dugfromthearth Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 not sure if this has been brought up before, it isn't so much a rule thing as a problem with the example. I think it is curare. The poison is bought with the +2 advantage NND does Body. Which is the advantage of doing body without having to get through the enemy's defenses. But then it has the -1/4 limitation - attack must have done body already. So the power has a +2 advantage to ignore defenses and a -1/4 limitation that the character must already have penetrated the defenses - rendering the entire +2 advantage pointless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Long Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 This isn't appropriate for the "Questions" board, so I've moved it. Since it's not a question I'm not going to reply, but others who wish to discuss the subject are welcome to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Steve's answer surprises me a bit, since I thought the answer pretty straightforward. As I read it, the attack which DELIVERS the curare must do BOD damage, or else the curare lacks any opportunity to enter the bloodstream and act on its target. I'm not sure I agree BOD is the appropriate measure, or 10 pinpricks or injections (lacking the curare) would reduce most people to near-death. But that's how I perceive the limitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rene Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Re: the poison example in Fred Originally posted by dugfromthearth So the power has a +2 advantage to ignore defenses and a -1/4 limitation that the character must already have penetrated the defenses - rendering the entire +2 advantage pointless. The -1/4 Limitation refers to the "carrier" attack, not to the poison itself. I. e. if you're using a knife to deliver the poison, the poison only damages the target if the KNIFE penetrates the skin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Long Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Steve's answer surprises me a bit, since I thought the answer pretty straightforward. Whether the answer is straightforward is irrelevant. I generally don't respond to statements other people make about the rules, particularly not when the tone of the statement makes the poster's intent questionable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Originally posted by Steve Long Whether the answer is straightforward is irrelevant. I generally don't respond to statements other people make about the rules, particularly not when the tone of the statement makes the poster's intent questionable. Huh? You don't want to make straightforward answers to your customers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjcurrie Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Read the original post again. It is not asking a question. It is making a statement that the design of the example is wrong. If the person had asked what the -1/4 Limitation was referring to, I suspect Steve might have answered the question. Rod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 24, 2003 Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 Originally posted by rjcurrie Read the original post again. It is not asking a question. It is making a statement that the design of the example is wrong. If the person had asked what the -1/4 Limitation was referring to, I suspect Steve might have answered the question. Rod I chalked it up to confusion on the part of the poster that could have been easily dispelled. Sometimes, DOJ seems a little paranoid to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted September 24, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2003 it really isn't a question as such It seems to me that the poison is poorly designed. Having a poorly designed example seems to me to be bad. I don't know of any other feedback for Fred so it seemed to me to be the place to post it. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place. It is essentially feedback on the actual book Fred, not the rules themselves, although it is partly about the rules and how to use them. I do understand that the -1/4 limitation applies to the dagger or other weapon that delivers the poison. My point is that you could buy the poison as +4d6 killing with extra time and other limitations that added to the damage done by the dagger. Since the dagger has to already have done body for the poison to take effect, there is no need for the poison to be an NND. The poison ignores defenses because the damage done has already exceeded the defenses. This would be vastly cheaper. I have seen poison darts done before as an NND where the defense against it is having resistant defense - making it a +1/2 NND. To me it makes more sense for the curare to be a +1/2 NND, not a +1 NND with a -1/4 limitation. As an added note, should "does body" be a +1 advantage even if the NND is only a +1/2 advantage? Or should it double the value of the NND? So in conclusion I would do poison one of two ways: +1/2 NND defense is having resistant PD with the does body added, or as HKA which adds to the damage done by the weapon with the limitations of delayed onset, and maybe then a -1/4 limitation that it only takes effect if the dagger did damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JmOz Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 The issue however is there are ways arround it, for instance a dagger with penetrating is going to do body alot of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted September 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 ah true true. That is something I had not considered. I can't actually think of many ways around it, but armor piercing, penetrating or the knife itself having NND does body would do it. so as a truly generic "this works on any knife no matter how simple or fancy" it makes sense. I can accept that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Neilson Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Steve Long Whether the answer is straightforward is irrelevant. I generally don't respond to statements other people make about the rules, particularly not when the tone of the statement makes the poster's intent questionable. Re-reading the initial post, I see your point. It also opens with "this isn't a question", which kind of invites moving it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christougher Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Originally posted by Agent X I chalked it up to confusion on the part of the poster that could have been easily dispelled. Sometimes, DOJ seems a little paranoid to me. Remember, he *is* a lawyer. Anything he says can and will be used against him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted September 25, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 he was right He was right to move it. I didn't read. I just saw the board was about Fred and didn't read the line that it was for rules questions and that only Steve could answer them. That is a great idea for a board, especially since it looks like he actually answers the questions. My post was about Fred but wasn't a question for him to answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent X Posted September 25, 2003 Report Share Posted September 25, 2003 Cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zornwil Posted September 26, 2003 Report Share Posted September 26, 2003 Re: he was right Originally posted by dugfromthearth He was right to move it. I didn't read. I just saw the board was about Fred and didn't read the line that it was for rules questions and that only Steve could answer them. That is a great idea for a board, especially since it looks like he actually answers the questions. My post was about Fred but wasn't a question for him to answer. Awww, you just ruined a good argument in the making. Good call, Steve. AgentX, as I started reading this I took your view - that the poster was just confused and in need of simple guidance (no offense dugfromtheearth), so I was thinking the wrong thing as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted September 27, 2003 Author Report Share Posted September 27, 2003 well I was confused and in need of simple guidance just not the guidance you thought I knew the lim was based on the dagger doing damage, I just forgot how easy it was to make a dagger do body damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.