whitekeys

Seeing as how, in the show, pokemon were capable of learning more than four moves, it seems these attacks should exist in a VPP. The Pool will have a similar effect to only having four moves at one's disposal, depending on how they are switched. EDIT: Can anyone comment on the utility of having more than one VPP, say, one for Physical attacks and one for Status moves?

Here are some thoughts I've had so far that seem to be working out pretty well while I'm putting together a Pikachu. 1. I'm sticking to 1st Generation (pokemon, attacks, and stats) because that's what I grew up with, that's what's simplest, and that's what they've used for the recent Pokemon Go (which I'm not a player of, but I do like it.) EDIT: I've changed my mind. I will be mixing elements of both current Gen VI and original Gen I. Such things as the adjusted power ratings of old attacks in the current Gen, I feel like I should take into account. However, I don't feel like using 20+ different kinds of poke balls. Furthermore, it may not be necessary to attempt to include all 600 different kinds of pokemon. 2. Bulbapedia is by far the best resource for information on Pokemon. I'm using that as a reference. 3. For attacks labelled Physical, Special, and Status-Effecting, I am equating to PD, ED, and "Variable Defenses depending on Special Effect", respectively. 4. The kid-friendly genre standard of never doing actual harm to anything works in our favour. It simplifies the damage system to STUN only, so points don't have to be wasted on buying Resistant Protection, extra BODY to simulate HP, spending more points on Killing Attacks, and the like. It also ensures our Pokemon can always be healed at the PokeCenter easily. Therefore, damaging attacks are Blast with the +0 Advantage STUN Only. There, of course, would be a limitation on the STUN about not recovering at the regular rate, or not recovering at all assuming a knockout. 5. I have chosen to simulate the power ratings of each attack, listed on Bulbapedia, as 15/1DC. So, attacks with a power rating from 0-15 are bought as a 1d6 Blast, 16-30 are bought as 2d6 Blast... and so on, up to 150 bought as 10d6. The one attack from 1st Generation with a Power rating higher than 150 is Explosion (170). This attack, and Self-Destruct, are supposed to halve the target's defense, effectively giving them power ratings of 340 and 260, respectively. I haven't attempted to create these attacks yet, but seeing as how they're supposed to be one-hit knockouts, there might be a different way of building them instead of Blast 23d6. Considering the high-powered attacks like Hyperbeam and Sky Attack aren't easily learned by most pokemon, I feel this 15/1DC system works pretty well. I feel like these attacks fall into the low-powered Heroic category. The real point cost of all the electric-type attacks I've created for Pikachu range from 6 - 14 points. The Active points range from 15 - 40 active points. How do people feel about this? 6. Hard to say exactly what the balance of these attacks will be with the PD or ED bought for each pokemon, or how much STUN... but I'm thinking PD and ED should be kept low or toolkitted to be much more expensive, and STUN amounts should be kept higher to best simulate HP. 7. Every attack get's a +0 Advantage for declaring the "type" of attack is it, such as Electric-type attack (+0). This will have an effect on Vulnerability complications and Damage Reduction powers, representing type-based weaknesses and resistances. How do I do immunities, like Ghosts being immune to normal and fighting-type attacks? 8. The one Status-effecting power I've made is Paralysis from Thunder Wave. I built this as: 8 1) Thunder Wave: Minor Transform 4d6 (Target receives Requires a Roll 11- on everything, 12- Roll on Target's Phase), Attack Versus Alternate Defense (Mental Defense; +0), Electric-type (+0), Works Against EGO, Not BODY (+1/4) (25 Active Points); 20 Recoverable Charges (Recovers Under Limited Circumstances; Healing at PokeCenter required for Recovery; -1 1/4), All Or Nothing (-1/2), Limited Target ([slightly Limited]; Only against humans, animals, and pokemon; -1/4) [20 rc] I'm wondering if it should be a Major Transform.. but the cost is very inflated that way. A 12- Roll roughly signifies a 75% chance of recovery on 3d6. I've taken the rulebook's recommendation on making this a Mental Transform, including the Limited Target limitation; Recoverable Charges are the PP (as in the game - from Bulbapedia); All-or-Nothing prevents the status effect from being too powerful, as, rather than having this transform accumulate 'damage' which would never be healed back over the course of one battle, there is a certain chance to affect the target each time. 9. Certain attacks are damaging plus a certain percent chance to inflict a status effect, such as Thunder. I made this a Blast as normal, then I made a second form of Thunder Wave, which I simply called Paralysis, and linked it to Thunder. It has two more limitations: Linked, and Requires a Roll (6- roll; -1 1/2). A 6- roll roughly represents a 10% of success, as per stats on Thunder. A failed roll simply means the paralysis did not take effect, since it doesn't have it's own special effect - it's just part of the Thunder attack. However, if it succeeded, they'd have to make another attack roll for that power and total the dice in an All-or-Nothing fashion. Perhaps the Required Roll should be higher to reflect the increased likelihood on failure due to the attack roll and the All-or-Nothing Transform. 10. That's all for now!

Does anyone know of any current 6ed pokemon conversions? I'm working on a little right now, and I may share some of it here when I'm done.

10 years later, this made me laugh. EDIT: And after thinking about it some, I can't come up with anything funny

What genre is Pokemon? I mean, other than anime. That can't be a genre, can it?

The way I like to think of it is it's useful, not for PC's, but for determining the relative power (points) of NPC characters. If the NPC is supposed to be a knowledge-font, for whatever reason, this might be purchased as KSs, but it could also be purchased as Longevity, reflecting that the NPC has been around for a long time and can possibly drudge up memories, or even items, from ages past. A specific memory is a little different than a KS in my opinion. And as many people have already said, it's well priced, etc. for that purpose. Sorry if anyone's already mentioned this!

The only other way I could think of saving points based on this disadvantage would be to limit the BODY characteristic. I assume, since the character has a solid metal body, it probably has some extra BODY kickin' around. You could put a Limitation Can Only Be Healed Through Specific Power -2 at least. It's pretty limiting, I'd say. But your original plan seems like the best to me.

As we are building the setting of our new Fantasy/Steampunk campaign, some questions came up about the functionality of certain Foci being used by magic users. The first comes from the source of magic: something called a Solarium. It's not heavily defined at this point, but it's something like a terrestrial or extra-terrestrial entity which certain people are able to 'tap into' in order to control magic power. The ability to innately tap in manifests in very few people, less than 10 in the entire world. These people are adept magic wielders. Other people, though, are capable of learning to wield its power to a lesser degree. I'm wondering if the Solarium itself constitutes a Focus... something Immobile. After all, it may be the subject of attack, and if it were ever destroyed, any characters who would wield magic would no longer be able to, as it is the source of power. A Universal Immobile Inobvious Inaccessible Focus seems appropriate. I thought about defining this as an Endurance Reserve, capable of "fueling" magic powers, and usable by many people. Does that seem like a better option? Characters wouldn't really get to take this as a Limitation at all, as it's just part of the story. Right? But I'm conflicted about the mortal nature of it and how important it is for characters' powers.

Final version: 20 Mechanthropic Eye: (Total: 39 Active Cost, 20 Real Cost) +16 versus Range Modifier for Normal Sight (8 Active Points); Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 4) plus Partially Penetrative with Normal Sight (5 Active Points); Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 2) plus Nightvision (5 Active Points); OIF (Telescope implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 3) plus Sight Group Flash Defense (9 points) (9 Active Points); OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 6) plus +4 with a small group of attacks (12 Active Points); OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2), Instant (-1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, Only to Activate, -1/4), Nonpersistent (-1/4) (Real Cost: 5) 0

This is what I have so far for getting OCV as a Constant power ... (to be included with the compound power above) 3 +2 with a small group of attacks (6 Active Points); OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2), Extra Time (Full Phase, Only to Activate, -1/4) Notes: These Combat Skill Levels apply to attack made with Rifles and similar two-handed guns. ... except it's missing the constant part. Basically, once the character stops aiming, he loses the CSLs entirely, let alone needing to allocate them to something else. As long as he continues to aim, he gets the bonus CSL, just like the Set manoeuvre. On 6E1 128, it details Duration of Powers and changing Persistent Powers into Constant powers. It lists the following Limitations that can change Persistent Powers into Constant ones: Requires a Roll, Costs Endurance, Nonpersistent, Concentration, Gestures, and Incantations. Applying Extra Time to a Persistent power does not change it into a constant power, so still trying to figure that out. Requires a Roll: I don't want to have to Roll for it. Costs Endurance: I usually don't do the Endurance thing for my Heroic campaigns to keep it simple and fast for my players. This would be an unfair choice. Concentration: Leaves the character at 1/2 DCV, but this would not stack with the DCV penalty for Set, which seems like an unfair advantage, since I will be doing that most of the time. Gestures: Not sure what the gestures would be, other than holding the gun with both hands, which renders this, along with Gestures throughout, a -1 Limitation which seems too much. It doesn't make sense anyway. Incantations: Seems to work okay, for -1/2. But I don't envision the character actually saying anything during his aiming. Nonpersistent: Seems to be the best and simplest, but the Nonpersistent aspect only makes it "shut-off" if Stunned or Knocked Out. Perhaps I should take it one more step and make it Instant (-1/2), which would require the character to spend a Full-Phase action re-aiming after each use, only getting a shot in every second phase. That seems worth -3/4. Any thoughts? Otherwise, CSLs with Limitations are ruled to be only applicable to OCV, and not DCV or Damage, which is what I am buying these for, so this power will not breach any of those rules. Furthermore, I read under the Extra Time Limitation (6E1 374) that characters can take other actions while activating powers that take longer than the standard Zero-Phase, which is what I want (he will, therefore, be able to Set at the same time).

I am the GM, lol. I will talk about it with my players. On page 6E2 12, there are stats for PER Roll modifiers for size, and 1/64 of human size [approximately 1 inch] as -12. I expect the attack Roll modifiers to be comparable. I suppose the question to ask is this: If the book states that there is a -2 OCV Penalty for attacking Foci (6E1 377), has it assumed a more or less universal size of Focus? Or is this penalty regardless of size? Otherwise, I would have expected it to mention size-related penalties or bonuses to OCV in order to hit an Accessible Focus. After all, that section goes on to detail Bulky and Immobile Foci, each of which can be defined as Accessible (even though no one is Grabbing them out of people's hands) and each of which we typically picture as being rather large, or at least larger than the typical hand-held Focus. However, I would certainly not rule that these penalties stack (-2 and -12). Whether the Focus has been defined as an eye or not, it seems to me that the size of the Focus is irrelevant. I would put other player's at a -2 OCV to hit the eye, with the rule that the effect of that attack is not a veritable 'headshot', but rather a disarming or destroying of the Focus. If player's were at size-related penalties for hitting Foci, it would be too easy for players to define their Foci as being really small, like the difference between the blaster that J uses in Men In Black versus the big ones they use near the end of the movie, or the difference between a magic blade and easily fits inside the palm of your hand and a magic war hammer of epic proportions. You could argue that size factors into whether it is Accessible or Inaccessible, but from what it says about typically Accessible Foci being defined as Inaccessible (6E1 377), Steve Long seems to be leaving it completely up to the imagination of the characters. Which means I wouldn't apply size-related OCV modifiers to hitting Foci.

This is a second attempt, with Focus limitations updated for cost comparison purposes and with Telescopic utilized rather than MegaScale. 15 Mechanthropic Eye: (Total: 27 Active Cost, 15 Real Cost) +16 versus Range Modifier for Normal Sight (8 Active Points); Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 4) plus Partially Penetrative with Normal Sight (5 Active Points); Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2), OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 2) plus Nightvision (5 Active Points); OIF (Telescope implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 3) plus Sight Group Flash Defense (9 points) (9 Active Points); OIF (Telescopic implant; -1/2) (Real Cost: 6) 0

This is an excellent point, however, it is only partially true, as 6E1 377, under the heading Accessibility, adds a second paragraph stating "An ordinarily Inaccessible Focus can be defined as Accessible if it's easily damaged or destroyed, even if it can not be easily taken away from a character." This makes it up to each player exactly how they want to define their foci, with the knowledge that this Focus will most likely become the subject of attacks in an attempt to destroy it, rather than having it ripped out if it is Accessible rather than Inaccessible. I will inform my PC of this point. I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean take a Limited form of Skill Levels, applying the Focus limitation to them? If so, this is a good suggestion. However, the confusion was around the Extra Time limitation. I needed to know what effect Extra Time has on Persistent Characteristics. I believe the same problem would still exist if I took Combat Skill Level to improve OCV. The question is, how exactly do I gain the benefit, or lose the benefit, if I have to take Extra Time activating the skill? A simpler way of looking at it might be to ask "How can I get more of a bonus while using the Set manoeuvre?". That process is how I envision my character attacking: taking a full phase to aim with a ranged attack, and being at 1/2 DCV. But I want more than a +1 OCV bonus. Plus a Focus limitation, as it is the Eye implant that provides the aiming assistance.

Hey folks, I'm creating a character in a Steampunk setting who lost one of his eyes and has replaced it with a mechanthropic telescope gadget. I'm having trouble purchasing the desired Sense modifiers representing this telescopic eye's abilities without having them also affect his human eye. For example, Naked Advantage: MegaScale bought for Normal Sight seems to me to also apply to his human eye (and is way too expensive). The other way I tried, Telescopic +12 for Normal Sight, also applies to his human eye. The solution I came up with is a limitation Only for Telescopic Eye. Does this work? What would the value of this limitation be? In the example below, it doesn't quite seem right to have OAF (Telescopic Eye; -1) in addition to Only with Telescopic Eye (-1 [or whatever value we think works best]). He needs the telescopic eye in order to get the benefit, hence the Focus, but once he has it, it doesn't give his human eye any abilities, hence Only with Telescopic Eye. Losing the focus, or having it break/ripped out, renders the power useless on both accounts, so it shouldn't get the limitation for both, but doesn't leave him blind. I'm not sure. Furthermore, I wanted this eye to aid in targeting and provide an OCV bonus. I envision it taking Extra Time in order for the retrofuturistic old-fashioned technology to work, and functions exactly like the Set and Brace manoevres, but requiring a little more time and providing additional bonus. Not sure how this is supposed to work because OCV isn't really a power, it's a Persistent Characteristic. I'm assuming this limitation will turn it into a Constant Power, requiring Concentration (continued aiming, like Set). Is this true? 14 Mechanthropic Eye: (Total: 39 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) +19 versus Range Modifier for Normal Sight (10 Active Points); OAF (Telescope implant; -1), Only with Telescopic Implant (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2) (Real Cost: 3) plus Partially Penetrative with Normal Sight (5 Active Points); OAF (Telescope implant; -1), Only with Telescopic Implant (-1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2) (Real Cost: 1) plus Nightvision (5 Active Points); OAF (Telescope implant; -1) (Real Cost: 2) plus Sight Group Flash Defense (9 points) (9 Active Points); Only protects Telescope Implant (-1) (Real Cost: 4) plus +2 OCV (10 Active Points); OAF (Telescopic implant; -1), Extra Time (Full Phase, -1/2) (Real Cost: 4) 0 any help would be greatly appreciated!

How do I build an attack power that does not, and cannot, utilize a specific type of targeting sense? The example power is a lock-on missile. it uses the Radio group of the vehicle's senses to target foes. If the radio group is flashed, or Darkness is used against it, it should suffer similar penalties as if a regular human had been blinded. It cannot properly be fired without its guidance system.

Re: The Force Right! I totally spaced on the definition of "block", forgetting it was one of the combat maneuvres. So shall I apply the Area of Effect advantage, or the AVAD (Force resistance) advantage?

Re: Poisons I'm currently working on a Jedi campaign, and I was envisioning this being a Jedi power, in whgich they... I dunno, use "the force" to detoxify themselves, lol. Does that change anything? The sort of realism that people have mentioned kind of goes out the window with the Star Wars setting.

Re: The Force My next wondering is on the defensive capabilities of the lightsaber. It seems as though it's already sufficient, given the rules for Block. Deflection seems typical, but also uselss: it's purely a rule for Blocking at range, which is never done, given the hand-to-hand nature.

Re: The Force Given that both a) defining Telekinesis Power as "psychokinesis" and the house rule regarding Force powers is that they're all in the Mental Power Category, the power entry that I gave would not be perceivable: "Mental Powers are ordinarily Invisible (even if they also belong to a perceivable category, such as Attack Powers). Only the character using one, his target, and any character with Mental Awareness (6E1 211) can perceive them. See 6E1 159 for more information." Characters with Mental Awareness, which very well could be all Jedi, could perceive this power as long as it is used within their line of sight, possibly further, at the discretion of the GM. I'm not sure how you concluded that characters with Mental Awareness could block Mental attacks. Can you explain?

Re: The Force Yaaa... about that. I was wondering why Jedi don't psychokinetically grab each other, and throw each other, or punch each other. Does that happen? Does Darth Maul do that to Obi-Wan, or Qui-gon? Other than the video games, how often does that happen? You see, I was thinking about TK. With the 6E suggestion of making TK actually Psychokinesis by applying the Advantage ACV (OMCV vs. DCV; +0), making it a mental attack. This is in keeping with Christpher's suggestion of making Force Powers = Mental Powers. There's also the option of applying the Advantage Works Against EGO, not STR (+1/4), which allows character to resist, or break free, of psychokinetic Grabs with an EGO roll. So here are my thoughts. Realistically, a Jedi's psychokinetic STR is going to be quite high, given the large objects they are capable of lifting. I was thinking 60 is reasonable, but obviously could be higher. Given that, a psychokinetic punch is going to pack quite a wallop, and I see no reason for a character, who's paid points for the STR, to reduce its power in order to maintain some semblance of 'realism' (e.g. not blowing the head off of your opponent with a simple Force Push). I think the best way of representing a Force Push would be to have the characters make Grabs with their psychokinesis. Since the Squeeze, Slam and Throw are done as immediate attacks in the same segment, it would be easy to imagine the target simply being pushed by the psychokinetic force. Furthermore, since the obvious maneouvre to use would be the Throw, it would reduce the amount of damage done and give the target a chance to resist with their EGO roll. This opportunity to resist would lend a fair amount of game balance to the campaign, seeing as how it would be rather unbalancing for a character to Grab and Throw any Jedi they came across, and vice versa. It would also provide a better reason for characters to use less of their STR to Grab and Throw a target given END costs; whereas straight up punches are good for all-out attacks, since your aim is to hurt/kill, a Grab and Throw has a different purpose, perhaps not needing as much STR. Come to think of it, 60 STR seems like a lot. I'm trying to decide how often full 60 STR might be used in order to pick something up, or otherwise move it. It seems more reasonable to choose a much lower STR, for cost purposes, and for game balance. Any thoughts, or other suggestions? The other option would be to tailor certain Power entried to specific uses of Force Telekinesis, but I'm not sure if that would cost more or less. For example, any Grabbed character could potentially be thrown in any direction, but we could add Only to Push (-1) to make a Force Push, with a commensurate amount of STR to attain the desired effect of pushing the target. Force Psychokinesis: Telekinesis (STR 34), ACV (OMCV against DCV; +0)(51 Active Points); Affects Whole Object (-1/4), Requires Force Roll (-1/2), Works Against EGO, not STR (-1/4)(25 Real Points)

Re: The Force I very well could have. I was aware of the option, but I had envisioned utilizing the aforementioned Limitations (that effectively result in the same thing as Nonpersistent) as a game-balancing tactic. I could foresee over use of Force powers, for free, if there wasn't some other penalty associated with it. Indeed, the Jedi seem to have free use of their force powers in the movies, but I suspect that there's quite a bit of concentration under their finely crafted light-side veneer. Nonpersistent just didn't seem to be the right thing.

Re: The Force Force Speed: +4 SPD (40 Active Points); Requires Force Roll (-½), Variable Limitation (-1/2 worth of Limitations; -1/4)(16 Real Points) Force Body: +20 END (4 Active Points); Requires Force Roll (-½), Variable Limitation (-1/2 worth of Limitations; -1/4)(2 Real Points) Art of Movement: +2 Acrobatics plus +2 Breakfall (8 Active Points); Requires Force Roll (-½), Variable Limitation (-1/2 worth of Limitations; -1/4)(4 Real Points) These are all skills acquired by learning the ways of the Force, and they're evoked using the Force (hence Required Roll). The Variable Limitation is for the PC to be able to choose either Concentration, or Costs Endurance, both of which effectively convert these to Constant Powers, rather than having a Persisten effect. Required Roll also has this effect. The PCs can choose for themselves which skills they think have been trained in, as well as the value of these skills/characteristics. But the general mechanic of turning these into Constant powers, rather than Persistent, works? Someone mentioned Aid, but that requires an Attack Action, and so would be almost useless to the Jedi.

In a campaign setting where poisons are not very common, and using them on enemies, or having them used on you, is very rare, would it be reasonable to assume that poisons built with specific Powers (such as Drain) could still be resisted by making a CON check? At least the type of poison whose usual intent is to kill, being used as a plot device, or a drama magnet. If so, then what do you think of the next two powers.. (ignore cost calculation please) Detoxify Poison:+2 CON, Cumulative (x8 Maximum amount; +1¼)(4 Active Points); Costs Endurance (-½), Concentration (-¼), Extra Time (1 Day; -4)(1 Real Point) This character has the ability to meditate in order to purge his body of disease, poison, and other ill-effects. Costs Endurance converts and otherwise Persistent power into a Constant power. Cumulative might be iffy, but the gist is that the longer he the longer he concentrates, the more likely he is to ward of the effects (raising his CON and getting the opportunity to reroll Success) Detoxify Poison: Healing (BODY) 1d6, Expanded Effect (x3; +1), Variable Effect (Poisons, +½)(25 Active Points); Concentration (Half DCV; -¼), Extra time (1 Minute; -1½), Only Works on Poisons (-2)(5 Real Points) This one is obviously more suitable to something like "healing the effects of poison", but it lacks the epic imagery of a struggle between the character and impending doom. This power could represent anything really, a healing spell, an antidote, etc.

Re: The Force Interesting that you threw in "Area of Effect" in the second post. So that basically means that it can't be avoided, except when using the Dive For Cover maneouvre, but it also has the Limitation Can Be Deflected, so any special effect represented by the Deflection Power (such as another lightsaber) could block it. That would also mean that the character's only have to hit DCV 3 to target an opponent. But you can target a character with an Area of Effect, couldn't you? To be honest, I'm not sure what that's accomplished. We already seemed to have solved most of the real issues by choosing AVAD. This blockable/unblockable is a non-issue for me. I'm simply going to adjudicate on a case-by-case basis, given special effects, common sense, and dramatic sense. And don't forget game balance. I do appreciate the effort though. I think the next big one is going to be Telekinesis. I'll start working on it, but suggestions are welcome. I've also been thinking of Christopher's suggestion of making categorizing all Force powers into the Mental Power Category, making them all goverened by those rules. I just read the first part in the Powers chapter, and it got me thinking. Effecting how Force Powers are sensed, what type of Action they are, etc.