows two shots, either at the same target or at
adjacent hexes.
Seeking (+1/2) - allows continuous fire on successive phases until the
attack hits.
Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an automatic
hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
Minimum Range (variable) - attack is ineffective at short ranges.
Obviously, Casey describes these much more thoroughly.
Damon
======================
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs it's
just possible you haven't grasped the situation. -- Jean Kerr
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:41:46 -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, January 25, 1998 2:34 PM, Trevor Barrie wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 1998 aregalad@miami.edu wrote:
>
>> Hmmm...have you ever seen Thor take a bullet (or read a thought
bubble
>> that showed him worring about one)?
>
>Not that I can think of off-hand.
>
>> Just because he twirls his hammer to deflect them doesn't mean he
CAN'T
>> take them - at least to some degree. Maybe he has low level Damage
>> Resistance? Anyway, I'm not arguing w/you, I just want to
understand
>> Thor better.
>
>I'd probably buy Thor with low or no resistant defense, but with
Damage
>Reduction. As I see it, shooting Thor is sort of like trying to stop
>a charging elephant with a small-calibre handgun (but worse) - the
bullets
>aren't going to ricochet or anything, but unless you get a lucky hit,
>it's going to take a _lot_ of shots to bring him down.
>
That is probably a good way to represent him. The old Marvel Universe
limited series stated that Thor's flesh was three times as dense as a
normal man's, but that it could be penetrated by small arms fire.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: The STR & HA Worms
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:45:45 -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, January 25, 1998 2:35 PM, Trevor Barrie wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
>
>> That said, I think that eliminating the figured part of Figured
>> Characteristics might be a good idea, but I don't want to see the
>> whole system retconned this way.
>
>Eh? Who said anything about changing the "whole system"? We're
talking
>about a change so minor it barely deserves to be called a "minor
change".
Changing the STUN, PD, and REC of 90%+ of all characters in the books
or any campaign I have ever been in is not "so minor it barely
deserves to be called a "minor change". In fact, when dealing with
heroic level characters, it is a _major_ change. I'm not about to tell
someone that their heroic level character has just lost a third of
their PD because you decided to retcon the system.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 23:57:44 -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, January 25, 1998 6:25 PM, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
<snip>
>
>> > And it is too cheap. [No arguements here, please. Hero Games
has
>> > said that HA, as it is known, is *gone*. Even if you don't
agree, Hero
>> > 5th will not have this power]. There is a replacement based off
of EB.
>> > see the Digital Hero page on the Hero Games Web Site.
>>
>> Didn't find the replacement. Where is it?
>
> Did you find the Digital Hero section -- their on-line magazene?
>It's in one of the earlier volumes. I believe it is under Redifining
the
>EB, or somesuch. It's not about HA per se.
It isn't there anymore. I offered to archive their old stuff for them,
but Bruce said it was unnecessary. There have been enough requests
that he decided that there will be an archive section, but it hasn't
been set up yet.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Daniel Pawtowski <dpawtows@access.digex.net>
Subject: Surprise!
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 03:06:30 -0500 (EST)
Organization: VTSFFC
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
Situation: Superteam guarding a Senator at a public speach. Villians
attack. The two supers tasked to "In case of trouble, get the senator
out of here" are taken out in the opening rounds, leaving the intended
victim standing there between a couple villians intending him serious
bodily harm.
My character, a flyer who was on high guard, decided to protect the
senator by diving on him, knocking him down, and interposing his own
body (and praying like heck his teammates could pull him outa this in
one piece). The GM asked for a Dex roll to do this. I rolled, and
failed by one.
His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a full
speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though it.
Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned out
there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
Daniel Pawtowski
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 03:18:17 -0500 (EST)
From: Tokyo Mark <bastet@iquest.net>
X-Sender: bastet@iquest7
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a full
> speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though it.
> Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned out
> there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
> The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
> stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
Well, I think there was a misunderstanding on surprise here. Surprise out
of combat gets the double stun modifier. Surprise in combat only havles
your DCV, which after a movethrough would already be lower. From what you
described it definately sounds like surprise in combat.
TokyoMark
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 02:34:58 -0600
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
>> >"Saving" points without any limiting factor to justify it may be a "part
of
>> >the system", but it's not really part of the system's PHILOSOPHY.
Things
>> >like the Basic Law of Disadvantages/Power Limitations express a clear
>> >desire from the system creators that You Get What You Pay For.
>>
>> I didn't say "without any limiting factor", I said "that don't limit your
>> character that much." Every case that I can think of limits your
character
>> for saving points, in some possible situation.
>
>Okay, I'll bite. How does a 20 STR limit a character more than a 10 STR?
I assume you are referring to the fact that if you bought 10 STR you would
get not only an increase of 10 STR you also get 2 PD, 2 REC, and 5 STUN.
These figured characteristics that if bought separately would cost you 11
points.
Not to mention the fact that this charcter can now jump farther, carry more,
use heavier weapons, impress the ladies or if a lady impress the guys, throw
things farther, break grabs and entangles easier, shrug aside barriers that
Normal Man has to take at least 1/2 phase to remove, and shove around little
girly men at the beach. And all this can be yours for the low, low price of
only 10, I say, 10 Power Points. :-)
Top ten limitations a 20 STR character has that a 10 STR character doesn't.
10) I shoot this guy with a Limited EB that only hurts people who have
above average STR. He gets hit with damage and 10 STR Man doesn't. True he
does have an additional 2 points of PD to take it with. Hopefully it is a
physical blast.
9) If I Drain or Transfer the 10 STR away he loses the other benefits as
well, which he wouldn't if he bought them separately.
8) In a Fantasy Hero adventuring party he would wind up getting stuck
carrying a larger share of the treasure and equipment, simply because he
can.
7) In Espionage, he would not be able to go unnoticed as easily.
6) In a murder mystery adventure he could be a suspect if the victim was
strangled with nearly inhuman strength.
5) If Mind Controlled and ordered to punch himself, it would hurt worse.
4) He could wind up accidentally being the King of England.
3) Have to replace his joystick more often.
2) Will more often be assumed to be "dumb."
And #1 in our top ten list is:
1) He wouldn't be able to resist slugging me for some of the above reasons.
Alan "Looking gift horses in the mouth is my specialty" Easley
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 02:44:11 -0600
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
>Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
>
>Situation: Superteam guarding a Senator at a public speach. Villians
>attack. The two supers tasked to "In case of trouble, get the senator
>out of here" are taken out in the opening rounds, leaving the intended
>victim standing there between a couple villians intending him serious
>bodily harm.
> My character, a flyer who was on high guard, decided to protect the
>senator by diving on him, knocking him down, and interposing his own
>body (and praying like heck his teammates could pull him outa this in
>one piece). The GM asked for a Dex roll to do this. I rolled, and
>failed by one.
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a full
>speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though it.
>Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned out
>there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
>The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
>stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
>
> Daniel Pawtowski
Get your GM to reread the section of the BBB on page 151 dealing with
Surprised. Since your character was in "combat" or "expecting trouble" he
should have at worst gotten a 1/2 reduction to his DCV making him easier to
hit, but no change to damage. Possibly this would only count as a surprise
move, granting the villain a +1 to +3 on his OCV.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 02:47:30 -0800
From: Captain Spith <cptspith@teleport.com>
Reply-To: cptspith@teleport.com
Organization: Satan's Children
Subject: Re: Base point levels for 5th edition?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > I think if the suggested limit is kept at 250, then the suggested
> > power level of 50 active needs to be lowered to say, 40 or 45.
>
> But the problem here, as I pointed out, is that Heroes are
> ineffective compared to the outside world. They can't effect the scenery
> with their powers and don't seem really "super". This is fine for a
> low-powered concept game, but games that try to simulate the comics, even
> with beginning heroes, should be at the 60 pt or greater range.
This also depends on *which* comics you want to simulate. It has
been mentioned before; the tendancy in the last several years for Supers
to become more and more powerful in the comics, with 'new'
heroes/villians being introduced at the same levels as the characters
that have been around for 15-20 years. When Champions first came out,
most superheroes had definite strengths and weaknesses and were not all
demigods in tights. I think that this is currently a sorely missed
dynamic. Nowadays, or at least until a recent slow weaning from the
trend, most heroes are walking death machines that can step all over
normals without even noticing that their shoes are getting guts on them.
A 50-60 AP power generally WILL 'affect the environment', but won't
necessarily destroy three major buildings every time there is a
superbattle. And they shouldn't! If there is any validity to the
concept of ROLE-PLAYING, beginning heroes - and especially beginning
players - should have limits to their powers and areas of weakness or
vulnerability. This encourages groups to work as teams to cover each
others' weak spots, and gives characters clear directions to grow.
It would be very difficult to simulate MOST supers in today's comics
on less than 300 points, _not_counting_ any background skills or
'colour'. I believe that it boils down to a question of game scale;
generally if the heroes and villians are evenly matched, collateral
damage or 'affecting the environment' should not be a big issue. The
classic 'Four-Colour-Comic' should NOT have rampant carnage of 'scenery'
every time Plasma Boy uses his attack, but it is still possible for it
to occur occasionally. And I don't often see in the comics two bricks
ripping a city apart for weapons to use on each other, as it is usually
more effective to use fisticuffs, but occasionally a couple of
praticularly powerful bricks will dammage a lot of stuff through KB
impact and throwing each other through the streets. I just don't think
that excessive environment damage is all that common in the classic
"Four-Colour" genre of supering that Champions was created to simulate.
--
-Capt. Spith
Savior of Humanity
Secular Messiah
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <theala@shore.intercom.net>
From: "Theala Sildorian" <theala@shore.intercom.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:41:56 +0000
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a
> full
> speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though
> it. Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it
> turned out there was another supervillian hiding under the floor,
> who shot him. The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus
> I took double stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit
> right with me.
Makes sense to me: if there was no way for your character to know
the villain was there, then any attack would be by Surprise.
----------------
Theala Sildorian
http://www.intercom.net/user/theala/hero.html
Home of the Unofficial Champions Home Page!
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Surprise!
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-15,18-19,22-24
From: llwatts@juno.com (Leah L Watts)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:18:19 EST
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>>Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
>>
>>Situation: <snipped>
>> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a
>full
>>speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though
>it.
>>Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned
>out
>>there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
>>The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
>>stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
>>
>> Daniel Pawtowski
Guess I must be a more lenient GM than some, because unless the villian
under the floor had some way to see you coming I would have ruled _he_
was surprised as well, and just run combat normally.
Now, if the villian in question could see through floors, I'll agree with
the other posts and say this was "Surprised in combat" for a DCV
reduction, but not double stun.
Leah
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 10:36:27 -0500
Lines: 27
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-----
>>>>> "M(oPRG" == Michael (Damon) or Peni R Griffin <griffin@txdirect.net>
>>>>> writes:
M(oPRG> Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast
M(oPRG> with the No Range limitation.
Um... your forgot one really big difference: you can add HA to Stregth
damage; you cannot do that with EB. This is the critical difference
between EB and HA, not range vs. no range.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCUAwUBNMyteJ6VRH7BJMxHAQHIUQP4uUnAlve8fwvSTXSqvjU1+Gn2s6foOL/H
KH57NESyYQs1FsOS5IWl2FlG3l67Bsvs3EbtG+KEZjBnxCrgKgFgVo4b17c9HtRq
Swmy5IVpSLWV7UGlgPNmAtZsUAqLrJ+PqEsJ0OemD12dvSK0yDhZLA/lbUnGL/+u
hVhWgM2pDw==
=fnuY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Entangle Defense was (Re: Further H5 suggestions)
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 10:41:18 -0500
Lines: 31
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> >How about not. Desolidification is *NOT* a defense power.
TRG> Rat, Rat, Rat. There's no such things as Defense Powers, there
TRG> are just Powers that act as a defense. [severely tongue-in-cheek]
Defensive powers are rated with a degree of effect: 10 PD, 30 resistant ED,
etc. Desolidification does not have this type of rating. It does not
provide defense against attacks, it makes one insubstantial. Because of
the "baggage" that goes with being insubstantial -- notably the fact that a
Desolidified character cannot interact with the "real" world -- it is
largely useless as a "standard" defense.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMyunJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEx7wQAnfnv1H7ocghcTSmKjJM5OveQlGSRs6Ne
VnYbvTG6ChiLnFnbgHZ69AvPUqxJgOuE6QRH2/kT4vbJjqVr1eIwIG3z1m/1LjmP
olNef/9+2zb/UvTYvCeBolWqrwp11RnLlMBodgFAo2fxIzEDJEA4wvYLvFyssMsZ
4+n+rsjEFvk=
=bS77
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5 and Maxima
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 10:45:19 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> Add a new Disad similar to Characteristic Maxima in that it applies a
D> rule to a character in a Superheroic campaign that normally gets applied
D> to everyone in a Heroic Campaign: The character can have no more than
D> (INT/5) powers active at one time.
Please note that the INT/5 limit from Fantasy Hero is *SPELLS*, not powers.
An FH mage with that restriction may have a single spell composed of
fifteen distinct powers -- but it counts as but *ONE* spell towards his
limit.
And I think this campaign restriction does not fit well in a supers game.
Framework allocation and Endurance will serve well enough to restrict a
supermage -- just as they restrict everyone else.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMyvhZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEicAQApwDdewhQqTrFZ6QGxunbGRJcuc/DEL9p
bUpNUSIUuRUT6Xiik+l+o4/f/mXRLYBDDNTZWLZJ4XcISNlLO8mxu56Q5s7tctMj
ooqXtNNh6OU8Fz8DcJTEP2LIRr/gOGx4ZMZC07XGmJbt9jSvRlk1Q6YjmR05+34S
WPmf++vx/Dw=
=oFJ1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 10:47:47 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "BS" == Bill Svitavsky <bsvitavs@bu.edu> writes:
BS> Having fenced for a couple of years myself, the lack of a riposte
BS> maneuver became glaringly apparent.
Um... riposte is a Block maneuver, followed by an attack on your next
action phase.
[...]
BS> Riposte 1/2 Phase, -2 OCV, +0 DCV, Block/Strike, Abort. Cost: 5 pts.
Blatantly illegal, verboten in Hero. You cannot abort to a maneuver that
does damage (regardless that The Ultimate Martial Artist breaks itself in
this fashion).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMywIZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEkAgP/eW5+MJJ4RCRix6I+X7QksdA/Z2SfQTu0
yD8lHjyNVi2+IPjNJpC60d2wzhfWx7O2U/eX37sBIfFm6eKG4KuThovqAPw39Hui
rcacpatHnoAhzWFb/hkXnSsRXxq0aj9G4nDaml7dz4NZvaBdUbvV+98Z8IDEYGdG
qVhnLA7k9Co=
=DLpg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:01:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> It isn't there anymore. I offered to archive their old stuff for them,
> but Bruce said it was unnecessary. There have been enough requests
> that he decided that there will be an archive section, but it hasn't
> been set up yet.
Oh, good. I just offered the same yesterday.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:29:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> Lifted from Casey McGirt's article "The Wonders of Energy Blast", once
> posted on the Digital Hero page:
Thanks...
> <snip>
> The Punch of Power - Replacing HTH Attack
>
> Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast with the
> No Range limitation. Energy Blast, however, has the advantage of adhering
> to the '5 active points/die' standard that is commonplace in the game. For
> those that would prefer an alternative to HTH Attack, try this addition to
> Energy Blast:
>
> * Energy Blast can either be defined as an independent attack, or as
> adding to a single other attack method.
And the associated drawback would be that the EB that adds to a single
other attack method would be incapable of being used independently?
> The article goes on to discuss Energy Blast in conjunction with TK, and the
> following optional advantages and limitations:
>
> Killing Blast (+1/4) - goes against resistant defenses for purposes of
> doing BODY.
And, combined with Beam Attack, _almost_ duplicates existing RKAs (but not
HKAs, and it doesn't have "+1 STUN Multiplier"...
> Dual Beam (+1/2) - allows two shots, either at the same target or at
> adjacent hexes.
Poor man's Autofire...
> Seeking (+1/2) - allows continuous fire on successive phases until the
> attack hits.
...and this once again shows that clarification between "continuous
attack" and "continuous damage" is much needed.
> Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an automatic
> hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
Be careful with this one; I could see instances where Counterstrike would
be ineffective (such as Counterstrike vs. a Seeking EB...)
> Minimum Range (variable) - attack is ineffective at short ranges.
Looks good.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:32:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "M(oPRG" == Michael (Damon) or Peni R Griffin <griffin@txdirect.net>
> >>>>> writes:
>
> M(oPRG> Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast
> M(oPRG> with the No Range limitation.
>
> Um... your forgot one really big difference: you can add HA to Stregth
> damage; you cannot do that with EB. This is the critical difference
> between EB and HA, not range vs. no range.
Umm... the very next section covered that...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 10:38:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5 and Maxima
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> Add a new Disad similar to Characteristic Maxima in that it applies a
> D> rule to a character in a Superheroic campaign that normally gets applied
> D> to everyone in a Heroic Campaign: The character can have no more than
> D> (INT/5) powers active at one time.
>
> Please note that the INT/5 limit from Fantasy Hero is *SPELLS*, not powers.
> An FH mage with that restriction may have a single spell composed of
> fifteen distinct powers -- but it counts as but *ONE* spell towards his
> limit.
Conceded.
> And I think this campaign restriction does not fit well in a supers game.
> Framework allocation and Endurance will serve well enough to restrict a
> supermage -- just as they restrict everyone else.
Except that Delayed Effect specifically refers to the INT/5 rule - which
is otherwise not even mentioned. Either ditch Delayed Effect or add the
INT/5 rule in as an optional rule... The first approach streamlines the
book while the second makes it more flexible and maintains "backward
compatability" a bit better.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 11:49:13 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>> Um... your forgot one really big difference: you can add HA to Stregth
>> damage; you cannot do that with EB. This is the critical difference
>> between EB and HA, not range vs. no range.
D> Umm... the very next section covered that...
Your introduction, where you liken HA to EB, failed to mention it. Your
introduction makes HA look like a no-range Energy Blast. It is not. The
closest power to HA is HKA.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMy+hp6VRH7BJMxHAQG29gQAxkwECWC1UQroLUI3wcNBaRS0uwJ1L2yV
1M4FDxBDgMP9PJ5aE+KCRzSUgOoMYFOA3I/8gI+jFTVEL5lFqq1L7mjRBaJH9u58
K0g/PLx3fj7TLa6jp6act+OissZ6/G4TYY7lIJ5z3Adj407gRwjwz42he06tWZpB
xMg44SEx9Y8=
=f4kv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:49:52 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 05:00 PM 1/25/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> > Keep in mind that this character would be experiencing a _continuous END
>> > drain_ every waking moment! the second he goes under, the power shuts
off;
>> > then he wakes up again and the power reactivates, knocking him out
>> > again... it makes no sense.
>>
>> You'd need some sort of suppression field. Or perhaps, it stays
>> off just fine, but once it is turned on it doesn't turn off until you drop
>> from exhaustion.
>
>But that's not what Always On _is_; Always On is "your power cannot be
>shut off". Hmm... now that I think about it, a character with an
>Always-On EB would be _dead_, because said EB _wouldn't_ shut off when he
>loses consciousness - it starts draining from his STUN, uses that up, and
>then starts draining from his BODY until he dies. And this would start
>happening the instant this power is bestowed on him. This makes be think
>of the Black Queens from the Wild Cards universe...
I may be misreading, but it seems like someone is forgetting that,
according to the BBB, a Power that is Always On must be bought with 0 END
Persistent.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 08:52:10 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 07:50 PM 1/25/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
>Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
>Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
Not Secret ID. That's functionally closer to Psychological Limitation
(though I've devised a structure for Secret as a separate category that I
might post if I can figure out what I did with it).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:05:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> BS> Riposte 1/2 Phase, -2 OCV, +0 DCV, Block/Strike, Abort. Cost: 5 pts.
>
> Blatantly illegal, verboten in Hero. You cannot abort to a maneuver that
> does damage (regardless that The Ultimate Martial Artist breaks itself in
> this fashion).
Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first appeared
in Ninja Hero. This type of maneuver also first appeared in Danger
International (and Strike Force), used with (I think) Aikido.
Not that it doesn't violate certain rules... but I wanted to make sure the
air was clear.
Now, Aaron Allston does state that the 'Block/action' maneuver is *not*
meant for a normal game. He offered the rules for Wild Martial Arts games
(and because pervious martial arts packages had something similar).
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:05:31 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:02 PM 1/25/98 -0400, Trevor Barrie wrote:
[earlier portion snipped]
>> So far, so good. But what happens when you're on another planet, and
>> the gravity is half as strong (equivalent to STR 5)? You need half as much
>> TK to do anything there. If gravity is double Earth's, you need twice as
>> much. (This may legitimately be accurate to your concept of the
>> character's Power, and I can't really say that you'd be wrong, though it
>> doesn't at all work for how I perceive gravity control would work).
>
>Is this supposed to be a planet-hopping campaign, then?
No. "This" is supposed to be a role-playing system that can simulate a
wide variety of campaigns, with planet-hopping campaigns among them.
> For a standard
>super-hero game, gaining or losing effectiveness on other planets pretty
>obviously falls into the "minor effects of SFX" category. If operation
>on other planets is going to be common, buy enough to work on the heaviest
>planet you're likely to encounter and add a Limitation "limited by
>strength of available gravity wells".
>
>> And how is this going to affect that piano over there? It takes more
>> STR to lift a piano than a human being. If it normally takes 20 STR to
>> lift a piano (OK, quiet down, this is just for the sake of argument), then
>> adding that 10 STR TK that doubles gravity for Humans is only going to add
>> 25% for the piano (to 22 STR or some such).
>
>Buy more than 10 STR, and add a Limitation "limited by mass of affected
>object".
So let's see... What we're talking about is 10 STR, +10 (or more) STR
(Limited by Mass of Affected Object), all Limited by Strength of Available
Gravity Wells? And you prefer *that* to a simple 2d6 Aid?
>> Now we use my method. I Aid (or, rather, Assist) the gravity in the
>> area by 2d6, and get a result of 5. +5 to Assist Gravity doubles the
>> gravity. The humans are now twice as heavy, and so is the piano, and it
>> works the same no matter what the base gravity.
>> Granted, adding a gravity element to Change Environment would probably
>> work just as well, if not better. The TK method is the worst choice,
>> though.
>
>It simulates the ability near-perfectly and doesn't require any
>modifications to the rule. That doesn't spell "worst" to me.
It requires special Limitations, including a partial Limitation, to make
it work "near perfectly." A minor adjustment to how the definition of Aid
works makes it work perfectly, period (no "near" about it), with an
already-existing Advantage.
Of course, as I say, adding a gravity element to Peterson's Change
Environment article (say, at 10 points per 2X gravity) would arguably work
best of all.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:07:37 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: PING of GRG or Herogames
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 04:20 PM 1/25/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>>
>> You might have someone code that page as a form, rather than just
>> test. Better yet, code it as a form that can then be saved, so that
>> people don't have to download it, fill it out, and mail it. If they
>> can reach your webpage, they have it right there.
>
>While you're at it, set up online forms so that Hero Plus orders can be
>placed immediately and over the Internet. See the sjgames site for a good
>model of how to do this... (and I'm still waiting for something to be set
>up to allow newly purchased e-books to be downloaded over the Internet...)
Check http://www.hyperbooks.com if you can. I bought the Vehicle Design
System 1.0 from there (and am incorporating some stuff from that book into
TUSV). In fact, I think Hero would do well to just let the Hero Plus books
be sold through Hyperbooks.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:07:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
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
Dataweaver writes:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> > If you don't mind me piping up, I would have to disagree with this
> > statement. I can give you at least three examples of OHID in mainstream
> > comics: Thor, Captain Marvel, and Iron Man (although some might argue
> > about the last). OHID is a very specific, genre-necessary mechanic, and
> > it has enough inherent limitations and bonuses that it should not be
> > simply folded into the Limited Power disadd.
>
> What inherent bonuses and drawbacks does it have that "Limited Power:
> Conditional (only works in Hero ID)" doesn't?
All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is whether
the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:16:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <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
qts writes:
> How about a Continuous, Cumulative 2d6 Dispel? Eventually, it'll get
> any power. Or a Continuous Drain?
First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel. Secondly,
'Drain' fits under the NND/AVLD category, as power defense is not a standard
defense.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:17:22 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:06 AM 1/26/98 -0500, Daniel Pawtowski wrote:
>
>Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
>
>Situation: Superteam guarding a Senator at a public speach. Villians
>attack. The two supers tasked to "In case of trouble, get the senator
>out of here" are taken out in the opening rounds, leaving the intended
>victim standing there between a couple villians intending him serious
>bodily harm.
> My character, a flyer who was on high guard, decided to protect the
>senator by diving on him, knocking him down, and interposing his own
>body (and praying like heck his teammates could pull him outa this in
>one piece). The GM asked for a Dex roll to do this. I rolled, and
>failed by one.
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a full
>speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though it.
>Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned out
>there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
>The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
>stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
If the GM had the villain already posted there, ready to attack anything
that came down his way, then OK. (And given the often chaotic nature of
superfights, that's not really as unlikely a scenario as one might assume.)
Even if the villain was posted there, though, but wasn't specifically
ready for someone to come in on him, you were robbed (IMO). He should've
been as surprised as your character was.
If a villain under the stage hadn't been a part of the GM's plan, I
would've had the Senator dive into the hole after your character.
Of course, as others have pointed out, the double STUN rule is for
surprise *out* of combat, so unless your GM is using a house rule to the
contrary then there was definitely a rules glitch.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:18:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
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
qts writes:
> This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
> if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
> half-phase action to maintain, though.
Huh? Ok, we have '+1/2: duration 1 turn', '+1/2: attachable', then _double_
this for being an NND/AVLD; net of a +2 advantage. How is this a big problem?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:19:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org, 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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> > Buy desolid with the advantages 'persistent' and 'trigger' -- the
> > triggering condition is 'if stunned or knocked unconscious'. Then, take
> > the limitation 'costs END to turn off' (-1/4; it is less limiting than
> > always on). Result: 90 active, 72 real points.
>
>
> Why trigger if it has persistent?
Because 'persistent' does not turn a power on. If you switch your desolid
_off_ (by spending END), it stays off until you turn it on again.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5 and Maxima
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 12:27:21 -0500
Lines: 24
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> Except that Delayed Effect specifically refers to the INT/5 rule - which
D> is otherwise not even mentioned.
That is what the "Trigger" advantage is for.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzHdJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFMXwQAimt06oSpmFxJAPZLHkcqK6My4sOlcSMy
9X1v5FduyLRf/uh1CyxS1eDaLx74Wc0NWkyZG5vzf3U1lBmT7nanb6caHudymJZz
JTPeJQAJC+MeGpJWDilC1ec2LupB+eQ5ZEdHe/n7TxwpHHII7nsgif3X3tPdhuNq
dB3ZnuAhiSs=
=l4Ne
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:29:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Dataweaver writes:
> > On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
> > > If you don't mind me piping up, I would have to disagree with this
> > > statement. I can give you at least three examples of OHID in mainstream
> > > comics: Thor, Captain Marvel, and Iron Man (although some might argue
> > > about the last). OHID is a very specific, genre-necessary mechanic, and
> > > it has enough inherent limitations and bonuses that it should not be
> > > simply folded into the Limited Power disadd.
> >
> > What inherent bonuses and drawbacks does it have that "Limited Power:
> > Conditional (only works in Hero ID)" doesn't?
>
> All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is whether
> the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
Since the "Hero ID/civilian ID" is only prominent in one genre
(superheroes), I'd say that Only in Hero ID isn't common enough (and if
Social Limitation gets approved, neither are Public ID or Private ID, for
that matter...) As long as these three items remain as seperate entities,
Hero System will continue to have the appearance of "superhero RPG first,
universal RPG second".
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 12:35:33 -0500
Lines: 40
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-----
>>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
MS> Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first
MS> appeared in Ninja Hero.
Nope, there are no maneuvers in Ninja Hero with both the Strike and Abort
maneuver bases/elements[1]. Take a look at how Martial Throw is
constructed, for instance. There is one in The Ultimate Martial Artist,
even though that book reprints the maneuver construction rules from Ninja
Hero, including that proscription, thereby breaking itself.
[1] The "highly optional, this will totally unbalance anything but a wild
martial arts campaign, so do not use it" construction variant allows the
combination of Strike and Abort, but no such maneuvers are in the Ninja
Hero maneuvers list. Trust me on this, I used to argue vehemently for
allowing it for arts such as Iaijutsu, until someone described the
Lightning Reflexes pseudo-talent.
"Riposte" is either: a) a Block/Bind followed by a strike during one's next
action phase; b) a high DCV strike maneuver with a "block the incoming
strike" special effect; or c) application of combat skill levels into DCV
in combination with a strike maneuver, with the same SFX as "b".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzJQZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHddwQAhln+WFTsPXgGtwjzUZWFpkkww3hsq377
iK9mTVMPHxVT31F44QCyYnfr5iK3t75PDZFickGqaGy5KHhcEBG8pyPO8JYPmexX
TOmlitZOvRiP5g6i8t5DGRvoyDlwrrUqzK7V2Dk+H2DBZjV+J48qgazGbeMO2a1a
QElEsXtvjHo=
=KcHx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 12:43:56 -0500
Lines: 35
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-----
>>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
AJ> All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is
AJ> whether the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on
AJ> its own.
"Limited Power" Limitations are frequently dependant on the campaign,
moreso than other Limitations. For instance, "does not work in vacuum" is
worth practically nothing in a campaign set "today" in the local major
city. If the PCs have a base in orbit then it might be worth a -1/4, but
only if the occasional villain drops in for a chat. If many villains have
access to the orbital station, then a -1/2 might be in order. And if the
campaign is set on and around an orbital station, it might be worth upwards
of a -1.
If the value of a Limitation varies with the campaign then it does not
belong anywhere outside of "Limited Power".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzLRZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHzGwP/amwRvPHWUEny9/CUkQ6r9W0lPprbfBqt
W9DCOlRx8EWBA4a05cRubJKmFGzNbsQPTEzfbawLfR6gl5LF3G7pPVSA8hhtrI7x
RknhiEL9fKKGyUfEfFqFu29uP3/sxnTumtrVruklt3FgaSczBqjdUCQJqEItjbSO
98hRrVlx9X0=
=le4H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:44:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>
> MS> Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first
> MS> appeared in Ninja Hero.
>
> Nope, there are no maneuvers in Ninja Hero with both the Strike and Abort
> maneuver bases/elements[1]. Take a look at how Martial Throw is
> constructed, for instance. There is one in The Ultimate Martial Artist,
> even though that book reprints the maneuver construction rules from Ninja
> Hero, including that proscription, thereby breaking itself.
Well, I don't have NH with me, so I can't comment right now. I do have
the exact same maneuver listed in my optional Fencing package, which I
swore I copied directly out of NH while creating it.
> [1] The "highly optional, this will totally unbalance anything but a wild
> martial arts campaign, so do not use it" construction variant allows the
> combination of Strike and Abort, but no such maneuvers are in the Ninja
> Hero maneuvers list. Trust me on this, I used to argue vehemently for
> allowing it for arts such as Iaijutsu, until someone described the
> Lightning Reflexes pseudo-talent.
>
> "Riposte" is either: a) a Block/Bind followed by a strike during one's next
> action phase; b) a high DCV strike maneuver with a "block the incoming
> strike" special effect; or c) application of combat skill levels into DCV
> in combination with a strike maneuver, with the same SFX as "b".
Sure, all of this is fine for any 'vanilla' Hero System game. Personally,
I don't think the block/strike stuff is worth it, that -2 OCV really
bites into your avaliable CSL pool big time (if you even have any to begin
with).
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:01:49 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:07 AM 1/26/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Dataweaver writes:
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>> > If you don't mind me piping up, I would have to disagree with this
>> > statement. I can give you at least three examples of OHID in mainstream
>> > comics: Thor, Captain Marvel, and Iron Man (although some might argue
>> > about the last). OHID is a very specific, genre-necessary mechanic, and
>> > it has enough inherent limitations and bonuses that it should not be
>> > simply folded into the Limited Power disadd.
>>
>> What inherent bonuses and drawbacks does it have that "Limited Power:
>> Conditional (only works in Hero ID)" doesn't?
>
>All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is whether
>the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
Uh... I think you meant to say, "All *Power Limitations* can be handled
as 'Limited Power.'" :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: voxel@mail.theramp.net
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:11:42 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: Block/Strike in TUMA?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
At 08:54 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> You've repeatedly asserted over the past couple of days that TUMA
>contains a maneuver that mixes the exclusive Block and Strike maneuvers --
>using this as a way to attack Mr. Long.
>
> I was just paging through the book to look for this, as I didn't
>actually remember this, and, Lo and Behold!, nothing of the sort. Just
>where is this "illegal" construction, Rat?
He may have just been confused because the editing (and the cribbing from
Ninja Hero) was so sloppy as to include the *warning* about using maneuvers
like Block/Strike to build a one-maneuver martial art without including the
"Paek-Tu" rules that warning refers to. :/
--
"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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 14:12:58 -0500
Lines: 26
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-----
>>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
MS> Well, I don't have NH with me, so I can't comment right now. I do have
MS> the exact same maneuver listed in my optional Fencing package, which I
MS> swore I copied directly out of NH while creating it.
The "riposte" maneuver in "fencing" is either a high DCV strike or a weapon
bind/block maneuver. I forget which, but it is not a block/strike maneuver.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzgOJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFiLQP+JyWo3YX8pmOI7tAgfwm83OUJ35jgFrpI
mJP1t6ZZ59w5yWAaaHtOdyOC58ugbnqRH5dZTMxThLS7XVeGtR+uoGds7b2BqgKw
gFgjyo1P9qbbdbdb9A0bvy95nlm+h5paG9eYErst0PTFT0gx2i5UTr9pnKrWXkG8
YtYgRxv7U18=
=bFMx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 19:14:30
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:16:00 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>qts writes:
>
>> How about a Continuous, Cumulative 2d6 Dispel? Eventually, it'll get
>> any power. Or a Continuous Drain?
>
>First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
Sure there is - I just translated it from Transform.
> Secondly,
>'Drain' fits under the NND/AVLD category, as power defense is not a standard
>defense.
What?! You *are* kidding, aren't you?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 98 19:15:55
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:18:15 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>qts writes:
>
>> This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
>> if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
>> half-phase action to maintain, though.
>
>Huh? Ok, we have '+1/2: duration 1 turn', '+1/2: attachable', then _double_
>this for being an NND/AVLD; net of a +2 advantage. How is this a big problem?
Even granting the AVLD/NND, the final cost is far too cheap.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:18:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> M(oPRG> Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast
> M(oPRG> with the No Range limitation.
>
> Um... your forgot one really big difference: you can add HA to Stregth
> damage; you cannot do that with EB. This is the critical difference
> between EB and HA, not range vs. no range.
Bull. Rand vs no range is the difference here. The article
actually abstracts the "damage adds" concept even more, allowing an EB to
limit itself by only being able to add to the damage of a certain attack
(or, with GM permission, group of attacks). Now it is a general concept
rather than a special exception. I think it works much better this way,
myself; I assume this is how we will see EB in 5th edition.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: geoff@emerald.omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:21:19 -0500
From: Geoff Speare <geoff@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>MS> Well, I don't have NH with me, so I can't comment right now. I do have
>MS> the exact same maneuver listed in my optional Fencing package, which I
>MS> swore I copied directly out of NH while creating it.
>
>The "riposte" maneuver in "fencing" is either a high DCV strike or a weapon
>bind/block maneuver. I forget which, but it is not a block/strike maneuver.
It could have been copied out of the "not for kids" wild martial maneuvers
section, without being in the list of standard maneuvers at the front of NH.
Geoff Speare
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:23:06 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5 and Maxima
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Wow. I once again find myself agreeing with Rat.
> Please note that the INT/5 limit from Fantasy Hero is *SPELLS*, not powers.
> An FH mage with that restriction may have a single spell composed of
> fifteen distinct powers -- but it counts as but *ONE* spell towards his
> limit.
Very, VERY, good point. Powers are simply abstract mechanics used
to simulate SFX. Limiting the number of powers that can be active will
limit characters based on mechanic rather than logic.
> And I think this campaign restriction does not fit well in a supers game.
> Framework allocation and Endurance will serve well enough to restrict a
> supermage -- just as they restrict everyone else.
Agreed. There is no reason to add a restriction like this to all
mages in a Supers campaign. However, I would allow it as an optional
Physical Limitation.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:25:11 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champions Listserv <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Why trigger if it has persistent?
>
> Because 'persistent' does not turn a power on. If you switch your desolid
> _off_ (by spending END), it stays off until you turn it on again.
That makes absolutely no sense. If you've defined the power as
always on by default, turning it off would not take that away. It's a
simple modifier on the power.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:27:42 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > How about a Continuous, Cumulative 2d6 Dispel? Eventually, it'll get
> > any power. Or a Continuous Drain?
>
> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on, much
as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM. This is
something that could make it into 5th edition. Anyway.
> Secondly,
> 'Drain' fits under the NND/AVLD category, as power defense is not a standard
> defense.
Explain.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:29:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
> > if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
> > half-phase action to maintain, though.
>
> Huh? Ok, we have '+1/2: duration 1 turn', '+1/2: attachable', then _double_
> this for being an NND/AVLD; net of a +2 advantage. How is this a big problem?
Why would this be considered NND/AVLD? I really don't understand
where you pull these modifers from.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:31:21 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is whether
> > the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
>
> Since the "Hero ID/civilian ID" is only prominent in one genre
> (superheroes), I'd say that Only in Hero ID isn't common enough (and if
> Social Limitation gets approved, neither are Public ID or Private ID, for
> that matter...) As long as these three items remain as seperate entities,
> Hero System will continue to have the appearance of "superhero RPG first,
> universal RPG second".
So basically, to make the Hero system universal, we have to make
it harder to use it to run SuperHero games, is that what is being said?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:34:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> >Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
> >Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
>
> Not Secret ID. That's functionally closer to Psychological Limitation
> (though I've devised a structure for Secret as a separate category that I
> might post if I can figure out what I did with it).
Nah. You keep your ID secret because of the ramifications within
society that would result were it to become known. Yes, you don't tell
anybody, but it isn't a situation where a simple Ego roll will allow you
to tell. You can tell if you want, but be prepared to pay the SOCIAL
consequences.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 13:37:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Of course, as I say, adding a gravity element to Peterson's Change
> Environment article (say, at 10 points per 2X gravity) would arguably work
> best of all.
Hear, hear! Or better yet, a three tiered CE with cosmetic,
minor, and major effect.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 14:39:04 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "GS" == Geoff Speare <geoff@omg.org> writes:
GS> It could have been copied out of the "not for kids" wild martial
GS> maneuvers section, without being in the list of standard maneuvers at
GS> the front of NH.
Maybe in The Ultimate Martial Artist, because there *is* just such a
maneuver in the maneuvers list, even though it breaks the described
maneuver construction system. But in Ninja Hero there are no such
maneuvers listed, not in the expanded maneuvers list, and not in any of the
depicted arts.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzmUZ6VRH7BJMxHAQFZcgP/UKMAxRCc15mjUcYU2t4cRyav2+jELR/E
Cg7O9BeOe4q2js+qKrsDfvAYDFpPJzqMXKdaFcLxCj4Kjvolmkyj7TbK3qvzW+wW
XYJgT5LN+QYNBAcksqE47jmWKbD6qWuFVFX5kI6tQHpncbB287kS9erHDbkJqkM7
sV6cGh2aQ8A=
=W78D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:41:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> Why would this be considered NND/AVLD? I really don't understand
> where you pull these modifers from.
Same as autofire. If the power doesn't go against a standard defense (i.e. PD
or ED, including killing attacks) the cost increases. For autofire it is a
flat +1 additional advantage, which is probably simpler.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:42:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> > First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
>
> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on, much
> as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM. This is
> something that could make it into 5th edition. Anyway.
Not that I recall. If it was added, it shouldn't have been ;).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:44:49 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org, Champions Listserv <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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> That makes absolutely no sense. If you've defined the power as
> always on by default, turning it off would not take that away. It's a
> simple modifier on the power.
And the way you define a power as 'on by default' is by having a trigger which
turns it on whenever you stop having it be off. You can't simply 'define' a
power as having an advantage, without paying for that advantage.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender: nexus@uky.campus.mci.net
From: Kim Foster <nexus@uky.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:35 PM 1/26/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>
>MS> Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first
>MS> appeared in Ninja Hero.
>
>Nope, there are no maneuvers in Ninja Hero with both the Strike and Abort
>maneuver bases/elements[1]. Take a look at how Martial Throw is
>constructed, for instance. There is one in The Ultimate Martial Artist,
>even though that book reprints the maneuver construction rules from Ninja
>Hero, including that proscription, thereby breaking itself.
>
>[1] The "highly optional, this will totally unbalance anything but a wild
>martial arts campaign, so do not use it" construction variant allows the
>combination of Strike and Abort, but no such maneuvers are in the Ninja
>Hero maneuvers list. Trust me on this, I used to argue vehemently for
>allowing it for arts such as Iaijutsu, until someone described the
>Lightning Reflexes pseudo-talent.
PG. 89 in the optional martial arts design rules for Ninja here list A
block/strike with an Abort element.
I know violence doesn't solve all problems...
But it sure feels good!
Felicia:DS3:Vampire Savior
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:01:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Kim Foster wrote:
> PG. 89 in the optional martial arts design rules for Ninja here list A
> block/strike with an Abort element.
Aha! Finally, I remember somethhing that actually exists!
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 15:09:19 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> Hear, hear! Or better yet, a three tiered CE with cosmetic,
TRG> minor, and major effect.
So, where does 2x Earth's gravity fit in this three-tiered structure?
Three times? Four times? Five times? On the moon's surface (roughly 1/6
Earth's)? And do not forget that Change Environment's effects are not
supposed to have more than minor effects on combat... but changing the
force of gravity in a given area even a little bit can have a significant
effect.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMztbJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEuhgQAsRl7KhKx0SyJt5J4gsVjVSSb3jT9bL6i
Jg4OpjVMQHxVjHjDuyARUAJ3lEK/D3t6JqZqew80ENA3EMbJAA+SgskbKt6O+Q2m
A0dqYfvl+b8KI1GJ7748QtCttRtlZd2Nd68D6gg1V3ELXCsfEbtU9Hklvk+g3pf+
jKR+s9TKjHs=
=O7kS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 26 Jan 1998 15:11:18 -0500
Lines: 30
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
TRG> much as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM.
Oh, boy, yet another reason to avoid the Ultimate Crock books. If you want
a more powerful Mind Controll effect, buy more Mind Control.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNMzt4p6VRH7BJMxHAQHzDAP/cOj1vXRX2fPn0yCH8s6odY/tAb8YGkwb
4pWZB/+P4mAjbmiUniwpdeHjO8ZtRnD5OqJ7Ob/VWaOKCMaL4gDQGGujrNACPPrh
1Ximbi14fyMh0OuNgqpK87TC72dI/oxArT9i+2eys4NlsGAEc/Rn8gbpnqLkpaNN
m4piYIa0WaY=
=IR13
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 15:20:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> >> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
>
> TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
>
> It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
>
> TRG> much as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM.
>
> Oh, boy, yet another reason to avoid the Ultimate Crock books. If you want
> a more powerful Mind Controll effect, buy more Mind Control.
I disagree. I don't think it's all that unbalancing to have an advantage
that slowly allows someone with a small amount of Mind Control to affect
another. Granted one *could* call this a form of Transformation, except
you'd have to allow the Transform to affect something other than Body (Ego
annyone?).
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:26:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> Of course, as I say, adding a gravity element to Peterson's Change
> Environment article (say, at 10 points per 2X gravity) would arguably work
> best of all.
...for Increased Gravity, yes; for Decreased Gravity, 2 points for every
-20%, up to a maximum of -100%.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:35:25 -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
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Pawtowski <dpawtows@access.digex.net>
To: champ-l@omg.org <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Sunday, January 25, 1998 11:22 PM
Subject: Surprise!
>
>Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
<snip>
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a
full
>speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though
it.
>Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned
out
>there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
>The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
>stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
>
The ruling was incorrect, though as GM he can make any ruling he
wants. The x2 STUN for Surprised out of combat only applies to people
who are not expecting trouble. I might rule that people not expecting
trouble who are stunned while not expecting trouble may be considered
surprised if hit while still stunned, but that's about it.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:39:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>
> > > All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is whether
> > > the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
> >
> > Since the "Hero ID/civilian ID" is only prominent in one genre
> > (superheroes), I'd say that Only in Hero ID isn't common enough (and if
> > Social Limitation gets approved, neither are Public ID or Private ID, for
> > that matter...) As long as these three items remain as seperate entities,
> > Hero System will continue to have the appearance of "superhero RPG first,
> > universal RPG second".
>
>
> So basically, to make the Hero system universal, we have to make
> it harder to use it to run SuperHero games, is that what is being said?
No. You just have to make the game appear a little less biased toward
superheroics. Incorporating Only in Hero ID, Secret Identity, and Public
Identity into more general traits does _not_ make it any harder to run a
superhero game; the traits are still there, just not displayed quite so
prominently.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:41:25 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
> > Of course, as I say, adding a gravity element to Peterson's Change
> > Environment article (say, at 10 points per 2X gravity) would arguably work
> > best of all.
>
>
> Hear, hear! Or better yet, a three tiered CE with cosmetic,
> minor, and major effect.
I could see that being in there as well, as a sort of "catch-all" - sort
of like how Enhanced Senses has IR Vision, Radio Sense, etc. as well as
Detect/Sense, which acts to catch anything that slips by the others...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:48:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
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
qts writes:
> Even granting the AVLD/NND, the final cost is far too cheap.
> qts
Shrug...its the same as uncontrolled continuous zero END (+2) and has the
limitation that (a) it costs END (to activate, at least), and (b) it only lasts
for a turn. Assuming a speed of 6, for 60 active pts we can either get 2d6 for
a turn (which hits 6 times, assuming it isn't cancelled by something), or 6d6
once. The continuing one will do more damage, but it will take a while to do
it, and will be more affected by power defense, so this really doesn't horrify
me.
Btw, if it wasn't stated, attachable was supposed to have the same limitations
as uncontrolled -- some reasonable method of breaking free must be provided.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: mlknight@pop.mindspring.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:46:13 -0500
From: Michelle Knight <mlknight@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:41 PM 1/26/98 +0000, Theala Sildorian wrote:
>
>> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a
>> full
>> speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though
>> it. Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it
>> turned out there was another supervillian hiding under the floor,
>> who shot him. The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus
>> I took double stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit
>> right with me.
>
>Makes sense to me: if there was no way for your character to know
>the villain was there, then any attack would be by Surprise.
By the same tolken, how would the villain know that the hero was
going to come crashing through the floor? If there was no way that
the villain could see him coming (his full attention was on the senator)
I would rule that the villain was also surprised and combat would go
ahead as normal. Furthermore, the senator would be unharmed and
aware of the villain's presence, thereby giving him a half way decent
chance of escaping.
Michelle
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:18:19 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Cc: Hero Mailing List <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
At 01:33 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> >shut off". Hmm... now that I think about it, a character with an
>> >Always-On EB would be _dead_, because said EB _wouldn't_ shut off when he
>> >loses consciousness - it starts draining from his STUN, uses that up, and
>> >then starts draining from his BODY until he dies. And this would start
>> >happening the instant this power is bestowed on him. This makes be think
>> >of the Black Queens from the Wild Cards universe...
>>
>> I may be misreading, but it seems like someone is forgetting that,
>> according to the BBB, a Power that is Always On must be bought with 0 END
>> Persistent.
>
> Actually, we were discussing the hypothetical Always On attack
>without the required 0 END Persistent. I.E, how could this limitation be
>worked so that it could be possible.
Ah; I figured I was misreading.
Speaking for myself, the way I'd play such a mechanic is that it takes
END to turn *off.*
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:20:15 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:31 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> > All disadvantages can be handled as 'limited power'. The question is
whether
>> > the power appears frequently enough to be worth being listed on its own.
>>
>> Since the "Hero ID/civilian ID" is only prominent in one genre
>> (superheroes), I'd say that Only in Hero ID isn't common enough (and if
>> Social Limitation gets approved, neither are Public ID or Private ID, for
>> that matter...) As long as these three items remain as seperate entities,
>> Hero System will continue to have the appearance of "superhero RPG first,
>> universal RPG second".
>
> So basically, to make the Hero system universal, we have to make
>it harder to use it to run SuperHero games, is that what is being said?
How would shifting OIHID to a form of Limited Power make it actually
harder to run superhero games? It's a conditional limiter like a lot of
other Limited Power examples, and it's rather infrequently used in the
actual practice of superhero games at that.
BTW I'd be in favor of splitting Conditional Limitations from Limited
Power, but that's just a personal taste.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:21:43 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:34 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> >OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
>> >Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
>> >Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
>>
>> Not Secret ID. That's functionally closer to Psychological Limitation
>> (though I've devised a structure for Secret as a separate category that I
>> might post if I can figure out what I did with it).
>
> Nah. You keep your ID secret because of the ramifications within
>society that would result were it to become known. Yes, you don't tell
>anybody, but it isn't a situation where a simple Ego roll will allow you
>to tell. You can tell if you want, but be prepared to pay the SOCIAL
>consequences.
Hm. Maybe a separate structure for Secret would be better. It does
seem to depend somewhat on the character's perception.
Though at that, a Secret may work out better as a Social Limit after all.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:24:56 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:09 PM 1/26/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
>TRG> Hear, hear! Or better yet, a three tiered CE with cosmetic,
>TRG> minor, and major effect.
>
>So, where does 2x Earth's gravity fit in this three-tiered structure?
>Three times? Four times? Five times? On the moon's surface (roughly 1/6
>Earth's)? And do not forget that Change Environment's effects are not
>supposed to have more than minor effects on combat... but changing the
>force of gravity in a given area even a little bit can have a significant
>effect.
This last sentence is a pure 4th Edition way of looking at it. What's
under discussion (though it wasn't made clear -- my fault) is a possible
5th Edition way of doing this.
As for the rest of it, I'm with you. If effects can be quantified
without getting too bogged down, then do it that way. I currently have two
types of CE: "Cosmetic," which takes only Radius, and "Effective," which
has some other effect (as taken from Steve's article).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 14:54:06 -0800
From: Rook <rook@infinex.com>
Organization: Sujin & Brian
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > >OTOH, I really would like to see Public Identity, Reputation, Rivalry, and
> > >Secret Identity incorporated into a Social Limitation (well, maybe not
> > >Rivalry, due to game mechanics; but definitely all of the others).
> >
> > Not Secret ID. That's functionally closer to Psychological Limitation
> > (though I've devised a structure for Secret as a separate category that I
> > might post if I can figure out what I did with it).
>
> Nah. You keep your ID secret because of the ramifications within
> society that would result were it to become known. Yes, you don't tell
> anybody, but it isn't a situation where a simple Ego roll will allow you
> to tell. You can tell if you want, but be prepared to pay the SOCIAL
> consequences.
Or perhaps you don't even know of the secret yourself.
Power Guy goes to sleep at night and moments later the Plasma Killer wakes
to stalk the night.
Neither ever knowing they are one and the same.
I rather like having Secret ID and Public ID be dinstinct and on their own.
Technically, almost all the disads could be incorporated into one or two
catagories.
Heck, we could even just go all the way down to "Disad".
But I think that takes away some of the flavor of things.
I prefer adding more catagories, and even splitting some of the current ones out
for
common unusual uses of them. (Such as splitting off addiction from phys/psych).
--
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:04:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > So basically, to make the Hero system universal, we have to make
> > it harder to use it to run SuperHero games, is that what is being said?
>
> No. You just have to make the game appear a little less biased toward
> superheroics. Incorporating Only in Hero ID, Secret Identity, and Public
> Identity into more general traits does _not_ make it any harder to run a
> superhero game; the traits are still there, just not displayed quite so
> prominently.
All you just said agreed with me -- you just added some semantics.
Pulling the things out will make Superheroic games just a little more
complicated. The Hero System is universal, true, but it als does
Superheroes better than *anything* and shouldn't try to get rid of that
ability.
While I can agree with incorporating the ID's into a Social
Limitation catagory, should that become part of the system, OIHID is
common enough to warrent it having its own limitation. Putting it in
Limited Power gives it more of a "house rule" appearence, subject to the
whim of a GM. And I, actually, have seen (a very few) applications
outside of the Superheroic.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:06:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I disagree. I don't think it's all that unbalancing to have an advantage
> that slowly allows someone with a small amount of Mind Control to affect
> another. Granted one *could* call this a form of Transformation, except
> you'd have to allow the Transform to affect something other than Body (Ego
> annyone?).
See TUM for a (good) exploration of this. And the cumulative Mind
Control actually has the same types of limits as Aid and Absorption: only
up to max possible on the roll. (Though this can be bought up, of course)
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:48:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:18:15 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>
> >qts writes:
> >
> >> This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
> >> if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
> >> half-phase action to maintain, though.
> >
> >Huh? Ok, we have '+1/2: duration 1 turn', '+1/2: attachable', then _double_
> >this for being an NND/AVLD; net of a +2 advantage. How is this a big problem?
>
> Even granting the AVLD/NND, the final cost is far too cheap.
How so? For 30 points, you have a power which requires you to physically
touch your opponent to activate; at that point, and every turn thereafter,
you need to spend 3 END to keep the power running - you simply no longer
require the physical contact to use it. In addition, you are restricted
to Draining a maximum of 6 points of ability (see Alteration Powers for
details). This seems rather balanced to me...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:08:33 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> > > So basically, to make the Hero system universal, we have to make
> > > it harder to use it to run SuperHero games, is that what is being said?
> >
> > No. You just have to make the game appear a little less biased toward
> > superheroics. Incorporating Only in Hero ID, Secret Identity, and Public
> > Identity into more general traits does _not_ make it any harder to run a
> > superhero game; the traits are still there, just not displayed quite so
> > prominently.
>
> All you just said agreed with me -- you just added some semantics.
> Pulling the things out will make Superheroic games just a little more
> complicated. The Hero System is universal, true, but it als does
> Superheroes better than *anything* and shouldn't try to get rid of that
> ability.
I hardly see something as small as making Only In Hero ID into an example
of Limited Power rather than a seperate Limitation enough to get rid of
Hero's ability to handle superheroes, nor is that what I'm trying to do.
By incorporating it into Limited Power, you free up space which could be
better used for other purposes (such as the Social Limitations proposal),
resulting in the system being _more_ capable for all genres, _including_
superheroics...
> While I can agree with incorporating the ID's into a Social
> Limitation catagory, should that become part of the system, OIHID is
> common enough to warrent it having its own limitation. Putting it in
> Limited Power gives it more of a "house rule" appearence, subject to the
> whim of a GM. And I, actually, have seen (a very few) applications
> outside of the Superheroic. ^^^^^^^^^^
There's the key; I didn't say that OIHID would be _absent_ outside of the
supers genre - just that it would be rare.
Question: How many people here have ever thought of "Costs END" as being a
house rule? Not many, I'd wager... but it doesn't appear as a seperate
Limitation. If incorporating OIHID into Limited Power gives it the
appearance of a house rule, then maybe it already _is_ a house rule, and
we simply haven't recognized that fact yet...
BTW, I thought _everything_ was subject to the whim of a GM...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:11:32 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> Hear, hear! Or better yet, a three tiered CE with cosmetic,
> TRG> minor, and major effect.
>
> So, where does 2x Earth's gravity fit in this three-tiered structure?
> Three times? Four times? Five times? On the moon's surface (roughly 1/6
Um. That would be up to the GM for each campaign, really. Though
I'd like some guidelines under the Change Environment power.
> Earth's)? And do not forget that Change Environment's effects are not
> supposed to have more than minor effects on combat... but changing the
> force of gravity in a given area even a little bit can have a significant
> effect.
We knw that, Rat. What I'm proposing is changeing CE so that
there are multiple levels of effect. Cosmetic, which is for Changes with
no effect on combat. Minor, with minor effects on combat, possibly up to
a little more than currently allowed. (Note that most current CEs would
fall under these two.). Finally, major, with potentially major effects on
combat. Changed Gravity. Ice/Oil Slicks. Driving wind and rain that
affects all targeting and makes characters make rolls to remain standing.
It goes without saying that a Magnifying Glass is needed.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:15:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Rook wrote:
> Technically, almost all the disads could be incorporated into one or two
> catagories.
True enough. OTOH, how about viewing it this way: You can expand Secret
ID into a more flexible and all-encompassing disadvantage called "Secret";
and you can expand Public ID into a more flexible and all-encompassing
disadvantage called "Social Inconvenience"...
> Heck, we could even just go all the way down to "Disad".
>
> But I think that takes away some of the flavor of things.
> I prefer adding more catagories, and even splitting some of the current
> ones out for common unusual uses of them. (Such as splitting off
> addiction from phys/psych).
To a point, I agree; I would be dismayed if Hero System attempted to fuse
every Disad into two or three. But neither should they avoid going in
that direction without thinking it through first.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:15:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> >> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
>
> TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
>
> It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
It _WAS_ an advantage unique to Transformation Attack. With TUM,
it has been added to Mind Control, maybe to Mental Illusions and
Telepathy. I'll have to check the last two. Note that in this version,
it's effect is limited to the total rollable on the dice -- with an option
to buy up this maximum. This mechanic is similar to that of Aid or
Absorption, of course.
It is not hard to extrapolate this to Suppress or Dispell. The
first would be limited to amount rollable, of course. The second,
probably not, as a character could waste quite a few turns to finally
Dispell a power that will just be turned on again the next phase. This is
a small change to the rules that I think could be a nice addition to 5th
edition.
> TRG> much as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM.
>
> Oh, boy, yet another reason to avoid the Ultimate Crock books. If you want
> a more powerful Mind Controll effect, buy more Mind Control.
Well, by the same argument if you want a more powerful Transform
effect, buy more Transform. Doesn't work, Rat. And note it isn't that
much greater. The target still gets the Ego rolls to break out.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 16:21:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:26 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
>> Of course, as I say, adding a gravity element to Peterson's Change
>> Environment article (say, at 10 points per 2X gravity) would arguably work
>> best of all.
>
>...for Increased Gravity, yes; for Decreased Gravity, 2 points for every
>-20%, up to a maximum of -100%.
I'd say 5 points per halving, myself, with some semi-arbitrary point
declared as being Zero Gravity.
But that's just me.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:57:57 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:36 AM 1/26/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>>>>>> "M(oPRG" == Michael (Damon) or Peni R Griffin <griffin@txdirect.net>
>>>>>> writes:
>
>M(oPRG> Breaking down HTH Attack, we see that it is roughly Energy Blast
>M(oPRG> with the No Range limitation.
>
>Um... your forgot one really big difference: you can add HA to Stregth
>damage; you cannot do that with EB. This is the critical difference
>between EB and HA, not range vs. no range.
A little precision, please, Herr Ratte. *I* did not "forget" anything. I
was simply quoting an article by another author, whom I identified, and
posting the thing for the convenience of others already involved in a
discussion on this point. I believe it was clear I wasn't offering the
article in order to make a point of my own, so kindly address your
objections to the article's author, not me.
Damon
----------------------------------------------
"Ah! Arrogance and stupidity in one package.
How efficient of you." -- Londo Molari
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:30:44 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: Hero Mailing List <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Further H5 suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 01:33 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> >> >shut off". Hmm... now that I think about it, a character with an
> >> >Always-On EB would be _dead_, because said EB _wouldn't_ shut off when he
> >> >loses consciousness - it starts draining from his STUN, uses that up, and
> >> >then starts draining from his BODY until he dies. And this would start
> >> >happening the instant this power is bestowed on him. This makes be think
> >> >of the Black Queens from the Wild Cards universe...
> >>
> >> I may be misreading, but it seems like someone is forgetting that,
> >> according to the BBB, a Power that is Always On must be bought with 0 END
> >> Persistent.
> >
> > Actually, we were discussing the hypothetical Always On attack
> >without the required 0 END Persistent. I.E, how could this limitation be
> >worked so that it could be possible.
>
> Ah; I figured I was misreading.
> Speaking for myself, the way I'd play such a mechanic is that it takes
> END to turn *off.*
point-wise, this would be equivelent to "0 END Persistent, requires END to
deactivate"; the 0 END Persistent would still be as much as a +1 1/2
Advantage depending on the power in question (and EB would fall into that
category, needing Constant and 0 END Persistent before it could qualify
for "required END to deactivate" - which is slightly less constraining
than Always On, so I'd call it a -1/4 Disad.
BTW, I'd also suggest breaking "Persistent" out from "Reduced END" and
saying that "to qualify for Persistent, a Power must be both
Constant/Continuous and 0 END/bought down to 0 END; Persistence is a +1/2
Advantage."
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 19:32:43 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champions Listserv <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
> > That makes absolutely no sense. If you've defined the power as
> > always on by default, turning it off would not take that away. It's a
> > simple modifier on the power.
>
> And the way you define a power as 'on by default' is by having a trigger which
> turns it on whenever you stop having it be off. You can't simply 'define' a
> power as having an advantage, without paying for that advantage.
What advantage? We're talking about a disadvantageous condition.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:36:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> What advantage? We're talking about a disadvantageous condition.
>
Uh, nope. Going desolid when you get knocked out is clearly an advantage over
not doing so.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:17:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Tim R. Gilberg writes:
>
> > What advantage? We're talking about a disadvantageous condition.
> >
> Uh, nope. Going desolid when you get knocked out is clearly an advantage over
> not doing so.
Mmm... not neccessarily; it makes it kind of hard to receive medical
attention...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:52:26 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
> > What advantage? We're talking about a disadvantageous condition.
> >
> Uh, nope. Going desolid when you get knocked out is clearly an advantage over
> not doing so.
So? Having to constantly expend END to keep oneself solid, and
thus allow for any type of interaction with the world, is a huge
disadvantage. It happens to come with a small side effect advantage of
going Desol when getting KOed. However, note that if you are KOed and
also desperately in need of medical attention, you are quite screwed.
But as for generalizing the concept: Declaring a power Always On
by Default, costs END to turn off, really should be about a +-0 modifier.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:54:48 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Block/Strike in TUMA?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
Rat,
You've repeatedly asserted over the past couple of days that TUMA
contains a maneuver that mixes the exclusive Block and Strike maneuvers --
using this as a way to attack Mr. Long.
I was just paging through the book to look for this, as I didn't
actually remember this, and, Lo and Behold!, nothing of the sort. Just
where is this "illegal" construction, Rat?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: RE: Further H5 Suggestions
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:29:41 -0600
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
Regarding the discussion about concerning Only in Hero ID, Secret Identity,
and Public ID. (One of which is a Power Limitation, and the other two of
which are Character Disadvantages.)
I think a more important issue in determining whether or not they need to be
included separately or not is:
Do they need a section, however small, to explain them specifically ?
If a new player would benefit from a separate section, even just a
paragraph, to understand a particular Disadvantage/Limitation then including
it makes sense. If it can be adequately explained in a smaller one or two
line part of a larger category, then fine.
It doesn't really matter whether or not Hero is biased to Super-Hero
campaigns or not. The perception of the majority of game players is that it
is a Super-Hero game, that you can do more with. That perception is not
going to change as long as Champions is more popular than the other flavors
of Hero. Which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon.
Be a Super Hero!
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Daniel Pawtowski <dpawtows@access.digex.net>
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:32:10 -0500 (EST)
Organization: VTSFFC
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
> Guess I must be a more lenient GM than some, because unless the villian
> under the floor had some way to see you coming I would have ruled _he_
> was surprised as well, and just run combat normally.
Hadn't thought of that. They were a well-cordinated villian team, it's
certainly possible that one of his teammates warned him about an incoming
hero.
> Now, if the villian in question could see through floors, I'll agree with
> the other posts and say this was "Surprised in combat" for a DCV
> reduction, but not double stun.
The DCV reduction never came up, actually, as the belly-flop reduced
the hero to zero DCV anyway. It was the double stun that was the
annoyance.
Daniel Pawtowski
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:58:52 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
On Monday, January 26, 1998 9:13 AM, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>On 26 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>>
>> MS> Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first
>> MS> appeared in Ninja Hero.
>>
>> Nope, there are no maneuvers in Ninja Hero with both the Strike and
Abort
>> maneuver bases/elements[1]. Take a look at how Martial Throw is
>> constructed, for instance. There is one in The Ultimate Martial
Artist,
>> even though that book reprints the maneuver construction rules from
Ninja
>> Hero, including that proscription, thereby breaking itself.
>
>Well, I don't have NH with me, so I can't comment right now. I do
have
>the exact same maneuver listed in my optional Fencing package, which
I
>swore I copied directly out of NH while creating it.
Not unless their were multiple editions. It's certainly not in mine.
>> [1] The "highly optional, this will totally unbalance anything but
a wild
>> martial arts campaign, so do not use it" construction variant
allows the
>> combination of Strike and Abort, but no such maneuvers are in the
Ninja
>> Hero maneuvers list. Trust me on this, I used to argue vehemently
for
>> allowing it for arts such as Iaijutsu, until someone described the
>> Lightning Reflexes pseudo-talent.
>>
>> "Riposte" is either: a) a Block/Bind followed by a strike during
one's next
>> action phase; b) a high DCV strike maneuver with a "block the
incoming
>> strike" special effect; or c) application of combat skill levels
into DCV
>> in combination with a strike maneuver, with the same SFX as "b".
>
>Sure, all of this is fine for any 'vanilla' Hero System game.
Personally,
>I don't think the block/strike stuff is worth it, that -2 OCV really
>bites into your avaliable CSL pool big time (if you even have any to
begin
>with).
Indeed.
I had wondered, however, how the people on the list would view
allowing such maneuvers in their campaigns, if they were extra
expensive. If not, why not, if so, how much should it cost?
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Falling and the 5th Edition
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 21:59:05 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10
Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
5th Ed?
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: voxel@mail.theramp.net
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 23:59:09 -0600
champ-l@omg.org
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:06 AM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>Gs (Average) x10 0
[Clip]
>THR(ust) was computed from Gs and SPD: THR = 12 x Gs / SPD and was used
>to change the ship's Velocity, Facing, or Position. Starships coast during
>each Phase, moving forward a number of hexes equal to their Velocity.
>There are several pages describing ship movement and combat, but the
>movement boils down to this:
>
><QUOTE>
>1. The total THR used each Turn may not exceed the starship's THR statistic.
>2. Changing Velocity by +1 hex/Phase or -1 hex/Phase uses 1 THR.
>3. Changing Facing by 1 hexside uses as many units of THR as the ship's
>current Velocity.
>4. Changing Position by starship's SPD/2 in hexes uses 1 THR, must be done
>at the end of movement, and can only be done once per Phase.
></QUOTE>
You can adapt these rules to 4th edition by setting "1 G" to be whatever
amount of combat Flight is necessary to cross 1 space hex (I don't know if
Star Hero used 2m hexes for space combat -- I know that the rough draft for
Star Hero 2ED was working with "Megahexes" which were a lot bigger).
>Also, under the Star Hero system, Life Support was purchased based on the
>number of people being supported. This doesn't seem to be the case under
>4th Edition; you just buy Life Support (possibly with the "Costs END"
>Limitation) and your whole vehicle or base is covered, regardless of Size.
>Correct?
Hurm. Logic might dictate that you buy LS: Usable By Others, insofar as
ordinary LS would just protect the SHIP. But I think you may be right where
the book is concerned (having just moved, my BBB is still in my other house).
>Finally, if characters want to design a ship with both self-repairing
>technology and a medlab that incorporates auto-doc treatment equipment, is
>this best handled by giving the ship Regeneration, Usable On Others? If
>so, should that only apply to the medlab treatments, with Regeneration
>bought a second time to simulate the ship's self-repair capability? The
>ship would not be constructed (grown?) using biotechnology, so the two
>"healing" functions would be entirely different, if only in special
>effects. If the medlab facility includes the ability to restore
>recently-lost limbs and organs (by regrowing a new one, not surgically
>attaching one), can that be treated as a special effect of the
>Regeneration, or are we getting into Transform here?
You DEFINITELY want to buy the two functions separately, so that you don't
automatically knock out both the auto-doc and the self-repair systems with a
single combat hit -- as you said, they're entirely different mechanisms.
As for regrowing limbs, that's practically is a thread unto itself ... :[
--
"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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 22:11:51 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 12
On Monday, January 26, 1998 11:32 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
>>> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for
Dispel.
>
>TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
>
>It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
>
>TRG> much as it was added to Mind Control (and any others?) in TUM.
>
>Oh, boy, yet another reason to avoid the Ultimate Crock books. If
you want
>a more powerful Mind Controll effect, buy more Mind Control.
If you want to buy a more powerful Transform, buy more Transform.
I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
and the other not.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 00:34:24 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
> >Well, I don't have NH with me, so I can't comment right now. I do
> have
> >the exact same maneuver listed in my optional Fencing package, which
> I
> >swore I copied directly out of NH while creating it.
>
> Not unless their were multiple editions. It's certainly not in mine.
I beleive he means that he copied the maneuver, not the package,
from NH. The maneuver would be in the optional construction section.
> Indeed.
>
> I had wondered, however, how the people on the list would view
> allowing such maneuvers in their campaigns, if they were extra
> expensive. If not, why not, if so, how much should it cost?
I might allow them in a Hong Kong-ish, wild MA campaign. Possibly
a campaign based on certain Anime. Otherwise, a character can be way too
effective. Avoid damage and dish it out with one maneuver, no thanks.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 01:09:00 -0600 (CST)
X-Sender: mlnunn@blue.net (Unverified)
From: Michael Nunn <mlnunn@scrtc.blue.net>
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 13
> After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
>But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
>years (Duty).
> And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> Duty).
Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
Michael
Rising Force Publications
Herozine The Superhero RPG Fanzine...vist our seldom updated web site...
http://members.aol.com/hzineweb/index.htm
"You have never lived until you have almost died.
And for those who fight for it,
life has a flavor the protected never know"
- anonymous
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:58:52
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
> F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
> F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
> F> and the other not.
>
> Because Transformation always has a reasonably common or obvious way of
> reversing the effect. No matter what the total "Body" rolled on the
> Transformation, Cumulative or not, may be, it can be reversed by meeting
> the reversal conditions.
FALSE. Transformation can either be reversed, after completion by a reasonably common or obvious method, _or_ _by healing the Transformation BODY_.
> Mind Control does not have a reasonably common or obvious way of breaking
> it, other than a successful Ego roll. The more "damage" rolled for the
> Mind Control, the more difficult it is to break the control.
>
> That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
> powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
> powerful when applied to other powers.
Since it is much easier to make an Ego roll, as a general rule, than to heal enough BODY to reach 2x my original total, I cannot see this to be true. Your entire assumption is based upon the idea that the 'reasonably common or obvious'escape always exists, and it does not.
Furthermore, if it did, all that would be required would be for the Cumulative Advantage to require such a 'reasonably common or obvious' escape route.
In reality, the upper limit on Mind Control effects, combined with the ease of making an Ego roll rather than spending weeks or months healing, makes it less effective than with Transformation.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:15:34
Subject: Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
daemon@omg.org wrote:
> At 09:59 PM 1/26/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
> >Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
> >5th Ed?
>
> Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
> on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
> system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
> say you have a good idea here.
In the first second in Champions, you fall twice as far as you would in real life. This a) causes people to reach the ground before they can be caught, and b) causes people to reach the ground before they have enough velocity to hurt themselves.
Somewhere on my machine I have my optional falling rules. Half of the changes are to correct the falling distance vs. falling time and speed. This actually increases the damage done by falling short distances considerably, correcting the major problem with the falling rules. I added some minor adjustments to damage for the rest.
I sent it to Bruce Harlick, but he ignored them.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:22:43
Subject: Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
daemon@omg.org wrote:
> > Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
> >on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
> >system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
> >say you have a good idea here.
>
> I think the key in fixing all the velocity damage systems (move-by/through,
> falling, collision, knockback, etc.) is to make the scale based on
> doublings rather than linear.
I wish I could agree with that. Unfortunately, applying this to falling damage would result in rules where either normals are crushed by falls of 10 feet, or high-BODY and PD characters cannot be killed at terminal velocity 99% of the time.
Frankly, I almost wish they could get rid of the idea that each Damage Class is a doubling of power. We end up with a system where, if your armor barely stops an attack's BODY, quadrupling the attack power results in minor injuries. In real life, quadrupling the attack power generally results in massive increases in damage.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:25:16
Subject: Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Tim Gilberg wrote:
>
>
> > At 09:59 PM 1/26/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
> > >Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
> > >5th Ed?
> >
> > Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
> > on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
> > system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
> > say you have a good idea here.
>
>
> Well, the main problem is balancing the realism and playability of
> a system. I've seen some pretty realistic systems posted to this list for
> determining damage, but I have not intention on using them because the
> realism takes away from playability. (Too complicated.) The current
> system has flaws, but it is playable. I would not want a replacement
> unless it also was just as playable.
Well, I use an optional falling system that is pretty much just as playable as the original. The only added feature beyond using a simple chart, just like the original, is that I differentiate between falling on grass and falling on granite.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:32:41
Subject: Re: [Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
daemon@omg.org wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good
> feedback so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not
> the same as Life Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would
> have to buy Life Support vs breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for
> itself in addition to the same for its occupants.
>
> Bob? Aren't you going a little too far on this one? Why would a spaceship
> have to buy those Life Supports for the ship itself? The ship is simply a
> huge hunk of metal/plastic/biotech/etc, and except in rare circumstances,
> not alive.(I know, this is dependent on SFX, but it's a good generalization)
>
> What advantages does the ship itself get for purchasing these systems for
> itself, rather than to protect its crew?
>
> I hate to say this, Bob, but it seems to me from some of the stuff you have
> posted here that you may be overcomplicating the vehicle construction rules.
> Yes, we do need a new set, and yes, it should be more comprehensive than the
> one we have now. But it seems that the way you are heading with these rules,
> I will have to pay twice what I had paid before, just because of all of the
> "necessary systems" in my vehicle now cost points, whereas they were
> previously just special effects.
>
> List these as optional rules, if you like, but don't make it integral to your
> new rules to have to pay for this stuff individually.
I disagree. Many vehicles, in fact the vast majority, do not work in vacuum or underwater. Life Support gives us a ready made mechanic for this.
Additionally, there are already vehicles that have this sort of Life Support for themselves, but not their occupants. Note mini-subs and the Lunar Rovers, for example.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:59:54
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
> BG> Not all Transformations use a "resonably common or obvious way of
> BG> breaking it" (or, to use the book's wording, "some identifiable way"
> BG> for an "All-or-Nothing retransformation"). [...]
>
> But it is not a one or the other deal; *both* means are supposed to apply
> to any Transformation Attack. The "or" in the description, like every
> other use of or in Power descriptions, is not an exclusive (logical) or.
> It is a grammatical or, which is really a conditional "and".
Garbage. The description doesn't say, "or" at all, it says, "one of two". Clearly one or the other, but _not_ both.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:44:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Bill Svitavsky <bsvitavs@bu.edu>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Well, I decided against creating a Riposte maneuver.
I found it interesting that a number of responses to my question cited the
very rules and constructions which I mentioned in my original post. I'm
entirely aware that a Block/Strike maneuver isn't allowed in "vanilla"
martial arts rules (Rat); I was asking what people's experiences had been
using the optional "Wild Martial Arts" multiple exclusive base maneuvers.
As I mentioned before, several pre-4th edition sets of published fencing
rules *did* include a riposte which was effectively a Block/Strike. I
think a wild fencing game would be as viable a concept as a wild Hong-Kong
martial arts game; my concern was that using only one wild maneuver would
lead to overuse of that maneuver.
Out of curiosity, has anybody actually played a "Wild Martial Arts" game?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:00:08 -0700
From: Curtis Gibson <mhoram@relia.net>
Subject: Re: Riposte
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>
> MS> Except that this maneuver (or something very close to it) first
> MS> appeared in Ninja Hero.
>
> Nope, there are no maneuvers in Ninja Hero with both the Strike and Abort
> maneuver bases/elements
I'm coming in a little late here but I had to comment.
Ninja Hero:
Page 89 in the Optional Martial Arts Design Rules section, second
column, Sample manuevers chart, 3th manuever down on the list.
Block/Strike 1/2 phase, 3 point -4 OCV -0 DCV STR Strike, Block, Abort
1/2 phase
--
Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages,
it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and
goes through their pockets. -- Eddy Peters
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:06:40 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
The [pre-4th Edition] Star Hero genre book lists these stats for starships:
Cost Base
BODY x2 10
DEF (Armor) x3 10
DEF (Force Field) x2 10
END x1/2 0
FTL (LY/day) * 0
Gs (Average) x10 0
Life Supp. (People) ** 0
MAN (+ to Pilot.) x10 0
REC (Power Plant) x1 1
SPD x10 1
Cargo Space (tons) *** ___
High-Tech Rooms x2 1
Living Quarters ** 0
* 1 for 10 pts, x2 for +5 pts
** 1 for 2 pts, x2 for +2 pts
*** x2 for +2 pts
THR(ust) was computed from Gs and SPD: THR = 12 x Gs / SPD and was used
to change the ship's Velocity, Facing, or Position. Starships coast during
each Phase, moving forward a number of hexes equal to their Velocity.
There are several pages describing ship movement and combat, but the
movement boils down to this:
<QUOTE>
1. The total THR used each Turn may not exceed the starship's THR statistic.
2. Changing Velocity by +1 hex/Phase or -1 hex/Phase uses 1 THR.
3. Changing Facing by 1 hexside uses as many units of THR as the ship's
current Velocity.
4. Changing Position by starship's SPD/2 in hexes uses 1 THR, must be done
at the end of movement, and can only be done once per Phase.
</QUOTE>
The generic Vehicle rules in the BBB do not concern themselves much with
starships, and add STR, DEX and Size as vehicle characteristics, while
dropping END, REC and those things which are really Powers anyway, like
Life Support and FTL Travel. Makes the two systems a pain in the butt to
try to integrate, but since the BBB doesn't have much to say about
spaceships per se, it seems I may have to take some information, like Gs
and THR, from the older system. Will TUSV go into more detail on starships
specifically, and if so is there a projected availability date for that
product?
Also, under the Star Hero system, Life Support was purchased based on the
number of people being supported. This doesn't seem to be the case under
4th Edition; you just buy Life Support (possibly with the "Costs END"
Limitation) and your whole vehicle or base is covered, regardless of Size.
Correct?
Finally, if characters want to design a ship with both self-repairing
technology and a medlab that incorporates auto-doc treatment equipment, is
this best handled by giving the ship Regeneration, Usable On Others? If
so, should that only apply to the medlab treatments, with Regeneration
bought a second time to simulate the ship's self-repair capability? The
ship would not be constructed (grown?) using biotechnology, so the two
"healing" functions would be entirely different, if only in special
effects. If the medlab facility includes the ability to restore
recently-lost limbs and organs (by regrowing a new one, not surgically
attaching one), can that be treated as a special effect of the
Regeneration, or are we getting into Transform here?
Damon
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|****************** Beware of geeks bearing .GIFs *******************|
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
|Damon & Peni's homepages: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/3401/ |
| Children's Books -- Dolls -- X-Files -- Pulp Magazines |
| Worthy Causes -- Computer -- Atlanta -- All Human Knowledge |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 10:25:07 -0500
Lines: 36
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
F> and the other not.
Because Transformation always has a reasonably common or obvious way of
reversing the effect. No matter what the total "Body" rolled on the
Transformation, Cumulative or not, may be, it can be reversed by meeting
the reversal conditions.
Mind Control does not have a reasonably common or obvious way of breaking
it, other than a successful Ego roll. The more "damage" rolled for the
Mind Control, the more difficult it is to break the control.
That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
powerful when applied to other powers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM38UZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHzHwQAvFhLCfSXZ1zvjXAFhWDl6Bm88l7YKk3s
U7SlNK/TX90Vw/ddP36zIofBIKTpGF+NiLK4OlUyUS6koNEHaQZ1S34XTc/ZREjS
eHo3bFq4VZjKrkWfwEBZLiwjheipI9y8Orb/+V8VfcoCdLtnuV8q+RTAgdZ/zPOU
6a98JnofP1Q=
=fWpU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Block/Strike in TUMA?
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 10:32:14 -0500
Lines: 34
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-----
>>>>> "BB" == Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net> writes:
BB> He may have just been confused because the editing (and the cribbing
BB> from Ninja Hero) was so sloppy as to include the *warning* about using
BB> maneuvers like Block/Strike to build a one-maneuver martial art without
BB> including the "Paek-Tu" rules that warning refers to. :/
There is *one* maneuver in TUMA's big list of maneuvers that is a Strike
with the Abort element, or else it is a Block base (which has Abort for
free) that does damage. Regardless of how it is constructed, it is a
maneuver that does damage and has the Abort element -- a blatantly illegal
construct. It is not in the "not for kids" section, it is in the big
maneuvers list at the beginning of the book.
I would look up the maneuver's name, but I cannot find my TUMA, which as
far as I am concerned is just as well.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM39/J6VRH7BJMxHAQH1FAP/Rb4Gwu/bDxCf1c6ITbQWYzZD+afwJsc6
GcwcLpqmPvGF3BkoYXugBHs0TnZxSwb9vdcb2Lc6cvsTDdD+A+GarXij6n/22i0O
0i/bAUtZqINlv55uhucGnWruvkh2S+KByQYr7oH06xa9T64Ibih6HP4Yk1vWUuKt
N8wci6nwl9E=
=7CZO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:06:22 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> >But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> >years (Duty).
> > And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> > Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> > Duty).
>
> Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
Quite well. Going this route would seem to suggest a dropping of
Psych Lim entirely and going with its individual flavors: Fear;
Belief; Hatred; etc.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:09:49 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Block/Strike in TUMA?
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> There is *one* maneuver in TUMA's big list of maneuvers that is a Strike
> with the Abort element, or else it is a Block base (which has Abort for
> free) that does damage. Regardless of how it is constructed, it is a
> maneuver that does damage and has the Abort element -- a blatantly illegal
> construct. It is not in the "not for kids" section, it is in the big
> maneuvers list at the beginning of the book.
Tell you what. I'll post that manevuer list in few so you can
point it out. I was looking, but didn't see a thing.
> I would look up the maneuver's name, but I cannot find my TUMA, which as
> far as I am concerned is just as well.
Gee, that's too bad, it being one of the most useful Champions
books produced and all.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:11:43 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:06 AM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>The [pre-4th Edition] Star Hero genre book lists these stats for starships:
[Table and attendant notes snipped; I do have Star Hero, BTW]
>The generic Vehicle rules in the BBB do not concern themselves much with
>starships, and add STR, DEX and Size as vehicle characteristics, while
>dropping END, REC and those things which are really Powers anyway, like
>Life Support and FTL Travel. Makes the two systems a pain in the butt to
>try to integrate, but since the BBB doesn't have much to say about
>spaceships per se, it seems I may have to take some information, like Gs
>and THR, from the older system. Will TUSV go into more detail on starships
>specifically, and if so is there a projected availability date for that
>product?
TUSV will address starships. I just finished all of the really vital
stuff for the First Draft yesterday, and while there's not as much in there
directly regarding starships right now, I think you can expect to see a
fair amount (including at least a couple of sample ones) in the final product.
To give you an idea of the emphasis this book will have, I'll give a
brief history of how it came about: Originally it was going to be The
Ultimate Giant Robot, for giant robots in superhero campaigns. I worked
out some notes, and sent in a proposal to Hero Games in spring of '95, but
Bruce turned it down. I set the project aside for a while, and started to
wonder if it might not go over better if it covered "super vehicles" of all
kinds, from the Batmobile to the Zords. As I've worked on the campaign
materials, I've added straight science-fiction ideas (particularly drawing
from Babylon 5, Star Wars, and Star Trek) and even put in stuff for
fantasy, historical, and straight action-adventure scenarios.
Now, even though they are added on after the main structure, the
spaceship and fantasy stuff isn't just an afterthought. The strongest
emphasis is, of course, on giant robots and superhero vehicles, but there's
also a lot given that can be applied to anything you want to do with
vehicles. I make reference to the "Speed" movies in the campaigning
section, and I have a "special campaign" in the appendices that was
inspired by the old Starfire game. For that matter, I've been seriously
thinking of sitting down next December and writing up Santa Claus' sleigh
(flying reindeer and all) using the rules from TUSV.
And to answer your last question, I think you can start looking for it
around next August -- but cross your fingers. (I know I'm crossing mine.)
>Also, under the Star Hero system, Life Support was purchased based on the
>number of people being supported. This doesn't seem to be the case under
>4th Edition; you just buy Life Support (possibly with the "Costs END"
>Limitation) and your whole vehicle or base is covered, regardless of Size.
>Correct?
Correct.
However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good feedback
so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not the same as Life
Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would have to buy Life Support vs
breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for itself in addition to the same for its
occupants.
>Finally, if characters want to design a ship with both self-repairing
>technology and a medlab that incorporates auto-doc treatment equipment, is
>this best handled by giving the ship Regeneration, Usable On Others? If
>so, should that only apply to the medlab treatments, with Regeneration
>bought a second time to simulate the ship's self-repair capability? The
>ship would not be constructed (grown?) using biotechnology, so the two
>"healing" functions would be entirely different, if only in special
>effects. If the medlab facility includes the ability to restore
>recently-lost limbs and organs (by regrowing a new one, not surgically
>attaching one), can that be treated as a special effect of the
>Regeneration, or are we getting into Transform here?
Self-repairing (Damage Control) and medical facilities would be bought
separately.
Damage Control could be bought as Regeneration. It could also be bought
as a Healing Aid on itself, or as a "spare parts" VPP that can only be used
to replace damaged equipment. Which of these may be used is up to the GM.
An "auto-doc" would be bought as a Healing Aid.
As for regenerating lost limbs, I don't cover that in TUSV, since that's
really more of a matter for The Ultimate Shape Changer or some other book.
I personally favor a +1/4 Advantage "Regrows Lost Limbs" for REC, Aid, and
Regeneration, but I'm not in the kind of position to push that like I am
the rest of the stuff I've mentioned here.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:16:41 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:09 AM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael Nunn wrote:
>> After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
>>But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
>>years (Duty).
>> And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
>> Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
>> Duty).
>Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
I don't know how pertinent it is to this discussion, but in TUSV I
reflect the fact that many vehicle-centered campaigns take place in
military and law enforcement settings by including the following update of
the Subject to Orders Disdvantage (which originally appeared in a number of
3rd Ed Hero genre products):
Subject to Orders
Orders are Given Points
Occasionally (8-) 5
Frequently (11-) 10
Very Frequently (14-) 15
Usual Hazard Level of Missions Points
Difficult (but fairly safe) +0
Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
Deadly (suicide runs) +10
Punishment for Disobedience Points
Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: filkhero@usa.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:17:23
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
Geoff Speare wrote:
> >Yes, but if you add 1d6 for each doubling of falling speed, then normals
> >with 8 PD and 20 BODY are invulnerable to death when leaping from airplanes,
> >if they land on flat concrete.
>
> I think the proper thing to do would be to have standard velocity rules
> based on doubling (which produce the above effects, more or less), and
> heroic optional rules which make falling more deadly.
That might work well. Much like the Bleeding rules, Hit Locations, and other optional rules. Makes it a bit silly, however, when heroes laugh at villains who threaten to throw people off of buildings.
>(For example, does
> tough skin really prevent you from taking falling damage?
Good question. Should armor of any sort help, and if so, what sort? Does a man who is wearing full plate really fall off a 6 story building without injury?
>Should hit
> locations make a different when falling?)
Some difference, yes. One option would be to divide the damage of the fall that penetrates the target's defenses into blocks equal to half the target's BODY, then apply Hit Location modifiers normally.
Example:
Hero X is thrown from a building by Dr. Y. Hero X hits, taking 12 BODY. Hero X has 10 BODY. The incoming damage is divided into three separate attacks, two 5 BODY attacks and one 2 BODY attack. Hero X rolls for hit locations, rolling 7 (arm), 15 (leg), and 3 (head). Hero X takes 3 BODY to his arm, 3 BODY to his leg, and 4 BODY to his head. Hero X has an impaired arm and leg, and is injured badly, but will not die.
One additional note. Two imparing results on a single BODY part will be a Disabled. Thus, your arm is only Impaired if you roll it once, but it is completely disabled if you roll it twice.
Similar rules could be used for car impacts, or being thrown through walls by supervillains, if the GM wishes for more detail.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:18:45 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 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 09:59 PM 1/26/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
>5th Ed?
Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
say you have a good idea here.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:18:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
> F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
> F> and the other not.
>
> Because Transformation always has a reasonably common or obvious way of
> reversing the effect. No matter what the total "Body" rolled on the
> Transformation, Cumulative or not, may be, it can be reversed by meeting
> the reversal conditions.
Or by healing the body, actually. Sometimes there is no obvious
cure. And even if it is common and/or obvious, the changed being might be
quite unable to cause his/her own change back because of the change
itself. Example: Turned into a statute and needs a touch of red wine to
the lips, or somesuch.
> Mind Control does not have a reasonably common or obvious way of breaking
> it, other than a successful Ego roll. The more "damage" rolled for the
> Mind Control, the more difficult it is to break the control.
Other than? That seems to be a pretty obvious and common way
right there, considering anyone can attempt to make an Ego roll. Heck, an
Ego roll could easily be the breakout condition for a Transformation.
> That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
> powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
> powerful when applied to other powers.
You make no sense. Basically, your argument is, "It is different
and more powerful because I say so."
However, it seems, if anything, to be a less powerful effect.
Note that, for Mind Control, there is a limit of the max rolled on the
dice -- making this effect much less powerful than, say, a 1d6 cumulative
Major Transform (Human to Statue).
I think that we have here a case of Rat rejecting a construction
simply because it was first suggested by a Steve Long-written book. Rat,
you cannot let your prejudices against one person cause you to reject
valid and helpful Champions constructions.
Is cumulative for anything other that Transform part of the
official 4th edition "book" rules? No. Is it an official "optional"
rule? Yes. I'd be even willing to say that cumulative mind control
_will_ make the 5th edition, considering it will probably include the best
of the "optional" rules added from the Ultimate books and other sources.
Is cumulative dispel and/or suppress a decent "house rule"
construction? Yes.
Actually, I'd like to discuss cumulative Suppress and Dispel as
"house rules", Rat. Anything to say about how to work them? I think the
former should be limited to the total rollable on the dice, with an option
to buy that max up. The latter should not have this limitation.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:29:46 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: Further H5 Suggestions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:29 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Remnant wrote:
>Regarding the discussion about concerning Only in Hero ID, Secret Identity,
>and Public ID. (One of which is a Power Limitation, and the other two of
>which are Character Disadvantages.)
>
>I think a more important issue in determining whether or not they need to be
>included separately or not is:
>
>Do they need a section, however small, to explain them specifically ?
>
>If a new player would benefit from a separate section, even just a
>paragraph, to understand a particular Disadvantage/Limitation then including
>it makes sense. If it can be adequately explained in a smaller one or two
>line part of a larger category, then fine.
This is a *very* good point! In fact, in TUSV, I bring up a number of
Advantages and Limitations that might normally just be considered a part of
another Advantage or Limitation (in the latter case, usually Limited
Power), or could possibly be just listed with the one or two Powers they
affect. These are just involved enough that they are given their own section.
I also take a cue from TUMA and have a couple of entries titled by
effect rather than by game mechanic, and list ways to handle that effect
(Laboratories, Mega-Attacks).
>It doesn't really matter whether or not Hero is biased to Super-Hero
>campaigns or not. The perception of the majority of game players is that it
>is a Super-Hero game, that you can do more with. That perception is not
>going to change as long as Champions is more popular than the other flavors
>of Hero. Which I don't think is going to happen anytime soon.
Well, one can always try.... :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:31:20 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Duty/Sense of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> >But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> >years (Duty).
> > And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> > Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> > Duty).
>
> Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
IMO, 'Duty' is actually a 'Watched'. i.e. You are supposed to do something,
and if you don't you get in trouble.
'Sense of Duty' is a psych. lim.
Curt Hicks
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 08:34:35 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:25 AM 1/27/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
>F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
>F> and the other not.
>
>Because Transformation always has a reasonably common or obvious way of
>reversing the effect. No matter what the total "Body" rolled on the
>Transformation, Cumulative or not, may be, it can be reversed by meeting
>the reversal conditions.
>
>Mind Control does not have a reasonably common or obvious way of breaking
>it, other than a successful Ego roll. The more "damage" rolled for the
>Mind Control, the more difficult it is to break the control.
>
>That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
>powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
>powerful when applied to other powers.
Not all Transformations use a "resonably common or obvious way of
breaking it" (or, to use the book's wording, "some identifiable way" for an
"All-or-Nothing retransformation"). In fact, that's the *alternate* way of
handling it. The *normal* way of reversing a Transformation is to "heal
the BODY taken from the Transformation Attack... at the same rate as normal
BODY."
So on a Cumulative Transform that heals back, the more "damage" rolled
for the Transform, the more difficult it is to reverse.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:10:16
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>
> > Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>
> MS> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
> MS> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't
> MS> automatically allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
>
> Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the Abort
> element.
Reread the martial maneouver creation rules. Abort is not automatic with Block.
>Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver.
Wrong. It can only be used with a held phase, but it isn't useless.
>But this is
> an offensive maneuver -- "Target Falls" is for the Strike maneuver base.
Also incorrect under the martial move creation rules. Target Falls and Block are completely separate from Abort and Strike. They usually go together, but they only do if it is specifically stated in the maneouver description.
> At this point I have to wonder if "Block, Target Falls" is a typographical
> error, that it should read "Throw, Target Falls". If so, then the maneuver
> is legit, and I owe Steve Long an apology.
It is legit, and not a typo. You need to reread the creation rules.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:15:41
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Geoff Speare writes:
> > >Yes, but if you add 1d6 for each doubling of falling speed, then normals
> > >with 8 PD and 20 BODY are invulnerable to death when leaping from
> > >airplanes, if they land on flat concrete.
> >
> > I think the proper thing to do would be to have standard velocity rules
> > based on doubling (which produce the above effects, more or less), and
> > heroic optional rules which make falling more deadly. (For example, does
> > tough skin really prevent you from taking falling damage? Should hit
> > locations make a different when falling?)
>
> In addition, damage for falling should be at +2d6 per doubling in velocity, not
> +1d6. They should be +1d6 per doubling in _distance_.
>
> If we say that 1"/segment (4.5 mph) is 2d6 (fair enough, hitting something
> solid at a walking pace isn't too fun), terminal velocity (30"/segment) would
> be 12d6; 1"/segment could really be as much as 4d6 on a solid surface.
>
> Going with 1"/segment = 2d6, a 1-hex fall (2 meters; velocity is 6
> meters/second on impact) is 5d6, each doubling in distance is +1d6 to a maximum
> of 12d6 for a fall of 128 hexes. This is not actually a particularly difficult
> chart to remember ;).
Unfortunately, it is not only not realistic, but is also not true to genre. Many heroes have died from falls, and many more were afraid they would die. However, only the heroes with very low physical defenses of all sorts would ever have to fear dying under these falling rules.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:17:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
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
Filksinger writes:
> Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
> 5th Ed?
All the velocity damage rules could do with a reworking (noncombat movebys are
a bit of a problem too).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 09:23:48 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> So? Having to constantly expend END to keep oneself solid, and
> thus allow for any type of interaction with the world, is a huge
> disadvantage. It happens to come with a small side effect advantage of
> going Desol when getting KOed. However, note that if you are KOed and
> also desperately in need of medical attention, you are quite screwed.
>
> But as for generalizing the concept: Declaring a power Always On
> by Default, costs END to turn off, really should be about a +-0 modifier.
Which would make it cheaper than always on, which is clearly wrong.
Lets go through the logic here:
a) The persistent advantage _does not_ cause a power to turn itself on, it
causes a power to _not_ turn itself off.
b) If you are not desolid, your desolid is not on.
c) Power limitations do not _add_ abilities to powers.
d) There is a well-defined advantage (trigger) which _does_ cause a power to
turn itself on.
Therefore, if you want a power to turn itself on when you stop paying END for
it, you buy the power with a trigger.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 12:40:17 -0500
Lines: 53
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
>> powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
>> powerful when applied to other powers.
TRG> You make no sense. Basically, your argument is, "It is different
TRG> and more powerful because I say so."
Maybe you should think a little bit before posting.
A given Transformation that rolls a total of 30 "Body" is just as easy (or
difficult) to reverse as one that rolls a total of w150 "Body". Cumulative
makes it "easier" to achieve a Transformation effect on a given budget,
with a tradeoff for the greater amount of time required. That is all
Cumulative does to Transformation.
When you apply Cumulative to Mind Control, you get the greater potential
effect with a tradeoff for time. But because of the way Mind Control
works, the more "damage" you do with it, the harder it is to break out.
There is a direct correspondance between use of Cumulative and making it
harder to break out of Mind Control. This aspect does not exist with
Transformation's Cumulative advantage. It is a radical change in how the
advantage works.
Yes, I say it is unbalancing, not because it is different but because it is
inconsistant. Advantages that may be applied to different powers should
have a consistant effect regardless of the base power. For instance, take
Armor Piercing. Regardless of the base power or the applicable defense,
the effect is consistant: the defense is halved. Cumulative does not have
this consistancy. With equivalent Ego and Body, with equivalent levels of
Mental Defense vs. Power Defense, with equivalent base points in Mind
Control vs. Transformation, Cumulative Mind Control is dramatically more
effective than Cumulative Transformation. That inconsistancy is why it is
unbalancing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM4cAJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFP3wQAi22wjGZ9VPC3QUCakWiwRDnrXYGC4k7H
HW6Q9Zwe/7xqe+CMaAZ2qsmt2hOG8yNZ5rKZrrwPeGcj/7m670FG2l9PnMWd2osd
2Rw7a+0pRMXtjbFoMoefArGgVV0royWBqO6j68INuwmaOJ4JcUjKqkhHOjzp1ktG
3FcznEmQl9o=
=JB1z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:00:26
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
griffin@txdirect.net wrote:
> >Additionally, there are already vehicles that have this sort of Life
> Support for themselves, but not their occupants. Note mini-subs and the
> Lunar Rovers, for example.
>
> In what way is it obvious that a Lunar Rover has Life Support for itself?
> I can just as easily argue that it doesn't have Life Support, and doesn't
> *need* it.
A robot doesn't need to breath, and should be waterproof and immune to vacuum. That does not give a robot these abilities for free, whether it is a character or an automaton.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:42:19 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:40 PM 1/27/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
>>> That is exactly why Cumulative is valid for Transformation but not other
>>> powers. The effect it has is significantly different, and much more
>>> powerful when applied to other powers.
>
>TRG> You make no sense. Basically, your argument is, "It is different
>TRG> and more powerful because I say so."
>
>Maybe you should think a little bit before posting.
>
>A given Transformation that rolls a total of 30 "Body" is just as easy (or
>difficult) to reverse as one that rolls a total of w150 "Body". Cumulative
>makes it "easier" to achieve a Transformation effect on a given budget,
>with a tradeoff for the greater amount of time required. That is all
>Cumulative does to Transformation.
Hold on a sec. Let's work this out a bit.
Character 1 has a 2d6 Cumulative Major Transform (45 points) that
"heals" back (the default mode). Character 2, his target, has 15 BODY and
5 REC. Character 1 keeps attacking Character 2 with his Transform until he
gets 30 BODY, at which point Character 2 Transforms. Healing at the normal
rate of 5 BODY per month, Character 2 will retransform in 6 months.
After those 6 months are over, Character 1 and Character 2 meet again.
Character 1 is so mad that Character 2 got better that he's going to try
again, only he's going to make *really* sure this time. He keeps at it
until he's rolled 150 BODY against Character 2. At 5 BODY per month,
Character 2 will recover after 30 months (two and a half years).
Would you call that "just as easy" to reverse? It looks to me like it
took five times as long for Character 2 to heal up. If someone had tried
using a Healing Aid on him, then five times the effect would've been
needed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but needing five times the effect or
taking five times as long doesn't seem like "just as easy" to me. It seems
more like it's five times as hard.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: geoff@emerald.omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:42:40 -0500
From: Geoff Speare <geoff@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
>on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
>system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
>say you have a good idea here.
I think the key in fixing all the velocity damage systems (move-by/through,
falling, collision, knockback, etc.) is to make the scale based on
doublings rather than linear.
Geoff Speare
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:43:36 +0000
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Anthony Jackson wrote:
>
> Tim R. Gilberg writes:
>
> > What advantage? We're talking about a disadvantageous condition.
> >
> Uh, nope. Going desolid when you get knocked out is clearly an advantage over
> not doing so.
Unless you're bleeding to death.
-Mark
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:07:32 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Bob wrote:
However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good
feedback so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not
the same as Life Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would
have to buy Life Support vs breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for
itself in addition to the same for its occupants.
Bob? Aren't you going a little too far on this one? Why would a spaceship
have to buy those Life Supports for the ship itself? The ship is simply a
huge hunk of metal/plastic/biotech/etc, and except in rare circumstances,
not alive.(I know, this is dependent on SFX, but it's a good generalization)
What advantages does the ship itself get for purchasing these systems for
itself, rather than to protect its crew?
I hate to say this, Bob, but it seems to me from some of the stuff you have
posted here that you may be overcomplicating the vehicle construction rules.
Yes, we do need a new set, and yes, it should be more comprehensive than the
one we have now. But it seems that the way you are heading with these rules,
I will have to pay twice what I had paid before, just because of all of the
"necessary systems" in my vehicle now cost points, whereas they were
previously just special effects.
List these as optional rules, if you like, but don't make it integral to your
new rules to have to pay for this stuff individually.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:12:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
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
Geoff Speare writes:
>
> I think the key in fixing all the velocity damage systems (move-by/through,
> falling, collision, knockback, etc.) is to make the scale based on
> doublings rather than linear.
Yes, but in that case the movement system should also become nonlinear, and
that's probably a larger change than they want to make for H5. One variant
I've considered for movement:
Movement rate may be bought normally; turn mode (where applicable) will be 1.
In most cases it isn't worth buying much above the minimum amount of movement.
For +5 points you may buy a noncombat multiple. Each noncombat multiple
doubles your noncombat movement rate and multiplies your turn mode by 4.
For +10 points you may buy a combat multiple. Each combat multiple doubles
your _combat_ movement rate and multiplies your turn mode by 2.
For +5 points you may halve your turn mode.
Of course, this means someone with speed 6 spending 60 pts on combat running,
instead of going 36"/2 segments (80 mph) combat will go 384"/2 segments (864
mph) combat, but on the other hand, people like the flash _do_ go that fast in
combat.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:18:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Falling and the 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 09:59 PM 1/26/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
> >Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
> >5th Ed?
>
> Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
> on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
> system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
> say you have a good idea here.
Well, the main problem is balancing the realism and playability of
a system. I've seen some pretty realistic systems posted to this list for
determining damage, but I have not intention on using them because the
realism takes away from playability. (Too complicated.) The current
system has flaws, but it is playable. I would not want a replacement
unless it also was just as playable.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:22:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Subject: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
OK, Rat. You can't find your copy, so here's an edited maneuver
list showing only name and effect. I've cut the rest so to protect the
copywrited material. This is edited enough to make it unusable for
anything but this discussion.
So Rat, where is this illegal maneuver? I can't see any problems.
Hand-To-Hand Martial Arts Maneuvers
Maneuver Damage/Effect
Ballestra STR +4d6; Half Move Required
Basic Strike STR +2d6 Strike
Breaking Throw Grab One Limb; 1/2d6 HKA (2 DC), Disable; Target Falls
Choke Hold Grab One Limb; 2d6 NND(2)
Counterstrike STR +2d6 Strike, Must Follow Successful Block
Crush STR +4d6 Crush, Must Follow Successful Grab
Defensive Block Block, Abort
Defensive Strike STR Strike
Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
Takeaway Throw Grab Weapon, +15 STR to take weapon away; Target Falls
Eye Gouge 2d6 Sight Group Flash
Fast Strike STR +2d6 Strike
Flying Dodge Dodge All Attacks, Abort; FMove
Flying Tackle STR +v/5 Strike; You Fall, Target Falls; FMove
Grappling Throw STR +2d6 Strike; Target Falls; Must Follow Grab
Joint Break Grab One Limb; 1/2d6 HKA (2 DC), Disable
Joint Lock/Throw Grab One Limb; 1d6 NND(3); Target Falls
Killing Strike 1/2d6 HKA (2 DC)
Killing Throw 1/2d6 HKA (2 DC); Target Falls
Legsweep STR +1d6 Strike; Target Falls
Martial Block Block, Abort
Martial Disarm Disarm; +10 STR to Disarm roll
Martial Dodge Dodge, Affects All Attacks, Abort
Martial Escape +15 STR vs. Grabs
Martial Grab Grab Two Limbs, +10 to STR for holding on
Martial Strike STR +2d6 Strike
Martial Throw STR +v/5; Target Falls
Nerve Strike 2d6 NND(1)
Offensive Strike STR +4d6 Strike
Passing Strike STR +v/5; FMove
Reversal STR +15 to Escape; Grab Two Limbs
Root STR +15 to resist Shove; Block, Abort
Sacrifice Disarm Disarm, +10 STR to Disarm roll
Sacrifice Lunge STR +v/5; FMove
Sacrifice Strike STR +4d6 Strike
Sacrifice Throw STR Strike; You Fall, Target Falls
Shove +15 STR to Shove
Takeaway Grab Weapon, +10 STR to Take weapon away
Takedown STR Strike; Target Falls
Weapon Bind Bind, +10 STR
[this table is copied without permission from TUMA, author Steve Long]
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:24:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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
Richard G Schwerdtfeger writes:
> Bob wrote:
> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good
> feedback so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not
> the same as Life Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would
> have to buy Life Support vs breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for
> itself in addition to the same for its occupants.
>
> Bob? Aren't you going a little too far on this one? Why would a spaceship
> have to buy those Life Supports for the ship itself? The ship is simply a
> huge hunk of metal/plastic/biotech/etc, and except in rare circumstances,
> not alive.(I know, this is dependent on SFX, but it's a good
> generalization)
Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very well at
extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't require
fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 14:30:39 -0500
Lines: 28
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-----
>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
BG> Not all Transformations use a "resonably common or obvious way of
BG> breaking it" (or, to use the book's wording, "some identifiable way"
BG> for an "All-or-Nothing retransformation"). [...]
But it is not a one or the other deal; *both* means are supposed to apply
to any Transformation Attack. The "or" in the description, like every
other use of or in Power descriptions, is not an exclusive (logical) or.
It is a grammatical or, which is really a conditional "and".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM412J6VRH7BJMxHAQEwgQP/cwuRqve19uuLMSuBLmRxcLewI2og/4ph
Tuzfvs5Rx2HTFxur0p5awQb2ldCcR6ioNGAon3icsMeKff8UxPdLRFQREARHm6ht
0VtOqtdDhTmXiZFeq8HVUYK9LHLcgHK2dRv0Ww6i//UBrGChILNr5pdHcYLogZd2
n3oK2i91xEQ=
=PgKC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:32:52 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Michael Nunn wrote:
> > After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> >But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> >years (Duty).
> > And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> > Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> > Duty).
>
> Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
Captain Patriot and Ninja Nun could; but what Demon X and Sgt. Super have
to deal with is something else entirely; in general, they can feel free to
shirk their duties any time they want, as long as they're willing to pay
the consequences... AFAIK, neither Phys. Lim nor Psych Lim handles this
well...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:37:58 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Anthony wrote:
Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very well at
extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't require
fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
And in some Sci-fi, big spaceships can't enter atmosphere. But some can...so
do they require LS:atmosphere, or do the the others get a disadd, or can you
just chalk it all up to Special Effects?
Guess which my preference would be? ;)
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 19:38:27
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 17:48:06 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 09:18:15 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>>
>> >qts writes:
>> >
>> >> This is far too cheap: pity the guy I hit with a 1d6 Attachable Drain
>> >> if he doesn't have any Power Defense. It could work if it took a
>> >> half-phase action to maintain, though.
>> >
>> >Huh? Ok, we have '+1/2: duration 1 turn', '+1/2: attachable', then _double_
>> >this for being an NND/AVLD; net of a +2 advantage. How is this a big problem?
>>
>> Even granting the AVLD/NND, the final cost is far too cheap.
>
>How so? For 30 points, you have a power which requires you to physically
>touch your opponent to activate; at that point, and every turn thereafter,
>you need to spend 3 END to keep the power running - you simply no longer
>require the physical contact to use it. In addition, you are restricted
>to Draining a maximum of 6 points of ability (see Alteration Powers for
>details). This seems rather balanced to me...
Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 19:39:17
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:48:14 -0800 (PST), Anthony Jackson wrote:
>qts writes:
>
>> Even granting the AVLD/NND, the final cost is far too cheap.
>> qts
>
>Shrug...its the same as uncontrolled continuous zero END (+2) and has the
>limitation that (a) it costs END (to activate, at least), and (b) it only lasts
>for a turn. Assuming a speed of 6, for 60 active pts we can either get 2d6 for
>a turn (which hits 6 times, assuming it isn't cancelled by something), or 6d6
>once. The continuing one will do more damage, but it will take a while to do
>it, and will be more affected by power defense, so this really doesn't horrify
>me.
>
>Btw, if it wasn't stated, attachable was supposed to have the same limitations
>as uncontrolled -- some reasonable method of breaking free must be provided.
Ah! That makes a BIG difference.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Stainless Steel Rat\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 19:45:26
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 26 Jan 1998 15:11:18 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
>>> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
>
>TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
>
>It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
Not in my campaigns.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:46:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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
Richard G Schwerdtfeger writes:
> And in some Sci-fi, big spaceships can't enter atmosphere. But some
> can...so do they require LS:atmosphere, or do the the others get a disadd,
> or can you just chalk it all up to Special Effects?
They have 'physlim: cannot enter atmosphere'.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:47:13 -0600
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
>Lets go through the logic here:
>a) The persistent advantage _does not_ cause a power to turn itself on, it
>causes a power to _not_ turn itself off.
>b) If you are not desolid, your desolid is not on.
>c) Power limitations do not _add_ abilities to powers.
>d) There is a well-defined advantage (trigger) which _does_ cause a power
to
>turn itself on.
I have seen arguments to premise 'B', and premise 'C' is just incorrect.
Visible makes a power Visible. Charges allows a power to operate without
using END. Yes, I know that at certain #'s of charges Charges is an
Advantage, but at others it is a limitation. Focus can be used to give a
power to someone else without using the Advantage UBO or UAO. No Knockback
(which I hardly even consider a Limitation, but it still is) allows you to
knock the crap out of a bad guy without as much chance of damaging the real
estate.
>Therefore, if you want a power to turn itself on when you stop paying END
for
>it, you buy the power with a trigger.
If I buy a power and make it Always On, it should be Always On. If a power
such as Dispel or Suppress turns it off. Are you saying that: "Once the
Dispel or Suppress ends the power would stay off indefinitely, or until the
character reactivates it?" Seems like you have, I can't buy that. Sorry.
An Always On power is Always On, not just can't be turned off. Sure using
this does bend the definition of Always On a little, but only by allowing
the character to in any way shape or form turn the power off, not by making
it turn the power back on after he stops.
BTW, there is a character in a supplement from several years ago who had a
damage shield that functioned similarly to this discussion. I can't
remember her name or the supplements name, or even exactly how the effect
was achieved. (No, I'm not actually an idiot, I just play one.) The
character was a half-demoness w/a soul damaging field that had the Always On
limitation but had a way to turn it off, that took END. I just can't
remember how. I don't have the time to hunt through my books to find it.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Tim R. Gilberg\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 19:48:56
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:15:46 -0600 (CST), Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>>
>> >> First of all, there is no such advantage as 'cumulative' for Dispel.
>>
>> TRG> Hmmm. But it is an advantage that could easily be added on,
>>
>> It is an advantage unique to Transformation Attack.
>
> It _WAS_ an advantage unique to Transformation Attack. With TUM,
>it has been added to Mind Control, maybe to Mental Illusions and
>Telepathy. I'll have to check the last two. Note that in this version,
>it's effect is limited to the total rollable on the dice -- with an option
>to buy up this maximum. This mechanic is similar to that of Aid or
>Absorption, of course.
>
> It is not hard to extrapolate this to Suppress or Dispell. The
>first would be limited to amount rollable, of course. The second,
>probably not, as a character could waste quite a few turns to finally
>Dispell a power that will just be turned on again the next phase. This is
>a small change to the rules that I think could be a nice addition to 5th
>edition.
And don't forget that the target gets its defenses against each attack.
My primary aim, from a technical angle, is to keep the APs down (having
fun comes first overall, of course).
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Stainless Steel Rat\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 98 19:51:40
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 27 Jan 1998 10:25:07 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but acceptable
>F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one valid
>F> and the other not.
>
>Because Transformation always has a reasonably common or obvious way of
>reversing the effect. No matter what the total "Body" rolled on the
>Transformation, Cumulative or not, may be, it can be reversed by meeting
>the reversal conditions.
And in a Fantasy campaign, Power Defense is a given for wizards, demons
et al.
>Mind Control does not have a reasonably common or obvious way of breaking
>it, other than a successful Ego roll. The more "damage" rolled for the
>Mind Control, the more difficult it is to break the control.
Those Ego rolls? Roll each time you get hit with the MC.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 14:55:44 -0500
Lines: 28
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-----
>>>>> "GS" == Geoff Speare <geoff@omg.org> writes:
GS> I think the key in fixing all the velocity damage systems
GS> (move-by/through, falling, collision, knockback, etc.) is to make the
GS> scale based on doublings rather than linear.
I think the first step is to make movement based on Turns rather than
action phases. Once that is done, all velocity-based damage can be figured
with one basic formula, something like xD6/f(inches/Turn), where f() is
something usable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM47tZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHHygP/acdLy7zjcP8El4xeq9tN6vd/HgyYm2vX
/bSe/SQ8OpfqKtzgusd6LKZUg85HQcl3XWATES3kUEtcYlXHQjuxcdSKrBu+8kZx
4DI+kpwWcmTLEkBC+g0d+dypuVobqboULljo8k+tBvhG7B7AqG7ZRxn3waboMR8J
Z+4yFFK8fgw=
=E57H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:05:10 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TUSV will address starships. I just finished all of the really vital
>stuff for the First Draft yesterday, and while there's not as much in there
>directly regarding starships right now, I think you can expect to see a
>fair amount (including at least a couple of sample ones) in the final
product.
Samples are always nice. Mainly I wanted a *clear* system in a section
that had *starships* in mind, since several considerations apply to them
but not to other types of vehicle. The Star Hero book met the second
requirement, but kind of fell down on the first; the BBB pretty much did
the opposite. Ideally, someone would just update SH for 4th/5th Edition,
but no one seems to be working on it. Bruce didn't reply to a query I sent
about that several weeks ago, but did mention it in his recent appearance
on #herochat. I didn't "attend", but read the log afterward, and
apparently no one is working on such a revision, though he claims he'd be
very much interested. I kind of got the impression he wanted it to be all
things to all SF fans, not just a space genre book, but a book that would
cover every conceivable aspect of SF roleplay. That may be a bit
ambitious, and it's hard to see why it'd be necessary in a single book
anyway. That's why we have genre books, 'cause everything doesn't fit in
one volume.
> Now, even though they are added on after the main structure, the
>spaceship and fantasy stuff isn't just an afterthought. The strongest
>emphasis is, of course, on giant robots and superhero vehicles, but there's
>also a lot given that can be applied to anything you want to do with
>vehicles. I make reference to the "Speed" movies in the campaigning
>section, and I have a "special campaign" in the appendices that was
>inspired by the old Starfire game. For that matter, I've been seriously
>thinking of sitting down next December and writing up Santa Claus' sleigh
>(flying reindeer and all) using the rules from TUSV.
Merely for the sake of completenes (since I've never known anyone to
actually *play* Western Hero) will there be a nod to Old West-genre
vehicles lke the steam locomotive, the ironclad warship, or the humble
stagecoach? That last is arguably not so much a vehicle as a container,
since the horse provides the power: a wagon is little more than a giant
saddlebag with wheels.
> And to answer your last question, I think you can start looking for it
>around next August -- but cross your fingers. (I know I'm crossing mine.)
Ah, unfortunate. I'll buy it anyway, as soon as it's out, but I was rather
hoping to get this space campaign going by May. The likely chain of events
will have start the PCs off as crew for a large corporate vessel,
alternately ferrying colonists to new planets and bringing back mined
resources to Earth. Events will quickly put them into a much smaller ship
of their own, with different functions. This means I'll have to have
designed both types of ship before the game begins, and possibly one or two
others.
> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good feedback
>so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not the same as Life
>Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would have to buy Life Support vs
>breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for itself in addition to the same for its
>occupants.
Buying Life Support for the ship itself seems weird, unless it's one of
those semi-alive biotech ships you occasionaly run across in fiction, like
B5's Vorlon vessels. Breathing is not a consideration for a starship,
since we can assume none of them run on internal combustion engines. Any
starship had *better* be able to operate in vacuum and intense cold
environments by default. Immunity to disease and aging don't seem to apply
either. That leaves protection against radiation, which *does* make sense,
but such protection would seem to automatically extend to persons inside
the ship, yes? Hmmm...this would be nice: for 5 pts the ship doesn't need
to "eat". ZERO FUEL CONSUMPTION! I LOVE IT! Okay, I'll behave now.
Seriously, I'd like to hear more about how you justified Life Support for
the vehicle itself. It seems counterintuitive to me.
Damon
================
Science is when we compare our thoughts with those of
the Universe, to see if they match.
-- Isaac Asimov
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 15:13:02 -0500
Lines: 31
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> in general, they can feel free to shirk their duties any time they want,
D> as long as they're willing to pay the consequences... AFAIK, neither
D> Phys. Lim nor Psych Lim handles this well...
Nope, they do not. Physical Limitations are things that you cannot ever
(or must always) do. Psychological Limitations are things that you do or
do not want to always do. A sense of duty is a Psychological Limitation.
What is described is really Watched. The "pay[ing] the consequences" is
the disadvantage here, and that punnishment is meted out by whomever they
have given their alegiance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM4/wJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEvZgP/QjAZtDRhH057d/RoBjU2yCFxRKgCCMeX
6TtnsCnqbNlHgwaHkUK36n6BruQLiIxtFY6DfHGsPitP/D0dcXU5omPLfsOIm2lG
B15HD10806bDh6e3N8A+FtRTBmgl/J6geWbRvy/vgN/CXQanJN4WyIr9U6lvZPht
oJbP4cjvr+U=
=0dLt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 15:19:21 -0500
Lines: 23
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
That's the one.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM5BPJ6VRH7BJMxHAQF76QQApKhiutObLf+2uCT9XFuJ1iG8CtVW6QTz
eQ1pxPDCBQJb1JVcfIkXiXJq13sNbb0Hbhh/ymhat/frLSupaFizpptmP6omMXxH
agPPfoZTgawWxQHSRr6MEG5iQevpUd8QoiQDBVNO+1WmheyOzJ6DPsK/6x7IJNXG
myo2UwQT37s=
=nDOa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:20:09 -0600
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
>>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> Not all Transformations use a "resonably common or obvious way of
>BG> breaking it" (or, to use the book's wording, "some identifiable way"
>BG> for an "All-or-Nothing retransformation"). [...]
Rat follows:
>But it is not a one or the other deal; *both* means are supposed to apply
>to any Transformation Attack. The "or" in the description, like every
>other use of or in Power descriptions, is not an exclusive (logical) or.
>It is a grammatical or, which is really a conditional "and".
I don't believe that the word "or" means "and" if it did then what would
mean "or", "not"??
Secondly, the BBB doesn't use the term "or" dealing with the "cures" for
Transform.
Quote: "The character may define one of two ways for the character to
regain his normal form."
Neither one is listed as the default condition, however. They just list the
"heal the body" cure first.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:23:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 27 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> TRG> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>
> That's the one.
Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
"Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't automatically
allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:38:07 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Genetic engineering
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Forgot this item when I was asking about starships and such earlier:
package deals for genetically engineered humans who colonize
not-quite-Earthlike planets. In my campaign timeline, the terraforming of
Mars has been underway for almost 200 years by the time the game begins,
but it will be some time yet before unaltered humans can live there. The
people who've colonized Mars will have undergone radical gene therapy,
engineering them for survival in the low pressure, low temperature, low
oxygen, high radiation Martian environment.
Several purchases of Life Support are clearly in order. However, it will
be limited in two ways: (1) it still doesn't allow unaided survival in
this harsh environment, it just means a Martian colonist needs less
artificial aid, and wouldn't be *quite* as damaged *quite* as quickly as an
unaltered human by sudden exposure to the outdoors. Partial protection,
not immunity. (2) Within a few more generations, Mars will be fully
terraformed and there will be no need for this genetic alteration; the
process is rapid enough that dramatic change in the environment takes place
within a single generation, making the support requirements slightly
different every couple of decades. For this reason, the gene therapy is
not permanent, and each colonist is given an annual "booster shot" without
which he begins to revert to human norms and becomes unable to survive on
Mars. This limitation may be so small as to be worth no points.
Continuing Charges which last for a year push that limitation well into the
advantage side, and Dependence is worth nothing if you only need the
substance annually.
The best way I can see to do this is to work out just how much
environmental protection is offered by the gene therapy, and then determine
whether the Life Support taken as a whole should get a -1/4 or -1/2
Limitation. To do that, I have to know the normal effects of these things
(vacuum, low pressure, radiation) on a normal human. I can then use the
chart on page S-46, BBB, and give the Martians a chart shift: what
constitutes Overkill to a normal human (3d6+1 or above Killing Damage)
would still be Lethal to a Martian (2d6-3d6) but Lethal radiation becomes
merely Dangerous (1d6 - 1 1/2d6), and Dangerous low pressure levels merely
Annoying (1 pip - 1/2d6). The rules for drowning should work for sudden
exposure to low-oxygen atmosphere, and the section on "Living in a
Dangerous World", which includes the damage table above, mentions
radiation, but I see no references to low pressure/vacuum damage or damage
from cold.
Suggestions?
Damon
-----------------------
I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's.
-- William Blake, English poet
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:39:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> > > After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> > >But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> > >years (Duty).
> > > And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> > > Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> > > Duty).
> >
> > Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
>
> Quite well. Going this route would seem to suggest a dropping of
> Psych Lim entirely and going with its individual flavors: Fear;
> Belief; Hatred; etc.
Neg; this will work for Sense of Duty, but not for Duty (which you can
neglect any time you choose, as long as you're willing to pay the
consequences; in fact, that could be the defining feature of Social
Limitations - certain activities hold consequences for you, and as long as
you're willing to pay the consequences, you can perform those
activities...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:51:27 -0800
From: Rook <rook@infinex.com>
Organization: Sujin & Brian
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > > After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> > >But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> > >years (Duty).
> > > And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> > > Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> > > Duty).
> >
> > Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
>
> Quite well. Going this route would seem to suggest a dropping of
> Psych Lim entirely and going with its individual flavors: Fear;
> Belief; Hatred; etc.
Not Demon X's.
Demon X has no choice in it's actions. It can no more overule being a Hero than a
computer can do other than the exact wording of what a program tells it to do.
So his would be a physical lim.
And Seargant Super's is not Psychological either. He does what he does cause
he is ordered to.
Failing to do so put's him under possible court martial.
So his is a 'Legal Disad'. Or a Psych with a Side effect limitation that goes
off when he manages
to overcome it. However overcoming it requires no ego roll, he can do so at a
whim.
So perhaps it's a conditional hunted...
Of course, adding "Duty" just simplifies their two cases.
--
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:57:05 -0800
From: Rook <rook@infinex.com>
Organization: Sujin & Brian
CC: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Subject To Orders (Was Re: Duty/Sns of Duty)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sanfran.infinex.com id NAA27514
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >> After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> >>But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> >>years (Duty).
> >> And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> >> Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> >> Duty).
> >Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
>
> I don't know how pertinent it is to this discussion, but in TUSV I
> reflect the fact that many vehicle-centered campaigns take place in
> military and law enforcement settings by including the following update of
> the Subject to Orders Disdvantage (which originally appeared in a number of
> 3rd Ed Hero genre products):
>
It describes one of the people above, Seargant Super.It would get Demon X if
it had an option making it impossible to disobey orders. (Which could
be done as a phys disad instead, but I prefer to have a 'Duty' disad which is
capable of a variety of
styles of duty/sns of duty)
By all means I would love to see something like this in 5th.
> Subject to Orders
>
> Orders are Given Points
>
> Occasionally (8-) 5
> Frequently (11-) 10
> Very Frequently (14-) 15
>
> Usual Hazard Level of Missions Points
>
> Difficult (but fairly safe) +0
> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
>
> Punishment for Disobedience Points
>
> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
--
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:09:40 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very
well at
> extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
> spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't
require
> fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
Your typical submarine cannot travel cross-country. Do all cars need to
buy this as an advantage or power, just because they can do something
another vehicle type can't? A basic Everyvehicle Skill is (or should be)
the ability to function in the environment for which it was clearly
designed. Spaceships, as I said elsewhere, do not run on internal
combustion engines, and do not require a massive "gasoline/oxygen
interface" like a startship might use a matter/antimatter reactor. A
spacegoing car or motorcycle would certainly need to pay for the ability to
function in space; a spaceship shouldn't have to, since that's what it was
designed for at its most basic level.
Damon
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: geoff@emerald.omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:12:53 -0500
From: Geoff Speare <geoff@omg.org>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>Yes, but if you add 1d6 for each doubling of falling speed, then normals
>with 8 PD and 20 BODY are invulnerable to death when leaping from airplanes,
>if they land on flat concrete.
I think the proper thing to do would be to have standard velocity rules
based on doubling (which produce the above effects, more or less), and
heroic optional rules which make falling more deadly. (For example, does
tough skin really prevent you from taking falling damage? Should hit
locations make a different when falling?)
Geoff Speare
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Comments: Authenticated sender is <b1tlbx98@pop1.sympatico.ca>
From: "Vance Scott" <b1tlbx98@pop1.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:17:35 -500
Subject: Re: Surprise!
Reply-to: vances@sympatico.ca
CC: champ-l@omg.org
Priority: normal
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Just thought I'd check this ruling that dosen't seem right to me.
>
> Situation: Superteam guarding a Senator at a public speach. Villians
> attack. The two supers tasked to "In case of trouble, get the senator
> out of here" are taken out in the opening rounds, leaving the intended
> victim standing there between a couple villians intending him serious
> bodily harm.
> My character, a flyer who was on high guard, decided to protect the
> senator by diving on him, knocking him down, and interposing his own
> body (and praying like heck his teammates could pull him outa this in
> one piece). The GM asked for a Dex roll to do this. I rolled, and
> failed by one.
> His ruling on what happened next: Having missed, the flyer did a full
> speed move-through on the floor next to the senator, smashing though it.
> Acceptable, he had enough defenses to take it. However, it turned out
> there was another supervillian hiding under the floor, who shot him.
> The GM ruled that this was a Surprise Attack, and thus I took double
> stun, ending up KOed. This last bit just dosen't sit right with me.
>
> Daniel Pawtowski
I have to agree with you Daniel, if anything the villain hiding under
the podium should be surprised. Unless he had some way of seeing, or
perceiving that your character was flying towards the senator, and
himself.
Vance Scott
Vanquisher of all foes
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 16:20:52 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
MS> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
MS> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't
MS> automatically allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the Abort
element. Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver. But this is
an offensive maneuver -- "Target Falls" is for the Strike maneuver base.
At this point I have to wonder if "Block, Target Falls" is a typographical
error, that it should read "Throw, Target Falls". If so, then the maneuver
is legit, and I owe Steve Long an apology.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM5Pkp6VRH7BJMxHAQEe3wQAyDKRg15GuUWmtJ40AenhVqFr1AA+l4AT
0RPVhbVFfeQ3xxPZwKrXTJO3WdP2v/xLB+7J4FDaaQs/sHfus1VcWSYWYBM+1COl
xZpT/dP19TuTAlr2er82cAFMm22waY+pnNHDkMqLRNk3tPNnJEh/coIcWpSligoA
1J/kTBFzgl0=
=NO2A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:27:18 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>
> That's the one.
Nope, perfectly legal under both TUMA and Ninja Hero. I even just
re-went through the Ninja Hero maneuver creation to check on this.
Block is an exclusive maneuver base, meaning it must be taken
only by itself or with non-exclusive maneuver bases. (Most bases,
including Strike, Dodge, and Block, are exclusive.)
Throw (outlined above by "Target Falls"), is a non-exclusive base
(along with Exert and Grab Opponent). Thus, it can be taken by itself or
with any exclusive or non-exclusive base.
Therefore . . . a legal construction. Note, however, that this
maneuver will do no damage. All it will do is block incomming attacks and
put the attacker on the ground. Similar to many non-violent RL maneuvers
that only re-direct an opponent's momentum.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:28:29 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Neg; this will work for Sense of Duty, but not for Duty (which you can
> neglect any time you choose, as long as you're willing to pay the
> consequences; in fact, that could be the defining feature of Social
> Limitations - certain activities hold consequences for you, and as long as
> you're willing to pay the consequences, you can perform those
> activities...
Actually, I have to agree. A social lim would do better at
handling actual "Duties". As is, it now has to be kludged with Watched or
Physical Lim.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:30:57 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > TRG> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
> >
> > That's the one.
>
> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't automatically
> allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
I'm not sure. It doesn't have Abort on the chart, but reading the
NH rules, it might just get it. It depends on whether you consider the
"Target Falls" to be agressive. I think I might, but I could see
arguements for allowing Block's free abort.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 13:36:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]]
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
Geoff Speare writes:
> >Yes, but if you add 1d6 for each doubling of falling speed, then normals
> >with 8 PD and 20 BODY are invulnerable to death when leaping from
> >airplanes, if they land on flat concrete.
>
> I think the proper thing to do would be to have standard velocity rules
> based on doubling (which produce the above effects, more or less), and
> heroic optional rules which make falling more deadly. (For example, does
> tough skin really prevent you from taking falling damage? Should hit
> locations make a different when falling?)
In addition, damage for falling should be at +2d6 per doubling in velocity, not
+1d6. They should be +1d6 per doubling in _distance_.
If we say that 1"/segment (4.5 mph) is 2d6 (fair enough, hitting something
solid at a walking pace isn't too fun), terminal velocity (30"/segment) would
be 12d6; 1"/segment could really be as much as 4d6 on a solid surface.
Going with 1"/segment = 2d6, a 1-hex fall (2 meters; velocity is 6
meters/second on impact) is 5d6, each doubling in distance is +1d6 to a maximum
of 12d6 for a fall of 128 hexes. This is not actually a particularly difficult
chart to remember ;).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:39:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers - addendum
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > TRG> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
> >
> > That's the one.
>
> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't automatically
> allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
Oops. Just looked in TUMA. It makes very clear that anything
with the "Throw" element does _NOT_ get abort. In this case, the maneuver
looses its free abort from the Block.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 27 Jan 1998 16:40:17 -0500
Lines: 52
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-----
>>>>> "R" == Remnant <easleyap@mobis.com> writes:
R> I don't believe that the word "or" means "and" if it did then what would
R> mean "or", "not"??
Damage Reduction applies to the "Body or Stun" of an attack. Does this
mean that you have to buy Physical Damage Reduction twice, once for the
Body damage, once for the Stun damage? Of course not. Hero uses a
grammatical "or" because not all attacks will do both Body and Stun damage.
Saying, "Body and Stun of an attack," would be grammatically incorrect.
The thing to remember is that a logical or is exclusive, a grammatical or
is inclusive.
R> Secondly, the BBB doesn't use the term "or" dealing with the "cures" for
R> Transform. Quote: "The character may define one of two ways for the
R> character to regain his normal form."
Of course, I can pick the grammar of this apart, too. To whom does the
first reference to "the character" point? The character with the attack,
really the player? The second reference to "the character" is clearly the
target, but the first is ambiguous if you start stripping context.
And there is the word "may". "May" indicates a choice, and this statement
can be interpreted to show two choices: whether or not to chose a reversal
condition, and which of the two reversal conditions to define if reversal
conditions are chosen. If one replaces "may" with "must", which I think
was the intent, the ambiguity goes away. Of course, this means I am
utterly wrong, but it wouldn't be the frist time. :)
But regardless of how you interpret that statement, I still stand by my
statement that Cumulative's inconsistent applicability is unbalancing.
Cumulative on anything other than Transformation is much more effective for
the price.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM5T8Z6VRH7BJMxHAQFsrAP6Ax6D/8ts8k4Zve2mE9PBFwAFTt1VPuPo
GyyRlIG+l8tsDusXQ+cM6j+anypsOY+tI1e/MrOCp+daOVoHAD4WY10DaWalJgmZ
LyJRZP5Cs2bE4pL91wFnAitfO+6wbBVIoUvuQTDGIkthN4bOHBM754LZ0tLxKfXk
6xGiK9An4/k=
=icVA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:20:38 -0600
From: Jerry Nealis <jnealis@onramp.net>
Reply-To: jnealis@onramp.net
Subject: what happened to the list
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
did I miss a nuclear war or something?
where is everybody?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:00:06 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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
Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin writes:
> Your typical submarine cannot travel cross-country. Do all cars need to
> buy this as an advantage or power, just because they can do something
> another vehicle type can't?
Nope. By default, a vehicle gets 6" of running for free. If a vehicle cannot
travel cross-country, it should buy its running down to 0 (and get 12 points
back). However, most cars do need to buy more than base running.
Incidentally, TUSV should list disadvantage values for such things as wheels
and tracks, since those have lower crosscountry mobility than the default of
legs.
> A basic Everyvehicle Skill is (or should be)
> the ability to function in the environment for which it was clearly
> designed.
Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does that mean I
get the ability to go anywhere for free?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:30:59 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>Nope. By default, a vehicle gets 6" of running for free. If a vehicle
cannot
>travel cross-country, it should buy its running down to 0 (and get 12 points
>back). However, most cars do need to buy more than base running.
We weren't discussing *how* a car moves cross-country (Running), nor how
*fast* it can do so (6" or whatever), just the fact that it is assumed to
be able to operate as a land-based vehicle because that's what is was
designed for. It doesn't have to pay any points for being able to operate
out of water, as a submarine, boat, or jetski would have to if it wanted to
be a kind of super-ATV.
>Incidentally, TUSV should list disadvantage values for such things as wheels
>and tracks, since those have lower crosscountry mobility than the default of
>legs.
Okay, then I want a Physical Limitation for my human characters, who have
to take longer overland routes, their lack of wings keeping them from
traveling "as the crow flies". Don't be absurd. Tracks, maybe. But not
wheels.
>Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does that mean I
>get the ability to go anywhere for free?
No. You would have to demonstrate that the design of the vehicle clearly
enabled it to function in every conceivable environment, by virtue of
clearly being designed with all those environments in mind. Frankly, I
don't know how you'd be able to show that. A car is designed for overland
travel, and should not have to pay points for special powers related to the
environment it's in, unless it enters an "unfriendly" environment, or one
for which it is clearly unequipped.
Humans have lungs, fish have gills. Humans don't have to pay points to
breathe in the air, but a fish would have to do so, because it's not
designed for that environment. No character should have to pay points for
the mere ability to breathe air, move, pick things up, etc., but only for
the speed, strength, agility, etc., with which he does those basic things.
(Fish *do* have to pay for Life Support to breathe underwater, so I'm aware
this argument has an inherent weakness.)
It may be reasonable to base all PC characters on a generic human template,
but I don't think it's equally reasonable to base all vehicles, regardless
of purpose, design, construction, tech level or environment, on a Dodge
minivan.
Damon
==============================
God is dead.
-- Neitzsche, 1882
Neitzsche is dead.
-- God, 1900
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:45:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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
Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin writes:
> We weren't discussing *how* a car moves cross-country (Running), nor how
> *fast* it can do so (6" or whatever), just the fact that it is assumed to
> be able to operate as a land-based vehicle because that's what is was
> designed for. It doesn't have to pay any points for being able to operate
> out of water, as a submarine, boat, or jetski would have to if it wanted to
> be a kind of super-ATV.
If you have running, you can move cross-country. Otherwise, you cannot. I
fail to see how this is complicated.
>
> >Incidentally, TUSV should list disadvantage values for such things as
> >wheels and tracks, since those have lower crosscountry mobility than the
> >default of legs.
>
> Okay, then I want a Physical Limitation for my human characters, who have
> to take longer overland routes, their lack of wings keeping them from
> traveling "as the crow flies". Don't be absurd. Tracks, maybe. But not
> wheels.
Your human characters don't have the 'flight' power, thus they cannot travel as
the crow flies.
>
> >Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does that
> >mean I get the ability to go anywhere for free?
>
> No. You would have to demonstrate that the design of the vehicle clearly
> enabled it to function in every conceivable environment, by virtue of
> clearly being designed with all those environments in mind. Frankly, I
> don't know how you'd be able to show that. A car is designed for overland
> travel, and should not have to pay points for special powers related to the
> environment it's in, unless it enters an "unfriendly" environment, or one
> for which it is clearly unequipped.
>
> Humans have lungs, fish have gills. Humans don't have to pay points to
> breathe in the air, but a fish would have to do so, because it's not
> designed for that environment.
No, a fish needs to pay points for 'LS: underwater'. It gets a physical
limitation for 'cannot breathe air'. If a fish wanted to breathe air, it would
have to buy off this physical limitation.
> No character should have to pay points for
> the mere ability to breathe air, move, pick things up, etc., but only for
> the speed, strength, agility, etc., with which he does those basic things.
> (Fish *do* have to pay for Life Support to breathe underwater, so I'm aware
> this argument has an inherent weakness.)
Characters have to pay points for anything they can do which the standard
template for a character cannot do.
>
> It may be reasonable to base all PC characters on a generic human template,
> but I don't think it's equally reasonable to base all vehicles, regardless
> of purpose, design, construction, tech level or environment, on a Dodge
> minivan.
Why not? That's the whole point of the hero system -- you can make do with
only a single _base_ form, and then add powers or disadvantages to make the
form into whatever you want. I don't want to go 'OK, this is a 'starship',
with these powers and disadvantages', I want to go 'OK, this is a vehicle with
these powers and disadvantages, and I call it a starship'.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:53:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Filksinger writes:
> > Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
> > 5th Ed?
>
> All the velocity damage rules could do with a reworking (noncombat movebys are
> a bit of a problem too).
The falling speeds are fine as is; treat damage from impact with the
ground as a Move-through, and rework move-bys and move-throughs to make
sense.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:57:41 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> A basic Everyvehicle Skill is (or should be)
>> the ability to function in the environment for which it was clearly
>> designed.
>Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does that mean I
>get the ability to go anywhere for free?
Sure. As long as you buy an ability to get you there, like flight or Teleport
or swinging etc. Take a James Bond car which can both travel underwater and
fly through the air as an example. As long as it has flight and swimming, it
can go anywhere it wants to. Having a pressurized driver's compartment is
another question: it should have both LS: self-contained breathing and
LS:vacuum/high pressure to allow the driver to survive.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:06:41 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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
>> It may be reasonable to base all PC characters on a generic human template,
>> but I don't think it's equally reasonable to base all vehicles, regardless
>> of purpose, design, construction, tech level or environment, on a Dodge
>> minivan.
>
>Why not? That's the whole point of the hero system -- you can make do with
>only a single _base_ form, and then add powers or disadvantages to make the
>form into whatever you want. I don't want to go 'OK, this is a 'starship',
>with these powers and disadvantages', I want to go 'OK, this is a vehicle
with
>these powers and disadvantages, and I call it a starship'.
Perhaps what's needed is separate base forms for land/sea/air/space
vehicles. I'm not sure which would be more complicated in the long run,
having four separate base forms for vehicles -- added to the existing base
forms for characters, computers/AIs, spirits, and so forth -- each of which
would incorporate the "everyvehicle" aspects of that single class, or
having to do this excessive tinkering with the single existing form just to
allow your boat to float.
This is distracting me from the points I really cared about, those directly
concerned with my upcoming game. If the author of TUSV wants starships to
have to buy Life Support, that's the way he's going to write the rules. I
asked him what his thoughts were for justifiying it, and he hasn't time to
respond yet. If I agree with his thinking, I'll use his rule as written.
If not, I'll make a house rule to override it for my campaign.
Damon
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:18:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Duty/Sns of Duty
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 01:09 AM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael Nunn wrote:
> >> After all, Captian Patriot may have sense of Duty,
> >>But Demon X may just be bound by a contract to do good heroic deeds for 100
> >>years (Duty).
> >> And Seargant Super may be a draftee under military orders (Duty).
> >> Yet Ninja Nun may just feel a conviction to spread the word (Sns of
> >> Duty).
> >Couldn't all of these be handled by a Psych Lim.
>
> I don't know how pertinent it is to this discussion, but in TUSV I
> reflect the fact that many vehicle-centered campaigns take place in
> military and law enforcement settings by including the following update of
> the Subject to Orders Disdvantage (which originally appeared in a number of
> 3rd Ed Hero genre products):
>
> Subject to Orders
>
> Orders are Given Points
>
> Occasionally (8-) 5
> Frequently (11-) 10
> Very Frequently (14-) 15
>
> Usual Hazard Level of Missions Points
>
> Difficult (but fairly safe) +0
> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
>
> Punishment for Disobedience Points
>
> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
Nice! But it could use some expansion:
> Social Limitation
>
> Circumstances Occur Points
>
> Occasionally (8-) 5
> Frequently (11-) 10
> Very Frequently (14-) 15
>
> Effects of Limitation Points
>
> Inconvenient (but fairly safe) +0
> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
>
> Punishment for Violation Points
>
> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
So a society where minorities aren't allowed to visit certain locations,
are forced to ride in the back of the busses, etc. and will be thrown in
prison if they do not, being a minority is a 15 point Disad (11-,
Inconvenient, Major reprecussions); if women are required to wear
outlandish outfits to formal occasions or face ridicule by their peers,
this would be a 5-point Disad (8-, Inconvenient, Minor reprecussions); if
Death Hunter killed the president's son and is being blackmailed into
performing critical missions for the government, this is a 35-point Disad
(14-, Deadly, Severe). The typical Secret ID would be 11-, Inconvenient,
Major (specifically, the danger to family and friends); and the typical
Public ID would be 11-, Inconvenient, Minor ("always in the spotlight").
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:31:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
> Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
Hmm? Last I chaecked, _all_ Alteration Powers had a maximum limit...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:45:10 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> > Now, even though they are added on after the main structure, the
> >spaceship and fantasy stuff isn't just an afterthought. The strongest
> >emphasis is, of course, on giant robots and superhero vehicles, but there's
> >also a lot given that can be applied to anything you want to do with
> >vehicles. I make reference to the "Speed" movies in the campaigning
> >section, and I have a "special campaign" in the appendices that was
> >inspired by the old Starfire game. For that matter, I've been seriously
> >thinking of sitting down next December and writing up Santa Claus' sleigh
> >(flying reindeer and all) using the rules from TUSV.
>
> Merely for the sake of completenes (since I've never known anyone to
> actually *play* Western Hero) will there be a nod to Old West-genre
> vehicles lke the steam locomotive, the ironclad warship, or the humble
> stagecoach? That last is arguably not so much a vehicle as a container,
> since the horse provides the power: a wagon is little more than a giant
> saddlebag with wheels.
Mind you, you'd also want to consider such things as carts and chariots
(for Fantasy Hero) and jet packs and Battlesuits (specifically, how would
you model a Robotech Cyclone? A motorcycle is clearly a Vehicle; but
would the battlesuit be a vehicle as well, or a collection of powers with
a -1/2 Limitation applied (be it Focus, Battlesuit, or whatever...)
> > However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good feedback
> >so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not the same as Life
> >Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would have to buy Life Support vs
> >breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for itself in addition to the same for its
> >occupants.
>
> Buying Life Support for the ship itself seems weird, unless it's one of
> those semi-alive biotech ships you occasionaly run across in fiction, like
> B5's Vorlon vessels. Breathing is not a consideration for a starship,
> since we can assume none of them run on internal combustion engines. Any
> starship had *better* be able to operate in vacuum and intense cold
> environments by default. Immunity to disease and aging don't seem to apply
> either. That leaves protection against radiation, which *does* make sense,
> but such protection would seem to automatically extend to persons inside
> the ship, yes? Hmmm...this would be nice: for 5 pts the ship doesn't need
> to "eat". ZERO FUEL CONSUMPTION! I LOVE IT! Okay, I'll behave now.
> Seriously, I'd like to hear more about how you justified Life Support for
> the vehicle itself. It seems counterintuitive to me.
Note: this is The Ultimate Super Vehicle, not The Ultimate Starship; cars
would have a serious problem running their air-breathing engines in a
vacuum, and various of their systems might have problems with unusual
environmental conditions such as heat or cold.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:45:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
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
Dataweaver writes:
> > Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
>
> Hmm? Last I chaecked, _all_ Alteration Powers had a maximum limit...
Nah. There's a maximum amount by which an adjustment power can help you, but
no limit to how much one can hurt you.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:46:05 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@mars.superlink.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
At 08:52 PM 1/26/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> So? Having to constantly expend END to keep oneself solid, and
>thus allow for any type of interaction with the world, is a huge
>disadvantage. It happens to come with a small side effect advantage of
>going Desol when getting KOed. However, note that if you are KOed and
>also desperately in need of medical attention, you are quite screwed.
>
> But as for generalizing the concept: Declaring a power Always On
>by Default, costs END to turn off, really should be about a +-0 modifier.
Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this construct
come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
Joe
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:51:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org, 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
Joe Mucchiello writes:
> Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this construct
> come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
>
> Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
> either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
>
> Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
> allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable limitation -- the
power clearly is _not_ always on.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:59:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> > Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very
> well at
> > extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
> > spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't
> require
> > fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
>
> Your typical submarine cannot travel cross-country. Do all cars need to
> buy this as an advantage or power, just because they can do something
> another vehicle type can't?
Yes; it's called "ground movement", and costs the same as Running. Cars
have it; subs don't.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:03:02 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Dataweaver writes:
> > > Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
> >
> > Hmm? Last I chaecked, _all_ Alteration Powers had a maximum limit...
>
> Nah. There's a maximum amount by which an adjustment power can help you, but
> no limit to how much one can hurt you.
So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
opponent's trait?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:07:16 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@mars.superlink.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
At 04:51 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Joe Mucchiello writes:
> > Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this construct
>> come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
>>
>> Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
>> either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
>>
>> Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
>> allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
>
>Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable limitation -- the
>power clearly is _not_ always on.
Yes, it does. It is "Always On", i.e. cannot be turned off. The only way
to turn it off is to change the VL to "Costs END". The GM has to rule
(outside the power construct) that when the character does not or cannot
pay the END that the VL must switch back to Always On, thus making the
character Desolid. How else can you do this construct?
Joe
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:12:13 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10
At 11:24 AM 1/27/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Richard G Schwerdtfeger writes:
>> Bob wrote:
>> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good
>> feedback so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not
>> the same as Life Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would
>> have to buy Life Support vs breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for
>> itself in addition to the same for its occupants.
>>
>> Bob? Aren't you going a little too far on this one? Why would a spaceship
>> have to buy those Life Supports for the ship itself? The ship is simply a
>> huge hunk of metal/plastic/biotech/etc, and except in rare circumstances,
>> not alive.(I know, this is dependent on SFX, but it's a good
>> generalization)
>
>Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very well at
>extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
>spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't require
>fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
Anthony, if we ever meet at a convention, remember that I wanted to go
out and buy you a kewpie doll. :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:16:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
Joe Mucchiello writes:
> Yes, it does. It is "Always On", i.e. cannot be turned off. The only way
> to turn it off is to change the VL to "Costs END". The GM has to rule
> (outside the power construct) that when the character does not or cannot
> pay the END that the VL must switch back to Always On, thus making the
> character Desolid. How else can you do this construct?
Trigger (turns on when character stops paying END).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:30:46 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 18
At 02:05 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>> TUSV will address starships. I just finished all of the really vital
>>stuff for the First Draft yesterday, and while there's not as much in there
>>directly regarding starships right now, I think you can expect to see a
>>fair amount (including at least a couple of sample ones) in the final
>product.
>
>Samples are always nice. Mainly I wanted a *clear* system in a section
>that had *starships* in mind, since several considerations apply to them
>but not to other types of vehicle. The Star Hero book met the second
>requirement, but kind of fell down on the first; the BBB pretty much did
>the opposite. Ideally, someone would just update SH for 4th/5th Edition,
>but no one seems to be working on it. Bruce didn't reply to a query I sent
>about that several weeks ago, but did mention it in his recent appearance
>on #herochat. I didn't "attend", but read the log afterward, and
>apparently no one is working on such a revision, though he claims he'd be
>very much interested. I kind of got the impression he wanted it to be all
>things to all SF fans, not just a space genre book, but a book that would
>cover every conceivable aspect of SF roleplay. That may be a bit
>ambitious, and it's hard to see why it'd be necessary in a single book
>anyway. That's why we have genre books, 'cause everything doesn't fit in
>one volume.
Yeah, frankly I'd prefer to see Star Hero as just a "spacefaring sci-fi"
type of genre book, maybe with addenda for Giant Robots and Time Travel.
Let post-Holocaust take care of itself. Let cyberpunk take care of itself
(Cyber Hero was OK, and I understand that the manuscript that the authors
actually submitted was really quite good). Heck, already I tend to
consider superheroes a sort of subgenre of science fiction.
As for how well TUSV addresses starships, well, that's a little hard to
call at this point in time. *I* think it does an adequate job, and should
empower GMs and authors of science-fiction settings to give their starships
a good definition. Your opinion may be different from that, though.
>> Now, even though they are added on after the main structure, the
>>spaceship and fantasy stuff isn't just an afterthought. The strongest
>>emphasis is, of course, on giant robots and superhero vehicles, but there's
>>also a lot given that can be applied to anything you want to do with
>>vehicles. I make reference to the "Speed" movies in the campaigning
>>section, and I have a "special campaign" in the appendices that was
>>inspired by the old Starfire game. For that matter, I've been seriously
>>thinking of sitting down next December and writing up Santa Claus' sleigh
>>(flying reindeer and all) using the rules from TUSV.
>
>Merely for the sake of completenes (since I've never known anyone to
>actually *play* Western Hero) will there be a nod to Old West-genre
>vehicles lke the steam locomotive, the ironclad warship, or the humble
>stagecoach? That last is arguably not so much a vehicle as a container,
>since the horse provides the power: a wagon is little more than a giant
>saddlebag with wheels.
I fully address, albeit not in *great* detail, "vehicles" which are
pulled. They are, essentially, built as Vehicles with a limited form of
Gliding as their only Movement. They are then pulled along according to
the STR and Running of whatever is pulling them. (Locomotives and tractor
trailers and work the same way.) There are restrictions on how fast a
vehicle can go, so that one can't just buy something with 1" of gliding and
expect to pull it along at 50" using a team of gazelles.
And there are plenty of rules for old-style ships. If someone wants to
run something aboard a steamship in the 1880s, and needs the stats for such
a vessel, that will be doable.
>> And to answer your last question, I think you can start looking for it
>>around next August -- but cross your fingers. (I know I'm crossing mine.)
>
>Ah, unfortunate. I'll buy it anyway, as soon as it's out, but I was rather
>hoping to get this space campaign going by May. The likely chain of events
>will have start the PCs off as crew for a large corporate vessel,
>alternately ferrying colonists to new planets and bringing back mined
>resources to Earth. Events will quickly put them into a much smaller ship
>of their own, with different functions. This means I'll have to have
>designed both types of ship before the game begins, and possibly one or two
>others.
Yeah, May is definitely out. I'll be doing well if I have the Final
Draft ready by the end of March.
However, Damon, I'd be more than willing to provide assistance by
private email as the time for your campaign draws near.
>> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good feedback
>>so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not the same as Life
>>Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would have to buy Life Support vs
>>breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for itself in addition to the same for its
>>occupants.
>
>Buying Life Support for the ship itself seems weird, unless it's one of
>those semi-alive biotech ships you occasionaly run across in fiction, like
>B5's Vorlon vessels. Breathing is not a consideration for a starship,
>since we can assume none of them run on internal combustion engines. Any
>starship had *better* be able to operate in vacuum and intense cold
>environments by default. Immunity to disease and aging don't seem to apply
>either. That leaves protection against radiation, which *does* make sense,
>but such protection would seem to automatically extend to persons inside
>the ship, yes? Hmmm...this would be nice: for 5 pts the ship doesn't need
>to "eat". ZERO FUEL CONSUMPTION! I LOVE IT! Okay, I'll behave now.
>Seriously, I'd like to hear more about how you justified Life Support for
>the vehicle itself. It seems counterintuitive to me.
If you think that a vehicle isn't immune to aging, then you clearly have
never owned a car beyond its 10th birthday. ;-]
Immunity to "disease" for a Vehicle is immunity to such things as rust
and other forms of materials degradation.
And yes, per the current manuscript, the starship *does* need to buy
Self-Contained Breathing ("no internal combustion engine" is *not* a
default), Safe in Vacuum, and Safe in Heat/Cold for itself.
For that matter, here's the Vehicular Life Support Table as it now stands:
Vehicular Life Support
Pts Effect
5 Vehicle can operate (that is, "breathe") in an unusual environment
(under
water, in heavy dust, etc.)
10 Vehicle's ventilation system is self-contained.
5 Does Not Need Fuel* or Maintenance
3 each Safe vs Vacuum/High Pressure; Safe vs High Radiation; Safe vs Intense
Heat/Cold; Immune to Degradation (such as rust); Immune to Aging
*This element is optional, and may only be taken in campaigns where Fuel
Dependence is assumed and not used as a special Disadvantage. (In this
case, there's also a unique option of creating a "negative Disadvantage,"
treated as a Talent, for Reduced Fuel Consumption.)
The reasoning here is the same as the reason "giant robots" don't get
arms for free just for being "giant robots": You Get What You Pay For.
Sure, I was talking a while ago about Everyvehicle Equipment, but these are
a bit much IMO.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:32:26 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 20
At 03:00 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin writes:
>> Your typical submarine cannot travel cross-country. Do all cars need to
>> buy this as an advantage or power, just because they can do something
>> another vehicle type can't?
>Nope. By default, a vehicle gets 6" of running for free. If a vehicle
cannot
>travel cross-country, it should buy its running down to 0 (and get 12 points
>back). However, most cars do need to buy more than base running.
You are correct, sir! :-] (Except HeroMaker also provides 2" of
Swimming for free. I try to not think about it too hard.)
>Incidentally, TUSV should list disadvantage values for such things as wheels
>and tracks, since those have lower crosscountry mobility than the default of
>legs.
These aren't Disadvantages; they're Limitations.
>> A basic Everyvehicle Skill is (or should be)
>> the ability to function in the environment for which it was clearly
>> designed.
>Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does that mean I
>get the ability to go anywhere for free?
Again, correct.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:35:47 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 13
At 06:06 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>This is distracting me from the points I really cared about, those directly
>concerned with my upcoming game. If the author of TUSV wants starships to
>have to buy Life Support, that's the way he's going to write the rules. I
>asked him what his thoughts were for justifiying it, and he hasn't time to
>respond yet. If I agree with his thinking, I'll use his rule as written.
>If not, I'll make a house rule to override it for my campaign.
This attitude, in my estimation, makes you one of the most intelligent
members of this Mailing List. :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:36:12 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> Joe Mucchiello writes:
> > Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this construct
> > come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
> >
> > Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
> > either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
> >
> > Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
> > allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
>
> Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable limitation -- the
> power clearly is _not_ always on.
Actually, this one makes sense; it's a nice, simple way to design a power
that can never be shut off except under very specific conditions (such as
paying END, or when the moon is full...)
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:37:41 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 14
At 06:45 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>Mind you, you'd also want to consider such things as carts and chariots
>(for Fantasy Hero) and jet packs and Battlesuits (specifically, how would
>you model a Robotech Cyclone? A motorcycle is clearly a Vehicle; but
>would the battlesuit be a vehicle as well, or a collection of powers with
>a -1/2 Limitation applied (be it Focus, Battlesuit, or whatever...)
In this case, the battlesuit form would be written as a Vehicle (though
there's certainly room to argue for writing it up with Battlesuit or Focus
Limitation, and creating a Multipower for "normal person with motorcycle").
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:40:31 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: Falling and the 5th Edition]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 17
At 01:15 PM 1/27/98, filkhero@usa.net wrote:
>daemon@omg.org wrote:
>> At 09:59 PM 1/26/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>> >Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be revamped in
>> >5th Ed?
>>
>> Rate of fall and terminal velocity are pretty close to real life (based
>> on the admittedly cursory research I've done). If you're thinking the
>> system of determining damage from falling should be revamped, though, I'd
>> say you have a good idea here.
>
>In the first second in Champions, you fall twice as far as you would in
real life. This a) causes people to reach the ground before they can be
caught, and b) causes people to reach the ground before they have enough
velocity to hurt themselves.
Well, I *did* admit that my research was weak and not thorough. :-]
>Somewhere on my machine I have my optional falling rules. Half of the
changes are to correct the falling distance vs. falling time and speed.
This actually increases the damage done by falling short distances
considerably, correcting the major problem with the falling rules. I added
some minor adjustments to damage for the rest.
>
>I sent it to Bruce Harlick, but he ignored them.
Post them here. I know I'd like to see them, and with Steve Long
lurking the list they just might get into 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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:49:42 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 15
At 06:18 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Dataweaver wrote:
>> Social Limitation
>>
>> Circumstances Occur Points
>>
>> Occasionally (8-) 5
>> Frequently (11-) 10
>> Very Frequently (14-) 15
>>
>> Effects of Limitation Points
>>
>> Inconvenient (but fairly safe) +0
>> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
>> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
>>
>> Punishment for Violation Points
>>
>> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
>> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
>> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
>
>So a society where minorities aren't allowed to visit certain locations,
>are forced to ride in the back of the busses, etc. and will be thrown in
>prison if they do not, being a minority is a 15 point Disad (11-,
>Inconvenient, Major reprecussions); if women are required to wear
>outlandish outfits to formal occasions or face ridicule by their peers,
>this would be a 5-point Disad (8-, Inconvenient, Minor reprecussions); if
>Death Hunter killed the president's son and is being blackmailed into
>performing critical missions for the government, this is a 35-point Disad
>(14-, Deadly, Severe). The typical Secret ID would be 11-, Inconvenient,
>Major (specifically, the danger to family and friends); and the typical
>Public ID would be 11-, Inconvenient, Minor ("always in the spotlight").
So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social Limitation?
Let's see....
An Ex-con (depending somewhat on the specific offense) cannot vote or
carry a firearm, and is subject to certain other restrictions. This occurs
Occasionally and is Inconvenient, but carries Major punishment for
violation, so being an Ex-Con is worth 10 points.
A Hot Celebrity (something more than just "Public ID") is recognized and
mobbed wherever he goes, and is hounded by the tabloid press. This occurs
Very Frequently, can be considered Dangerous (remember John Lennon and
Princess Diana), and has Minor repercussions (public embarassment) for
doing something wrong. Being a Hot Celebrity is worth 20 points.
Works for me.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: why@mail.superlink.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:53:24 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@mars.superlink.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
At 05:16 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Joe Mucchiello writes:
>
>> Yes, it does. It is "Always On", i.e. cannot be turned off. The only way
>> to turn it off is to change the VL to "Costs END". The GM has to rule
>> (outside the power construct) that when the character does not or cannot
>> pay the END that the VL must switch back to Always On, thus making the
>> character Desolid. How else can you do this construct?
>
>Trigger (turns on when character stops paying END).
But that doesn't turn it off when the character starts paying END.
Variable Limitation does. You might argue that the Trigger is necessary
even with the variable limitation. But, I don't think you can get around
the VL. Also,
this text in trigger does not work with the effect (BBB p98 Para.3):
The character pays END for the Trigger when he sets it up. A power
with a Trigger can usually be spotted with a PER Roll, unless the
power is bought with the Power Advantage Invisible Power Effects....
Trigger is inappropriate for this construct. If you can accept ignoring
that paragraph in Trigger, that you can ignore the "Always" in Always On,
IMHO.
Joe
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:53:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
> > Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
> > either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
> >
> > Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
> > allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
>
> Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable limitation -- the
> power clearly is _not_ always on.
that's why it's worth less points. By your arguement, Costs End
doesn't make sense either, as I can use the power without spending END.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:55:25 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
> > Yes, it does. It is "Always On", i.e. cannot be turned off. The only way
> > to turn it off is to change the VL to "Costs END". The GM has to rule
> > (outside the power construct) that when the character does not or cannot
> > pay the END that the VL must switch back to Always On, thus making the
> > character Desolid. How else can you do this construct?
>
> Trigger (turns on when character stops paying END).
Nah. All I have to do is not set my trigger to not have it turn
back on. Therefore, I spend END to turn it off, don't set my trigger, and
am not at all in any problems.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: jrc@pop1.nai.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:56:37 -0500
From: "Joe Claffey Jr." <jrc@mail1.nai.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> writes,
>>>>>> "MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net> writes:
>
>> Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>
>MS> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
>MS> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't
>MS> automatically allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
>
>Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the Abort
>element. Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver. But this is
>an offensive maneuver -- "Target Falls" is for the Strike maneuver base.
TUMA changed the rules on the Throw element. Unless a Throw is based on a
Strike, it does no damage.
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
jrc@ct1.nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:59:05 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 25
At 02:30 PM 1/27/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> Not all Transformations use a "resonably common or obvious way of
>BG> breaking it" (or, to use the book's wording, "some identifiable way"
>BG> for an "All-or-Nothing retransformation"). [...]
>
>But it is not a one or the other deal; *both* means are supposed to apply
>to any Transformation Attack. The "or" in the description, like every
>other use of or in Power descriptions, is not an exclusive (logical) or.
>It is a grammatical or, which is really a conditional "and".
Look again at the actual sentence: "The character may define one of two
ways for the character to regain his normal form." (This is somewhat
poorly written; it should probably read, "The character with the Transform
may define one of two ways for the target to regain its normal form." But
that doesn't affect the important part of the sentence.)
Note again that it says, "*one* of *two* ways." This means either this
one, or that one; either healing or All-or-Nothing retransformation. (As a
minor point, I notice that the two paragraphs that address recovering from
Transform do not once use the word, "or.")
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 20:00:54 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
> > Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>
> MS> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are clearly marked
> MS> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't
> MS> automatically allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
>
> Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the Abort
> element. Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver. But this is
Actually, it gets the Abort element for free. However, as it can
be mixed with non-exclusive bases that can be considered offensive, it
looses the free abort.
The block is also far from useless, it just will require being
declared by its player on his phase, or used with a held phase. Not as
useful as a regular block, sure.
> an offensive maneuver -- "Target Falls" is for the Strike maneuver base.
Nope. Target Falls is with the Throw Non-Exclusive maneuver base.
It can go with _anything_. Most go with strikes so that they can cause
some actual damage, but it is possible to mix with, say, grab, bind, or
disarm.
> At this point I have to wonder if "Block, Target Falls" is a typographical
> error, that it should read "Throw, Target Falls". If so, then the maneuver
> is legit, and I owe Steve Long an apology.
You owe him one anyway. The "Throw" element is usually simply
represented with the words, "Target Falls". "Throw, Target Falls" is
redundant. This would (kinda) represent the pre-4th edition throw which
could stop incoming attacks. However, it is now unable to be aborted to
as well as having no damage potential.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:08:44 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 24
At 11:07 AM 1/27/98 -0800, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>Bob wrote:
> However, one new rule I'm putting in (and which has gotten good
> feedback so far) is that Life Support for those on board is not
> the same as Life Support for the vehicle! I space vehicle would
> have to buy Life Support vs breathing, heat/cold, and vacuum for
> itself in addition to the same for its occupants.
>
>Bob? Aren't you going a little too far on this one? Why would a spaceship
>have to buy those Life Supports for the ship itself? The ship is simply a
>huge hunk of metal/plastic/biotech/etc, and except in rare circumstances,
>not alive.(I know, this is dependent on SFX, but it's a good generalization)
>
>What advantages does the ship itself get for purchasing these systems for
>itself, rather than to protect its crew?
Well, someone else already gave a lot of the logic, and I've posted my
Vehicular Life Support table, so I think you should get a pretty good idea
from those what my answer is here.
>I hate to say this, Bob, but it seems to me from some of the stuff you have
>posted here that you may be overcomplicating the vehicle construction rules.
>Yes, we do need a new set, and yes, it should be more comprehensive than the
>one we have now. But it seems that the way you are heading with these rules,
>I will have to pay twice what I had paid before, just because of all of the
>"necessary systems" in my vehicle now cost points, whereas they were
>previously just special effects.
Not much has to be paid for twice. In fact, Life Support is about it.
If the Vehicle has Power Defense, for instance, it affects both the Vehicle
and its occupants (unless it takes a -1/2 Limitation to affect only one or
the other).
>List these as optional rules, if you like, but don't make it integral to your
>new rules to have to pay for this stuff individually.
Well, anything in any Ultimate Book should be treated like broccoli. If
you don't like it, don't eat it (unless your parents are watching). :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:10:17 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 22
At 11:37 AM 1/27/98 -0800, Richard G Schwerdtfeger wrote:
>Anthony wrote:
> Your average car will not do well in a vacuum, nor will it run very
well at
> extremely high or low temperatures, nor will it run without air. Thus, a
> spaceship probably needs these advantages. If the spaceship doesn't
require
> fuel, it also needs 'LS: need not eat'.
>
>And in some Sci-fi, big spaceships can't enter atmosphere. But some can...so
>do they require LS:atmosphere, or do the the others get a disadd, or can you
>just chalk it all up to Special Effects?
>
>Guess which my preference would be? ;)
My guess is that you'd go with SFX. That's your prerogative. If I was
a player in your game with that rule in force, I'd go with it.
Officially, though, LS: Self-Contained Ventilation is required for space
travel, and Physical Limitation: Cannot Enter Atmosphere is used to keep
vessels there. (At least, in the current draft.)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:14:01 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 21
At 01:22 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>Hand-To-Hand Martial Arts Maneuvers
>Maneuver Damage/Effect
>Ballestra STR +4d6; Half Move Required
Just for the record, and along a different line of discussion, I'd like
to see the entire Martial Arts maneuvers table duplicated in Hero5, except
for the one above and the one under controversy.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:01:46 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 16
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 3:01 PM, Michael (Damon) or Peni R.
Griffin wrote:
>>Nope. By default, a vehicle gets 6" of running for free. If a
vehicle
>cannot
>>travel cross-country, it should buy its running down to 0 (and get
12 points
>>back). However, most cars do need to buy more than base running.
>
>We weren't discussing *how* a car moves cross-country (Running), nor
how
>*fast* it can do so (6" or whatever), just the fact that it is
assumed to
>be able to operate as a land-based vehicle because that's what is was
>designed for. It doesn't have to pay any points for being able to
operate
>out of water, as a submarine, boat, or jetski would have to if it
wanted to
>be a kind of super-ATV.
I have no problems with making the default 6" Movement, Movement to be
defined when the vehicle is purchased.
>>Incidentally, TUSV should list disadvantage values for such things
as wheels
>>and tracks, since those have lower crosscountry mobility than the
default of
>>legs.
>
>Okay, then I want a Physical Limitation for my human characters, who
have
>to take longer overland routes, their lack of wings keeping them from
>traveling "as the crow flies". Don't be absurd. Tracks, maybe. But
not
>wheels.
Then you are in favor of creating a new Advantage or Power for
vehicles that have legs? Or were you planning on giving all vehicles
with legs the ability to travel where other vehicles can't for free?
>>Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does
that mean I
>>get the ability to go anywhere for free?
>
>No. You would have to demonstrate that the design of the vehicle
clearly
>enabled it to function in every conceivable environment, by virtue of
>clearly being designed with all those environments in mind. Frankly,
I
>don't know how you'd be able to show that. A car is designed for
overland
>travel, and should not have to pay points for special powers related
to the
>environment it's in, unless it enters an "unfriendly" environment, or
one
>for which it is clearly unequipped.
>
>Humans have lungs, fish have gills. Humans don't have to pay points
to
>breathe in the air, but a fish would have to do so, because it's not
>designed for that environment. No character should have to pay
points for
>the mere ability to breathe air, move, pick things up, etc., but only
for
>the speed, strength, agility, etc., with which he does those basic
things.
>(Fish *do* have to pay for Life Support to breathe underwater, so I'm
aware
>this argument has an inherent weakness.)
Unfortunately, I consider that 'inherent weakness' to be the key to
this entire discussion.
>It may be reasonable to base all PC characters on a generic human
template,
>but I don't think it's equally reasonable to base all vehicles,
regardless
>of purpose, design, construction, tech level or environment, on a
Dodge
>minivan.
Why not? What do you base it upon, if not a basic car? The only other
thing I can think of to base it upon would be a character, treating
vehicles as a form of Follower.
If you base it upon a Lunar Rover, then all cars, everywhere, have a
Physical Limitation based upon their inability to survive in vacuum
and without oxygen. If you base it upon submarines, then all cars have
Phys. Lims that explain why they cannot drive in water.
You state that a vehicle should not have to buy special features like
Life Support in order to operate in their "natural environment". Why
not? Fish (as you admitted) do, as would a character who was a form of
vacuum living creature. Why should vehicles get their default
environment for free? Additionally, even if they do, the Lunar Rover
would still have to pay points to drive in air.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 21:14:38 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
> >Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the Abort
> >element. Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver. But this is
> >an offensive maneuver -- "Target Falls" is for the Strike maneuver base.
>
> TUMA changed the rules on the Throw element. Unless a Throw is based on a
> Strike, it does no damage.
Actually, even in NH it was this way. A throw is a (say it with
me) non-exclusive maneuver base that is generall mixed with an exclusive
maneuver base. In most cases, Strike -- but not in all cases.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:33:05 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 12
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 3:14 PM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>
>> Filksinger writes:
>> > Anyone besides me think that the falling rules need to be
revamped in
>> > 5th Ed?
>>
>> All the velocity damage rules could do with a reworking (noncombat
movebys are
>> a bit of a problem too).
>
>The falling speeds are fine as is; treat damage from impact with the
>ground as a Move-through, and rework move-bys and move-throughs to
make
>sense.
>
The falling speeds are fine, the falling _distances_ are wrong.
Unfortunately, all methods for improving move-bys and move-throughs
reduce the lethality of falls even more than the present system. Since
the present system is a classic Murphy's Rules joke, I don't think
making it worse is a good thing.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:39:39 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 19
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 3:18 PM, Richard G Schwerdtferger wrote:
>>> A basic Everyvehicle Skill is (or should be)
>>> the ability to function in the environment for which it was
clearly
>>> designed.
>>Just because the concept of my vehicle says 'goes anywhere', does
that mean I
>>get the ability to go anywhere for free?
>
>Sure. As long as you buy an ability to get you there, like flight or
Teleport
>or swinging etc. Take a James Bond car which can both travel
underwater and
>fly through the air as an example. As long as it has flight and
swimming, it
>can go anywhere it wants to. Having a pressurized driver's
compartment is
>another question: it should have both LS: self-contained breathing
and
>LS:vacuum/high pressure to allow the driver to survive.
So, do all motorboats take a Phys. Lim. because they can't swim
underwater?
I can swim underwater, but I do not get to breathe underwater for
free. A motorboat has swimming, but cannot operate underwater for
free. A car can drive into the water, but cannot drive across the
bottom of the lake for free.
I do not want vehicle rules where the default is such that cars and
motorboats have to take Disadvantages, but other vehicles get to
operate underwater for free. Robots don't get "LS: Need not breathe"
for free, so why should a Lunar Rover?
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:42:26 -0800
From: Redraven <wingers@home.com>
Organization: Redraven Productions
Subject: Unsubscribe
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
--
Redraven Productions
Http://members.home.net/wingers/redraven.htm
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:48:03 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 4:13 PM, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Joe Mucchiello writes:
> > Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this
construct
>> come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
>>
>> Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always
be
>> either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
>>
>> Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM
not
>> allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
>
>Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable
limitation -- the
>power clearly is _not_ always on.
If it were "Must always be either Not at night (-1/2) or Costs END
(-1/2)" then the power would clearly work at night.
That is the entire purpose of Variable Limitation. A Limitation limits
less than it should, because sometimes it doesn't apply-- another
Limitation does. That's what Variable Limitation _always_ does.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:55:47 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 23
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 5:07 PM, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> > Defensive Throw Block, Target Falls
>>
>> MS> Except, this one doesn't say "Abort", all the others are
clearly marked
>> MS> "Abort" as one of the elements. The Block element doesn't
>> MS> automatically allow you to Abort (at least, not in this case).
>>
>> Except that the "Block" maneuver base automatically includes the
Abort
>> element. Otherwise Block is useless as a defensive maneuver. But
this is
>
> Actually, it gets the Abort element for free. However, as it can
>be mixed with non-exclusive bases that can be considered offensive,
it
>looses the free abort.
Actually, there is nothing in the Martial Arts rules that I can find
that indicates that you cannot throw someone to the ground during an
abort. You simply cannot do damage.
I did mistate myself, however, when I said that Abort is not a part of
Block by default. My bad.:(
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:37:10 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 26
> >Hand-To-Hand Martial Arts Maneuvers
> >Maneuver Damage/Effect
> >Ballestra STR +4d6; Half Move Required
>
> Just for the record, and along a different line of discussion, I'd like
> to see the entire Martial Arts maneuvers table duplicated in Hero5, except
> for the one above and the one under controversy.
O.K, now what's wrong with the above?
And I want to keep our controversial Defensive Throw, mostly as it
fits an effect and is perfectly legal with both NH and TUMA.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Remnant" <easleyap@mobis.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:04:31 -0600
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 28
G>Damage Reduction applies to the "Body or Stun" of an attack. Does this
G>mean that you have to buy Physical Damage Reduction twice, once for the
G>Body damage, once for the Stun damage? Of course not. Hero uses a
G>grammatical "or" because not all attacks will do both Body and Stun
damage.
G>Saying, "Body and Stun of an attack," would be grammatically incorrect.
You are misquoting the book again. The sentence that uses the phrase 'BODY
or STUN' is referring to the owner of the power's characteristics not the
attack's damage. The sentence says that ";only part of any damage that gets
through their defenses is applied against their STUN or BODY." Note that it
refers to 'ANY damage', and THEIR STUN or BODY.' Or has to be used because
no single type of damage could be applied to both and since it can't be
both, which would allow an 'and' it has to be 'or' which allows one or the
other but not both. Which is what exclusive means. I don't know whether or
not it is possible to use 'or' in a simple sentence and make it be
inclusive.
G>The thing to remember is that a logical or is exclusive, a grammatical or
G>is inclusive.
A logical 'or' is either exclusive or inclusive depending on whether it is
exclusive 'XOR' or inclusive 'OR'. If all grammatical 'ORs' were inclusive
as you insist then the sentence "Johnny is dead or playing." would mean that
Johnny is both dead and playing. That is just plain silly. It means that
he is either dead or playing but not both. That my acquaintance is
exclusive by definition of the word 'exclusive.' The sentence "Take the
Buick or the Hummer. Doesn't mean take them both. It means one or the
other but NOT both, exclusive.
>R> Secondly, the BBB doesn't use the term "or" dealing with the "cures" for
>R> Transform. Quote: "The character may define one of two ways for the
>R> character to regain his normal form."
>
G>Of course, I can pick the grammar of this apart, too. To whom does the
G>first reference to "the character" point? The character with the attack,
G>really the player? The second reference to "the character" is clearly the
G>target, but the first is ambiguous if you start stripping context.
By stripping context I assume you mean where later on it refers to 'the
character with the Transform to define' part. Which makes it clear which
character gets to define the cures. Ambiguity removed.
G>And there is the word "may". "May" indicates a choice, and this statement
G>can be interpreted to show two choices: whether or not to chose a reversal
G>condition, and which of the two reversal conditions to define if reversal
G>conditions are chosen. If one replaces "may" with "must", which I think
G>was the intent, the ambiguity goes away. Of course, this means I am
G>utterly wrong, but it wouldn't be the frist time. :)
You are correct about 'may' adding a bit of ambiguity to the sentence,
however, the 'one of two' part removes the ambiguity over how many cures are
to be taken. 'You may choose one of the three doors in front of your.' Can
be construed to mean you don't have to choose a door at all, but would have
to be misconstrued to mean you can choose more than one. The sentence I
mentioned earlier removes the other ambiguity. So now we have no more
ambiguity.
G>But regardless of how you interpret that statement, I still stand by my
G>statement that Cumulative's inconsistent applicability is unbalancing.
G>Cumulative on anything other than Transformation is much more effective
for
G>the price.
Never argued about that one way or the other. Since you brought it up,
however, I don't see 'Cumulative' as being any more or less unbalancing on
Transform than any other all-or-nothing power. I really don't think that
the Transform power with Cumulative is really all that balanced if the first
place.
Transform +1/2 Cumulative, Change character into inanimate glass is only
22.5 points per die, and this power goes against Power Defense. A Killing
Attack that works against Power Defense is 37.5 points per die. They are bo
th about as effective as each other.
To finish I both agree and disagree with you. I won't argue that Cumulative
used on Mind Control isn't unbalancing, just that it isn't any more
unbalancing than it is when used on Transform.
Alan
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: voxel@mail.theramp.net
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 01:15:08 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:11 AM 1/28/98 -0500, Dave Mattingly wrote:
>I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
>Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
>a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
>Latin class.
English is a Germanic language that borrowed an extensive (Norman) French
vocabulary, then haphazardly instituted a Latin grammar in the days when
Latin was THE intellectual language (which is where we get silly rules like
"you can't split an infinitive" -- in Romance languages, infinitives are one
word, so of COURSE you can't split them). For the whole fascinating story
(and a lot of side treks into other linguistic quirks), I recommend reading
THE MOTHER TONGUE by Bill Bryson. Great book.
Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING, though
at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing words, it
might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
EVERY modern language. :]
--
"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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:21:24 -0800
From: Rook <rook@infinex.com>
Organization: Sujin & Brian
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by sanfran.infinex.com id XAA24774
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 29
> >> Social Limitation
> >>
> >> Circumstances Occur Points
> >>
> >> Occasionally (8-) 5
> >> Frequently (11-) 10
> >> Very Frequently (14-) 15
> >>
> >> Effects of Limitation Points
> >>
> >> Inconvenient (but fairly safe) +0
> >> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
> >> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
> >>
> >> Punishment for Violation Points
> >>
> >> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
> >> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
> >> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
> So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social Limitation?
> Let's see....
> Works for me.
Only remove the 8-, 11-, 14- from the frequency's, and just list the
frequencies.
Then add one more frequency: Always at 20.
--
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Len Carpenter" <redlion@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 03:24:27 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 30
Since Filksinger brought up the subject of falling damage, I decided to take
another look at my falling damage table, originally posted to this list a
couple of months back.
Here are some sample numbers for the time of fall, distance fallen, velocity
of falling body, kinetic energy of 100 kg body falling at a given velocity,
and damage dice. The damage dice figures for a given velocity agree fairly
well with the vehicle damage table from the old Champions II supplement.
These distance and velocity figures for a fall of a given time aren't truly
accurate, since air resistance is treated as negligible up until the time
terminal velocity is reached. Because of air resistance, velocity doesn't
increase as fast this table suggests, and it takes longer to reach terminal
velocity, as well.
Terminal Velocity for a falling human typically ranges from 50 m/sec to 70
m/sec for a skydive, depending on the height of the fall and the way the body
falls. Terminal velocity becomes greater with falls from higher elevations.
A skydiver would have to fall from a height of several miles to reach a 70
m/sec velocity. A skydiver also takes from 12 to 14 seconds to reach
terminal velocity. For example, a real skydiver falling from about 700
meters doesn't reach his terminal velocity (about 55 m/sec) until he has
fallen for about 12 seconds, or 450 meters.
Time Distance Velocity Kinetic Energy Damage Dice
(seconds) (meters) (m/sec) (joules)
0.5 1 5 1,200 5d6
1.0 5 10 5,000 7d6
1.5 10 15 10,000 8d6
2.0 20 20 20,000 9d6
2.5 30 25 30,000 10d6
3.0 45 30 45,000 10d6
3.5 60 35 60,000 11d6
4.0 80 40 75,000 11d6
4.5 100 45 100,000 12d6
5.0 125 50 120,000 12d6
6.0 180 60 180,000 13d6
7.0 250 70 240,000 13d6
These damage figures for high falls, unfortunately, don't mean so much to
characters with decent defenses and BODY. Even a healthy normal stands a
chance of walking away. In the real world, falls of more than six stories
onto a hard surface are generally not considered survivable.
On the topic of armor, most forms of real-world, weapon-stopping armor
shouldn't help much in a high fall. Such armor could prove even more
injurious, say if a piece of a knight's suit of plate armor gets driven into
his body on impact.
Like Filksinger, I considered dividing up the damage of a fall into
locations. The position of the body at the moment of impact is crucial in
understanding the injuries suffered. My notion was that rather than treat
falling damage as general, use the Hit Location table and treat the fall as
specific damage to particular body areas, dividing the damage energy among
two or three or four body areas. Instead of suffering 100 kJ or 12d6 general
damage, the skydiver suffers 50 kJ or 11d6 damage to two separate locations,
or even 25 kJ or 10d6 damage to four separate areas, and apply the Impairing
and Disabling rules. Yes, the fallen hero survives, but now he has two
shattered legs, broken ribs with internal bleeding, and a left arm so twisted
it would make Gumby gag. Dividing up damage energy into locations could also
work with other sorts of collisions, as Filksinger suggested.
A character lucky enough to land on a mass that can deform with the fall,
such as a haystack or deep snow, will obviously suffer less damage. Even a
fall onto bare earth is better than one onto concrete, which has very little
capacity to "give" under the force of the falling body. Contrary to popular
belief, water also has little "give" where high falls are concerned.
Another curious fact of falling is that small animals often survive falls
much better than large ones do. A mouse has a better chance of surviving a
high fall that a horse, even though the horse has a much higher BODY stat.
To get really realistic, subtract dice of falling damage for characters or
creatures with levels of Shrinking, and add dice of damage for characters
with Growth.
Len Carpenter
redlion@early.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 01:21:45 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 31
On Tuesday, January 27, 1998 11:40 PM, Len Carpenter wrote:
>
>Since Filksinger brought up the subject of falling damage, I decided
to take
>another look at my falling damage table, originally posted to this
list a
>couple of months back.
<snip>
>Another curious fact of falling is that small animals often survive
falls
>much better than large ones do. A mouse has a better chance of
surviving a
>high fall that a horse, even though the horse has a much higher BODY
stat.
>To get really realistic, subtract dice of falling damage for
characters or
>creatures with levels of Shrinking, and add dice of damage for
characters
>with Growth.
>
The reason that smaller creatures survive when larger one's don't is
because of the inverse square law. In Champions, people with Shrinking
are even stronger for their size than the inverse square law suggests,
and realistically should, if they have more than one level, take
virtually no damage, since they are more durable than the small
creatures that are the same size as them, but have the kinetic energy
of one of these smaller creatures. Additionally, the power Growth
automatically compensates for the inverse square law, and thus
strength in relation to mass remains constant, unlike with the horse
and other real-world large creatures, and therefore characters with
Growth in Champions should not take extra damage.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 03:35:52 -0800
From: Rook <rook@infinex.com>
Organization: Sujin & Brian
Subject: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 32
Hello;
Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
I can only comment on the languages I'm familiar with, so I've made the
following mods so
far:
Korean and Mandarin have 2 points similarity
Korean and Japanese have 1 points similarity
(this stems from the fact that Korean uses Japanese Grammer and 60% of
Korean vocab is
borrowed from Chinese with a little modification)
Tagalog and Spanish have 4 points similarity
(speakers of one or the other can communicate with each other with only
a few stumbling points)
Any other corrections people have made based on languages they may
have knowledge of?
--
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:41:04
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "S" == SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com> writes:
>
> S> [...]
> S> I hope that clears things up.
>
> Okay, I think I see the logic behind it, a "throw" that blocks an incoming
> attack and knocks the opponent down. And it becomes a mechanically legal
> maneuver with the loss of Abort.
>
> But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
> do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
> opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
> the ground.
It was the first move I was ever taught in Aikido. Actually, it was the only one, as my bad knees, recently operated upon, made Aikido all but impossible.
> Whatever, maybe that's just me.
The Aikido move is a strange one, that's true. It not only blocks, but it guides your opponent into a roll as it throws him. Even if he doesn't know how to roll, he generally will not be hurt. If he fights it too hard, he could hurt himself; however, this usually won't happen.
However, while Aikido discourages any attacks which do harm, only minor variations will turn this into a damaging attack.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:50:34
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Leah wrote:
> >> F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but
> >acceptable
> >> F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one
> >valid
> >> F> and the other not.
>
> Actually, cumulative Mind Control sounds like a good construction for a
> Horror Hero villian to use:
<snip>
>
> I don't run mentalists very often, so there may be holes in this attack
> description.
That's a pretty good way for it to work. Of course, if the hero gets new Ego rolls with each attack, it is almost certain to fail. This idea needs more work.
However, I have long considered it to be a much better way to simulate Mental powers in super mage games than the one in Mystic Masters. The one they used was a massive all or nothing, while anyone who reads comics knows it is more like this:
"Submit"
"NO!"
"You cannot resist."
"No! I will never submit."
"It is inevitable."
"No...."
"I win."
"Yes, master."
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:26:54 EST
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 33
In a message dated 98-01-27 16:31:16 EST, you write:
<< At this point I have to wonder if "Block, Target Falls" is a typographical
error, that it should read "Throw, Target Falls". If so, then the maneuver
is legit, and I owe Steve Long an apology. >>
Well, regardless of whether any apologies are owed by anyone to anyone else
-- certainly I don't think apologies are needed for expressing an opinion,
provided it's expressed *politely* -- the maneuver in question is in fact
supposed to be, "Block, Target Falls." The confusion here may be that in the
first printing of UMA is was listed as, "Block, Target Falls, STR Strike."
Obviously a manuever cannot both Block and Strike, since each is an Exclusive
Basis. I'm not sure how or where this error crept in, but it was edited out
of the HERO PLUS version of the book (or was supposed to have been), and
possibly later printings of the book as well.
As noted under "Throw" (UMA, p. 116), Throw maneuvers (those with, among
others, "Target Falls") have to be bought at STR Strikes to do damage. If not
bought as a STR Strike, the Throw does no damage, it just puts someone on the
ground.
Further confusion results from fact that the "Abort" aspect of Block is
poorly explained, and that's definitely my fault (mea culpa). Abort is an
"option" for Block, as the text notes, meaning that not all Blocks necessarily
have to be Abort-able (though they automatically get Abort for free if they so
choose). Of the Blocks listed in the HTH maneuvers chart (UMA, p. 9), every
single Block specifically notes that it's Abort-able -- except one, the
Defensive Block, meaning that you can't Abort to it. Even though the maneuver
technically does no damage, I'm not comfortable with someone Aborting to it,
since the Throw can result in a tactical advantage. In fact, UMA p. 110
specifically states you can't Abort to a Throw-based maneuver. But you can't
Abort to a Defensive Throw, so it's not a problem here.
Therefore, unlike the Rat, I see no problem with this maneuver from a rules
point of view. The only problem is that it wasn't well-explained, which is my
fault, and for which I apologize.
I hope that clears things up.
Steve Long
P.S.: On the Riposte issue, for those of you who'd like to have one in a
martial arts package or style, I'd suggest using the Counterstrike maneuver
from UMA.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:50:29
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Tim Gilberg wrote:
<snip>
> >But you can't
> > Abort to a Defensive Throw, so it's not a problem here.
>
> I've thought about allowing it to be aborted to. It doesn't seem
> to be that unbalancing. Any opinions?
Well, from a real world point of view, the Aikido version that I learned is more complex than many straight attack maneuvers I have learned before and since. If I am so prepared that I could do that maneuver, I could certainly do a stop strike, for example. Thus, I don't think it deserves an "Abort".
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:01:13
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
> F> The Aikido move is a strange one, that's true. It not only blocks, but
> F> it guides your opponent into a roll as it throws him. Even if he doesn't
> F> know how to roll, he generally will not be hurt. If he fights it too
> F> hard, he could hurt himself; however, this usually won't happen.
>
> It is not strange at all; it only seems that way because you are not
> looking at the right game mechanics.
I wasn't talking about the game mechanics. I was talking about the real world mechanics of a throw designed to not so much as knock the wind out of you. While this is normal for Aikido, it seems strange when compared to other arts.
<snip>
>
> F> However, while Aikido discourages any attacks which do harm, only minor
> F> variations will turn this into a damaging attack.
>
> You got it backwards: the Aikijutsu technique is the one that was modified
> into one that is less harmful.
1) While not the usual usage, it is perfectly acceptable to state that two things are variations of each other, regardless of which one was first.
2) If I didn't know anything about Aikijutsu, I could still modify the Aikido throw into a damaging one. If anything, it is easier to damage someone than to do it right. Its origins have little to do with it.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Dave Mattingly <DaveM@FocusSoft.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:11:10 -0500
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 34
Rook asks:
>Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
Latin class.
Dave Mattingly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: shelley@mail.mactyre.net
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 06:59:14 -0800
From: Shelley Chrystal Mactyre <scm@mactyre.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
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
At 09:11 AM 1/28/98 -0500, Dave Mattingly wrote:
>Rook asks:
>>Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
>I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
>Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
>a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
>Latin class.
No, English and German are both Germanic languages; you can really see the
similarities when you look at middle English and German.
Shelley Chrystal Mactyre
http://www.mactyre.net
A flung stone has always been a fool's favorite means of putting himself on
a level with the wise.
-- Edgar Pangborn
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@cmi.csc.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 9:19:20 CST
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
> Rook asks:
> >Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
> I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
> Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
> a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
> Latin class.
No. English is "peasant-spoken Anglo-Saxon translated by a wheezing
toothless old Norman into French, with a dab of High Mass Latin spread
across it to impress visitors when they arrive in the land of dogs and
bogs...".
A quote from my college Medieval professor... any derivations are my
bad memory.
DonM.
--
=========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist dmckinne@cmi.csc.com =
= International Telecommunications Data Systems (217) 239-8365 =
= 2109 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL (217) 351-8250 =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998 =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org (217) 469-9917 =
=========================================================================
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:29:22 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 03:35 AM 1/28/98 -0800, Rook wrote:
>Hello;
>
> Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
>I can only comment on the languages I'm familiar with, so I've made the
>following mods so
>far:
>
> Korean and Mandarin have 2 points similarity
> Korean and Japanese have 1 points similarity
>(this stems from the fact that Korean uses Japanese Grammer and 60% of
>Korean vocab is borrowed from Chinese with a little modification)
>
> Tagalog and Spanish have 4 points similarity
>(speakers of one or the other can communicate with each other with only
>a few stumbling points)
>
> Any other corrections people have made based on languages they may
>have knowledge of?
A friend of mine who spent about half of her childhood in Italy (her
father is a missionary there) tells me that she can understand Spanish
speakers, and vice versa, a little better than half the time. That
suggests 3 points of Similarity between the two (though I don't know how
that affects the other languages w/3 points sim with those two languages).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:33:48 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:11 AM 1/28/98 -0500, Dave Mattingly wrote:
>Rook asks:
>>Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
>I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
>Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
>a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
>Latin class.
More words are borrowed directly from Latin, but about 60% of your
vocabulary (a Roll of 11-) has a close counterpart in German.
I do wonder, though, that English doesn't have a 2-pointer with Greek;
nearly as much is borrowed from Greek as from Latin.
On a different note, what do people think of the idea of having
languages whose origins were on different planets (that is, alien
languages) having -1 point of similarity to represent how the physical
lingual facilities (larynx, mouth, and such) are formed differently? Even
a -2 if the basis of language is quite different, like color flashing for
chamelonlike or light-based races.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:35:57
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: It's hard to be solid]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Darien Phoenix Lynx wrote:
<snip>
> So far, I've heard:
>
> 1. Some form of persistent+trigger(KO/no END)
> 2. Variable limitation between always on and costs END
> 3. Simply calling it -1/4 because it's less limiting than Always on
> 4. Buying off the limitation "Always on," applying the limitation "Costs
> END"
> 5. Making it a +-0 limitation, akin to stun only, universal/personal
> focus, or other mods that have advantages and disadvantages that seem
> to cancel out
> 6. Buying a Supress against your own Desolid (only on self), which
> naturally costs END
> 7. Tweak the Spirit Rules (don't have them, unfortunately) to try to model
> this situation
>
> However, I still can't decide on which is best! For one thing, I want to
> make the "Costs END" extra limiting (x 4 END). So far, I lean to #4
> because it handles this relatively cleanly and doesn't seem as harsh as
> having to pay points to suppress your own Desolid. I'm concerned about the
> validity in HERO of such an approach, though. Is buying off limitations
> with limitations an open door to abuse?
It was allowed under 3rd Ed, if you go by characters printed in the Enemies books. However, it was never spelled out, and is not mentioned anywhere in 4th Ed.
Some people consider it to have been replaced with Variable Limitation, but that only works if the Limitations desired are equal.
Frankly, I cannot see anything abusive about #4. Variable Limitation, when applicable, would save more points, so it isn't point abusive. It is slightly more expensive.
<snip>
> Someone compared the "It's hard to be solid" effect with Cyclops' energy
> blasts, an excellent parallel. In his campaign, he recalls a similar
> construction, with the "Always on" of Cyke's EB bought off, with the
> limitation "OIF ruby glasses/goggles."
>
> Further thoughts?
Personally, I'd allow it. It supplies needed functionality to the Hero System, isn't points abusive, and isn't any more abusive than Variable Limitation in other ways, as far as I can tell.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:38:05 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 07:39 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>So, do all motorboats take a Phys. Lim. because they can't swim
>underwater?
No; they take a -1 Limitation to Swimming (HSR page 85).
>I can swim underwater, but I do not get to breathe underwater for
>free. A motorboat has swimming, but cannot operate underwater for
>free. A car can drive into the water, but cannot drive across the
>bottom of the lake for free.
Actually, a car theoretically *could* drive across the bottom of the
lake if it had the appropriate Life Support. (But then again, that's not
quite free.)
>I do not want vehicle rules where the default is such that cars and
>motorboats have to take Disadvantages, but other vehicles get to
>operate underwater for free. Robots don't get "LS: Need not breathe"
>for free, so why should a Lunar Rover?
That's kinda my thought as well. Given the default 6" Ground Movement,
2 DEF that does protect passengers, and human size, I think we can assume
that the "default Vehicle" is something like a recumbent scooter (like a
photon torpedo shell from Star Trek: TNG, but with wheels).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:39:29 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:21 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Rook wrote:
>> So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social Limitation?
>> Let's see....
>> Works for me.
>
> Only remove the 8-, 11-, 14- from the frequency's, and just list the
>frequencies.
>Then add one more frequency: Always at 20.
Only if we get the frequency extensions I've suggested for DNPC and
Hunter.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:04:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Subject: RE: Question about object weight vs Damage
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I'm taking this back to the list to get some other responses.
> Why would he only do 10d6 ?? Wouldn't there be extra dice of damage for
> the weight of the piano ?? By "if the def and Bod of the piano combined
> is less than 10" are you saying that the damage dice rolled would be
> equal to the DEF + BODY of the object thrown if DEF + BODY < STRd6 ?
> That I can see, but what if the piano had DEF 10 BODY 10 (okay, it's a
> titanium piano) ??? That would be 10d6 for STR + ??d6 for the piano ?
> Your help would be greatly appreciated.
It's 10D6, plain and simple. Throwing an object only allows one
to do one's STR damage. It's a way of getting free range on your attack.
However, it is *limited* by the object being thrown. Throwing a def 2,
bod 1 piece of wood would result in only 3D6 of damage. Throwing a, say,
4 DEF, 8 BOD piano would do 10D6 for a STR 50 character, 8D6 for a STR 40
character, and 12D6 for a 60 STR character. A 80 STR character would also
do 12D6, instead of his STR damage of 16D6, as the piano would shatter
from the impact, being unable to do any more than its potential in damage.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Cc: SteveL1979@aol.com
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:11:43 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "S" == SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com> writes:
S> [...]
S> I hope that clears things up.
Okay, I think I see the logic behind it, a "throw" that blocks an incoming
attack and knocks the opponent down. And it becomes a mechanically legal
maneuver with the loss of Abort.
But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
the ground.
Whatever, maybe that's just me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9YvZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGI5AQAhNFi5aenMYYwGn2SeGzUEu4cgAXWHial
3rbJQmHAA5V7bi9QH67Y8fyLXaQMgWautqTG2T5amYkYxTWjvDMXZ/xl8EUJXmb7
4DQAFkRr/PEVzPYOmbGKNn2i+R1PKB8fnfsgFysM8+jxgCgdPb5QnGR/fYW8sQfe
7qBwF2xEUqs=
=8Wxq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:18:14 -0500
Lines: 26
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
D> opponent's trait?
Generally speaking, adjustment powers affect active points. When the
target runs out of active points, there is nothing more to affect.
Additional effect from the power will do nothing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9aQp6VRH7BJMxHAQHA1gQAuYeaiiJWpN4gSd4N1/ClQgLZVw2FQRbW
TvPNzT3gfUwDVe/DZuWMeAFt7Rxw7lq/L0iKcdr3uaWxJHlkAlhZtSxwli8ljXa6
TToQIUUGYZVzPy3hLaaeLRu3JA6tSQXWybyehsATUQnkT++lGU3qIJqiD07MzcKP
4K15/fd08kk=
=TpnC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 11:20:56 -0500
Lines: 25
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-----
>>>>> "DM" == Dave Mattingly <DaveM@FocusSoft.com> writes:
DM> Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
DM> a romance language.
Nope, English is Germanic. Spanish, French, and Italian are the
Latin-derived "Romance" languages.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9a5p6VRH7BJMxHAQGgCgQAgES1TuhDQxI1VgJpZvbB8ee4s5xwkTiS
9HzgG1u0F/7cd8hR9SMXeXBx7WD8lpPvN6JkocVs2Qne7WONoT+V/bMsijpOmu+T
r65ZRe7FN7Od8qR/iV/x3TMFjLSew39usMStbWvhD36kqQoYqrY2VbzJYbo8CQpo
bEdJRVD4cWg=
=dnrx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-5,7,9,12-13,16,18-19,21-23
From: llwatts@juno.com (Leah L Watts)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:21:48 EST
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>> F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but
>acceptable
>> F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one
>valid
>> F> and the other not.
Actually, cumulative Mind Control sounds like a good construction for a
Horror Hero villian to use:
First night -- Our Hero has strange nightmares all night long. (First
Mind Control attack.)
Next day -- Our Hero can function normally (with enough caffeine), but
finds himself drawn to actions he wouldn't normally do (exact action
depending on nature of the Mind Control).
Second night -- More nightmares. (Second Mind Control attack.)
Next day -- Even more caffeine needed to function, but the strange
pull to whatever action is being implanted with the Mind Control is
stronger.
Continue until the Mind Control hits full strength or Our Hero's buddies
realize there's more than sleep deprivation going on here.
I don't run mentalists very often, so there may be holes in this attack
description.
Leah
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:23:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Rook wrote:
> > >> Social Limitation
> > >>
> > >> Circumstances Occur Points
> > >>
> > >> Occasionally (8-) 5
> > >> Frequently (11-) 10
> > >> Very Frequently (14-) 15
> > >>
> > >> Effects of Limitation Points
> > >>
> > >> Inconvenient (but fairly safe) +0
> > >> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
> > >> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
> > >>
> > >> Punishment for Violation Points
> > >>
> > >> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
> > >> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
> > >> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
> > So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social Limitation?
> > Let's see....
> > Works for me.
>
> Only remove the 8-, 11-, 14- from the frequency's, and just list the
> frequencies.
> Then add one more frequency: Always at 20.
Good points... Could you give some examples of "Always", as opposed to
"Very Frequently"?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:40:50 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:37 PM 1/27/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> >Hand-To-Hand Martial Arts Maneuvers
>> >Maneuver Damage/Effect
>> >Ballestra STR +4d6; Half Move Required
>>
>> Just for the record, and along a different line of discussion, I'd like
>> to see the entire Martial Arts maneuvers table duplicated in Hero5, except
>> for the one above and the one under controversy.
>
> O.K, now what's wrong with the above?
>
> And I want to keep our controversial Defensive Throw, mostly as it
>fits an effect and is perfectly legal with both NH and TUMA.
The two things I don't like about Ballestra (as far as inclusion on a
general list of maneuvers) are that it's poorly defined (what the heck *is*
it, anyway?), and it's used in only one Martial Art in the whole book.
As for Defensive Throw, I've changed my mind based on arguments I saw in
its favor this morning.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: nexus@uky.campus.mci.net
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:40:50 -0500
From: KimFoster <nexus@uky.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Cc: SteveL1979@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 11:11 AM 1/28/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "S" == SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com> writes:
>
>S> [...]
>S> I hope that clears things up.
>
>Okay, I think I see the logic behind it, a "throw" that blocks an incoming
>attack and knocks the opponent down. And it becomes a mechanically legal
>maneuver with the loss of Abort.
>
>But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
>do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
>opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
>the ground.
>
>Whatever, maybe that's just me.
I can see it "hurting" without doing any real lasting damage or just
forcing the person into a disdvantages position (kneeling, off balance or
the like) of the DCV reduction. I am curious though. Would such a manuver
get the "bonus" damage added to throws for the surface the target lands on.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:49:50 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Dataweaver wrote:
> > Nah. There's a maximum amount by which an adjustment power can help you,
> > but no limit to how much one can hurt you.
>
> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
> opponent's trait?
A judgement call, but strictly by the book no: it has a flat limit on its
effects, just like all of the points-increading adjustment powers.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:52:42 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 27 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> The thing to remember is that a logical or is exclusive, a grammatical or
> is inclusive.
This is nonsense, Rat. A grammatical or is, like most things pertaining
to natural language, ambiguoug. A logical or is inclusive; "A or B"
means "at least one of A and B are true". If a logician wants to use
an exclusive or, he or she will specifically say "A or B but not both",
or "either A or B", or "A XOR B" (XOR being short for "exclusive or".)
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:00:57 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Gravity: A Heavy Concept
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> >Buy more than 10 STR, and add a Limitation "limited by mass of affected
> >object".
>
> So let's see... What we're talking about is 10 STR, +10 (or more) STR
> (Limited by Mass of Affected Object), all Limited by Strength of Available
> Gravity Wells?
Both Limitations apply to the Power as a whole (though whether the Gravity
one is necessary depends on the campaign, of course.)
> And you prefer *that* to a simple 2d6 Aid?
Infinitely preferable, yes. It's cleaner, and it requires no house rules.
> >It simulates the ability near-perfectly and doesn't require any
> >modifications to the rule. That doesn't spell "worst" to me.
>
> It requires special Limitations, including a partial Limitation, to make
> it work "near perfectly."
What "special" Limitations? Limited Power is a standard BBB Power
Modifier. If you're going to invent a new Power for every effect which
would otherwise require a Limited Power, you may as well just ditch the
whole Hero power-design philosophy.
> A minor adjustment to how the definition of Aid works makes it work
> perfectly, period (no "near" about it), with an already-existing Advantage.
Only if you consider making it do something not even vaguely connected to
what it currently does to be a "minor" adjustment.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:02:35 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
> I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
> Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
> a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
> Latin class.
English is a mutt when it comes to languages.
The main base for English is, of course, it's Anglo-Saxton-Jute
roots, all germanic tribes that moved into Britain long ago. It also
retains some of the old Celtic elements that belonged to the
pre-Anglo-Saxtons. From this language, Old English developed. This is
what Beowulf and The Wanderer were written in.
In 1066 the Normans invaded, bringing their French. For awhile,
French was England's official language, spoken by the nobility, etc. At
the same time, the commoners would be speaking the old Anglo-Saxton. (As
an aside, durning the time of Shakespeare's earlier History Plays, the
courts would actually be speaking French.)
From the mix of these developed Middle English, of which there
were multiple dialects. The Longon dialect became the "official", and
morphed into something more resembling the modern by the time of the
Tudors.
Our language, therefore, is a Germanic base with a lot of Romance
laid over it. In the meantime, we have absorbed many words from Spanish,
some of Irish, Italian, German, and various Oriental Languages. Also many
words taken from various Tribal languages of native North American and
African peoples.
That clear things up?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:07:02 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Mon, 26 Jan 1998, Remnant wrote:
> >Okay, I'll bite. How does a 20 STR limit a character more than a 10 STR?
>
> I assume you are referring to the fact that if you bought 10 STR you would
> get not only an increase of 10 STR you also get 2 PD, 2 REC, and 5 STUN.
> These figured characteristics that if bought separately would cost you 11
> points.
Yes, I'm referring to the fact that, in general, increases a character's
STR by 10 reduces his or her total cost by 1.
> Not to mention the fact that this charcter can now jump farther, carry more,
> use heavier weapons, impress the ladies or if a lady impress the guys, throw
> things farther, break grabs and entangles easier, shrug aside barriers that
> Normal Man has to take at least 1/2 phase to remove, and shove around little
> girly men at the beach. And all this can be yours for the low, low price of
> only 10, I say, 10 Power Points. :-)
> 10) I shoot this guy with a Limited EB that only hurts people who have
> above average STR. He gets hit with damage and 10 STR Man doesn't.
> 8) In a Fantasy Hero adventuring party he would wind up getting stuck
> carrying a larger share of the treasure and equipment, simply because he
> can.
> 6) In a murder mystery adventure he could be a suspect if the victim was
> strangled with nearly inhuman strength.
> 5) If Mind Controlled and ordered to punch himself, it would hurt worse.
By this logic, every useful ability should give points back.
> 9) If I Drain or Transfer the 10 STR away he loses the other benefits as
> well, which he wouldn't if he bought them separately.
Eh? He wouldn't have those abilities (the far-jumping, thing-lifting, and
opposite-sex-impressing) at all if he hadn't bought the STR.
> 7) In Espionage, he would not be able to go unnoticed as easily.
> 2) Will more often be assumed to be "dumb."
These seem to assume that a character with high STR necessarily looks more
muscular, which is sort of reasonable in a heroic campaign bu certainly
not generally true.
> 1) He wouldn't be able to resist slugging me for some of the above reasons.
And this isn't a drawback.:)
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:15:56 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: 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
On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> >> That said, I think that eliminating the figured part of Figured
> >> Characteristics might be a good idea, but I don't want to see the
> >> whole system retconned this way.
> >
> >Eh? Who said anything about changing the "whole system"? We're
> >talking about a change so minor it barely deserves to be called a
> "minor change".
>
> Changing the STUN, PD, and REC of 90%+ of all characters in the books
> or any campaign I have ever been in is not "so minor it barely
> deserves to be called a "minor change".
So don't change them. Gee, that was hard. It's simply not an issue at all
for the characters in the books; for PCs, you either have to juggle
numbers to make things work or just allow the characters to keep their old
stats (the same choices you have any time you try to change rules
mid-campaign.)
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:16:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Cc: champ-l@omg.org, 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
Tim R. Gilberg writes:
> > Trigger (turns on when character stops paying END).
>
>
> Nah. All I have to do is not set my trigger to not have it turn
> back on. Therefore, I spend END to turn it off, don't set my trigger, and
> am not at all in any problems.
Actually, that's correct. What you want is:
persistent, trigger (turns on when stunned, knocked out, or no longer paying
END), must reset trigger when turning power off (-1/4 or -1/2).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:20:16 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: the 5th edition questionaire at the Hero Games website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Heh. What did you say?
On Fri, 23 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> Hello;
>
> Just wanted to remind everyone that the 5th edition questionaire Hero
> Games mentioned is up on their website. Send yours in ASAP. I just did so
> myself. If anyone wants to know what I said, you can email me for it. But I
> doubt I'll get a request. We on this list seem to be a rather opinionated
> lot who only like to listen to ourselves. :)
>
> Rook : a common Old World gregarious bird related to the American crow.
> __
> /.)\ Super Hero Links Page: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/SH/SHlinks.html
> \(@/ My Champions Webpage is at: http://www.infinex.com/~rook/champs/
>
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:31:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: Falling and the 5th Edition
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Hm...I don't know how realistic we really care about being, but to have a
fairly realistic way of handling falling:
Collision damage starts at 2d6 if moving at 1 hex/segment; +2d6 per doubling.
Falling damage is thus 5d6 for a 1 hex fall; +1d6 per doubling. Maximum base
falling damage is 12d6.
Falling damage should probably be treated as AP, at least against non-resistant
defenses and focused defenses. It should probably not be treated as AP against
things which do not take stun.
In addition, modify falling damage as follows:
Character has DI: +1d6 per level. In addition, +1d6 per level to maximum fall
damage. Falling from orbit will do 26d6 + weight, if you have enough DI.
Character has growth: +1d6 per level. In addigion, +1d6 per 3 levels to
maximum falling damage.
Character has shrinking: -3d6 per level, -1d6/level to max fall damage. A
character with 3+ levels of shrinking is immune to falls unless he/she has DI.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 12:36:41 -0500
Lines: 37
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-----
>>>>> "K" == KimFoster <nexus@uky.campus.mci.net> writes:
K> I can see it "hurting" without doing any real lasting damage or just
K> forcing the person into a disdvantages position (kneeling, off balance
K> or the like) of the DCV reduction.
The CV penalties for being prone (target falls) are more severe than being
"off balance".
K> I am curious though. Would such a manuver get the "bonus" damage added
K> to throws for the surface the target lands on.
Of course not. A defensive maneuver cannot do damage. Period.
But this maneuver *should* do damage for exactly that reason. This is why
I have problems with the "Block" base for a "target falls" maneuver. It
should do damage, but it cannot because of the maneuver base. The
"problem" is that as far as game mechanics go it is really two separate
maneuvers: a Block followed by a Throw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9sop6VRH7BJMxHAQH5GgQAq4zL8g8jfl3a2uxwaZIbBaQTkQKZY8mB
aUf7SDy3WR2m5+Nga/ThBphtIWU8UslrSKnoqygZuRQgsdk08iELDeTVZDTgQcNu
ArkpTwbe6ba7yYKHcxJwQTYzRhjScSuBOh0+XMfW1GalkMLOmY5Z80PX7TuL5KMm
7B8cPDeQu+k=
=M0P1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 12:40:39 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "LLW" == Leah L Watts <llwatts@juno.com> writes:
LLW> Actually, cumulative Mind Control sounds like a good construction for a
LLW> Horror Hero villian to use:
LLW> First night -- Our Hero has strange nightmares all night long. (First
LLW> Mind Control attack.)
"Champions in 3D" does this with a Transformation attack, to give the
victim a Psychological Limitation. The reason being, Mind Control does not
work well for long-term changes to a character. That is Transformation
Attack's bailiwick.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9tlZ6VRH7BJMxHAQE6qgP/RIUlJtA7H/IJqTJmGaneTxSqot4BHao3
yysvtcGQHZBIfltO6cFcgbH0+3+DbMSOfuq951T0vmdiBPyAqi2bJ8lgtMQjyXDt
nuPvP50A0aB60AMTveVcmjPM6grOJLuMv6/c+WTl4lqhsLobGLFo3LEkrSlpUvvP
SV6m7BLVpb0=
=uluH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:41:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
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
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> Of course not. A defensive maneuver cannot do damage. Period.
>
> But this maneuver *should* do damage for exactly that reason. This is why
> I have problems with the "Block" base for a "target falls" maneuver. It
> should do damage, but it cannot because of the maneuver base. The
> "problem" is that as far as game mechanics go it is really two separate
> maneuvers: a Block followed by a Throw.
So, what do you think of 'escaping throw' (+10 STR to escape, target falls)?
Particularly given that escape is normally usable as a zero-phase casual ;).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 12:42:13 -0500
Lines: 26
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-----
>>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
AJ> persistent, trigger (turns on when stunned, knocked out, or no longer
AJ> paying END), must reset trigger when turning power off (-1/4 or -1/2).
That last is not really much of a limitation, since a Trigger must be
"manually" set each time the power is to be used. It certainly is not
worth a -1/2.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM9t856VRH7BJMxHAQFXPAQAyNhK6+hcTuJI8I1xEAs3Ejott2xNZLQz
HQI1avrwK4sUWrgv9S/psL7TiblAOh7wnY5V74suA5JNsBtomZI9a1Q4rRAvUcQs
jylfQzB8OZBwUlOPTRKWMzkLGGx068gVGVFg8dKFnabZY5v+sVpS981jpht9YNKM
914G8/UhUXo=
=Xvbk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:48:17 EST
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
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 98-01-28 11:14:45 EST, ratinox@peorth.gweep.net writes:
<< But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
the ground.
Whatever, maybe that's just me. >>
In a real-world sense, that is probably true -- but even there, the damage
could easily be negligible (i.e., a minor fleeting pain that doesn't even
leave a bruise). In the HERO SYSTEM, where the ability to break down damage
into increments is limited, this Throw simply doesn't reach the minimum level
of hurt necessary to reach the first level of causing damage -- or so I'd
rationalize it. :)
Steve Long
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:54:07 EST
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
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 98-01-28 11:56:46 EST, nexus@uky.campus.mci.net writes:
<< >Okay, I think I see the logic behind it, a "throw" that blocks an incoming
>attack and knocks the opponent down. And it becomes a mechanically legal
>maneuver with the loss of Abort.
>
>But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
>do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
>opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
>the ground.
>
>Whatever, maybe that's just me.
I can see it "hurting" without doing any real lasting damage or just
forcing the person into a disdvantages position (kneeling, off balance or
the like) of the DCV reduction. I am curious though. Would such a manuver
get the "bonus" damage added to throws for the surface the target lands on.
>>
If it doesn't do any damage in the first place, I don't think it should get
any bonus damage -- there's nothing for the bonus damage to be a bonus to.
Even if you allowed the bonus damage as base damage, it's so little that I
don't think most martial artists (certainly not superheroic ones) would take
much damage.
Steve Long
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:56:55 EST
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
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 98-01-28 12:10:07 EST, bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
<< The two things I don't like about Ballestra (as far as inclusion on a
general list of maneuvers) are that it's poorly defined (what the heck *is*
it, anyway?), and it's used in only one Martial Art in the whole book. >>
As explained to me by my sources (assuming my memory's correct -- don't have
my UMA notes handy right now), the Ballestra is a sort of all-out offensive
swordfighting charge. Although fairly specific to that sort of style, it
could be incorporated into fantasy fencing styles and some other weapon-based
arts, and possibly even some others depending on how far you want to stretch
the special effect.
Steve Long
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:02:07 EST
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
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 98-01-28 12:28:19 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
<< Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING, >>
Although it's not listed in the BBB, English would have a 4-point similarity
with Frisian, a Germanic language spoken in the Dutch province of Friesland.
The two languages are virtually identical in many respects.
Another good book on languages: NATIVE TONGUES by Charles Berlitz --
thousands of factlets about languages from all over the world, including the
above one. :)
Steve Long
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:09:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
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
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
>
> AJ> persistent, trigger (turns on when stunned, knocked out, or no longer
> AJ> paying END), must reset trigger when turning power off (-1/4 or -1/2).
>
> That last is not really much of a limitation, since a Trigger must be
> "manually" set each time the power is to be used. It certainly is not
> worth a -1/2.
Well, setting a trigger takes the same time as normally using the power, which
is a zero-phase action in this case (the same as turning it off), so requiring
setting the trigger when you turn a power off isn't a particularly severe
restriction. It is worth a limitation because preventing the power from
triggering itself is irritating (due mainly to the paying END requirement).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 13:13:31 -0500
Lines: 27
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-----
>>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
AJ> So, what do you think of 'escaping throw' (+10 STR to escape, target
AJ> falls)? Particularly given that escape is normally usable as a
AJ> zero-phase casual ;).
Same thing: the technique should do damage, but the maneuver cannot. That
is a clear indication that the technique is more than one maneuver. Thus,
two maneuvers: an escape followed by a throw of some sort.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM91Sp6VRH7BJMxHAQHHiAQAyPBXhMP4Xrjt0znS+LQ7sUu321GnHLKo
Unh7hgCn639UAFr03JxLKY0YHN77eO6wSARLKlNDiGdDgilozL0Gf1XtJ5CNvhae
y2IDysOe+Qj7cR9mtRTSBFHji2VWi7NDWYccSCYesdos9ranGTzgDpJPkwbQCXvG
ZSKkS0a7soU=
=V9wu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:35:34 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Joe Mucchiello wrote:
> At 04:51 PM 1/27/98 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> >Joe Mucchiello writes:
> > > Assuming the power is bought 0 END to start with. Doesn't this construct
> >> come up every few months? I always do things like that, like this:
> >>
> >> Desolid, 0 END, Persistant, Variable Limitation (-1/4: Must always be
> >> either Always On (-1/2) or Costs END (-1/2))
> >>
> >> Granted, the construct is not perfect. But I cannot imagine a GM not
> >> allowing this definition. If you wouldn't, why wouldn't you?
> >
> >Because 'always on' doesn't make any sense in a variable limitation -- the
> >power clearly is _not_ always on.
>
> Yes, it does. It is "Always On", i.e. cannot be turned off. The only way
> to turn it off is to change the VL to "Costs END". The GM has to rule
> (outside the power construct) that when the character does not or cannot
> pay the END that the VL must switch back to Always On, thus making the
> character Desolid. How else can you do this construct?
So far, I've gotten some really great ideas, so thank you all.
So far, I've heard:
1. Some form of persistent+trigger(KO/no END)
2. Variable limitation between always on and costs END
3. Simply calling it -1/4 because it's less limiting than Always on
4. Buying off the limitation "Always on," applying the limitation "Costs
END"
5. Making it a +-0 limitation, akin to stun only, universal/personal
focus, or other mods that have advantages and disadvantages that seem
to cancel out
6. Buying a Supress against your own Desolid (only on self), which
naturally costs END
7. Tweak the Spirit Rules (don't have them, unfortunately) to try to model
this situation
However, I still can't decide on which is best! For one thing, I want to
make the "Costs END" extra limiting (x 4 END). So far, I lean to #4
because it handles this relatively cleanly and doesn't seem as harsh as
having to pay points to suppress your own Desolid. I'm concerned about the
validity in HERO of such an approach, though. Is buying off limitations
with limitations an open door to abuse?
Another of my players has a character with Clairsentience... well, sort
of. The goal of this power is to represent the fact that he has a "bag of
tricks"--a satchel with all kinds of unspecified things in it. He has a
limited ability to see the future and picks up items that he "gets a
feeling" will be useful in the future--of course these items are found in
the bag when needed. Now said player also wanted to have "real"
clairsentience of the future, but only in his dreams. So he bought off the
various and sundry "only useful items" limitations, and on the cost
applied "only in dreams," and "no conscious control" limitations. How are
we doing?
Someone compared the "It's hard to be solid" effect with Cyclops' energy
blasts, an excellent parallel. In his campaign, he recalls a similar
construction, with the "Always on" of Cyke's EB bought off, with the
limitation "OIF ruby glasses/goggles."
Further thoughts?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Cc: SteveL1979@aol.com
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 13:36:14 -0500
Lines: 38
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-----
>>>>> "S" == SteveL1979 <SteveL1979@aol.com> writes:
S> In a real-world sense, that is probably true -- but even there, the
S> damage could easily be negligible (i.e., a minor fleeting pain that
S> doesn't even leave a bruise).
By the same token, the damage could easilly be drastic, especially with the
more traditional use of throws against charging opponents. The maneuver
does not reflect this at all.
Like I said, maybe it is just me. I have studied the philosophies of
several martial arts; this maneuver as written just does not fit into any
of them. A block maneuver dissipates the energy of an attack in some
fashion. The way this maneuver is built, it appears to give that
dissipation a direction: down -- "Target Falls". The thing with falling is
that the more energy one has, the more it hurts when one hits.
I think this technique works better as a high-DCV Strike/Throw, especially
when one considers the loss of Block's automatic Abort. And if you want to
do less damage, pull it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM96nZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHGnwP+MsC0vwZP1Xkj0a+wIggNlIpDOY1pvdbS
TkSLhPuAhukhxC9ZyJFWwL32+mPy3guS1cmAo5VCZIIEuxyKD4G3+64sC0qKx1k8
9Q9DB315JUqSnV9Drubu9WZGTMTX/M1npPrptsCibscrydwy6uMeIvYLLeAcyiLr
NNXKWXxS+wI=
=CyzZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: xanadu.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:42:13 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 28 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
> D> opponent's trait?
>
> Generally speaking, adjustment powers affect active points. When the
> target runs out of active points, there is nothing more to affect.
> Additional effect from the power will do nothing.
That wasn't my question; a Transfer can give you a maximum of 6 pts per
die rolled, but that same Transfer can take an unlimited number of points
from the target - if I'm understanding correctly...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:00:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Don't worry, I'm braced against the knockback the flaming from this idea's
gonna give me...
A mechanism (choice?) for allowing limitations to affect active point
costs, similarly for advantages. Not all advantages should really affect
active point cost (hole in the middle, personal immunity) and some
limitations seem like they should (no knockback, reduced penetration).
Some conditional limitations, especially for defenses, seem like they
should (force Field only vs. fire), while others like activation,
shouldn't. Is there a real problem (other than a little more complexity)
in allowing people to choose whether their advantage/limitation affects
active point cost or not? Should this be worth more "real" points to go
against the grain (1/4 less limitation or 1/4 more advantage)? Obviously,
certain clearly active advantages (double knockback) should always add to
the active cost, while inactive limitations (focus) should never subtract
from it.
With active points come: range, dispel/suppress/drain difficulty, END
cost, multipower/EC/campaign caps. Anything I'm leaving out?
What is an "active point" really? It's a point that's actually "active,"
that is "out there" manifested in your power. Frankly, I don't care when
I'm getting hit with a 12d6 EB whether you shot it from a focus or used
incantantions or gestures or that you could only do it under a full moon.
That's 12d6 of *active* effect, and it is and should be that difficult to
dispel, should have that much range, and should cost that much END.
Similarly, a 12d6 AVLD attack is *actively* different from your standard
12d6 EB--if I could catch EBs in a jar, some test could show the
difference--but not that one required a skill roll.
In most cases, HERO works such that restrictions or conditions on a powers
usage are called limitations, and enhancements to a power's active effect
are called advantages, but the rule of thumb doesn't always hold true.
However, if your force field only works against fire, that's an actively
different power that doesn't affect the active cost. And a triggered EB
isn't actively different from a manual one, but there it does affect the
active cost. When applying the "makes sense" approach we find that there
should be a flag on each advantage/limitation as to whether it affects the
active cost or not.
On the separate note, if the above suggestion is rejected, should not
occasionally a character be allowed to choose whether a given advantage or
limitation affects active cost? This gives greater flexibility in
determining END costs, while trading off the benefit for a shorter range,
easier-to-dispel active power.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:08:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champions Listserv <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> I can see it "hurting" without doing any real lasting damage or just
> forcing the person into a disdvantages position (kneeling, off balance or
> the like) of the DCV reduction. I am curious though. Would such a manuver
> get the "bonus" damage added to throws for the surface the target lands on.
Um. I might allow it. It does kinda make sense, and doesn't
really seem that unbalanced. The character does have to either declare to
be "Defensive Throwing" at his/her attack phase or hold an action and win
a DEX check to go first, so . . .
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 19:10:30
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Genetic engineering
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 14:38:07 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin
wrote:
>Forgot this item when I was asking about starships and such earlier:
>package deals for genetically engineered humans who colonize
>not-quite-Earthlike planets. In my campaign timeline, the terraforming of
>Mars has been underway for almost 200 years by the time the game begins,
>but it will be some time yet before unaltered humans can live there. The
>people who've colonized Mars will have undergone radical gene therapy,
>engineering them for survival in the low pressure, low temperature, low
>oxygen, high radiation Martian environment.
Why make the characters pay anything? It's a plot device. You don't
make them pay for Flu jabs, do you?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 19:11:59
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:31:12 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
>
>> Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
>
>Hmm? Last I chaecked, _all_ Alteration Powers had a maximum limit...
They have a maximum limit that you can *increase* something, but no
maximum limit for *decreasing*
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:13:58 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > And I want to keep our controversial Defensive Throw, mostly as it
> >fits an effect and is perfectly legal with both NH and TUMA.
>
> The two things I don't like about Ballestra (as far as inclusion on a
> general list of maneuvers) are that it's poorly defined (what the heck *is*
> it, anyway?), and it's used in only one Martial Art in the whole book.
Not bad, but I think the point of the maneuvers list (and correct
me if I'm wrong) was to include "official" maneuvers for all of the
"official" Martial Arts Packages.
> As for Defensive Throw, I've changed my mind based on arguments I saw in
> its favor this morning.
Fair enough. It seems to work, though it is quite limited
compared to a plain old block.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:20:31 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: EVIL Campaign Revisited
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I got many requests for information about my EVIL villains campaign. The
campaign setting, information, and player packets have been ready for a
while, complete with superhero data file. However, I lost the list I was
keeping of interested people.
The packets are in Word 97 format. Forthcoming are additional setting
information, in the form of conversation transcripts, a little history
behind the world, and biweekly installments of newspaper/magazine
clippings. I will also have Heromaker files for the major superheroes in
the world, and if my players agree, I can send you their villains as
sample characters.
On a side note, I've gotten some excellent villains. From Hank's Arm--the
challenging-to-build possessed arm who bullies the unfortunate soul to
whom he's attached into doing evil... to General Joe, the
chopstick-throwing, poison-cooking ex-restaurant owner who was shut down
the health department and a prominent superhero... to Saddam Hussein
himself, complete with wildly innacurate SCUD missile launchers and bogus
diplomatic immunity.
It's a fun campaign world, and will definitely be a fun campaign. I
apologize for the inconvenience to those who wish to run the campaign
elsewhere, please e-mail me again, and I'll get the materials and
subscription to you. With enough interest, I'll make a web site.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 14:23:10 -0500
Lines: 38
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> That wasn't my question;
But it was the answer. "Active points" is the key to understanding how
adjustment powers work.
D> a Transfer can give you a maximum of 6 pts per die rolled, but that same
D> Transfer can take an unlimited number of points from the target - if I'm
D> understanding correctly...
Transfer works by transferring active points from the target to the
character. If one has 1D6 of Transfer, one can transfer a maximum of 6
active points. Additional attempts to use Transfer will do nothing,
because the limit of the power has been reached.
In other words, a Transfer *CANNOT* take an unlimited number of active
points from a target. Once the maximum number of active points that
Transfer can transfer have been transferred, the power cannot transfer any
more points until some of those transferred points fade.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+FmZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEjIwQArtlfKO76FpaU1DKFzsPuw1nSs5Yqf9yV
mo9+HD/5epCVD3K3mhPyI/GoG6m3Zeb/V84twBZN6/sTIF+b7oYg8TbAuWdlvppF
OsenYfWu53jUOzPzN04keibFUZOPuC/xGpsKdJTRL55oDqPRJLsloAnd5Owf6Dg3
ZTSQVg3db7U=
=i6cP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:23:15 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Well, regardless of whether any apologies are owed by anyone to anyone else
> -- certainly I don't think apologies are needed for expressing an opinion,
> provided it's expressed *politely* -- the maneuver in question is in fact
Good philosophy, that.
> supposed to be, "Block, Target Falls." The confusion here may be that in the
> first printing of UMA is was listed as, "Block, Target Falls, STR Strike."
> Obviously a manuever cannot both Block and Strike, since each is an Exclusive
> Basis. I'm not sure how or where this error crept in, but it was edited out
> of the HERO PLUS version of the book (or was supposed to have been), and
> possibly later printings of the book as well.
Ah. I have the Hero Plus version, and I can definately say that
the STR Strike portion is gone.
> As noted under "Throw" (UMA, p. 116), Throw maneuvers (those with, among
> others, "Target Falls") have to be bought at STR Strikes to do damage. If not
> bought as a STR Strike, the Throw does no damage, it just puts someone on the
> ground.
And it's surprising how difficult this concept is to grasp. Ever
since the pre-4th MAs, all Throws have just automatically done damage.
Ninja Hero changed this, requiring a STR Strike with the added Throw
Non-Exclusive Base. However, many still think of Throw as automatically
doing damage.
> Further confusion results from fact that the "Abort" aspect of Block is
> poorly explained, and that's definitely my fault (mea culpa). Abort is an
> "option" for Block, as the text notes, meaning that not all Blocks necessarily
> have to be Abort-able (though they automatically get Abort for free if they so
> choose). Of the Blocks listed in the HTH maneuvers chart (UMA, p. 9), every
> single Block specifically notes that it's Abort-able -- except one, the
> Defensive Block, meaning that you can't Abort to it. Even though the maneuver
Right. I noticed that just looking at the chart.
> technically does no damage, I'm not comfortable with someone Aborting to it,
> since the Throw can result in a tactical advantage. In fact, UMA p. 110
> specifically states you can't Abort to a Throw-based maneuver. But you can't
> Abort to a Defensive Throw, so it's not a problem here.
I've thought about allowing it to be aborted to. It doesn't seem
to be that unbalancing. Any opinions?
> Therefore, unlike the Rat, I see no problem with this maneuver from a rules
> point of view. The only problem is that it wasn't well-explained, which is my
> fault, and for which I apologize.
> I hope that clears things up.
Thanks. Nice to get some clarification right from the source.
> P.S.: On the Riposte issue, for those of you who'd like to have one in a
> martial arts package or style, I'd suggest using the Counterstrike maneuver
> from UMA.
So obvious it almost didn't need to be said. I'd say it fits the
description quite well. The "Must Follow" element is quite nice.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:25:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: Champions Listserv <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Oh, Rat. You don't need to cc Steve Long, as he is on the list.
> Okay, I think I see the logic behind it, a "throw" that blocks an incoming
> attack and knocks the opponent down. And it becomes a mechanically legal
> maneuver with the loss of Abort.
It is actually quite similar to the "throws" of pre-4th edition,
which had abort and an automatic block as well as doing damage.
> But I have a problem rationalizing a "target falls" element that does not
> do any damage whatsoever from the fall. Any technique that directs an
> opponent's energy "down" is going to cause some hurt when the opponent hits
> the ground.
Well, one option is to allow velocity damage, though that's iffy.
The other is to realize that some maneuvers bear a target to the ground in
a "gentler" manner. I can think of a few wrestling takedowns that
wouldn't be damaging. And some that would be quite damaging.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 14:38:53 -0500
Lines: 44
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> The Aikido move is a strange one, that's true. It not only blocks, but
F> it guides your opponent into a roll as it throws him. Even if he doesn't
F> know how to roll, he generally will not be hurt. If he fights it too
F> hard, he could hurt himself; however, this usually won't happen.
It is not strange at all; it only seems that way becuase you are not
looking at the right game mechanics. And in this case you have two things
to look at:
You can use a conventional throw maneuver, but do no Strength damage (look
at the "Professional Wrestling" psduo-art) so any damage the attacker
suffers is based solely on his velocity. Given that most people have 6" of
Running that comes out to 1D6, or 2D6 if moving non-combat. And as you
say, the attacker will usually not hurt himself.
Or you can "pull your punch" to reduce the Body damage without affecting
the Stun damage from the impact. This would be considered a more advanced
technique due to the CV penalties.
F> However, while Aikido discourages any attacks which do harm, only minor
F> variations will turn this into a damaging attack.
You got it backwards: the Aikijutsu technique is the one that was modified
into one that is less harmful.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+JS56VRH7BJMxHAQFPHgP/a8H/Gr6B5CGYdPKs64ap8yu1VcII5Gs2
762OToks476Nor0wx9CPMymLurIv/WhHwn1dg1wBLy6z1fPIV+QelX8/wNGyhCgz
TK82yVm3BCZ6MBQa1gPrgDE/FiIMNSvFE6tRNQ7jUWdHrYfPX93eXlVVW9LldmoZ
c5bTCKXML4o=
=D8xO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 14:55:13 -0500
Lines: 25
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> I can think of a few wrestling takedowns that wouldn't be damaging.
The word you are looking for is "pin". Pins work better, I think, as
variations of Grab. If you can grab and redirect, grab and pin is no
stretch at all.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+NIJ6VRH7BJMxHAQE9ngQAkdaYAzOJFe+2dKSgxKSWGzSZ6tDKlfpR
xjE02HyY0cnBk3tqXApWb2EpX6Ako9nfx8g8Q5STz/lsBs332XmKbnOC42YKK0sJ
t3Hk+rhSGnaGZSZQ7UpDHtzNSR2fJ6ELBh5SLTXwvQWSX+Bpc83UM+FWdj9OAoEh
SiJ2gSKfSoI=
=uonh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:34:59 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 28 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> DPL> A mechanism (choice?) for allowing limitations to affect active point
> DPL> costs, similarly for advantages. Not all advantages should really
> DPL> affect active point cost (hole in the middle, personal immunity) and
> DPL> some limitations seem like they should (no knockback, reduced
> DPL> penetration).
>
> The term you are looking for is "Damage Class". Damage Classes are a
> rating of how much damage powers do, distinct from their active and real
> point costs.
Not quite what I had in mind. Although many of the examples I gave involve
damaging effects, this is a more general consideration. I'm not looking
for a classification, I really want to change the active costs. I'll
re-express my thoughts for clarity if I'm not getting across. Please
review my definition of active points, and why I feel certain advantages
and limitations do not apply.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:15:21 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 28 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> That wasn't my question;
>
> But it was the answer. "Active points" is the key to understanding how
> adjustment powers work.
>
> D> a Transfer can give you a maximum of 6 pts per die rolled, but that same
> D> Transfer can take an unlimited number of points from the target - if I'm
> D> understanding correctly...
>
> Transfer works by transferring active points from the target to the
> character. If one has 1D6 of Transfer, one can transfer a maximum of 6
> active points. Additional attempts to use Transfer will do nothing,
> because the limit of the power has been reached.
So, in effect, there is a limit to how much Transfer can hurt someone, as
well as a limit on how much it can help them...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 16:29:53 -0500
Lines: 49
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> I wasn't talking about the game mechanics. I was talking about the real
F> world mechanics of a throw designed to not so much as knock the wind out
F> of you. While this is normal for Aikido, it seems strange when compared
F> to other arts.
I understand... but remember that the goal is to mirror that effect using
the game mechanics. The simplest way to do that is to use Martial Throw
and add no damage from Strength. Against most people the 0 Strength
maneuver will do no damage unless they are especially frail, and even then
the damage will be minimal.
[...]
>> You got it backwards: the Aikijutsu technique is the one that was
>> modified into one that is less harmful.
F> 1) While not the usual usage, it is perfectly acceptable to state that two
F> things are variations of each other, regardless of which one was first.
Aikijutsu predates Aikido. Aikijutsu is the direct predecessor of Aikido.
Aikido is the variation of Aikijutsu. It is historically inaccurate to
call Aikijutsu a variation of Aikido.
F> 2) If I didn't know anything about Aikijutsu, I could still modify the
F> Aikido throw into a damaging one. If anything, it is easier to damage
F> someone than to do it right.
Agreed, which is why I mentioned that "pulling the punch" with a
full-strength Martial Throw would be considered a more advanced technique.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+jRp6VRH7BJMxHAQGsXwQAtiivjVjszPKRyDpAS0JD04YQurMWMngv
WD3vvPkrgOu1KJyrhPdSV1FAqao5f5MQvQ/ep3VpCnygKE2H7andh2P1sd5BABdW
OE+KZHNuGQloz4q4XHb3eep7olq5NsnSFhECocg1LS/thSXT2xK5id80NlX3nd8N
Z3unUIBwC8E=
=safh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 16:53:14 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
DPL> A mechanism (choice?) for allowing limitations to affect active point
DPL> costs, similarly for advantages. Not all advantages should really
DPL> affect active point cost (hole in the middle, personal immunity) and
DPL> some limitations seem like they should (no knockback, reduced
DPL> penetration).
The term you are looking for is "Damage Class". Damage Classes are a
rating of how much damage powers do, distinct from their active and real
point costs.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+oyZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEldwQAogaDvbNgfQ4j1BJu9U90nQ4RCDUrEQcO
J9uBFwRnQ7HWOduAvZmE3N3SvaMiM9EcOvF1bm8GBpMlDnxDZoua+dhCrRrqz5Vm
xgXJIFksKBIMxDBAsEpyQiyBQQvB2St2OrGMYRp76jtE+H/P1MomPdMM5Y7bpk+W
umkd++Ifgd0=
=xHV2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:56:20 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > I can see it "hurting" without doing any real lasting damage or just
> > forcing the person into a disdvantages position (kneeling, off balance or
> > the like) of the DCV reduction. I am curious though. Would such a manuver
> > get the "bonus" damage added to throws for the surface the target lands on.
>
> Um. I might allow it. It does kinda make sense, and doesn't
> really seem that unbalanced. The character does have to either declare to
> be "Defensive Throwing" at his/her attack phase or hold an action and win
> a DEX check to go first, so . . .
Oops. My bad. The velocity damage is a seperate element to be
purchased with the maneuver. This one doesn't have it, so no damage.
Now, would I allow a maneuver like this to take the bonus damage?
No, probably not. Is it allowable under the NH or UMA rules? I'm not
sure. Any comments?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:02:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> It is not strange at all; it only seems that way becuase you are not
> looking at the right game mechanics. And in this case you have two things
> to look at:
>
> You can use a conventional throw maneuver, but do no Strength damage (look
> at the "Professional Wrestling" psduo-art) so any damage the attacker
> suffers is based solely on his velocity. Given that most people have 6" of
> Running that comes out to 1D6, or 2D6 if moving non-combat. And as you
> say, the attacker will usually not hurt himself.
However, that throw will not stop incoming attacks. Or rather, it
might stop them, depending on a DEX check to see who goes first -- ala NH
rules. I'm really not sure if UMA changed this or not.
Mixing the throw with block takes away the need for that DEX
check, as long as the character is in a prepared Block mode.
> Or you can "pull your punch" to reduce the Body damage without affecting
> the Stun damage from the impact. This would be considered a more advanced
> technique due to the CV penalties.
Or you can define a Throw without the Strike Element to simulate
the same thing. Less chance here of accidental damage.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:06:40 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> I can think of a few wrestling takedowns that wouldn't be damaging.
>
> The word you are looking for is "pin". Pins work better, I think, as
> variations of Grab. If you can grab and redirect, grab and pin is no
> stretch at all.
Agreed that pins work best as Grabs, though you do have to get
your target to the ground. Either the "target falls" element or through
performing a "grab and whatever".
However, I was thinking about takedowns. I participated on a
School Wrestling Team for one season, and saw a few varieties of
takedowns. Some basically did no damage. Others hurt quite a bit.
(Particularly one where one wrestler, from a head-to-head side-by-side
position, got control and went to the ground himself breaking his fall
with the other wrestler's face. We heard that one through the entire
wrestling floor.)
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:13:41 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> However, I still can't decide on which is best! For one thing, I want to
> make the "Costs END" extra limiting (x 4 END). So far, I lean to #4
> because it handles this relatively cleanly and doesn't seem as harsh as
True. That's what I'd suggest for the extra lims.
> having to pay points to suppress your own Desolid. I'm concerned about the
> validity in HERO of such an approach, though. Is buying off limitations
> with limitations an open door to abuse?
I don't think so, but I'd require strict GM oversight.
> Another of my players has a character with Clairsentience... well, sort
> of. The goal of this power is to represent the fact that he has a "bag of
> tricks"--a satchel with all kinds of unspecified things in it. He has a
> limited ability to see the future and picks up items that he "gets a
> feeling" will be useful in the future--of course these items are found in
> the bag when needed. Now said player also wanted to have "real"
> clairsentience of the future, but only in his dreams. So he bought off the
> various and sundry "only useful items" limitations, and on the cost
> applied "only in dreams," and "no conscious control" limitations. How are
> we doing?
Looking like my character with Dream Visions. (He's from a line
of Ojibwa Medicine Men). The visions are normally bought with a powerful
Clairsentience -- basically anything -- with No Concious Control and
concentrate 0 DCV. It's an excuse for the GM to take my character out of
the action for a while for some Mental Adventures. However, I can try to
force a tream vision with a Meditation Roll. This roll can be increased
through the use of mind altering states and items.
It looks like:
Clairsentience (w/ all the trimmings), Concentrate 0DCV
throughout, No Concious Control.
Remove NCC from Clairsentience, costs END, *4 END, must make
meditiation roll.
I like it because it works, it's logical, and it does a good job
of simulating the power without being too expensive.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:22:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> AJ> So, what do you think of 'escaping throw' (+10 STR to escape, target
> AJ> falls)? Particularly given that escape is normally usable as a
> AJ> zero-phase casual ;).
>
> Same thing: the technique should do damage, but the maneuver cannot. That
> is a clear indication that the technique is more than one maneuver. Thus,
> two maneuvers: an escape followed by a throw of some sort.
Not at all. It is similar to the reversal, actually. The escape
is performed while trying to turn to move to a particular result.
The Escape + Throw is something like breaking a bear hug with
enough of a jerk to put the holder on his ass. Another option is going
from the down position (wrestling) and rolling your opponent over your
body and standing up yourself.
The Reversal is simlar, you just end up with a hold on your
opponent.
While it could be argued that these should do damage, I can see
reasons not. It was rare for someone to be damaged per se while
wrestling. They in general are just maneuvered about by their opponent,
who is, BTW, using all his available force, in general.
These moves are, however, definately not two seperate maneuvers.
It's not a case of getting away one phase and tossing your opponent to the
ground the next. Nor is it a case of getting away one phase and grabbing
a hold of your opponent the next.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: <dflacks@ican.net>
From: "dflacks" <dflacks@ican.net>
Subject: OIHID
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:37:54 -0500
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mail0.tor.acc.ca id RAA03044
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
I have been following the Only In Hero ID thread and would like to put my 2
cents in. Actually its 1.37 cents when you convert it to American dollars.
One reason not yet mentioned for OIHID being a separate limitation is the
connection with the Focus limitation. In the details for the focus
limitation, the BBB says that some things may appear to have a Focus, but
closer examination reveals that the actual limitation should be OIHID.
Since Focus is a common limitation across many genre, the OIHID limitation
should definitely remain separate from the generic limitation.
As for the usefulness of OIHID, it is one of my favorite limitations. If a
GM asks me to make a new character, odds are I will end up using OIHID. I
tend to create a character similar to a high powered agent with stats like
15 strength and 13 or even 18 DEX. Once designed, I add the OIHID powers
and more skills. I like to have Martial Arts, and often end up spending
any points I save with OIHID on MA and Skills for base character.
One of my favorite characters was a high risk courier before he became a
hero, so he had 18 DEX and MA. What made him fun was the way his powers
worked.
His powers all ran off an END reserve, which was OIHID, but the associated
recovery was Only In Normal ID. This meant the every action he takes as a
superhero drains him. This forced him to think before he acted. If he
used brute power instead of thought and subtlety he would find himself out
of juice during the climatic moments. Add a Secret ID and some Accidental
Changes to his normal form when his END reserve gets low and the OIHID
becomes the central flavor of his powers.
The character would have to balance his Secret ID against his need to be in
Normal ID to recover his battery. The character was forced to spend more
adventure time in his Normal ID than many of the characters I remember from
comics.
I have revised this character a number of times, changing its name and
powers but keeping the OIHID characteristics the same. In one adventure,
the S.T.R.I.D.E.R. incantation of my character actual hid in the team
super-jet’s bathroom for the entire flight so he could stay in Normal ID to
recover without revealing his ID to the NPC along for the ride. By the end
of the Flight, the NPC thought S.T.R.I.D.E.R. was prone to airsickness.
This embarrassing miss-conception got out and S.T.R.I.D.E.R. was the butt
of talk show host for weeks. In his Normal ID S.T.R.I.D.E.R. was a Pilot!
Daniel Flacks dflacks@ican.net
Give me ambiguity or give me something else
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 17:38:49 -0500
Lines: 29
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> (Particularly one where one wrestler, from a head-to-head side-by-side
TRG> position, got control and went to the ground himself breaking his fall
TRG> with the other wrestler's face. We heard that one through the entire
TRG> wrestling floor.)
Grab and Throw?
Grab is a wonderful maneuver for one simple reason: you do not have to let
go. Nothing else allows you to retain control over your victim's body.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+zd56VRH7BJMxHAQEnUwP/ZH1t1vdVGZX9fIVaQ/EETU9qiWo9qtEe
9wTfA8GxPY2GKotbySCLNYZmCjKex6dS3Ll1Om4yQwO5qAwRn2X8fcj35ms/jDdf
VWWjQiSMEPG20Uy62j+5jat7qZL+dY7S2drFsmj8IpHq6t7AGBKGOfStIKtgJQiA
vQTRrJ/q1NM=
=MiH7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 17:41:08 -0500
Lines: 28
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> These moves are, however, definately not two seperate maneuvers.
TRG> It's not a case of getting away one phase and tossing your opponent to
TRG> the ground the next. Nor is it a case of getting away one phase and
TRG> grabbing a hold of your opponent the next.
Remember that Escapes may be performed as zero-phase actions. Same goes
for getting up off the ground with Breakfall (or Acrobatics if the GM
allows it).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+z9p6VRH7BJMxHAQFDpQQAtNi1+LCMWB3ylPB7ucSTnArjJJ927cpb
iWit3hdfsuGsCx9LzBRy30ZcMk74cZ6kA+QUSLLfp03i6Bu2ppbZQiFCBJurf0Tz
NemnfzqyiP7DlR8m0XiDiZ7pWJrsQtj9J0yIG/Z2LobxOPaP5SPljjU+X9tu6ZnZ
KsJTm5i/xt8=
=d9Ue
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 28 Jan 1998 17:48:30 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> However, that throw will not stop incoming attacks. Or rather, it
TRG> might stop them, depending on a DEX check to see who goes first -- ala
TRG> NH rules. I'm really not sure if UMA changed this or not.
A DEX check is required to see who goes first. If the thrower goes first,
and is successful, the attacker winds up on the ground before he can
attack. More than likely that will invalidate the attacker's attack.
TRG> Mixing the throw with block takes away the need for that DEX
TRG> check, as long as the character is in a prepared Block mode.
No, it does not, because the Block does not have the Abort element any
more. Take away Abort and you must have a DEX check.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+1uZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEmIAP+KtdpQtptiJu195Yy3m4Fr18aqN/53EeS
RJ2A7XTUvNWlRlgRZpeb9xOsFceUl+YTSvj7ducrFHItMe7MsJOW82qgOyC0tFfa
hiUj6KYmRruayjtJnGHS/DB9mf6s50luA+XSjxS4+tkTG5lnIO9JCoyRDv/fjfMc
Ky0d3h0h090=
=kFpp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:54:23 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Darien Phoenix Lynx wrote:
> Don't worry, I'm braced against the knockback the flaming from this idea's
> gonna give me...
>
> A mechanism (choice?) for allowing limitations to affect active point
> costs, similarly for advantages. Not all advantages should really affect
> active point cost (hole in the middle, personal immunity) and some
> limitations seem like they should (no knockback, reduced penetration).
> Some conditional limitations, especially for defenses, seem like they
> should (force Field only vs. fire), while others like activation,
> shouldn't. Is there a real problem (other than a little more complexity)
> in allowing people to choose whether their advantage/limitation affects
> active point cost or not? Should this be worth more "real" points to go
> against the grain (1/4 less limitation or 1/4 more advantage)? Obviously,
> certain clearly active advantages (double knockback) should always add to
> the active cost, while inactive limitations (focus) should never subtract
> from it.
Two types of Advantages and Limitations: Active and Real.
Active Cost = Base Cost x (1 + total of Active Mods)
if Active Advantages are at least equal
to Active Limitations;
= Base Cost / (1 + |total of Active Mods|)
otherwise
Real Cost = Active Cost x (1 + total of Real Mods)
if Real Advantages are at least equal
to Real Limitations;
= Active Cost / (1 + |total of Real Mods|)
otherwise
> With active points come: range, dispel/suppress/drain difficulty, END
> cost, multipower/EC/campaign caps. Anything I'm leaving out?
If nothing else, the above could work nicely as a house-rule...
Go through the various Ads and Lims and determine for each whether it
should be considered Active or Real. I don't have my book at the moment,
so I can't exactly do it myself...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:48:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: OIHID
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, dflacks wrote:
> One reason not yet mentioned for OIHID being a separate limitation is the
> connection with the Focus limitation. In the details for the focus
> limitation, the BBB says that some things may appear to have a Focus, but
> closer examination reveals that the actual limitation should be OIHID.
> Since Focus is a common limitation across many genre, the OIHID limitation
> should definitely remain separate from the generic limitation.
This can be taken care of by changing the phrasing under Focus to refer to
"Conditional Limitations" instead of "OIHID".
> As for the usefulness of OIHID, it is one of my favorite limitations. If a
> GM asks me to make a new character, odds are I will end up using OIHID. I
> tend to create a character similar to a high powered agent with stats like
> 15 strength and 13 or even 18 DEX. Once designed, I add the OIHID powers
> and more skills. I like to have Martial Arts, and often end up spending
> any points I save with OIHID on MA and Skills for base character.
OIHID would still be there after integrating it into Conditional
Limitations (which probably _should_ be seperated from Limited Power), and
its usefulness would not be degraded in any way by doing so; nor have I
questioned the usefulness of OIHID. All I'm saying is that it isn't
unique enough to be listed as a seperate Limitation.
> I have revised this character a number of times, changing its name and
> powers but keeping the OIHID characteristics the same.
If my suggestion to integrate OIHID into Conditional Limitations gets
accepted, the only change you'd have to make to your character (and even
this is optional) would be to put the words "Conditional Power: " in front
of OIHID. Everything else works the exact same way.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:54:00 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 12:56 PM 1/28/98 EST, SteveL1979 wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-28 12:10:07 EST, bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
>
><< The two things I don't like about Ballestra (as far as inclusion on a
> general list of maneuvers) are that it's poorly defined (what the heck *is*
> it, anyway?), and it's used in only one Martial Art in the whole book. >>
>
> As explained to me by my sources (assuming my memory's correct -- don't
have
>my UMA notes handy right now), the Ballestra is a sort of all-out offensive
>swordfighting charge. Although fairly specific to that sort of style, it
>could be incorporated into fantasy fencing styles and some other weapon-based
>arts, and possibly even some others depending on how far you want to stretch
>the special effect.
Well, that at least answers that part of the question. I suppose I
could yield on the point. :-]
Actually, it would've been good in TUMA (all right, all right, UMA) to
have a brief explanation of each maneuver on the tables. I can see where
that would have been impractical, though, especially in a printed book
that's already pushing the size limit.
Hero4 has such explanations, if I recall correctly; I think we should be
able to expect Hero5 to do so as well.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 16:01:20 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:25 PM 1/28/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> It is actually quite similar to the "throws" of pre-4th edition,
>which had abort and an automatic block as well as doing damage.
Whenever this is mentioned, a recall when Exo-Skeleton Man tried to do a
Move Through on my PC, Frank Lewis, in his pre-Captain Glory days. At that
time Frank was basically just a normal, albeit with horribly high stats
(nearly all Primary Stats just over 20) and Martial Arts. I felt like
showing off, so as soon as I was aware of what was going on, I blurted out,
"Martial Throw." The maneuver was successful, doing Frank's STR plus
Leroy's Velocity, and instead of splattering Frank across the pavement, ol'
Leroy was about 3 STUN short of being in GM's Option.
That would never be possible under the current rules (unless one uses
the optional maneuver construction rules in Ninja Hero, but even those
aren't meant for superhero games like what Frank was in). But it sure made
for a great gaming moment. :-]
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:05:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> (Particularly one where one wrestler, from a head-to-head side-by-side
> TRG> position, got control and went to the ground himself breaking his fall
> TRG> with the other wrestler's face. We heard that one through the entire
> TRG> wrestling floor.)
>
> Grab and Throw?
Maybe. I was thinking more Strike/Throw with about +4D6 damage.
> Grab is a wonderful maneuver for one simple reason: you do not have to let
> go. Nothing else allows you to retain control over your victim's body.
Oh, I quite agree. Notice, however, that Grab itself is a
non-exclusive element, needing the Strike element to do damage.
And for that particular takedown, no control was maintained after
the fall. Of course, the target wasn't able to move to keep from being
grabbed during the next action pahse, but . . .
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:07:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> These moves are, however, definately not two seperate maneuvers.
> TRG> It's not a case of getting away one phase and tossing your opponent to
> TRG> the ground the next. Nor is it a case of getting away one phase and
> TRG> grabbing a hold of your opponent the next.
>
> Remember that Escapes may be performed as zero-phase actions. Same goes
Not quite. Only if you break the hold by a suitable amount is it
a 0-phase action. Otherwise, one could attempt an infinate number of
escape attempts per, say, action phase.
And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand, anyway?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:35:49 -0500
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
X-Juno-Line-Breaks: 0-20,24
From: istorema@juno.com (Bruce A Crow)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 03:35:52 -0800 Rook <rook@infinex.com> writes:
>Hello;
> Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>I can only comment on the languages I'm familiar with, so I've made
>the
>following mods so
>far:
> Korean and Mandarin have 2 points similarity
> Korean and Japanese have 1 points similarity
>(this stems from the fact that Korean uses Japanese Grammer and 60% of
>Korean vocab is
>borrowed from Chinese with a little modification)
>
> Tagalog and Spanish have 4 points similarity
>(speakers of one or the other can communicate with each other with
>only
>a few stumbling points)
>
> Any other corrections people have made based on languages they may
>have knowledge of?
Spoken Vienamese is quite similar to Spoken Cantonese, thought the
written versions are very different. I would give a 2 point similarity
but for the written part so I only give a 1 point similarity. I don't
know much about Cambodian so I can't comment.
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Michael.Adams@october.com (Michael Adams)
Date: 28 Jan 98 19:20:08 -0800
Subject: Re: Magic Shapeshifting Potions
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
Magic could be brought on by a virus or other genetic change/mutation.
Or threw nanotech and combined with transporter tech to recreate the effects of
magic.
After all, to change shape all you need to do is seperate the "mental"processes
from the body and put the body into a pattern buffer and give the "mental"a new
temporary body. The potion could be how the nanites are infused (liek the Borg
for an example (I thought of it first, but).
With the tech parts being "grown"...
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: voxel@mail.theramp.net
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:42:31 -0600
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: 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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
At 01:15 PM 1/28/98 -0400, Trevor Barrie wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
>> Changing the STUN, PD, and REC of 90%+ of all characters in the books
>> or any campaign I have ever been in is not "so minor it barely
>> deserves to be called a "minor change".
>
>So don't change them. Gee, that was hard. It's simply not an issue at all
>for the characters in the books; for PCs, you either have to juggle
>numbers to make things work or just allow the characters to keep their old
>stats (the same choices you have any time you try to change rules
>mid-campaign.)
Changing attribute costs is, at least regarding published characters, a
minor change. Simple method to effect it: if, for example, we increase the
cost of STR to 2 points ...
1) Look at Character A's STR.
2) Subtract 10 from result of 1.
3) Add result of 2 to Character A's Experience & Total.
Gosh, that was tough.
--
"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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:45:44 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 1
> > Korean and Mandarin have 2 points similarity
> > Korean and Japanese have 1 points similarity
> >
> > Tagalog and Spanish have 4 points similarity
>
> Spoken Vienamese is quite similar to Spoken Cantonese, thought the
> written versions are very different. I would give a 2 point similarity
> but for the written part so I only give a 1 point similarity. I don't
> know much about Cambodian so I can't comment.
>
Well, written isn't much of an issue. After all, according to the
chart on page 20, literacy is free unless in a culture were illeracy is the
norm, in which case it's just a one point add on.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:49:23 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
>
> << Tagalog and Spanish have 4 points similarity (speakers of one or the other
> can communicate with each other with only a few stumbling points)>>
>
> That's not been *my* experience. I speak enough Spanish to communicate with
> folks at my day job, and I have never had any luck communicating with folks
> who speak Tagalog. :/
>
Funny.
Worked fine for all the philipino's I knew when I lived in asia.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: ron@salt.bowneglobal.co.jp
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:10:02 +0900
From: Ron FOSTER <ron@bowneglobal.co.jp>
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
At 7:50 PM -0800 98.01.22, Sam Bell wrote:
: Dexterity:
:
: In general, I think trying to peg Dex onto gymnastic ability is silly. If
: anything, it should be pegged to hand-to-hand combat ability. Gymnastics
: is just another Dex-based skill and shouldn't get so much attention. To
: put it another way, juggling is a dex-based skill too, but just because I'm
: a heroic level juggler doesn't mean I have 15-17 dex.
:
: In specific: Shadowcat has the same dex as the Thing? Darkseid has more dex
: than Nightwing? Titanium Man has more dex than Mockingbird??? Let's face it,
: the guys who come up with stats for game systems screw up sometimes.
Although it's been years since I played, much less looked at, either
the DC Heroes or the Marvel RPG, even if we peg Dex to HTH ability, I
can easily see Darkseid having a higher Dex (and SPD) than Nightwing.
I haen't been reading Fourth World or the (new) New Gods, and don't
know what the current treatment of Darkseid is, but in the early issues
of the Byrne Superman (I know, I know, he's been powered up since...),
Darkseid was able to move at Supe-level speed--I remember Kal commenting
that "How can something so big move so fast? I didn't even see him
move!" Whoa. Not even with those super-peepers?
Another thing to keep in mind is Darkseid is a _god_. His very nature
gives him abilities beyond most mortals'. Byrne and other have portrayed
him moving much like the old Superman and the Flash--no movement marks,
just being in one place in one panel and another in the next panel.
Given that Champions Dex is a combination of reflexes, reaction time,
and so on, I can imagine Darkseid being in the 27 (low-powered campaign)
to 36 (high-powered) range. If I had to build them, I would probably
give Nightwing a 27 Dex, Batman a 29 Dex, Darkseid/Superman a 30 (maybe
33) and the Flash 33 (maybe 36).
My two cents' worth.
Thanks,
Ron
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:23:33 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
>
> Rook asks:
> >Has anyone else noticed problems in the language similarity chart?
>
> I've always been bugged by the English simliarities.
>
> Isn't English closer to Latin than German? I always thought English was
> a romance language. I certainly learned a lot of English words from my
> Latin class.
>
It's germanic. In fact, I've never studied german but I have
found myself able to understand parts of it when I listen in closely.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:25:11 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
On Monday, January 26, 1998 7:47 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>
>> Lifted from Casey McGirt's article "The Wonders of Energy Blast",
once
>> posted on the Digital Hero page:
<snip>
>
>> Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an
automatic
>> hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
>
>Be careful with this one; I could see instances where Counterstrike
would
>be ineffective (such as Counterstrike vs. a Seeking EB...)
>
Which could actually be a valid ability. A character might have an
energy blast that tracked back along an attack's path to strike the
original attacker, for example.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:39:36 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
> >> So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social Limitation?
> >> Let's see....
> >> Works for me.
> >
> > Only remove the 8-, 11-, 14- from the frequency's, and just list the
> >frequencies.
> >Then add one more frequency: Always at 20.
>
Opps, when I said Always at 20 I meant always, for 20 points.
I don't think any frequencies should be diced based.
I mean, who rolls up random scenerios anyway?
Just give me descriptions that are clear enough I can plot them in as needed.
> Only if we get the frequency extensions I've suggested for DNPC and
> Hunter.
Oh? What were those?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:03:46 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
>
> >> F> I fail to see why it would be invalid for Mind Control, but
> >acceptable
> >> F> for Transform. Please define exactly what it is that makes one
> >valid
> >> F> and the other not.
>
> Actually, cumulative Mind Control sounds like a good construction for a
> Horror Hero villian to use:
> First night -- Our Hero has strange nightmares all night long. (First
> Mind Control attack.)
> Next day -- Our Hero can function normally (with enough caffeine), but
> finds himself drawn to actions he wouldn't normally do (exact action
> depending on nature of the Mind Control).
> Second night -- More nightmares. (Second Mind Control attack.)
> Next day -- Even more caffeine needed to function, but the strange
> pull to whatever action is being implanted with the Mind Control is
> stronger.
> Continue until the Mind Control hits full strength or Our Hero's buddies
> realize there's more than sleep deprivation going on here.
>
> I don't run mentalists very often, so there may be holes in this attack
> description.
>
Seems totally valid.
Actually, I was shocked when I first started Hero back in 1985 and found
mental powers were all instan all or nothing items.
It certainly clashes with the genre.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 00:49:36 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
> That would never be possible under the current rules (unless one uses
> the optional maneuver construction rules in Ninja Hero, but even those
> aren't meant for superhero games like what Frank was in). But it sure made
> for a great gaming moment. :-]
I think, perhaps, it would be possible if a character were to
prepare and declare a Martial Throw in preperation of someone charging
him/her. It would still require a Dex roll to see if the attack or the
Throw would be the first to have effect.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 00:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
> TRG> However, that throw will not stop incoming attacks. Or rather, it
> TRG> might stop them, depending on a DEX check to see who goes first -- ala
> TRG> NH rules. I'm really not sure if UMA changed this or not.
>
> A DEX check is required to see who goes first. If the thrower goes first,
> and is successful, the attacker winds up on the ground before he can
> attack. More than likely that will invalidate the attacker's attack.
Right. That's what I said, in essence.
> TRG> Mixing the throw with block takes away the need for that DEX
> TRG> check, as long as the character is in a prepared Block mode.
>
> No, it does not, because the Block does not have the Abort element any
> more. Take away Abort and you must have a DEX check.
Huh, not really. The block allows one to block the incoming
attack, plain and simple. The character just can't abort his phase to go
to the block. He has to declare this maneuver on his action phase.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 09:48:58 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 18
The Proposed Social Limitation is as follows:
>>> Social Limitation
>>>
>>> Circumstances Occur Points
>>>
>>> Occasionally (8-) 5
>>> Frequently (11-) 10
>>> Very Frequently (14-) 15
>>>
>>> Effects of Limitation Points
>>>
>>> Inconvenient (but fairly safe) +0
>>> Dangerous (major risk of injury) +5
>>> Deadly (suicide runs) +10
>>>
>>> Punishment for Violation Points
>>>
>>> Minor (fired, dishonored, disowned) +0
>>> Major (blacklisted, flogged, imprisoned) +5
>>> Severe (death — if they catch you) +10
This could move things like Dist. Feat: Unfamiliar w/Culture into a more appropriate category (SL: Unfamiliar w/ Earth Culture, Very Freq, Inconvenient, Major [you may inadvertantly break the law], 20 Points.)
I have never liked using Dist. Feat this way, so I vote wholeheartedly for this one.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 10:08:01 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 19
>> Not to mention the fact that this charcter can now jump farther, carry more,
>> use heavier weapons, impress the ladies or if a lady impress the guys, throw
>> things farther, break grabs and entangles easier, shrug aside barriers that
>> Normal Man has to take at least 1/2 phase to remove, and shove around little
>> girly men at the beach. And all this can be yours for the low, low price of
>> only 10, I say, 10 Power Points. :-)
Not to be jerk, but ST does nothing to impress anyone. That is what PRE
is for. I can make an 80 STR character and say that he looks like an
80-lb weakling, since he is of an alien race...
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:02:53 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 24
> Not to be jerk, but ST does nothing to impress anyone. That is what PRE
> is for. I can make an 80 STR character and say that he looks like an
> 80-lb weakling, since he is of an alien race...
Sure, but that isn't necessarily a matter of PRE. He could have
80 STR, look like a 80-lb weakling, but be so incredibly compelling and
inspiring to have, say, a 50 PRE.
Or you could have a 20 STR jock with huge muscles who acts so
insecure to be able to intimidate anyone, PRE 5.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: aregalad@miami.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:18:30 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Dragonfly's Benchmarks!
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 26
Howdy!
> Although it's been years since I played, much less looked at, either
> the DC Heroes or the Marvel RPG, even if we peg Dex to HTH ability, I
> can easily see Darkseid having a higher Dex (and SPD) than Nightwing.
> I haen't been reading Fourth World or the (new) New Gods, and don't
> know what the current treatment of Darkseid is, but in the early issues
> of the Byrne Superman (I know, I know, he's been powered up since...),
> Darkseid was able to move at Supe-level speed--I remember Kal commenting
> that "How can something so big move so fast? I didn't even see him
> move!" Whoa. Not even with those super-peepers?
Well there you go! Strike one for the comicbook people for assigning
stats! I own these issues, but it has been a long time. Thanks for the
input.
Take care,
Dragonfly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:21:37
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "q" == qts <qts@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
> >> opponent's trait?
>
> q> Yes
>
> No.
>
> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit.
No such statement is made in my BBB. They can not increase characteristics more than their roll, but it says nothing about limits on how many points may be taken away. To wit, a 1d6 Aid can only add 1d6 pts, but a 1d6 Drain has no defined upper limit on what may be drained.
The exception to this is Tranfer, which states a limit based upon how much you can increase a characteristic, but makes no reference to how much you may take away. This, read literally, indicates that when you've Transfered your limit to yourself, you can go no further with it at all, thus preventing Transfer from working like Drain after the point recipient is "full".
>They
> also cannot adjust active points that are not there. To wit, against a
> 12D6 Energy Blast, 60 active points, you cannot take away more than 60
> active points. If you have a maximum of 30 active points of Transfer you
> cannot adjust more than 30 points of that Energy Blast.
Except that the last time we had this conversation, I posted an email from Bruce Harlick stating that characteristics could go to negative, and furthermore that, even if you didn't use the Negative Characteristic rules, BODY Drains that went negative could kill.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:28:18
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
<snip>
>
> One may abort to any defensive action. I do not believe anyone can
> disagree with that.
>
> Defensive Throw is a maneuver that one cannot abort to. The Abort element
> has been specificaly removed from the maneuver. Based on Steve Long's
> recent comments I think nobody will disagree with that, either.
>
> The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two statements is that
> using Defensive Throw is not a defensive action. If it is not a defensive
> action then a DEX roll is required.
The rules state that Abort can only be used with defensive actions, but the rules do _not_ say that Abort can _always_ be used with _all_ defensive actions. At no time do the rules state that being a defensive action requires the ability to abort.
Neither do the rules state at any time that the ability of block to 'go off before' another person's attack has anything to do with Abort. The description of this ability does not mention Abort as being required, and it is not listed as a function of Abort.
The only function stated to be the direct result of Abort is the ability to use an action before your next phase. It is never described as having any other effect, such as to decide who goes first or to define what is or is not a "defensive action".
Filksinger
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 11:38:10 -0500
x-sender: DFair@pop.worldweb.net
From: David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com>
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 28
>> Actually, cumulative Mind Control sounds like a good construction for a
>> Horror Hero villian to use:
>> First night -- Our Hero has strange nightmares all night long. (First
>> Mind Control attack.)
>> Next day -- Our Hero can function normally (with enough caffeine), but
>> finds himself drawn to actions he wouldn't normally do (exact action
>> depending on nature of the Mind Control).
>> Second night -- More nightmares. (Second Mind Control attack.)
>> Next day -- Even more caffeine needed to function, but the strange
>> pull to whatever action is being implanted with the Mind Control is
>> stronger.
>> Continue until the Mind Control hits full strength or Our Hero's buddies
>> realize there's more than sleep deprivation going on here.
>>
>> I don't run mentalists very often, so there may be holes in this attack
>> description.
This, strictly speaking, doesn't sound like it is only a mind control. It
sounds like an EGO drain (with a very long recovery time) followed by a
weak mind control. The more you drain each night (the start of the
nighmares) the more susceptable the target becomes to the mind control
(the end of the nightmares). Have the recovery period set to something
like 1 week or more and it works pretty well.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 11:38:12 -0500
x-sender: DFair@pop.worldweb.net
From: David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com>
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 27
On 1/29/98 11:02 AM Tim R. Gilberg (trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu) Said:
>> Not to be jerk, but ST does nothing to impress anyone. That is what PRE
>> is for. I can make an 80 STR character and say that he looks like an
>> 80-lb weakling, since he is of an alien race...
>
>
> Sure, but that isn't necessarily a matter of PRE. He could have
>80 STR, look like a 80-lb weakling, but be so incredibly compelling and
>inspiring to have, say, a 50 PRE.
>
> Or you could have a 20 STR jock with huge muscles who acts so
>insecure to be able to intimidate anyone, PRE 5.
Exactly. In none of the examples above does STR directly give bonuses for
"impressing" people; That is the responsibility of PRE. If you want to be
impressive buy PRE, if not, don't.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 10:44:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 30
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> On Monday, January 26, 1998 7:47 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
>
>
> >On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> >
> >> Lifted from Casey McGirt's article "The Wonders of Energy Blast",
> once
> >> posted on the Digital Hero page:
> <snip>
> >
> >> Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an
> automatic
> >> hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
> >
> >Be careful with this one; I could see instances where Counterstrike
> would
> >be ineffective (such as Counterstrike vs. a Seeking EB...)
> >
>
>
> Which could actually be a valid ability. A character might have an
> energy blast that tracked back along an attack's path to strike the
> original attacker, for example.
But it sould not come automatic with Counterstrike; say, require an extra
+1/4A for Counterstrike to be usable against Seeking EB.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 11:51:27 -0500
Lines: 30
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 31
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> Not quite. Only if you break the hold by a suitable amount is it
TRG> a 0-phase action. Otherwise, one could attempt an infinate number of
TRG> escape attempts per, say, action phase.
TRG> And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand, anyway?
If you can break out/get up as a 0-phase action you do not have the
described "break out on one phase and perform the throw on the next phase"
phenomenon. The escape and the counterthrow occour as if they were a
single action -- because, in fact, they are as far as SFX go.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNCzjZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGFtgQAiYG+exv2C2xzr7qrHMIiJHhJb2Gbz0FU
1yYBrCHgElBlLwE/TWWhVkLMwiycDO4RNP8Eh/Pj6XjZhqc/yOPF7bFaf6EFGCTm
a2D0liOeeI9GMZuPGJ09L3X84gRK4UCQjqx8EmnUGEsS2GbhUx7j7LergkgFUJGR
XLkElVaTuXg=
=wTep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 11:53:32 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 32
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> Huh, not really. The block allows one to block the incoming
TRG> attack, plain and simple. The character just can't abort his phase to
TRG> go to the block. He has to declare this maneuver on his action phase.
I don't think so, but I will have to check to be sure. I was under the
impression that what allowed a defensive maneuver to occour before an
opponent's offensive maneuver was the Abort element. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNC0Cp6VRH7BJMxHAQENUQP/fy+RUzue6lDxIELeihcKhMlf8NQFizDp
aCZf5PLv/QNRUJzwt9CR6L5D43/ArYiFBRYkhtlXVF+jIM0tPt277FnRQE038aQK
y9/aSePkNKfwLL5C5PrHnwVsQC75NB+qp3TPMSzqaGfEp6PSJNYtHwnJbQP9waFJ
3y/AAbWUK8g=
=qALg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 11:59:09 -0500
Lines: 38
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 33
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
DPL> Not quite what I had in mind. Although many of the examples I gave
DPL> involve damaging effects, this is a more general consideration. I'm
DPL> not looking for a classification, I really want to change the active
DPL> costs.
Okay, let me be a bit more blunt: don't. Active cost is active cost,
damage clases are damage classes. The latter exist for exactly the reasons
you describe. It is a way for GMs to set reasonable damage limits on
powers in his campaign without having to deal with exceptions for "less
important" advantages.
To wit, a "12D6 EB" and a "12D6 EB, Half Endurance Cost" have different
active point totals. They both have the same DC total (Reduced Endurance
does not affect the damage done by the attack). Both are valid for a 12DC
campaign.
Let damage be capped by DCs, and let active points be capped by the
campaign's guidelines for character point totals.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNC1W56VRH7BJMxHAQFQVAQAgMsYcn6yniC4scFwbOij3d9su+dJmeNn
mJGWsbT4fivRmKoi/siVSH7yajBkFxMVNAhICumRRBtW2cGG2nJ22k+VG8UCzi1M
Zqu9cUlEowVhqVbkz1bHDJf0qwisLKsKoK7LXC99y4j98ZiuSbke+L5WxCO2B6vZ
WuFoKTZ9iEo=
=iDcB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:43:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 37
On 29 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>
> DPL> Not quite what I had in mind. Although many of the examples I gave
> DPL> involve damaging effects, this is a more general consideration. I'm
> DPL> not looking for a classification, I really want to change the active
> DPL> costs.
>
> Okay, let me be a bit more blunt: don't. Active cost is active cost,
> damage clases are damage classes. The latter exist for exactly the reasons
> you describe. It is a way for GMs to set reasonable damage limits on
> powers in his campaign without having to deal with exceptions for "less
> important" advantages.
>
> To wit, a "12D6 EB" and a "12D6 EB, Half Endurance Cost" have different
> active point totals. They both have the same DC total (Reduced Endurance
> does not affect the damage done by the attack). Both are valid for a 12DC
> campaign.
>
> Let damage be capped by DCs, and let active points be capped by the
> campaign's guidelines for character point totals.
Rat, you still don't understand.
To help clarify, explain to me why a personal immunity EB has a longer
range, costs more END and is more difficult to dispel than a regular
EB--even though it's actively the same EB. Or half-end, or variable SFX,
and so on. We're not talking about damage AT ALL, but these other effects
of active points. Considering that you favor DC limits over AP limits, you
shouldn't be concerned about changing active costs... it won't affect your
campaign balance, but it will affect the range, END cost, and
drain/dispelibility of some powers.
I understand and appreciate the points you raise. However, remember that I
defined active points and based on that definition, determined that the
simple advantage/affects active cost, limitation/doesn't approach is
perhaps insufficient. Active points are a useful construct, but as handled
presently they produce some "off" results. Additionally, it makes sense
that a limited defense, like a FF only vs. fire, should cost the character
fewer END to maintain than a broader "spectrum" ED FF, even if they have
the same DEF values.
Based on your previous posts, which excel at finding the unforeseen
problems in proposals, I'm interested in what you have to say. So far you
seem to think I'm talking about a more complex AP management schema for
GMs who set active point limits in their campaigns. I'm not; please see my
definition of active points and analysis of advantages/limitations which
should/should not logically apply, and direct your constructive criticism
there.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:16:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Reply-To: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Disadvantages for powers!
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Ready for my next great/insane idea?
Much has been made of the SFX vs. game mechanics arguments. Some allow for
widely varying "real" effects based of the SFX; others feel that no effect
must the most minor should be received if it wasn't paid for with points.
Consider this: One of my players builds a villain, Mr. BOOM. A mad bomber
archetype, he has an arsenal of multifunctional black orb-bombs. However,
for this discussion consider his Superleap: 10" (8 charges) SFX:
controlled explosions in the heels of his blast protection suit. Now,
being an observant GM, I note that a no range 2d6 x2 KB EB explosion
linked to the superleap seems appropriate. But them's points, and not very
useful ones at that. No one wants to pay for questionably effective "side
effects." Of course, I get the usual "why...? Do I have to?" "Well, no,
but don't you think..." "I *could* just say they're super-springs or
something..." "Now, come on, that's not Mr. BOOM's MO..."
And so on.
Some people say--give the player a minor SFX benefit in exchange for a
minor SFX detriment... others say, if it could be written up, then it
needs to be written up. The truth is, it's far more interesting and
true-to-genre when heroes use their powers in creative and innovative
ways--yet frustrating for GMs who have to control or define those
"unspecified ways"--yet frustrating for players to actually buy those
"lesser" uses.
Idea: Allow up to a set number of points (Campaign AP limit/3, let's say)
for other uses of, or side effects of your power. Put in that tiny
aftershock explosion, or that 1/2d6 AoE flash that accompanies your EB...
but there's a catch. Any points that you spend this way have to be made up
with power disadvantages... the negeative ramifications of your power. For
instance, were Mr. BOOM a hero, one common, minor disadvantage would be
the property damages caused by his jumping. This makes him more reluctant
to use the power. Assuming everything balances out, you pave the way for
more unique powers and more fun role-playing. Just like in the comics, you
could see a battered Mr. BOOM seeing the flying enemy come in for the
kill, while the thought-bubble says, "Now, if I time this just right... I
can use the controlled explosions in my boots to get away, and knock him
into the meat grinder over there..."
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 19:38:51
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 40
On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 19:03:02 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jan 1998, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>
>> Dataweaver writes:
>> > > Drain doesn't have a maximum limit like Aid.
>> >
>> > Hmm? Last I chaecked, _all_ Alteration Powers had a maximum limit...
>>
>> Nah. There's a maximum amount by which an adjustment power can help you, but
>> no limit to how much one can hurt you.
>
>So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
>opponent's trait?
Yes
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 13:58:50 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 35
> > Or you could have a 20 STR jock with huge muscles who acts so
> >insecure to be able to intimidate anyone, PRE 5.
>
> Exactly. In none of the examples above does STR directly give bonuses for
> "impressing" people; That is the responsibility of PRE. If you want to be
> impressive buy PRE, if not, don't.
Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:01:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 38
> >> I don't run mentalists very often, so there may be holes in this attack
> >> description.
>
> This, strictly speaking, doesn't sound like it is only a mind control. It
> sounds like an EGO drain (with a very long recovery time) followed by a
> weak mind control. The more you drain each night (the start of the
Actually, you have described the standard Hero 4th explination of
this concept. However, just describing the effect, it does not sound like
"a long recovery time EGO drain with a small Mind Control" to an average
player trying to construct a power in Champions.
> nighmares) the more susceptable the target becomes to the mind control
> (the end of the nightmares). Have the recovery period set to something
> like 1 week or more and it works pretty well.
Just because we have come up with Kludges to make Mind Control and
other Mental Powers work a little more like they do in the source
materials doesn't mean the construction is the best or, even, the most
valid. I think the addition of cumulative in TUM was a great step -- one
that should definately make the 5th edition.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 14:04:23 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 36
> TRG> Huh, not really. The block allows one to block the incoming
> TRG> attack, plain and simple. The character just can't abort his phase to
> TRG> go to the block. He has to declare this maneuver on his action phase.
>
> I don't think so, but I will have to check to be sure. I was under the
> impression that what allowed a defensive maneuver to occour before an
> opponent's offensive maneuver was the Abort element. :)
I just did some searching of my own, and as far as I can tell
Abort is only used to allow one to "abort one's action phase" to go before
someone. That is, it is useful for going before someone else's action,
yes, but only to be able to declare an action of your own when not holding
a phase.
With either a declared action or a held phase, abort is not
actually needed for Dodge or Block. And, according to the HSA section
held actions, a DEX roll is needed to see who goes first. Except, of
course, in the case of defensive actions -- they always go first.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 15:25:29 -0500
Lines: 51
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 41
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> With either a declared action or a held phase, abort is not
TRG> actually needed for Dodge or Block.
That *is* an abort -- bear with me on this. Strictly speaking, holding
your action requires that you specify some future event or condition that
will cause the character to "break" his hold and do something. There are
three conditions that will break the hold:
1. The specified event occours or the condition is met. You get the full
use of your held action at that point, but you may need to make a DEX
roll in order to act faster than the event.
2. The start of your next action phase. No DEX roll is required, but you
lose your held action.
3. You abort to a defensive action. No DEX roll is requird, as this is an
abort. The held action is used instead of your next time chart action
phase as it is your next future action phase.
TRG> And, according to the HSA section held actions, a DEX roll is needed
TRG> to see who goes first. Except, of course, in the case of defensive
TRG> actions -- they always go first.
One may abort to any defensive action. I do not believe anyone can
disagree with that.
Defensive Throw is a maneuver that one cannot abort to. The Abort element
has been specificaly removed from the maneuver. Based on Steve Long's
recent comments I think nobody will disagree with that, either.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two statements is that
using Defensive Throw is not a defensive action. If it is not a defensive
action then a DEX roll is required.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNDlt56VRH7BJMxHAQF5FQP/caVQ5ertua1jMHvb+B8seFdtq0Q9CWHg
1INjb+ACg6bdcYSJL9q9I3no+/fzKvewWD/DjaM4yO8uw/kslyLRNyfHlytIDM+2
OeiaifnnhZpriOU0HrehVgp4LLT7ig56b1UGJJJYFiC7fYYsjUOmaJuMlBFvSbZK
WFMw53cpa6o=
=oqSc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Darien Phoenix Lynx\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 20:29:27
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998 13:00:41 -0600 (CST), Darien Phoenix Lynx wrote:
>Don't worry, I'm braced against the knockback the flaming from this idea's
>gonna give me...
>
>A mechanism (choice?) for allowing limitations to affect active point
>costs, similarly for advantages. Not all advantages should really affect
>active point cost (hole in the middle, personal immunity) and some
>limitations seem like they should (no knockback, reduced penetration).
>Some conditional limitations, especially for defenses, seem like they
>should (force Field only vs. fire), while others like activation,
>shouldn't. Is there a real problem (other than a little more complexity)
>in allowing people to choose whether their advantage/limitation affects
>active point cost or not? Should this be worth more "real" points to go
>against the grain (1/4 less limitation or 1/4 more advantage)? Obviously,
>certain clearly active advantages (double knockback) should always add to
>the active cost, while inactive limitations (focus) should never subtract
>from it.
>
>With active points come: range, dispel/suppress/drain difficulty, END
>cost, multipower/EC/campaign caps. Anything I'm leaving out?
>
>What is an "active point" really? It's a point that's actually "active,"
>that is "out there" manifested in your power. Frankly, I don't care when
>I'm getting hit with a 12d6 EB whether you shot it from a focus or used
>incantantions or gestures or that you could only do it under a full moon.
>That's 12d6 of *active* effect, and it is and should be that difficult to
>dispel, should have that much range, and should cost that much END.
>Similarly, a 12d6 AVLD attack is *actively* different from your standard
>12d6 EB--if I could catch EBs in a jar, some test could show the
>difference--but not that one required a skill roll.
>
>In most cases, HERO works such that restrictions or conditions on a powers
>usage are called limitations, and enhancements to a power's active effect
>are called advantages, but the rule of thumb doesn't always hold true.
>
>However, if your force field only works against fire, that's an actively
>different power that doesn't affect the active cost. And a triggered EB
>isn't actively different from a manual one, but there it does affect the
>active cost. When applying the "makes sense" approach we find that there
>should be a flag on each advantage/limitation as to whether it affects the
>active cost or not.
>
>On the separate note, if the above suggestion is rejected, should not
>occasionally a character be allowed to choose whether a given advantage or
>limitation affects active cost? This gives greater flexibility in
>determining END costs, while trading off the benefit for a shorter range,
>easier-to-dispel active power.
Are you looking to reintroduce the old FH-1 concept of Modifiers? These
(Reduced End and Variable Advantage, as I recall) were taken after
calculating the Active Cost, but before any limitations.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 15:34:22 -0500
Lines: 39
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 39
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
DPL> To help clarify, explain to me why a personal immunity EB has a longer
DPL> range, costs more END and is more difficult to dispel than a regular
DPL> EB--even though it's actively the same EB. Or half-end, or variable
DPL> SFX, and so on.
Because it is *NOT* actively the same EB.
The DCs are the same (Personal Immunity does not affect damage to the
target), but the active costs are different. I, with my 12D6 EB with
Personal Immunity, have paid more than you with your "vanilla" 12D6 EB. It
costs me more END because I have a bigger power. It is harder to dispell
because it is a bigger power. I paid more points than you did.
Remember the corrolary to one of the rules of thumb: if you did pay for it,
you do have it. If someone paid more points for a power than someone else,
the first will get more out of it than the second.
Personally, as far as range goes, I would be recomend using the base cost
of the power to determine range, but that is just me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNDnzJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEuRwP/Udp0d73+ZJQ3r9pjbfKQsl/rPBcWWCXL
/vqOxcImUeELqjUipHB4ktwrKB0Xwc/hk/WOk/zigLSDpEOWQUZDtS2hrPvmeoCM
RCs4SsD5zleXNvAE6tDP4C5Kvjet64+j2H46AxUv5QC+nC1PQ1y/4Ieoyql4QQvT
rIpyHmk7dcY=
=nlh9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ returned to its special container and
\ kept under refrigeration.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 15:44:05 -0500
Lines: 32
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 43
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "q" == qts <qts@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
>> opponent's trait?
q> Yes
No.
Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit. They
also cannot adjust active points that are not there. To wit, against a
12D6 Energy Blast, 60 active points, you cannot take away more than 60
active points. If you have a maximum of 30 active points of Transfer you
cannot adjust more than 30 points of that Energy Blast.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNDqFJ6VRH7BJMxHAQHl4QP+K5gTrk6uafn8Twj7RlAN3O5ydo6oPdDJ
8a5y8U0WOa1HO7q4S589DjGTx8QLv+XAbH10ljLxWAR4WLutB+whiaF/+7ID777v
1uk3IIDVYTYfEOmkj4h26Lj8lqgOug1x5HSrYjJuZk6bkO2VNKvqLN03B6a20qkY
a91xjDu6NIA=
=QRpl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 16:38:04 -0500
x-sender: DFair@pop.worldweb.net
From: David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com>
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
On 1/29/98 2:58 PM Tim R. Gilberg (trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu) Said:
>
> Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
>physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
>to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
>
Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 15:38:33 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> 3. You abort to a defensive action. No DEX roll is requird, as this is an
> abort. The held action is used instead of your next time chart action
> phase as it is your next future action phase.
This isn't how it works in the HSR, as far as I could see, but
I'll do some more looking.
> TRG> And, according to the HSA section held actions, a DEX roll is needed
> TRG> to see who goes first. Except, of course, in the case of defensive
> TRG> actions -- they always go first.
>
> One may abort to any defensive action. I do not believe anyone can
> disagree with that.
Right.
> Defensive Throw is a maneuver that one cannot abort to. The Abort element
> has been specificaly removed from the maneuver. Based on Steve Long's
> recent comments I think nobody will disagree with that, either.
Right. Though it can, like any other action, be used in a held
phase.
> The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two statements is that
> using Defensive Throw is not a defensive action.
Here a disagree. It contains the Block element, making it
defensive in nature. It also doesn't do any damage. For reasons of
balance, it has no Abort element. This only keeps one from Aborting the
next action phase to use it.
> If it is not a defensive action then a DEX roll is required.
Actually, a DEX roll is required for all actions trying to occur
on the same phase, defensive or not. It just so happens that defensive
actions are always considered to have taken effect "first", even though
they are actually "simultaneous".
-Tim
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:06:28 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two statements is that
>using Defensive Throw is not a defensive action. If it is not a defensive
>action then a DEX roll is required.
Hrm. Bear with me on this; say on my phase (3) I don't have anybody
attacking me and no one is in easy range. So I declare that I'm using my
action for Defensive Throw. On the next segment (4), somebody waltzes up and
and tries to take a swing at me. Since Blocks 'carry over', I do the OCV vs
OCV thing. If my Block succeeds, my opponant is thrown off his feet and his
attack is Blocked. Correct so far?
Now, say on phase 3 I simply decided to 'hold my action' until somebody
attacks me. On segment 4 somebody does and I declare my Defensive Throw. Do
I make a DEX vs. DEX roll to see who goes first? My copy of TUMA reads
'Block, Target Falls, STR Strike', which means it's an attack action and
would require the DEX vs. DEX check. If it was simply 'Block, Target Falls'
then it would be a defensive action and automatically 'go first'.
In either case the Defensive Throw obviously cannot be Aborted to, it lacks
the 'abort' characteristic. As written (Block, Target Falls, STR Strike)
it's illegal (two exclusive maneuver bases), but as a Block, Target Falls
it's 'legitimate', as far as it goes. So which is 'proper' (I've skipped
quite a bit of this thread, if you can't tell)?
Without the Abort characteristic, you can't even use this in a mutual phase
unless you have a higher (or equal) DEX than your opponant; the only way to
use a non-abort Block is on your DEX or as a held action.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 17:13:05 -0500
Lines: 43
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> The only conclusion that can be drawn from these two statements is that
>> using Defensive Throw is not a defensive action.
TRG> Here a disagree. It contains the Block element, making it
TRG> defensive in nature.
Now you're doing it on purpose :) (and Block is a maneuver base, not a
maneuver element).
Defensive Throw contains a "Target Falls" element, making it *offensive* in
nature, even though it does no damage[1], and regardless of the maneuver base.
The maneuver loses the Abort element because of that offensive element --
Steve fairly said as much. The maneuver stopped being defensive when that
happened.
Or, if it *is* a defensive action, why is it that one cannot abort to use
it?
Personally, I think I've got you over a barrel on this one, Tim. :)
[1]There are many offensive maneuvers that do no damage: Grab and Hold,
Grab and Redirect, disarms, etc.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNND+7Z6VRH7BJMxHAQHd7wP+N1F5QauI2Ve0MIpwgpgvEPjKArQb9Kru
BU86nZxe0iMC4/Ws+PpXYXvSdci1jLap2IQcVyRlLhKQD1VjpjsxXJWAMcpYdGf+
/EoyuUrBYBs2eHOyhtFTjb86B3bgYeaGNi5akvug0R42fctOPRACGcsG84K70F/4
gomIbe9ZfAA=
=O6Ml
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:18:55 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
> >physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
> >to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
> >
>
> Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
How do you rationalize that? Physical stats, STR and BOD
especially, but also DEX and CON, quite obviously come with the effect of
"looking" stronger, sleeker, bulkier, or whatever.
This, of course, isn't necessarily true in SuperHero campaigns,
where differing physical structures can exist. But for any normal humans,
it should be very easy (PER roll at, say +3 or 4) to tell, by looking at
two people, which one has 10 STR and which has 20.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Disadvantages for powers!
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 17:20:45 -0500
Lines: 34
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-----
>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
DPL> Some people say--give the player a minor SFX benefit in exchange for a
DPL> minor SFX detriment... others say, if it could be written up, then it
DPL> needs to be written up.
The middle ground is, if the character uses the ability more than once as a
creative use of his extant abilities, and the ability is significant, he
has to spend the points for it. What you described for Mr. BOOM is not
creative use of his extant powers -- he needs to buy Superleap. The
explosion is a special effect since, well, it does not actually damage
anything because it is shaped such that all the energy goes into propelling
him up.
By the by, "grenade-hopping" did not originate in Quake, as some would
believe. The technique came from the game "Marathon".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNEAs56VRH7BJMxHAQGs/AP9Fsimg1DbWFQdVOzASaL4FLWWMWIJ+YGe
DFR+AAIhNczHiA2Sa0+wIqBrVUCShRy7uVrt3IDAtjrOTczNIcJwBc4ywOYW5wVG
o5/MEpeELl50JImyvXc5syqHtMuJtx/DLzZftsBtYFi7Tr+oGojv87zGWcxnqjI1
Xp44JBigCT8=
=wVzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 17:26:33 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "DF" == David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com> writes:
>> Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
>> physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
>> to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
DF> Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
Oh, yeah. You can be as strong as an ox but not appear to be particularly
impressive. Look at any muscle magazine or contest. The guy with the
highest Presence -- reflected in part by definition of muscle -- is the guy
that wins, not the outright strongest.
You can be big and strong but not appear particularly intimidating. George
from "Of Mice and Men" is a good example of that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNECFZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEZBwP9HBONdLb04qly2vrc1MY/I6bSR6CyfBQh
cqDYn9Z0mJtiYH3nlBXIQdKhh8p2uEXRQa0yxt7Qx7QrY6/8wOgKjPwp3s02dJ4L
yq2Zem2VCAGPvgXcGig7eqCcxYc95QTenirpUGfA8L3caXMHNhgamaW+xTECBbhF
7iB/JievBBg=
=pYSS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:37:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@access.digex.net>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, John and Ron Prins wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
> "Indeed!"
> "That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Jack!"
"Jack what!"
Hmmm... I just gotta get offa my butt and finish my work on the cast of
Big trouble in Little China.
***************************************************************************
* "'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 *
***************************************************************************
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 17:44:31 -0500
Lines: 38
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-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> Hrm. Bear with me on this; say on my phase (3) I don't have anybody
JaRP> attacking me and no one is in easy range. So I declare that I'm using
JaRP> my action for Defensive Throw. On the next segment (4), somebody
JaRP> waltzes up and and tries to take a swing at me. Since Blocks 'carry
JaRP> over', I do the OCV vs OCV thing. If my Block succeeds, my opponant
JaRP> is thrown off his feet and his attack is Blocked. Correct so far?
No. Strictly speaking, your block has not carried over, because you have
not actually used it. Block requires an OCV vs. OCV roll, a roll that you
have not yet made. GM's call whether or not you get the OCV and DCV
modifiers from the maneuver. I would say no, you are holding your action,
on the condition of someone entering hand-to-hand range of you. You intend
to use Defensive Throw on whomever comes within range, but you have not
actually done it, yet.
By the by, you bring up an interesting point: because Defensive Throw is
based on the Block maneuver base you may opt to continue to toss around
attacking opponents until your next action phase. Darned impressive, that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNEGTJ6VRH7BJMxHAQGqcQP7BA7ZeZmYx6kh6+mrWtfHJQJtOl8SOvuz
z4FU7Dxw/jRPhj08Ogx62hp2AYCDATFr8M36tQGXaPvgSNhP5Aw4Y+aiCRoSk4pD
Z0gbA0PMORbHOLr5buT9va5UcpiiH6aZMc5jzHED7Nj59LSutjMlJoIuj+6uuVGg
8PR3+b8/Ohk=
=GIno
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 98 23:02:07
Reply-To: "John Desmarais" <John.Desmarais@ibm.net>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Need Fantasy Creatures
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 4
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:39:27 -0600, Marc Seebass wrote:
>Does anyone have a listing of Fantasy creatures that could challange a 250
>+ exp group? I have a sinerio in mind and I'd like to save myself some work
>if I can. Please email responses to me, not the group, it's easier to sort
>through them that way.
>
>Thanks in advance
Both The Hero Beastiary and The Fantasy Hero Companion have a bunch of beasties
- enough that I only bother writing things like that up when I have something specific that
I want. I'd recommend both volumes (there is some overlap of beasts, but the write-ups
aren't the same).
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:15:46 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>JaRP> Hrm. Bear with me on this; say on my phase (3) I don't have anybody
>JaRP> attacking me and no one is in easy range. So I declare that I'm using
>JaRP> my action for Defensive Throw. On the next segment (4), somebody
>JaRP> waltzes up and and tries to take a swing at me. Since Blocks 'carry
>JaRP> over', I do the OCV vs OCV thing. If my Block succeeds, my opponant
>JaRP> is thrown off his feet and his attack is Blocked. Correct so far?
>
>No. Strictly speaking, your block has not carried over, because you have
>not actually used it. Block requires an OCV vs. OCV roll, a roll that you
>have not yet made. GM's call whether or not you get the OCV and DCV
>modifiers from the maneuver. I would say no, you are holding your action,
>on the condition of someone entering hand-to-hand range of you. You intend
>to use Defensive Throw on whomever comes within range, but you have not
>actually done it, yet.
I'd say that the bonuses do take effect. Blocking can be as much
stance-dependant as reaction-dependant - isn't this why we have maneuver
bonuses in the first place, to represent how much of an offensive/defensive
advantage or disadvantage a particular 'maneuver' grants? If I choose to
take a stance condusive to Defensive Throws, those bonuses should take place
immediately. After all, do you question (I doubt it) that the bonuses for
Dodge take place immediately when a character declares it w/o Aborting to
it? While the difference may be that Defensive Throw has some 'offensive'
potential, I don't think it's enough difference - it still based off of a Block.
>By the by, you bring up an interesting point: because Defensive Throw is
>based on the Block maneuver base you may opt to continue to toss around
>attacking opponents until your next action phase. Darned impressive, that.
True, but the descending OCV of the Blocker will make this run out pretty
quick; in many respects it's very similar to the Sweep Maneuver, only you
can't be the agressor (they have to attack you for it to work) and thus has
cumulative descending penalties (-2 OCV per additional Block) rather than a
flat fee (-2 OCV for every target, cumulatively).
Visually, I see the Defensive Throw as simply redirecting the attacks of
others so that they trip/fall/lose balance. As long as you remove the 'STR
Strike' part of it I have no troubles with the maneuver; though you could
apply a little damage based on the surface involved in the Throw. A
non-damaging Throw provides few enough bonuses for the price (esp. atop a
Block manuver) that I don't think it's terribly abusive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:29:17 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>>> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
>>> opponent's trait?
>>
>> Yes
>
> No.
>
> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit.
C'mon. Transfer is an overpriced version of Drain+Aid. Drain doesn't
have an active point limit, and Aid does. You keep draining, but the
excess is wasted (the Aid has been sated). If you disagree, just read
all "Transfers" as Drain+Aid, linked (oops).
Donald
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:30:07 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 29 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>
> DPL> To help clarify, explain to me why a personal immunity EB has a longer
> DPL> range, costs more END and is more difficult to dispel than a regular
> DPL> EB--even though it's actively the same EB. Or half-end, or variable
> DPL> SFX, and so on.
>
> Because it is *NOT* actively the same EB.
>
> The DCs are the same (Personal Immunity does not affect damage to the
> target), but the active costs are different. I, with my 12D6 EB with
> Personal Immunity, have paid more than you with your "vanilla" 12D6 EB. It
> costs me more END because I have a bigger power. It is harder to dispell
> because it is a bigger power. I paid more points than you did.
>
> Remember the corrolary to one of the rules of thumb: if you did pay for it,
> you do have it. If someone paid more points for a power than someone else,
> the first will get more out of it than the second.
>
> Personally, as far as range goes, I would be recomend using the base cost
> of the power to determine range, but that is just me.
You completely missed the point.
A 12d6 EB with Personal Immunity and OIF costs 90 Active points and 60
Real points and has 12 DC of effect; a 12d6 plain-vanilla EB costs 60
Active points and 60 Real points and has 12 DC of effect. In both cases,
you pay 60 points and get 12 DC of effect; but the first EB has 50% more
range than the second and requires 50% more END to use; and an Adjustment
Power would have to roll 50% higher to generate the same amount of effect
on it - all because the character cannot be injured by his own power.
(I don't have my book with me, so my figures may be a little off; I'm
assuming that Personal Immunity is a +1/2A. If it's only a +1/4, replace
the OIF with an IIF, reduce the 90 points to 75 points, and change all
50%'s to 25%'s; the point remains the same.)
I can't really think of any Limits that would lower Active cost (i.e.,
make the power easier to Adjust, cost less END and have less range); but I
can think of a large number of Advantages that wouldn't - Personal
Immunity and Autofire (the cost of each shot wouldn't go up, but you'd
still have to pay seperately for every shot) come to mind...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:35:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 29 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "q" == qts <qts@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>
> >> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
> >> opponent's trait?
>
> q> Yes
>
> No.
>
> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit. They
> also cannot adjust active points that are not there. To wit, against a
> 12D6 Energy Blast, 60 active points, you cannot take away more than 60
> active points. If you have a maximum of 30 active points of Transfer you
> cannot adjust more than 30 points of that Energy Blast.
...and getting back to the original question: does this also apply to
Drain? i.e., if you have 5d6 Drain, are you limited to a maximum of 30
Active points that can be Drained? (I'd like to ask a favor: Please give
relevant quotes from the BBB to back up your statements.)
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 18:44:56 -0500
Lines: 48
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> A 12d6 EB with Personal Immunity and OIF costs 90 Active points and 60
D> Real points and has 12 DC of effect; a 12d6 plain-vanilla EB costs 60
D> Active points and 60 Real points and has 12 DC of effect. In both
D> cases, you pay 60 points and get 12 DC of effect; but the first EB has
D> 50% more range than the second and requires 50% more END to use; and an
D> Adjustment Power would have to roll 50% higher to generate the same
D> amount of effect on it
Because it is a bigger power. They may cost the same, but they are not the
same power. When you apply a power modifier to a power, you change that
power into something else.
D> - all because the character cannot be injured by his own power.
Wait a minute, here. You are blatantly ignoring the detrimental effects of
that Focus limitation. Sure, your big EB has greater utility. But I, a
normal person with no powers to speak of, can take that power away from you
with nothing more than a bit of cleverness (and maybe some luck). And
because I control the focus for the power, I control all aspects of that
power, not you. If it is a Universal Focus, I get the Personal Immunity,
not you; if it is not Universal, well, I may not be able to use it at all,
but neither can you.
In other words, roughly 1/4 the time, give or take depending on the GM's
whim, you are not going to have your big, badass, hard to dispell Energy
Blast.
I think that just agbout makes up for the supposed dichotomy.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNEUd56VRH7BJMxHAQG/zwQAxrD4x0bJEJrWRbUmU1Jh/JHuaeKi7GV6
GwW4aZjYtbZudcvbhkp3MOz1DplhrlDd265o77ol2Jomvlx4YBr4l4QToq7+PQOc
cm9zROi5A8walDH3FYIE4MuyO6n8Qty5IQdIGKbEpx+vge5+/lDH2tueLaDisiXu
hwJ98823pcQ=
=mtmQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 17:47:48 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: Hero System Mailing List <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Donald Tsang wrote:
> Does the BBB specify that range is based on active points, not base points?
> (older versions of Champs/Hero used base points, I believe)
I'm assuming so; I don't have my copy right now (it was stolen two days
ago...). If not, the issue about Adjustment Powers is still a point. And
there _are_ some Advantages that should result in a higher END Cost, such
as Area Effect or Explosive...
Perhaps range should be based off of Base points, while END Cost should be
based off of Active points (with only some of the Advantages affecting
Active cost)...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 18:55:17 -0500
Lines: 48
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit.
F> No such statement is made in my BBB.
Au contraire. I suggest you read it again, in the numerous places that
specifically mention that adjustment powers affect active points. If there
are no active points to adjust, there is nothing to adjust. It was not a
literal quote. Duh.
F> They can not increase characteristics more than their roll, but it says
F> nothing about limits on how many points may be taken away.
Read Transfer; it can transfer (move) X number of active points of
whatever, where X is a function of the number of dice of Transfer. Once
you hit the limit, Transfer cannot move any more active points. Duh.
F> To wit, a 1d6 Aid can only add 1d6 pts, but a 1d6 Drain has no defined
F> upper limit on what may be drained.
The limit to Drain is the available active points. Drain vs. a 30 active
point Energy Blast cannot drain more than 30 active points. Duh. Hell!
try to drain or transfer active points of Energy Blast from me, the normal
human with no powers. Duh.
And please note that I deliberately avoided mentioning Characteristics,
because some can have negative values, like Body and Stun. What happens
when they reach certain negative levels is thoroughly defined in the BBB.
Duh.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNEW4Z6VRH7BJMxHAQE59wQAuFQ+nQQKG/u5bEYycrgz4nyr0H9bLxQh
P1ZT5eRXTtJv9DXuLFti8wuppUsMNqHxYHmtdRFCo4P8WdVdmfRpV02xUBfWDjX5
6DQ3oUArkxTvwOrxa7J+J9ijviApGwgShdXwaQh5F/9GByWLjZORrizJiJbZAOUS
cX0+uJ3N/TA=
=5vsk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 29 Jan 1998 19:01:24 -0500
Lines: 39
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-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> I'd say that the bonuses do take effect. Blocking can be as much
JaRP> stance-dependant as reaction-dependant -
I do not disagree with this, but you have not actually performed the
maneuver. Since you have not done so, you do not get the CV modifiers.
Same goes for any other maneuver: until you actually begin using that
maneuver you do not get the modifiers.
Normally, because Block gets Abort, you get to go before the attack, so the
CV modifiers come into effect. But with a maneuver like Martial Throw you
need to make a DEX roll. If you win, you get your CV modifiers before the
attack hits (if it hits); if you lose you do not.
Because Defensive Throw loses Abort and because it is an offensive maneuver
(see the other fork of this discussion) you need a DEX roll to see which
goes first, the block or the attack. Even though you declared that you
will be attempting that maneuver, you have not actually used it, yet.
Thus, I say you are holding your action. That is the most beneficial thing
for you that I can do given the nature of the maneuver.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNEYUZ6VRH7BJMxHAQG6FAQAk8eBcqtiyqJLahsQOLlXpjlZNXPV1alh
DyMvN9LZx/JcG8zp9RldXsuVriwcwGwI4uv2MSt5VawdMeKVdwlWdtk8i3tLq9YM
Tebhh1O7yHaFHH/6c0GhKLnZy5+PQsqIVLr2rxXvGFGt1fe3qLBp0INbhIWfu5jW
iLdApc0bCLg=
=dm4l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 18:16:24 -0600
From: Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
(Rat, please don't use repeated "Duh"s; you're just generating ill will)
Rat writes [left-edge quotes edited]:
>Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>>Rat writes:
>>> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit.
>>
>> No such statement is made in my BBB.
>
>Au contraire. I suggest you read it again, in the numerous places that
>specifically mention that adjustment powers affect active points. If there
>are no active points to adjust, there is nothing to adjust. It was not a
>literal quote. Duh.
Actually, nowhere does it specifically mention active points, as I recall
(which is why some people [still?] interpreted Aid as being Real Points).
And it's not clear that you can't drain something below zero. In fact,
I would *want* to be able to, if only to delay the reemergence of the
drained power.
The very reasonable interpretation, "Powers drained to below their
active point minimum [which, by the way, should be the base point minimum
adjusted by the power's advantages] are treated as not existing, except
for purposes of recovering up to that minimum" solves any problems I
can forsee...
>> They can not increase characteristics more than their roll, but it says
>> nothing about limits on how many points may be taken away.
>
>Read Transfer; it can transfer (move) X number of active points of
>whatever, where X is a function of the number of dice of Transfer. Once
>you hit the limit, Transfer cannot move any more active points. Duh.
Please, read between the lines. Don't force people to buy Drain+Aid,
linked (with the +0 advantage "use the same dice for both results").
Donald
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:08:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> JaRP> I'd say that the bonuses do take effect. Blocking can be as much
> JaRP> stance-dependant as reaction-dependant -
>
> I do not disagree with this, but you have not actually performed the
> maneuver. Since you have not done so, you do not get the CV modifiers.
The modifiers do not depend on someone attacking you. For a
Martial Dodge declared during your action phases, you definately get the
modifier. Block would be exactly the same -- you are in preperation to
block any incomming attack.
> Same goes for any other maneuver: until you actually begin using that
> maneuver you do not get the modifiers.
Where is your rationale? Rat, we've come up with information from
the HSR, NH, and TUMA to support our points. What have you forwarded?
> Normally, because Block gets Abort, you get to go before the attack, so the
> CV modifiers come into effect.
But as we've pointed out, Rat, the abort element has nothing to do
with going first. All that has to do with going first or not is whether
the maneuver is a defensive one based on block or dodge.
> But with a maneuver like Martial Throw you
> need to make a DEX roll. If you win, you get your CV modifiers before the
> attack hits (if it hits); if you lose you do not.
No DEX roll necessary. Read your HSR/BBB.
> Because Defensive Throw loses Abort and because it is an offensive maneuver
> (see the other fork of this discussion) you need a DEX roll to see which
> goes first, the block or the attack. Even though you declared that you
Why? Abort has nothing to do with this. It is either a declared
action or a held phase. And as it is defensive (like any block), it goes
before any attacks. This differentiates it from a Strike/Throw, which can
do the same thing with a held phase only with the DEX roll.
> will be attempting that maneuver, you have not actually used it, yet.
> Thus, I say you are holding your action. That is the most beneficial thing
> for you that I can do given the nature of the maneuver.
Your last sentence was unintelligible. I might or might not be
holding my action, but it doesen't matter. This, as a defensive
block-based maneuver, goes first.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:10:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> And what does this have to do with the discussion at hand, anyway?
>
> If you can break out/get up as a 0-phase action you do not have the
> described "break out on one phase and perform the throw on the next phase"
> phenomenon. The escape and the counterthrow occour as if they were a
> single action -- because, in fact, they are as far as SFX go.
True, but if I don't break out in the 0-phase action, it doesn't
work. This isn't true to form. Also, with two seperate elements, I'll
have to escape and then make an attack roll. As it is, if I escape, you
fall. (Barring a breakfall roll, of course.)
This is actually pretty true to form. Many wrestling maneuvers
I've seen and used when in a "both standing" grasp have been an escape
that happens to direct the original grabbing wrestler to the mat.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:11:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 29 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> A 12d6 EB with Personal Immunity and OIF costs 90 Active points and 60
> D> Real points and has 12 DC of effect; a 12d6 plain-vanilla EB costs 60
> D> Active points and 60 Real points and has 12 DC of effect. In both
> D> cases, you pay 60 points and get 12 DC of effect; but the first EB has
> D> 50% more range than the second and requires 50% more END to use; and an
> D> Adjustment Power would have to roll 50% higher to generate the same
> D> amount of effect on it
>
> Because it is a bigger power. They may cost the same, but they are not the
> same power. When you apply a power modifier to a power, you change that
> power into something else.
Yes; you change it into a power that has more range and costs more END to
use. But it shouldn't; a 75-point 10d6 Autofire EB should have the _same_
range and END cost as a 50-point 10d6 EB; not 50% more. The extra points
were payed to increase the rate of fire, not to increase the range (IMHO,
range should be determined by Base Points instead of Active Points
anyway), and the END cost of each shot should _not_ go up; you should
simply pay END for five shots instead of one. Granted, it's doubtful as
to whether or not it should be more difficult to Adjust (although I'm in
favor of it being more difficult, to stop Aid abuses); perhaps both range
and END Cost should be figured off of Base points, and have some
Advantages being noted as affecting the END cost as well as the points
cost... (Autofire would _not_ be among them) Doing this, you could
dispense with the "some Ads don't affect Active cost/some Disads do" and
_still_ have believable ranges and END costs...
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 19:17:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> TRG> Here a disagree. It contains the Block element, making it
> TRG> defensive in nature.
>
> Now you're doing it on purpose :) (and Block is a maneuver base, not a
> maneuver element).
Right. Close enough, though.
> Defensive Throw contains a "Target Falls" element, making it *offensive* in
> nature, even though it does no damage[1], and regardless of the maneuver base.
> The maneuver loses the Abort element because of that offensive element --
> Steve fairly said as much. The maneuver stopped being defensive when that
> happened.
Not exactly. It has an agressive effect, but the existence of the
Block Maneuver Base clearly makes it defensive.
> Or, if it *is* a defensive action, why is it that one cannot abort to use
> it?
A limiting feature, to keep it from being too useful. One has to
specifically go into a defensive mode for this power to work. I can't do
my normal attack thing and just abort to this one.
> Personally, I think I've got you over a barrel on this one, Tim. :)
I'd disagree. I'd say you've got that barrel squarely under
yourself.
> [1]There are many offensive maneuvers that do no damage: Grab and Hold,
> Grab and Redirect, disarms, etc.
No arguement, though that's only because the choice is not to do
that damage (with Grabs). You can do the damage, but don't -- similar to
pulling a punch.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: ErolB1@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:25:00 EST
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
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 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
> Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING, though
> at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing words, it
> might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
> EVERY modern language. :]
English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-)
Erol K. Bayburt
Evil Genius for a Better Tomorrow
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "Marc Seebass" <kitsune-bi@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Need Fantasy Creatures
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:39:27 -0600
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 2
Does anyone have a listing of Fantasy creatures that could challange a 250
+ exp group? I have a sinerio in mind and I'd like to save myself some work
if I can. Please email responses to me, not the group, it's easier to sort
through them that way.
Thanks in advance
----Marc "Kitsune" Seebass
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:43:23 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 3
> "Block, Target Falls" is correct. The paper copy was in error on
>this point, but the Hero Plus version corrected it. Steve himself pointed
>this out.
<insert sound of black marker in John's copy of TUMA>
I'd have to call a non-damaging throw combined with a block still a
'defensive' maneuver - sidestepping the need for DEX vs DEX checks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:37:36 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 7
On Thursday, January 29, 1998 7:44 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
>
>> On Monday, January 26, 1998 7:47 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
>>
>>
>> >On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>> >
>> >> Lifted from Casey McGirt's article "The Wonders of Energy
Blast",
>> once
>> >> posted on the Digital Hero page:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> >> Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an
>> automatic
>> >> hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
>> >
>> >Be careful with this one; I could see instances where
Counterstrike
>> would
>> >be ineffective (such as Counterstrike vs. a Seeking EB...)
>> >
>>
>>
>> Which could actually be a valid ability. A character might have an
>> energy blast that tracked back along an attack's path to strike the
>> original attacker, for example.
>
>But it sould not come automatic with Counterstrike; say, require an
extra
>+1/4A for Counterstrike to be usable against Seeking EB.
Why would immunity to Counterstrike come with Seeking? Granted, most
SFX would seem to lean that way, but you either have Seeking
automatically gets immunity to Counterstrike, or Seeking is treated
just like any other EB for purposes of Counterstrike.
I might agree with your suggestion, but I do have a tendency to prefer
that only features deliberately built-in to a Power, Advantage, or
Limitation be given away without extra cost.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:57:25 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 5
On Thursday, January 29, 1998 1:33 PM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
<snip>
>
>Defensive Throw contains a "Target Falls" element, making it
*offensive* in
>nature, even though it does no damage[1], and regardless of the
maneuver base.
>The maneuver loses the Abort element because of that offensive
element --
>Steve fairly said as much. The maneuver stopped being defensive when
that
>happened.
>
>Or, if it *is* a defensive action, why is it that one cannot abort to
use
>it?
>
>Personally, I think I've got you over a barrel on this one, Tim. :)
Very good try. Now bite on this one.
I will accept that the Defensive Throw is not a defensive maneuver
(though I think the name calls that into question). However, it is
irrelevant.
Blocks do not go first because they are defensive maneuvers.
The description of Block in the BBB is very clear, as is the one in
Ninja Hero (I assume it is the same in UMA). It says nothing about
Abort allowing the attack to go first, nor does the definition of
Abort. It says nothing about Block going first because it is
defensive. What it does say is that a person attacks, the target says,
"I will block", and the target goes first.
You don't go first with a Block because it aborts or because its
defensive, but because going before the attacker gets his attack roll
is part of the _definition_ of Block.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 21:15:38 -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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 6
On Thursday, January 29, 1998 3:10 PM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>>> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point
limit.
>
>F> No such statement is made in my BBB.
>
>Au contraire. I suggest you read it again, in the numerous places
that
>specifically mention that adjustment powers affect active points. If
there
>are no active points to adjust, there is nothing to adjust. It was
not a
>literal quote. Duh.
Uh, I am afraid I don't understand. I took the statement, "Adjustment
powers cannot adjust more that _their _ active point limit" to mean
"Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than _the Adjustment power's_
active point limit". If you meant, "Adjustment powers cannot adjust
more than _the target power's_ active point limit", then that is
another matter entirely.
>F> They can not increase characteristics more than their roll, but it
says
>F> nothing about limits on how many points may be taken away.
>
>Read Transfer; it can transfer (move) X number of active points of
>whatever, where X is a function of the number of dice of Transfer.
Once
>you hit the limit, Transfer cannot move any more active points. Duh.
Transfer does appear to say that you cannot remove anymore points than
you can receive. However, _Drain_ says nothing of the sort.
>F> To wit, a 1d6 Aid can only add 1d6 pts, but a 1d6 Drain has no
defined
>F> upper limit on what may be drained.
>
>The limit to Drain is the available active points. Drain vs. a 30
active
>point Energy Blast cannot drain more than 30 active points. Duh.
Hell!
>try to drain or transfer active points of Energy Blast from me, the
normal
>human with no powers. Duh.
As I stated above, you appeared to be saying something else. Thus,
neither one of us understood the other, as we both made assumptions
about what the other was talking about.
>And please note that I deliberately avoided mentioning
Characteristics,
>because some can have negative values, like Body and Stun. What
happens
>when they reach certain negative levels is thoroughly defined in the
BBB.
>Duh.
As near as I can tell, our disagreement is based almost entirely upon
not understanding each other. Thus, this argument appears to be
settled.
Filksinger
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 22:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 8
>
> On 1/29/98 2:58 PM Tim R. Gilberg (trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu) Said:
>
> >
> > Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
> >physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
> >to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
> >
>
> Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
>
Isn't there already a stat for this sort of thing?
I thought that's what COM was for after all.
COM: How attractive you look.
PRE: How impressive you are, looks or not.
STR: How much you can lift.
BODY: your hit points.
Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@cmi.csc.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 0:52:03 CST
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 9
> In a message dated 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
>
> > Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING, though
> > at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing words, it
> > might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
> > EVERY modern language. :]
>
> English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-)
Actually, only Australian and American have 4 pts. of Similiarity.
Aussie and Kiwi have a 3 pt. similiarlity to each other, and a 2 pt.
similiarity to Tazmanian (which my Aussie co-workers have described as
"the Kentuck of Australia"). American has a 3 pt. similiarity to
both Common Canadian Redneck, and a 2 pt. similiarity to Ebonics.
British (ie, the Queen's English, as opposed to the English of everyone
else in the British Isles) has a 3 pt. similiarity (everything but
slang, as in "Do you want me to knock you up?" from the male
bellhop to the beautiful young American female traveller) to American,
and probably a 4 pt. similiarity to Common Canadian and Aussie.
Did I miss any English derivatives?
DonM.
--
=========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist dmckinne@cmi.csc.com =
= International Telecommunications Data Systems (217) 239-8365 =
= 2109 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL (217) 351-8250 =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998 =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org (217) 469-9917 =
=========================================================================
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:30:28
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
<snip>
>
> TRG> But as we've pointed out, Rat, the abort element has nothing to do
> TRG> with going first.
>
> Wrong. Abort is *exactly* what allows one to use a defensive maneuver
> first, before the attacker gets his action, regardless of DEX counts or
> held actions.
Your interpretation. Nowhere in the rules is this stated. The ability to "go first" with a block is built into the definition of Block, not Abort.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Dave Mattingly <DaveM@FocusSoft.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:40:09 -0500
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 10
What kind of similarity would you give ASL (American Sign Language) and
Braille to English, if any?
And how many points should be spent for what effects? e.g. is just 1
point of Braille all that's needed, since it's considered literacy?
Dave Mattingly
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 08:48:06 -0500
x-sender: DFair@pop.worldweb.net
From: David Fair <DFair@sdslink.com>
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 11
On 1/29/98 5:18 PM Tim R. Gilberg (trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu) Said:
> How do you rationalize that? Physical stats, STR and BOD
>especially, but also DEX and CON, quite obviously come with the effect of
>"looking" stronger, sleeker, bulkier, or whatever.
>
> This, of course, isn't necessarily true in SuperHero campaigns,
>where differing physical structures can exist. But for any normal humans,
>it should be very easy (PER roll at, say +3 or 4) to tell, by looking at
>two people, which one has 10 STR and which has 20.
I rationalize it quite easily, as a matter of fact. The Hero System
provides me with a number of characteristics and powers. I rationalize
that those should be used for what the designers intended them for; no
more, and no less.
I don't give bonuses to seduction rolls for people with high STR (this
did start as a discussion involving high STR characters as being
impressive, and more attractive to members of the opposite sex, after
all). I don't assume that a high STR character has to look like a high
STR character, whether it is a "reality-based" campaign or not.
Since the system has given me a mechanic for gauging ones impressiveness
(PRE, which can reflect his Physical attributes as well as
Personality-based ones) and his looks (COM), I choose to use them. Giving
the abilities of these characteristics to someone who has simply bought a
high STR defeats the purpose of having the stats at all, as well as
playing a point-based system.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: CptPatriot@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:55:40 EST
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 12
Does anyone know the scale of the hexes in the 1st edition Star Hero?
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:25:11 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 24
On 30 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> DT> C'mon. Transfer is an overpriced version of Drain+Aid.
>
> Wrong. If Transfer was Drain+Aid it would be written up as Drain+Aid. It
> is not. A power should *NEVER* be used to exactly duplicate the effects of
> another power, as you describe. Transfer is *NOT* an overpriced Aid+Drain
> (the "overpriced" part is arguable, but IIRC, Transfer is Ranged, Drain and
> Aid are not).
Okay, I thought I would figure it out if I watched people use it enough.
But I must be hopelessly ignorant. What does IIRC mean????
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:16:29 -0500
Lines: 41
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 15
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> The modifiers do not depend on someone attacking you. For a
TRG> Martial Dodge declared during your action phases, you definately get
TRG> the modifier. Block would be exactly the same -- you are in
TRG> preperation to block any incomming attack.
There is a critical difference here: Dodge does not require any kind of
roll; Block does. To paraphrase, "to use Block, the defender makes an OCV
vs. OCV roll against the attacker". Until that roll is made you are not
using that maneuver. Dodge, on the other hand, does not have that
requirement. Simply state that you are dodging and you use that maneuver.
It is all a matter of timing.
[...]
TRG> But as we've pointed out, Rat, the abort element has nothing to do
TRG> with going first.
Wrong. Abort is *exactly* what allows one to use a defensive maneuver
first, before the attacker gets his action, regardless of DEX counts or
held actions.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNHuy56VRH7BJMxHAQG9ZwQAg1EwUqXXVa0i10WPLmV1c7TtNFvqmN1E
7nbs/30Tu4MsUhpsLWy4Ix1TrJpfUIH/eFet+5Pe4o/Llbki/TsQiAuLhR2rAjf/
sAMyqSPgG+TboH0zXvtpXR0nInviDLWnvzoTHeQGC1KaNEQePqKFheQQHJZkcNub
p/xaptoV3ZI=
=B/ku
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:18:53 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 17
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> Yes; you change it into a power that has more range and costs more END
D> to use. But it shouldn't; a 75-point 10d6 Autofire EB should have the
D> _same_ range and END cost as a 50-point 10d6 EB; not 50% more.
Why? The character that has the bigger power has a bigger power. Bigger
powers have greater utility than smaller powers. It really is that
simple.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNHvW56VRH7BJMxHAQF80gQAuXXxfcAIGZT50ttJZonl+QIpSSly2ulL
XMaGNMzbrX/53hb9dk5tuy7XmVhiFoTiwnJd2sg0rzJH5KDHcr3HORd8IJ5J18B4
d/Owui3Jd0fX6fqbNqJIRa2lrwQpgqMMfxqgSGdneZ4oQKdksTjxfmXPanM4/zi9
puRm+/Z2A3s=
=7WlH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:20:22 -0500
Lines: 29
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 16
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> Or, if it *is* a defensive action, why is it that one cannot abort to use
>> it?
TRG> A limiting feature, to keep it from being too useful.
One may abort one's next action phase to use a defensive action.
Your task: make this dichotomy go away without creating an exception,
because execptions break the system.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNHvsp6VRH7BJMxHAQEcSAQAya62cn1fwX1IrotmD2Ye9p7IcmUY7gjX
pQ2CKVCtexp7BZFQPPp1BVPyJRDCXx5+Bue6HnPePUDAmhm3KadVU8uEzj1LXvmQ
S9j9l2zA7Uvruh3z8jjPZ1HHepz6uQDLjHBBKT52StW8CaqI/IbiYV5hYkkdQLKZ
IISOYKqMTh0=
=0fA8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:28:40 -0500
Lines: 50
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 18
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> ...and getting back to the original question: does this also apply to
D> Drain? i.e., if you have 5d6 Drain, are you limited to a maximum of 30
D> Active points that can be Drained? (I'd like to ask a favor: Please
D> give relevant quotes from the BBB to back up your statements.)
Again, active points. Read Drain, where it says that it Drains active
points of powers (I'd cite it myself but my BBB is at home, sorry). It
applies to all adjustment powers. They all operate on active points. When
there are no active points to affect, an adjustment power will have no
effect.
Say you with your 5d6 Drain vs. Energy Blast try to use it against me, the
real me, with no powers to speak of. Great! you roll 20 points of effect.
It does nothing because I don't have any active points of EB to affect.
Now, say that I have a 60 AP Energy Blast, and you use your Drain on me a
few times. You Drain a total of 75 AP from me. Well, once you've gotten
all 60 active points from me there is nothing left to affect. The extra 15
points of effect are wasted.
Before anyone says something like, "but negative points in EB will cause
you to take longer to recover your points," I will point out that there
already exists a mechanic to delay recover times. Negative values for
anything that the BBB does not explicitly define is a house rule. HSA 1 &
2 are the largest collections of Hero house rules ever printed -- they even
say as much in their introductions.
And personally, I would be very careful about allowing adjustment powers to
reduce any characteristics below 1. The potential for abuse is extreme
because large quantities of Power Defense is relatively rare.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNHxp56VRH7BJMxHAQHfrAQAq3h7g4o7GS23EgF2Qh6Rk/Y1AFnJCRRP
NOPmZBNRH+a70+W7qQDxEwmlJ9JfVYG12ixTSLBro0SZP5qZaeTFrUiHu8K5b9BD
OCOMwgB72zprvd6fafhM50R8BZ1roEy9OFG44xh6UDUprCwCTgZ/Dws9pn5HyVnD
OY1YlG0s4Wc=
=oaRg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:36:20 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 38
At 05:20 PM 1/29/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
>
>DPL> Some people say--give the player a minor SFX benefit in exchange for a
>DPL> minor SFX detriment... others say, if it could be written up, then it
>DPL> needs to be written up.
>
>The middle ground is, if the character uses the ability more than once as a
>creative use of his extant abilities, and the ability is significant, he
>has to spend the points for it. What you described for Mr. BOOM is not
>creative use of his extant powers -- he needs to buy Superleap. The
>explosion is a special effect since, well, it does not actually damage
>anything because it is shaped such that all the energy goes into propelling
>him up.
This is, by the way, something that didn't make it into the First Draft
of TUSV because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Rockets to a lot of blast
damage, and a person could be badly hurt by spinning helicopter rotors or
airplane propeller (as demonstrated in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), but I'm
really uncertain as to whether such a thing should be a Side Effect type of
Limitation, a Linked [sorry] Power, or just something so secondary, equally
advantageous and disadvantageous, that the Vehicle should get it simply by
definition.
I probably should have asked the list long ago, but... what do you all
think? (I suspect that I'll be no less confused when the discussion is
over....)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:38:16 -0500
Lines: 39
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 19
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> True, but if I don't break out in the 0-phase action, it doesn't
TRG> work. This isn't true to form.
Sure it is. If you do not break out "well enough" you did not do it with
enough force to knock him down anyway. Why should you get something you
did not earn?
TRG> Also, with two seperate elements, I'll have to escape and then make an
TRG> attack roll. As it is, if I escape, you fall. (Barring a breakfall
TRG> roll, of course.)
Which is the way the way Hero works, TUMA's singular exception excepted.
Reversing a hold into a hold or throw should require an attack roll.
It is a conceptual thing. Offensive maneuvers are intended to put one's
opponent at a disadvantage. Defensive maneuvers are intended to neutralize
or mitigate a disadvantaged position. An escape from a hold is a defensive
maneuver. Reversing a hold into a hold or throw is an offensive maneuver.
Offensive maneuvers require attack rolls.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNHz5Z6VRH7BJMxHAQFEYgP/f+xIBih9T3Z4pMXcE8lxurp0A7F/hLBc
RyUl+ZXlnyQBUHq8kuVwZHoD3ImRA8KjDpcb0bo+fv8igPW+ayKZOD+/QJgrEeLZ
yaWsw3STY/f/5lw2iT2QXVACF+H8Vkq5Rn5iGSbRKTqEtFJrJskbZP9Gxt0nWXlI
BnWnxd8Toyg=
=fERH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:47:15 -0500
Lines: 40
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 20
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> The rules state that Abort can only be used with defensive actions, but
F> the rules do _not_ say that Abort can _always_ be used with _all_
F> defensive actions.
Yes, it does. One may abort to *ANY* defensive action.
Defensive Throw is a maneuver that one specifically may not abort to use.
Therefore, use of Defensive Throw is not a defensive action.
Defensive Throw is not a defensive action. It is not a "neutral action";
those are things like holding, unstunning, and taking recoveries.
Therefore it must be an offensive action.
All offensive actions require a DEX roll to see which goes first when one
wishes to go first.
Therefore, use of Defensive Throw requires a DEX roll (and a held action).
This is where I write "QED", right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNH2AZ6VRH7BJMxHAQFsKAQAtmQ70qKJzVFTPsjCAIIsGWjg877zvL9j
xPBkI3kqm8j/GIWBWTcGiwbizBDV1fTvKIQqTDlJ0KzcVOq68O4nyCJw8dpl66Ln
XUNo6XELLp+r9PTR//i5PtCri6IYEq3ZZPy+Hl8qBgL57NUsStGw4GXxoACnMIIK
Am4DYsvedNg=
=LWj5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
\ head.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:47:49 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 39
At 04:18 PM 1/29/98 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> > Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
>> >physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
>> >to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
>>
>> Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
>
> How do you rationalize that? Physical stats, STR and BOD
>especially, but also DEX and CON, quite obviously come with the effect of
>"looking" stronger, sleeker, bulkier, or whatever.
Having a good STR and BODY don't necessarily equate with being
impressive. I've seen clips of "Copland" that bear this out.
I also remember a Silver Age issue of one of the Superman comics where
Supes was afflicted with little horns growing out of his forehead (I think
as a result of Red Kryptonite), so he borrowed one of Batman's cowls to
cover it up. He then decided, while he was at it, to make Batman-like
entrances, standing in the window with the cape outstretched. The usual
response was something like, "Oh, my G-- oh, it's just *you*, Superman."
After it was all over, Clark Kent was on the telephone to Bruce Wayne,
and asked confidentially, "How do you *do* that?"
Obviously high STR, BODY, CON, etc., but not quite the PRE he thought he
had.
> This, of course, isn't necessarily true in SuperHero campaigns,
>where differing physical structures can exist. But for any normal humans,
>it should be very easy (PER roll at, say +3 or 4) to tell, by looking at
>two people, which one has 10 STR and which has 20.
Which is a different question of "impressive" (PRE).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:50:00 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 21
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DT" == Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org> writes:
DT> C'mon. Transfer is an overpriced version of Drain+Aid.
Wrong. If Transfer was Drain+Aid it would be written up as Drain+Aid. It
is not. A power should *NEVER* be used to exactly duplicate the effects of
another power, as you describe. Transfer is *NOT* an overpriced Aid+Drain
(the "overpriced" part is arguable, but IIRC, Transfer is Ranged, Drain and
Aid are not).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNH2np6VRH7BJMxHAQHBGQQAhgFxFe9OcXRwrCNGuw3vWxVBdsa5uhkV
tWDVoi7h37A8qGB+r2PC9r4BqhQVCT0c7vnhJORUEeLp6HQTd7UU78B36/oHDtP0
/2BPCYz7kE7WZqe9siN3kYyFphhnfI/SmTrRn0n5txrX8LJg2CGAcWqppuVmRnuR
MFGT8j3dLCA=
=R0zl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:51:12 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 31
At 08:25 PM 1/29/98 EST, ErolB1@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
>
>> Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING,
though
>> at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing words, it
>> might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
>> EVERY modern language. :]
>
>English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-)
Phil Masters' comment that Highlander characters on British television
often need subtitles despite the fact that they're technically still
speaking English seems fitting here.
For that matter, I once rented a movie (I don't recall the title) that
took place in an African-American inner city area, and finally gave up on
following it because I couldn't understand a word (other than the rather
thick profanity).
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:52:59 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 35
At 12:52 AM 1/30/98 CST, Don McKinney wrote:
>> In a message dated 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
>>
>> > Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING,
though
>> > at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing
words, it
>> > might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
>> > EVERY modern language. :]
>>
>> English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-)
>
>Actually, only Australian and American have 4 pts. of Similiarity.
>Aussie and Kiwi have a 3 pt. similiarlity to each other, and a 2 pt.
>similiarity to Tazmanian (which my Aussie co-workers have described as
>"the Kentuck of Australia"). American has a 3 pt. similiarity to
>both Common Canadian Redneck, and a 2 pt. similiarity to Ebonics.
>British (ie, the Queen's English, as opposed to the English of everyone
>else in the British Isles) has a 3 pt. similiarity (everything but
>slang, as in "Do you want me to knock you up?" from the male
>bellhop to the beautiful young American female traveller) to American,
>and probably a 4 pt. similiarity to Common Canadian and Aussie.
>
>Did I miss any English derivatives?
American Southern, and Cajun. (After my brief journey to Alabama last
spring, I can definitely say that those are two very different derivitaves,
and that Gambit's accent is understated in both comic and cartoon.)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 10:54:51 -0500
Lines: 38
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 22
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> I will accept that the Defensive Throw is not a defensive maneuver
F> (though I think the name calls that into question). However, it is
F> irrelevant.
The name is about as "wrong" as one can get. Ignore the name. It is not a
throw, and it is not defensive. It is an offensive block maneuver, as
opposed to the conventional defensive block maneuvers. That is the game
mechanic.
F> Blocks do not go first because they are defensive maneuvers.
F> The description of Block in the BBB is very clear, as is the one in
F> Ninja Hero (I assume it is the same in UMA).
They go first because they have the Abort element. Read the description of
the Abort element. That is the entire point of the element: it lets you
take a defensive action before an attacker can hit you, regardless of DEX
counts and rolls.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNH3yZ6VRH7BJMxHAQHtEQQAqJXNeUk+oVTp3L0KndyJs8lCPcYOsOnb
4VJ0VCFGDuzCdSORyIPhJf5K6ddhHOjNT99LC3FSNXKR6KGQKAOQN8cEThuMK8fa
HBdO2Ttgg4jjCm/NnIqwT3PZr3ynfslYg9qrI7hl/sPPPUoPP4PzgcjqrAux4hSt
9Pzyps8flEk=
=D4r8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 07:56:13 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Social Limitation
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 33
At 09:39 PM 1/28/98 -0800, Brian Wong wrote:
>> >> So did we just come up with a workable structure for Social
Limitation?
>> >> Let's see....
>> >> Works for me.
>> >
>> > Only remove the 8-, 11-, 14- from the frequency's, and just list the
>> >frequencies.
>> >Then add one more frequency: Always at 20.
>>
> Opps, when I said Always at 20 I meant always, for 20 points.
>I don't think any frequencies should be diced based.
> I mean, who rolls up random scenerios anyway?
>Just give me descriptions that are clear enough I can plot them in as needed.
>
>> Only if we get the frequency extensions I've suggested for DNPC and
>> Hunter.
> Oh? What were those?
DNPC:
Roll Bonus
5- +0
8- +5
11- +10
14- +15
17- +20
(Also +5 points per 2X DNPCs on the same Roll, though that's not quite
germane to this specific discussion)
Hunted:
Roll Bonus
5- -5
8- +0
11- +5
14- +10
17- +15
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:28:55 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 32
At 08:55 AM 1/30/98 EST, CptPatriot@aol.com wrote:
>Does anyone know the scale of the hexes in the 1st edition Star Hero?
Assuming (from the header) that you mean starship hexes, it's 1 hex =
64" normal scale = 128 meters. (Star Hero, page 116.)
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:28:59 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 23
On 1/30/98, at 10:50 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>>>>>> "DT" == Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org> writes:
>
>DT> C'mon. Transfer is an overpriced version of Drain+Aid.
>
>Wrong. If Transfer was Drain+Aid it would be written up as Drain+Aid. It
>is not. A power should *NEVER* be used to exactly duplicate the effects of
>another power, as you describe. Transfer is *NOT* an overpriced Aid+Drain
>(the "overpriced" part is arguable, but IIRC, Transfer is Ranged, Drain and
>Aid are not).
OK, so Transfer is Drain+Aid, Ranged. It STILL duplicates those two powers pretty much.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition against duplicating the effect of another power pretty much a rule of thumb, and not an absolute? If it was, we wouldn't have both Armor and Force Field, or the Growth and Shrinking powers, to name a few.
Common problems need Uncommon Solutions!
http://www.uncommonsolutions.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:29:15
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> >> Or, if it *is* a defensive action, why is it that one cannot abort to use
> >> it?
>
> TRG> A limiting feature, to keep it from being too useful.
>
> One may abort one's next action phase to use a defensive action.
>
> Your task: make this dichotomy go away without creating an exception,
> because execptions break the system.
1) There are already exceptions. Dive for Cover cannot normally be Aborted to.
2) The maneuver was deliberately _made_ an exception. If that makes the system broken, too bad.
Filksinger
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:35:01 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 34
At 10:47 AM 1/30/98 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>F> The rules state that Abort can only be used with defensive actions, but
>F> the rules do _not_ say that Abort can _always_ be used with _all_
>F> defensive actions.
>
>Yes, it does. One may abort to *ANY* defensive action.
>
>Defensive Throw is a maneuver that one specifically may not abort to use.
>
>Therefore, use of Defensive Throw is not a defensive action.
>
>Defensive Throw is not a defensive action. It is not a "neutral action";
>those are things like holding, unstunning, and taking recoveries.
>Therefore it must be an offensive action.
>
>All offensive actions require a DEX roll to see which goes first when one
>wishes to go first.
>
>Therefore, use of Defensive Throw requires a DEX roll (and a held action).
>
>This is where I write "QED", right?
Not necessarily.... I've been following this discussion only
cursorially, since it's gone outside by usualy area of expertise, but it
always catches my attention when someone spells something out this
specifically because such arguments always serve to either change my
viewpoint, or see exactly where the other person has gone wrong.
What I find the HSR saying (on page 141) is, "A character can abort his
next action to perform a defensive Combat Manever or some other defensive
action like turning on a Force Field." In this section, it doesn't say
"any" (the word which you not unreasonably emphasized).
If you can point out to me somewhere in the HSR (or TUMA) that it
specifically uses the phrase "any defensive action" in connection with
Abort, then I'd have to agree with your logic; it's just a matter of Doing
The Math. Otherwise, I'd have to disagree on that premise.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 08:42:11 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 29
At 07:40 AM 1/30/98 -0500, Dave Mattingly wrote:
>What kind of similarity would you give ASL (American Sign Language) and
>Braille to English, if any?
>
>And how many points should be spent for what effects? e.g. is just 1
>point of Braille all that's needed, since it's considered literacy?
I'd call Braille a form of literacy, and ASL one point of similarity
(the grammar is the same, and words are often spelled out).
I'd also require that hand-letters be required for speakers of ASL, as a
form of "literacy."
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:50:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 25
>It is a conceptual thing. Offensive maneuvers are intended to put one's
>opponent at a disadvantage. Defensive maneuvers are intended to neutralize
>or mitigate a disadvantaged position. An escape from a hold is a defensive
>maneuver. Reversing a hold into a hold or throw is an offensive maneuver.
>Offensive maneuvers require attack rolls.
Block puts an opponant at a disadvantage - namely, the blocked person goes
after the blocker, regardless of DEX, if they have the next phase in common.
Throw also puts an opponant at a disadvantage - it throws them off their
feet and imposes the same 'sequence' as Block.
However, neither, in and of themselves do damage. A simple non-damaging
throw is rediculously easy to resist (b/c the Breakfall/Acrobatics penalties
are based on damage - no damage, no penalties).
Further, the Block/Throw _does_ require an 'attack' roll, namely the Block
roll. Now, you could choose to simply apply this vs. the DCV of the target
rather than making it 'automatic' once the Block has succeeded, but that's
another matter. And probably the best solution - block first (defensive
element), and if the block succeeds, compare the OCV roll vs targets DCV to
see if he's thrown.
I see your point, Rat, in that 'throws' are offensive. But, blocks are
'defensive'. Escapes are neither (you can't abort to an escape maneuver,
AFAIK), they are an Exert, which adds to some other action (offensive or
defensive). The Escape/Grab is not an Escape maneuver, but a Grab maneuver
preceded by an escape attempt. Anybody could do this if they had enough STR
(break the Grab with STR, and if they do well enough, use the full/half
phase for a normal Grab). That's why the Escape/Throw has the 'Var.' time
part. See note below.
But does the 'offensive' portion of the maneuver cancel out its 'defensive'
portion? Not in my opinion. You cannot abort to a block that has an
offensive element, but if you have a held phase, or are in your own phase
(but not yet at your DEX), the block is still a defensive action and should
go first automatically. And if I declare that I'm using the Defensive Throw
earlier in the phase or turn, it darn well should go first! The throw is NOT
'automatic', as it still depends upon the Block to work. Nor does the Throw
'negate' the attack like a normal 'held phase throw' would - the Block does
that! IMHO, the Block is in this maneuver to allow for 'defensive throws'
without resorting to the DEX vs. DEX check.
The whole thing comes down to whether or not the 'block' is a prerequisite
of the 'throw'. (see Partial Maneuvers, pg.179 of TUMA). If I _have_ to
block in order to throw, then the throw becomes even less useful. The whole
maneuver becomes definitely defensive b/c I _cannot_ throw someone unless
they attack me so I can block them.
If the two elements are separate (i.e. I can throw without blocking), then
the maneuver looks a lot more offensive, in which case I would force the DEX
vs. DEX check if somebody was just using the Throw. Personally, I think the
block is required to throw - that's how it would work in my campaign.
*Note: Can you grab someone while still being grabbed yourself? I.e. he's
grabbed my arms, but I use my legs to grab his. In this case, the Escape
portion of the maneuver could be irrelevant to the Grab attempt, as Grab and
Crush is certainly possible with just the legs. It depends how many of your
limbs are ties up, I guess.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:12:32 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 26
>F> Blocks do not go first because they are defensive maneuvers.
>
>F> The description of Block in the BBB is very clear, as is the one in
>F> Ninja Hero (I assume it is the same in UMA).
>
>They go first because they have the Abort element. Read the description of
>the Abort element. That is the entire point of the element: it lets you
>take a defensive action before an attacker can hit you, regardless of DEX
>counts and rolls.
Quotation time!:
TUMA, pg. 110, 'Abort':
"The character can abort to his next Phase to perform this maneuver on a
Segment not normally his Phase."
BBB, pg. 152, 'Block':
"This action blocks a hand-to-hand opponant's attack and sets the blocking
character to deliver the next blow. A character who wants to Block must
declare his intention before his attacker attempts an Attack Roll."
BBB, pg. 140, 'Holding an Action':
"Regardless of the roll, defensive actions (or any action that the character
could abort to) will go off first; the DEX roll applies only to attack or
movement actions."
Point 1: Abort is not necessary to block. All block requires is a held
action or current phase and a declaration to block before the Attack Roll is
made.
Point 2: Defensive actions are NOT necessarily ones you can abort to (see
the 'or' in the third quote?)
Point 3: Blocks do not care about the DEX order. I do not have to Abort to a
block if I have an action available (held or it's my phase/not my DEX yet).
Abort only comes into play if you want to 'pre-spend' an action in a Segment
_before_ your phase.
Conclusion: If I have an available action, Block _automatically_ goes first,
by the very nature of the Block mechanic, _separate_ from its use as an
Abort. All I have to do is declare the intention to Block before the Attack
Roll is made. Blocks always go before incoming attacks. This is a function
of Block, not a function of Abort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:13:49 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 27
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "GH" == Guy Hoyle <ghoyle1@airmail.net> writes:
GH> OK, so Transfer is Drain+Aid, Ranged. It STILL duplicates those two
GH> powers pretty much.
With Transfer there is a 1:1 correspondance between points removed and
points added. There is no way to get Drain+Aid to have that same ratio (at
least not without limitations that make one wince). That is what warrants
Transfer as a distinct power.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIKTJ6VRH7BJMxHAQHa4wQAwjQ9OmifmkTD5Y1TaWQ6mHXH5FQqFrH9
gge3vb8g07LMT+XcpzbFzZPVDcES6ajyykIQ/Af+J/y10MihOPzbum38THmynbCC
UV/7W6LhNRq0ZAnwVnqLDqXZGdBmtcMmo2tl6qlV185Fj2tFlqItOqJIVySxaMnM
kfdxLsThrf8=
=U7Z+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: IIRC
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:15:22 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 28
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "DPL" == Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu> writes:
DPL> Okay, I thought I would figure it out if I watched people use it
DPL> enough. But I must be hopelessly ignorant. What does IIRC mean????
"If I remember correctly".
Goes along with IMHO: "in my humble opinion". Those who do not consider
themselves to be humble will omit the "H".
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIKqJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEiBwP+PS+DedJH+lVw4gGeY3PUewM/6J4AbXn1
m1bPmbAec/wvTWPFwV7LyuAAKNL1Pf6/BO2TWVr8wVfIbnYtcoBYBnIjxsTaUjK9
bxWlYvRzfrki1FrSane64E5Goxcuo/dikNDSYxUwPeEQ3f2hwGp2WAF3xujMf9Yt
l/KlmemXuCM=
=+5jf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:16:56 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Northwest Champions
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 37
Well, I finally have the First Draft for The Ultimate Super Vehicle
ready; it will be heading off to Bruce this weekend (slightly over a month
later than originally expected, but it is getting there!).
Now, until Bruce gets back to me, I'm going to be turning my attention
to the next two books on my docket: Northwest Champions, and VOICE. (The
latter, I will discuss on a different thread.)
Northwest Champions will be a sourcebook for general and Hero
roleplaying in the Pacific Northwest, primarily covering the states of
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho (with a little "spillage" into northern
California, western Montana, and southern British Columbia). As an
organizational template ("role model"), I will be using Kingdom of
Champions and Justice Not Law, though I may also add San Angelo to that
list; I'll be giving information on the real Northwestern areas first, then
additions for the Champions Universe, and finally a sourcebook of NPC
heroes and villains.
Now, the big question: is there anything specific that you'd like to
seen included? Any questions you'd like to have answered in this book?
Any characters that have been published in the past whom you'd like to see
updated in this book, who would seem appropriate? (For this last, I'm
already planning on Project Sunburst and possibly the Unique Battallion.)
In fact, at this stage, any input would be appreciated.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:18:06 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: VOICE
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 30
And now, as promised, a word from VOICE. ;-]
VOICE will be an organization book with the detail of the VIPER
sourcebook, but with several elements of atmosphere and method that set it
apart from that group as well as other Champions Universe villain agencies.
(The last thing I want VOICE to be treated as is "just another VIPER-like
organization.") The biggest difference will be that, since it is an
organization with a very Chinese background despite its numerous
non-Chinese members, I will play up the multi-layered mystery traditional
to Chinese villainous organizations in a way that hasn't really been
emphasized before.
The big question here is the same as for Northwest Champions. Is there
anything specific that you'd like to see included in this sourcebook? Any
questions you'd like to have answered? Any characters that have been
published in the past whom you'd like to see updated here (at least, that
isn't painfully obvious, like the original members)?
Oh, and if anyone has corrections for linguistic screw-ups on character
names among the original members of VOICE, that would be cool too.
(Specifically, I think there was a discussion some time ago on Le Maistre;
and a Japanese character whom I want to call Shadow Dagger is currently
listed as Kagetantoo.)
As with Northwest Champions, any input would be appreciated.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 09:18:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Reply-To: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
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
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 36
Stainless Steel Rat writes:
> Wrong. If Transfer was Drain+Aid it would be written up as Drain+Aid. It
> is not. A power should *NEVER* be used to exactly duplicate the effects of
> another power, as you describe. Transfer is *NOT* an overpriced Aid+Drain
> (the "overpriced" part is arguable, but IIRC, Transfer is Ranged, Drain and
> Aid are not).
>
Transfer isn't ranged, and cannot in fact be done with drain+aid, for the
simple reason that the target of the drain isn't the same as the target of the
aid. More importantly, it predates the aid power ;). Actually, it might
predate the drain power as well. It still _behaves_ like drain+aid.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 11:45:42 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 40
On 1/30/98, at 12:13 PM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "GH" == Guy Hoyle <ghoyle1@airmail.net> writes:
>
>GH> OK, so Transfer is Drain+Aid, Ranged. It STILL duplicates those two
>GH> powers pretty much.
>
>With Transfer there is a 1:1 correspondance between points removed and
>points added. There is no way to get Drain+Aid to have that same ratio (at
>least not without limitations that make one wince). That is what warrants
>Transfer as a distinct power.
>
Still, it seems like a very trivial difference to me, since the rolls average out the same over time.
Guy
Common problems need Uncommon Solutions!
http://www.uncommonsolutions.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:53:33 -0500
Lines: 119
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 41
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> Block puts an opponant at a disadvantage - namely, the blocked person
JaRP> goes after the blocker, regardless of DEX, if they have the next
JaRP> phase in common.
The interception of an incoming attack -- neutralizing your disadvantage,
that of being hurt by the attack -- is the primary purpose of Block. The
limited occourance (especially when one aborts to Block) of the reversal of
DEX order is insignificant by comparison.
JaRP> Throw also puts an opponant at a disadvantage - it throws them off
JaRP> their feet and imposes the same 'sequence' as Block.
Exactly. The philosophies of the two maneuvers are different. That is why
Defensive Throw loses the Abort element.
JaRP> However, neither, in and of themselves do damage.
Nor do the Grab options other than Throw and Squeeze, disarm, and others.
Damage is not a requirement of an offensive action.
JaRP> A simple non-damaging throw is rediculously easy to resist (b/c the
JaRP> Breakfall/Acrobatics penalties are based on damage - no damage, no
JaRP> penalties).
JaRP> Further, the Block/Throw _does_ require an 'attack' roll, namely the
JaRP> Block roll.
It is not an attack roll by strictest definition. It is an OCV vs. OCV
roll. Attack rolls are OCV vs. DCV. It does end your action phase,
however.
[...]
JaRP> I see your point, Rat, in that 'throws' are offensive. But, blocks
JaRP> are 'defensive'.
Please read Steve Long's recent comments on this. While I disagree with
his philosophy behind the changes he made, I cannot fault the compensations
he incorporated to balance those changes. When he allowed "Target Falls",
an offensive element, to be used with Block, a defensive maneuver base, the
Block base ceased being defensive in nature.
JaRP> Escapes are neither (you can't abort to an escape maneuver, AFAIK),
Escapes are "neutral" actions. You cannot abort to an escape, but the
first escape attempt is considered automatic, and if you roll well enough
it might be a 0-phase or no time action.
JaRP> they are an Exert, which adds to some other action (offensive or
JaRP> defensive). The Escape/Grab is not an Escape maneuver, but a Grab
JaRP> maneuver preceded by an escape attempt. Anybody could do this if they
JaRP> had enough STR (break the Grab with STR, and if they do well enough,
JaRP> use the full/half phase for a normal Grab). That's why the
JaRP> Escape/Throw has the 'Var.' time part. See note below.
That is an interesting way of looking at it.
JaRP> But does the 'offensive' portion of the maneuver cancel out its
JaRP> 'defensive' portion?
Well, as we previously agreed, escape is neither offensive nor defensive,
so there is no defensive portion of the maneuver to cancel. The maneuver
as a whole, however, is an offensive action. Where one could use Martial
Escape as potentially a 0-phase action (if one rolls well enough), a
combination Escape/Grab requires an attack action. That is, assuming that
the GM allows the combination of the two maneuver bases. I would not.
In the case of the Block/Target Falls maneuver, there is a defensive
aspect to be countered by the offensive aspect of "Target Falls". In
Steve's changes to the system, he specified that when you apply an
offensive element to the Block maneuver base, the maneuver loses the Abort
element. The maneuver cannot be used as a defensive action without Abort.
Once you accept the fact that it cannot be used as a defensive action, it
is a very short step to the conclusion that it is not a defensive action. :)
[...]
JaRP> The whole thing comes down to whether or not the 'block' is a
JaRP> prerequisite of the 'throw'. (see Partial Maneuvers, pg.179 of
JaRP> TUMA). If I _have_ to block in order to throw, then the throw becomes
JaRP> even less useful. The whole maneuver becomes definitely defensive b/c
JaRP> I _cannot_ throw someone unless they attack me so I can block them.
Given the maneuver's construction, you must successfully Block an incoming
attack for the opponent to fall. In order to successfully Block, the
opponent must attack. It is a "Defensive Throw" because you are the
defender in the fight, not because it is a defensive action.
If you wish to initiate the throw, you need the Strike maneuver base.
[...]
JaRP> *Note: Can you grab someone while still being grabbed yourself?
If by that you mean, can you grab someone that is holding you, strictly
speaking you cannot. The one holding pretty much has complete control over
the one being held. One must escape the hold first. Special effects might
mitigate this.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNITm56VRH7BJMxHAQEHXQP/TKpVIr5NyEJgtLvgZUuTtL2FvmGAI3f6
j5n8u4u36QrJ0P0kdzpbsePQkDQFYb/o5dh1a18r4aVhJPrlayxHPHOG1aXr8D49
+ml9fSJ3JhMcBya94tX3HE/VrXL9qESjkXzbdFjko/F+oj3Nw0reLZwVb7CEGQoT
ziPZ1cI1MiM=
=aPdq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 12:57:58 -0500
Lines: 27
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "GH" == Guy Hoyle <ghoyle1@airmail.net> writes:
GH> Still, it seems like a very trivial difference to me, since the rolls
GH> average out the same over time.
The fact that they are different on the instantaneous basis is the problem.
You cannot use Drain+Aid to get the effect of, "I take X points of his
strength and add it to mine." X points drained and Y points aided will
frequently be very different values.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIUn56VRH7BJMxHAQEGRwQAjbMNZgQZYGh3tPn/Qci8sTiyLtZZY9jJ
6v0HIbEPmi7xmbJlzylGS3RbFgjvL/bJN/wwyljWl0I97hiClOYT7q85PXmb9zw7
WpK9kI/KblQ+ZBZGVLTqjynPZWyPt5uDWF8Dm0ybxZ2yvmgzJ5tgH5/JPMVA3g56
3OduKLS4giA=
=IuP0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 13:02:01 -0500
Lines: 36
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 43
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
BG> What I find the HSR saying (on page 141) is, "A character can abort
BG> his next action to perform a defensive Combat Manever or some other
BG> defensive action like turning on a Force Field." In this section, it
BG> doesn't say "any" (the word which you not unreasonably emphasized).
It does not need to say it.
My point here is that in order to use a martial maneuver as a defensive
action that maneuver must have the Abort element. That is why in Ninja
Hero the defensive maneuver bases get Abort as a freebie -- it is
impossible for them not to have it.
TUMA changes this by allowing offensive maneuver elements on defensive
maneuver bases. To balance this, the defensive maneuver base loses the
Abort element. You cannot abort to use such a maneuver as a defensive
action. You canont abort to use Defensive Throw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIVl56VRH7BJMxHAQElygQAoGLt83YmdB/L7og8HNm8JIBqdfx1SP4F
P/LO/i8tQ0W/L9sVzwZwG4VL2NW7uRYXXc4RnE383eX1NEWMQCnDHR+xo3jrewrs
tRaJmABtM4i76/NZEDuhTyHO9EQFYg7XRKll+bTor0+/YEG12haaH5WlLa9utpGu
XXTQzBuAq24=
=De0k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
\ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 13:04:20 -0500
Lines: 31
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 44
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> BBB, pg. 152, 'Block':
JaRP> "This action blocks a hand-to-hand opponant's attack and sets the
JaRP> blocking character to deliver the next blow. A character who wants to
JaRP> Block must declare his intention before his attacker attempts an
JaRP> Attack Roll."
Remember that this rule was written when all Block maneuvers had Abort
elements. TUMA changed this rule. TUMA's Defensive Throw is a Block
maneuver that specifically does not have the Abort element. One absolutely
*CANNOT* abort to use Defensive Throw.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIWI56VRH7BJMxHAQHc5QQAyoe7Xyl8O65nOZUJ9DFGx+nMXXhIVwoQ
omN1XTZ09T0tOn1/IT+wHHA6dI6lj1Obd19Dz3dwPLIXDv9AuM9n0YhMy6jE+vhu
wZA7HqAWV3Ag5WW/wV3qKxmt/+PWZuZD+POTqakX1w7mYhGlOuvRKMxReyCOd0Jn
h/u19EHwKm0=
=6noI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:06:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
cc: "champ-l@omg.org" <champ-l@omg.org>
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, qts wrote:
> Are you looking to reintroduce the old FH-1 concept of Modifiers? These
> (Reduced End and Variable Advantage, as I recall) were taken after
> calculating the Active Cost, but before any limitations.
I haven't heard of FH-1 modifiers, but that sounds about right. Also, some
limitations *would* affect the active cost... those that made the power
actively different. As I said, most applicability limitations, reduced
penetration and no knockback, but not any of the slew of conditional
limitations (including the common focus, incantations, gestures, and so
on). Applicability limitations are limitations that claim that the power
only applies to a certain subset of what it normally does. For instance an
EB that only works on undead, or a force field that only works on fire
both have applicability limitations. Players should get a break and some
encouragement in taking such powers by having to pay less END to use them.
Furthermore, they could make bigger versions of such powers fit inside
multipowers, although it would require the magnifying glass (is it the
yield sign now? I saw it in my copy of TUSM).
I need to get my book and make the list as Dataweaver suggests, but I'm a
tad busy.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 13:11:20 -0500
Lines: 46
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 45
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
BG> This is, by the way, something that didn't make it into the First
BG> Draft of TUSV because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Rockets to a lot
BG> of blast damage, and a person could be badly hurt by spinning
BG> helicopter rotors or airplane propeller (as demonstrated in "Raiders of
BG> the Lost Ark"), but I'm really uncertain as to whether such a thing
BG> should be a Side Effect type of Limitation, a Linked [sorry] Power, or
BG> just something so secondary, equally advantageous and disadvantageous,
BG> that the Vehicle should get it simply by definition.
Like I said, if the ability is used once as creative use of the ability,
there is no problem.
That said, I would take a look at some of the notes in the old Danger
International. Propulsion systems that are used to damage things get
something similar to Side Effect. It is not quite the same thing as Side
Effect, though. For instance, US and Brittish fighter pilots during World
War II would use their propellers to chop up various types of Axis fighter
that were made of wood and canvas. The tradeoff was a) the damage to their
propeller blades, themselves made of wood; and b) when German fighers
started using metal fuselages like the Allies, the Allied pilots started
losing aircraft.
And with that said, if a character frequently uses his dangerous propulsion
system as a weapon, and the vehicle does not spend half the campaing in the
shop being repaired of self-inflicted damage, he has to spend points for
the attack. And be sure to put a Burnout roll on it. :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNIXxZ6VRH7BJMxHAQH/vQQAisHXKfPlnnm78XUxWFpHFbs1P5cfaAAB
euSnGvv6syOas31LBaOn0BBkAhhjNc19xsNQkZXRkalEj49VkbQ3//vtgWONIr19
F7QR6blPRFTjW/EdtlcOV/RevfhNvJi0XooLtL5bsiTNkceeSOByr2VZ18AERcGR
XFHl0tJPH8E=
=kJTo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ of skin.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 12:35:50 -0600 (CST)
From: Darien Phoenix Lynx <chip@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: [Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Guy Hoyle wrote:
> On 1/30/98, at 10:50 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> >>>>>> "DT" == Donald Tsang <tsang@sedl.org> writes:
> >
> >DT> C'mon. Transfer is an overpriced version of Drain+Aid.
> >
> >Wrong. If Transfer was Drain+Aid it would be written up as Drain+Aid. It
> >is not. A power should *NEVER* be used to exactly duplicate the effects of
> >another power, as you describe. Transfer is *NOT* an overpriced Aid+Drain
> >(the "overpriced" part is arguable, but IIRC, Transfer is Ranged, Drain and
> >Aid are not).
>
> OK, so Transfer is Drain+Aid, Ranged. It STILL duplicates those two powers pretty much.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the prohibition against duplicating the effect of another power pretty much a rule of thumb, and not an absolute? If it was, we wouldn't have both Armor and Force Field, or the Growth and Shrinking powers, to name a few.
If AID costs 10, and DRAIN costs 10, and TRANSFER costs 15, then I'm not
sure how transfer is overpriced? After all, it's fewer active points and
costs less END to use, but I don't remember anything about it being
ranged.
As for duplicate effects, I've always been in favor of having:
POWER
-----
POWER is used to represent a super-power. One die of POWER costs 5 points
and lets you do one die of stuff. Stuff must be defined when the power is
purchased. More powerful stuff should costs 10 points per die or even 15.
You may add advantages and limitations onto POWER to achieve different
effects. POWER costs END to use and has no range. POWER should be
regulated carefully by the GM (magnifying glass), or it might be abused.
If you use POWER in a way that is not intended, a stainless steel rat will
tell you so. POWER is only recommened for use in superheroic campaigns,
heroic campaigns should use TALENT or SKILL instead.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:37:05 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
> It's germanic. In fact, I've never studied german but I have
> found myself able to understand parts of it when I listen in closely.
Yep. German is just English with a funny accent.:)
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:40:31 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, David Fair wrote:
> >> Not to mention the fact that this charcter can now jump farther, carry
> >> more, use heavier weapons, impress the ladies or if a lady impress the
> >> guys,
> Not to be jerk, but ST does nothing to impress anyone.
Lifting a tank would impress the hell out of me, no matter what the person
doing it _looked_ like. Do you disagree?
> That is what PRE is for.
Yes, but there's a reason why the rules for Presence Attacks include
bonuses based on the attacker's actions.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:43:08 -0400 (AST)
From: Trevor Barrie <tbarrie@ibm.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
> Why not. It's standard Hero ever since NH.
Nothing is standard Hero until it appears in the Hero rulebook (sounds
almost axiomatic). None of the "build-your-own-Maneuver" martial arts
rules merit that description.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:52:11 -0800
From: RGSchwerdtfeger@directv.com (Richard G Schwerdtfeger)
Subject: Re[2]: Problems with the language similarity chart
Content-Description: cc:Mail note part
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 47
At 12:52 AM 1/30/98 CST, Don McKinney wrote:
>> In a message dated 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes: >>
>> > Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING,
though
>> > at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing words, it
>> > might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with >>
> EVERY modern language. :]
>>
>> English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-) >
>Actually, only Australian and American have 4 pts. of Similiarity. >Aussie and
Kiwi have a 3 pt. similiarlity to each other, and a 2 pt. >similiarity to
Tazmanian (which my Aussie co-workers have described as >"the Kentuck of
Australia"). American has a 3 pt. similiarity to >both Common Canadian Redneck,
and a 2 pt. similiarity to Ebonics. >British (ie, the Queen's English, as
opposed to the English of everyone >else in the British Isles) has a 3 pt.
similiarity (everything but >slang, as in "Do you want me to knock you up?" from
the male
>bellhop to the beautiful young American female traveller) to American, >and
probably a 4 pt. similiarity to Common Canadian and Aussie.
>
>Did I miss any English derivatives?
There was also a particular dialect found here in Los Angeles (in the San
Fernando Valley). Anyone who has listened to the Frank/Moon Unit Zappa
song "Valley Girl" will agree that it only had a 2. pt similarity.
Richard
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 19:20:52
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 29 Jan 1998 15:44:05 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "q" == qts <qts@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
>>> opponent's trait?
>
>q> Yes
>
>No.
>
>Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit.
Agreed - I took that to be a given.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 19:23:01
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled 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, 29 Jan 1998 17:35:22 -0600 (CST), Dataweaver wrote:
>On 29 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> >>>>> "q" == qts <qts@nildram.co.uk> writes:
>>
>> >> So a Transfer can only give you so much, but can continue dropping your
>> >> opponent's trait?
>>
>> q> Yes
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Adjustment powers cannot adjust more than their active point limit. They
>> also cannot adjust active points that are not there. To wit, against a
>> 12D6 Energy Blast, 60 active points, you cannot take away more than 60
>> active points. If you have a maximum of 30 active points of Transfer you
>> cannot adjust more than 30 points of that Energy Blast.
>
>...and getting back to the original question: does this also apply to
>Drain? i.e., if you have 5d6 Drain, are you limited to a maximum of 30
>Active points that can be Drained? (I'd like to ask a favor: Please give
>relevant quotes from the BBB to back up your statements.)
Per the HSR, you are NOT limited - remember that EBs and KAs are merely
a special sort of Drain.
However, I wonder whether they should be.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Tim R. Gilberg\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 19:39:52
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 16:18:55 -0600 (CST), Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>> > Oh, I don't know. You can look pretty "impressive",
>> >physique-wise, with a sub-average PRE. The STR and BOD scores have most
>> >to do with looks, especially in more "realistic" campaigns.
>> >
>>
>> Perhaps in your campaign, not in mine.
>
>
> How do you rationalize that? Physical stats, STR and BOD
>especially, but also DEX and CON, quite obviously come with the effect of
>"looking" stronger, sleeker, bulkier, or whatever.
Str is very useful for making Presence Attacks...
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:45:00 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>JaRP> Escapes are neither (you can't abort to an escape maneuver, AFAIK),
>
>Escapes are "neutral" actions. You cannot abort to an escape, but the
>first escape attempt is considered automatic, and if you roll well enough
>it might be a 0-phase or no time action.
Actually, you can abort to an escape, see the Abort listing in TUMA pg 110,
where it explicitly states that you can build Escapes with Abort at +1 point
cost to the maneuver.
>In the case of the Block/Target Falls maneuver, there is a defensive
>aspect to be countered by the offensive aspect of "Target Falls". In
>Steve's changes to the system, he specified that when you apply an
>offensive element to the Block maneuver base, the maneuver loses the Abort
>element. The maneuver cannot be used as a defensive action without Abort.
I disagree. The fundamental nature of Block is Defensive, separate from any
part of Abort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:45:03 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>JaRP> BBB, pg. 152, 'Block':
>
>JaRP> "This action blocks a hand-to-hand opponant's attack and sets the
>JaRP> blocking character to deliver the next blow. A character who wants to
>JaRP> Block must declare his intention before his attacker attempts an
>JaRP> Attack Roll."
>
>Remember that this rule was written when all Block maneuvers had Abort
>elements. TUMA changed this rule. TUMA's Defensive Throw is a Block
>maneuver that specifically does not have the Abort element. One absolutely
>*CANNOT* abort to use Defensive Throw.
Rat, I think you're confused on the definition of 'Abort'. Abort lets you
act on a Segment before your Phase. That's it. If you have a held action or
you're in your own phase, you don't need Abort. Further, Block, even when
combined with something else, is _still_ a defensive action. How could it be
interpreted otherwise? Blocking protects the user by stopping an incoming
hand-to-hand attack. Therefore it is defensive. Just because you cannot
Abort to it does not make it 'non-defensive'. It's still 'defensive'
(especially for the purposes of held actions), you just can't abort to it
(i.e. you have to use it with a held action or in your own phase).
Now, if you want to impose an additional OCV roll to determine if the Throw
works as opposed to 'automatically' working, I'd probably agree.
Automatically throwing someone on a 'defensive' action like a Block feels
wrong. BUT, turning Block into an 'offensive' action feels even worse. The
whole point of Block is that you get a chance to stop the attack before it
happens; this is fundamental to Block, and not a part of Abort.
I.e. If I'm 20 DEX and my opponant punches me on 24 DEX, I do not need to
'Abort' to Block to stop his punch. Aborting involves acting in earlier
Segments.
Oh, BTW, Rat, you can Abort to a Missile Reflection, can you not?
(rhetorical, I checked, you _can_). This is a pretty solid case of an Abort
to an action that has offensive potential. Sure, it's paid for in the power,
but so is the 'throw' part of Defensive Throw. Missile Reflection does not
change Missile Deflection into an attack power. Neither should Throw change
Block into an attack maneuver. Block stays defensive despite the presence of
Throw and therefore goes first without a DEX vs DEX check.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:42:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> >And how many points should be spent for what effects? e.g. is just 1
> >point of Braille all that's needed, since it's considered literacy?
>
> I'd call Braille a form of literacy, and ASL one point of similarity
> (the grammar is the same, and words are often spelled out).
Actually, the grammar is _not_ the same -- one of the major
reasons deaf students have trouble with English.
> I'd also require that hand-letters be required for speakers of ASL, as a
> form of "literacy."
Maybe, I'm not to sure, though. I'd think it'd come with but one
point of any of the major sign languages. (ASL, Manually Coded English,
and I forget the third. I think there's a third.)
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "\"qts\" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
\"Darien Phoenix Lynx\"" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 20:48:43
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:43:32 -0600 (CST), Darien Phoenix Lynx wrote:
>To help clarify, explain to me why a personal immunity EB has a longer
>range, costs more END and is more difficult to dispel than a regular
>EB--even though it's actively the same EB. Or half-end, or variable SFX,
>and so on. We're not talking about damage AT ALL, but these other effects
>of active points. Considering that you favor DC limits over AP limits, you
>shouldn't be concerned about changing active costs... it won't affect your
>campaign balance, but it will affect the range, END cost, and
>drain/dispelibility of some powers.
Try looking at it from a Fantasy angle: an EB is a straight-forward
effect, but imagine an AD&D wizard with a Fireball spell. Now, if he
casts it in a restricted space, he's going to get blasted too. So he
adds in PI, making the spell *more complex*, and thus increasing the
APs. Likewise with VSFX, becaus e the wizard can change the EB from a
Cone of Cold to a Cone of Salt, the spell is more complex. Because the
spell is more complex, it takes a more powerful Dispel to counter.
Does this help?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 14:54:03 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> BG> What I find the HSR saying (on page 141) is, "A character can abort
> BG> his next action to perform a defensive Combat Manever or some other
> BG> defensive action like turning on a Force Field." In this section, it
> BG> doesn't say "any" (the word which you not unreasonably emphasized).
>
> It does not need to say it.
Why not?
> My point here is that in order to use a martial maneuver as a defensive
> action that maneuver must have the Abort element.
Where are you getting this? Really, I'd like to know. Reading
through the three relavent books, Abort and defensive actions, while often
interconnected, aren't necessarily/
> That is why in Ninja
> Hero the defensive maneuver bases get Abort as a freebie -- it is
> impossible for them not to have it.
Not really. Read about the Abort element. It just says that
this alone cannot be used with agressive maneuvers. (Which is later
equated to maneuvers that do damage.)
> TUMA changes this by allowing offensive maneuver elements on defensive
> maneuver bases.
Not quite. This was allowed in NH as well. Any nonexclusive base
can mix with any exclusive base.
> To balance this, the defensive maneuver base loses the
> Abort element. You cannot abort to use such a maneuver as a defensive
> action. You canont abort to use Defensive Throw.
Of course you can't abort, but that's not the point. We are
talking about declaring this as an action on one's phase and/or holding a
phase and using it at a chosen time. As it is a defensive maneuver (the
Block element provides this), it goes before any moves or attacks. Read
the rules, Rat. You're trying to argue away the printed text in front of
you.
Mr. Prins, you've made some fine points on this debate, sparing me
the time. Note, however, this.
A regular throw, with the STR + Throw bases, can be used to
attempt to (kinda) stop incoming attacks. This is an offensive throw, but
if declared on one's phase or used with a held action, has a chance to
affect an attacking target if a DEX roll is won. This then throws the
attacking character and does damage (STR + v/5, probably. Maybe more).
The defensive throw, constructed with a Block + Throw, gains the
benefit of being a defensive action and therefore going first without a
roll. It, however, looses the ability to do damage.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 15:01:31 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> JaRP> Throw also puts an opponant at a disadvantage - it throws them off
> JaRP> their feet and imposes the same 'sequence' as Block.
>
> Exactly. The philosophies of the two maneuvers are different. That is why
> Defensive Throw loses the Abort element.
Actually, it lost the Abort because it may have otherwise been
unbalancing. I'd disagree, but . . .
> JaRP> I see your point, Rat, in that 'throws' are offensive. But, blocks
> JaRP> are 'defensive'.
>
> Please read Steve Long's recent comments on this. While I disagree with
> his philosophy behind the changes he made, I cannot fault the compensations
> he incorporated to balance those changes. When he allowed "Target Falls",
> an offensive element, to be used with Block, a defensive maneuver base, the
> Block base ceased being defensive in nature.
Rat, you keep getting this one wrong. This has actually been
allowed since Ninja Hero, where any non-exclusive base, like throw, grab,
whatever, could be mixed with any exclusive base. Long just took away
some possible problems by taking away the Abort for any block (and dodge?)
with Grab and/or Throw.
> JaRP> they are an Exert, which adds to some other action (offensive or
> JaRP> defensive). The Escape/Grab is not an Escape maneuver, but a Grab
> JaRP> maneuver preceded by an escape attempt. Anybody could do this if they
> JaRP> had enough STR (break the Grab with STR, and if they do well enough,
> JaRP> use the full/half phase for a normal Grab). That's why the
> JaRP> Escape/Throw has the 'Var.' time part. See note below.
>
> That is an interesting way of looking at it.
Made sense to me, too.
> JaRP> But does the 'offensive' portion of the maneuver cancel out its
> JaRP> 'defensive' portion?
>
> Well, as we previously agreed, escape is neither offensive nor defensive,
> so there is no defensive portion of the maneuver to cancel. The maneuver
> as a whole, however, is an offensive action. Where one could use Martial
> Escape as potentially a 0-phase action (if one rolls well enough), a
> combination Escape/Grab requires an attack action. That is, assuming that
> the GM allows the combination of the two maneuver bases. I would not.
Why not. It's standard Hero ever since NH. And was quite allowed
before 4th edition, albeit in a more unbalancing form.
> In the case of the Block/Target Falls maneuver, there is a defensive
> aspect to be countered by the offensive aspect of "Target Falls". In
> Steve's changes to the system, he specified that when you apply an
> offensive element to the Block maneuver base, the maneuver loses the Abort
> element. The maneuver cannot be used as a defensive action without Abort.
>
> Once you accept the fact that it cannot be used as a defensive action, it
> is a very short step to the conclusion that it is not a defensive action. :)
Except for the fact that Abort is not what makes a maneuver
defensive. Having Block or Dodge as a basis is what makes them defensive.
You cannot Abort to them, this is a given. You can, however, declare and
then use them or use them on a held phase.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:11:46 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 01:02 PM 1/30/1998 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> What I find the HSR saying (on page 141) is, "A character can abort
>BG> his next action to perform a defensive Combat Manever or some other
>BG> defensive action like turning on a Force Field." In this section, it
>BG> doesn't say "any" (the word which you not unreasonably emphasized).
>
>It does not need to say it.
For the stated logic to hold, yes it does.
>My point here is that in order to use a martial maneuver as a defensive
>action that maneuver must have the Abort element. That is why in Ninja
>Hero the defensive maneuver bases get Abort as a freebie -- it is
>impossible for them not to have it.
Actually, your point regarding the text which you quoted above was
nonexistant, because I was responding to a post by Filksinger, not one of
yours.
>TUMA changes this by allowing offensive maneuver elements on defensive
>maneuver bases. To balance this, the defensive maneuver base loses the
>Abort element. You cannot abort to use such a maneuver as a defensive
>action. You canont abort to use Defensive Throw.
I'm not arguing against that at all.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:19:46 -0800 (PST)
From: Duane Morris <duane@turing.sci.yorku.ca>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
X-X-Sender: duane@science.yorku.ca
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
X-Status:
X-Keywords:
X-UID: 46
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> At 12:52 AM 1/30/98 CST, Don McKinney wrote:
> >> In a message dated 98-01-28 12:28:23 EST, voxel@theramp.net writes:
> >>
> >> > Personally, I don't think English has a 4-pt. similarity to ANYTHING,
> though
> >> > at the rate which languages as far off as Japanese are borrowing
> words, it
> >> > might not be too far off the mark to say it has a 1 pt. similarity with
> >> > EVERY modern language. :]
> >>
> >> English has a 4-pt similarity to American, and vice versa :-)
> >
> >Actually, only Australian and American have 4 pts. of Similiarity.
> >Aussie and Kiwi have a 3 pt. similiarlity to each other, and a 2 pt.
> >similiarity to Tazmanian (which my Aussie co-workers have described as
> >"the Kentuck of Australia"). American has a 3 pt. similiarity to
> >both Common Canadian Redneck, and a 2 pt. similiarity to Ebonics.
> >British (ie, the Queen's English, as opposed to the English of everyone
> >else in the British Isles) has a 3 pt. similiarity (everything but
> >slang, as in "Do you want me to knock you up?" from the male
> >bellhop to the beautiful young American female traveller) to American,
> >and probably a 4 pt. similiarity to Common Canadian and Aussie.
> >
> >Did I miss any English derivatives?
>
> American Southern, and Cajun. (After my brief journey to Alabama last
> spring, I can definitely say that those are two very different derivitaves,
> and that Gambit's accent is understated in both comic and cartoon.)
Don't forget Canada's East Coast, where we have Newfoundland, the Acadians
<where Cajun comes from>, and several other wierd and wonderful amalgams
of English & French.
Duane.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Morris <duane@turing.sci.yorku.ca> Dept. of Technical Services
Faculty of Pure and Applied Science Petrie Science Stores
York University, North York, Ontario M3J 1P3, CANADA
Voice: (416) 736-5244; Fax: (416) 736-5516
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 13:26:13 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:42 PM 1/30/1998 -0600, Tim R. Gilberg wrote:
>
>> >And how many points should be spent for what effects? e.g. is just 1
>> >point of Braille all that's needed, since it's considered literacy?
>>
>> I'd call Braille a form of literacy, and ASL one point of similarity
>> (the grammar is the same, and words are often spelled out).
>
> Actually, the grammar is _not_ the same -- one of the major
>reasons deaf students have trouble with English.
Now that you make that point, you're right. Maybe it should be 0 points
of similarity.
>> I'd also require that hand-letters be required for speakers of ASL, as a
>> form of "literacy."
>
> Maybe, I'm not to sure, though. I'd think it'd come with but one
>point of any of the major sign languages. (ASL, Manually Coded English,
>and I forget the third. I think there's a third.)
The third is probably Signed English, unless that's just another name
for what you called Manually Coded English. Yes, there is a third; at my
old job of putting out a jobs bulletin, I regularly came across references
to all three.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 98 16:29:01 -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
>Str is very useful for making Presence Attacks...
Only if you perform a violent action. And only as a bonus.
If you want a high PRE, buy one.
David A. Fair |
SDS International | Think Different
dfair@sdslink.com |
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:05:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Energy Blast article from website
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> On Thursday, January 29, 1998 7:44 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
> >On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Filksinger wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 26, 1998 7:47 AM, Dataweaver wrote:
> >> >On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
> >> >> Counterstrike (+1 or more) - variant of Damage Shield, allows an
> >> >> automatic hit on a target who has just successfully hit you.
> >> >
> >> >Be careful with this one; I could see instances where
> >> >Counterstrike would be ineffective (such as Counterstrike vs. a
> >> >Seeking EB...)
> >>
> >> Which could actually be a valid ability. A character might have an
> >> energy blast that tracked back along an attack's path to strike the
> >> original attacker, for example.
> >
> >But it sould not come automatic with Counterstrike; say, require an
> >extra +1/4A for Counterstrike to be usable against Seeking EB.
>
> Why would immunity to Counterstrike come with Seeking? Granted, most
> SFX would seem to lean that way, but you either have Seeking
> automatically gets immunity to Counterstrike, or Seeking is treated
> just like any other EB for purposes of Counterstrike.
>
> I might agree with your suggestion, but I do have a tendency to prefer
> that only features deliberately built-in to a Power, Advantage, or
> Limitation be given away without extra cost.
I'm not seeing it as Seeking providing immunity to Counterstrike; I'm
seeing it as Counterstrike being ineffective against Seeking (the
difference being "which one needs to be modified to change the
situation?"). The majority of the time, you would need a specially
designed Counterstrike to be able to retrace a Seeking attack's route and
hit the source.
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:27:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Limitation/AP mods idea
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 30 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> Yes; you change it into a power that has more range and costs more END
> D> to use. But it shouldn't; a 75-point 10d6 Autofire EB should have the
> D> _same_ range and END cost as a 50-point 10d6 EB; not 50% more.
>
> Why? The character that has the bigger power has a bigger power. Bigger
> powers have greater utility than smaller powers. It really is that
> simple.
Yes, it's a bigger power; yes, it has more utility. But that utility is
_already_ covered very nicely by the fact that the Autofire EB can fire
five times as often as the regular EB. Automatically giving it extra
range is giving it another effect for free (the extra 30 points were spent
with the intent of raising the rate of fire, not for increasing the range
and END cost).
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: bermuda.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 16:30:42 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On 30 Jan 1998, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
>
> D> ...and getting back to the original question: does this also apply to
> D> Drain? i.e., if you have 5d6 Drain, are you limited to a maximum of 30
> D> Active points that can be Drained? (I'd like to ask a favor: Please
> D> give relevant quotes from the BBB to back up your statements.)
>
> Again, active points. Read Drain, where it says that it Drains active
> points of powers (I'd cite it myself but my BBB is at home, sorry). It
> applies to all adjustment powers. They all operate on active points. When
> there are no active points to affect, an adjustment power will have no
> effect.
I seem to remember the section about Alteration Powers at the beginning of
the Powers section saying something about the limit of how many points can
be affected; could someone please let me know exactly what it is?
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 17:59:00 -0500
Lines: 56
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
BG> What I find the HSR saying (on page 141) is, "A character can abort
BG> his next action to perform a defensive Combat Manever or some other
BG> defensive action like turning on a Force Field." In this section, it
BG> doesn't say "any" (the word which you not unreasonably emphasized).
>> It does not need to say it.
TRG> Why not?
Because it should be readilly obvious to anyone with a basic understanding
of the English language and an ounce of common sense?
>> My point here is that in order to use a martial maneuver as a defensive
>> action that maneuver must have the Abort element.
TRG> Where are you getting this? Really, I'd like to know.
A defensive action that one cannot abort to use is nonsensical. "A
character can abort his next action to perform a defensive Combat Maneuver
or some other defensive action like turning on a Force Field." If you
cannot abort to perform a given action, can it really be called a defensive
action?
[...]
>> TUMA changes this by allowing offensive maneuver elements on defensive
>> maneuver bases.
TRG> Not quite. This was allowed in NH as well. Any nonexclusive base
TRG> can mix with any exclusive base.
Except for the fact that under NH, Block always has Abort, and you
absolutely cannot have Abort on any damaging or aggressive maneuvers.
Therefore the Defensive Strike maneuver is illegal under NH. TUMA changes
that by removing Abort from Block if you add an aggressive element to the
maneuver base.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNJbMZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEKLAQAyC0WjSLa/8jDRZ5ILG5vgkNsL7y3i5ik
2nfu9ISCHN0PLBJz4Vnvqe9uG4bZmirxChuzcmwHefJO61/7IYRGf5Ie/vpJJ/xN
vTI6I2omFIHFFB8LkHydlc4P3sCxVV5MONG4jE9c+vCGaADyvHF63gY8i+z0s4lj
AyinG5TmkcY=
=P9mK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: H5: continuous and uncontrolled powers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 18:04:26 -0500
Lines: 33
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-----
>>>>> "D" == Dataweaver <traveler@io.com> writes:
D> I seem to remember the section about Alteration Powers at the beginning
D> of the Powers section saying something about the limit of how many
D> points can be affected; could someone please let me know exactly what it
D> is?
Champions Deluxe, page 54:
"The Character Points from Adjustment Powers are applied to the
Active Points of a Characteristic or Power.
That is the only limit per se in the Powers introduction section. As most
of the adjustment powers have other limits based on additional factors,
those are described under the specific powers.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNJceZ6VRH7BJMxHAQGAiQQAxFC8nSoJS+gxkBAEalo7AJ/ukvZfSrbS
7QQHoeLMjvZaiBTDVriNTcJZP5018kKGQjOYPf8QE5FPxrUlaC5DHNUwxT68KfR+
U0//8vDWcdmqyV4aIYqXdtQifQj+5FdTiHYQ+Nr76Q7bzOTz7DhY+xj3oBF8Hjgf
6DMu6QEMUQA=
=n5SZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 18:06:49 -0500
Lines: 38
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-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> Actually, you can abort to an escape, see the Abort listing in TUMA
JaRP> pg 110, where it explicitly states that you can build Escapes with
JaRP> Abort at +1 point cost to the maneuver.
Yup, I just noticed that, going through the construction rules. Ninja Hero
does not categorize "exert" as an aggressive maneuver.
>> In the case of the Block/Target Falls maneuver, there is a defensive
>> aspect to be countered by the offensive aspect of "Target Falls". In
>> Steve's changes to the system, he specified that when you apply an
>> offensive element to the Block maneuver base, the maneuver loses the Abort
>> element. The maneuver cannot be used as a defensive action without Abort.
JaRP> I disagree. The fundamental nature of Block is Defensive, separate
JaRP> from any part of Abort.
The fundamental nature of "Target Falls" is aggressive. That makes the
entire maneuver aggresive.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNJdCJ6VRH7BJMxHAQFQSAP/XrNS1EpJNZKMMS2PvrAAIb+eV5VZQHyB
mxS1zJD7Mgi2QjP+Xktkw3KxMZ26dbzQxkcmwHEq0FUQaIpllxg9FmF/yV++8uGG
6q87FkyzEaUmctpl0GMv1HA78d+XbaoM9OOpQhlCCu4KtuiScFqXJqnL05cUNij5
6ZboYpbuCbE=
=gXFv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ accelerate to dangerous speeds.
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 18:09:22 -0500
Lines: 27
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> Your interpretation. Nowhere in the rules is this stated. The ability to
F> "go first" with a block is built into the definition of Block, not
F> Abort.
Nope. Read your Ninja Hero or TUMA, because nowhere in there does it give
the Block base, in and of itself, any ability to "go first". The *ONLY*
element that allows that is Abort.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNJdoZ6VRH7BJMxHAQEAyQP9F7mD3ueZESNMirmH1ZdBYylvBWWtQsM+
qc24L6sVViH6s/mRlVHU8YYKJ2H4hvF+n4IIhs63pfN/Ecx628YSUO/ZBeVT6G2N
NKzjUQpHuKUQv3h4QKkEdtHwZjMQnn85wvrNYgeOpTeS1XBkb4e3IK/l1sld8krv
R2fMSVPsSOA=
=QEvT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
\ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: CptPatriot@aol.com
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:37:09 EST
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
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 1/30/98 5:18:09 PM, bob.greenwade@klock.com wrote:
<<Assuming (from the header) that you mean starship hexes, it's 1 hex =
64" normal scale = 128 meters. (Star Hero, page 116.)>>
I was trying to convert the 1st ed Star Hero vehicle rules that were posted
earlier to 4th ed HS and thought that the scale was 5" normal scale = 10
meters
By the way, anyone selling a copy of Star Hero, 1st Ed.
Archie
cptpatriot@aol.com
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:42:15 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: 4th Edition starship construction
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 08:55 AM 1/30/98 EST, CptPatriot@aol.com wrote:
>Does anyone know the scale of the hexes in the 1st edition Star Hero?
Standard 2m hexes for ship's interior, and "starship hexes" which are 128m
(or 64 normal hexes) across. So if a starship weapon has range modifiers
of -1/3 starship hexes, that would be -1 per 192" in normal scale.
Damon
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: griffin@mail.txdirect.net
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 17:53:31 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: VOICE
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 09:18 AM 1/30/98 -0800, Bob Greenwade wrote:
> And now, as promised, a word from VOICE. ;-]
> VOICE will be an organization book with the detail of the VIPER
>sourcebook, but with several elements of atmosphere and method that set it
>apart from that group as well as other Champions Universe villain agencies.
> The big question here is the same as for Northwest Champions. Is there
>anything specific that you'd like to see included in this sourcebook? Any
>questions you'd like to have answered? Any characters that have been
>published in the past whom you'd like to see updated here (at least, that
>isn't painfully obvious, like the original members)?
Unlike many organizations, VOICE has been around for a very long time. How
about a section of notes that would allow the organization, in its
different incarnations, to be dropped into a Pulp Hero (Justice, Inc.)
campaign, a WWII-era game (Golden Age Champions) or even Western Hero
(shades of the Wild, Wild West)? More than a couple of pages worth of
timeline; a breakdown of different equipment used by VOICE agents, even
different agent package deals for each era. Computer Programming might
regress through the decades to become Radio Operations, then a Telegraph
skill.
Damon
--------------------
It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take
Hofstadter's Law into account.
-- Hofstadter's Law
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 20:17:09 -0500
Lines: 30
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-----
>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
F> 1) There are already exceptions. Dive for Cover cannot normally be
F> Aborted to.
Dive for Cover always may be aborted to.
F> 2) The maneuver was deliberately _made_ an exception. If that makes the
F> system broken, too bad.
Nope. The exception is in removing the Abort element from the maneuver
base. Steve said as much.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNJ7k56VRH7BJMxHAQFCOwQAmV79G3bWfXrc3fnB/ysalR/p0c71+WiR
gR+c3q/+NWOW4CQoHuav/W5zdTl6eij2oRpCvS3t1QZL1JPoxP8Zt01S1BXggA54
t3FTWErYLc33PNT8hzbHsv53efH95ZeO2j84Vbqj9zoqg1T3bG8o1wDZYF5Pv1TR
bs06vjB9Sp8=
=K2VP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:41:52 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> F> Your interpretation. Nowhere in the rules is this stated. The ability to
> F> "go first" with a block is built into the definition of Block, not
> F> Abort.
>
> Nope. Read your Ninja Hero or TUMA, because nowhere in there does it give
> the Block base, in and of itself, any ability to "go first". The *ONLY*
> element that allows that is Abort.
No, again, Rat. Read your HSR/BBB. Defensive actions go first in
the case of a held phase/acting on your phase. Actually, the wording was
Defensive actions and *any* *other* action that can be aborted to. I'd
assume that last is to cover things like turning on Desolid (not a
defense, in your words), Shapeshift, Growth, Density Increase, Images,
etc.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 30 Jan 1998 21:04:40 -0500
Lines: 31
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
TRG> No, again, Rat. Read your HSR/BBB. Defensive actions go first in
TRG> the case of a held phase/acting on your phase. Actually, the wording was
TRG> Defensive actions and *any* *other* action that can be aborted to.
The wording is, "defensive Combat Maneuver or some other defensive action".
Combat maneuvers that are not defensive in nature may not be aborted to.
Oh, and by the way activating Desolidification to avoid being tagged by an
Energy Blast is a defensive action, just as is using Flight in an attempt
to Dive for Cover out of the blast radius of a grendade.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNKGtp6VRH7BJMxHAQFj5wQAnCCkir0N9Mlo9FliGt9AmHOxfORwYUSn
CP3Jj36y+tootnF03v50Cy7mEylHEElNe+hC1MHyqZPy0c/k4aO7LcEsws3BXZMs
W6fVggWzsnf4FKIVUO/6LNT3Gh1NH+UxILqLEr6X3jkI2DL9rEmseBmD51hophuH
gWbWX7NZOK0=
=3XHk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \
\
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:58:14 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>JaRP> I disagree. The fundamental nature of Block is Defensive, separate
>JaRP> from any part of Abort.
>
>The fundamental nature of "Target Falls" is aggressive. That makes the
>entire maneuver aggresive.
The point isn't agressive (even a Block is an 'agressive' response in my
book), it's Attack/Defense. If someone is Blocking, they are _not_
attacking; they are being attacked. It is not a case of Attacker vs.
Attacker, it's a case of Attacker vs. Special Defense.
Case in point. Say I've got a Force Field, with a Linked Damage Shield. I
can raise a force field (a defensive action) to stop an attack without the
DEX vs DEX check, right? Can I raise a FF with a Linked DS as a defensive
action as well? I'd say yes - b/c a Damage Shield is a 'responsive' power.
It depends on the action of the attacker to work.
The same case applies to Block/Throw. Just because a Throw is tacked onto a
Block (linked, as it were), does not change the fundamentally defensive
nature of Block. Block needs an attacker before most of its effects can come
into play (note the DCV bonus would still be around, but the OCV bonus and
the 'blocks attacks' bits kinda need an attacker to have effect).
Abort has _nothing_ to do with the way Blocks or Dodges work. All Abort
allows you to do is use a defensive action in a Segment that is before your
next phase (i.e. Abort lets you 'move forward' your action). That's all that
a Block without Abort loses; it can only be used as a held action or in your
own phase. Block by its very nature can be used before the attack comes in,
regardless of the order of DEX - provided you've got an available action.
Block/Throw is _not_ an attack. It's a 'Special Defense'.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:58:22 -0500 (EST)
X-Sender: jprins@interhop.net
From: jprins@interhop.net (John and Ron Prins)
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
>F> Your interpretation. Nowhere in the rules is this stated. The ability to
>F> "go first" with a block is built into the definition of Block, not
>F> Abort.
>
>Nope. Read your Ninja Hero or TUMA, because nowhere in there does it give
>the Block base, in and of itself, any ability to "go first". The *ONLY*
>element that allows that is Abort.
Not true; Block states that all that is required is a 1/2 phase and a
declaration that you're Blocking before the Attack Roll is made. Abort only
comes into play if you don't have an available 1/2 phase - you steal it from
your next phase. Abort deals solely with this 'stealing' of phases. You do
not have to Abort to Block or Dodge if you have an available action (held or
it's your phase), these maneuvers circumvent the normal DEX procedure by
their very natures. Heck, Block does it twice, once to do the Blocking, and
then if they next phases are in common it does it again. If Block has this
ability to circumvent the normal DEX order in the next common phase, why is
it so odd to think that it could do it during the phase in which the attack
takes place?
Read the 'holding an action' section in the BBB again. It lets defensive
maneuvers from held actions go first, NOT because of Abort, but because
they're defensive actions, and defensive actions automatically go first.
When you Abort, you Abort to a defensive action (b/c you can only Abort to a
defensive action), so of course you go first - but this is STILL a function
of it being a defensive action, not a function of Abort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And go on to rule this world from beyond the grave."
"Indeed!"
"That, or check into a mental hospital; whatever comes first."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Prins
jprins@interhop.net
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:47:15 -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
>
> What kind of similarity would you give ASL (American Sign Language) and
> Braille to English, if any?
>
> And how many points should be spent for what effects? e.g. is just 1
> point of Braille all that's needed, since it's considered literacy?
>
> Dave Mattingly
>
I don't know here. But I do know that ASL is closer to french
sign language than it is to British. I recall that from the class I took
on it.
I know from Korean Sign Language that they are easier to learn
than spoken languages. I knew people in Korea who could master that one in
a single month of regular usage.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:45:51 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Why not. It's standard Hero ever since NH.
>
> Nothing is standard Hero until it appears in the Hero rulebook (sounds
> almost axiomatic). None of the "build-your-own-Maneuver" martial arts
> rules merit that description.
Eh? It may not be in the standard HSA, but it is in one of the
genre books giving it more authority than most "unofficial" rules. In
fact, for anything in the genre, it is official. Now, the question is, in
what genres are the Martial Arts?
Oh, and we were also talking about 5th edition, which will
probably contain the expanded list, and possibly the maneuver
construction rules. (An idea which I find myself in growing support of.)
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: mlknight@pop.mindspring.com
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:16:16 -0500
From: Michelle Knight <mlknight@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: IIRC
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 10:25 AM 1/31/98 -0800, Rick Holding wrote:
>Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
>> Goes along with IMHO: "in my humble opinion". Those who do not consider
>> themselves to be humble will omit the "H".
>
> Well, that got me. I thought the "H" stood for honest.
You can use it either way. Doesn't really matter.
Michelle
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 98 14:16:57
Reply-To: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Fri, 30 Jan 98 16:29:01 -0500, David Fair wrote:
>>Str is very useful for making Presence Attacks...
>
>Only if you perform a violent action. And only as a bonus.
This depends upon how you interpret violent - vs person or vs thing
>If you want a high PRE, buy one.
Agreed
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:51:21 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 06:09 PM 1/30/1998 -0500, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>F> Your interpretation. Nowhere in the rules is this stated. The ability to
>F> "go first" with a block is built into the definition of Block, not
>F> Abort.
>
>Nope. Read your Ninja Hero or TUMA, because nowhere in there does it give
>the Block base, in and of itself, any ability to "go first". The *ONLY*
>element that allows that is Abort.
Abort gives the ability to go first in the current Phase.
Block gives a limited ability to go first in the *next* Phase. My copy
of Ninja Hero is under a bunch of stuff at the moment, but the first
paragraphs in the description of the Block maneuver in HSR (pg 152) and the
Block element in TUMA (pg 110) both mention this fact in the first
paragraphs.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:04:41 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 02:37 PM 1/30/1998 -0400, Trevor Barrie wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Brian Wong wrote:
>
>> It's germanic. In fact, I've never studied german but I have
>> found myself able to understand parts of it when I listen in closely.
>
>Yep. German is just English with a funny accent.:)
Or vice versa.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:10:47 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: VOICE
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 05:53 PM 1/30/1998 -0600, Michael (Damon) or Peni R. Griffin wrote:
>Unlike many organizations, VOICE has been around for a very long time. How
>about a section of notes that would allow the organization, in its
>different incarnations, to be dropped into a Pulp Hero (Justice, Inc.)
>campaign, a WWII-era game (Golden Age Champions) or even Western Hero
>(shades of the Wild, Wild West)? More than a couple of pages worth of
>timeline; a breakdown of different equipment used by VOICE agents, even
>different agent package deals for each era. Computer Programming might
>regress through the decades to become Radio Operations, then a Telegraph
>skill.
Now, *that* is an extremely good suggestion that hadn't occurred to me!
In particular, the potentiality of using VOICE as a Western Hero villain
outfit (even though it probably predates the name) would be very
interesting, especially if the GM is looking for a good Chinese master
villain. Lung Hung can be very Fu Manchu-like when (s)he wants to be.
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Sender: bob.greenwade@klock.com (Unverified)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 08:28:46 -0800
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
At 11:23 AM 1/31/1998 -0800, Rick Holding wrote:
>-- Bob Greenwade wrote:
>> This is, by the way, something that didn't make it into the First Draft
>> of TUSV because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Rockets to a lot of blast
>> damage, and a person could be badly hurt by spinning helicopter rotors or
>> airplane propeller (as demonstrated in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), but I'm
>> really uncertain as to whether such a thing should be a Side Effect type of
>> Limitation, a Linked [sorry] Power, or just something so secondary, equally
>> advantageous and disadvantageous, that the Vehicle should get it simply by
>> definition.
>> I probably should have asked the list long ago, but... what do you all
>> think? (I suspect that I'll be no less confused when the discussion is
>> over....)
>
> I remember when I first started to play Champions when it first came
>out, I tried (wel, actually I did) to catch a jet fighter that was causing
our
>team some grief. I had to fly up behind it and got caught by its exhaust, a
>4d6KE IIRC. It had actually been specified in the vehicle writeup and
brought
>for.
>
> A simple solution would be to realise that certain special effects have
>a consequence. Helicopters have heavy blades that rotate 300+ RPM, exhausts
>have tempetures in excess of 1000 degrees C, etc. GM's call, convert
either the
>strength or movement points of a vehicle into the equivelant amount of
normal or
>killing damage. For instance, a jet has 60 active points of flight, the
>exhaust if applied does 4D6KE. A helicopter can lift 6 tonne (40 strength),
>being struck by the blades causes 2 1/2D6 KP (which in this case is also
applied
>to the helicopter in real life).
>
> There are so many ways that vehicles can affect the world. Consider car
>exhaust and carbon monoxide. Nobody has ever put forward the case of
forcing
>everybody to buy cumulative transform for their vehicle to transform
breathable
>air to not.
This is both helpful, and not helpful.
The real question is, how should this be done in terms of Vehicle
construction?
---
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
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Don McKinney <dmckinne@cmi.csc.com>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:18:29 CST
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
> > A simple solution would be to realise that certain special effects have
> >a consequence. Helicopters have heavy blades that rotate 300+ RPM, exhausts
> >have tempetures in excess of 1000 degrees C, etc. GM's call, convert
> either the
> >strength or movement points of a vehicle into the equivelant amount of
> normal or
> >killing damage. For instance, a jet has 60 active points of flight, the
> >exhaust if applied does 4D6KE. A helicopter can lift 6 tonne (40 strength),
> >being struck by the blades causes 2 1/2D6 KP (which in this case is also
> applied
> >to the helicopter in real life).
> >
> > There are so many ways that vehicles can affect the world. Consider car
> >exhaust and carbon monoxide. Nobody has ever put forward the case of
> forcing
> >everybody to buy cumulative transform for their vehicle to transform
> breathable
> >air to not.
>
> This is both helpful, and not helpful.
> The real question is, how should this be done in terms of Vehicle
> construction?
We've always done it as "side effects"; side effects which are NOT
harmful to the user of the power (or to the vehicle in this instance)
receive only half the limitation listed in the book. For example,
a bazooka has side effects, but it only hits someone standing real
close behind it when fired.
So, jet fighters all have a -1/2 lim on their flight, "side effects",
it being a 4d6EKA out the back.
And we NEVER allow someone to aim a side effect... "You just can't
maneuver like that..."
DonM.
--
=========================================================================
= Donald E. McKinney, Senior CM Specialist dmckinne@cmi.csc.com =
= International Telecommunications Data Systems (217) 239-8365 =
= 2109 Fox Drive, Champaign, IL (217) 351-8250 =
= Winter War XXV Convention Chairman, Champaign, IL, February 6-8, 1998 =
= dmckinne@prairienet.org or winterwar@prairienet.org (217) 469-9917 =
=========================================================================
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:18:34 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Problems with the language similarity chart
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > Actually, the grammar is _not_ the same -- one of the major
> >reasons deaf students have trouble with English.
>
> Now that you make that point, you're right. Maybe it should be 0 points
> of similarity.
I might allow 1 pt similarity for some likenesses. There is quite
a bit of difference, however.
> The third is probably Signed English, unless that's just another name
> for what you called Manually Coded English. Yes, there is a third; at my
> old job of putting out a jobs bulletin, I regularly came across references
> to all three.
MCE is basically the hand signs in English Word Order, IIRC. My
girlfriend was a Deaf-Ed major, and has worked at the Illinois School for
the Deaf for the past 2 years. So I'm pretty sure on those two. I'd have
to ask about the other one.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:24:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> The wording is, "defensive Combat Maneuver or some other defensive action".
>
> Combat maneuvers that are not defensive in nature may not be aborted to.
True. And neither may certain defensive combat maneuvers. Dodges
or Blocks with added Grabs or Throws come to mind. So does escapes with
those elements added.
> Oh, and by the way activating Desolidification to avoid being tagged by an
> Energy Blast is a defensive action, just as is using Flight in an attempt
> to Dive for Cover out of the blast radius of a grendade.
Why defensive? It's not a defensive power. Could it be because
it is in reaction to an incoming attack? How about using an EB to knock a
friend out of the way of an oncoming train? Is that defensive? Can I
abort to that?
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:25:26 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: IIRC
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> Goes along with IMHO: "in my humble opinion". Those who do not consider
> themselves to be humble will omit the "H".
Well, that got me. I thought the "H" stood for honest.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:35:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> Isn't there already a stat for this sort of thing?
> I thought that's what COM was for after all.
It's a little more complex than that.
> COM: How attractive you look.
> PRE: How impressive you are, looks or not.
> STR: How much you can lift.
> BODY: your hit points.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Not wrong, just not totally right. Now, talking about a Realistic
campaign, the physical scores have some unavoidable side-effects.
Someone with a, say, 20 STR in a "realistic" campaign is going to
be hugely barrel-chested, very beefy. He won't be able to pass as a 98-lb
(or 200-lb) weakling. Other possibilities is well-defined, very obvious,
muscle construction. A high BOD score will indicate not only someone who
is better conditioned (for a few points added, no problem), but someone
who is bigger, with, plain and simply, more Body. Look at Growth and how
it automatically adds Bod. There's more Body there.
PRE is, as you've said, how impressive you are, looks or not.
Someone with a 20 STR will look it, very big. However, if he has only 5
PRE, he will be meek enough to be unable to impress almost anyone. See
Lenny from Of Mice and Men for an example.
COM could very well be defined as sculpted muscles. However, I
wouldn't allow someone to take a high PRE and COM defined as "muscular"
unless it came with a decent amount of added STR. 15 or more, I'd say.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:38:42 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> TRG> Huh, not really. The block allows one to block the incoming
> TRG> attack, plain and simple. The character just can't abort his phase to
> TRG> go to the block. He has to declare this maneuver on his action phase.
>
> I don't think so, but I will have to check to be sure. I was under the
> impression that what allowed a defensive maneuver to occour before an
> opponent's offensive maneuver was the Abort element. :)
If the maneuver has an abort component then you can do that at any time
EXCEPT if you already have used your full phase in that segment. If you have a
half phase in reserve or you haven't moved this segment, you can abort to dodge,
block, dive for cover and anything else which has abort as part of a package.
If the maneuver doesn't have abort as part of its package, then you must
have at least that half phase in reserve. If the maneuver is defensive in
nature, then you go first. No roll is required. If the action is offensive or
movement related then a dex roll is required to see who goes first.
Page 140 in the BBB refers.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:38:42 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>
> TRG> Huh, not really. The block allows one to block the incoming
> TRG> attack, plain and simple. The character just can't abort his phase to
> TRG> go to the block. He has to declare this maneuver on his action phase.
>
> I don't think so, but I will have to check to be sure. I was under the
> impression that what allowed a defensive maneuver to occour before an
> opponent's offensive maneuver was the Abort element. :)
If the maneuver has an abort component then you can do that at any time
EXCEPT if you already have used your full phase in that segment. If you have a
half phase in reserve or you haven't moved this segment, you can abort to dodge,
block, dive for cover and anything else which has abort as part of a package.
If the maneuver doesn't have abort as part of its package, then you must
have at least that half phase in reserve. If the maneuver is defensive in
nature, then you go first. No roll is required. If the action is offensive or
movement related then a dex roll is required to see who goes first.
Page 140 in the BBB refers.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 12:43:38 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: Point Crocks?????
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
> > This, of course, isn't necessarily true in SuperHero campaigns,
> >where differing physical structures can exist. But for any normal humans,
> >it should be very easy (PER roll at, say +3 or 4) to tell, by looking at
> >two people, which one has 10 STR and which has 20.
>
> I rationalize it quite easily, as a matter of fact. The Hero System
> provides me with a number of characteristics and powers. I rationalize
> that those should be used for what the designers intended them for; no
> more, and no less.
Sure. But if you want realism you'll have to abide by a few
concepts.
> I don't give bonuses to seduction rolls for people with high STR (this
Neither would I. Unless we're talking about a woman (or man) with
a major thing for body-builders or really big, beefy guys. Of course,
that would be in that woman (or man)'s writeup. A note that they perfer
and will be easily seduced by people with a high STR. But I digress.
> did start as a discussion involving high STR characters as being
> impressive, and more attractive to members of the opposite sex, after
> all). I don't assume that a high STR character has to look like a high
> STR character, whether it is a "reality-based" campaign or not.
Again, how can you rationalize that. It will be very obvious who
happens to be pushing the max lift for humans and who is not. In a
"realistic" campaign. Agreed, in Superheroic campaigns, many other things
mix in allowing for high STR without the body shape that goes with it.
> Since the system has given me a mechanic for gauging ones impressiveness
> (PRE, which can reflect his Physical attributes as well as
> Personality-based ones) and his looks (COM), I choose to use them. Giving
> the abilities of these characteristics to someone who has simply bought a
> high STR defeats the purpose of having the stats at all, as well as
> playing a point-based system.
I wasn't saying this character was more or less impressive or good
looking. That is something separate, which you very rightly point out.
But there is some correlation. Someone with an 8 STR trying to do an
intimidation-based PRE attack by bending a lead pipe is probably going to
fail to bend said pipe and get a nice hefty negative to his PRE attack,
even if said PRE is 25.
Someone with a 10 PRE but 20 STR might just bend that pipe,
getting a positive to his PRE attack.
Of course, that guy with the 8 STR could do something indimidating
not necessarily based on STR, in which case he will get a bonus.
I'm rambling, but the point is that STR, DEX, BOD, CON, whatever
do carry some associated visual characteristics, in a realistic campaign.
This does not mean that a high STR character is more impressive or better
looking. It does mean that someone can tell he's strong.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:50:39 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
-- Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> TRG> But as we've pointed out, Rat, the abort element has nothing to do
> TRG> with going first.
>
> Wrong. Abort is *exactly* what allows one to use a defensive maneuver
> first, before the attacker gets his action, regardless of DEX counts or
> held actions.
Sorry, you are wrong on this. The abort function allows you to use
your NEXT action phase to do the maneuver. If the manouver does not have abort
then you must have at least a half phase in reserve to do the maneuver.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:23:11 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
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:
> This is, by the way, something that didn't make it into the First Draft
> of TUSV because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Rockets to a lot of blast
> damage, and a person could be badly hurt by spinning helicopter rotors or
> airplane propeller (as demonstrated in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"), but I'm
> really uncertain as to whether such a thing should be a Side Effect type of
> Limitation, a Linked [sorry] Power, or just something so secondary, equally
> advantageous and disadvantageous, that the Vehicle should get it simply by
> definition.
> I probably should have asked the list long ago, but... what do you all
> think? (I suspect that I'll be no less confused when the discussion is
> over....)
I remember when I first started to play Champions when it first came
out, I tried (wel, actually I did) to catch a jet fighter that was causing our
team some grief. I had to fly up behind it and got caught by its exhaust, a
4d6KE IIRC. It had actually been specified in the vehicle writeup and brought
for.
A simple solution would be to realise that certain special effects have
a consequence. Helicopters have heavy blades that rotate 300+ RPM, exhausts
have tempetures in excess of 1000 degrees C, etc. GM's call, convert either the
strength or movement points of a vehicle into the equivelant amount of normal or
killing damage. For instance, a jet has 60 active points of flight, the
exhaust if applied does 4D6KE. A helicopter can lift 6 tonne (40 strength),
being struck by the blades causes 2 1/2D6 KP (which in this case is also applied
to the helicopter in real life).
There are so many ways that vehicles can affect the world. Consider car
exhaust and carbon monoxide. Nobody has ever put forward the case of forcing
everybody to buy cumulative transform for their vehicle to transform breathable
air to not.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
X-Authentication-Warning: pentagon.io.com: traveler owned process doing -bs
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 14:18:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Dataweaver <traveler@io.com>
cc: champ-l@omg.org
Subject: Re: IIRC
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Michelle Knight wrote:
> At 10:25 AM 1/31/98 -0800, Rick Holding wrote:
> >Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> >
> >> Goes along with IMHO: "in my humble opinion". Those who do not consider
> >> themselves to be humble will omit the "H".
> >
> > Well, that got me. I thought the "H" stood for honest.
>
>
> You can use it either way. Doesn't really matter.
What I find particuloarly amusing is that, sometimes, it can mean
"holy"... ;)
---- Jonathan Lang <traveler@io.com> ---- x ------- alias: Dataweaver ---------
Webpage: http://www.io.com/~traveler /@\ The Dogma of Otherness insists
GURPSnet's Benevolent Tyrant for Life ~~~ that all voices deserve a hearing,
FAQ: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet/www | that all points of view have
Archive: http://www.io.com/~ftp/GURPSnet | something of value to offer.
submit new files to gurpsnet-files@io.com | --David Brin, "Otherness"
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 17:38:28 -0600 (CST)
From: "Tim R. Gilberg" <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu>
Subject: test
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Testing. Is the list up? Am I getting any incoming mail? Sorry.
-Tim Gilberg
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]]
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 31 Jan 1998 21:14:23 -0500
Lines: 36
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-----
>>>>> "TRG" == Tim R Gilberg <trgilber@hilltop.ic.edu> writes:
>> Combat maneuvers that are not defensive in nature may not be aborted to.
TRG> True. And neither may certain defensive combat maneuvers. Dodges
TRG> or Blocks with added Grabs or Throws come to mind. So does escapes with
TRG> those elements added.
Correct, because when those elements are added the maneuvers qbecome
aggressive rather than defensive.
>> Oh, and by the way activating Desolidification to avoid being tagged by an
>> Energy Blast is a defensive action, just as is using Flight in an attempt
>> to Dive for Cover out of the blast radius of a grendade.
TRG> Why defensive? It's not a defensive power.
Because it is a defensive action.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNPafJ6VRH7BJMxHAQEffwP/Ym6ICd0qiahcMkwtWZyKmVe5CW9cQaSy
OHy8VXZKlX5+ueKnPbfIe3DduYwpJ3KxFUt0UB5Gi9+hwaku2dPXUkoAwwnAOpNs
nHvoxcVTrN8ZgIOmVKc9f9EtoqGvtmson9ACfhleu4ag+6+EcrkIvUwrK7y9Stgg
f0cvbWXVyBY=
=Sto0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: TUMA Maneuvers
Mail-Copies-To: never
X-No-Archive: yes
X-Attribution: Rat
Organization: The Happy Fun Ball Brigade
Date: 31 Jan 1998 21:20:42 -0500
Lines: 26
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-----
>>>>> "JaRP" == John and Ron Prins <jprins@interhop.net> writes:
JaRP> The point isn't agressive
The point *is* agressive. Agressive maneuvers and actions are not
defensive in nature, they are agressive. Sometimes I have to wonder about
this list, that such an obvious thing must be stated outright, and that
some will still disagree with it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNNPb+J6VRH7BJMxHAQFaYQQAi6xrdPn1s1KtsGKFkVw2xXxT1NW8tcv9
Pu+5K27xa6GRHD89hnqtaKv+lKagCSMPNmC3JoIl7PnbRRBW18ww38ZqmMJT5qg2
EsyUXGloRrF161Js4JL1EIinZLbWMF79FK2q5TPGcmLGuMvTgWzv5e3KFrQcF0b1
PaqUjPWyD5g=
=szSr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ unknown glowing substance which fell to
\ Earth, presumably from outer space.
From: Brian Wong <rook@shell.infinex.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: The Tick universe
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 22:41:00 -75200 (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
>
> >Somewhere deep in the internet is a Tick character for Champions. Nothing
> >else, just the character. I know I downloaded it but that was two moves
> >ago. I don't know If I still have it. But He is out there.
> >
> >>> Has anybody developed the characters from The Tick for use with
> >>> Champions?
> >>
> >> Now *this* is something I'd like to see!
I made such a character years ago. I think he's still buried in
a file somewhere.
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/
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:09:51 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Remnant wrote:
>
> >Lets go through the logic here:
> >a) The persistent advantage _does not_ cause a power to turn itself on, it
> >causes a power to _not_ turn itself off.
> >b) If you are not desolid, your desolid is not on.
> >c) Power limitations do not _add_ abilities to powers.
> >d) There is a well-defined advantage (trigger) which _does_ cause a power
> to
> >turn itself on.
>
> I have seen arguments to premise 'B', and premise 'C' is just incorrect.
> Visible makes a power Visible. Charges allows a power to operate without
> using END. Yes, I know that at certain #'s of charges Charges is an
> Advantage, but at others it is a limitation. Focus can be used to give a
> power to someone else without using the Advantage UBO or UAO. No Knockback
> (which I hardly even consider a Limitation, but it still is) allows you to
> knock the crap out of a bad guy without as much chance of damaging the real
> estate.
>
> >Therefore, if you want a power to turn itself on when you stop paying END
> for
> >it, you buy the power with a trigger.
>
> If I buy a power and make it Always On, it should be Always On. If a power
> such as Dispel or Suppress turns it off. Are you saying that: "Once the
> Dispel or Suppress ends the power would stay off indefinitely, or until the
> character reactivates it?" Seems like you have, I can't buy that. Sorry.
>
> An Always On power is Always On, not just can't be turned off. Sure using
> this does bend the definition of Always On a little, but only by allowing
> the character to in any way shape or form turn the power off, not by making
> it turn the power back on after he stops.
>
> BTW, there is a character in a supplement from several years ago who had a
> damage shield that functioned similarly to this discussion. I can't
> remember her name or the supplements name, or even exactly how the effect
> was achieved. (No, I'm not actually an idiot, I just play one.) The
> character was a half-demoness w/a soul damaging field that had the Always On
> limitation but had a way to turn it off, that took END. I just can't
> remember how. I don't have the time to hunt through my books to find it.
>
> Alan
It was from Enemies 3 and the character was Dark Angel. She had a 3D6
RKA damage shield always on costing 107 points. Very next line was 27 pts to
neutralize RKA, costs endurance (5) costing 22 points. That was taken directly
from the book itself. Enemies 3 was written just after Champions 3 had came
out and perhaps some of the powers were not fully understood...
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:17:45 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: It's hard to be solid
Errors-To: owner-champ-l@omg.org
Sender: owner-champ-l@omg.org
X-Hero: champ-l
To: champ-l@omg.org
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>>>> "AJ" == Anthony Jackson <ajackson@iii.com> writes:
>
> AJ> persistent, trigger (turns on when stunned, knocked out, or no longer
> AJ> paying END), must reset trigger when turning power off (-1/4 or -1/2).
>
> That last is not really much of a limitation, since a Trigger must be
> "manually" set each time the power is to be used. It certainly is not
> worth a -1/2.
I think maybe you missed the point. Certainly while the trigger must
be manually set, in this case you have no choice but to set the trigger. This
way, the trigger is always ready to trip. However, -1/4 is plenty.
-
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: [Re: TUMA Maneuvers]
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:29:51 -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 Friday, January 30, 1998 7:09 AM, Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>>>> "F" == Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> writes:
>
>F> I will accept that the Defensive Throw is not a defensive maneuver
>F> (though I think the name calls that into question). However, it is
>F> irrelevant.
>
>The name is about as "wrong" as one can get. Ignore the name. It is
not a
>throw, and it is not defensive. It is an offensive block maneuver,
as
>opposed to the conventional defensive block maneuvers. That is the
game
>mechanic.
A block is _inherently_ defensive. It may also be offensive, to a very
slight degree, but it is still defensive, _and_ it is the _base_ of
this manouver. I submit that the _base_ of a manouver defines its
nature.
>F> Blocks do not go first because they are defensive maneuvers.
>
>F> The description of Block in the BBB is very clear, as is the one
in
>F> Ninja Hero (I assume it is the same in UMA).
>
>They go first because they have the Abort element. Read the
description of
>the Abort element.
I did. Did you?
>That is the entire point of the element: it lets you
>take a defensive action before an attacker can hit you, regardless of
DEX
>counts and rolls.
ABORTING AN ACTION
This is also called Canceling a Move. A character can abort his
next action to perform a defensive Combat Maneuver or some other
defensive action like turning on a Force Field. This requires the
character's next full Phase to perform. Once a character has attacked,
he can't abort to any action before the next Segment.
The usable maneuvers when aborting are Block and Dodge. A
character can't normally abort to a movement action.
Note that nowhere in the above paragraph does it ever state that
Aborting an action allows you to go first. However, the _descriptions_
of Dodge and Block both do. Furthermore, the maneuver Diving for
Cover, though left of the list of Abortable actions(1), does say that
it allows for Abort, _but does not automatically go first_.
So, to begin with, your claim that Abort says it allows you to go
first is wrong. Secondly, maneuvers aborted to do not always go first.
Third, those maneuvers that can go first say so in their descriptions,
without ever stating that abort is the key element that allows this.
Sorry, Rat, but I don't buy it. If you want to use that interpretation
in your games, fine, but don't try to tell me "read the description"
without checking it first.
Filksinger
(1) Previously, I stated you cannot abort to a Dive for Cover. I
thought that you couldn't because a) it was a movement action, and b)
the Abort description specifically named Block and Dodge as _the_
usable maneuvers, not simply as usable maneuvers.
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:43:30 -0800
From: Rick Holding <rholding@ActOnline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: 4th Edition starship construction
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:
> Officially, though, LS: Self-Contained Ventilation is required for space
> travel, and Physical Limitation: Cannot Enter Atmosphere is used to keep
> vessels there. (At least, in the current draft.)
(TIC) Thats not quite correct. Any ship can enter atmosphere and it's
one of the most specky sights you will ever see.
(TNIC) You should not buy "cannot enter atmosphere" as a physical
limitation. It would be closer represented as a susceptability which
(maybe) does body for as long as it is exposed. This allows for those scenes
like in Moonraker where the ship has to dip into the atmosphere to perform some
task and starts to melt.
By the way TIC - Tongue In Cheek. TNIC - Tongue Not In Cheek
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ricky Holding Email: rholding@ActOnline.com.au
Work is only there to give us time to talk about play
-----------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: daemon@omg.org
Reply-To: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: TUSV: Damaging Movement
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:59:02 -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 Friday, January 30, 1998 8:39 AM, Bob Greenwade wrote:
<snip>
>
> This is, by the way, something that didn't make it into the First
Draft
>of TUSV because I wasn't sure how to handle it. Rockets to a lot of
blast
>damage, and a person could be badly hurt by spinning helicopter
rotors or
>airplane propeller (as demonstrated in "Raiders of the Lost Ark"),
but I'm
>really uncertain as to whether such a thing should be a Side Effect
type of
>Limitation, a Linked [sorry] Power, or just something so secondary,
equally
>advantageous and disadvantageous, that the Vehicle should get it
simply by
>definition.
> I probably should have asked the list long ago, but... what do you
all
>think? (I suspect that I'll be no less confused when the discussion
is
>over....)
Do both. Give the Movement power a Limitation based upon the DC of the
attack power, and give the attack power Linked, of whatever variety
makes it _always_ go off together. Do this with any power that is not
offensive, but is linked to an offensive power. Maybe even give it to
offensive powers that do unintended, collateral damage, at a lower
level (its hard to save the hostages when your 12d6 EB is linked to a
2d6 RKA Explosion).
Filksinger
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 11:38 AM