Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 345
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Monday, May 17, 1999 8:48 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #345
champ-l-digest Monday, May 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 345
In this issue:
Re: Is this legal?
Re: Is this legal?
Re: First Characters (was Magus)
Re: Is this legal?
Re: NCM Move By/Through
Re: Is this legal?
Re: NCM Move By/Through
Re: Is this legal?
[none]
Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
Re: Fifth Edition
Re: Is this legal?
RE: Is this legal?
Re: Is this legal?
Re: Is this legal?
Re: Is this legal?
Elastica, The Rubber Girl
Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
What would your NPC LEOs do?
Re: Elastica, The Rubber Girl
RE: Is this legal?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:48:56 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
In a message dated 5/16/99 11:50:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
nexus@uky.campuscwix.net writes:
> I've usually rejected consstructs like this on the grounds they seemed a
> little abusive. But are they book legal or not? Here's the example:
>
> A character purchases:
>
> Flight 20"
> Running:10"
>
> and:
>
> Multipower:20
> 2u: x16 noncombat Flight
> 2u: x16 nonombat Running
I don't think this is legal... but putting the running and the flight in a
MP with the NCM would be. and way cheaper.
andy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:53:42 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
In a message dated 5/16/99 1:16:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
> >Flight 20"
> >Running:10"
> >
> >and:
> >
> >Multipower:20
> >2u: x16 noncombat Flight
> >2u: x16 nonombat Running
>
> Technically it's legal, but I wouldn't allow it. At the very least, I'd
> want the extra inches of Running and and equal amount of Flight in the
> Multipower (which is both cheaper, and more in line with the concept of the
> rules).
the following is NOT an attempt to flame... it's just a question.
ok... why would you not allow it? in essence it's just some movement
w/ non-combat values. is it just to keep move-by/through's down? or
do you have another reason?
andy
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 18:57:00 -0500
From: Bryant Berggren <voxel@theramp.net>
Subject: Re: First Characters (was Magus)
The first character I ever created was a conversion of a twisted dhampil
(son-of-vampire) character from the Marvel Superheroes game, to the 3rd
Edition Champions rules -- someone at QuinCon (the first convention I ever
went to) introduced me to the game, and I had fun playing with what was the
first point-based chargen system I'd ever encountered. Unfortunately, I
didn't get to *play* that character (under 3rd edition, anyhow).
After I got my (first) copy of the BBB, the first "real" HERO character I
created was Powerblade, a police detective turned power armor hero; the big
gimmick was a saw-like blade on a "yo-yo" chain attached to the wrist
(basically, piddling Stretching). I had fun with this character for a while,
but my GM at the time was a serious hardcase -- he liked to create
"trapdoor" characters with things like NND Damage Shields and the like, so
that party members spent more time than not unconscious. Ergo ...
Gamera. Yes, my second character was a 60' fire-breathing flying turtle. In
actuality, it was a product of prehistoric Progenitor tinkering, a 3'
tortoise with a randomly mutating gene code which left him, for the present,
with growth and flame generation. The basic idea was "I want a concept the
GM can't kill without obviously going over the line." Initially, it was just
player pique (I was still just a teenager), but it actually became a lot of
fun to play, after I figured out the character was tough enough to take
"suicidal" tactics to help the party. Plus, it was a turtle. :]
- --
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:23:44 EDT
From: Akirazeta@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
In a message dated 5/16/99 6:55:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, AndMat3@aol.com
writes:
<< > >Flight 20"
> >Running:10"
> >
> >and:
> >
> >Multipower:20
> >2u: x16 noncombat Flight
> >2u: x16 nonombat Running >>
It might just be a stupid idea, seeing as how i am still baffeled by the
overcomplexity of the hero system for the most part, but why dont you require
the character to have the concentrate or extra time, or whatever its called
limiter on the entire multipower with 'costs extra END'.
This would represent that even thhough the character is capable of these
speds, this must really work themselves hard. I recall in several diffrent
comic series, flying bricks get that strained. 'im goin so fast it hurts my
eyes', Mach 1 face.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:38:52 -0400
From: "Michael Sprague" <msprague@eznet.net>
Subject: Re: NCM Move By/Through
>>>>A character purchases:
>>>>
>>>>Flight 20"
>>>>Running:10"
>>>>
>>>>and:
>>>>
>>>>Multipower:20
>>>>2u: x16 noncombat Flight
>>>>2u: x16 nonombat Running
>>>
>>>Sure, I've done it before, that makes someone immensely fast,
>>>and I don't really see how abusive it could be. It won't have any
>>>real impact in combat
>>
>>While I am on the fence as to whether or not this is abusive, I
>>couldn't let the above comment go by without one of my own.
>>:-)
>>
>>Ever heard of the "Move Through" or "Move By" combat maneuvers?
>>Your inches of movement directly contribute to the amount of damage
>>you do. Granted, you would be half OCV for moving non-combat
>>[ (OCV - 2)/2 for >Move By and (OCV - v/5)/2 for move through ] but
>>you get to add quite a few dice to your attack.
>>
>>Look at Move By, as the OCV is much better and the attacker only
>>take 1/3 of the damage. If the attack were to hit, the character would
>>do STR/2 + 128d6.
>
>Do the Math. A character with an OCV of 6 (Dex 18) wind up with an
>adjust OCV of one during the move by manuever. During the Move
>through, they'd be at OCV 3 -15 or Adusted OCV of -12. They'd have
>to roll -1 on three dice and that's *before* you factor in the target's
>DCV. By reckoning the average character would have trouble hitting
>the planet Earth doing such a move through...
I didn't bother with the math of a Move Through, as maximum speed meant you
pretty much were not going to hit. I do believe you have the OCV listed a
bit higher than it would actually be ... -128 before you take NCM into
account (-v/5). On the other hand, you would do STR + 213d6+1 and take half
or full damage.
That is why I used Move By as an example. It's only -2 to OCV. In your
example using a character with a low average DEX of 18 and no Skill Levels
he would have a final OCV of 2. Assuming the target DCV is also 6, you need
a 7 or less to hit, but it can be done. Now, toss in some Skill Levels and
the odds start to even out.
>>Odds are the attacker would die along with the target, so this example
>>is pretty extreme ... still, I would say that there is an "impact' in
>combat. :-)
>
>But only one. even if the target takes KB the hapless PC is still taking
>a 64 die attack. That would kill anyone in the Omega Squad game. If
>they hit the Earth and the Earth took no KB (Quite a bit of KB resistance
>in the old girl) then that would mean the full 128d6 attack to both
>targets. The character would leave a very sizable crater, and no hint of
>their physical existance.
I didn't even think of Knockback ... that makes it even worse!! However my
example was a Move By, not Move Through, thus the attacking character would
only be taking a little over 42d6. :-) Enough to seriously injure if not
kill most chartacters have played.
As I wrote, this is an extreme example. For a more realistic one, use the
running instead of flight, as there is no Turn Mode to deal with. Also
assume 4 specific Skill Levels in Move By (resulting in a +2 because of the
NCM) and say you hold your running speed to where you can actually take the
1/3 damage ... to the point where it will hurt and you will take some BODY
... but after Knockback, the other guy may still be very dead, even if he
has a really good defense (assuming his defense is not a high DCV).
Thus, I do feel that this can have an impact in combat.
~ Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 21:59:33 -0400
From: "Michael Sprague" <msprague@eznet.net>
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
><< > >Flight 20"
> > >Running:10"
> > >
> > >and:
> > >
> > >Multipower:20
> > >2u: x16 noncombat Flight
> > >2u: x16 nonombat Running >>
>
>It might just be a stupid idea, seeing as how i am still baffeled by the
>overcomplexity of the hero system for the most part, but why dont you
require
>the character to have the concentrate or extra time, or whatever its called
>limiter on the entire multipower with 'costs extra END'.
>
>This would represent that even thhough the character is capable of these
>speds, this must really work themselves hard. I recall in several diffrent
>comic series, flying bricks get that strained. 'im goin so fast it hurts my
>eyes', Mach 1 face.
Not bad ideas overall ... though it does make this construct cheaper. As
written, I am on the fence about it being abusive because it costs _84_
character points! That's a lot! Even if you include the movement in the
multipower, it still costs a lot. Once you start tossing in Limitations, it
could quickly come down in cost ... especially if you put the movement in
the multipower, and apply Limitations to the multipower itself.
Concentrate: Possible, but NCM already puts you at half DCV. There are also
the problems of not noticing what is going on around you, not being able to
stop voluntarily for any reason and the power turning off if concentration
is broken.
Extra Time: Hmmm, this only makes it take longer before you can actually use
the Power. What I believe you intend is already sort of built into NCM.
You can accelerate 5" per hex up to your normal combat movement in inches
per Phase. (pg. 142, second column). I have always disliked this rule,
because it means that it doesn't matter if you do a combat nor non-combat
move, you have moved the same distance in your first Phase, but your 1/2 DCV
if you did it non-combat. After your second Phase, your at 2X your combat
move. Assuming you have extra NCM, your 3X your combat move after 3 Phases
and so on.
Extra END: This one is a pretty good one, but keep in mind that the END you
use is based on your combat Move, not your NCM (pg. 55 bottom second
column). Thus, for the flight, the base END would have a max of 4 and
Running would have a Max of 2.
~ Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 22:10:18 -0400
From: "Michael Sprague" <msprague@eznet.net>
Subject: Re: NCM Move By/Through
>>Do the Math. A character with an OCV of 6 (Dex 18) wind up with an
>>adjust OCV of one during the move by manuever. During the Move
>>through, they'd be at OCV 3 -15 or Adusted OCV of -12. They'd have
>>to roll -1 on three dice and that's *before* you factor in the target's
>>DCV. By reckoning the average character would have trouble hitting
>>the planet Earth doing such a move through...
>
>I didn't bother with the math of a Move Through, as maximum speed meant you
>pretty much were not going to hit. I do believe you have the OCV listed a
>bit higher than it would actually be ... -128 before you take NCM into
>account (-v/5). On the other hand, you would do STR + 213d6+1 and take
half
>or full damage.
>
>That is why I used Move By as an example. It's only -2 to OCV. In your
>example using a character with a low average DEX of 18 and no Skill Levels
>he would have a final OCV of 2. Assuming the target DCV is also 6, you
need
>a 7 or less to hit, but it can be done. Now, toss in some Skill Levels and
>the odds start to even out.
[Text Deleted]
>As I wrote, this is an extreme example. For a more realistic one, use the
>running instead of flight, as there is no Turn Mode to deal with. Also
>assume 4 specific Skill Levels in Move By (resulting in a +2 because of the
>NCM) and say you hold your running speed to where you can actually take the
>1/3 damage ... to the point where it will hurt and you will take some BODY
>... but after Knockback, the other guy may still be very dead, even if he
>has a really good defense (assuming his defense is not a high DCV).
>
>Thus, I do feel that this can have an impact in combat.
Ha!! You _can_ teach an old dog new tricks!! In all the groups I have
played in, we always played it that halving DCV/OCV for NCM took place at
step 5 of the DCV and OCV checklist (pg. 146). However, page 142 clearly
states that the characters _base_ OCV and DCV are half when using NCM.
Thus, the first example of using Move By, the final OCV would be 1 not 2.
In the second example, Skill Levels would count full value, not at 1/2
value. The same character as used in example 1 would have a final OCV of 5
not 4.
There is also the fact that it takes a little while to get up to full NCM
speed too.
~ Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 19:28:28 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
At 06:53 PM 5/16/1999 EDT, AndMat3@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 5/16/99 1:16:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
>
>> >Flight 20"
>> >Running:10"
>> >
>> >and:
>> >
>> >Multipower:20
>> >2u: x16 noncombat Flight
>> >2u: x16 nonombat Running
>>
>> Technically it's legal, but I wouldn't allow it. At the very least,
I'd
>> want the extra inches of Running and and equal amount of Flight in the
>> Multipower (which is both cheaper, and more in line with the concept of
the
>> rules).
>
>the following is NOT an attempt to flame... it's just a question.
>ok... why would you not allow it? in essence it's just some movement
>w/ non-combat values. is it just to keep move-by/through's down? or
>do you have another reason?
Basically for the reason that's been said -- putting the whole Flight
and Running into the Multipower is cheaper, more in line with the concept
of the rules, and (as I think someone else pointed out) more practical
since you couldn't use the Flight and Running in the same Phase anyway
(unless maybe you did a Half Move with one and a Half Move with the other).
It's a matter of protecting the character by avoiding points waste, not
a matter of preventing points abuse.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 22:43:00 -0400
From: Kim Foster <nexus@uky.campuscwix.net>
Subject: [none]
I apologize to this who get this twice. My server has been acting up, but I
still have my account and hopefully the bouces you may have been reeiving
will clear up shortly.
"Kill the humans!"
"I'm a litlte tired, can I just give them a savage beating instead?"
Bender:Futurama
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 03:05:41 GMT
From: mhoram@relia.net (Curtis A Gibson)
Subject: Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
> Do you really want to do this? Making your armour non-persistant can
>be very dangerous. To answer your question, it would depend on what the
>limitation is applied against. You get knocked out amd your IR vision
>no longer works would be -0 as you cant see anyway and to turn it back
>on would be a zero phase action. You get knocked out and your armour
>doesn't work would be at least -1/2.
Cost end makes a persistant power non persistant, and makes it cost
end at a -1/2. I'd give it a -1/4
- -Mhoram
"The average woman would rather have beauty than brains,
because the average man can see better than he can think."
--author unknown
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999 23:31:06 EDT
From: Leah L Watts <llwatts@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Fifth Edition
>> The cover has not been done yet, but we're working on an abstract
design.
>> This is the Hero System rule book, not Champions.
>
>Still, the idea of the victorious Foxbat standing over a battered Seeker
>does have its appeal for the Superhero Genre book or maybe the next
>Enemies book with Foxbat in it.
How about the classic fisherman's pose: Seeker hanging by his feet by a
rope, Foxbat posing dramatically with his ping pong gun in one hand and
the other hand holding the rope, and Exo-Skeleton Man getting the camera
focussed? :)
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/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:07:05 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
In a message dated 5/16/99 10:47:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
> Basically for the reason that's been said -- putting the whole Flight
> and Running into the Multipower is cheaper, more in line with the concept
> of the rules, and (as I think someone else pointed out) more practical
> since you couldn't use the Flight and Running in the same Phase anyway
> (unless maybe you did a Half Move with one and a Half Move with the other).
> It's a matter of protecting the character by avoiding points waste, not
> a matter of preventing points abuse.
thanks for the clairfication... i agree 100%.
andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 00:23:57 -0400
From: "Scott A. Colcord" <sacolcor@ic.net>
Subject: RE: Is this legal?
Most of the list has seemed to indicate that they wouldn't have a problem
with putting the NCM in the MP, and the movement outside. I'd like to
throw out an inverted example, and see if the opinion changes. What would
you say to the following?
30 Movement Multipower
3u 15" Running
3u 15" Teleport
20 x16 NCM for Running
20 x16 NCM for Teleport
Once you've decided on the above, let me extend
it a bit further:
30 Movement Multipower
3u 15" Running
3u 10" Running, 0 END
3u 15" Teleport
3u 10" Teleport, 0 END
20 x16 NCM for Running
20 x16 NCM for Teleport
2 Two fixed locations for teleport
Would you allow this, or would you require the NCM to
be in the MP? What about the fixed locations?
----Scott
> -----Original Message regarding putting the NCM in a MP-----
>> Kim Foster wrote:
>>
>> Flight 20"
>> Running:10"
>>
>> and:
>>
>> Multipower:20
>> 2u: x16 noncombat Flight
>> 2u: x16 noncombat Running
>>
> Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
> Basically for the reason that's been said -- putting the whole Flight
> and Running into the Multipower is cheaper, more in line with the concept
> of the rules, and (as I think someone else pointed out) more practical
> since you couldn't use the Flight and Running in the same Phase anyway
> (unless maybe you did a Half Move with one and a Half Move with the
other).
> It's a matter of protecting the character by avoiding
> points waste, not a matter of preventing points abuse.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 02:02:32 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
In a message dated 5/17/99 12:55:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sacolcor@ic.net
writes:
> Most of the list has seemed to indicate that they wouldn't have a problem
> with putting the NCM in the MP, and the movement outside. I'd like to
> throw out an inverted example, and see if the opinion changes. What would
> you say to the following?
>
> 30 Movement Multipower
> 3u 15" Running
> 3u 15" Teleport
>
> 20 x16 NCM for Running
> 20 x16 NCM for Teleport
>
> Once you've decided on the above, let me extend
> it a bit further:
>
> 30 Movement Multipower
> 3u 15" Running
> 3u 10" Running, 0 END
> 3u 15" Teleport
> 3u 10" Teleport, 0 END
>
> 20 x16 NCM for Running
> 20 x16 NCM for Teleport
> 2 Two fixed locations for teleport
>
> Would you allow this, or would you require the NCM to
> be in the MP? What about the fixed locations?
It's still legal (as far as I can tell... and does not seem to raise any
"ethical"
problems. my question (to you or the player) would still be: Why? You seem
to be paying twice for NCM movement - and that makes little sense to me
(without a context to see this in).
as for having two slots for running/teleport (one normal, one 0 END), this
seems ok too - i allow EP's to have two slots for their blast. one full END;
one 1/2 or 0 END.
but, i am not seeing the context this is in... maybe there's a really good
reason for buying it that way.
andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 01:21:37 -0500
From: Mitchel Santorineos <mitchels@megsinet.net>
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
>30 Movement Multipower
>3u 15" Running
>3u 15" Teleport
>
>20 x16 NCM for Running
>20 x16 NCM for Teleport
Your point cost is 76 here. If you bought it as follows:
50 Movement Multipower
5u 15" Running x32NCM
5u 15" Teleport x32NCM
Your cost is 60 pts. This saved you 16 points and does the same thing.
>Once you've decided on the above, let me extend
>it a bit further:
>
>30 Movement Multipower
>3u 15" Running
>3u 10" Running, 0 END
>3u 15" Teleport
>3u 10" Teleport, 0 END
>
>20 x16 NCM for Running
>20 x16 NCM for Teleport
> 2 Two fixed locations for teleport
Your cost: 84 pts.
50 Movement Multipower
5u 15" Running x32NCM
5u 10" Running 0end x32NCM
5u 15" Teleport x32NCM
5u 10" Teleport 0end x32NCM
2 2 fixed locations
My cost: 72 pts. You save 12.
Now depending on how you use 0end and NCM this version would be cheaper.
Some people require the NCM to be bought down to 0end when buying down the
running/teleport. I don't. I believe the NCM is a special effect for the
character to go faster, since it has no good combat benefit, other than to
arrive first.
>Would you allow this, or would you require the NCM to
>be in the MP? What about the fixed locations?
I would allow it, but I still think it's a waste of points.
>> -----Original Message regarding putting the NCM in a MP-----
>>> Kim Foster wrote:
>>>
>>> Flight 20"
>>> Running:10"
>>>
>>> and:
>>>
>>> Multipower:20
>>> 2u: x16 noncombat Flight
>>> 2u: x16 noncombat Running
>>>
>> Bob Greenwade wrote:
>>
>> Basically for the reason that's been said -- putting the whole Flight
>> and Running into the Multipower is cheaper, more in line with the concept
>> of the rules, and (as I think someone else pointed out) more practical
>> since you couldn't use the Flight and Running in the same Phase anyway
>> (unless maybe you did a Half Move with one and a Half Move with the
>other).
>> It's a matter of protecting the character by avoiding
>> points waste, not a matter of preventing points abuse.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 02:05:30 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Is this legal?
At 11:50 AM 5/16/99 -0400, you wrote:
>I've usually rejected consstructs like this on the grounds they seemed a
>little abusive. But are they book legal or not? Here's the example:
>
>A character purchases:
>
>Flight 20"
>Running:10"
>
>and:
>
>Multipower:20
>2u: x16 noncombat Flight
>2u: x16 nonombat Running
>
It doesn't look too bad to me, but my first character had Flight and
Running in a Multipower (On the logic that I'd never need them both at the
same time).
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
"do you hear someone laughing megalomaniacally?"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 03:38:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Sullivan <ravanos@NJCU.edu>
Subject: Elastica, The Rubber Girl
I'm working on a a low level Stretcher called Elastica.
She can change her form to become pliant and rubber. She is able to bend
into many different shapes. She is not a "super" stretcher, as her powers
are very limited. Here is what I have so far:
Cost Powers & Skills
9 Stretching: 2", Indirect (+3/4); No Noncombat Stretch
(-1/4), Limited Power: Indirect only represents the fact the
Stretching can curve in unusual and interesting ways (and thus
may warrant Suprise), and it can not directly penetrate Force
Walls, but can "go around" them, [Only applied to Indirect] (-1/4)
8 EC: Rubbery Skin, Limitation: All powers are Non-Persistant (-1/4)
8 50% Damage Reduction, Physical, Non Persistant (-1/4)
8 +20 PD, Non Persistant (-1/4)
10 EC: Super Contortionist
11 Desolid, Only for going through non solid barriers,
specifically bars, tubes, and other objects Elastica can squeeze her head
through (-3/4), Does not prevent damage (-1)
7 Shapeshift; Limited Group: Contorted shapes; Shapes do not
alter in color, nor can the tactile surface change significantly (i.e.
this is a "non cosmetic" change; only the general "form" changes)
Elastica retains the same basic structure (two arms, two legs, a torso,
and a head), but can contort her body into unusual shapes, fit into small
areas, and squeeze through bars and the like (-1/2)
+X STR, Requires Skill Roll (Contortionist roll), Only vs. Grabs
and the SFX of certain Entangles (?)
5 Extra Limbs (represents the fact that she is "Omni Jointed")
30 14d6 Entangle, Immune to Sight Sense Group; No Range (-1/2), Does
not prevent the use of some Foci/Impairs as a Grab (-1/2), Must
follow a sucessful Grab (-1/4), No "walls" (-1/4), 1 "Recoverable
Charge" (self) (-1 1/4), Elastica takes all damage done to the
Entangle (since she is the Entangle) (-1), Entangle is
non-Persistant (-1/4)
Any suggestions? Anything I should add?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:15:56 -0700
From: Rick Holding <rholding@actonline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
Jason Sullivan wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 May 1999, Rick Holding wrote:
> > SURGAT wrote:
> > > How much of a Limitation is it to make Persistant powers non
> > > Persistant?
> > Do you really want to do this? Making your armour non-persistant can
> > be very dangerous. To answer your question, it would depend on what the
> > limitation is applied against. You get knocked out amd your IR vision
> > no longer works would be -0 as you cant see anyway and to turn it back
> > on would be a zero phase action. You get knocked out and your armour
> > doesn't work would be at least -1/2.
> Yes, I really want to do this. The non-Persistant power is an
> important part of the concept.
> > And now I remember that its not only getting knocked out but getting
> > stunned that will turn off non-persistant powers makes it even more
> > dangerous.
> Are you sure?
Yep. I looked in the book before I wrote it. Any non-persistant
powers goes off at the end of any SEGMENT that the controller is either
knocked out or stunned. Depending on how often you plan to get knocked
out, call it either -1/2 or -1/4.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 20:28:13 -0700
From: Rick Holding <rholding@actonline.com.au>
Subject: Re: Non-Persistant Persistant Powers
Curtis A Gibson wrote:
>
> > Do you really want to do this? Making your armour non-persistant can
> >be very dangerous. To answer your question, it would depend on what the
> >limitation is applied against. You get knocked out amd your IR vision
> >no longer works would be -0 as you cant see anyway and to turn it back
> >on would be a zero phase action. You get knocked out and your armour
> >doesn't work would be at least -1/2.
>
> Cost end makes a persistant power non persistant, and makes it cost
> end at a -1/2. I'd give it a -1/4
While this may be correct, it doesn't say that in the limitation "costs
endurance". On the other hand, under the advantage "reduced endurance",
it talks of making a power persistent (we've all been spelling it wrong,
too) at +1/2 and that the power must be at 0 endurance when the
advantage is applied.
However, under the effects of stunning and knock out, it only referes
to "non-persistent" powers turning off, not powers using endurance. I
don't know. You tell me. I've not really considered the effects of
making something non-persistent.
- --
Rick Holding
If only "common sense" was just a bit more common...
or if you prefer... You call this logic ?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 07:56:11 -0700
From: "Robert A. West" <robtwest@erols.com>
Subject: What would your NPC LEOs do?
Returning to a periodic theme, I have had some players take issue with
the actions of certain NPC LEOs in my campaign. I, as GM, have no
agenda, and am striving for verisimilitude, subject to the premise of the
campaign. I would appreciate opinions on how DC city police and the DA
might proceed with the following fact pattern. I am especially
interested in the opinion of anyone with LEO experience.
Premise: The time is now. Super powers exist, but officially are
dismissed as ridiculous reports. So long as there is any rational
mundane explanation, NPCs, other than small children, drunks and certain
secret operatives, will accept it in preference to a true, non-mundane
explanation. LEOs are in general neither implausibly brilliant nor
implausibly stupid.
The question of immediate interest is whether the police would hold J.M.
Smith for 72 hours for further questioning, let him go, or take some
intermediate action to assure his availability for future questioning. I
am also interested in suggestions for how investigation might proceed.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Reports from Patrol Officers:
A single-man B/W was staked out <name of "T" intersection along a major
route parallelling the C&O Canal> in Georgetown, where drag racing had
been reported. The officer heard the screech of tires and scrape of
metal nearby, followed by what sounded like automatic weapons fire. The
officer started the car and called for backup. Before he could localize
the sound, the vehicles approached: a late model Buick with out-of-state
plates (later identified as being driven by one James Madison Smith) was
being pursued by a 1 ton pickup truck fitted with a push plate (later
identified as beloging to one William H. Shaw). The car showed signs of
damage to the passenger side and rear.
The car pulled a bootleg turn at high speed, while the pickup truck hit
it a glancing blow and attempted to follow. At that moment an RPG hit
the truck and detonated. The truck careened sideways across the highway
and into the canal. The officer turned on lights and attempted to locate
the truck, but it apparently had sunk.
The car began to pull away, but the driver apparently thought better of
matters and waved the officer over. The driver and owner, one James
Madison Smith, appeared shaken and made a statement at the scene. He
appeared unhurt and was taken to the station by detectives and questioned
further.
Shortly thereafter, there was an explosion and disturbance nearby. A
police helicopter spotted two supine figures next to a car whose
upholstery was on fire. Nearby, the cupola on top of a three-story house
showed signs of forced entry. The figures rose, extinguished the flames
and attempted to leave the scene, but were apprehended. Both driver and
passenger had burns and multiple injuries to hands, chest and face, and
were transported to <name of hospital> for treatment. The remains of two
pump-action magazine rifles with scopes, silencers and flash-suppressors
were found at the scene where the car was parked. The weapons appeared
to have been exposed to intense heat and the ammunition appears to have
exploded as a result.
Officers knocked on the door of the nearby house. When there was no
answer, two officers climbed to the roof (via a ladder extended from the
helicopter) and entered through the hole in the cupola, while others
surrounded the house and radioed for a warrant, prepared to force entry.
One of the officers was knocked down by an electrical shock when he
touched the broken wall, but was not injured. The second officer dragged
him clear, and smelled gas of some sort coming from within.
The officers retreated. Other officers later re-entered with protective
gear, and found the house empty, but well supplied with surveillance
equipment. The walls of the cupola proved to be metal with wooden siding
on the outside and panelling on the inside. The cupola was provided with
small sliding panels that proved to be observation panels. After
securing the scene, it was turned over to detectives.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of the interview of James Madison Smith, Professor of Archaeology
at Princeton University. Subject was advised that he was not in custody
and was free to leave at any time. Subject did not request a lawyer and
seemed cooperative, but subsequently appeared somewhat evasive in
demeanor, and ultimately became hostile.
Subject stated he was in town to do some research at the Library of
Congress, but became lost and was trying to find his way back to <name of
major route>. Passing through a residential neighborhood near the scene,
subject was assaulted by two men in a pickup truck who tried to push
subject's car off the road. Subject evaded them as best he could, at
which point the assailants began shooting. Subject continued evading,
with varying success, sustaining severe damage to subject's automobile.
At the scene, subject observed an explosion, and believes that the
assailants blew themselves up in some manner.
Subject denies all knowledge of assailants and states that he has
received no threats recently. Subject offers no motive for the attack,
other than to suggest that the assailants were drunk and looking for a
random victim. Further questioning failed to provide satisfactory
answers to followup questions, including:
- - Why was the subject driving at 2:30 AM?
- - Where is the subject staying? How did he plan to spend the hours until
the LofC opens?
- - Any description or information about the missile that struck the truck:
subject insists there was an explosion onboard and no missile.
- - What was going on at the house? What is your involvement?
Subject's primary interest seems to be in obtaining a police report for
his insurance company to pay for the damage to the car.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of Detectives at 6AM:
Officer's dashboard video confirms his account of the first incident,
including the use of some type of missile with a flaming trail; however,
to conclude that it was an RPG is premature.
The truck was recovered from the canal at 4AM with two corpses (neither
had ID, so we designate them John Doe #1 and John Doe #2) inside. Both
had semiautomatic Tek-9's and one had an M-16. The truck has a "push
bar" in front that is specially reinforced, as if for making attacks of
this type. The truck was equipped with police scanner, and a two-way
radio that no longer operates.
Smith's car shows signs of multiple impacts from various angles, and
bullet holes consistent with a NATO round. There is nothing else
immediately remarkable about the car or its contents.
Detectives confirm that rifles found at the second scene are consistent
with sniper equipment, and show evidence of having been exposed to
intense heat that melted some parts and exploded the ammunition. Doctors
confirm that the burns and wounds on John Does #3 and #4 are consitent
with this scenario and are not life threatenting. #3 and #4 have refused
questioning and have asked for counsel who has yet to arrive.
The house has sophisticated surveillance equipment including miniaturized
night-vision cameras that afford a full view of the outside. The doors
and walls are reinforced with light armor plate, and the windows may be
bulletproof. Detectives conclude that this was a safe house of some
type. It shows no sign of long-term habitation, but contains a single
unmade bed and dishes from a single meal in the dish washer. There is an
extensive video tape library, with particular emphasis on military and
quasi-military films. The basement is equipped with a generator and a
water tank. There appears to be equipment of various sorts embedded in
the walls whose purpose is not clear; however, there are both sprinklers
and what may be a Halon system.
A survey of the neighborhood shows broken glass and metal consistent at
various points. This is consistent with, but not conclusive of, an
attack of the type described by Mr. Smith. Detectives will take a more
complete survey after first light.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
That is about what I think the police would have by early morning, when
Mr. Smith will start asking to be released. He has no ties to the
District of Columbia and is quite clear that he intends to leave the
jurisdiction within a day. I know what I think the police would do, but
ask where you think they would go from here?
<------------------------------------------------------->
Robert A. West /// "Censorship is tyranny."
Phone W:(215)466-3628; H:(215)348-9113
http://www.erols.com/robtwest
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 08:15:22 EDT
From: AndMat3@aol.com
Subject: Re: Elastica, The Rubber Girl
In a message dated 5/17/99 3:39:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ravanos@NJCU.edu
writes:
<<SNIP>>
> Cost Powers & Skills
> 9 Stretching: 2", Indirect (+3/4); No Noncombat Stretch
> (-1/4), Limited Power: Indirect only represents the fact the
> Stretching can curve in unusual and interesting ways (and thus
> may warrant Suprise), and it can not directly penetrate Force
> Walls, but can "go around" them, [Only applied to Indirect] (-1/4)
>
> 8 EC: Rubbery Skin, Limitation: All powers are Non-Persistant (-1/4)
> 8 50% Damage Reduction, Physical, Non Persistant (-1/4)
> 8 +20 PD, Non Persistant (-1/4)
<<SNIP>>
(a) why did you purchase the INDIRECT as +3/4. This would mean
that it could "originate anywhere" and go in any direction. it is it
stretching (like Mr. Fantastic); then it can only originate from his
body and only move away from his body. Which, as I read
INDIRECT is only a +1/4 advantage.
(b) non-persistent PD should be worth more than -1/4. If that's what the
book lists it as; then it's a rip off. but i have never seen that limitation
in
the book before. so, you should give more for it. I think -1/2.
andy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 17 May 1999 05:22:41 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: Is this legal?
At 12:23 AM 5/17/1999 -0400, Scott A. Colcord wrote:
>Most of the list has seemed to indicate that they wouldn't have a problem
>with putting the NCM in the MP, and the movement outside. I'd like to
>throw out an inverted example, and see if the opinion changes. What would
>you say to the following?
>
>30 Movement Multipower
>3u 15" Running
>3u 15" Teleport
>
>20 x16 NCM for Running
>20 x16 NCM for Teleport
I wouldn't go for this, for the same reason that I didn't like the
original construct: points waste.
>Once you've decided on the above, let me extend
>it a bit further:
>
>30 Movement Multipower
>3u 15" Running
>3u 10" Running, 0 END
>3u 15" Teleport
>3u 10" Teleport, 0 END
>
>20 x16 NCM for Running
>20 x16 NCM for Teleport
> 2 Two fixed locations for teleport
>
>Would you allow this, or would you require the NCM to
>be in the MP? What about the fixed locations?
I'd want to see the NCM as part of the Multipower, as indicated above,
though I have no problem with either fixed or floating locations taken
separately for a Teleportation that's a Multipower slot.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #345
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 03:58 PM