Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 170
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Friday, January 29, 1999 7:55 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #170
champ-l-digest Friday, January 29 1999 Volume 01 : Number 170
In this issue:
Re: extra time
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Multipower Questions
Tolkien Character Question
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Tolkien Character Question
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Power set question.
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: CHAR: Perfect Cell
Re: Limitations on Multipowers
Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
Re: AP, Penetrating, Piercing
Re: Multipower Questions
Re: Multipower Questions
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:20:37 +1000
From: "happyelf" <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
Subject: Re: extra time
- -----Original Message-----
From: Brian Wawrow <bwawrow@mondello.toronto.fmco.com>
To: Champeens <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 2:20 AM
Subject: extra time
>Hi,
>
>One of my players has a damage shield. He's bought it with the [extra
time -
>full turn] limitation. What he wants is to spend a full turn activating the
>damage shield and then have it run normally until deactivated. I said I'd
>let him take the lim at half value based on the convention used with
>gestures and incantations. That, and he has to pay END into it every phase.
>
a damage shield is a constant power from the look of the lists opinion.
hence the
campaign's standard extra time option you use for a forceshield would be
usable in this case,
imhho.
>Does this sound reasonable?
>
>Specifically, this is a fire based spell called Scar. It's a small damage
>shield drain to COM with a fade rate of about 100 years and 2 levels of
>[difficult to dispel]. The idea is that if you're foolish enough to put
your
>hands on the dread warlock Petru Fruevenbach, your skin will blister and
>boil so that all may see the price of your arrogance. It's just a flavour
>spell so I'm not too worried about it but I don't want to set the wrong
>precendent.
>
>Brian Wawrow
>Financial Models Company
>
>"Do or do not. There is no try."
>- Yoda
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:48:47 +0900
From: Michael House <macross@gol.com>
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
At 10:38 -0500 1999.01.29, Lisa Hartjes wrote:
> I know it says somewhere in the books about modifiers to telepathic attacks.
> Say I have a character with 10d6 Telepathy attacking someone who would
> effectively have an "alien mind". Would the alien mind modifier apply to
> the attack
> roll, or to the total of the 10d6?
I don't know what the current edition of the rules says on this point,
but I recall that Champs II said that sufficiently alien minds could add
one or two levels on the chart for reading minds. I think this may have
affected telepathic communication as well as reading minds, but my
copy of Champs II is in a storage locker an ocean away, so I can't
check very easily. Anyway, my recollection is that it affects the effect
roll, not the attack roll. HTH ALAL...
Be Seeing You...
- --Michael House, macross@gol.com, www.gainax.co.jp
GAINAX Co., Ltd. (Opinions expressed are my own unless otherwise specified)
"Perfection is achieved only by institutions on the point of collapse."
- --C. Northcote Parkinson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 16:45:32
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:27:07 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
>
>>>It's a common construct for buying things like arsenals of weapons
>>
>>Nope - each weapon should be its own focus.
>
>Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven things?
>That's a case of seriously punishing people cost-wise for what is, much of
>the time, special effects.
Because if you take away one weapon you can still use the others.
Therefore the Focus Limitation does not limit the Multipower itself.
Remember the cardinal rule of Limitations: A Limitation that doesn't
limit isn't worth any bonus.
However, each Power does benefit, so it does apply to the Power.
>>> and utility belts.
>>
>>This is fine - if he loses the belt, he loses all the powers
>>
>>> I've also occasionally seen cases of people with multipowers
>>>where one slot is a focus because it's _literally_ a focus in this case (as
>>>an example, in my last campaign, one of the characters was a telepath who
>>>learned psionic technology as the campaign progressed. She had one slot of
>>>her multipower that took her telepathic powers and transduced them into a
>>>telekinetic force blast).
>>
>>I don't follow here - could you elaborate?
>
>Essentially, one slot had the focus limitation...the focus took her
>telepathic powers and turned them into psychokientic force when she was
>using it.
I think I'm with you :}
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:37:59 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filksinger@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
>
>BG> Maybe it's just because I'm not feeling well today, but this
statement
>BG> makes absolutely *no* sense.
>
>That is the point, Bob. It does not make sense. It demonstrates the flaw
>in the logic of the previous statement.
The original statement contained a certain reasonable point, which I happen
to disagree with. Your post sidestepped that point, presenting a counter
model that contained _none_ of the justification of the original, and
presented this _no longer relevant model_ as showing the flaws in the
original. This not only is not relevant to proving the point wrong, it
resembles deliberately changing the thrust of the original to make it absurd
because you _can't_ prove the point wrong.
I'm sure that isn't the case, but it A) is not relevant to the original
point, and B) looks like deliberate sophistry.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
> >> Shouldn't this be Public ID: Gandalf the Grey? After all, being old and
> >> having a long beard isn't really a DF.
> >
> >Yes it is. Gandalf's height, dress, age and hairstyle are pretty
> >recognizable by many. Actually, Gandalf could almost have both a Public
> >ID (many people knew or knew of him) and the DF, since he was fairly easy
> >to ID by many people.
>
> Is there any indication that he *always* dresses that way? If not, then
> no DF.
It can still be a DF, if it's at the 'easily concealed' level - if the
dress/appearance is worn enough and distinctive enough. Since we get no
impression that anybody else looks or dresses like Gandalf (witht he
exception of the other members of the Council, possibly), and since I
don't think we ever see him (or at least not often) out of his trademark
'costume', it is good enough to help him qualify for a DF.
> He looks just like an old man with a beard, and there are plenty
> of those. Remember a DF has to be Distinctive - being old and having a
> beard are NOT distinctive.
No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized by
just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
model that: Distinctive Features.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:13:50 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: qts <qts@nildram.co.uk>
>On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:53:50 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Your interpretation is not unreasonable, but I believe it contains a
serious
>>flaw. If I apply your interpretation across the board, then it results in
a
>>significant imbalance. Some Limitations apply to the pool for free (like
>>Increased END, NCC, Lim: Only in darkness),
>
>But these Limit the whole MP and thus are valid.
Absolutely. However, if I apply them to the pool, it doesn't count against
the slots _again_.
Consider these two examples:
20 Multipower (40), Lim: Only in rain (-1)
2 u 8d6 EB, Lim: Only in rain (-1)
2 u 20 PD, 20 ED, Lim: Only in rain (-1)
Total Cost: 24
40 Multipower (40)
2 u 8d6 EB, Only in rain (-1)
2 u 20 PD, 20 ED, Lim: Only in rain (-1)
Total Cost: 34
Both are legal, both are exactly the same in effect. The first is obviously
cheaper.
The person to whom I responded claimed that that was perfectly valid, but
that, in the case of charges, I couldn't apply them to the whole Multipower
without being limited _twice_, once by applying the limitation to each slot,
and again by applying the Limitation to the Multipower as a whole. This
means that, even if both Limitations grant a -1, some Limitations (like the
above "Only in Rain") can reduce the cost of the whole Multipower without
penalty, while others (like 4 Charges) give massive additional penalties.
This creates a situation where a character is penalized severely (or, by
comparison, gets a reduction in cost without being limited) because of the
types of Limitations chosen.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:05:19 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
<but I recall that Champs II said that sufficiently alien minds could add
one or two levels on the chart for reading minds. >>
So, does that mean that EGO+10 on a regular person would become EGO+20 on
the alien?
Lisa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 10:51:04 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
From: happyelf <jonesl@hotkey.net.au>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
<snip>
<snip>
>>The dramatic differences your ruling would have on different Limitations
is
>>unacceptable to me. Rulings on the use of Limitations shouldn't produce
>such
>>large discrepancies, as a rule, IMHO.
>>
>
>what large discrepancy? it's just number of uses, not even a qualititative
>difference.
Having gone over your post, I must conclude that the original poster's
claims got misplaced. Lets try this again.
First, the rules state that if all slots in a Multipower have the _same_
limitation, then the pool cost can be reduced by the Limitation.
Example:
30 Multipower (60), Only in the rain (-1)
3 u 12d6 EB, Only in the rain (-1) (Lightning)
3 u 45 STR TK, Only in the rain (-1) (Wind Blast)
Total Cost: 36 pts.
The original poster to whom I was responding agreed with the above. He
agreed that any Multipower with the same limits on all powers can use that
Limitation to limit the pool cost. However, he also stated that, if the
Limitation could be applied to the whole pool _in addition_ to applying to
all individual slots, that it should be applied to the pool as well.
Example:
30 Multipower (60), 4 charges(-1)
3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
Total Cost: 36 pts.
If I designed the above, he states that the charges would apply to the whole
Multipower, not just the individual slots. If I wanted to have a Multipower
with each slot _independently_ having four charges, I'd get this:
Example
60 Multipower
3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
Total Cost: 66 pts.
The first example gets to apply the -1 Limitation to the pool for no
additional limitation, just as the rules state you can. However, the second
penalizes you for doing exactly the same thing. The only reason he gave for
why this should be is that he claimed that the pool should be limited by any
Limitation placed upon it, in addition to the limits the Limitation placed
on the slots, _if it reasonably limited the pool more than just placing it
on the slots would_. Otherwise, it was placed on the pool as a "freebie".
With some Limitations it was a severe additional Limitation on all powers in
the Multipower, in others it was free points.
I submit that either it A) shouldn't apply to the pool as well as the slots,
limiting both, or B) it shouldn't be able to be placed upon the pool, unless
it creates an additional Limitation. Otherwise, the same degree of
Limitation (a -1, in the example) gives dramatically different results in
degree of limitation created.
I further submit that the rules as written appear to support A. If you
prefer B, fine, but don't give some Limitations a pass while others become
much more severely limiting.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:57:41 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Tolkien Character Question
I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
Galadriel and Gandalf.
And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
What do you think?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"He who knows only his own side of the case,
knows little of that."
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1854
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 12:24:57 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
From: Lisa Hartjes <beren@unforgettable.com>
><but I recall that Champs II said that sufficiently alien minds could add
>one or two levels on the chart for reading minds. >>
>
>So, does that mean that EGO+10 on a regular person would become EGO+20 on
>the alien?
If you mean "level of effect needed for certain results goes from EGO+10 to
EGO+20", yes. If you mean, "I got EGO+10 on you, so, since you are an alien,
it has an EGO+20 effect", then no.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:04:04 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:27:07 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
> >>>It's a common construct for buying things like arsenals of weapons
> >>
> >>Nope - each weapon should be its own focus.
> >
> >Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
> >more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven things?
> >That's a case of seriously punishing people cost-wise for what is, much of
> >the time, special effects.
>
> Because if you take away one weapon you can still use the others.
> Therefore the Focus Limitation does not limit the Multipower itself.
> Remember the cardinal rule of Limitations: A Limitation that doesn't
> limit isn't worth any bonus.
One possibility is to put a -1/2 variable limitation on the Multipower
cost, and fill that in each slot with OAF. Thus, the multipower is still
limited (which it is...you can take all the different gadgets away given
enough time and effort), but not to the same degreee as an OAF.
Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
comes out to the same amount of points.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 20:29:19
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999 03:23:18 +0900, Michael House wrote:
>At 07:29 -0500 1999.01.29, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>
>> Yes it is. Gandalf's height, dress, age and hairstyle are pretty
>> recognizable by many. Actually, Gandalf could almost have both a Public
>> ID (many people knew or knew of him) and the DF, since he was fairly easy
>> to ID by many people.
>
>Wouldn't that be Reputation rather than Public ID? People knew of
>him, but they didn't necessarily know where to find him at any
>given time, as I recall.
Given the restraints of technology and magic, they did. Wherever he
appeared, everyone knew he was Gandalf. He didn't have to be
introduced.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:51:29 -0500
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
At 02:57 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
>VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
>Galadriel and Gandalf.
>
>And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
>
>I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>
>What do you think?
>
>
Sounds wise to me. I can't think of much Gandalf actually did that a very
small VPP couldn't simulate.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 20:27:18
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 11:13:50 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
<large snip>
>The person to whom I responded claimed that that was perfectly valid, but
>that, in the case of charges, I couldn't apply them to the whole Multipower
>without being limited _twice_, once by applying the limitation to each slot,
>and again by applying the Limitation to the Multipower as a whole. This
>means that, even if both Limitations grant a -1, some Limitations (like the
>above "Only in Rain") can reduce the cost of the whole Multipower without
>penalty, while others (like 4 Charges) give massive additional penalties.
>This creates a situation where a character is penalized severely (or, by
>comparison, gets a reduction in cost without being limited) because of the
>types of Limitations chosen.
Let's hope that Steve clears this up in the 5th Edition.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:05:10 -0500
From: "Lisa Hartjes" <beren@unforgettable.com>
Subject: Re: Modifiers to Telepathy Attacks
<<If you mean "level of effect needed for certain results goes from EGO+10
to
EGO+20", yes.>>
That's what I meant. Thanks.
Lisa Hartjes
beren@unforgettable.com
http://roswell.fortunecity.com/daniken/79
ICQ: Berengiere (9062561)
If the GM smiles, run. If she laughs, it's too late...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:38:44 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
> >No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
> >pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized by
> >just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
> >before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
> >model that: Distinctive Features.
>
> I disagree - this is clearly Public ID. They all know that it's
> *Gandalf*, not 'an old geezer with a robe and beard'. Surely Public ID
> is when everyone knows who you are and DF means that they remember you
> easily?
No...not quite. Public ID implies that everyone knows who you are, where
you live, what you're up to. The President of the US has Public ID, for
example.
Gandalf...people recognize him on sight, but he's not being reported about
on the Evening News, and almost nobody knows what he is up to...so I'd say
that Public ID is a bad choice for the big G.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:28:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Ell Egyptoid <egyptoid@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
> I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
> What do you think?
I'd say no. They merely often show restraint.
==
=========================== Elliott aka The Egyptoid ==
=== JLA: Justice League Alabama === Central HQ ===========
=== http://www.sysabend.org/champions/elliott/index.html =
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 15:42:23 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, Scott Nolan wrote:
> I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
> VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
> Galadriel and Gandalf.
>
> And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
>
> I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>
> What do you think?
I'd have to agree. Youhave stated that they don't have massive AD&D magic
powers, so those really big VPPs seems out of place.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"We're Americans -- with a capital 'A', huh? Do you know what that means?
Do you? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent
nation on Earth. We are the wretched refuse!"
John Winger (Bill Murray), from _Stripes_
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:24:22 -0800
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
From: Bill Svitavsky <nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us>
>At 02:57 PM 1/29/99 -0500, you wrote:
>>I'm beginning to think that I've overstated the size of
>>VPP's that should be available to Elrond, Celeborn,
>>Galadriel and Gandalf.
>>
>>And I haven't even gotten to Saruman or Sauron.
>>
>>I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>
>
>Sounds wise to me. I can't think of much Gandalf actually did that a very
>small VPP couldn't simulate.
Alternately, give Gandalf greater _non-physical_ defensive powers. Much of
Tolkein's magic seemed to be of a, well, spiritual nature. Great dread, slow
corruption, that sort of thing. Powers that block magic over an area, FW vs
magic only with Transparent and Invisible, that sort of thing.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:34:45 -0600 (CST)
From: "Dr. Nuncheon" <jeffj@io.com>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:04:04 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
> >Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
> >away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
> >comes out to the same amount of points.
>
> The MP itself is not limited by the Focus Limitation, therefore no
> bonus applies.
Um? OK...definition of an OIF states that 1) it's obvious where the
powers are coming from and 2) it can be taken away out of combat.
If JoeBob has a collection of OAFs, then it is 1) obvious where the powers
come from (the gadgets) and 2) they can be taken away out of combat (by
EvilDude frisking JoeBob and removing all of the gadgets.) If /all/ of
JoeBob's gadgets are taken away, he /doesn't have the multipower/. He
can't do anything with the points on the reserve at all.
Therefore, I'd have to say that the multipower itself is indeed subject to
the Focus limitations, and deserves the bonus.
Now, if JoeBob has even one power that /isn't/ an OAF, then the Multipower
would not get the OIF limitation, I agree.
J
Hostes aliengeni me abduxerent. Jeff Johnston - jeffj@io.com
Qui annus est? http://www.io.com/~jeffj
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 20:19:03
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:04:04 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 03:27:07 -0800 (PST), Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> >>>It's a common construct for buying things like arsenals of weapons
>> >>
>> >>Nope - each weapon should be its own focus.
>> >
>> >Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
>> >more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven things?
>> >That's a case of seriously punishing people cost-wise for what is, much of
>> >the time, special effects.
>>
>> Because if you take away one weapon you can still use the others.
>> Therefore the Focus Limitation does not limit the Multipower itself.
>> Remember the cardinal rule of Limitations: A Limitation that doesn't
>> limit isn't worth any bonus.
>
>One possibility is to put a -1/2 variable limitation on the Multipower
>cost, and fill that in each slot with OAF. Thus, the multipower is still
>limited (which it is...you can take all the different gadgets away given
>enough time and effort), but not to the same degreee as an OAF.
>
>Alternately, you can call the Multipower an OIF, since it can be taken
>away out of combat (search the guy and remove all of the gadgets). It
>comes out to the same amount of points.
The MP itself is not limited by the Focus Limitation, therefore no
bonus applies.
I'm a harsh b*st*rd.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 20:23:36
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: Gandalf The Grey
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:08:27 -0600 (CST), Dr. Nuncheon wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999, qts wrote:
>
>> >> Shouldn't this be Public ID: Gandalf the Grey? After all, being old and
>> >> having a long beard isn't really a DF.
>> >
>> >Yes it is. Gandalf's height, dress, age and hairstyle are pretty
>> >recognizable by many. Actually, Gandalf could almost have both a Public
>> >ID (many people knew or knew of him) and the DF, since he was fairly easy
>> >to ID by many people.
>>
>> Is there any indication that he *always* dresses that way? If not, then
>> no DF.
>
>It can still be a DF, if it's at the 'easily concealed' level - if the
>dress/appearance is worn enough and distinctive enough. Since we get no
>impression that anybody else looks or dresses like Gandalf (witht he
>exception of the other members of the Council, possibly), and since I
>don't think we ever see him (or at least not often) out of his trademark
>'costume', it is good enough to help him qualify for a DF.
>
>> He looks just like an old man with a beard, and there are plenty
>> of those. Remember a DF has to be Distinctive - being old and having a
>> beard are NOT distinctive.
>
>No, but the beard, hat, clothing, eyebrows, staff and sword make for a
>pretty distinctive package. Gandalf is (IIRC) consistently recognized by
>just about everyone who meets him, even people who have never met him
>before. Nobody ever seemed to say, "Who's the old geezer?" Best way to
>model that: Distinctive Features.
I disagree - this is clearly Public ID. They all know that it's
*Gandalf*, not 'an old geezer with a robe and beard'. Surely Public ID
is when everyone knows who you are and DF means that they remember you
easily?
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 99 18:03:24 -0400
From: John P Weatherman <asahoshi@nr.infi.net>
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
Ell Egyptoid egyptoid@yahoo.com 1/29/99 5:28 PM
>> I'm thinking I should reduce them for the final drafts.
>> What do you think?
>I'd say no. They merely often show restraint.
I tend to agree. Maia helped fashion the world from the void.
So I would tend to keep creatures like Gandolf and the Balrog
as powerful as they are. Eldar might need to extra limitations,
say months to build up powerful effects, so we don't see them
in battle magic terms. Maybe use an increased time multiple
per 10 AP or some such...
Just a thought...
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:41:37 -0500 (EST)
From: arcus@webtv.net (chrisopher spoor)
Subject: Re: Tolkien Character Question
i agree that the VPPs are oversized for a Tolkien campaign. On the other
hand, If I ever use them it won't be in a Tolkien campaign. The current
VPP size allow for a larger variety of campaign style.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:24:22 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
> I further submit that the rules as written appear to support A. If you
> prefer B, fine, but don't give some Limitations a pass while others become
> much more severely limiting.
Great analysis, Filk.
Exactly what I would have gone through the trouble of explaining,
had I the time to go through that much effort. I will add that I think
the focus example works in exactly the same way.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:19:13 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Power set question.
> I think 'Does no body' is something like a -3/4 or a -1 for a KA. but I
> could be wrong...in any case, I wouldn't make 'does no BODY to living
> things' more than -1/2 or possibly even -1/4, because of all the potential
> /positive/ effects of the limitation.
Er, no. By the book, does no bod is a -0 modifier. (Of course,
this assumes that does no bod does not include no KB.)
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:15:12 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the logic of
> the previous statement whatsoever. In fact, I didn't even see a
> relationship. Even on re-examination, feeling a bit more awake and under
> the weather, it looks to me like a total non sequitur. You might as well
> have been asking where we're going to get a duck and a hose at this hour.
At Ducks B' Us, of course. They have a buy one duck, get one hose
free special.
I thought everyone knew that.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 18:19:44 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Perfect Cell
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"MS" == Michael Surbrook <susano@otd.com> writes:
MS> "Perfect Cell is the undisputed champion of the universe!
He any relation to Perfect Tommy?
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2skIQgl+vIlSVSNkRAhQMAKDP10chPB4oEYUtL9LrfQeRFfc1YgCfX59r
6/BSyQopbeY0PCqc8l9Set4=
=J3h4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Warning: pregnant women, the elderly, and
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ children under 10 should avoid prolonged
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 18:24:19 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Limitations on Multipowers
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"WS" == Wayne Shaw <shaw@caprica.com> writes:
WS> Why? Why should the person who has seven different weapons be that much
WS> more expensive than the person who has one weapon that does seven
WS> things?
This one is obvious, Wayne:
I take one of the seven weapons away from the first character; he still has
six weapons that he can use.
I take the seven-in-one weapon away from the second character; he has no
weapons left.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2skMigl+vIlSVSNkRAquCAJ9bkVCkZEwozNrinYc8bVnQK5aiCACdGuPM
K8Upv4mNGmETZULKMcSnooo=
=hOyW
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 17:41:18 -0600 (CST)
From: Curt Hicks <exucurt@exu.ericsson.se>
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
> From arcus@webtv.net Fri Jan 29 17:32 CST 1999
>
> I was thinking side effect after your first post also. Now I think you
> could use susceptibility. 5pts. per 1d6 every time you cast magic:
> common. -1/2 lmit on powers that do both stun and body. then let them
> buy an advantage that let them resist it
>
>
Or not take the full limitation value on either side - effect or
a susceptibility, since they can be resisted....
Curt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 19:37:25 -0500 (EST)
From: blake1001@technologist.com
Subject: Re: Shadowrun Magic to Hero system ?
Well, I know for certain that someone, probably in
that ring (below) wrote a Shadowrun => Mage: the Ascension conversion.
There's a site on the Ring of Hero's that has a
Mage => Fuzion conversion. (www.javaman.to)
And, everybody knows that Fuzion-Hero/Hero-Fuzion
conversion is a snap.
So, no problem!
;)
=================================================
"Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net> wrote:
>>Has anybody done a conversion from the Shadowrun magic system
>to Hero ? I quite like a couple of the Shadowrun assumptions for
>their system and have been idly thinking of how it would work in >Hero.
Somebody, somewhere, is bound to have done the conversion. You might start
by browsing the 287 websites in the Shadowrun Web Ring (not all of them are
in English).http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?ring=shadowrun&list
- --- |
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317 '-|---
|
- ---------------------------------------------------
Get free personalized email at http://www.iname.com
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 18:18:30 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: AP, Penetrating, Piercing
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"JPH" == Jay P Hailey <jayphailey@juno.com> writes:
JPH> Sounds unbablancing to me. It should cost as much or more than the
JPH> defense being affected.
At base, 1 point of non-resistant defense costs 1 point; 1 point of
resistant defense costs 1.5 points. Piercing costs twice that.
One point of Power Defense costs 1 point; 1 point of Piercing for an
Adjustment power still costs 2 points, still costs twice the cost of the
defense.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2skHGgl+vIlSVSNkRAhYIAJ9Fk7wSUfwqpB9lq4V4fHWEnaRSWwCfTAnO
MHUiKcRMhuqizQtcnyaF1H4=
=2olA
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ away immediately. Seek shelter and cover
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ head.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 1999 18:13:34 -0500
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"BG" == Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com> writes:
BG> What was nonsensical about it was that it had no bearing on the logic of
BG> the previous statement whatsoever.
Okay... if "lots" of one limitation (Charges) on the slots translates into
an advantage on the reserve, then lots of other limitations (END use,
Focus, what have you) on the slots should likewise translate into an
advantage on the reserve.
The flaw is in the invention of an exception for the handling of Charges in
Multipowers when no such exception exists in the rules. The stupid logic
presented is my attempt at restoring consistency to the system in the face
of that exception (or to show just how stupid I think the exception is,
take your pick).
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v0.9.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE2skCdgl+vIlSVSNkRAsrQAKCjUhAcqGISawf4vMlYAuQzvWHRDQCg4DeI
qlDIzNUNfMAPFlzFvmSOu8g=
=a7He
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- --
Rat <ratinox@peorth.gweep.net> \ Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core,
Minion of Nathan - Nathan says Hi! \ which, if exposed due to rupture, should
PGP Key: at a key server near you! \ not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jan 99 16:23:10 MST
From: ANTHONY VARGAS <anthony.vargas@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Multipower Questions
Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net> wrote:
> First, the rules state that if all slots in a Multipower have the _same_
> limitation, then the pool cost can be reduced by the Limitation.
Note /same/ limitation...
> Example:
>
> 30 Multipower (60), Only in the rain (-1)
> 3 u 12d6 EB, Only in the rain (-1) (Lightning)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, Only in the rain (-1) (Wind Blast)
> Total Cost: 36 pts.
Right.
> The original poster to whom I was responding agreed with the above. He
> agreed that any Multipower with the same limits on all powers can use that
> Limitation to limit the pool cost. However, he also stated that, if the
> Limitation could be applied to the whole pool _in addition_ to applying to
> all individual slots, that it should be applied to the pool as well.
I wonder what he really meant by that... Doesn't make much sense to me...
> Example:
>
> 30 Multipower (60), 4 charges(-1)
> 3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
> Total Cost: 36 pts.
This is just the 'same limitation' again. The 4 chgs limit is being
applied to the whole multipower. When you've used this multi 4 times,
it stops working - whether it's 2 EB & 2 TKs or 4 EBs and no TKs...
> If I designed the above, he states that the charges would apply to the whole
> Multipower, not just the individual slots. If I wanted to have a Multipower
> with each slot _independently_ having four charges, I'd get this:
>
> Example
>
> 60 Multipower
> 3 u 12d6 EB, 4 charges (-1)
> 3 u 45 STR TK, 4 charges (-1)
> Total Cost: 66 pts.
Yep. You can use that a total of 8 times. You could concievably put
8 chgs on the Reserve... it would make a certain amount of sense...
> The first example gets to apply the -1 Limitation to the pool for no
> additional limitation, just as the rules state you can. However, the second
> penalizes you for doing exactly the same thing.
Actually, it's not the same thing.
The 4 chgs limitation on the EB is /not/ the same limitation as the
4chgs limitation on the TK. If it where, then when the limitation came
up, both slots would be unuseable. Like, with the 'Only in Rain' multi
above, if it's not raining, none of the slots work - all the slots have
the /same/ limitation, therefore, the reserve takes the lim as well.
But, if you have 4 chgs on each slot, and you use up one slot, the other
can still be used... the Multipower, overall, can be used 8 times, not
just 4. If you put the 4 chgs on the Multipower as a whole, then the
4chs of EB & the 4chs on the TK are both the same limitation.
For example. 'Only durring the Day' is an example of the /Limitted Use/
limitation. So is 'Not durring the Day.' Each is probably good for a
- -1 limitation. Yet a GM could hardly be expected to accept:
30 Multipower, Limitted Use -1
3 u 12d EB, Limitted Use (Only durring the day) -1
3 u 4dd RKA, Limitted Use (Not durring the day) -1
On the grounds that the limitations on each slot are the 'same.' Hey,
they're both Limitted Use, and they're both -1! But, they're /not/ the
same limitation. Niether is 4 charges on each slot - unless they're the
same 4 charges (ie you can only use the Multipower 4 times).
Same goes for Foci:
30 Multipower, OAF: Wand of Wundar -1
3 u 12d EB, OAF: Wand of Wundar -1
3 u 4d RKA, OAF: Wand of Wundar -1
is valid, but,
30 Multipower, OAF: Magic Wands -1
3 u 12d EB, OAF: Green Wand of Olmaskyne -1
3 u 4d RKA, OAF: Red Wand of Agni -1
is /not/ valid. But, it might be OK to do the following:
40 Multipower, Variable (-1) Limitation: various magic items -1/2
3 u 12d EB, OAF: Green Wand of Olmaskyne -1
3 u 4d RKA, OAF: Red Wand of Agni -1
It seems reasonable to me anyway...
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #170
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:16 PM