Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 412
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 12:05 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #412
champ-l-digest Saturday, June 19 1999 Volume 01 : Number 412
In this issue:
RE: Draining Innate abilities
Re: Castling
Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
Re: CHAR: Bigfoot
RE: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Delayed effect and AID
RE: Top 5 things
Re: Top 5 things
Re: Champions in Oz [was...heck, several things by now]
Re: Champions in Oz [was...heck, several things by now]
Re: Alchemist Ver 1.1 and My replies
Re: RSR....sort of
Re: Top 5 things
Re: If we aren't Americans, what are we? (Was: Metric System)
Re: [Off Topic] [5th Ed] Fuzed?
Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Re: Swapping stats
Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Re: Swapping stats
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:15:00 -0400
From: David Nasset <dnasset@cns.eds.com>
Subject: RE: Draining Innate abilities
From: Joe Mucchiello [SMTP:jmucchiello@yahoo.com]
>--- Filksinger <filkhero@deskmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> I have found that many otherwise reasonable players _need_ rules to
>> keep them in bounds, when it comes to some constructs. And some
>> otherwise reasonably good GMs need them as well. I don't want a GM to
>> have to make those kinds of decisions to run a game, and for the most
>> part, HERO doesn't require them too often. All I want is a mechanism
>> for properly pricing powers that are generally not going to be
>> drainable by most SFX.
>
>But how common are Drains in your games? I don't ever see these kinds
>of problems coming up so often.
Not often, true. But then why not allow for an Advantage that completely
blocks them, if it isn't important?:)
>I think you will just get into debates
>with you power gamer who wants his alien from Katmi with the Innate HKA
>claws.
Obviously, defining the Power will be a priority, so as to make it
clearer what is/is not Innate.
In this case, I'd point out that he needs to have Always On, so anytime
he lies down in bed he has to lie on concrete (or destroy it with his
HKA), if he catches the falling child, he will shred him, and if he
walks in a crowd, people bumping him will die.
>> The vast majority of SFX will not allow you to steal the size from an
>> elephant, the intangibility from an intelligent fog, or the lack of
>> needing to breathe of a robot. This means that these powers either
>get
>> more protection from drain, via SFX, than most other, similar powers,
>> or they get drained for stupid reasons. I have played in a number of
>> games like this, and, frankly, they sucked.
>
>You still see Drain as stealing points. That's not what it does. I
>just removes a troublesome game mechanic. Players usually complain
>about Drains stealing stuff. As a GM, I take a more enlightened
>approach. :-)
I think we have a misunderstanding here. I don't see Drain as "stealing"
anything, exactly. And I haven't been a _player_ in a HERO game in more
than 10 years. There are only a handful of Ms that I will play under
rather than run it myself, and they don't run HERO. And most of the HERO
Ms I can clearly remember playing under were no more than fair, at best.
>> Or you find a way to make people pay for being immune to a Power when
>> using most SFX. Which I have found quite playable, without any of the
>> hassles I found playing it your way.
>
>I'd rather see the "Advantaged" advantage in this case. I don't think
>you will always know what is Innate and what is not at character
>creation. Just like you cannot forsee all SFX interactions at
>character creation.
Agreed. Though, _for this purpose_, I think a handful of related
Advantages/Limitations might be better than "Advantaged".
>> I prefer to have rules that mostly maintain play balance on their
>> own. If I didn't, I'd play FUDGE or something.
>
>And HERO rules mostly do maintain play balance. The section of SFX is
>what mucks it up. If you want to know absolutely what can and cannot
>happen in play, use GURPS. There is a rule for everything in that
>damned system.
SFX is what mucks it up, I agree. The simplest, already-built-in way
around this problem is to give Advantages to cover places where some SFX
would gain too much of an advantage over others. That's what I want
here.
<snip>
>>
>> I have decided that I am fighting the wrong battle here. While I
>think
>> the mechanism for doing this is cleaner by making some powers immune
>> to Adjustment powers, say via Innate or some similar Advantage, I
>> would be willing to let Drain be the Power to remove powers, even
>> Innate ones. But I still want a mechanic that gives me what Innate
>> does, vs most SFX of Drain.
>
>Well, I'm glad you no longer think I'm daft for wanting to use drain to
>solidify a ghost. I still say Innate will not cover everything you
>want to cover. When Wolverine meets Edward Scissorhands' HKA Drain old
>Logan is going to cry Innate. ("They're made of ADMANTIUM!!!")
Most SFX I can think of for HKA would, if Drained by a reasonable SFX,
would be Drained in a manner that allowed for Wolvie's claws to be
Drained, too.
Of course, there aren't many SFX for HKA Drains, are there?
>> > >There are many objects that are, simply by their physical
>> composition,
>> > >already something humans are not. Elephants are big. Helium is
>> lighter
>> > >than air. Mist is vaporous. Humans need 'Powers' to become these
>> things;
>> > >Growth, Flight, or Desolidification, respectively.
>
>I was thinking about this again. If Helium lad can control his flight,
>i.e. he doesn't just ascend to the stratosphere immediately, then Drain
>vs Flight SFX Gravity Manipulation can remove that CONTROL.
Absolutely. As I said, Innate should not be a perfect absolute.
I tend to think of Innate as being similar to NND. NND is an absolute,
as no amount of standard defenses will stop it. With NND, your typical
defenses don't work, except by SFX. With Innate, your typical Adjustment
powers (not counting Transformation) do not work, except by SFX.
>> > HERO would be a better system if all characters started as nothing
>> > and all of the default powers had to be bought. I do believe a
>> > standard human costs 145 points or so to be able to breathe, see,
>> > hear, etc.
>>
>> And would have died long ago. I like the idea, too, but it is much
>> harder to work than you might think. Take it from someone who tried
>> it.
>
>You just print the default powers on the standard character sheet. If
>someone wants to remove one, cross it out. Not that I've tried this.
Ah, that method. Sorry, I was having a flashback to a different idea
that didn't pan out.
As far as that goes, I want to eliminate the Everyman Skills in Fuzion,
and am considering it in HERO. Give everyone extra points to cover the
cost, and if they don't buy them, make them understand what a bad thing
this could be. ("You didn't buy _any_ climbing? Make a DEX roll to go
upstairs. Sorry, no, the ladder is completely out.")
>> > You never did answer how you apply "equal" levels of Shrinking and
>> > Growth at the same time. If you use Shrinking UAO on an elephant,
>> > the tiny elephant does not lose any hexes of extra reach that if
>> > had while normal sized. If you use the Transform, it costs much
>> > more.
>>
>> And if you want to Shrink elephants and humans and cats, then the
>need
>> to have Shrinking, UAO _and_ Drain Growth ups the cost past
>Transform.
>> _And_ you get a Power that makes elephants weaker as they shrink, but
>> not humans. And other anomalies as bad as the one you mentioned.
>
>Take back your _And_: Transform also makes the elephants weaker. They
>no longer have Growth.
Not necessarily. I could define the Transform so that it didn't make
them weaker. Besides which, I wouldn't use Transform in this case, at
all. I'd use Shrinking, UAO.
>Just because there is a cheaper way with
>Transform does not mean it is the right way. Why not make a character
>who only has 1D6 cumulative transforms to accomplish all of his powers?
> It's probably cheaper in the long run.
Been their, done that. It was amusing, but it didn't work as well as you
might think, and in other ways was massively abusive. No sane GM would
allow it, unless he was deliberately biased in favor of that
character/player.
<snip>
>>
>> You could be in a tournament, without time to make certain of the SFX
>> of everything. Or you could be using characters from various
>> suplements, which often have no SFX. Or which do, but what the SFX
>> are capable of is indeterminate, because they aren't real.
>
>Tournament does not make change your chance to make a mistake with
>Innate. It would just be that you deny a logical SFX from getting past
>Innate because you did not have time to think about it. No real
>difference between Innate being there or not.
Not true. It is easier to decide what a logical SFX will do than it is
to decide what an illogical/meaningless SFX will _not_ do. Besides
which, if I had no time to think about it, I'd rather have _no_ SFX work
on beings with "Innate" than _all_ SFX.
>> And your last statement only make sense if you are talking about the
>> SFX of a target power, not the SFX of the Drain. Can "flux energy"
>> Drain the Desolidification from fog? Dimensional shifting? Molecular
>> decoupling?
>
>Since it is not better defined then the other three, no, no and no.
"Flux energy will not work on my Desolidification." "Why not?" "Because
no one knows what it can do, so it can't do X." How do you decide which
powers are immune to such uncertain SFX? Keep in mind that many
campaigns are partially or fully dependent upon thoroughly vague and
indefinable SFX. Flux energy, magic, cosmic power, strange abilities no
one understands granted by beings who can seem to do anything but who no
one understands well enough to tell what the SFX even _is_, etc. In such
campaigns, in particular, Innate becomes particularly useful (or gets
banned, depending upon what the GM sees his universal SFX as being
capable of).
<snip>
>>
>> Far to expensive for the result desired.
>
>It's +1/2 instead of +1/4 on a power which already has +1 for 0 END
>Persistent. I don't think that is far too expensive. Afterall you
>want the power to be Uncontrolled (lasting after the death of the
>character) AND to be immune to most Drains. Sounds underpriced to me.
But it isn't Uncontrolled. Uncontrolled has special advantages much more
important than "lasting after the death of the character" that make it
worth that much. Most of which have little or no meaning on Powers where
Innate makes sense, and, if you found a SFX where Innate made sense,
Uncontrolled would often give them advantages that aren't needed or
desired.
<snip>
>
>But I don't understand what you need "Impossible to Drain with MOST
>sfx" advantages. I think I have a hang up the other way. I'd rather
>not hear the player whine "But it's Innate, NOTHING can Drain it."
>Because when you point out the word most he will say the SFX that you
>are using falls under most.
"It says GM decides. I did." I think it works at least as well as your
method.
Besides, your method leaves more to SFX than mine. With mine, most of
the calls _aren't_ GM calls, they're rules. He has no way to complain
I'm being unfair if, instead of "Drain Growth", I use "Shrinking, UAO",
or instead of "Drain LS", I use "Transform robot into living being (with
or without the double-Polaroid)".
Filksinger
> Joe
>
>A thought: How about a "Simple to Drain with any old SFX" limitation,
>too? Let's call it Unstable (-1/2).
Sounds like fun. And already completely legal, since we do have a
Limited Power Limitation.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:29:55 -0500
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Castling
At 01:26 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, Bob Greenwade wrote:
>At 11:57 AM 6/18/1999 -0500, Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
>>>
>>>You could make a case, then, for building this with Extra-Dimensional
>>>Movement. It's become fairly common for people to use X-Dim for
>>>interplanetary travel
>>
>>It seems to me XDM specifically prohibits this: "Extra-Dimensional
>>Movement does not give the character any enhanced movement in our world; a
>>character in New York cannot transport himself to Valhalla and then back to
>>Tokyo."
>
> This isn't quite the same thing. This application of XDM would take the
>character directly from New York to Tokyo (but *only* from New York to
>Tokyo).
And you are arguing that a move direct from New York to Tokyo represents no
"enhanced movement in our world", even though it's something the
character(s) cannot do without the XDM-based power that was suggested?
Okay, it's single-staged transport instead of dual-stage. The movement
still seems awfully "enhanced" to me. As such, it still violates the XDM
writeup...though, as I said, as long as you /know/ you're violating that
rule, do so with my blessing. :)
Sad but true, and possibly inevitable: some concepts just were not well
anticipated by the Hero rules, and building some of these may require
choosing the least of several evils. "There being no reasonably-priced,
simple and straightforward way to build my concept within the rules, which
rule -- including the Rule of Common Sense -- do I break in order to make
this work?"
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:33:27 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
At 04:10 PM 6/18/1999 EDT, GoldRushG@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/18/99 9:50:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org writes:
>
><< OK Champions 5th is comin out, >>
>
> No, folks. This is inaccurate. Please help Hero Games spread the truth. ;)
>
> They are releaseing the 5th Ed. Hero System rule book.
>
> Not "Champions" 5th. Hero System 5th.
>
> Everyone repeat after me... ;)
Actually, Champions 5th *is* coming out. It just happens to be a
different book than Hero System 5th. (Champions 5th Edition, by Dave
Mattingly, will probably be out some time next year....)
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:37:05 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: CHAR: Bigfoot
At 03:59 PM 6/18/1999 -0500, Ross Rannells wrote:
>Bob Greenwade wrote:
>
>> At 10:45 PM 6/17/1999 -0400, Michael Surbrook wrote:
>> >
>> >Other Names: Meh-Teh, Momo, Omah, Qah-lin-me, Sasquatch, Skunk Ape,
>> >Yeh-teh, Yeren, Yeti, Yowie
>>
>> Don't forget lumberjacks. And Howard Stern. ;-]
>>
>
>Now that's plain cruel, grouping the Sasquatch in with such talentless
>pieces of s**t like Howard Stern. I mean really Stern couldn't win a
>debate against a piece of lint. The Sasquatch have been hiding from
>use for centuries. Don't insult creature smart enough to stay as far
>away form humans as possible by comparing them to the dregs of
>out society.
Actually, Howard Stern is a very talented, intelligent, and creative
man. That he chooses to regularly shelve that talent, intelligence, and
creativity in favor of intentionally offensive, repulsive, obnoxious, and
even stupid behavior is beside the point.
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:44:26 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: RE: Top 5 things
At 01:19 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>4) Make some provision for adjusting the cost of Damage Reduction based on
>> either the point base or DC limits of the game. With a fixed cost, no
>> one wants it in a low power (75+75) game (PD/ED being more effective),
>> and everyone wants it in a high power (150+225 or higher) game.
>
>This strikes me as related to an observation I made about certain mechanical
>structures in Hero; in a high powered game, many of the value/+10/+20/+30
>structures are probably out of wack because the higher levels are
>preportionately too easy to get. Assume that in a particular high powered
>game that you go from 12D6 Mind Control and a 10 Ego to 24D6 Mind Control
>and a 20 Ego. Under the rules, the Mind Control actually gets _more_
>effective. Similar things happen with Presence Attacks, knockout effects,
>and others.
I believe that in 3rd and earlier editions, Mental Powers worked off
multiples of INT or EGO, Presence Attacks off multiples of PRE, and
knockout effects off multiples of BODY. Since 4th Edition was released,
I've been wondering about the wisdom of this, and for just the reason you
describe.
Do you think that this should go back to the way it was before?
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:41:28 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
At 01:01 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> 2. Charges is worth an extra -1/2 Limitation (or +1/2 less Advantage)
>>on a Power that normally does not cost END.
>
>interpetationally, it already does. I'd certainly find it hard pressed to
>tell someone taking charges on something that didn't cost Endurance that
>they couldn't apply the equivelent of 'Costs Endurance' as a Limitation
first.
I'm the same way. I'd like to see it officially explicit, though,
rather than just left as an interpretation.
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:40:10 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Delayed effect and AID
At 02:42 PM 6/17/1999 -0700, feywulf wrote:
>If a delayed effect power is aided to more than its normal active points
>and is stored, but isn't used until after some but not all of the aided
>points have faded, what happens?
>
>Suppose a wizard uses his 10d6 aid fire spells to aid his 2d6 RKA
>delayed effect personal immunity explosion fire ball spell that normally
>has 60 active points up 60 more active points and stores it. The
>fireball is now a 120 active point 4d6 explosion power. If he waits 6
>turns so 30 active points have faded, doesn't switch his aid to a
>different fire spell, and then uses the stored fireball, how many d6
>does it do?
>
>What if he does switch the aid to a different fire spell before using
>the stored fireball?
In the case of a stored Delayed Effect spell, I don't think that waiting
for fade time or switching a Multipower out of Aid would affect its
utility. It would still do its full 4d6 Explosion.
OTOH, I don't know that I'd allow a character to Aid his own Delayed
Effect Powers, specifically because it could be so easily abused in this
fashion.
- ---
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
Interested in sarrusophones? Join the Sarrusophone Mailing List!
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/sarrus.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: RE: Top 5 things
>At 01:19 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>>4) Make some provision for adjusting the cost of Damage Reduction based on
>>> either the point base or DC limits of the game. With a fixed cost, no
>>> one wants it in a low power (75+75) game (PD/ED being more effective),
>>> and everyone wants it in a high power (150+225 or higher) game.
>>
>>This strikes me as related to an observation I made about certain mechanical
>>structures in Hero; in a high powered game, many of the value/+10/+20/+30
>>structures are probably out of wack because the higher levels are
>>preportionately too easy to get. Assume that in a particular high powered
>>game that you go from 12D6 Mind Control and a 10 Ego to 24D6 Mind Control
>>and a 20 Ego. Under the rules, the Mind Control actually gets _more_
>>effective. Similar things happen with Presence Attacks, knockout effects,
>>and others.
>
> I believe that in 3rd and earlier editions, Mental Powers worked off
>multiples of INT or EGO, Presence Attacks off multiples of PRE, and
>knockout effects off multiples of BODY. Since 4th Edition was released,
>I've been wondering about the wisdom of this, and for just the reason you
>describe.
> Do you think that this should go back to the way it was before?
I have mixed feelings. In some ways, I think the current way works better;
a high Ego or Presence could be just about impossible to effect meaningfully
under the old system, and knocking out high CON opponents and keeping them
down could be amazingly tedious. But the current way doesn't scale down or
(particularly) up well to my view.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 15:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
>At 01:01 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, Wayne Shaw wrote:
>>> 2. Charges is worth an extra -1/2 Limitation (or +1/2 less Advantage)
>>>on a Power that normally does not cost END.
>>
>>interpetationally, it already does. I'd certainly find it hard pressed to
>>tell someone taking charges on something that didn't cost Endurance that
>>they couldn't apply the equivelent of 'Costs Endurance' as a Limitation
>first.
>
> I'm the same way. I'd like to see it officially explicit, though,
>rather than just left as an interpretation.
Yeah. I have gotten the argument 'but it _doesn't_ Cost Endurance!' To
which my usual response is 'Fine. Call it 'costs Charges' instead, if you
like. The logic is still the same.'
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 14:21:20 -0700
From: jayphailey@juno.com
Subject: Re: Champions in Oz [was...heck, several things by now]
>Hmmm...Champions is not exactly a "rules light" game, and Aussies have a
>reputation for having a "No rules!" attitude...I wonder if that sets up
>some sort of quasi-mystical repulsion field that makes it hard to set
>Champions games in Australia?
>
>Damon
I dunno. We sent several of our Omega Squad PCs to Australia for
vacations but never really would up basing any of them there.
Jay P. Hailey <Meow!> [ICQ: 37959005]
Read Star Trek- Outwardly Mobile At-
http://www.geocities.com/~tesral/jay/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 18:56:33 -0500
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: Re: Champions in Oz [was...heck, several things by now]
At 02:21 PM 6/18/1999 -0700, jayphailey@juno.com wrote:
>>Hmmm...Champions is not exactly a "rules light" game, and Aussies have a
>>reputation for having a "No rules!" attitude...I wonder if that sets up
>>some sort of quasi-mystical repulsion field that makes it hard to set
>>Champions games in Australia?
>>
>>Damon
>
>
>I dunno. We sent several of our Omega Squad PCs to Australia for
>vacations but never really would up basing any of them there.
(a) Note the use of "hard" not "impossible" in my last sentence;
(b) Vacations, sure. Vacations are laid back and don't require the use of
much in the way of game rules. :)
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 10:34:46
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Alchemist Ver 1.1 and My replies
On Mon, 10 May 1999 09:51:57 -0500, bobby farris wrote:
>I didn't realize that this would be such a hot bed of discussion :) Thank you all
>for suggestions. Please don't stop.
>
>Okay, First I refuse to use Independent. I can't believe that anytime something
>is created people are spending character points on it. Look at it from a real
>world perspective. If everyone is making things Independent where are all the
>points coming from....yes I know it is just a game...I am just trying to make a
>point.
>
>When I want an Alchemist this is what I want (Note that this might differ from
>what other people want, like I said this is what I want.):
> This is a magical character type that can use almost scientific magical
>formulas to create potions, oils, dust, and whatever. When used in a prescribed
>fashion these will cause a magical effect. He should be able to continue to
>create these "potions" as long as he is able to 1)stay awake and 2)find component
>materials used to make the potions.
> Once the potions are made they should have NO tie to the creator. They
>should can be used by ANYONE at ANYTIME. If he wishes to save them fine. If he
>wants 500 healing potions, as long as he can find the components, fine. If he
>wants to sell them fine.
> I am assuming that each time the Alchemist creates his item he is
>creating ONE dose or use. If the Alchemist wants to create multiple doses of a
>healing potion, for example, then he creates the item multiple times. Thus he
>could create the potion 5 times and put it in a bottle saying that it is 5 doses
>of a Healing Potion.
>
>That said he is what I have revised to. Note that these are the BASE limitations.
>Several others can be added at the players option.
>
>OAF Fragile Expendable, Universal (easily spilled or diluted liquid, components
>which are difficult or expensive to acquire; -1 1/2)
>-1/2 Requires Skill Roll (This is made by the Alchemist when the potion is made.
>Secretly if need be.)
>+1/4 Trigger: Use the Item.
>+1/2 Cost 0 END (I didn't buy Persistant, because then a person drinks one potion
>of , say Giant Strength thank you Steve Long, and they would have if forever.
>Though that is an interesting idea...umm.....)
>
> Why not Charges? I am unsure of this one. Maybe someone can help. The way I
>have always thought of charges is that the power can be used once in a certain
>amount of time...say a day.
Since the potion can be given to anyone and thus used by anyone, One
Continuing Charge is the way I model them.
> I didn't include Extra Time, because the way I see it once the potion is drunk
>it can be used immediately. Of course some could have the Extra Time limitation
>showing that the potion takes time to work.
Extra Time is not used for when the potion is drunk (activating the
Trigger) but for the casting of the spell (=creation of the potion).
I'd suggest something along the lines of 1 Day or 1 Week to prevent
your campaign being flooded with potions.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 99 10:59:47
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: RSR....sort of
On Wed, 26 May 1999 10:01:46 -0500, bobby farris wrote:
> I have a player that wants to have a power...we will call it
>power X.
>Power X always works, however how well it works depends on how well the
>character performs a skill.
>
>At first glance it would appear to be a RSR. However, as I said, the
>power never fails, but the "active points" of the power change depending
>upon how well the player makes his roll.
You split it up into its component parts and Partially Limit each,
either with Activation or 'Must Make Roll by X'
eg
5d6 EB RSR (-1/2)
+1d6 EB RSR (-1/2) Must Make Roll by 1 (-1/4)
+2d6 EB RSR (-1/2) Must make roll by 2 (-1/2)
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:24:41 EDT
From: Leah L Watts <llwatts@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Top 5 things
> . . . . I don't have my BBB
>handy, but now I'm wondering - has a Variable DNPC evern been explicitly
>allowed? Every game I've ever run or played in has allowed the "friend
in
>need for the duration of the adventure" construction, but I'm not sure
if
>the official DNPC description mentions it.
It's not in the BBB, but I seem to recall seeing the "Random DNPC" in at
least one article in Adventurer's Club.
Leah
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 21:48:56 -0700
From: "Thomas Willoughby III" <Willoughby@cookeville.total-web.net>
Subject: Re: If we aren't Americans, what are we? (Was: Metric System)
- -----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Thomas <haerandir@hotmail.com>
To: champ-l@sysabend.org <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Thursday, June 17, 1999 3:44 PM
Subject: If we aren't Americans, what are we? (Was: Metric System)
>On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 David Nasset <dnasset@cns.eds.com> wrote:
>
>>Its beginning to look like we'll have to go with USA and Usans to keep
>>everyone happy.:)
>
>Never happen. Personally, I think we should just accept it and start
>calling ourselves 'gringos', the way Oscar did earlier. It wouldn't be the
>first time a group has taken a pejorative term and converted it into a
badge
>of pride. Of course, we gringos aren't exactly a persecuted minority, but
I
>think the principle should hold...
>
>Jesse Thomas
>
>haerandir@hotmail.com
Actually, I'm a Southerner. :) So don't *even* be lumping me in with the
Yankees, thanks. Just a message from below the Mason-Dixon. :)
- -- Thomas (Should I insert a Yee-haw, here? Naaaah.)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:50:51 EDT
From: HeroGames@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Off Topic] [5th Ed] Fuzed?
In a message dated 6/18/99 1:05:26 PM, Akirazeta@aol.com writes:
>I know that HERO games has stated that the book will have both fuzion and
>
>HERO system versions of all material, but does that mean that the base
>Fuzion=20
>system will be included in the 5th Ed rules book?
>
>That make things a lot easier for people like me, who love the HERO power
>
>creation system, but dont like the combat complexity so much=20
New Hero Games releases will have both Fuzion and Hero System stats included=
.=20
The 5th Edition Hero System book includes Instant Hero=97which is the same a=
s=20
Instant Fuzion=97to make it easier for new players to start playing the game=
,=20
and to serve as a quicker way to handle large combats. Instant Hero/Fuzion=20
stats are essentially condensed Hero stats, the minimum needed for most=20
combats.
=97 Steve Peterson, Hero Games=20
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:55:11 EDT
From: HeroGames@aol.com
Subject: Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
In a message dated 6/18/99 3:17:10 PM, bob.greenwade@klock.com writes:
>Actually, Champions 5th *is* coming out. It just happens to be a
>different book than Hero System 5th. (Champions 5th Edition, by Dave
>Mattingly, will probably be out some time next year....)
No, that's not true, either. Dave has proposed a Champions genre book, thoug=
h=20
at last report he was very busy with a new job and had no time to devote to=20
it. In any event, the book would not be called "Champions 5th Edition,"=20
because it would not contain the Hero System rules or the campaign book=20
information.
=97 Steve Peterson, Hero Games=20
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 22:26:59 -0500
From: "J. Alan Easley" <alaneasley@email.com>
Subject: Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <GoldRushG@aol.com>
To: <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: champ-l-digest V1 #410
> In a message dated 6/18/99 9:50:20 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org writes:
>
> << OK Champions 5th is comin out, >>
>
> No, folks. This is inaccurate. Please help Hero Games spread the truth.
;)
>
> They are releaseing the 5th Ed. Hero System rule book.
>
> Not "Champions" 5th. Hero System 5th.
>
> Everyone repeat after me... ;)
>
> Mark @ GRG
We're not to let him out of the room, even if you come and get him.
Alan
HeroRPG-owner@onelist.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:00:32 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Subject: Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Ross Rannells wrote:
>
> Arcangel Ortiz wrote:
>
> > The question is:
> >
> > If a character has the following power:
> > Teleport 10" Mass Limit of 800 kg
> > Area Effect, Radius(+1)
> >
> > What does this allow the character to do?
> >
> > I say that it allows the character to teleport 800 kg from within
> > the area effect, while my friend says that the character can
> > teleport 800 kg from each hex.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> My opinion, the character can teleport up to 800 KGs of mass from
> anywhere within the radius. I don't see it as being 800 KGs from
> each hex.
The problem with this interpretation is that, taken to its logical
conclusion, it makes AE inferior to Range.
EG:
Teleport, UAO, AE:Radius - by your interpretation, he can get
any 1 target of 100kg or less within the area of effect (1" per 10
Active Points, excluding the AE advantage). Whereas with
Teleport, UAO, Ranged, he can get any 1 target of 100kg or less
within 5x the active points of the final power...
Personally, I don't think that it's meaningful to buy AE on a movement
or defensive power. Substitute "Flight", "Running", or "Armour" for
"Teleport" and you quickly see that the AE advantage doesn't seem to
be appropriate.
A more interesting question is what happens if you take AE on
Telekinesis...
- --
GAZZA
"To know others is wisdom.
To know one's self is enlightenment."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:10:46 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Subject: Re: Swapping stats
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> The way the Hero system works, if you come up with a clever misuse of a
> power to resolve a situation, such as using Transfer on yourself to
> increase your Strength so as to survive a deathtrap, the GM should let
> you get away with it. But if you _always_ want to have that additional
> Strength, you must pay points for it. Having Transfer, which is not
> normally used on oneself, is *NOT* paying for additional Strength.
That is a significant retreat from your previous "it can't be done"
stance, but still... this argument could be used to outlaw Aid powers.
Aid, self only appears as a power within SEVERAL Champions products
(and even if it didn't, presumably you would not argue that using
Aid on yourself is an unusual occurrence).
4d6 Aid to STR, Triggered: When Enraged/Berserk (+1/4), 0 END,
[35 Active], self only (-1/2), loses the same amount of INT as
STR is gained, INT returns at the same rate STR fades (-1) [14 Real]
Compared to:
4d6 Transfer INT to STR, Triggered: When Enraged/Berserk (+1/4), 0 END,
[105 Active], self only (-1 1/2) [42 Real]
Obviously some of those limitations involve a little guesswork, but
the clear result is that Transfer costs considerably more than Aid
in this circumstance. Isn't it a general rule that if an effect can
be simulated in more than one way, you should use the more expensive
way? ;-)
Realistically - I doubt I'd actually use Transfer to simulate this.
But I disagree completely that you can't use Transfer on yourself,
as often as you wish. My simple counterargument is that you could,
instead, simply Aid yourself for a cheaper cost.
- --
GAZZA
"To know others is wisdom.
To know one's self is enlightenment."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 08:24:08 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Subject: Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> Here is another example: Telekenesis. 25 Strength TK with AoE affects
> each individual object in that area with 25 Strength. That means all
> objects in the area massing 800Kg or less can be picked up and moved.
I actually agree with this, but "long, long ago in a galaxy far, far
away" when I brought this up, I didn't exactly get overwhelming
enthusiasm.
The reason I say it has to be this way, though, is that if you were
instead just Grabbing and holding a dozen people in the AE, few would
argue that you weren't able to use the full 25 STR to hold each of them.
That being the case, we've established that you CAN exert 25 STR in
each hex... it seems wrong to say that you couldn't use that to lift
800 kg instead of restraining some perp.
Note, however, that it's not quite as abusive as it seems. Say you
get 10 STR TK, AE: Radius. This is a 1.5 hex radius - round off to
1 hex (7 hexes total). You could lift a total of 700 kg this way -
better than 20 STR TK...
... except that 20 STR TK (for the same cost) could do what this power
could not - it could lift a 200 kg object.
- --
GAZZA
"To know others is wisdom.
To know one's self is enlightenment."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:32:00 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Subject: Re: Teleport & the Area Effect Advantage
Bob Greenwade wrote:
> What I'm referring to here, is that the difference with this aspect of
> Teleport is the same that I'd apply to Telekinesis: mass. If a Power
> affects a certain amount of mass, then that's how much mass it can
> affect. Damaging Powers with AoE still do their total damage, and
> mass-affecting Powers with AoE affect their total mass.
Oh, is THAT what this is all about? Mass?
Well, I don't have the book with me right now, but does the description
of TK even MENTION Mass? All TK does is give you Ranged STR. Which means
I can do anything with TK that I could do with STR, except I can do it
at range.
Say I've got 20 STR TK, AE: Radius. I use it to Punch everyone in the
AE. I do 4d6 to each, right? Not 4d6 distributed amongst all targets.
I'm using my full 20 STR against every target.
So why can't I use a full 20 STR to LIFT, rather than Punch? In the
case of Teleport, you can legimately claim that there is a specified
way to increase the number of targets - buy extra mass. This isn't the
case with TK - if I want to affect more targets, I've got to do it the
traditional way of buying AE. If we look at it as several targets that
are being lifted, rather than one humongous amount of mass, it seems
clear to me that the "lift 400kg per hex" is really the only possible
interpretation.
YMMV, of course.
- --
GAZZA
"To know others is wisdom.
To know one's self is enlightenment."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 10:47:23 +0800
From: GAZZA <gazza@wantree.com.au>
Subject: Re: Swapping stats
Stainless Steel Rat wrote:
> | Which is what the original post was about: a power that would allow
> | Strength to grow while Intelligence shrank for the Hulk-like
> | Madder==Stronger effect.
>
> +40 Strength, Only When Berzerk. You can either take a Side Effect
> "Drain: Intelligence", or limit some of your regular INT with "Not When
> Berzerk".
>
> If you want more control over the balance between STR and INT, buy them
> in a Multipower.
As long as we're being picky, might I point out that putting
Characteristics in a Multipower requires special GM permission?
- --
GAZZA
"To know others is wisdom.
To know one's self is enlightenment."
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #412
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Friday, July 02, 1999 04:15 PM