Flame Games

[eepjr24]

I am looking at creating some spells and wanted to get some ideas on how others would do it. These are flame based spells that are intended to do damage, but only in certain situations. Both would have the SFX of heating up metal.

 

The first spell would damage those who are wearing metal armor or have large amounts of metal on their person or in their clothes. So far, this seems to be an NND, except that NND cannot use lack of something as a defense.

 

Next would be a heat metal spell on metal handled weapons. The desire would be to either a) have the user of the weapon drop it or take damage for continuing to hold it. NND was again my idea adding the limitation "Extra Phase" to simulate the gradual heating and give the holder time to drop it, with the defense being to drop the weapon. This seems to be in the same spirit as above, not allowing the lack of something to be a defense.

 

I am not stuck on NND if a better (even if it is more expensive) way is found. I thought about transform, but defining the damage for not dropping the weapon or shedding the armor becomes problematic.

 

Any ideas?

 

- Ernie

[Hugh Neilson]

Technically, NND is not "can't be based on "lack of something", it says "generally lack of something would be inapprorpiate". For these specifics, I'd probably say you beat the generality.

 

But, if we want to push into the realm of "anything suggested as inappropriate is against the rules", how about the defense is Force Field or immunity to high heat LS (the field keeping the heat away from the weilder) and the power gets a limitation for "Only works if target wearing/holding metal"?

 

Yeah, a force field guy with armor or a sword will be unaffected, but you do save some points - invest them in someting to deal with these guys (maybe boost your Dispel Magic).

[AnotherSkip]

Well in a previous Star Hero edition there was a NND weapon that the defense was not wearing heavy armor. IIRC just sweep the crowd and only the bad guys fall.....

some kind of Microwave gun...

 

but another idea would be to build an EB Damage shield UAA(wait it gets worse) with side effects.

Veddy Ugly and probably Bass Ackwards

 

Another Way would be a Transform, probably Major, with Body Determining how much mass of metal effected and "Side Effects" being determined from there. this would also last a great deal longer since the transform would naturally fade or could be "easily" reversed by "common" means.

 

heck just buy a continuous ERKA with a series of limitations to tweak to desired ability.

[JakSpade]

You guys are working too hard...

 

Xd6 Energy Blast, Damage Field, Uncontrolled, Continuous, Only Works on Metal Targets, Reduced Penetration ... blah blah blah

 

Pump some endurance into it (heating the metal), and let the damage sheild work. It's not cheap, but effective.

 

Jak

[eepjr24]

Skip:

 

I know that previous editions had some wonky things in the rules, but I am trying to stick to 5th. And I completely understand the reason that Steve put in the "No lack of something" defense in NND, it was pretty open for munchkiny tricks before. The transform is still an open idea, but I am liking Hugh's forcefild/LS idea best so far.

 

- E

[eepjr24]

Originally posted by JakSpade

Xd6 Energy Blast, Damage Field, Uncontrolled, Continuous, Only Works on Metal Targets, Reduced Penetration ... blah blah blah

 

Not sure I understand what you mean here. I am not after having to grab them, so damage shield is not really needed. And the idea was also not really to do body, just make it hot and uncomfortable to be in armor or holding the weapon.

 

For clarification: This would be an instant effect, but slightly delayed. I realise that does not fit real world physics, but this is more of "An Imp of Fire has taken residence in your armor and/or weapon. You feel it heating up. What do you do?" This gives the weilder/wearer some warning and time to do something if they want and are smart enough.

 

- Ernie

[Hugh Neilson]

You could also consider Continuous to enable the armor to stay hot, maybe even Uncontrolled so you don't have to keep paying attention to it. That could get pretty costly - might be something best bought with xp after you see how the original power comes together.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: Flame Games

 

Originally posted by eepjr24

The first spell would damage those who are wearing metal armor or have large amounts of metal on their person or in their clothes. So far, this seems to be an NND, except that NND cannot use lack of something as a defense.

 

Next would be a heat metal spell on metal handled weapons. The desire would be to either a) have the user of the weapon drop it or take damage for continuing to hold it. NND was again my idea adding the limitation "Extra Phase" to simulate the gradual heating and give the holder time to drop it, with the defense being to drop the weapon. This seems to be in the same spirit as above, not allowing the lack of something to be a defense.

 

Any ideas?

 

- Ernie

 

For both, use Delayed Effect or Gradual Effect on a Killing Attack. This will allow the victim to remove, or try to remove their armor, or drop their weapons, if they so desire. The choice would depend on whether you envisioned this as a slow broiling, or a magical heating that began as mild heat, but rapidly escalated into burning.

 

On the "armor" spell, put a limitation like "DCs limited to the DEF of metal armor worn" and use Armor Piercing (only vs. metal armors) or the like if you really need to make sure the damage gets through the armor. I'd advise the first limitation because the person in chain or plate should probably be in more danger than the person with a helmet.

 

On the second, you could again limit the damage by the amount of metal within the targeted object (a greatsword would probably give off more heat than a broach).

 

By tying the damage to the metal on the victim, and making the damage delayed in some manner, you give a strong incentive for the victim to divest themselves of metal objects, which can be just as useful as the damage-dealing aspects of the spells themselves.

 

I wouldn't recommend NND in either case, as very few metal armors are worn without other, non-metal defenses as part of them, such as cloth padding, etc. Also, most metal weapons aren't held so that the metal is directly in contact with flesh, as many have wooden hafts, leather grips, etc. If you made the attack Armor Piercing, most FH defenses are low enough that damage will get through, but that's just my opinion.

 

Now, I don't know if you are planning on the weapons and armor staying hot to the touch (like real heated metal) or becoming cool instantly thereafter (which would be possible if a Fire Imp or the like was involved). If they retain heat, the attack would need to be Continuous.

 

Also, I don't know if the spell damages the weapon/armor, for which you would need either a linked attack power targeting the weapon/armor itself (the underlying spell actually attacks a character via their metal implements) or a Transform.

 

It's a fun spell. I'd like to see a similar one used which made your clothes painfully constrictive (a Delayed Effect Entangle, perhaps?) which would encourage PCs to rip off their clothes to avoid being immobilized (thinking of the scene in Mystery Men). This would be one of those spells that would be more humiliating than lethal, but still entertaining to see role-played.

[eepjr24]

Hot potatoes...

 

Okay, after further thought and reading all the posts again, I am thinking that I have another idea, and that the two spells are getting slightly different from each other. Will think more about the armor one, here is my currecnt thoughts on the weapon heating spell: (No book here so lims, etc are approximate)

 

4d6 EB vs ED (heat), One Hex Accurate (+1/2), Only versus targets holding metal handled weapons (-1), Delayed Effect: 1 Turn?, Not versus Magic Weapons with flame effects or other magical heat defenses (-0), Other lims as required by campaign.

 

Would it be fair to say that the spell always hits the hands? This seems to have advantages and disadvantages that are about equal. The Delayed Effect gives the weapon wielder a while to drop the weapon, even at a speed of 2 or 3. I would probably even allow an abort to drop it. SFX is a fire sprite entering the weapon handle, heating up the handle and then flitting off when they get bored. After one turn the weapon handle would be warm to the touch, but not enough to do damage to someone picking it up.

 

- Ernie

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Flame Games

 

Originally posted by Mr. Negative

On the "armor" spell, put a limitation like "DCs limited to the DEF of metal armor worn" and use Armor Piercing (only vs. metal armors) or the like if you really need to make sure the damage gets through the armor. I'd advise the first limitation because the person in chain or plate should probably be in more danger than the person with a helmet.

 

Perhaps Indirect rather than AP to simulate the fact the attack actually comes inside your armor?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Hot potatoes...

 

Originally posted by eepjr24

Would it be fair to say that the spell always hits the hands?

 

Seems to me this is one of those "hit location determined by SFX" situations. It would always hit the hands, with no OCV or damage modifiers. Alternatively, I'd let you trade off - it gets the hand's damage modifiers, but also disables the hands if damage is adequate.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: Re: Re: Flame Games

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Perhaps Indirect rather than AP to simulate the fact the attack actually comes inside your armor?

 

Indirect Allows you to ignore barriers but "...not personal defenses like Force Field or Armor" (p. 167). I had always assumed that the DEF of armor would be treated as Armor for those purposes. If that's not the case, then Indirect would work fine.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Flame Games

 

Originally posted by Mr. Negative

Indirect Allows you to ignore barriers but "...not personal defenses like Force Field or Armor" (p. 167). I had always assumed that the DEF of armor would be treated as Armor for those purposes. If that's not the case, then Indirect would work fine.

 

I'm not looking at the books, and it's an idea I wouldn't want to see as a common power. It just seemed a good take for this power. For the impact, however, maybe it should have to be an NND Does BOD - I don't believe you can get past a force field.

 

I suppose one could rule that this is part of the drawback of the "real armor" limitation, but it's still allowing a pretty major shift in the balance of power. If you wanted a fencing campaign without gunpowder, this could explain why heavy armor fell out of fashion.