Daltwisney

Re: Assassin's Death Touch Well, since the Deadly Blow Talent itself is built as CSLs with Limitations, I'm not sure adding other restrictions should make a 'mechanical' difference. 'Dim Mak' is classically used to refer to Touch of Death/Touch of Weakness powers in MA lore. Since you specifically mentioned D&D, the 'Vibrating Palm' Monk power from AD&D would also qualify. (iow, he was making a joke)

Re: Assassin's Death Touch I'm not sure what books you are using... neither of your page references have anything to do with what you are asking. However, I would suggest you use the rules for the Talent: Deadly Blow, as presented on 6E1, p113. In fact, one of the listed examples is Assassin's Touch, which would be 16 pts (for EACH +1d6 of Killing Damage - unadvantaged), and affects only Humanoid Targets. If the GM is willing, you could certainly tie that down farther with Extra Time and the RSR lims.

Re: Anyone running any online games? Very nice background indeed. I'm working on mine, I have the character preliminarily built (sans some setting details), but the story hasn't finished coming to me yet. Suffice it to say, that where Cael seems to have bad luck following him, made his own bad luck (he's quite a swordsman, but he's a better thief). I noticed that a couple Weapon Proficiencies seem to be missing. Namely Staff and Club. Staff is probably less needed, but the belaying pin is a time-honored swashbuckling weapon of opportunity. Unless you just want to group them under Polearms and Axe/Mace/Hammer respectively.

Re: Why Watched? Basically anyone who has an interest in the (N)PCs activities, whether because they provide resources that the PC can access, or are a sanctioning body who monitor the PCs activities to make sure they fall within accepted guidelines. A 'simple' example of a Watched might be a Parole Officer for a PC that has a criminal past.

Re: Anyone running any online games? How has the presence of Magic affected technology typical to the 'historical' era? I suppose the question most directly involves the development and commonality of firearms. How would a typical Military man be armed? How about a Frontiersman/Explorer?

Re: Anyone running any online games? If you don't mind a fifth player, or have a spot open up, I would be interested as well.

Re: 6th edition damage adding Correct, because then the STR and HA are equally advantaged, so they can be combined to form the base attack. More accurately, it would be 4d6 + 1d6 per 5 STR used, plus 4 steps down the chart for the MA DCs. I think you've got the right idea now. And I agree, 1/2d6 (Normal Damage) are annoying.

Re: Help me write a spell... As Rapier said: or Something like that? (I used 2d6 Transform because it made the costs close, no other real reason) I imagine this would be a VERY unpopular spell with Jailers. Perhaps it requires a rare, expendable Focus so every mage in the world isn't constantly escaping from prison.

Re: Confused about Combined Attack Vewwwwwey Intewesting!

Re: Confused about Combined Attack (6E2, p 74) specifically excludes Combat and Martial Maneuvers from Combined Attacks. Using either will make it a Multiple Attack.

Re: damage negation v. damage reduction But can it butt heads with itself?

Re: Confused about Combined Attack Two different powers + one target = Combined Attack The same power multiple times + one target = Multiple Attack The same or multiple powers + multiple targets = Multiple Attack From the text of the example of Defender vs The Ultimates (6E2, p73), it appears that it is not possible to mix the two.

Re: 6th edition damage adding Actually, rereading it, I think we are both wrong, but you are closer to correct than I was. Each d6 of added damage costs 7.5 pts. (1.5 DC) But the base power (HA) has already paid for this. You are only adding 3 DCs (15 STR) and 4 MA DCs. Looking at the chart for + 1/2, 7 DCs adds 4 1/2 d6 damage, for a total of 8 1/2d6 AP. The other method of calculating this: a DC is still 5 pts. The HA is 30 Active with the 'damage-relative' Advantages, which is equivalent to 6 DCs. 6 DCs + 3 DCs (STR) + 4 DCs (MA) = 13 DCs, which under the +1/2 column = 8 1/2 d6. So, it actually lands right in the middle.

Re: First Wave of Superhumans: How Long?

Re: 6th edition damage adding If it's easier or makes more sense to you, you could certainly House-Rule it that way, I was just answering in regards to the published Adding Damage rules. I'd agree, but then you get into how you want to represent that - do you take the Requires a Roll on the entire HA power, or split the AP x 2 off into a Naked Advantage on the HA, with the RaR Lim? Wasn't part of the question, so I didn't directly answer it.

Re: 6th edition damage adding I think it's more an issue that the question (which makes sense to you) came out somewhat garbled. What I think you want: I have a 7d6 advantaged attack and 4 extra DCs, and am trying to calculate what the damage is, taking the advantages into account. If that is correct, then you start with 2 things: 7d6 damage, and +1/2 of 'damage-related' advantages. Look in the +1/2 column and go down until you find 7d6. Now move down 1 line for each extra DC (4 lines total), this gives you 10d6 (AP). If you apply this to the MA maneuvers, each one will do the same relative damage (start with base damage, drop down 4 lines) as long as the maneuvers do Normal Damage and you are using the HA. Defensive Strike does 10d6 AP Martial Throw does (10d6 + v/10) AP. Not sure if you would apply the extra d6s from velocity in the same way as DCs (I would probably rule yes) Martial Block, Martial Dodge, and Martial Escape do no damage, so they are unaffected by the HA.

Re: Absorption to Growth

Re: Absorption to Growth You are right, it will quickly become expensive, though there wouldn't be a requirement that it be Persistent or 0 END. As an Adjustment Power, Absorption simply requires you to have the Adjusted Power. There could be circumstances where it would be useful, I have never had any reason to consider it, so I can't say if I would use it or not. Since Growth is not by itself a 'Defense', I don't think it would be subject to the halving rule. The defense provided by Growth is sort of a 'side effect'. Besides, it is already going to be expensive, so applying the halving rule would make it ridiculously so.

Re: Firearms template Most traditional Firearms are modeled as RKAs, because their purpose is usually to kill, rather than disable or incapacitate. Blast can be used to simulate non-lethal ammunition, or weapons which are primarily intended to disable rather than kill.

Re: damage negation v. damage reduction A Kevlar vest is a form of Armor, and usually built as Resistant Protection, rather than Damage Reduction or Negation. Damage Reduction in its most basic form represents someone or something that 'feels less pain' than a person without it. They don't necessarily have defenses (such as PD or ED) that are more powerful than others, they simply suffer less effect from damage past those defenses, typically making them harder to Stun or Kill. Damage Negation represents the ability to completely ignore Damage up to a certain threshold. The benefit is most easily seen in regards to Killing Damage. A 2d6 Killing attack won't penetrate 12 resistant defense, but you'd need 36 Total Defense (PD or ED, depending on the attack), to completely avoid taking Stun. 6 DCs of Damage Negation means the Damage from the weapon is lowered by 6 DCs (usually equal to 2d6 Killing Damage), thus the damage is never rolled, and the character doesn't need that higher PD or ED to avoid potential Stun. Negation can be VERY powerful. Resistant Defense can be compared to Armor, Damage Reduction can be compared to Toughness, Damage negation can be compared to Invulnerability. These are rough parallels, and by no means the only interpretations.

Re: Rolemaster Magic Conversions? Wouldn't that make a 100 pt spell equivalent to a 20th level RM spell? With perhaps 'steps' above 20 (usually jumps of 5 or 10 in RM Spell lists) based on GM decision? Also, there are some spells in RM that deliberately avoid some Realm restriction (Instantaneous Spells, which suffer no penalties for non-preparation). Do you delve into those at all? Mentalism, particularly, has some spells that require no PP expenditure. They are not many (mostly Presence type spells). I'm mainly asking from a 'pure' conversion point of view. Not all spells are likely suitable for Hero campaigns, so many could be ignored with no real loss of flavor, but there are many 'combat - oriented' spells and spell lists that don't follow easy Realm restrictions.

Re: Exploring the usefulness of Block Essentially the answer boils down to GM decision. 1) The GM decides that you cannot Abort to a defensive action, such as Block or Dodge. The DCV penalty remains until your next phase. 2) The GM decides that you can Abort. If the action you abort to is one that would normally reset the DCV penalty (such as Block or Dodge), it is removed as soon as you abort. The converse would be that if you abort to an action that normally does not affect your DCV (such as activating a Defensive Power), then the DCV effect would remain until you can take action to remove it. Note that since you can take multiple non-conflicting defensive actions when you abort (turn on a FF and Dodge, for example), the only reason you likely would not would be if the GM disallows it. (You can abort and activate your FF, but cannot Dodge or Block). The games of my group usually fall into category #2. The only time a character cannot Abort (assuming they have an available Phase) is when they are surprised. Note that we still would not allow the example listed in the book, aborting a Held 1/2 phase to negate a penalty willfully gained in the 'used' 1/2 phase.

This came up in a discussion thread, and seems like a good candidate for clarification, since I cannot find it explicitly stated in the rulebook. Example: I have an action on Phase 5, which I use to make a Multiple Attack. This puts me at 1/2 DCV. On Segment 6, I spot an incoming attack, and decide to abort my next Phase to Block or Dodge. Does this remove the 1/2 DCV penalty from the previous action? If not, when does the penalty get removed?

Re: Exploring the usefulness of Block It isn't explicitly stated. The only thing close is an example of a character using a 1/2 phase of non-com movement, holding his other 1/2 phase and then trying to abort that 1/2 phase to dodge and eliminate the DCV penalty from Non-Com. But this is aborting a held phase, as opposed to a new phase. Since most maneuver bonuses and penalties apply until the character takes another action, and aborting means a character takes his action out of sequence, it has always made sense to our group that the action (defensive only, due to the abort) resets all the modifiers due solely to maneuver or action. It wouldn't be a bad idea to get a specific, clear answer from Steve regarding this, but after 25+ years, I doubt we'd change it for our group in any case. EDIT: Posted as a question in the Rules Forum.

Re: Exploring the usefulness of Block The penalties from multiple attack last until your next phase. If you abort a phase to Block or Dodge, you've move on to your next phase, so the 1/2 DCV would no longer apply, as you have taken another action. Now if you replace the "Multiple Attack" with "Prone", Blocking is superior, since the 1/2 DCV remains (you cannot 'Abort' and stand up) but your OCV is unaffected by the prone position.