Gunrunner

Re: What do you think is the best way to balance armor use? It seems like it would work, but you forgot the rule of KISS- Keep It Simple, Stupid! No offense, it's just a saying Besides DCV/Dex roll penalties, I take away LTE for long-term armor use. You can also require minimum STR's to wear armor the same way you apply minimum STR's to real weapons. You could also drain REC instead of LTE the longer the armor is worn. There are plenty things you can do to make heavy armor a less attractive option. Just pick a simple mechanism that works for you.

Re: Using d20 instead of 3d6 (DON'T KILL ME!) In a few situations, I actually prefer a linear system to a bell curve system. I don't know if anyone has played Ars Magica before, but they had a cool mechanic where some contests of skill were highly random and some were deterministic. I don't remember exactly how it works, but I do remember the gist of it. For example, combat would be more inclined to randomness as opposed to say, arm wrestling - where the stronger contestant will almost always win. In other words, it's harder to get lucky and win an arm wrestling contest than getting lucky and landing a deadly blow on a more skilled opponent, so each contest is subject to different types of die rolls. Another good example of a contest inclined to randomness would be in baseball - pitching vs. hitting. I was actually thinking of creating a house rule for HERO to give lower-skilled warriors a fighting chance against higher-skilled ones and make combat a bit more random. I personally don't like the fact that a small difference in OCV/DCV can determine the outcome of a fight. For combat and some situations where randomness plays as much importance as skill, I would make what I call a wild 3d6 roll. If I rolled double one's, two's or three's on 3d6, I would subtract the highest die and take the result - sort of a good luck bonus if you will. For example, if I rolled a 5, 2, and 2 on 3d6, I would subtract the 5 for an effective die roll of 4 - much better than the normal 9 I would have had. Similarly if I rolled double four's, five's or six's on 3d6, I would roll an extra die and add it the result - a bad luck penalty. So if I rolled a 5, 5, and 4 on 3d6, I would roll the extra die (let's say I roll a 4) - So the effective die roll is 18; pretty crappy luck! Any thoughts?

Re: Paying Points for Equipment... Sounds cool CorpCommander! I like your ideas.

Re: I just can't get into Cosmic Level play I really don't get how someone can make Galactic Champions boring. You can still make interesting characters with the right disadvantages - psychological or otherwise. And if you're beating up NPC's without having to worry, then have the GM give you more challenging foes. How can you mess that up? Look at Dragonball Z - I would say that the characters there are Galactic level, and there are some really interesting characters I wouldn't mind role-playing. Vegeta would be extremely fun trying to roleplay his arrogance, determination and pride. Even the Greek Gods had human faults. If you're fighting someone you know you can whip, play it up a bit! Make pretend you're weaker than you really are and when your enemy gets overconfident, laugh in his face and say something like "HA HA HA! Now face my true form!" But seriously, if you find yourself having a too easy time with your cosmic-level character, then you're GM is not challenging you enough and you should really bring that up to him/her. In DBZ, there's always someone more powerful to fight.

Re: Continuous power which is faster than me I'd say a -2 limitation to SPD 12 would be alright if maintaining the power was the ONLY thing you could do for that segment. Perhaps a smaller limitation value would do if you used that power on a frequent basis, but -2 doesn't sound unreasonable. Linked could work too I suppose, but a SPD limitation just seems simpler to me.

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? Another thing: Why would I buy extra DC's for my martial arts maneuvers if I could just buy Deady Blow??? Even at the 10-point level, +1d6 of Deadly Blow costs less than +1d6 of extra damage classes for martial arts, it is more versatile/less restricted, AND it raises the base damage where extra MA DC's don't. I guess one could argue that the cost of MA extra DC's is arbitrary, but an inequality does exist.

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? Just to clarify: I don't believe that allowing characters to have superhuman powers/talents are going to unbalance a campaign, but to allow only one or two of such in a heroic campaign may because of how potent they are compared to the more mundane talents/abilities characters would have access to. If it were a superheroic campaign where characters have access to a wide range of superhuman powers or talents, well that's a different story and in that case I'd be fine with it.

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? Quote by KS: "Again, in general. If you seek to hard cap and limit what PC's are capable of, another system where PC's are inherently less capable and which has a more closed character design system would likely be easier for you as a GM." To conclude that if a GM "caps" or "limits" what PC's are capable of (banning/limiting the Deadly Blow talent in this case) he or she may be better off with a less flexible system is a bit excessive IMHO. I don't believe that a GM who bans DB is trying to eliminate the flexibility of the system. I enjoy flexibility - but I also like game balance as well, and it is of my opinion that DB is unbalancing. The concept of limiting/capping/banning DB is the same concept of having different rules for heroic and superheroic campaigns. Here's my point: How many GM's trying to run a fantasy heroic-level campaign would let their players buy superhuman STR, or an unlimited amount of inherent or persistent Armor for their characters; how about Transform? Why not let any of those fantasy characters say they've been bitten by a radioactive spider, thereby giving them superpowers? My guess is that most wouldn't, and it's not because GM's necessarily want a controlled/inflexible system, but because A) It's not consistent with the flavor of a heroic level campaign and more importantly It creates the potential of seriously unbalancing the campaign. Let's say I made it so that a Major Transform spell in my campaign was so common that almost any mage could learn it. Now knowing this, it would almost force every player in the campaign to buy Power Defense (or some other similar countermeasure) for their characters just so they couldn't easily be turned into an insect. Using the same theory, it would force players to buy countermeasures for DB because it is such a potent talent. I don't believe in creating an environment that forces characters to purchase unusual defenses mainly to counter the effects of ONE extremely potent talent/power. THIS in my opinion is promoting inflexibility, when every character has to buy countermeasures for a power/talent in order to have a chance of survival. It is of my opinion that the DB talent isn't consistent with a High Fantasy Heroic campaign. To me it also makes combat too deadly and less dramatic. For a Low Fantasy realistic campaign? Perhaps, but it just ain't my style

Re: Turakian Age question: Ebistan Tarthu Maybe that's why it's the ONLY one - and isolated. Just because a land has people with a common culture doesn't mean that everybody in that region has the same viewpoints. Take almost any country in the world - there will always be groups of people with extremist ideas. Perhaps a temple that trains females would be extremist in this culture. If the Catholic church can have openly gay priests, then anything's possible right?

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? I agree with you 100% Marc. I would encourage light fighters to do other things to increase their ability to do damage: targeting skill levels, DC's from martial arts, etc. I wouldn't use all the hit location rules as it slows things down too much for my tastes, but instead I'd do a few things to prevent armor from ruining game balance: 1) I use Activation Rolls for armor, and 2) I have a house rule where I let players use two targeting skill levels to bypass 1 point of Armor or defense. A player may do this for as many targeting skill levels she has. 3) I make it so that Combat Luck is not cumulative with Armor - you have to pick one defense or the other to use. Doing this allows weaker fighters/rogues to do damage without requiring the death-dealing blows necessary to hurt a heavily-armored warrior. And consequently it steers away from the trend of having every fighter required to do 3d6 KD to be effective, which becomes a major problem for those characters who prefer not to wear armor. 3d6 KD melee attacks and higher should generally be reserved for heavy fighters, as it is one of their distinct, signature advantages over light fighters. Take that advantage away from a heavy fighter and their's not much more incentive to ever be a heavy fighter if everyone in the campaign can hit that hard.

Re: Thanks to Keith Curtis... You da man, Keith. YOU... DA... MAN!

Re: Deadly Blow talent too powerful? I'm confused on something. If 2d6 KD is the base damage of a battle axe, and you can do up to twice the base damage of a weapon, then why couldn't you do 4d6 with a battle axe if you had a high enough STR? Wouldn't that be exactly twice the base damage?

I was curious how many people have run campaigns that allow the deadly blow talent. To me it seems overly powerful for a heroic campaign. Two levels of Deadly Blow with swords can give someone who does 1d+1 of KD normally a 3d+1 KD attack. Let's consider this: 3d+1 KD would do 11 to 12 BODY damage on average (which is a little much in my opinion); this would yield an approximate average of 22 to 36 STUN damage! Now, it would take a very tough, fully armored knight to have the slightest chance of not being stunned after every hit. Furthermore, it just seems to trivialize heavy warriors with high STR. There doesn't seem much use in having a high STR if you can just buy Deadly Blow to do extra damage that doesn't even count against your maximum damage with a weapon! I know that Deadly Blow limits the circumstances or weapons one can use with the talent but so what? Swordmasters could just have a backup sword in case his primary breaks, not much of a disadvantage there. How do others feel about this talent?

Re: If magic cost full price... Here is the reason as I see it: The justification for a cost break in a Multipower is that you are limited to how many powers you can use simultaneously and powers usually share the same limitations. The justification for a cost break in an EC is that all powers come from the same special effect/source and are above a certain minimum point cost. The magic system presented in FH Grimoire does not fit into any type of framework presented in 5th ED. yet it shares one restriction from each of the Multipower and Elemental Control framework: magic spells share most of their limitations (gestures, incantations, etc.) and they share the same special effect and source. So the 1/3 cost break seems to an attempt to create a unique power framework that cannot be represented by a Multipower or Elemental Control alone.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? Quote by Cyst: "Do you think creators of fantastic fiction can use imaginary groups of 'people' to foster real life tolerance towards others in their audience? Specifically, I'm thinking of X-Men and Star Trek. Both these series have specifically intended to encourage their audiences to be more tolerant through the examples of their characters. Both Professor X and Jean-Luc Picard are the moral voice of those series, and they actively enourage us throughout the series to treat all others with tolerance. Is it possible for this to have any affect on how people who read/watch these series act and believe in real life? If you answer yes, then why doesn't the opposite hold true in treating orcs as homogemously evil?" Good point, and yes I do believe that literature can be used to influence people in this manner and the opposite. I think that a fantasy story with "evil races" is a bad example because it's distance from our reality prevents us from relating with the principles of such a world. That does not mean, however, that a story which does relate closely to our reality cannot be used to influence people in a racist manner. I think if someone had bad experiences with a race of people their whole life and told others about it, it could very likely influence those listeners to think of people of that race in a more negative manner. At the same time, what can be done? If you feel that people with destructive or idiotic ideas should be silenced, then who in this world do you trust enough to determine what is right and wrong, what should be said or not said? I don't even trust myself for that task and I'm my own greatest fan Giving someone or a group of people the power to control which ideas are promoted and which ones are banned is encouraging corruption on a huge scale. By it's very nature it creates inequality. Cyst, you make an excellent point by asking this question and I'm glad to see that you aren't taking anything I say personally, it shows you to be a reasonable person. To continue our eternal discourse however, the problems you present will never provide a perfect solution. You may as well try to find the solution for world peace or the eradication of crime. So long as humans live, there will always be war, there will always be crime, and there will always be disagreement. That is the nature of mankind, it is when we accept this reality do we become wiser and realize that we all fight the battles of wars that can never be won. That doesn't mean we stop fighting, but it will give you the peace of mind that you seem to need.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? My point was only to present a worst-case scenario. I don't believe you or cyst is an evil, tyrannical Nazi and I hope no one actually took it as my intent to denounce you as such. I know that both your intentions are good, but Ghost Angel's quote summarizes my beliefs about what cyst has been saying "The road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions."

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? I missed the part where you answered my first question. Please disregard.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept?

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? Dangit man, you keep posting as I write something! Anyways, I do believe that the ACT of denying people their First Amendment rights should be prevented, but I also believe I must expose the logic used that sets the precedent for such an act. Speaking and acting are two different things entirely in my opinion. The right to speak about such an act I would support (even if I don't agree with it and would argue against it), but not the action of denial itself.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? Well said Agemegos, well said. On those points I can agree.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? "And since it is obviously alright for you to say that Cyst ought not to say that sort of thing, why is it not alright for Cyst to say that people ought not to publish or play dangerous RPGs? Why is what you are doing not censorship?" I'm sorry Agemegos, but can YOU quote where it is that I said cyst ought not to say something? I just said that I don't agree with what he's saying. If you actually considered what I posted you would realize this. You remember the part where I said that I'd fight for cyst's freedom to disagree and argue with me? Was there something there that I said that you don't understand? I'm not going to argue with you about responsibility of influence because it is just a matter of opinion/differing theories of which we both disagree.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? I am referring to Doug's post in the above statement.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? You are correct and I retract that statement, but I still oppose that logic.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? Yes, indirectly I did compare you to a Nazi. This is because I want people to realize the serious danger your logic presents. And despite this or what you may believe, as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces I would fight and die for your right to disagree with me on this or any subject. However, people need to know the words that sew the seeds of tyranny so that even if it happens on a small scale such as this forum, they will be aware of it when it happens on a larger, more politically relevant scale. And as such, I am obligated to give you strong opposition, so if you feel offended by this then too bad. Your feelings are just collateral damage, not the focus of my opposition - so don't take it personally. That may be fine for you, but when you begin suggesting what people/organizations should and should not say or take responsibility for, that is a form of censorship IMHO and such logic leads to worse forms of censorship. If I believed that an RPG was promoting strong racism, then I would tell that RPG's creator and everyone else that it is pure crap. What I don't do is tell that person what he should or shouldn't say. It's his right to publish whatever RPG he wants, and I'm not foolish enough to believe that people are such mindless sheep that it is the RPG - not the people - that must be held accountable for any actions such a game may influence. Many Jews died during the Spanish Inquisition, but I don't blame Christianity nor the Bible for that.

Re: Is "evil race" an intrinsically rascist concept? I'm kind of tired, so I don't know if I went off topic too far or if I got my point across so I'll say it this way: If you're worried about the concept of "evil races" in RPG's promoting racism, then implying that companies that publish RPG's should be held accountable for their influence on others is not the answer. Individuals should be held accountable for their own actions. To control what such companies should/shouldn't publish is akin to killing a monster with a bigger, meaner one. Sure, you got rid of the small monster but now you have a bigger, more dangerous one you have to deal with!