Lupus

Re: New weapons/Armour list

Ah, well I've been using re-enactment terms ;-p

Lamellar is overlapping leather scales, used by the Turks mainly during the Crusades. The leather is usually hardened with wax and hot water.

Mainly it was a shortening of leather lamellar - which is why it is ambigiously misleading when I mentioned it earlier.

 

For metal scales, we just called it scale mail, or scale.

 

There is also a coat of plates or jack of plates - which is a leather hauberk with metal plates riveted to the inside (or outside). The plates were either rectangular and small (although sometimes they were round), or large shaped strips similar to the Lorica Sementata of the Marian Romans (ie the guys in red you see in movies, rather than Romans of other periods that wore other armours).

 

Leather lamellar is easy to cut or thrust through - I had a suit I sometimes repaired. Great for training though, light and cushions a lot of crushing blows.

 

I recommend looking up "medieval re-enactment" and the "Living History Movement". I know of at least a dozen clubs of various periods in Australia - there are bound to be MANY more in other countries.

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?

Yeah' date=' I pretty much ignore the OHOTMU. It gets so much wrong so often it's really not very useful as an authoritative source.[/quote']

And it remains responsible for the '100 ton' garbage. I'm told that was an editorial decision, not the fault of the writer...

 

But damn, was it ever silly.

Re: New weapons/Armour list

I've seen better lists and piccies of armour types on the web though - I just can't seem to track them down at the moment. So keep looking if you can' date=' too.[/quote']

It looks pretty cool. The second site you pointed me to seems to be saying that there's no real historical basis for double mail or the like... I'm probably just going to drop it from the chart. Thinking of putting Lamellar into the DEF 7 slot, as a step between chain and plate...

 

There was a comment earlier on the thread, about lamellar being vulnerable to slashing weapons. Anyone else heard of this?

 

Of course, one problem is there's much confusion about what particular names mean. This is prevalent both in weapons and armour - ask two people what 'broadsword' means and they'll give you two different answers, both historically accurate. 'Course, the most egregious offender there is 'morningstar.' Or maybe 'spear.'

 

In armour, there seem to be similar worries over terms like 'scale armour.' 'Banded armour' can cause some concerns, too.

 

Anyway, by 'lamellar' I'm talking about small plates/splints/scales/etc riveted together or stuck onto a backing. I'm getting this mainly from FH...

 

Yeah, I know, gets confusing.

Re: Breaking through a force wall of 50PD/ED Hardened

have the fish people attack and fail with conventional-ish weapons.

 

Then have them submerge the island.

 

Now the oxygen is slowly being used up and the heroes have to go and fight the fish people and reverse the submergence process without lowering the force wall...

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

As someone who does know a bit about history-

 

The various versions of mail did exist and were used - but weren't common as they required extra work and weren't always as effective as expected.

There was no "chainmail factory" churning out size M and size L hauberks of mail. Every suit of mail was individually made and a custom fit. However they often outlasted the original owner - and were looted, handed down to heirs, or taken apart to be used for other mail items (gauntlets for example, or coifs).

Wiremaking was an art.

 

So yes, you could have double-linked mail, six link mail, mail with plate inserts, banded mail and other variants. They were used. As were suits of plate made to look frightening, or experiments in articulation of joints for plate.

 

I'll see if I can find you a link to one of the mail sites that shows the various kinds of mail hauberk.

 

[edit]

Article on making mail - http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20chain.htm

Site on mail types and patterns - http://artofchainmail.com/patterns/index.html

- on the above site, "King's Mail" in the European patterns section is what is most commonly called double link mail.

- also note, these mail suits use links that aren't rivetted - mainly because we have better quality steel these days and it is easily obtained so we don't mind replacing lost links. Historically links had hammered ends with holed drilled in for a staple/rivet.

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?

I have to question whether it is a failing of the comics to have a character such as Angel (whose only power is flight - forget additions beginning with metal wings and ending with healing factors) or a failing of a game intended to capture the genre that such a character, who's done fine in the comics, can't succeed in the game.

 

Not to pick on Angel specifically (and kudos to those wjho prepared the very nice writeups fitting Angel into a Champions universe). There are lots of characters who have super powers of some form or another, but do not appear to have an effective attack power (eg. Angel, Hawkman and other flyers; Nightcrawler; Kitty Pryde; any number of stretching characters including Plastic Man, Mr. Fantastic, Skin and the Elongated Man; Aquaman for years had normal human strength, as did the Atom - and shrinking characters in general; Invisible Girl pre-force field attacks and Invisible Kid from LSH) yet who hyave been around for a long time, quite successfully. In Champions, we find ourselves required to "give" such characters an effective attack mode - fast movers get Move Bys and Move Throughs; Stretchers Shrinkers get "velocity/momentum" adders; Teleporters and invisible characters get Martial Arts grafted on.

 

This just comes down to differences between fiction and games. The game often comes down to combat, and to be effective, characters need an effective attack or they feel ineffectual. So we just come up with excuses for more damage, and graft it on based on comic appearances.

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

Y'know... I'd bet almost anything that if you started a campaign with, say, 250 points and CHAs based at 10, almost no one would sell their non-character-conception-critical CHAs down below 10. But if you started it at 275 points and CHAs based at 8, almost no one would buy their non-character-conception-critical CHAs up beyond 8...

 

Players are weird.

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?

So, Xorn I had the "white dwarf brain" and Xorn II has the "black hole brain". And I now have the leaking-out-my-ears brain...

 

Also: a transcription of some of Claremont's "work" from a few months ago is here -- where the formerly-X-treme X-Men meet Fury. *shudder*

 

To borrow from Bart Simpson, I didn't think it was physically possible, but Claremont both sucks and blows.

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?

Hey, you're not Monolith!

 

(Former poster here, currently still on rpg.net, same avatar)

Glad I'm not the only one who blinked at that.

Re: 40k Space Marines Suspended Animation

40k Fluff Bible:

"Marine may then enter into a state of suspended animation. This may be a conscious action, or may happen automatically in the event of extreme physical trauma. In this condition a Marine may survive for many years, even if bearing otherwise fatal injuries. Only appropriate chemical therapy and auto-suggestion can revive a Marine from this state - a Marine cannot revive himself. "

 

I was more concerned with the "if bearing otherwise fatal injuries." I was accounting for situations such as my character takes a hit reducing him to negative BODY and Stun. My buddies can't get to me in time and I die from "bleeding to death" rules. Telling the GM, "I can't die! I have life support," didn't seem to cut it for me. That's why I looked at the Healing (resurrection) instead.

 

 

And I believe it's an excellent solution. I love it. Consider it yoinked.

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever?

(Btw' date=' 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.)[/quote']

Of course, he rarely read issues other than his own stuff anyway. I remember the time he had Wolverine meet Hulk in his solo title (Hulk, as Mr Fixit, had come to Madripoor). Wolverine gets his scent, figures it's the Hulk, despite him being small and grey. Still, he has to confirm his suspicions.

 

Meanwhile, over in Hulk's own title, Wolverine and the Gray Hulk had a fight... about a YEAR before Claremonts Hulk/Wolverine crossover. Yay continuity!

 

(For the record, fight was inconclusive. Opening swipe, Wolvy - who, to his credit, tried to walk away first - gets pissed off and rips the Hulk's chest open... but turns out grey dude has a healing factor he didn't know about before that. So fight continues, gets interrupted before it reaches conclusion.)

Re: Angel, the worst original character concept ever?

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Juggernaut was sucked into the black hole that is in/is Xorn's head.

 

Even though Xorn originally was supposed to have a white dwarf star for a brain. And was revealed to be Magneto. And killed. And subsequently revealed to be Xorn pretending to be Magneto. But still dead.

 

Ow. I think I sprained my brain. Again.

*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

Gotcha. Well, killing someone even in self defense would not be a valid response for a character with a Total CvK. I've known a number of people who have categorically stated they wouldn't kill, even to save their own life or the life of a loved one. That's a Total CvK.

 

I would kill to defend myself, my GF, or my family. But I still think I'd qualify for a 5 or 10 point CvK. I think I must have some kind of PsychLim in this regard, because I own several firearms and haven't shot anyone even when they pissed me off.

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?

True. It's kinda how rockets work up there.

 

Which makes me wonder... it Ghost Rider though really, really hard.. I mean concentrated to the point of looking constipated... could he use his head as a thruster?

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?

But this Aquaman thing... bleh

 

 

btw, why does Dr. Strange need an Eye of Aggamotto and an Orb of Aggamotto, when they seem to be funcitonally identical?

 

And how can Ghost Rider's skull burn in space?

 

And how did Marvel's version of the Champions (of LA) get saddled with the burden of Angel as both the team's benefactor (he's not that rich) and the team's only flier (he's not that fast)? Splaintame that one.

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.