Demonsong

New Limitation on DCV

To represent a Sword Master to counter act the DCV = 1/2 penalty for using the Sweep maneuver. Essentially I was thinking the character would buy enough 5 point levels of DVC to double his normal DCV them put on a Limitation on it (Only to counter penalties from Sweep maneuver). Any way how big of a limitation should it be? If it important this is for a Fantasy Hero Game.

Example: Sword Master with a DEX of 18, DVC of 6. He buys 6 level of DCV +1 for 30 points them puts a limitation on it.

-1/2 Only to counter act penalties for sweep. For a cost 20pts

or

-1 Only to counter act penalties for sweep. For a cost 15pts

or

-2 Only to counter act penalties for sweep. For a cost 10pts

I am thinking the -1 is about right.

Thanks for your input.

Your average swordsman, gets a -3 penalty for off hand and a – 2 shield penalty (with a med. shield) . So your average Joe Swordsman is a t a -5 to shield bash. Am I missing something here, or is that just a little harsh. I don’t know about any one else, but on two occasions I have padded up grabbed a wooden shield and a blunted sword and gotten beat to a pulp. But I am here to tell you that a shield bash is not that difficult to do. I know, I have done it several time, err, ummm, I got disarmed a lot. But that just goes to prove my point. If I can do easily, a trained fighter should be able to do it with out a -5 penalty.

OK, average Soldier, DEX10, OCV 3, with one level of Hand to Hand, that is a total OCV 4. This guy can only shield bash on a 10-, then opponents DVC 3 (5 with a shield) and he needs a 7- (5-with shield)! Wow that’s not going to happen very often.

Maybe I am not thinking it trough all the way. Thoughts?

Some good ideas, well thought out. The main problem I would have is the raising of EGO to 3 points per pip. I realize that you are getting more out of EGO now but.... Well it is some thing to think about.

Any way thanks for you input.

I was just reading the house rule thread and I want to ask about the following and didn’t want to just tack my question on to the tread 3 pages later.

TheEmerger wrote:

“After that, my biggest change would be to adjust the base value formulas for most of the Figured Attributes -- specifically to reduce the influence of STR and CON on them. Concurrent with this, I would make Mental Defense a figured attribute instead of a power.â€

This is a really intrusting statement, and I have thought about it before (the refiguring of the attribute part). Anyway what I would like to hear your reasoning on this and how you would change it.

The second part about Mental Defense becoming a figured characteristic is also of some interest to me because I find mental powers of any kind to be overly effective in fantasy campaigns. And assume that this would carry over in to any campaign with lower point’s values.

Any way I would just like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

I think it could possibly still be a Focus, though maybe worth less of a Limitation.

I see where you are coming form, but a focus implies that you have to have it to activate the power and I don’t think that is the approach I am looking for.

Is the sword completely usable by other characters?

Strictly speaking I would have to say no it is not usable by any one else. Mainly because I didn’t take usable by others. But also because that’s not the purpose behind the power.

Does it become a permenant item?

No, It stays until destroyed (has the normal Body and Def of a normal sword), until it is dispelled, until it is deactivated by its creator, or untill the creator is Stunned, KO’ed, or goes to sleep.

Hrm. One more thing, then. Since I just noticed the "takes feedback if destroyed" I would only allow them to turn it off or dispell it if they have it in their hands. This will prevent the "Oh, the enemy got my sword and is throwing it into the lava? I turn the power off." kind of thing. You can include this as part of the restrainable lim.

I like that!

1. I require gestures to be a bit more obvious and take enough time to be interfered with. I would suggest that a player trace the outlines of the rune in the air in front of him, perhaps.

I will give this one some thought.

2. Noisy does not require line of sight in my campaign, unless you mean LOS for Magic Sense. Since Magic Sense is based on the Unusual Sense group in my campaign, most phsical objects don't block line of sight. Som major magical devices or fields might.

Normal Sight LOS is required in my campaign, because I found Magical sense LOS with in 50 Hexes just too much of a disadvantage for only a -1/4 Limitation. I didn’t like mages using noisy like a blood hound to track down other mages. But I can see your point.

3. I think you might want to look at the SE limitation again, this would probably qualify as a "minor" side effect, giving it a -1/4 (that is from memory, no book here).

I think your right I will look in to it, when I get home.

Other than that, the constructs look okay to me. Might want to define what the "restrainable" means in this case. Can the weapon be disarmed (via the maneuver)? If so, does it poof? How about grab and takeaway or grab by? Just some things to think about.

My goal is that any thing that can happen to a normal sword can happen to this magical construct. Including getting disarmed, grabbed, broken, melted, you name it. If the character weapon is destroyed by physical damage he takes feed back. But if he turns the power off or it is dispelled he simply must spend another ½ phase (and END) to call another sword.

Thanks!

Well, I would actually make Requires End Only to Activate a +1/4 Advantage, since HKA usually costs End. HKA is also normally visible, so this would not be a Limitation.

Well actually the idea was that it sword uses endurance normally, But first you must spend a 1/2 Phase activating the sword first, and this requires Activation Endurance. But I am not sure that it is done right.

Activation Endurance Cost 6

Normal Use Endurance is 2 + STR

I would, however, also give the power a Focus Limitation if the sword can be knocked out of the character's hand, etc

I was under the impression that that’s what the ½ Restrainable Limitation was for. To duplicate the effects of having a real weapon with out it being a real weapon. If his sword is broken or dispelled he can reactivate the power and make a new one. Well that what I was trying for any way.

Magic Weapon Rune Tattoos

Stealing, Err… Um… Barrowing form “The Death Gate Cycle†Books, Rifts Tattoo Magic, and the tattoos that the Chinese Triads and Japanese Yakuza are know to cover them selves in; I am creating a form of Rune Tattoo Magic. Basically they will just be purchased as normal spells. Example:

Rune of Shielding

Armor PDr 8, EDr 8

-1/4 Visible: When activated the character is cover in a dark seamless suit of Full Plate mail, covered in various Runes. When not active it is just a Rune Tattoo that is identifiable by any one with the knowledge skill: Runes roll with a penalty of -1 per 10 active points of the Tattoo (-3 in this case).

-1/4 Gestures: Character must Touch the Tattoo

-1/4 Noisy: Any magically active character with in 50 hexes that has line of sight on character will know a spell is being used

-1/4 Requires Activation Endurance

-1 Increased Activation Endurance X5

-1/2 Requires Rune Tattoo Skill Roll for activation with a penalty of -1 per 10 active points of the Tattoo (-3 in this case)

-1/2 Side Effects: on failed Activation Roll, 1D6 Normal Damage Direct

Active Points 24

Real Cost 6

Activation Endurance Cost 10

All in all it’s not perfect but it is very close to the effect I am looking for. Input? Thoughts?

The Problem I am having is with weapon creation. The idea is touch the tattoo and a solid magical weapon appears in the characters hand that functions in almost every way as a real weapon. The problem is Endurance and the initial creating of the weapon. I am implying by taking the following limitations….

-1/4 Requires Activation Endurance

-1/2 Increased Activation Endurance X3

-1/2 Requires Rune Tattoo Skill Roll for activation with a penalty of -1 per 10 active points of the Tattoo (-2 in this case)

….that the charter must spend ½ Action creating the weapon spending the Activation Endurance and making a Skill Roll. Once that happens the sword remains in play until it is turned off by the Character, Dispelled, the Character is Stunned or KO’ed, the Character goes to sleep, or the sword is destroyed. Once the sword is in hand it is used normally with a normal endurance cost (2 + STR in this Case).

Rune of Swords

1D6+1 HKA (+ STR)

-1/4 Visible: When activated the is suddenly holding a Black Sword covered in various Runes (The exact description and type of sword is left of the Character and is set at the time of creation). When not active it is just a Rune Tattoo that is identifiable by any one with the knowledge skill: Runes roll with a penalty of -1 per 10 active points of the Tattoo (-2 in this case).

-1/4 Gestures: Character must Touch the Tattoo

-1/4 Noisy: Any magically active character with in 50 hexes that has line of sight on character will know a spell is being used

-1/4 Requires Activation Endurance

-1/2 Increased Activation Endurance X3

-1/2 Requires Rune Tattoo Skill Roll for activation with a penalty of -1 per 10 active points of the Tattoo (-2 in this case)

-1/2 Side Effects: on failed Activation Roll, or the destruction of the weapon by normal physical breaking: 1D6 Normal Damage Direct

-1/2 Restrainable: All normal effects of restraining a normal weapon, Disarm, Lock, Break…Ect.

Active Points 20

Real Cost 5

Activation Endurance Cost 6

Normal Use Endurance is 2 + STR

Well am I on the right track or am I off some where in Never Never Land?

I would probably define an upper limit, unless you don't mind that "I wake up and cast these spells that will last most of the day or until combat knocks it out." It gives a strange flavor of a mage who has to reboot in the morning.

Very good point. So initial reaction…

Reduced Endurance (END = 0) or Uses Endurance to Only Activate Spells require a bit more skill and concentration to sustain. This is due to the continuous channeling of mana through ones body. To represent this there is an accumulative -1 penalty to all spell casting rolls, for each spell of this type after the first that the mage is running.

I don't find a genre problem here (I can imagine a mage having to go through morning rituals, especially in a high fantasy game) but it does raise questions of 'is this limitation really a limitation.' If dispel magic isn't uncommon, then it is a limitation.

Dispel Magic is very common. Just about every full time spell caster has a dispel of some time. And I let all casters Abort to Dispel. This make for very exciting battles when more than one mage is evolved.

Well, not quite true. There are other cases. For instance, if 'detect magic' spells are relatively common (or magic is visible), and people walking down the street with brightly-glowing auras are looked at oddly, then most mages won't have too many spells on them all day.

Almost all spells in my campaign have this Limitation:

-1/4 Noisy: All spell users of any type can sense an active spell if with in 50 Hexes if they have Line of Sight.

The last part stops Mages from detecting Invisible characters unless they can actually see them.

Demonsongs Version of Two Weapon Fighting

10pts Two Weapon Fighting

-Allows the user to make one single attack with each weapon as a 1/2 Action. That is one strike with each weapon, not one sweep with each weapon.

-Character rolls for each attack separately. Even if the first attack misses.

-No OCV Penalty on the second attack

-No OCV Penalty for using off hand

-Character is at 1/2 DCV while using this double attack.

-If for some reason the characters Normal Hand is disabled or restrained the character can still make attacks with the Off Hand with no penalty. But the power does not allow the character to use there off hand for any other skilled actions, one needs Ambidexterity for that.

So unlike rapid attack the character always get two attempts to strike his target. The down side is you can’t hit more then 2 opponents like a sweep.

Well what do you think?

-1/4 Costs Endurance only to Activate?

From FAQ:

Costs Endurance

Q: Could a character apply a Costs Endurance Only To Activate Limitation (-1/4) on a power that normally does not cost END?

A: As a default rule, no — if a character wants Costs Endurance, it has to be the normal type of Endurance cost. As always, the GM is free to allow this if he thinks it won’t be particularly abusive or otherwise cause problems in-game.

Well I am thinking about using this limitation in my Fantasy Hero Campaign. For some spells, Dark Vision, a low powered Mystic Shield (DVC +2), and a few others. I can see how it could be easily abused. But if used to simulate some low powered effects I don’t see a problem with it. The power just stays on until the mage deactivates it, the mage gets stunned/KO’ed, the power is dispelled, or the mage goes to sleep. Have any of you used this disadvantage before? Any input?

And I was thinking about using it with Increases Endurance. But at half the normal value.

Increases Activation Endurance:

-1/4 END X2

-1/2 END X3

-3/4 END X4

-1 END X5

What do you think?

As always thanks.

Personally as long as Deadly Blow (in what ever form) and Martial Arts are not mixed, I don’t have a problem with Deadly Blow. And since I am the GM the two will never mix.

Is this feasible them?

Two Handed Fighting V7.9

Rapid Attack Hand to Hand; 5pts

Ambidextrous; 9pts

Skill Penalty Levels +2; 6pts

-1 Only when fighting with two weapons.

Active Cost 21pts

Real Cost 10pts

(as Demonsong staggers back as if shot, eyes wide in shock) What? I don’t have Fred with me but I could have sworn…… Ok, let’s assume you’re correct. Then I have PC’s paying 10 points for a +2 penalty skill level. That’s insane. Why would any one use two weapon fighting?

Two Weapon FIghting along with Rapid Attack allows you to make a half move and then make a Sweep at two targets with no OCV penalty.

Rappid attack is implied in the cost of two weapon fighting.

I think that for game balance reasons that I would only allow a character to ever have a +1d6 on any single weapon. A 4D6 Longbow seems a little extreme to me.

Further more once said character started shooting flaming arrows I would probably rule that faming arrows are not what said character trained with while learning his Bow Mastery, and there for his bow mastery would not work with flaming arrow. That is of course assuming that they are normal made black powder type flaming arrows. If said character has normal arrows that had been enchanted then I would let the damage combine, how ever such arrow would be in very limited supply.

But then again I am a little more concerned with game balance the some others. As stated above. I think that a longbow doing 5 to 6D6 Killing is just insane in a normal fantasy setting (or any other setting).

Finally on a personally note, I would rethink your characters last name. If for no other reason than it has be done to death.

Later

That is like the 3rd time you have read in to my post. It’s not what I really said, it’s you read in to what I wrote. You are pathetic.

I am done with this now. You are not worth my time.

Now you’re just trying to be belligerent. No real input. But "This guy doesn’t agree with me so I will flame him." Well I hope it will strengthen your fragile Ego and make you feel better.

Good Luck to you.

Now who is getting uppity? Relax man. Breath deep. Count to ten. OK are we better.

You can infer what you like from my posts. It doesn’t make your option correct. Get over your self. Other people have different views than you. And if you can’t share them, talk about them and not be offended when some one doesn’t agree with you or your options you need to stay off the boards.

As I said I am happy to hear what any one has to say about it. But it is not going to change my ruling on the mater. You can accept that or you don’t. I don’t really care. But if you’re so insecure with your self that you can’t handle some one not using your idea then you need to stop posting.

On a personal note if a little thing like this get you in such an irate state you might want to think about seeing a doctor. Just trying to be helpful.

I think that I may not be expressing my self very well, let me try again.

I am running what I would call a more realistic Fantasy Hero campaign. Yes I know….. Lets just say it’s as a realistic as one can be in Fantasy setting. In my mind what I have laid out keeps every thing balanced and equal. I have kept the overly strange, odd or unusual to a minimum. I would include a little 3 and 1/2 foot tall Gnome that can out drink your average ogre in that very unusual group.

So I have limited some things, and not let PC have access to others, all for the greater good, or balance. Has this limited some options for PC’s? Maybe a little, but I have received no negative feed back about that. And believe me I have asked, several time. I have received a lot of neutral and good feed back about the Hero system, my game mastering, and the world we game in.

Now keeping that in mind, I am not about to let players start taking immunities to poisons. So why would I let one take immunity to alcohol?

But as I stated before, I didn’t just say no. I gave him another option for his character. And I let him make the choice to take or leave it.

I have even admitted that it may not be the most cost effective way to do it, or the cleanest way. But it is the way I have chosen to do it. Because that is my prerogative as GM to do what I feel is best in my world. The world that I am Gaming Mastering. Now if any one on this board does not like the way I am doing it, or has a better way to do. Good for them. Use it in your own campaign. Hell I am even happy to hear it. But I am not going to potentially unbalance my world because some one doesn’t like my decision, or my rule.

And finally, if any one is wondering about the game balance implications. The largest military force in my world is made up of Krag Mountain Orcs. Think of them as Greater Orcs. Any way consuming alcohol is a right of passage, a test of man hood, and as a gauge to judge how worthy an opponent or comrade is. It is not taken lightly by Krag Orcs. And in a campaign where the party could potentially be ambassadors to that army, you can see that it could be a big deal, and certainly worth more than 2 or 3 points.

(Regardless of weather you think it’s overpriced or clunky d-man. But thanks for the non-constructive criticism any way.)

As the GM in question I have a set list of powers and abilities that I will allow PC to have. I have no reason to just keep adding to that list every time a PC wants to do something different. I was not (and am not) going to add Immunity to Alcohol (or any other poisons) to my normal fantasy Heroes game.

Above and beyond that instead of simply saying “no you can’t have that power†I gave the character in question another option.

CON +5 (10points) -2 disadvantage only for alcohol tolerance rolls = 3pts per +1

It may not be the best option or the most cost effective. But it’s what I came up with and it’s what I am going to use.

The player has the option to take or leave it. His choice.

I was doing him a favor to begin with.

As the GM in question. I have a few things to add.

1- The 10 point Disadvantage Impulsive does not make the character insanely stupid or suicidal. And that should be obvious to any player.

2-Your comparison to chasing the rat-man in to the forest is not applicable. Two totally different events not related in any way.

3-I did not penalize your for that grossly stupid act, although I probably should have. You got more experience than any one else that game, for other stuff you did during the game.

Yet another Nebula hater here! I loather her so much that no matter what any PC ever did to her, no matter how horrific, no matter how gross, vile or discussing they got; I would still reward there actions. (And I promise you some of my players can really go over the top) No other character right up has ever rubbed me the wrong way quite as bad as Nebula; and I have been gaming for a long time.

AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGG….. I should start an Anti-Nebula Support Group. A.N.S.G. for short. We can sit around and discuss various ways to kill her in the most painful ways possible.

Hummmm. Maybe I should just relax a little? Maybe I should see a doctor?

Later

You are totally correct. But this is one of thought concept things. Lots of Wizards carry staffs, and they know how to use them. So it stays.

I just want to point out, from personal experience, that the Quarterstaff is a lot harder to learn than some simpler weapons such as the Mace.