Jump to content

Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?


OddHat

Recommended Posts

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Note: Wolf Quai Chang is responsible for many of the changes that exist in 5th Edition today. :)

Again, I don't mean that I can match the munchkin master, but a player way way back did have a pretty fun construct with his Goofyman character, I'll have to find it. A 25d6 RKA with cheesy limitations and some ungodly armor. This was under 2nd edition, so there weren't so many ways to get around that, either!

 

Nothing ornate or sophisticated, but cheesey cheesey cheese nonetheless. The player, a good friend of mine, ran him through some a villain adventure or two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 413
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Again, I don't mean that I can match the munchkin master, but a player way way back did have a pretty fun construct with his Goofyman character, I'll have to find it. A 25d6 RKA with cheesy limitations and some ungodly armor. This was under 2nd edition, so there weren't so many ways to get around that, either!

 

Nothing ornate or sophisticated, but cheesey cheesey cheese nonetheless. The player, a good friend of mine, ran him through some a villain adventure or two.

Hmm, I wonder if we can find a build for Exploso the Clown. "Throw the Nose!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: AoE (Was: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?)

 

Wow. What a thread.

 

FWIW, we've always played AoE and Explosion has being three dimensional in effect, unless it didn't fit the SFX, since I started playing 4ed back in 1994.

 

SFX in control. That hasn't been said before on this thread. Not at all....

 

Explosion/AOE rules were added to help model things like grenades and other real world explosives. I am not aware of a real world grenade that explodes in only 2 dimensions (like the 25th anniversary Star Wars updates to the Death Star explosion which became an expanding disc wave very similar to one in Star Trek 6. Makes me wonder if these movies are a basis for some misconceptions...)

 

HM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: AoE (Was: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?)

 

SFX in control. That hasn't been said before on this thread. Not at all....

 

Explosion/AOE rules were added to help model things like grenades and other real world explosives. I am not aware of a real world grenade that explodes in only 2 dimensions (like the 25th anniversary Star Wars updates to the Death Star explosion which became an expanding disc wave very similar to one in Star Trek 6. Makes me wonder if these movies are a basis for some misconceptions...)

Well, Star Trek 6 came out after Champions, so maybe they were...

 

Actually Explosions always said -1d6 per 1" from taget hex without mentioning circular. :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

My God, and it's A TEXAN who said that!

 

:D

 

(Sorry, Treb, couldn't resist - and yeah, I remember you're not really "from" Texas, but you're a Texan in my book, and I mean that in a GOOD way.)

It's OK, Zorn, I consider myself a Texan too. I do wear cowboy hats and western-style clothing. I only lived in Minnesota for 6 years, whereas I've lived in El Paso virtually my entire adult life, almost 28 years (since July 1977). I turned 18 in April of 1977. As the bumpersticker says:

 

I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could!

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Again, I don't mean that I can match the munchkin master, but a player way way back did have a pretty fun construct with his Goofyman character, I'll have to find it. A 25d6 RKA with cheesy limitations and some ungodly armor. This was under 2nd edition, so there weren't so many ways to get around that, either!

 

Nothing ornate or sophisticated, but cheesey cheesey cheese nonetheless. The player, a good friend of mine, ran him through some a villain adventure or two.

 

That's pretty cool that he actually used him. We just sort of built this following character as a joke. He was never meant to be played. We did come up with a descriptive name for him, though not too imaginitive.

 

 

100D6 RKA Man

 

13/28 STR 3

14 DEX 12

11 CON 2

9 BODY -2

15 INT 5

10 EGO 0

5/45 PRE -5

6 COM -2

3 PD 0

2 ED 0

3 SPD 6

5 REC 0

22 END 0

22 STUN 0

Characteristics Cost: 19

 

290 100D6 RKA (N.P.L.R.A.P.P.),"Nuclear Powered Long Range

Accellerated Particle Project",OAF(-1 1/2),bulky,personal

focus,Extra Time(-1/2),Concentrate(-1),0 DCV,constant

concentration,No Knockback(-1/4),Can't move and fire same

round(-1/2),Only In Hero ID(-1/4),Reduced Penetration(-1/4),

Must Attack at Full Power(-1/4),Not in Water(-1/4),Only on

the ground(-1/4),2 Charges(-1 1/2),Visible(-1/4),No Range

Mod(+1/2) 0

8 10 Levels: RKA,OAF(-1 1/2),bulky,personal focus

15 +40 PRE (That's a BIG Gun!!!),OAF(-1 1/2),bulky,personal

focus,Only In Hero ID(-1/4)

43 PKG,"Light Exoskeleton Power Armor",OIF(-1/2),personal

focus,14- Activation(-1/2) 3

(30) 20/20 Armor

(7) +7" Running 1

(6) +15 STR,doesn't add to figured 1

 

Powers Cost: 356

Total Cost: 375

 

Base Points: 250

20 Normal Stats

5 Age,40+

15 Psych Lim,"Insecure",common,strong

50

5 Physical Lim,"Nearsighted",infrequently,slightly

15 Rep,"Old Codger",occur 11-,extreme reputation

15 Secret ID,"O. L. Heiny"

 

Disadvantages Total: 125

Experience Spent: 0

Total Points: 375

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Champsguy

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Note: this is a friend of mine's design, so I have no idea why he made some of the decisions he did in constructing him. But he's always fun to tell people about. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: AoE (Was: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?)

 

SFX in control. That hasn't been said before on this thread. Not at all....

 

Explosion/AOE rules were added to help model things like grenades and other real world explosives. I am not aware of a real world grenade that explodes in only 2 dimensions (like the 25th anniversary Star Wars updates to the Death Star explosion which became an expanding disc wave very similar to one in Star Trek 6. Makes me wonder if these movies are a basis for some misconceptions...)

 

HM

Well apparently the SFX thing BEARS repeating considering the response of a vocal and vociferous minority.

 

But you did ratchet it up a notch well by pointing out the blindingly obvious which we weren't really stating - and why ALMOST all of us went by SFX in according AoEs. I mean, why in the world would a GM say, "No, sorry, you're super-grenade only blows in one plane..."??? :stupid:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

It's OK, Zorn, I consider myself a Texan too. I do wear cowboy hats and western-style clothing. I only lived in Minnesota for 6 years, whereas I've lived in El Paso virtually my entire adult life, almost 28 years (since July 1977). I turned 18 in April of 1977. As the bumpersticker says:

 

I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as fast as I could!

 

:D

Yup, that's what I was getting at, I knew you mentioned before your taking to the life style.

 

Heck, I consider myself an Oregonian now and have only lived here 11 of 42 years of my life. It suits me. And I've never lived somewhere I've been able to work so well with people musically, either. Some of that was not finding the right people, I know they were out there, but some of it is "climate" (sociologically/culturally speaking).

 

However, I guess I do consider myself still a New Hampshirite in many ways. Although I wouldn't want to live there really there are many core beliefs in my life that come out of growing up there. They don't conflict with Oregon living, but they are slightly different emphases.

 

(I think this thread is safely winding down so I don't mind being more tangential/personal by this time here)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

Note: this is a friend of mine's design' date=' so I have no idea why he made some of the decisions he did in constructing him. But he's always fun to tell people about. :D[/quote']

Oh yeah, I can see that, I love those limitations. On the note of abuse and munchkinism, it amazes me how uptight people get about it. If a group wants to play that way, why in the world should anyone care? Now, of couse, the serious side of that is where you have one player who wants to play outside the gaming group's rules/conventions, and naturally that's a concern, but otherwise I certainly don't care if people are "abusing" the rules, though I admit I do prefer that they at least undestand that they are, I guess.

 

When we first played Champions our builds were all pretty abusive, actually, but at the same time very much in-concept. So to me it wasn't really abuse, it was just not understanding that we should have either realized what we were doing and/or simply given our characters more starting points.

 

And here I was railing at 5th Edition's 350 base when that first came out...I guess I was being a bit of a jerk doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

And here I was railing at 5th Edition's 350 base when that first came out...I guess I was being a bit of a jerk doing that.

I suspect we all had something like that. In my case, it was a rant against Steve for his "stupidity" about how, under 5th Edition, the various Enhanced Senses didn't come with Range, etc. I seem to remember in particular going off on him about Infrared Perception, for some reason.

 

...of course, that was before I'd noticed the bit about the "Simulated Sense Groups"... :rolleyes:

 

 

When that was pointed out to me, boy did I feel like a jerk and an idiot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Strength Damage: Pathetic or what?

 

I'm sure this point has been made, but by golly this is a long thread and I can't find it...but I read (and posted on) bits of the thread earlier, and in relation to blowing up the world, or somesuch....

 

You can blow a hole in a wall with an EB. That seems to be accepted in 5ER.

 

If the wall is (say) 128 metres thick, you can blow a man sized hole in it if you can do enough body in one hit. 31 Body, assuming that it is a concrete wall. Now, assuming it is not a wall but a sphere, and you are shooting through the middle, for another 6 BODY you can knock a 128m hole in it: in effect, destroy the whole concrete sphere. Assuming a normal attack that would have to be 37d6, or 185 active points.

 

If you stick the ADVANTAGE AE on top of it, you couldn't do more than hollow out half a hex if it was the ONE HEX version or if you make it an AE radius attack you could do a 18 hex radius attack (72m globe). Of course that power has double the active points of the basic energy blast, but still could not destroy the whole sphere in a single shot, even if you could somehow set the blast off at the centre not the edge.

 

Of course I've chosen the numbers to illustrate a point and at lower point levels or with different materials you may get different results, but it does seem odd.

 

Mind you, like high explosive shells, AE attacks were always designed to scour the surface, the direct attacks were the ones designed to destroy a target. When it comes to destroying big things, area effect (absent megascale) is a positive hinderance.

 

Like most things though, this is really just an intellectual exercise that highlights poor design philosophy and skills rather than a fault in the game: if I had a player who (somehow) had a PC that could generate as much point energy as a nuclear bomb, I'd want to see the application of intelligent design and require some sort of explosive effect at the point of contact, or if it was a disintegration beam, probably a limitation preventing spread or excessive instant penetration.

 

The problem, it seems to me, is not in the game or the rules, but in the application of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...