Lupus

Re: New weapons/Armour list Excellent, thank you. I always enjoy learning about real-world details. It's a curse, not having a unified lexicon of armour and weapon types. Fun, though, at the same time.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever?

Re: New weapons/Armour list

Re: Breaking through a force wall of 50PD/ED Hardened Oh beautiful. (Would rep if I hadn't done so too much lately. I owe one to RDU Neil, too, for his above stuff.)

Re: Robbers on the Road Historically, if I understand correctly, the skilled bandit groups that operated for a while didn't tend to operate too close to towns. They went out to the fringes, and survived where patrols weren't common. An area with a strong military presence tended to wipe out local bandit activity, with the exception of 'banditry by opportunity' - which often was untrained, relatively unskilled peasantry. Y'know, starving people trying to feed their kids. Let the players find out they just sentenced a few families to slow and painful death, see how they react the next time they get attacked by bandits. That said, the figure of the 'bandit king' who can evade the authorities is a popular one in fiction. They may be ruthless (kill kill kill!) or they may be enlightened - you get a lot more people surrendering without a fight if you actually LET THEM GO and develop a reputation for this. While history certainly has its Blackbeards (those who are outlaws because they love the killin'), it certainly also had its gentlemen robbers, who liked taking stuff but didn't especially like getting shot at (and so tried to take cargo without a fight whenever possible). I think you need a mix of them in your game. Besides that, it sounds like your players have a problem with losing. Certainly, my players will tend to fight to the death rather than run away... if they still have hit points/BODY/health levels remaining, then they can still fight, dammit! Sometimes, you just can't break them of this.

Re: New weapons/Armour list Thank you for the links! I shall read and get back to the thread once I'm done.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever? It's also because in a comic book, the writer has control over what the characters do, over the situations that present themselves, etc etc. In a roleplaying game, the task you set aside for the flier with no real attacks gets dealt with instead by the ice-creating guy, leaving the flier with nothing he can really do in the fight. Games and comics are just different. Ensuring that everyone has a viable attack form is just a way of ensuring that everyone will have something to do in a fight. There ARE other things you can do, and a good GM, IMO, will give those other things. What's a super-fight without innocents to save? It's just that the GM ain't a writer, and players don't follow a script.

Re: Starting from 8's in Primary Characteristics I concur. I feel that pull myself, and I'd be surprised if I were the only one. I'm not weird, I'm completely normal.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever? I remember that post. It helped make up my mind that, no, I didn't make a bad decision to drop the comics. I think Claremont has a thing about singularities. Need something big to happen? Hey! Let's pull out a singularity. Bleah! (And yes, I realise I've fallen into the mould of the dinos that I despised when I first started reading comics... those who longed for the good-old-days when they were younger. Only difference is they wanted Claremont BACK.)

Re: Aquaman: WTF? Glad I'm not the only one who blinked at that.

Re: 40k Space Marines Suspended Animation And I believe it's an excellent solution. I love it. Consider it yoinked.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever?

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever? *cries*

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever? I reckon Angel should definitely have good STR and CON. He can lift one or two people pretty effortlessly while flying around... furthermore, he can flap those wings for hours without getting tired. So yeah, I'd give him good STR and CON. As for comics... I stopped reading X-Men shortly after Claremont's return. I'd sufferred through the Alan Davis-credited (but ghostwritten by Claremont) issues (it was there, btw, that Kitty was de-aged to 16 in a throwaway 'but I'm only 16!' line). Claremont's suckage was too much for me, and finally broke me of a 10-year comic collection habit. I actually went cold turkey... I wish I could have kept up with some titles, but the comic shop had a 5-title minimum for standing orders, and I only had three I wanted to keep up with. And I'm not nearly organised enough to go in and buy single issues when they come out. So damn you, Claremont. You were good once, for your day (emphasis on last three words). You gave us many characters we love, and set up a cool universe. But now, you're an insane has-been lunatic. (Btw, in regards to continuity, Claremont openly stated in an interview - I think it was in Wizard - that he hadn't read anythings inbetween him leaving and then returning. He possibly wasn't even aware of the existence of Pete Wisdom, let alone his relationship with Kitty.)

Re: New weapons/Armour list Markdoc - thanks for the commentary. Very handy. I'll re-think the ED values. I had forgotten about chain having leather backing, so it should have at LEAST the ED of leather. As for double chain, I have no idea about its historical existence. I took armour types from FH. In there, it talks about mail knitted with more interlinking rings... this didn't exist? Barring that, the entry could refer to other types of chain... were there types with heavier rings, or double layers? My players aren't medieval scholars, so they wouldn't know the difference, but I'd like to keep it consistent even if just in my own mind. Shadowpup - yah, it's a great resource. I'm finding it indispensible when deciding on weapon/armour technology levels and the like. For the record, as I'm envisioning the game at the moment, it'll be a book/movie hybrid. Taking what I like from each. Mostly, the movie visuals will be used (with some alterations), as that's what the players have in their heads.

Re: New weapons/Armour list Re: Armoured vs unarmoured. What I'm going for here, since I'm trying to come up with something for a tentative Lord of the Rings game, is a mix of unarmored and armoured stuff. Basically, armour is heavy and slows you down. So it's no good for when you're travelling around. Aragorn has to get from place to place quickly, so he doesn't wear armour usually. His fighting style lends itself to being freely able to move. However, when he gets stuck in Helm's Deep, he piles on the chainmail. (In the movies, at least - I believe he did the same in the books.) He knew he'd be in heavy fighting, that there would be a LOT of opponents. While he's able to take care of himself against the orc throngs, there's always the chance of the unseen attack that he'll need armour to defray. Besides, with all the crush, he might not be able to dodge well. So, he packs on the armour. So, while I want unarmoured to be a viable fighting style (yay for combat luck), I want armour to largely be better, overall, for the truly heavy fighting. But for most everyday use, it's heavy and sweaty and it sucks. Meanwhile, you can make a character who generally wears armour. Boromir, in the films, wore chainmail - I'd see this as applications of 'move in armour' levels. Aragorn spent his points elsewhere. Anyway, that's the philosophy behind some of my decisions here. With regards to armour vs no armour, anyway.

Re: D & D Diatribe *yawn* Oh, is it time for the Anti-D&D diatribe again? Wake me when the too-cool-for-school tribe go home again.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever? Reminds me of my Com 30 example character - had 'too pretty to hit' powers. +6 DCV, Combat luck (4 levels), both with Comeliness roll attached.

Re: New weapons/Armour list Okay, I'll post what I have so far. What I mainly need is comments - have I gone the right way in balancing/incorporating new stuff? Is it, in fact, workable? My FH and other heroic-level play experience is limited, so I don't have the benefit of experience guiding me. Battleaxe: 1d6+1, Str 11, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 1, 1.5H Greataxe: 2d6, str 16, stund +1, piercing 1, knockdown 2, 2H Dagger: +1 OCV, 1/2d6, str 6 Longsword: +1 OCV, +1 DCV, 1d6+1, str 11 Greatsword: +1 OCV, +1 DCV, 2d6, str 17, 2H Mace: 1d6+1, str 11, stun +1, knockdown 2 Maul: 1.5d6, str 18, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 5, 2H spear: 1.5d6, str 15, piercing 3, 2H, reach, set Flail: 1.5d6, str 15, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 2, 1.5H I've tried to stick with the book stuff, since I reckon it's close enough. I've changed only what I really wanted to, instead of frivolously. Armour is even less certain - I've mostly kept armour values, but used varying ED values and incorporated hardness points. I'm posting only a few examples, since most of the list is identical to the book. Hard leather: PD 3, ED 2 Brigandine: PD4, ED 3 Lamellar: PD 5, ED 2, Hardened 1 Banded: PD 6, ED 3, Hardened 1 Chain: PD 6, ED 1, Double chain: PD 7, ED 1 Plate: PD 8, ED 5, Hardened 2 I especially seek advice on the ED values. I am talking from no experience there. Um... that's me.

I've been tinkering with a revised weapons and armour list for a tentative Lord of the Rings game. My aims: * Incorporate piercing points into the weapons list itself. * Create a couple of other stat entries for weapons. * Balance weapons, so that none is better at everything. * If possible, give every weapon something that it CAN be best at - but something else it fails to do well at all. I know the arguments for and against a balanced weapons chart, I've read that thread. I think a balanced (at least semi-balanced) chart is good, and so I'm going for it. I'm not wanting to open that argument again. Anyway, I haven't finished it yet, just wondering if this is something other people were interested in too. If so, I'll post what I have so far and we can work over it, maybe come out with a consensus design. The basics so far: I've reduced the damage from axes, but they have a piercing point or two, and they also do increased knockdown. (Basically, 'knockdown' adds or subtracts from BODY damage to determine if an opponent falls down, just like piercing adds damage for the purpose of penetrating armour.) Swords all have OCV mods, many have DCV mods. They remain fundamentally the same, other than that. Maces have increased knockdown - big hammers have a small number of piercing points, and BIG knockdown. Spears have piercing points (more than axes), and often reach. Things like that. Generally, I'm keeping the numbers of piercing points and knockdown small - 5 would be the MOST I would expect to see on any single weapon. For the record, so far I've given most axes 1 or 2 piercing points, the longspear got 3 piercing, and the maul got knockdown 5 (and 1 piercing). The damage values should stay much the same as in FH, but with some lowering of damages (such as axes), but the introduction of piercing points into the weapons table itself should compensate for that, while bringing them into line with other weapons. So, anyone else feel interested in something like this? (I have an idea for doing something similar with firearms, but this has taken my interest first.)

Re: Let's Talk CvK Sounds about right. I'm somewhat lenient in the CvK stakes, in my game - I'd call you 10 points. Actually, I'd call most normal people 10 points at most. 15 and 20 point versions are normally, in my mind, restricted to total pacifists, or superheroes. After all, most people don't have the luxury of trying other options before resorting to potentially-lethal force. Different (more stringent/demanding) rules for those with the power to do HAVE choices.

Re: Aquaman: WTF? Depends on whether the flame has any mass or not. Rockets work 'cause fuel's being pushed out back, which pushes the rocket forward. Equal & opposite. So if the flame really is magical, and has no mass, then it won't impart any thrust. On the other hand, with concentration... or maybe with the right tech, you could sedate him and stick him in a rocket engine. I always wanted to do that with Havok, y'know? Was that really just me?

Re: Aquaman: WTF? Oh come on, dude, you can handle someone's head being on FIRE, but you can't handle it surviving in space? Most fires go out if they aren't consuming something. And frankly, that's more stupid than it surviving in space - fire CAN do that, as long as it has fuel and oxygen to burn. Seriously, you have some odd things you stress about. Just let it ride! And the MU Champions was a bad idea to start with, according to what I've heard. Never read an issue, but...

Re: A little help with a power construct? Shaman of Alpha Flight I think this whole conversation has been very interesting from the point of view of working out how different people feel about certain limitations. I think they're all valid, btw - it's just what you feel reflects the reality of the game or the genre better. Just neat seeing it all come out.

Re: Pistols = Reduced Penetration I like the idea of piercing points. I've been tinkering with the idea, if I ever run Dark Champions, of retooling the whole gun list, with piercing points listed for each weapon - in positive and negative values. Negative values subtract from armour, positive values add to it. Rifle bullets I'm thinking of putting around 3 piercing points automatically. Armour, meanwhile, can have hardened ratings which offset piercing points. The full-on military body armour described by Gewing could be as many as 5 points of hardened (woot!), thus providing protection even against AP rounds from heavy rifles. But I often go overboard with extra rules. I'm plotting Fantasy Hero right now, and thinking of rewriting THAT whole weapons list to include piercing points, and different damage/piercing ratings for different ways of using weapons... like thrust vs slice, etc. It'll prolly get complex and still end up being unrealistic anyway, so I'm not sure I should bother.