Creation philosophy

[OddHat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

An excellent idea, HM, and I have done so. It's now:

 

Superspeed Strikes: Hand-To-Hand Attack +4d6, Does not add to MA maneuvers (+0), Variable Advantage (+1/2 Advantages; +1); Hand-To-Hand Attack (-1/2), Restrainable (-1/2), No Knockback (-1/4), OIHID (-1/4)

 

I've also added Lack of Weakness to the defenses versus her Precision Strike 5d6 NND.

 

I'll try to find the relevant rules this evening when I have access to my books.

 

The UMA page cite is in one of my posts up thread a bit.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

The UMA page cite is in one of my posts up thread a bit.

Yes, but is there a relevent cite in FREd, 5er, or the FAQs for those who don't have UMA?

[OddHat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Yes' date=' but is there a relevent cite in FREd, 5er, or the FAQs for those who don't have UMA?[/quote']

 

Can't find it in 5thER, either in the HA description or the Adding Damage section. It may take a FAQ search.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*sigh* 4ed is Out of Print, and Steve Long has verified that this is not in print anywhere. So I did some legal checking regarding "Fair Use"...

I present pS22 of Champions 4ed...

 

It's possible, of course, to play a Champions campaign without any limits on the power level of the characters. However such a campaign will likely sport grossly unbalanced characters: some will put all of their points in a single omnipotent attack, or an impregnable defense. It will be impossible for the players designing their PC's to know what is considered a "good defense" or "a great Strength." Hence it is usually a good idea to set limits on the amount of damage each character can do, and the defenses each character can have. You will also limit each character's Dex and SPD.

 

When determining the actual limits, there are several things to remember. Each 1d6 of normal damage does an average of 3.5 STUN; this costs 5 Active Points. If the GM sets the campaigns's average defenses at 3x the maximum number of (normal) attack dice, then such an attack will only do .5 STUN per die, on the average. Thus in a campaign with limits of 10d6 attacks (50 Active Points) and 30 defenses, an attacker could only expect to inflict .5 STUN per attack. At this rate combat would last forever. The PCs would abandon normal attacks for Armor Piercing Attacks, Killing Attacks, and No Normal Defense Attacks-all in an attempt to do effective damage.

 

On the opposite extreme, the GM could set the average defenses at 1x the maximum attack dice. Thus, in a campaign with maximum attacks of 10d6 and average defenses of 10, the average attacker would inflict 25 STUN per attack. At this rate, there is an overwhelming advantage for attacking first, because any attack that hits will do tremendous damage to the target. An average roll will Stun many characters, and most will go down after only 2 hits. Character will try to get a high DCV, because the only good defense is not getting hit.

 

A good rule of thumb: The average defense should run about 2 times the maximum attack (in normal dice), and have a maximum of 2.5 times the maximum attack. Thus a 10d6 campaign might have an average defense of 20 and a maximum defense of 25. Similarly, a 12d6 campaign might have an average defense of 24 and a maximum of 30. Characters with low DCVs can be allowed to have the highest defenses, while the characters with high DCVs should have defenses near the bottom.

 

 

The character's maximum SPD helps define the character's relationship with the world around him. Heroes who are much slower than their counterparts have fewer chances to act, and will be able to do less in combat. As a general rule, SPDs should be kept within 3 points of each other; they could range from 3-6, 4-7, etc.

 

When setting limits on Dex and CV, you are deciding how easily the character will hit others and be hit himself. Of course, there are several things to consider. A defender that has a DCV advantage of 4 or more over the attacker will only be hit one time in six. Thus, the range between the highest Dex and the lowest Dex should rarely be greater than 4 points of CV. In a low-Dex campaign, the Dex could range from 15-27 (base CV 5-9), averaging 20; in a high DEX campaign Dex could range from 20-34 (base CV 7-11), averaging 26.

 

Notice however, what happens to the heroes in each type of campaign. Assume that a well-trained agent has a Dex of 15. In a low Dex campaign, the agent has a -2 chance to the hit the average hero; he will hit one time out of 3. That same agent attacking the average hero in a high-Dex campaign will be -4, and will only have a one in six chance of hitting. In the low-Dex campaign agents can be effective while in the high-Dex one they are probably just an exercise in dice rolling.

 

The GM should carefully consider each of these values when setting limits for the campaign. The lower the limits, the closer the heroes will be to "normal" people; higher limits will raise the capabilities of the character. This will have a tremendous impact on the way the character affects the world and the flavor of the campaign.

 

 

Average Champions campaign

According to survey data, the average Champions character has the following stats:

Average Main Attack: 11d6

Average total PD or ED: 25

Average DEX 23

Average SPD 5.5

 

-----End of pS22, _Champions_ 4ed-----

 

LEGALESE: This is an excerpt from an out of print book that represents ~1/340 of that book's contents. Research has not found any in print source of this material. By the terms of Fair Use, this material is provided for Academic and Research use only and can not be used for any commercial gain without first explicitly negotiating commercial Use Rights with the current holder of the copyright on said material.

 

*tired typist with RSI nurses sore hands*

Likely, usually, as a general rule, rule of thumb... This is not a strongly worded, ironclad argument for... anything really. I get the sense that it is advice for newbies to keep their game balanced in the easiest way possible until they understand the nuances of the game well enough to "eyeball" characters and consider how effective they really will be. I don't think it's intended for experienced players to follow this like it's the Word from On High once they've grown enough in the rules to take the bull by the horns.

 

Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with Zl'f. In Treb's campaign they have a rule limiting speed and damage classes. They simply limit the total of the two combined and then the GM stares at the sheet hard. From what I've read about their campaign it works just fine AND they get to be a lot more creative with their characters.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Can't find it in 5thER' date=' either in the HA description or the Adding Damage section. It may take a FAQ search.[/quote']I know it's a rule, because the HA Power was originally purchased with that exact Limitation. I changed it when I saw a rule that stated the two weren't allowed to add anyway and thus it was redundant. It may have been in the Hero System Questions forum.

[Gary]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Exactly why I posted Black Lotus. Very few powers taken with limitations (basically the costume) and built using 'efficient' numbers. Black Lotus's xp has been spent on the +4 hth and +2 overall skill levels.

 

My character has taken some skills to show the characters background. Basically a vigilante type.

 

A discussion involving those character builds should prove to be interesting as I think they (hopefully) goto the topic of this thread.

 

So how many folks would have a problem allowing this character in their campaign?

 

 

Quite honestly it depends on the other characters in the campaign. If I have a player running a Lariat type, another running a Powered Armored type, and another with an optimized OIHID type, then Black Lotus wouldn't pose any sort of problems although I might ask for you to remove a few levels. OTOH, if the characters were 'typical' Champions builds, then Lariat or Black Lotus would be far too powerful and must be scaled down.

[Gary]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

A question for both force and gary, re their lotus and lariat character designs..

 

your campaign doesn't use the usual focus breakage rules, right?

 

Both of you have 8-9 pt focus armor and under book rules that would be automatically hit by any attack that hit you and would be "outside" of other defenses and so would break for instance if a 10d6 Eb hit you and did 10 body, vanishing in a puff of disbelief.

 

or are they just used for "first hit padding"?

 

 

Generally, I play that foci must be specifically targetted to be destroyed. I highly dislike the 1 pip Penetrating RKA Area Effect focus buster. However, if a player takes the focus limitation, then it does give the GM free license to remove it whenever it suits his plot.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

They simply limit the total of the two combined and then the GM stares at the sheet hard. From what I've read about their campaign it works just fine AND they get to be a lot more creative with their characters.

Yeah, except for the character sheets which burst into flame from all that high-powered staring...

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Average Champions campaign

According to survey data, the average Champions character has the following stats:

Average Main Attack: 11d6

Average total PD or ED: 25

Average DEX 23

Average SPD 5.5

 

-----End of pS22, _Champions_ 4ed-----

It's important to note that this "average" was from a Champions edition with 100 fewer CP (only 72% of 5th Edition points), and thus I find it highly likely most 5e games have higher average numbers. And of course, those are averages; not caps. That's averaging the PD, DC, DEX and SPD of bricks and martial artists.

[Starlord]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

- Caps work well for the inexperienced, but are definitely quite stifling for the experienced.

 

- Don't really understand much of this 'typical character' discussion. I don't see how any character would be considered one. Maybe NPC normals and supers, yes. Every campaign differs to some degree or another, even ones based on similar point levels and caps. However, what is typical for one campaign certainly isn't typical for another. There's just no realistic and fair (and apparently for some, nonjudgemental) baseline IMO.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*reads second post by AgentX that tells me to FOAD with consternation*

 

OK, enough is enough.

 

Utter Bull Sh*t. You evidently like instigating flame wars.

No, not really, but I'm not afraid of confronting someone when I think they are abusing someone I like, especially when they use absolutely NO rationale that stands up to any test.

 

If you notice where I've been spending my time' date=' you'll see I haven't >gotten< to making any further responses to Mike or Trebuchet. I've been kind of busy trying to add real value to the main topic of this thread, and I do have a real life that I'm juggling while participating around here. [/quote'] Non sequitur

 

I had already apologized to Trebuchet for the mistakes I had made in analyzing Zl'f (I also apologize for the persistent miss-spelling on my part of "Zl'f" Treb. Thanks Sean.)

Yeah, but you didn't retract any of your conclusions from your misread so I brought it up again. It's also part of a pattern of behavior.

 

and had made it quite clear that Lariat was considerably worse.

Oh, okay. No, not really okay. You're criticism of Zl'f isn't made polite by pointing out that there are worse characters out there. Most people generally regard that as a back-handed insult.

 

I have not analyzed Black Lotus' date=' so I have made no comments as to that character.[/quote'] So?

 

If I could have' date=' I would have responded as reasonably as possible to their posts that I had not yet. You've pretty much made that impossible. [/quote'] How?

 

You've also removed any incentive I may have had to go back and politely respond to your points or examples in detail.

I don't, for one minute, think you had any interest in responding to my points or examples in detail based on how I've seen you respond to others on this thread.

 

As to the worth or not of my experience:

Like some others around here, I've been gaming for ~3 decades and have done so across almost every RP system or group of gamers with any unique idea or two that I could find. I've been fortunate enough to know >some< of the very talented folks that have created this hobby for the rest of us to pursue well enough to seriously pick their brains on game design and related topics. ...I'm also HEAVY duty comics, fantasy, and sci fi weenie. My library literally fills my basement and a serious chunk of my house with auxiliary off-site storage. My references to the scope of my experience are no less important or more trivial than anyone else around here who has such credentials.

So? You don't get it. You haven't used reason to make your point. You've appealed to your own authority through your experience and now with your RPGeek-Fu. The problem is, nobody here sees you as an authority because you don't back it up with thorough tested explanations and arguments.

 

Until you started posting here we were all trying to be reasonably civilized and logical about whatever disagreements existed between us.

No, THEY were reasonably civilized and logical about disagreements. You tossed rude comments around liberally. It may take two to FLAME ON but you were plenty hot without my help.

 

Both Treb and I had done our parts to nip the (+considerably+ more subtle and sophisticated) only other attempt at causing trouble than yours in the bud.

Subtle and Sophisticated doesn't work with some people. And heck, I'm wondering why Treb put up with this. You must have caught him on an off week. Normally, he would have ripped right through you in a civilized and confrontational manner.

 

EDIT: oh' date=' and Treb and I are both Grown Ups. We were dealing with our disagreements reasonably well without your "help". Given the change in the tone of his posts since your first salvo, that may be all over, and that's truely unfortunate.[/quote'] Yep, I'm to blame for your appeals to authority and insults to Treb and his Group.

 

IME' date='[/quote'] Appealing to your experience again.

 

Treb' date=' Fox1, Oddhat and many others around here with strong opinions are worth any discussion and know how to defend their POV without indulging in bear-baiting or flame wars even when they are involved in a disagreement. That's a valuable skill you have not shown in this thread thus far.[/quote'] Look, I'm disagreeing with you. I'm disagreeing with your conclusions, your rationale, and your flip condescension and ad hominem attacks.

 

The flames had cooled and died down around here until you decided to add petrol and vitrol to them. That's what "the rest of us have moved on" meant.

The flames hadn't died down. You were still calling Treb's character a hyperwhatever combat monster without any support for the statement.

 

I was being polite in responding to a post that was ENTIRELY an Ad Hominem attack

Huh? Which post? Mine? Treb's? Yours?

 

(gee some of the rest of us recognize both Latin and violations of the rules of formal debate... ...BTW this isn't a formal debate.

1. I'm not trying to impress anyone. Ad Hominem as a descriptor is used on these boards all the time by a whole lot of people. 2. If this was a formal debate, you would have lost many times over now by dropping so many contentions made by others that actually provided reason and evidence instead of conjecture.

 

It's supposedly a friendly discussion.)' date='[/quote'] Then why weren't you being friendly? Remember these words? Combat Monster, Not Balanced, Treb's Backup Band, Too Nasty, "I'd love to play her in a game where I didn't care about game balance", "the apparently outrageous combat level of MidGuard", "hyper-focused combat monsters", "campaign breakers", "not viable for the vast majority of 350-400 CP Champions games - These are all things you've said to Treb and friends. Nothing friendly about that. You could have discussed your "balance" concerns without EVER using the term "combat monster" or "outrageous" or "backup band" but you didn't. You chose to be unfriendly. I pointed that out so of course I'm to blame for any unpleasantness. How convenient.

 

so don't even pretend you have some sort of moral high ground to stand on. Any sh*t storm that results should be accepted by you as justly being at least 50% your responsibility.

1. I haven't used foul language. You just did. 2. I don't bear 50% of the responsibility. The ball is in your court. You can apologize for your behavior toward Treb and friends AND you can stop the rude behavior.

 

Contrary to your misuse of the term' date=' I have not yet made any Ad Hominem attacks in this thread.[/quote'] Combat Monster, Not Balanced, Treb's Backup Band, Too Nasty, "I'd love to play her in a game where I didn't care about game balance", "the apparently outrageous combat level of MidGuard", "hyper-focused combat monsters", "campaign breakers", "not viable for the vast majority of 350-400 CP Champions games

 

Dude, terms like combat monster appeal to emotions rather than reason at least amongst gamers. It's a slur. Slurs are often Ad Hominem attacks as in this case.

 

(*anger indulged*)

So here's my first Ad Hominem attack of this thread:

You clearly are so intellectually or psychologically Broken that you get your jollys by tossing gasoline and dynamite around.

What did this prove? I've criticized you but I haven't gone "off" on you and I won't.

 

Go find some vasoline + some sand + a pointy stick for your nether regions.

(*end anger indulged*)

Again, what did this prove?

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Now for some practical advice on _using_ this stuff.

 

Treb has said that Zl'f could not have been built under the sort of restrictions that the original "Playing The Numbers" 4ed blurb gave. That's sort of true and sort of not.

Does Trebuchet ever get to be right in your book?

 

My POV is that given enough CP and using an INTELLIGENT version of guidelines like those in "Playing The Numbers"' date=' a campaign balanced version of any of the "combat monsters" posted in this thread could be made.[/quote'] Intelligent version of guidelines? So Treb and Mentor's guidelines aren't intelligent? "combat monsters"? More ad hominem?

 

We're going to define a design space and then explore guidelines for 3 characters:

A= Average Hero- who lies as close to the exact center of the design space as possible.

B= BBrick- guess

C= Ao'u, Zl'f's son and an even more extreme version of the same idea she is.

C: Why are you setting up a strawman?

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Since I don't have the book where the sample is taken from, I can't really agrue to much about specifics involved in the case, so I'll go along with you on that one.

 

However, I guess that all this amounts to is my general reaction to the situation as a whole. I feel that trying to take control over DCs and active points is not necessary (at least for some of us). And I'm concerned that the practice can lead to "vanilla style" characters.

It's amazing how quickly characters get CLASS-IFIED as bricks, blasters, and so on when folks have umpteen hard and fast rules and limits on builds.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

And heck' date=' I'm wondering why Treb put up with this. You must have caught him on an off week. Normally, he would have ripped right through you in a civilized and confrontational manner.[/quote']I thought the general discussion had merit even if I felt Ki-rin's criticisms were invalid.

 

Then why weren't you being friendly? Remember these words? Combat Monster, Not Balanced, Treb's Backup Band, Too Nasty, "I'd love to play her in a game where I didn't care about game balance", "the apparently outrageous combat level of MidGuard", "hyper-focused combat monsters", "campaign breakers", "not viable for the vast majority of 350-400 CP Champions games - These are all things you've said to Treb and friends. Nothing friendly about that. You could have discussed your "balance" concerns without EVER using the term "combat monster" or "outrageous" or "backup band" but you didn't.

Ki-rin may not have meant them as deliberate insults, but I certainly took them that way and so did my fellow campaign members. I can and generally will tolerate a lot of vitriol directed my way, but I tend to lose my cool when my friends or family are attacked.

 

I don't expect Ki-rin to actually apologize for his harsh words, though. Not to you or to me and my group.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Yeah' date=' except for the character sheets which burst into flame from all that high-powered staring... [/quote'] Probably shouldn't be using a magnifying lense outdoors on a sunny day...

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I thought the general discussion had merit even if I felt Ki-rin's criticisms were invalid.

 

Ki-rin may not have meant them as deliberate insults, but I certainly took them that way and so did my fellow campaign members. I can and generally will tolerate a lot of vitriol directed my way, but I tend to lose my cool when my friends or family are attacked.

 

I don't expect Ki-rin to actually apologize for his harsh words, though. Not to you or to me and my group.

I don't expect him to but he ought to and anybody who doesn't think they are being insulting when they degrade someone else's pride and joy out of hand needs to re-examine their social skills.

 

The general discussion can have merit. I think you've done a fine job of showing an original character design that can easily be balanced in a 400 point game using published villains. That gives it merit.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

My POV is that given enough CP and using an INTELLIGENT version of guidelines like those in "Playing The Numbers"' date=' a campaign balanced version of any of the "combat monsters" posted in this thread could be made.[/quote']I really appreciate the effort, but I already have a campaign balanced character I've been playing for 12 years. Her name is Zl'f. And, amazingly, I even did without any "INTELLIGENT" guidelines to prevent me from falling into apostacy.

 

I can post her character sheet if you like?

[Starlord]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I don't expect him to but he ought to and anybody who doesn't think they are being insulting when they degrade someone else's pride and joy out of hand needs to re-examine their social skills.

 

I think some people don't realize how condescending and rude they come off when the discussion is taking place in print instead of face-to-face. This probably happens all of us at some point. I suppose the real crime is when the behavior is brought to your attention and you don't own up to it.

[Blackjack]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

To an extent my point is also that we have become to efficient in our character design: we are moving away from the straightforward to the far more esoteric. Using the characters in teh book I could build a Z'lf-like character that could compete (well, higher speed, lower defences and attacks, considerably higher CV....

 

An excellent point, Sean, though YMMV. I have often seen characters built more "efficiently" (and thus more "esoterically") purely for the sake of efficiency (ie: saving points, proving a point, etc...)

 

You are also correct in saying that a "straightforward" character (one built on few to no Power Limitations or Frameworkls) can be equally effective. Using the general game parameters of the Midguard campaign (Zl'f's game), I have built two characters that could be members of Midguard (power-wise), neither of whom have a Power Framework and both of whom have 77 Real points or less in Powers with VERY limited Limitations...

 

Nightwolf: a 350-pt demi-brick Martial Artist (wrestler). 50 STR, 29 CON, no characteristics built with any Limitations at all, no Framework. 53 Points in Native American warrior avatar Powers... Oh, and he has 106 points in Skills - TWICE as many as in Powers...

 

Peregrine: a 350-pt winged speedster. 33 DEX, 9 SPD, no characteristics built with any Limitations, no Framework. 46 out of 77 points of Powers in Flight (w/ Usuable as Gliding). She also has more points in Skills than in Powers (103 - 77).

 

Both of these characters are battle-tested against Midguard and fared pretty well

 

I've noticed (in myself) a quite different design philosophy with 350 pointers than 250 pointers: in a nutshell it is this: I can build a pretty useful brick for 250 points, on 350 points I always end up with extra I need to slot in somewhere (he'll wind up with teleport or desolid or scads of life support or up speed and DEX considerably...). You could just make a 350 point brick more 'bricky', but you quickly run into campaign limits if you're not careful and wind up having to expand sideways... On 250 points, energy blasters are (relatively) difficult to build, on 350 points they come into their own...

 

Maybe it's just me, but the points do seem to have made a difference not just in power levels (my 350 point bricks aren't that much more powerful than my 250 point ones) but in the character concepts that can be made to work.

 

It's not just you, Sean. I've found the same thing. I can build characters that are much more rich, balanced, and well-rounded with the extra 100 points, rather than just making them 100 points tougher...

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Tangential Challenge: Is there anyone still reading this that is clinging to the notion that stats above Normal Characteristic Maxima are superhuman? It's one thing to define YOUR campaign that way but it's another to CLAIM or IMPLY that it is the published rule when it isn't. I really bring this up because it seems like every time the REAL rule is pointed out to someone who claims the NCM equals Superhuman Threshold, they fade away only to return later claiming the same thing even though they can't be ignorant of the REAL rule anymore. It's flabbergasting. You don't get to claim your House Rule is a Real rule just because you want to.

 

Now see, this goes to Creation Philosophy. One of the things that matters in creating characters are the benchmarks that separate human from superhuman. It's vitally important in the translation of published characters. Me, I try to convert characters based on what they usually do in the comics circa 'the one's I've read and like' - say 1960s to mid 1980s.

 

Can Hulk, at base strength, lift a triceratops? a space shuttle? a loaded freighter? I think from what I've seen in the comics the answer is yes. That means he's got to have at least a 90 strength.

 

Can Hulk lift the Eiffel Tower at base strength? I think, for the story, he probably has to push or be enraged. That means I don't want him to have a 91 strength.

 

Then there is the door smashing test. Can Hulk bash through a Bank Vault door? How many punches does it take? A bank vault door has a 16 bod, 16 def so this is measurable and helps me understand how I need to build the character. I'm thinking when Hulk is fully enraged AND he's haymakering he can knock a bank vault door right off it's hinges. That's got to be an attack that ought to average a safe range over 32 dice to make it a rare event that he fails.

 

See, when I look at the stats for the Environment Supers live in it suggests that Ogre is, well, a sad excuse for a brick. He's just not going to conjure up the images of a comic-book style brick pounding his way through stuff.

 

So, I think Environment is more important than a lot of posters seem to indicate. Many people focus only on the interaction of characters with one another and want close math ranges to make the game easier for them to "control". I want my Hulk to do what Hulk can do.

 

This applies to my original characters just as much. If I'm envisioning a guy who can lift a massive tank, I want the strength to be able to do that. If my blaster can vaporize most steel, reinforced walls, I need to reflect that in his build.

[Agent X]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

I think some people don't realize how condescending and rude they come off when the discussion is taking place in print instead of face-to-face. This probably happens all of us at some point. I suppose the real crime is when the behavior is brought to your attention and you don't own up to it.

Yeah, the sad thing is a lot of gamers are this rude face to face... until someone stands up to them. Then they get an embarrassed scowl and find a reason to move away.

 

No apology though.

 

You are Starlord right?

[Trebuchet]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Both of these characters are battle-tested against Midguard and fared pretty well...

Ah, we kicked their bute-ox! Of course, MidGuard's characters being 50 more points that pretty much was the expected result.

 

But, yes, they both did well and would fit into MidGuard just fine.

[Force]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

Quite honestly it depends on the other characters in the campaign. If I have a player running a Lariat type' date=' another running a Powered Armored type, and another with an optimized OIHID type, then Black Lotus wouldn't pose any sort of problems although I might ask for you to remove a few levels. OTOH, if the characters were 'typical' Champions builds, then Lariat or Black Lotus would be far too powerful and must be scaled down.[/quote']

 

All the levels would come off. They were bought with xp.

 

I am curious on whether you would allow a character like Z'lf start in a 'typical' campaign or not as well.

[OddHat]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

All the levels would come off. They were bought with xp.

 

I am curious on whether you would allow a character like Z'lf start in a 'typical' campaign or not as well.

 

I would, in my 450 point PBEM game. She might need to be beefed up a bit, but no problem. I'd also allow her in my 400 point PBEM, but she'd need to give up a bit. I'd be happy enough with her in my face-to-face game. I don't consider her overpowered (from a mechanics point of view) for my higher point games, but mainly I'd allow her to be played because I trust the player. Personalities and play styles trump mechanics most of the time when it comes to how well a character works in a group.

[Ki-rin]

Re: Creation philosophy

 

*gets back from work and sees AgentX Troll has been busy trying to be as destructive as possible again*

 

I'll respond only to the "high" points. Then I'm going to get back to trying to make useful posts. *might as well have fun doing it*

Does Trebuchet ever get to be right in your book?

 

Intelligent version of guidelines? So Treb and Mentor's guidelines aren't intelligent? "combat monsters"? More ad hominem?

 

C: Why are you setting up a strawman?

You persist in these attempts to twist my words and actions into a hatefully distorted parody of their intent and meaning. Regain your maturity.

 

If you have anything other than treacherous social manipulation and craven innuendo to contribute, please speak these and all will attend. Otherwise, please be silent. You are not nearly as cunning as you appear to think yourself, and these infantile tactics should be transparent to any who even casually examine and reflect on them.

 

This Discourse was evolving peacefully and satifactorily before your first uninvited disruption and again after it recovered from it. Yet you return to tedious attempts to throw all into turmoil and chaos once again.

 

My research (yes, the Careful Man does research both potential foes and potential vermin) shows that this behavior is unworthy of you, but then it would be unworthy of any adult of good breeding. I pray you reconsider this present course and correct your path, for no good can come of this one for you.

 

Nonetheless, "actions make the man" and if for some reason you can not climb back from your Fall from the ranks of Gentlefolk and rejoin our Good Company, then you will be treated as your words and deeds warrant and demand.

 

 

Yeah, the sad thing is a lot of gamers are this rude face to face... until someone stands up to them. Then they get an embarrassed scowl and find a reason to move away.

 

No apology though.

You insinuate that I am Craven...

 

While trying to instigate a conflict you know can not have real consequences to your person as you are "safe" and not F2F...

 

While disrupting a conversation that was doing just fine without you (perhaps that's why you decided you needed to try and inflame things? WTF did I do to you?)...

 

In the process of a being a firestarter who has added NOTHING substantive to the discussion except to destabilize it every time you post...

 

While deporting yourself as if you are The Ultimate Authority on these matters. (The rest of us have engaged in give and take, but not you... No, your Word is God's. Sorry, not buying.)

 

And you have the EFFRONTARY to call ?ME? arrogant and condescending??

 

...AND I OWE ?YOU? AN APOLOGY??

 

That will happen about the time Lucifer rules on both Earth and Heaven and not a moment before.

 

You sir, are an unmannerly churl, and your behavior is that of the Craven Instigator and Coward as well as that of the Bully.

 

Were this another time and place I would challenge you to face me Man to Man with pistols or fisticuffs, your choice, until one of us asks pardon or unconsciousness or death.

 

Don't get confused about the neo-Victorian prose, I'm dead serious.

 

I strongly suggest we just add each other to our respective Ignore lists and move on.

 

You want more than that then I want an address for a f2f meet and we'll settle this like Men. Regardless of how much younger than I you are.

 

*...and to think I usually +respect+ Teachers. I feel sorry for this jack@ss's students*