Demonsong

Silly question: Why don’t any of the bows have the -1/2 Requires 2 hand limitation? It would seem to me that it would be almost mandatory. I have not seen too many one armed archers.

I am putting together a being/creature/thing for my campaign that’s only major ability is to dispel magic. But I want to add some flavor to it. Any time said creature uses said power I want it to radiate a sort of super natural field of hostility toward all spell casters. That it to say all spell casters that see this creature use this power (for any reason or on any thing) they will hate and loath said creature.

Now should I describe that as a character disadvantage or as a limitation?

If it is a limitation I am not sure that it would be worth much because of its limited effect, so I assume it should be a -0 Limitation if that is the route I go.

Input?

Thanks

Demonsong

Do you need to roll to-hit to dispel on incoming attack/effect?

In my fantasy campaign I allow mages to abort to dispel, just like a dodge or dive for cover. This encourages really interesting mage battles. Any way I have always required a to-hit roll to target the mage or the hex of the spell effect in case of persistent powers. Is this the correct way to do this? Would you or do you do something else in your game?

As a side not for propose of figuring DCV for a dispel attacks I do not count normal shields.

That do you think?

You implied you wanted the power/spell because by the way you look at things you were getting some thing for free. Exploiting the rules. You wanted it because it was a loop hole. That is totally different from just wanting an effective power with a cool special effect. Try not to confuse the too. If you want I can explain it again in smaller words.

Thats true, but its not what we are talking about here. What we are talking about is a Sword SPELL with activation requirements.

 

As a side note, the version I posted was a 2d6 that lasted all day and cost 33 points vice your 30 points....so which one is cheaper by DC?

Cost is not the point here KS. The point is over-complicating a power. This is the 1st time that I have come a crossed a power build (specifically the power advantage Lingering) that I just dislike. I completely agree with you that this is the correct method to do it by the rules. However the power advantage lingering is just too expensive for what it does. Further more I think it is clunky. Unlike many others, I freely admit that I am not an expert on the hero system. And I do not have a better solution. But that does not change the fact that I think it is just an ugly power construct that I am not going to use in my game. I would hope that you can respect that.

Disclaimer:

Over all I think that the Hero System is by far the best gaming system on the market. And that I mean no disrespect to Steve or any one else at Hero. I just think Lingering need to be re-thought out.

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Demonsong

Of course the party Warlock went out of his way to learn Burning Vapors and now it is a stable and often use spell of his. In the fantasy environment it is very effective for such a low powered spell (only 30pts).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

and later...

 

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Demonsong

And to your last statement, about being in my campaign. Well luckily my players are more worried about the story line and having fun than worried about one particular version of a spell and its possible abuse. And they certainly don’t go around trying to exploit a spell because they think it a rule loop hole. But you’re welcome to play how ever you like.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

One of these is not like the other...

He went out of his way to get the spell because of its cool special effect and the fact that it was effective. That was the point I was making. All the major spell casters are on multi-powers any way so we are only talking about a 1 point difference, if any. Now you’re just trying to belligerent and not trying to have a conversation and discuses things and make a point. Do you go out of your way act this way or is acting like an jerk come naturally to you?

Demonsong, I know its a fantsy campaign, but if I were a player and wanted a pair of sunglasses (or mystic smoked lenses that let you see in the dark, and also have Flash Defense) that were bought as Flash Defense, would that protect my character from the Burning Vapors spell?

As I have said before, in my humble opinion, you’re reading way too much in to it. The villain that spits acid (or what ever in your face) is not an NND. And you could argue that that is a NND, because it could say that maybe it could bypass normal defensives because it blocks sight instead of blinding some one. In the end we look at it differently. And to your last statement, about being in my campaign. Well luckily my players are more worried about the story line and having fun than worried about one particular version of a spell and its possible abuse. And they certainly don’t go around trying to exploit a spell because they think it a rule loop hole. But you’re welcome to play how ever you like.

I believe I am done with this conversation now.

The Flash you've built seems to have nothing to do with bright light

First off I challenge you to show me where in Fred in stats that all flash attacks vs. sight are based on light.

You’re reading way too much in to it. It’s a special effect.

It is nothing more than a flash attack, with a special effect that is different than what you think a “standard†flash attack should be.

In the rules it stats that at GM’s option a character can cover his eyes or ears (for hearing) blah, blah, blah……… I don’t have the book in front of me to quote. But the key here is at GM’s option. To be perfectly honest even if it was a flash attack the odds of a person getting there hands in front of there face before getting blinding are zero. Sorry human (even super human) reflexes are not faster than light.

I see where you are coming form but I don’t agree with your logic at all.

Don't the vapors get into the lizard peoples' eyes notwithstanding their nictating membrane?

Nictitating membranes are a protective (see through) eye lids, I would assume there air tight. It’s not a continuous power. Just a quick blast of vapors, if you will, that is deflected off the membranes. Any way that’s how I figured it.

Similarly, wouldn't the vapors go around sunglasses rather than be dissipated by them?

If you reread my post you will see I said goggles not sunglasses. I was thinking any thing that has a positive seal. From a diving or gas mask or ski goggles. As long as it doesn’t have vents.

Yep 30 points. 4D6 Flash 20 points +1/2 Explosive = 30points (then spell like disadvantages)

By its own special effect it’s not NND. I am not even sure where you would come up with that. If you could explain you thinking I would appreciate it. As to what’s the defense against it?

1-Well first and foremost don’t get hit. People who have not encountered it before get a perception check (with a penalty) to notice that it is an area effect spell. If they make that perception check then they can attempt to dive for cover, if they choose to do so, just like any other area of effect.

2-Flash Defense Sight works well too. As matter of fact the lizard people in my campaign all have nictitating membranes that provide 5 points of flash defense vs. sight.

3-Arcane Defense is all so very effective against any type of magic attack.

4-Any Mana using spell caster can abort to attempted to dispel.

5-Finaly if that’s not enough the spell caster himself has to pass a magic skill roll just to cast the spell and then that to make a to hit roll to hit the desired target hex. Not really an defense in it self but still a chance that it’s not going to work.

In any kind of higher tech game any type of goggles would protect as well. But since it’s a fantasy campaign we will not count that one.

Hope that answers your questions.

I think it is entirely based on the special effect. In the Fantasy Hero campaign I am running an enemy Wizard cast a Blinding Vapors spell. Effectivaly a 4D6 Flash vs. Sight with the explosive advantage. Describes as a softball size sphere of goop that exposed in a cloud of Burning Vapors. Covering ones eyes is generally not going to stop the vapors. Anyone ever been gased while in the military? I have many times (they call it training). Any way the players were not expecting it and there is very little defense even if you are expecting it, so I had some fun that session. Of course the party Warlock went out of his way to learn Burning Vapors and now it is a stable and often use spell of his. In the fantasy environment it is very effective for such a low powered spell (only 30pts).

In a way I am incline to agree with Arthur. KS I have no rule to point to that says your wrong. Quite the contrary everything I read points to your approach as being the correct one. However it just doesn’t feel right. It seems like we are trying to over complicate the issue. There should be an easier way to work this out. This is something (that from my point of view) looks like it should be relatively to do.

1D6+1 HKA

+1/2 END =0

30 points

I can define this Special effect as my sword. I am done! I can never loose it, it cannot be taken away or be broken.

Now if I want a special effect that states I have to activate it and make a skill role to do so. It should be cheaper. Why would I want to pile on unneeded advantages so I can put on other disadvantages (like charges)?

I just want a magic sword spell I didn’t mean to start a fight

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Arthur

This strikes me as a good example of why it's so hard to attract new players.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Try not to veer into oblique personal attacks, please. You may have trouble attracting new players, but I seldom do. I maintain a full table of 4 to 6 players and occasionally even have people waiting for a slot to open up at the table.

I don’t think this was a personal attack. I think he was saying that The Hero System in general has a problem getting new players because it can be so over whelming. This is a commonly excepted fact.

If you put 1 charge on then you can only activate it once. What if the sword is destroyed. You can't use the power again untill you recover the charge. What Am I missing?

And isn't a bit pricey for what your getting?

Hello all,

I want to create a spell that creates a sword (HKA) out of thin air. Now it is a spell so to create the sword requires the a magic skill roll, and the expenditure of mana (END Reserve).

Now that the sword is made I want it to be there all day. At no cost in mana and I don’t want to have to make a magic skill roll every time I use the sword. But I want the sword to act like a normal sword (only for the creator), that means the only end it cost is for the STR that is used.

Do you see what I am getting at?

Maybe…..

1D6+1 HKA

+1/2 END = 0

-1/2 Requires Magic Skill Roll to Create Sword

-1/2 Side Effects on failed Magic Skill Roll

-1/4 Requires Mana (END) to Create Sword

-1/4 Acts like a regular sword (can be disarmed, trapped, broken ect)

What about the fact that it takes ½ a phase to activate the power (create the sword), is that implied in the fact that is requires end to activate (Create Sword)?

And the sword is non persistent. So if the wielder gets stunned, KOed or goes to sleep the sword goes away.

Well am I on target or am I FUBAR again?

Thanks

And as everyone knows, U.N. troops always leave as soon as the shooting starts.

Is it PC of me to think thats funny? Because thats funny!

I have a very simple rule in the games I GM.

*****I do not kill player characters. I do however let player characters kill themselves.

If I think a PC is doing something incredibly dumb I generally try to give them a hint or two that it might not be such a good idea. But there are times when PC's are going to do what they want. And I let them do what they want, they just have to live (or die) with the consequences of there actions.

Ok, so indirect attack, from the ground. Would DCV work normally? Would a person being attacked by such a power always know they where being attacked.

I assume the answer is yes. You, all ways get full DCV.

So if I wanted the special effect of not knowing where the power was coming from and to simulate a sudden flame burst from the ground that was not always easy to avoid I should by +1/2 Invisible to normal sight.

And to simulate the attack erupting from the ground is the +1/2 Indirect advantage.

So from my special effect is a +1 total advantage.

Right?

A Power defined as Eruption. Flames erupt from the ground and engulf the victim. +1/4 Indirect always from the ground. Now is it still obvious where the attack originates to all observers? Or is just the person getting attack known where the attack is coming from? Or does no one know where the attack is coming from?

And if every one always knows where that attack is coming from how to you create an attack that doesn’t show where the attack is coming from, erupting for the ground. The Invisibility advantage doesn’t make since because the attack is visible erupting form the ground.

A Confused Demonsong

I think that would be double dipping, getting the extra time twice.

That’s why I posted it in the 1st place. It kind of felt wrong

The way it’s worked out now what just an example. But let’s go with that. We will also say the we are talking about a character with a body of 20.

As written the power will do nothing for 20 minutes then it can max heal him all 20 body in 4 minutes.

Or just one -1 ¼ extra time 1 body per minute total healing in 20 minutes and have the possibility of it effecting any long combat. But it cost 4 points more.

Hummmmm…………

And what about an extreme example.

1 BODY per turn, Regrow limbs and organs, resurrection

+1/2 END = 0

+1/2 Persistent

-1/2 Self Only

-1 Extra Time 1 turn

-3 1/4 Extra Time to start 6 Hours

30 X 2 = 70 active points

70 / 5.75 = 12 real points

I think my head hurts…..

Regeneration that starts slowly?

Normal regeneration has an extra time limitation of -1 X BODY per turn. This can be mover down on the time chart at -1/4 per step. But what about Regeneration that just takes a while to get started. Say 20 minutes after the wound was received then normal regeneration starts. So you would you add another disadvantage of -1 ¼ Extra Time to start?

Slow Starting Regeneration

1 Body per turn, regrow limbs and organs

+1/2 END = 0

+1/2 Persistent

-1/2 Self only

-1 Extra Time 1 Body per turn

-1 ¼ Extra time to start 20 minutes after wound(damage) is received.

15 X 2 = 30 points active

30 / 3.75 = 8 points real cost

It looks right to me. But I just wanted to check. Thanks

Demonsong

I am not sure about the ammunition you list, but an UZI is 1d6+1 K AF5, which is to say less effective than 8d6 EB or a 7d6 AF5 when fighting UNTIL in their armor.

I was just messing around and picked the uzi out of a hat. I am talking mainly about assault rifes. Thanks

Power Scale of Viper vs. UNTIL a little off?

I understand that UNTIL is a legal organization that has slightly better technology. But I find it hard to believe that you’re every day Viper agent would go in to combat with that pop gun….er um I mean stander issue blaster rife. Why would viper spend all that time and money developing and producing blaster technology, when an AK 47 (or any other assault rife) is much more easily available and much more effective against most targets?

The UNTIL standard issue weapon is respectable (very respectable especially when compared to Vipers pop gun), and I can understand why the good guys would use blasters, not wanting to kill people. But Viper is a terrorist origination. Why would they ever use underpowered blasters instead of normal guns?This is only reinforced when you read about how the average Viper trooper is a killer mad dog type. I can jus see it now…

-Nest Leader “Agent Maddog what are you doing with that Uzi?â€

-Agent Maddog “Sir its just that my Uzi with APDS rounds is much more effective, easier to matinee, and costs less than my pop gun ….. er ummm …. I mean standard issue blaster rifeâ€

-Nest Leader “You are correct Agent Maddog. However this is Viper! The largest and most feared terrorist organization the world. We have a reputation to live up to! So you will use your pop gun and you will like it because you were told to do you understand me Agent!â€

-Agent Maddog “Yes SIR! I Understand you SIR! But if I may ask a question sir?â€

-Nest Leader “No you may not ask a question! Now pick up your pop gun and get ready to move outâ€

-Agent Maddog “Yes Sir!!â€

Finally it looks to me that the only thing Viper has going for them is the element of surprise. In any kind of stand up (all things being equal) fight UNTIL is going to kick the hell out of Viper.

For some reason I just felt that the scary Viper origination when compared to UNTIL is just underpowered.

What do you think?

IMPORTANT NOTE!!!!!

Both book are outstanding and I highly recommend them for any one even remotely interested in any kind of campaign that uses modern technology. Fun reads with lots cool information.

Later

Demonsong

So Cool!!!! It is now worth while to buy and use 2 weapon fighting!

However, I dimly recall a GMs option to reduce that to -2 DCV if the character also has some other ability, perhaps Rapid Attack.....anyone else recall anything of the sort?

WOW that would have a huge effect on my Fantasy world. It would be very cool. But I have never seen anything about it before. Any one else.

Why not make the penetrating effect of the daggers a separate power from the normal damage of the daggers and add a -1/2 limitation only vs. undead. Then the daggers would do normal damage to every thing except undead, who they will be penetrating against.