Lupus

Re: Combat Luck ruins Armor Piercing and Penetrating? It will, however, stop Penetrating dead in its tracks. But then, that's always been a problem: I remember a player wanting 1 point of damage resistance, bought hardened, to stop penetrating attacks. I guess combat luck just allows for an official construct that gives a defence against penetrating. Makes it harder for a GM to justify saying no. Personally, I restrict the full combat luck to Heroic games. Superheroic ones don't get Hardened (but also lose the 'luck-based' limitation, leaving the cost as it is).

Re: Kill Bill Oh, another thing to prolly put on the katana (or perhaps leave out): no 'real weapon' limitation. Just the focus. In other words, it can be disarmed, she can be without it, she still needs to ready it, but it can simultaneously cut flesh and steel, needs no sharpening, and avoids other bring-downs of reality.

Re: Kill Bill But is unlikely to also be able to cut through metal. That ability may, however, be best represented through a 'weapon break' maneuver or something like that.

Re: Kill Bill Combined with at least 50% damage reduction, resistant.

Re: Eosin's Weapons List I'm a big fan of piercing points. I haven't had time to look over your weapons list, and it's 2am here, so I won't until tomorrow minimum. As for how much piercing to adopt - I do it by comparing it to available armour. Then just go by what feels right and produces appropriate effects. In my LotR game, 'full AP' is four points of piercing - I figured this because the highest armour most will have access to is plate, at 8DEF. Still, I play with that level a bit. Combat luck, which is hardened, I treat as having five points of hardness (which will cancel up to 5 points of piercing). Bodkin points on the arrows will provide an extra point or two of piercing to the bow (and the biggest longbows have 4 points to begin with). Plate armour, meanwhile, has a couple of points of hardness... Note that I also mess things up by making damage reduced by range. This all results in a lot of calculations, which I usually handle behind the GM's screen. If you don't work fast with numbers, piercing points will often slow down combat more than they would seem to. AP is a lot easier to deal with. Choose the one that's right for you, your gaming group, and the genre of the game.

Re: Malvan/Elder Worm Curse Hmm. Is Firewing immune to the curse, per se? I'd have to think that there are exceptions to the rule to begin with. Who could be bothered being a gladiator if no-one has any ambition at all? I think it's cultural trend more than individual mind control. So Firewing was a bit odd to begin with. And even after getting into the flame... well, look at him now. He's wandering around the earth, picking fights with other superhumans. He's powerful enough that if he went home, he could take over the place. Does that strike anyone as ambitious? Anyone? Curse isn't as strong in him, but it's still sure there.

Re: Spirit Transform- Examples wanted I still don't see how spirit transforms and mental transforms differ. Aren't most of the examples above... well, aren't they just mental transform, with a spirit SFX? The toad thing I can see. To anyone with 'sense spirit, discriminatory', they look at it and go 'oh, it's a toad. Nothing to see here, move along.' But twisting someone's spirit to change their mind? That's the arena of SFX.

Re: Malvan/Elder Worm Curse Haven't they also lost their entire empire? I seem to remember it used to span hundreds of stars, but is now just one planet. If that's the result of the curse, then you could say the EW are responsible for the deaths of billions, if not trillions, of Malvans as their outlying planets were abandoned or invaded. I'd call that hard-core. The curse isn't too heinous on the surface, but hey - it affected an entire species. That's not something just anyone can do.

Re: Stuff to Make Up about the Gods Good list, pretty comprehensive. For those with a creative writing bent, what really gets me interested in pantheons are myths. Not just the standard ones, but also random myths. Like how agriculture was discovered. Or just two gods interacting. These can lead to minor but interesting facets in the game world, depending on how much the myths influence the worship. Naturally, it's easy to go overboard. Not everything in a religion comes directly from myths. But my favorite ever fantasy religion has gotta be the Storm Pantheon from Glorantha. Man, it rocks. So many gods, all laid out, and myths aplenty between them. Things that let you understand who these guys are and how they behave, so you can then strive to emulate them (if your character leans that way). And the big thing with myths: are they actually REAL? In Glorantha, every culture has their own version of the same myths. Are they real? Can anyone really tell? Ultimately, does it matter? (Obviously, it matters to the worshippers - we're right, dammit. But on an objective, external view...) Another thing to think about (I know it's in the list, I'm just highlighting it) is the portfolio thing. Do gods have distinct portfolios? Do they overlap? Are there multiple of a type? Do gods tend to have one, two, or multiple portfolios? How are these portfolios themed? Are they like D&D gods - the god of wizards, the god of thieves, the god of smiths (IE, worshipper focussed)? Are they ordered - god of sun, god of rain, god of agriculture (IE, world focussed)? Or is it something inbetween? And are there gods of different types? Are there ones who are absolute and remote, existing alongside mortals worshipped as gods? (I have something similar in my world: there are mortals who are worshipped, but they're generally intermediaries - saints - for bigger gods. Then again, there are also mortals who have ascended to true godhood, which is another thing to think about.) I guess the final thing... do the gods have enemies who are not gods themselves? Things like the frost giants in Norse mythology. (Of course, at that power level, they may simply be gods from their own pantheon.) That's just the kind of stuff I try to go through. For inspiration, I look to real-world religions. I try to take elements, mix 'em together, to create something that's not simply Greco/Norse Mash. And remember, you don't have to go through all that much detail. Particularly if relgion isn't too important to your world. Rule of thumb is that if you have a priest in the party, you better have a somewhat detailed religion. If everyone in the group is devout, you better have a REAL detailed religion. If they're agnostics, who cares? Have a few god names, have a couple of stories, have a loose pantheon... that's all you need.

Re: Is Flying Dodge too good? I'll note for the record that I've never met a game system that I haven't tweaked. Even way back playing basic D&D, I had house rules. I'm just that way. So I have no problem reading a FAQ and going 'nah, I'll use a different interpretation.' It's not really a weakness in the system, just a difference of opinion.

Re: And Suddenly It's a White Candle Stick! Hey, glad to see the official system works this way. I like it. Particularly with the 'berserker' effect - damage reduction vs stun only, together with a BODY aid. 'Yeah, he's dead, he just doesn't know it. Any minute now the Aid'll wear off and he'll just collapse.' I like that.

Re: Is Flying Dodge too good? Here's my problem: the whole 'move a couple of hexes back to avoid damage' thing is incredibly gamey. It's like what I was saying on another thread about DCV 3 hexes for area effects. I mean, sure, on the miniatures table, the two characters are static. But y'know, if you move two metres back, why can't I just move two metres to catch up? And if I'm swinging, why on earth can you move two metres out of my way before my arm and moved fifty centimetres? Why? Because the minis on the board are static. They're solid objects. The people they represent, however, are dynamic. Constantly changing. To me, the thing of throwing yourself out of the way of an attack is taken care of by Dodge. It's all you need. DFC should be used to get yourself behind cover or away from a grenade - but, y'know, I don't have a problem with that maneuver. I DO have a problem with Flying Dodge, because it has almost all the benefits of DFC, plus almost all the benefits of Martial Dodge. It seems to me far more of a super-skill than a martial maneuver. But back to the 'jump 1" back'... people are objecting to it because it's damn well GAMEY. It brings them (at least, it brings me) out of the game and makes me remember it's just chunks of lead on a hex mat. Breaks suspension of disbelief. And THAT is why I think it's a problem. Sure, you could spend a few points on stretching (even stretching 'only to defeat DFC/Flying Dodge) - but that's not the point. The maneuver itself is silly. It's like computer games that take advantage of crappy camera angles to hide objects or monsters, even though the characters have clear line of sight to them. Something that works in the game world, but only due to the way the game works - gameyness. It seems this feeling isn't universal, but I want more from my tabletop RPGs.

Re: TK + a brick = deadly weapon? I can see people slowing down if they change density/size. On the other hand, I can see them not doing so. I guess, think of it this way: all the molecules in the body are going in a direction at a speed. When more molecules are added, those are created ALREADY going in that direction at that speed - since, relative to the person, it's standing still! We don't find people suddenly flying to the side when they change shape, because they don't keep up with the world spinning at 1000kph. So rule it either way in your game. That sidebar was prolly put in Champions for game balance reasons. Don't feel you're stuck by it, or that keeping velocity is any less realistic than suddenly gaining mass.

Re: Is Flying Dodge too good? I like flying dodge, but I think it's plenty good enough without being able to abort to half-move-plus-dodge. I allow it, but if you abort, you don't get to move. If you do it in your turn, you can FMove AND get +4 DCV. So I think you're safe whichever one you go with. Cut down the power, leave it as intended, play it how you want in your game. It's all good.

Re: Building acrobatic combat agility (?) That's kind of the thing, really. If you want ultimate defence, then you kinda let go of any effective attack. It's sort of the way Hero works. Desolid is the best way to do ultimate evasion, I think. All other options involve it being more likely for you to get hit - you have to weigh things up. Balance it out. That said, how about DCV levels, usable by other (the hex you're standing in), not usable by character... y'know, that could get evil fast. (Myself, I'm never a huge fan of 'DCV 3 to hit a hex'... it's too wargamey in my mind. Sure, hitting a particular hex isn't hard, and on the miniatures board, the guy's standing still. But how does the character launching the attack know WHICH hex to attack? The speedster certainly isn't standing still in the game. He's zooming. I understand the DCV3 thing is about balance as much as anything else - making defence more about the character's own DCV. Still doesn't make much sense to me.)

Re: Soulless? As has been seen, there are many interpretations. My personal one: a soul is possessed by any living creature capable of independent action. This includes animals. Clones have no souls while they are merely copies... but the instant they develop a trait that didn't belong in the individual they're cloned from, they develop a soul. (Or is it that they gained a soul, and thus took independent action? Who knows.) Naturally, that really refers to comic-book fully-grown clones. Clones birthed naturally are natural creatures; it's only their DNA that's cloned, and souls don't depend on DNA in my settings. Now, can computers have souls? Mainly, no. It's theoretically possible that I'll run a game eventually where an AI can develop to the point where it's truly idnependent of its original programming. At that point, it may gain a soul. Essentially, to me, a soul is that which separates a true individual from a simple replica. (Hmm, what about hive-minds... would an ant colony have a single soul? That's a wrinkle I hadn't considered... have to think on that.) Note, this isn't my opinion on what souls ACTUALLY are. I'm agnostic, and thus have no real opinion on RL stuff. It's just what I tend to put into my games.

Re: Octopus, Centaur... what else? Cyberpunk had the infamous 'Mr Studd' implant. There was no description in the book, so it was up to you what it meant. Was variously interpreted anything fron cybernetic penis-pump to full-on prosthesis complete with neon flashing lights and a time display.

Re: D & D Diatribe As for Gandalf's powers: in the very first book we see him (The Hobbit), he kills a whole buncha goblins with a lightning spell (this was when the dwarves and Bilbo got snatched in the goblin cave). Later, he has other displays of power. Firstly, there's his fight against the Ringwraiths on Weathertop, a display of power that Strider and Frodo spotted three days away - they saw lightning dancing around the summit of the hill for an extended period. I can't remember how many Nazgul there were, at the time. It was possibly all nine (four of whom left to chase Gandalf after that, leaving only five to attack Frodo - I think that's how it happened). Later, there's the whole 'beating the Balrog' thing, something which only the mightiest of High Elves had done previously. Yes, the Balrog was probably less powerful than it had been in the First Age (since Morgoth was no longer around). The big difference, of course, was that Gandalf has Narya, the ring of fire. This probably helped him greatly (of course, he still says he was 'burned' by the Balrog). Still, it may not have helped much after they crashed into the water at the bottom of the abyss, since that quenched teh Balrog's fire and it became a creature of slime that tried to grapple with him. When they finally reached the top of the Endless Stair and came out onto the summit of Caradhras, the fight there was highly magical as well - a lot more than just the single lightning-sword trick seen in the movie. Again, brilliant flashes seen all over. So, that's three examples of him using quite significant power. Much more than a couple of levels of wizard. i think the original articles saying 'Gandalf is a level 5 wizard!' were designed to show that MOST of his stunts could be achieved using that - so you can have a lot of fun even in a low-level game. The character, however, was far more than that in power. Those are just the three biggest examples of power (from Gandalf the Grey, not even touching on the White) that I can think of off the top of my head.

Re: D & D Diatribe Except that the notion of Orcs coming from Elves comes from two sources: one is Treebeard (who Tolkien has said got some things wrong), and the other is a passage from the Silmarillion, which was an unfinished work. Apparently, in notes on his original manuscript, he had written (next to the line about elves being twisted into orcs) 'Change this, Orcs are not Elvish.' So the origin of the orcs is up in the air again.

Re: D & D Diatribe

Re: Hypothetical Axis Amerika 2005

Re: Hypothetical Axis Amerika 2005 Yeah, the Battle of Britain really did them in. Had they had some better fighters at that time, and concentrated on destroying the air force, they may have kept their pilots, too.

Re: Hypothetical Axis Amerika 2005 Re: strategic bombers. Germany was certainly working on jet-powered bombers by the end of the war. I don't recall if they got any working. Both that project and the ME-262, however, could have gotten off the ground a lot earlier had more effort been put into them. Naturally, not ALL the research projects could have had full effort put into them. (Unless, perhaps, they managed to catch a lot more scientists before they fled and put them to work.) The most important thing to swing things into Germany and Japan's favour, though, is to stop the codebreakers. Either the Axis gets better code-wrtiers, or kill off the Allied code-breakers. If I remember, Enigma was broken when a Polish scientist came into Britain holding an electronic replica of an Enigma machine. Had he been stopped, that code would certainly have been harder to break. I'm not so familiar with the breaking of the Japanese naval codes. I do know that once the first one went down, the later ones fell pretty quickly. I'm sure it could be fixed so that they weren't broken, though. (And perhaps they broke the Allied codes, so managed to get much greater effectiveness in their anti-shipping attacks.)

Re: DEX is used too much My basic problem with the cost of DEX is the cost of CSLs. It's simply not worth it to buy +1 with all combat for 8 points, when it costs 6 points for +1 DCV AND OCV from +3 dex (including rebate from SPD, unless that isn't high). This ends being useful once you hit NCM, of course. Playing supers is a different story. I'd wanna see either an increase in the cost of DEX or a decrease in the cost of CSLs before I was willing to buy any more than 2- or 3-point CSLs (or 5-point ones with limitations. They're neat. My personal favorite is DCV levels with 'requires successful presence attack'). And yes, I know that point-economics shouldn't be such a big motivating factor. Yet it is, yah? I'm not going to buy my DEX up above where it should be. I can't remember the last time I made a 75/75 character with 20 DEX (actually, I do - a very young Tolkien elf). But if I do buy what's appropriate for my character, I'd rather not feel ripped off. I shouldn't HAVE to choose between powergaming and character-appropriateness. Oh, as for the argument 'hand-eye coordination and agility tend to go together in Fantasy literature'... well, so do physical toughness, health and strength. Yet we have three stats for them... Personally? I dunno what to do. Splitting DEX might be good. Might introduce too many problems (especially in HD, unless you're good at template design).

Re: Hypothetical Axis Amerika 2005 And that's what I find appealing about it. (Don't mind me, I'll be over here...)