Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 135
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 6:11 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #135
champ-l-digest Thursday, January 14 1999 Volume 01 : Number 135
In this issue:
Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Highland Immortality
Re: HERO/RM Conversion?
Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Paying for Equipment
RE: A seriously weird modification to speed
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
REGENERATION: Limbs, Resurrection
Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
Fw: mail failed, returning to sender
Re: A seriously weird modification to speed
RE: A seriously weird modification to speed
Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
GRADUAL EFFECT & HERO CREATOR
Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Upcoming Champions books
Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:15:11 -0500
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
It has been stated that 5th Edition will clarify the rule that one
attack roll may comprise the use of multiple unlinked *powers*. In the
normal case envisioned, this is clear: I fire my EB and Flash at the
same target and make the same attack roll for both. I assume that the
following common sense rules apply.
1) The combination should make special-effects sense. If you fire
plasma blasts from your hands, using the same hand to fire a
conventional firearm is probably not useful.
2) The attacks should have the same target. If one is an area attack,
both must be area attacks, unless the special effect clearly militates
that they be usable together. Thus, shooting a gun and throwing a
grenade in the same phase is questionable at best. Shooting a cannon
and a coaxial machine gun is fine.
3) A single power cannot normally be twice. For example, I cannot use
my RKA twice, even if I pay the END twice. See autofire if you want to
do this.
4) If a combat level or modifier applies to one attack and not the
other, they still use a single roll of the dice, but it is possible for
one to hit and the other to miss, based on different OCVs.
I experimented with this rule in my campaign, inviting people to attempt
to break it. People attempted the following things that I rejected as
abusive. In some cases, I got abused for my rulings, and want to check
that I am not being overly strict:
A) Using two HTH powers (one normal and one area-effect) and using full
STR on each. I did allow the character to divide STR between the two
attacks.
B) Using two separate martial manoeuvres as two attacks.
C) Using two HTH powers (one normal, one AP) on a single target as a
movethrough, and taking the full damage bonus on each attack.
D) Using two powers, one of which by special effect comes from the head,
and the other, by special effect, comes from the tail. The player's
argument is that, since turning around is a zero-phase action, it can be
combined with the attack action.
E) Using the same power twice at half-strength. The player's argument
is that this is similar to a reduced-penetration attack, so not subject
to abuse. I just felt that it was conceptually wrong, except in the
case of STR, which is used to *enhance* HTH powers.
Has anyone else run into attempted abuses of this rule interpretation?
Does everyone agree that these are abusive? Has there been a definitive
ruling on whether powers in an EC can be used together this way? (I
would say, intuitively, "Yes," because that explains why to put
attack-oriented powers in an EC rather than an MP.)
Thanks,
Robert A. West
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:41:02 -0500
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Highland Immortality
James Jandebeur wrote:
> 20 Body
> 2 Body Regeneration
> Physical Limitation: Functions like someone with only 10 body, but not
> really dead.
I prefer to buy additional BODY with the -1 Limitation, Only if
Negative. Thus, if
10 BODY 0 everyman
+10 BODY 20
+20 BODY OIN(-1) 10
--
40 BODY part. lim. 30
The character will start bleeding after taking 40 BODY and will be dead
after taking 60 BODY. BTW, I use the corresponding limitation on STUN
(only counts for determining recovery table) and so the figured STUN
that corresponds to this BODY also has that Limitation.
60 STUN Unlimited figured 0
+20 STUN OIN (figured from BODY) 0
+10 STUN OIN (-1) 5
This character will be knocked out after can take up to 100 STUN and
still recover every phase. Some people have argued that the appropriate
limitation for BODY is -2, and that it should not change the point at
which bleeding occurs. In this case, I would not give figured STUN, or
would only count the STUN as reducing the severity of GM Optional Table.
BODY that did not count against certain types of wounds (such as being
decapitated) would obviously be worth more of a limitation, depending on
how common such a wound is.
Robert A. West
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:07:48 -0500
From: Chuck Badger <wbandsis@westco.net>
Subject: Re: HERO/RM Conversion?
Scott Nolan wrote:
>
> Are there rules about for Rolemaster/Hero conversions? I've
> just read another of ICE's wonderful Middle Earth books and
> have a hankering to translate Middle Earth characters into
> a -useful- format.
Check the back of the first two fantasy hero books.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:14:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
Wayne Shaw writes:
>
> >Well, the main problem was usually not aid directly, it was with the +2
> >'affects all powers in a group' advantage, or the +1/2 point per +1 max
> >effect. That and at 5 pts/die aid really _was_ too cheap for a healing
> >effect, particularly since it never defined how aid max actually worked for
> >healing.
>
> The combination of the slower fade rate, increased maximum, and the ability
> to use it on multiple targets also got excessively clever. After watching
> the Speed Booster pills in operation just once, I knew we had a problem:
> Aid Speed, 1D6 Aid (5 points), increase Maximum +14 (7 points) Fade rate
> per hour (+3/4, adds up to an additional 9 points), 32 charges (another +1/4
> or 3 points). Net cost, one player (the gadgeteer) spends 24 points to give
> five people an extra two speed points for an hour. Try to find another
> clearly legal way to pull _that_ stunt.
+2 speed, usable against others, 5 x 1 hour charges (+1/2; automatically gives
the 'uncontrolled' advantage; usable against others appears to already grant
continuous where relevant) -- 45 pts active points. Takes extra time: 1 turn
(about what the aid takes). It means there's some reasonably obvious way to
turn it off, but....
Plus, for 30 points, you can get +2 speed, UA0, uncontrolled 0 END, and have it
last indefinately....
Of course, this may be more evidence for usable against others being broken
than anything else.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:51:02 EST
From: SteveL1979@aol.com
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
In a message dated 1/14/99 12:15:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
robtwest@erols.com writes:
<< It has been stated that 5th Edition will clarify the rule that one attack
roll may comprise the use of multiple unlinked *powers*. >>
Thanx for bringing your questions to my attention, Robert! I don't want to
launch into any specifics, nor to stifle any discussion on the topic, but I
will say that all of the issues you raise are addressed in the first draft for
the 5th Ed., and therefore hopefully will be in the final printed version as
well :)
I'm still working on the revisions, folx, so if you have suggestions or
questions, please keep posting them to my attention.
Steve Long
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:18:06 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Paying for Equipment
At 10:22 AM 1/14/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Christopher Taylor quoted someone, whose identity I have lost track of:
>>
>> >>I charge a silver per active point cost of an item for base magic item
>> >>value, but you know... few people sell items, cause they are like
heirlooms
>> >>and treasures for anyone. Especially the guy who spent XPS makin it.
>
>If you don't think that heirlooms and treasures are sold for money, go
>to an auction house sometime. If a magical sword is inherited by a
>burgher with no interest in fighting, he may well sell it for a
>substantial sum. What about the aging warrior who wishes to retire to a
>quiet life, and could really use the cash?
>
>In the real world (ITRW?) people do sell things they have spent years of
>their lives making. In a Corporations campaign, one would certainly
>invest XP in building a company, yet NPCs would certainly be selling
>small to medium-sized Corporations.
Yeah and thus sometimes people will be able to buy items... But the
auction/company analogy is good, you do NOT find a store crammed with
heirlooms and corporate stock majorities like you do 'magic stores' in my
fantasy world. Magic items are found on creatures who tend to use them, in
old places where they were lost or someone died with one, in tombs of elves
(buried with treasure). Rarely, someone will sell one but not only are
they well crafted treasures, they are enchanted... and special. Alchemists
and herbalists make potions no problem, thats a question of combining the
right things, and spellsmiths can work enchanted metals like Mithril and
Evantine, but actual magic items are rare.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 09:20:14 -0800
From: "Jim Dickinson" <ethernut@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: A seriously weird modification to speed
> Problem: The speed chart causes strange artifacts in combat. IE "If I
> haymaker now I know it will land 'cause I know my target will
> not act next
> segment" Often players will do things simply because its's
> advantageous due
> to how the phases play out.
Well, I believe DIVE FOR COVER is something that can be aborted too, no? I only know of one brick I have ever played with where we KNEW his haymakers would hit. He had four arms, and would grab the poor victim with two arms and set for a haymaker with the other two... Of course, he would do this over many segments because of his 4 speed. So on 3 he could grab, then on 6 set for the haymaker, and on 7 the villain would be pulped...
But I normally have villains dive for cover, or abort to similar defensive actions in the face of a haymaker from someone who could take them out with one. This kind of action caused haymakers to be very rare in combat. So when they DID work, it was a big deal, usually with lots of cheering and whooping from all of the other players.
> Extremely Radical Solution that I put out for comment without actually
> having tried:
> Get rid of the speed chart entirely.
I think the Speed chart is a Champions Staple. I was disappointed by Fusion's dropping it (for the most part). It allows for strategies that are not necessarily unreal. For instance, saving your phase until the end of the phase before your next, so as to get 2 actions side-by-side. You see this in movies, etc, all the time. The guy braces behind the corner, hyping up for a quick series of actions...then after waiting for the right moment, pops around the corner, takes a few shots, and then dives for cover behind the dumpster, etc. (Similar to Snap Shot, but keeping all your DCV, etc.)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:47:24 -0600
From: Chris Olson <chris_olson@itd.sterling.com>
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
"Robert A. West" wrote:
> It has been stated that 5th Edition will clarify the rule that one
> attack roll may comprise the use of multiple unlinked *powers*. In the
> normal case envisioned, this is clear: I fire my EB and Flash at the
> same target and make the same attack roll for both. I assume that the
> following common sense rules apply.
[Good stuff removed for clarity]
> I experimented with this rule in my campaign, inviting people to attempt
> to break it. People attempted the following things that I rejected as
> abusive. In some cases, I got abused for my rulings, and want to check
> that I am not being overly strict:
>
> A) Using two HTH powers (one normal and one area-effect) and using full
> STR on each. I did allow the character to divide STR between the two
> attacks.
Consider, since strength doubles every 5 points, simply let them use STR-5
for each attack ...
> B) Using two separate martial manoeuvres as two attacks.
Only one manoeuver is allowed per phase :-)
> C) Using two HTH powers (one normal, one AP) on a single target as a
> movethrough, and taking the full damage bonus on each attack.
See A above.
> D) Using two powers, one of which by special effect comes from the head,
> and the other, by special effect, comes from the tail. The player's
> argument is that, since turning around is a zero-phase action, it can be
> combined with the attack action.
Only one attack roll, only one attack action. Fire, turn, fire is two
attack actions ...
> E) Using the same power twice at half-strength. The player's argument
> is that this is similar to a reduced-penetration attack, so not subject
> to abuse. I just felt that it was conceptually wrong, except in the
> case of STR, which is used to *enhance* HTH powers.
Hmm, this comes under the heading fire, and fire, and you can't do that ...
> Has anyone else run into attempted abuses of this rule interpretation?
> Does everyone agree that these are abusive? Has there been a definitive
> ruling on whether powers in an EC can be used together this way? (I
> would say, intuitively, "Yes," because that explains why to put
> attack-oriented powers in an EC rather than an MP.)
I agree with your intuition ...
> Thanks,
>
> Robert A. West
I tried to get a GM to use this rule. He flat said no. Whatever, it's
valid in my game. Thanx for taking the time to consider the implications
of the rule.
- --
// chris@Sterling.COM | Send comp.sources.x submissions to:
\X/ Amiga: The only way to fly! | sources-x@sterling.com
GCS d++(-) s++:+ a C++(++++) US++++ P--- L+ E++ W++ N++ o? !K w+++(++++) !O M+
V-- PS PE+ Y+ PGP t* 5++ X+ R+++ tv b+++ DI++ D G e h---(++) r+++ z++++
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 12:58:51 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: REGENERATION: Limbs, Resurrection
Looking for some kind of explanation about the upcoming new options on
Regeneration, Regenerating Limbs and Organs and Regenerating from Death.
Can anybody give me a good explanation on them? Can you regenerate all
limbs and organs at the same time or only one at a time?
Thanks,
Guy
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert."
- --Charles Fort
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:08:44 -0800
From: Scott Bennie <sbennie@dowco.com>
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
And getting back to the original thread, does anyone know how to make the
adjustment in Hero Creator?
Scott Bennie
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:08:44 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: Fw: mail failed, returning to sender
Gradual Effect seems to be missing from Hero Creator. What's up with
that???
Guy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:14:53 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: A seriously weird modification to speed
Jim Dickinson wrote:
>
> > Problem: The speed chart causes strange artifacts in combat. IE "If I
> > haymaker now I know it will land 'cause I know my target will
> > not act next
> > segment" Often players will do things simply because its's
> > advantageous due
> > to how the phases play out.
>
> Well, I believe DIVE FOR COVER is something that can be aborted too, no? I
> only know of one brick I have ever played with where we KNEW his haymakers
> would hit. He had four arms, and would grab the poor victim with two arms
> and set for a haymaker with the other two... Of course, he would do this
> over many segments because of his 4 speed. So on 3 he could grab, then on
> 6 set for the haymaker, and on 7 the villain would be pulped...
>
> But I normally have villains dive for cover, or abort to similar defensive
> actions in the face of a haymaker from someone who could take them out with
> one. This kind of action caused haymakers to be very rare in combat. So
> when they DID work, it was a big deal, usually with lots of cheering and
> whooping from all of the other players.
One thing we allowed during haymakers was if the character throwing the
haymaker felt that it would be wasted for some reason, they could convert it
to a punch. They'd still have all the haymaker modifiers to their DCV.
Things that screw up haymakers:
Getting knocked back.
Target moving.
Stunned or Knocked out. (Well duh)
Getting grabbed/entangled and not shrugging it off.
(Casual strength etc, keeps those wet TP entangles away...)
This could be applied to other +segment manuevers, but depends on special
effect.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:33:17 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: RE: A seriously weird modification to speed
At 09:20 AM 1/14/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>> Problem: The speed chart causes strange artifacts in combat. IE "If I
>> haymaker now I know it will land 'cause I know my target will
>> not act next
>> segment" Often players will do things simply because its's
>> advantageous due
>> to how the phases play out.
I dont honestly see that being unrealistic.. you wait to give your big
punch that you know wont land so fast but will rock their world... until
they are not going to be able to get away. Thats not wierd at all, its
like the real world.
>Well, I believe DIVE FOR COVER is something that can be aborted too, no?
I only know of one brick I have ever played with where we KNEW his
haymakers would hit. He had four arms, and would grab the poor victim with
two arms and set for a haymaker with the other two... Of course, he would
do this over many segments because of his 4 speed. So on 3 he could grab,
then on 6 set for the haymaker, and on 7 the villain would be pulped...
I dont let people dive for cover from hth work, but this reminds me of a
teleporter/brick combo that a character in my old game used. He had a
'castle' maneuver where he would swap places with someone, and he would set
up the brick doing a haymaker on him... then castle at the last moment,
leaving the confused bad guy standing there facing a fist at like 18D6
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:12:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Hm...I have had a bunch of conceptual and balance problems with the
uncontrolled and continuous advantages (such that I actually rewrote them at
one point)...I thought I'd throw out some questions.
Consider the following two powers (both 60 active points)
a) 1d6+1 RKA, continuous, uncontrolled ('ignite person') 0 END
b) +15/+15 force field, uncontrolled ('force field') 0 END
Let's say that both of these powers are in a multipower (we will not address
why you do this...sufficient that you can). Now, let's say that you _change_
the allocation of the multipower:
Based on any examples I've seen, power (a) continues to operate. Power (b) is
rarely seen on characters, but logically, it seems like it might work the same
way. Of course, the possible imbalance is obvious...
So.. perhaps the uncontrolled power only continues to operate if the power in
question is an attack power? In that case, consider:
c) +10/+10 force field, usable against others, uncontrolled 0 END.
Should this power continue to operate after the multipower is shifted?
Anyway...on to the next issue:
Compare 5d6 energy blast, continuous uncontrolled (62 ap) with 12d6 energy
blast. If we assume we spend 30 END on the constant attack (5 phases) and are
hitting a low defense martial artist (probably ED 12-14 in a 60 active limit
game) it might do 25 stun over that time period... the 12d6 energy blast will
do 30 stun instantly, costs far less endurance, does more knockback, etc...
against more typical defense (20-odd) the constant attack is likely to do no
damage at all..
So, as basically a +1.5 advantage, uncontrolled continuous attacks just don't
seem worth it. So, why are they so expensive? At a guess I'd assume that its
based on the problems with NND continuous attacks -- but why not use the
autofire logic there, and just make it more expensive to do an NND uncontrolled
attack?
Next:
Consider two effects:
Effect (a) causes everyone in a target area to be set on fire; they then
continue to burn until put out (or the duration expires). Effect (b) causes
the target area to be set on fire; everyone in the area takes damage until the
effect expires, but they can avoid the damage by leaving the area.
In my experience, effect (a) is more useful than effect (b) -- but they're the
_same power_ -- it just depends on how you order the area effect and the
continuous advantages...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:06:46 -0600
From: "Guy Hoyle" <ghoyle1@airmail.net>
Subject: GRADUAL EFFECT & HERO CREATOR
Gradual Effect seems to be missing from Hero Creator. What's up with
that???
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 16:00:16 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
At 11:12 AM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Hm...I have had a bunch of conceptual and balance problems with the
>uncontrolled and continuous advantages (such that I actually rewrote them at
>one point)...I thought I'd throw out some questions.
>
>Consider the following two powers (both 60 active points)
>a) 1d6+1 RKA, continuous, uncontrolled ('ignite person') 0 END
>b) +15/+15 force field, uncontrolled ('force field') 0 END
>
>Let's say that both of these powers are in a multipower (we will not address
>why you do this...sufficient that you can). Now, let's say that you _change_
>the allocation of the multipower:
Okay, well, your problem is actually with the multipower. Not with
Uncontrolled. Also, the BBB does tell you to be careful with 0 END
Uncontrolled powers.
>Based on any examples I've seen, power (a) continues to operate. Power
(b) is
>rarely seen on characters, but logically, it seems like it might work the
same
>way. Of course, the possible imbalance is obvious...
>
>So.. perhaps the uncontrolled power only continues to operate if the power in
>question is an attack power? In that case, consider:
>c) +10/+10 force field, usable against others, uncontrolled 0 END.
>
>Should this power continue to operate after the multipower is shifted?
What is the obvious means of turning the force field off? I would include
the multipower switching as one of the means to avoid the problem.
>Anyway...on to the next issue:
>
>Compare 5d6 energy blast, continuous uncontrolled (62 ap) with 12d6 energy
>blast. If we assume we spend 30 END on the constant attack (5 phases) and
are
>hitting a low defense martial artist (probably ED 12-14 in a 60 active limit
>game) it might do 25 stun over that time period... the 12d6 energy blast will
>do 30 stun instantly, costs far less endurance, does more knockback, etc...
>against more typical defense (20-odd) the constant attack is likely to do no
>damage at all..
I dislike when I see that statement. Always look at what the attack will
do to a normal before saying "is likely to do no damage at all". Even a
5d6 EB is deadly against normals.
>So, as basically a +1.5 advantage, uncontrolled continuous attacks just don't
>seem worth it. So, why are they so expensive? At a guess I'd assume that
its
>based on the problems with NND continuous attacks -- but why not use the
>autofire logic there, and just make it more expensive to do an NND
uncontrolled
>attack?
While the uncontrolled attick is turning the martial artist to pulp, the
character who fired it can do other things, like escape. Aim that EB at a
normal and then run off. The hero has to help the normal for 5 phases
while you are running off.
>Next:
>Consider two effects:
>Effect (a) causes everyone in a target area to be set on fire; they then
>continue to burn until put out (or the duration expires). Effect (b) causes
>the target area to be set on fire; everyone in the area takes damage until
the
>effect expires, but they can avoid the damage by leaving the area.
>
>In my experience, effect (a) is more useful than effect (b) -- but they're
the
>_same power_ -- it just depends on how you order the area effect and the
>continuous advantages...
Order the advantages? They are not the same power:
a) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), 1D6
RKA, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), Trigger (Leaving the
original AOE), Linked (AOE attack). (Requires a linked power so that it
will continue to affect the target if they leave the area.)
b) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out).
(Leaving the area obviously will work too.)
Am I wrong?
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:11:16 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Attn: Steve Long/Multiple Attacks in one Phase
>Has anyone else run into attempted abuses of this rule interpretation?
>Does everyone agree that these are abusive? Has there been a definitive
>ruling on whether powers in an EC can be used together this way? (I
>would say, intuitively, "Yes," because that explains why to put
>attack-oriented powers in an EC rather than an MP.)
Can't be of any help, since I've always operated on the theory that unless
Linked, you can't fire two attacks at once.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:22:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Joe Mucchiello writes:
>
> But it doesn't model a burning fire like continuous does. In fact, this is
> one of the places like I said above. The burning fire does less damage
> than the autofire machine gun in the same amount of time but the system
> does not model that in terms of cost very well. Oh, well. No system is
> perfect.
Shrug. My point is that uncontrolled continuous attacks which are not NNDs or
AVLDs should be cheaper than they are.
>
> What does saving time and effectiveness have to do with character
> conception? I know you aren't looking at it from that point of view, but I
> am. I find that players looking to maximize their point values don't take
> Uncontrolled or Continuous style special effects because they don't hit
> hard and fast. That's their perogative. You might say that they cost too
> much. Change their cost. Maybe cut them in half.
Saving time and effectiveness have nothing to do with character conception.
Neither do point costs, however, so arguments about character conception are
irrelevant to point costs.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:04:14 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
>Wayne Shaw writes:
>>
>> >Well, the main problem was usually not aid directly, it was with the +2
>> >'affects all powers in a group' advantage, or the +1/2 point per +1 max
>> >effect. That and at 5 pts/die aid really _was_ too cheap for a healing
>> >effect, particularly since it never defined how aid max actually worked for
>> >healing.
>>
>> The combination of the slower fade rate, increased maximum, and the ability
>> to use it on multiple targets also got excessively clever. After watching
>> the Speed Booster pills in operation just once, I knew we had a problem:
>> Aid Speed, 1D6 Aid (5 points), increase Maximum +14 (7 points) Fade rate
>> per hour (+3/4, adds up to an additional 9 points), 32 charges (another +1/4
>> or 3 points). Net cost, one player (the gadgeteer) spends 24 points to give
>> five people an extra two speed points for an hour. Try to find another
>> clearly legal way to pull _that_ stunt.
>
>+2 speed, usable against others, 5 x 1 hour charges (+1/2; automatically gives
>the 'uncontrolled' advantage; usable against others appears to already grant
>continuous where relevant) -- 45 pts active points. Takes extra time: 1 turn
Unless you buy Useable by multiple others, that'll only work on one person
at a time, far as I can tell.
>(about what the aid takes). It means there's some reasonably obvious way to
>turn it off, but....
>Plus, for 30 points, you can get +2 speed, UA0, uncontrolled 0 END, and have it
>last indefinately....
>
>Of course, this may be more evidence for usable against others being broken
>than anything else.
That too. You notice I said 'clearly legal'.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 13:32:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson@molly.iii.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Joe Mucchiello writes:
>
> Okay, well, your problem is actually with the multipower. Not with
> Uncontrolled. Also, the BBB does tell you to be careful with 0 END
> Uncontrolled powers.
True in this case.
> What is the obvious means of turning the force field off? I would include
> the multipower switching as one of the means to avoid the problem.
Ok, define for me _why_ this should be a required method for a force field, and
not for the fire attack? To get to a concrete example where this power makes
sense: WebMan has various webbing powers, mostly entangles. However, he can
also spray a nice flexible cocoon of webbing on someone, which lasts until it
is destroyed (treat as ablative; seems like a reasonable method for turning it
off).
Remember, an uncontrolled power _is no longer connected to the player_! As
such, it should _not_ magically detect a multipower shifting...
>
> >Anyway...on to the next issue:
> >
> I dislike when I see that statement. Always look at what the attack will
> do to a normal before saying "is likely to do no damage at all". Even a
> 5d6 EB is deadly against normals.
To quote myself, 'against more typical defenses, it is likely to do no damage
at all'. Implicit there was superhero defenses. Besides, an 8d6 autofire
attack is pretty much invariably more effective against that same normal.
>
> While the uncontrolled attick is turning the martial artist to pulp, the
> character who fired it can do other things, like escape. Aim that EB at a
> normal and then run off. The hero has to help the normal for 5 phases
> while you are running off.
Sure...they're moderately useful to villians. As villians aren't required to
be point-balanced in any case, this isn't too interesting, plus its probalby
more like 2 phases (to dispel the effect) than 5. In any cases, since the
straight energy blast (in one phase) is more effective at turning the martial
artist to pulp than the continuous energy blast (over 5 phases), the continuous
attack doesn't save you any time.
> Order the advantages? They are not the same power:
> a) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), 1D6
> RKA, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), Trigger (Leaving the
> original AOE), Linked (AOE attack). (Requires a linked power so that it
> will continue to affect the target if they leave the area.)
Huh? No, this is not the power I'm describing.
Power (1) sets all the _people_ on fire, but does not attack anyone new
entering the area -- i.e. it is 1d6 UCC RKA with 'AOE radius' applied to it.
Once the power has gone off, the original area of effect is no longer relevant.
> b) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out).
> (Leaving the area obviously will work too.)
Power (2) sets the _area_ on fire, and thus attacks people who are in it. They
will not continue to be attacked. This is 1d6 RKA AOE with 'uncontrolled
continuous' applied to it.
>
> Am I wrong?
> Joe
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:23:04 -0500
From: David Stallard <DBStallard@compuserve.com>
Subject: Upcoming Champions books
Message text written by Steve Peterson
>>There are two campaign
books already out for Champions; the Champions: New Millennium campaign
book
and the San Angelo: City of Heroes campaign book. Scott Bennie is hard at
work
on his Gestalt campaign book (which I hope we'll see soon!); Aaron Allston
is
working on his new Strike Force campaign book series; and we already have
Jason Vester's Tarot campaign book in the editing process. So we'll be
seeing
a lot of different campaigns, along with supplements for many of those
campaigns, which means there'll be a lot of choices for Champions fans.<<
If it's not too early, can you maybe give us a sentence or two about each
of these so we can tell how they are different? San Angelo and New
MIllennium are both fairly "generic" settings, so if we get any more of
those, it seems like it would be overkill. Hopefully these other 3
campaign books you mentioned (Gestalt, Strike Force, Tarot) are specialized
and immediately distinguishable from the 2 current campaign worlds.
>>Dave Mattingly is working on the Champions genre book right now<<
I am looking forward to this more than I have any other Hero System book I
can remember.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 17:28:09 -0500
From: Joe Mucchiello <why@superlink.net>
Subject: Re: Adjusting cost of power in Hero Creator
At 09:14 AM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
>Wayne Shaw writes:
>>
>> >Well, the main problem was usually not aid directly, it was with the +2
>> >'affects all powers in a group' advantage, or the +1/2 point per +1 max
>> >effect. That and at 5 pts/die aid really _was_ too cheap for a healing
>> >effect, particularly since it never defined how aid max actually worked
for
>> >healing.
>>
>> The combination of the slower fade rate, increased maximum, and the ability
>> to use it on multiple targets also got excessively clever. After watching
>> the Speed Booster pills in operation just once, I knew we had a problem:
>> Aid Speed, 1D6 Aid (5 points), increase Maximum +14 (7 points) Fade rate
>> per hour (+3/4, adds up to an additional 9 points), 32 charges (another
+1/4
>> or 3 points). Net cost, one player (the gadgeteer) spends 24 points to
give
>> five people an extra two speed points for an hour. Try to find another
>> clearly legal way to pull _that_ stunt.
Ah, the old speed pill. Just because you can combine the powers and
advantages doesn't mean the player is allowed to have the power. The power
Wayne describes is clearly legal. It only unbalances game play, that
doesn't change it legality.
This one is fun for the GM, make sure your speed 5 villains all haymaker
during the two phases the player is skipping when they go up in speed.
(Petty? Yes.)
>+2 speed, usable against others, 5 x 1 hour charges (+1/2; automatically
gives
>the 'uncontrolled' advantage; usable against others appears to already grant
>continuous where relevant)
SPEED is already continuous. The only thing Uncontrolled is necessary for
is to disconnect the power from the gadgeteer.
> -- 45 pts active points. Takes extra time: 1 turn
>(about what the aid takes). It means there's some reasonably obvious way to
>turn it off, but....
>Plus, for 30 points, you can get +2 speed, UA0, uncontrolled 0 END, and
have it
>last indefinately....
SPEED doesn't cost END!
>Of course, this may be more evidence for usable against others being broken
>than anything else.
No, it is just that UAO should not be connected to Characteristics.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 06:23:44 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
>Hm...I have had a bunch of conceptual and balance problems with the
>uncontrolled and continuous advantages (such that I actually rewrote them at
>one point)...I thought I'd throw out some questions.
>
>Consider the following two powers (both 60 active points)
>a) 1d6+1 RKA, continuous, uncontrolled ('ignite person') 0 END
>b) +15/+15 force field, uncontrolled ('force field') 0 END
>
>Let's say that both of these powers are in a multipower (we will not address
>why you do this...sufficient that you can). Now, let's say that you _change_
>the allocation of the multipower:
>Based on any examples I've seen, power (a) continues to operate. Power (b) is
>rarely seen on characters, but logically, it seems like it might work the same
>way. Of course, the possible imbalance is obvious...
I just think the simple answer is that attacks and defenses don't operate in
the same fashion here.
>
>So.. perhaps the uncontrolled power only continues to operate if the power in
>question is an attack power? In that case, consider:
>c) +10/+10 force field, usable against others, uncontrolled 0 END.
Which demonstrates why a lot of people are dubious about useable against others.
>
>Should this power continue to operate after the multipower is shifted?
>
>Anyway...on to the next issue:
>
>Compare 5d6 energy blast, continuous uncontrolled (62 ap) with 12d6 energy
>blast. If we assume we spend 30 END on the constant attack (5 phases) and are
>hitting a low defense martial artist (probably ED 12-14 in a 60 active limit
>game) it might do 25 stun over that time period... the 12d6 energy blast will
>do 30 stun instantly, costs far less endurance, does more knockback, etc...
>against more typical defense (20-odd) the constant attack is likely to do no
>damage at all..
>
>So, as basically a +1.5 advantage, uncontrolled continuous attacks just don't
>seem worth it. So, why are they so expensive? At a guess I'd assume that its
>based on the problems with NND continuous attacks -- but why not use the
>autofire logic there, and just make it more expensive to do an NND uncontrolled
>attack?
This is a problem with several power advantages. Try buying straight Area
Effect damage causers and actually making them pay for themself. It's hard
enough to make the 8D6 Explosion pay for itself relative to the 12D6
straight attack; making the 6D6 Radius do it is next to impossible unless
you spend a lot of time fighting ordinary thugs.
>
>Next:
>Consider two effects:
>Effect (a) causes everyone in a target area to be set on fire; they then
>continue to burn until put out (or the duration expires). Effect (b) causes
>the target area to be set on fire; everyone in the area takes damage until the
>effect expires, but they can avoid the damage by leaving the area.
>
>In my experience, effect (a) is more useful than effect (b) -- but they're the
>_same power_ -- it just depends on how you order the area effect and the
>continuous advantages...
Actually, I believe there's no suggestion in the rules that A is legal at
all; as written continuous just causes the area to burn, and if you get out
of it, you're okay.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 14:02:27 -0800
From: Mark Lemming <icepirat@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with Uncontrolled and Continuous (Attn: Steve Long)
Joe Mucchiello wrote:
>
> At 11:12 AM 1/14/99 -0800, Anthony Jackson wrote:
> >Hm...I have had a bunch of conceptual and balance problems with the
> >uncontrolled and continuous advantages (such that I actually rewrote them at
> >one point)...I thought I'd throw out some questions.
> >
> >Consider the following two powers (both 60 active points)
> >a) 1d6+1 RKA, continuous, uncontrolled ('ignite person') 0 END
> >b) +15/+15 force field, uncontrolled ('force field') 0 END
> >
> >Let's say that both of these powers are in a multipower (we will not address
> >why you do this...sufficient that you can). Now, let's say that you _change_
> >the allocation of the multipower:
>
> Okay, well, your problem is actually with the multipower. Not with
> Uncontrolled. Also, the BBB does tell you to be careful with 0 END
> Uncontrolled powers.
I'm of the opinion if the Multislot gets changed then the power gets
dropped. You wouldn't allow this:
60 Multi
6u 12d6 EB
6u 20/20 armour
Armour is similar to an uncontrolled FF in that they're both constant.
(Of course I have a problem with Armour costing the same as 0 end FF.
One stays on, the other doesn't.)
If the concept needs the power to keep going then it shouldn't be a multi.
EC would be fine.
<Small snip>
> >So.. perhaps the uncontrolled power only continues to operate if the power in
> >question is an attack power? In that case, consider:
> >c) +10/+10 force field, usable against others, uncontrolled 0 END.
> >Should this power continue to operate after the multipower is shifted?
>
> What is the obvious means of turning the force field off? I would include
> the multipower switching as one of the means to avoid the problem.
Even with attack powers in my opinion.
> >Anyway...on to the next issue:
> >
> >Compare 5d6 energy blast, continuous uncontrolled (62 ap) with 12d6 energy
> >blast. If we assume we spend 30 END on the constant attack (5 phases) and
> >are hitting a low defense martial artist (probably ED 12-14 in a 60 active
> >limit game) it might do 25 stun over that time period... the 12d6 energy
> >blast will do 30 stun instantly, costs far less endurance, does more
> >knockback, etc... against more typical defense (20-odd) the constant attack
> >is likely to do no damage at all..
>
> I dislike when I see that statement. Always look at what the attack will
> do to a normal before saying "is likely to do no damage at all". Even a
> 5d6 EB is deadly against normals.
Makes it useless for a hero then. I like to base my combat balance on the
supers, not the bystanders.
> >So, as basically a +1.5 advantage, uncontrolled continuous attacks just don't
> >seem worth it. So, why are they so expensive? At a guess I'd assume that
> > its based on the problems with NND continuous attacks -- but why not use
> > the autofire logic there, and just make it more expensive to do an NND
> > uncontrolled attack?
That might be a partial solution.
> While the uncontrolled attick is turning the martial artist to pulp, the
> character who fired it can do other things, like escape. Aim that EB at a
> normal and then run off. The hero has to help the normal for 5 phases
> while you are running off.
But if you stun or KO the MA isn't that better? And there you attacking the
bystanders again.
> >Next:
> >Consider two effects:
> >Effect (a) causes everyone in a target area to be set on fire; they then
> >continue to burn until put out (or the duration expires). Effect (b) causes
> >the target area to be set on fire; everyone in the area takes damage until
> >the effect expires, but they can avoid the damage by leaving the area.
> >
> >In my experience, effect (a) is more useful than effect (b) -- but they're
> >the _same power_ -- it just depends on how you order the area effect and the
> >continuous advantages...
>
> Order the advantages? They are not the same power:
> a) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), 1D6
> RKA, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out), Trigger (Leaving the
> original AOE), Linked (AOE attack). (Requires a linked power so that it
> will continue to affect the target if they leave the area.)
> b) 1D6 RKA, AOE Radius, Continuous, Uncontrolled (Until fire put out).
> (Leaving the area obviously will work too.)
>
> Am I wrong?
The rules are unclear in my opinion. Your proposal makes some sense.
- -Mark Lemming
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #135
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:11 PM