eepjr24

Yes, the higher levels of all skills have the same restrictions. Oh, you can get better at anything if you are willing to spend enough time, just like in real life. But at some point the improvements become so incremental as to be not noticeable in the time frame that campaigns are set in. If you want to shortcut that you need someone who has done that already and can point you in the direction of what to do. And the other part is that many people don't realize is to truly get better at something once you reach a certain level, teaching becomes the best way to get better at it. You revisit skills you had not thought of and see others use them realize new potentials or techniques that would not have been possible without the experience plus the insight into how others perceive them. But by all means, use caps. Those are much more realistic! =P - E

I generally don't set campaign caps explicitly... but effectively I do. I generally just let players know that "I train with my sword during down time" is not sufficient to get you beyond a couple skill levels specifically to OCV for sword. Sparring practice with another party member might get you up to a couple 3 point levels and they can do the same for their mace or flail or whatever. But beyond that you need to start seeking out very skilled people to train for things like all melee or all ranged or spend a very long time working to master multiple weapons. And at that point, I am fine with them having the levels because the progress is gradual and makes sense to me. I generally don't have people taking overall skill levels because of the price. Even the 10 point all non-combat skill levels I have not seen taken as people tend to go for all Agility or all Intellect or 3 skill groups or even skill enhancers before they would attempt a 10 point level. And then when you factor that skill levels do not apply if you are not proficient or only have a familiarity, plus all the factors that Hugh lays out above, I just have not seen it as an issue. At some point, yes, the party fighter will likely be the greatest maul wielder the setting has know but... isn't that okay? He's going to not have access to that maul sometimes and sometimes that maul will not be the answer to all the questions or the monster will be resistant to crushing damage, so the rogue or the mage or the druid will get to exercise their greatest skill. It all works out. I do like Duke's idea of just leveling with the players about caps, but I would go with soft caps most likely if I got to that point. I really like letting players excel at something and I think sometimes caps get in the way of that, unless you don't let anyone else get to the cap for that schtick. If you play it as a maxima, it gets expensive to pay double for things really quickly. It's not a hard no, just a "are you sure you really want to put your points there"? To the original question... yes, I do limit them, just not as explicitly. At some point, I would have to tell the player "You are already the best at that skill, you'll have to find other areas to improve in", but I have been lucky that the methods above have worked so far and I have not had to do that. Note, if you ask the same questions in a Supers genre, a different answer is likely. There, I have had people simply try to buy enough overall levels to do whatever they wanted and I use caps at least in initial character creation.

Hope it's okay to post it here, this is not mine but I know folks are on the lookout for books and $20 is decent price. https://www.facebook.com/groups/RPGsalestrades/?__cft__[0]=AZUgi2XG_oaOuCcUpSTcgUbJ99on-F3LOBgMQxk5-H25BXXQglCeHnbXkCWxbQBho4A7qc7ae99ijrW6F3x6Q5NwV1N7fPtF9SRVqoz_htQTs-PzL5Cjlu289Io1YSf5Fqd9cy0GuPE3nHM9Q6JlYoEreC67Q6V5iA3h3yrFnuEYTm7q2O-I2DOnKG6942wEOoWmyGctrHZ0QFlqLu00Ug3GdvOh-UD5FAcqvBWaBZS5kg&__tn__=-UC%2CP-R I am not certain if you have to be a member to see the posts, the group is Role Playing Games & Miniatures (Sales & Trades ). Again, not my book, not my group, just posting in case someone is looking. As always, be careful, use paypal or another service that offers refunds. - E

The schools serve the same basic purpose as classes for casters, different methodologies of casting. They also represent different aspects of their sphere, for instance one is Elemental with a traditional Air, Earth, Fire, Water division. So a kind of hybrid of the class and SFX. I thought of another way to offset the penalties for the one sphere if needed. I can have charged or otherwise limited skill boosts through foci, potions or the like. I like the idea of being able to give out small magical rewards in any case, so enemy casters might have doses left if they don't use them, etc. Plenty to think about, I have a while before play starts. - E

It's only one school out of 12, so you can not have any RSR at all for other schools if you prefer that. So far, one requires an RSR at -1/10 AP, one has RSR at -1/5 AP and 3 have no RSR. With no RSR you have the option of limited range plus gestures and sometimes extra time. Or you can choose another with OAF and Increased END cost. Last option at the moment is expendable foci, gestures and incantations. I may have at least one with no restrictions on casting, but the RP cost will be high if they don't limit it much. - E

I am working with the idea of Skill Maxima, but not sure yet if I will set it at 13- or 14-. On the PSL's I like the idea of stat limitations on it... hrm. I'll have to think about that, it may not be necessary and I don't want to add more math just because. I might have to play a few games and see how it goes. I would likely not have a problem with a player buying a lot of PSL's for one big spell so they could be the "best" at that one and then just limit the others to something reasonable. - E

Currently by spell. So a caster can be good at one really difficult spell but still barely be able to cast an "easier" spell. - E

Numerous ways to do this. With what you have above, I would probably do a multipower with the entangle (maybe you are thinking grab, really?) and HKA in one slot and swinging in another slot, build them both as Fixed slots and add lockout if needed. I would probably use the chain as stretching and +STR for GRAB only. Then link the HKA to it and you are done. Thereafter if the GRAB is still in effect you just make an attack roll at 1/2 DCV versus the grabbed hero. - E

Personally, I agree. Just wanted you to know this was not a missle he was looking at. Thus, my earlier suggestion on OCV. heh. - E

It's interesting that I read your logic and I see me from about 20 years ago. 😃 They cannot build spells wily nily. There is a set list that is known at the beginning of the campaign that they can select from. If they encounter others in their adventures via spell notes, someone teaching them or (most difficult) crafting a spell themselves, those are possible places for acquiring another spell, all of which will have GM design or input. On the flip side of that, I am going to use Roll20, so the rolls should all happen at once with no abnormal calculations involved by the player. To hit, RSR and effect dice will all be rolled at once. So that removes one of the barriers some people have to casting classes in my group, anyway. Hero doesn't require anything, but it allows you to build whatever you like. I'm glad you have a method that works for you, I tend to develop new magic systems for each setting I build and so sticking to the same old thing after a while is a bit tedious. Being any type of hero in this setting has a buy in. They will be very much the oddity, as they are not currently in the military and not really fully immersed in civilian life either. They face danger voluntarily, which most citizens avoid. As to your assertion that balance will be achieved through points alone... I am glad if that has been your experience. My experience is that those who go to the trouble of designing their own spells and abilities from scratch are much better at point efficiency and leveraging power interdependencies that yield much more effective combat results than those who prefer not to do that. By having pre-built many of these options I am working to remove some of those imbalances without having to go through a bunch of custom spells and abilities or nitpick about which things can go together that they have specially designed. I am not using any frameworks currently for either spells or fighting abilities. If things turn out to be too costly (which I am modeling by building demo characters) then it is an easy fix to simply allow unified powers or multipowers or tweak the limitation values (I use a spreadsheet so updating lots of them at once for a school is easy). If all you want to do is be a fighter and have nifty sword or whip or ghurka tricks, that is fine, you can do that. If you want to do things that cannot be done with a sword, like fly or walk through stone walls, magic gives you an outlet for that. Did you have any comments on the actual question in the thread? =P - E

I appreciate that you are talking about a real world missile here and I agree with you from that front, but that is not what the poster referenced. He is talking about a specific weapon and ammunition load from the Judge Dredd Universe that does work in just the way described. - E

Yep, that is a consideration for some of the attack spells where the dice can easily be adjusted and defense or movement which generally scale pretty easily. Not as much of an option on utility powers like summon or change environment. And it can get hairy on low CP powers with high AP because of large amounts of advantages.

I already have some mechanisms in place to control power creep (RSR and other school specific limitations, END Reserves, Limited Spell creation, etc.). What I am trying to provide is variety without having a "class" system and allowing more organic character growth. I want magic to be common and powerful, but not to the point that it replaces other types of fighting. If someone wants to mix the two, that should be valid as well, without being overpowering (it's difficult in 175 points to do in this setting). I also want the spells to be flavorful for the school and not just the same spells reskinned for an element or domain. - E

I agree with what you are saying, maybe with different emphasis as we likely have different experiences that have shaped our opinions. I just don't see much of the second instance. I do see people warning about problems they have had with a specific construct, I certainly do that. But I also try to point out ways to mitigate or work around those issues, whether in the official rules or not. Sometimes people have bad days and it might come across otherwise, maybe they have seen the exact same construct used abusively in their games and maybe they should be taking a break from the forum... =P I did that for a while because life started stressing me out and I found myself getting snippy over things. Anyway, I don't think we are arguing really different points here, just maybe emphasizing different aspects. I use house rules, not as much as Shrike, although I do appreciate the cogent way that he lays out which he is using and why he adopted them. I tend to answer with an official rule if there is one, not because I think house rules are bad, but because I think you will be able to make much more nuanced decisions about which to use and when to use them if you know the content and intent of the applicable "official" rules.

Yes, I was noodling how to make that work out. The Skills book says that taking a Full Phase does not give you a +1 for half phase actions, you have to go to a Turn. But I may house rule the full phase as a +1 as well. For large ritualistic type spells, this could take care of some of the penalties for sure. For combat type spells, a full turn is 2 or 3 phases of being attacked, which would render them fairly moot. The book(s) [6E1, pg 59, 6E Skills, pg 35] is not very specific on what the skill user can be doing otherwise during the time, if the time must be contiguous, and how long before the roll the preparations could be taken. So for instance, if a Shaman spends all day making summon spell preparations for an attack that he knows will be coming the next day.... does he get the time bonuses for a day? Half value? None at all? I am still working it out, but I want to have a couple different ways to offset the penalties. I poked around elsewhere (APG I and APG II, FH, etc.) and did not see anything else in reference to this. - E

Generally, the restrainable limitation and Foci are not used on the same power. A typical exception would be a wing harness, where you could interfere with the wings and take off the harness with two different methods. So either go Hugh's route and make it worth the -1 limitation or get rid of one. I'd want you to get more specific about changing the "nature" of a power. You mention some examples, but they are not consistent. In one you change one defense to another. Another changes a constant adjustment to an instant adjustment. A third changes an instant attack to a constant attack. Are the AP staying the same? The RP? Major transformation says on the topic "changing the underlying nature of a power, but not its basic function (for example, converting a Blast into an RKA, Drain, or other form of Ranged attack, but not into Healing or a defense)", it looks to me like the change to a Change Environment would not have the same basic function of doing damage, but I could be wrong. You are paying enough for this that I would certainly think you should be able to do some significant changes to an opponent. But I would also be hesitant as this power could be fairly unbalancing. Lastly, you would need some method of knowing what powers your opponent had (having seen them used or a detect perhaps?) before you could change them. - E

Two solutions come to mind. The first is that the "heat seeking" is just a special effect of a missile that is very accurate. It doesn't really matter that it is using IR as a targeting mechanism. So something like: +8 OCV, only versus targets with a heat signature (-0), OIF (-0), etc. 8 RP If the fact that it might not hit until a later phase become extremely important you could implement this as either a subset of Damage Over Time or Delayed Effect. You might have to house rule parts of it to make it fit your exact requirements. The second would be if the exact method where it flies around looking for a particular target heat signature is important over multiple phases... build it as a vehicle with an AI. It should not require a lot of points, mostly it's a detect, RKA, and flight with some bonuses to perception to avoid other things. Note that this has the advantage / disadvantage of allowing it to be attacked and destroyed. - E

I realize the complexity will be higher by having different requirements for different schools, but I view this as more of a "class" distinction. You seem familiar with D&D, so this would be the difference between how artificers, clerics, druids, sorcerers, warlocks, wizards, etc. cast. That said, there are no levels per se, a caster could have a 12 RP spell that is 50 AP to start the game. It's unlikely, but not restricted. I do like the idea of non-pass fail, I currently have some spells with scaling based on skill roll, I may move to a more lenient scaling as you suggest for some failing rolls. That would help offset the other difficulties of this school. To answer your other questions: Scale is whatever you can afford, restricted by other criteria like that all spell END comes from a reserve, spells can be challenging to locate after creation, new spells are non trivial to create. I am building sample characters of each school as I would require for a player, with a background, outside skills, etc. Building a high end caster will occur only through experience in this setting, start will be heroic and I am making sure to make enough spells in each school to make the school playable. The caster could also have multiple schools, although there will be some restrictions on compatibility, similar to multi-classing. That said, experience will not be stingy, so adding spells through adventure and skill are possible. It will make it less likely that a player is both a versatile caster and highly skilled in other types of fighting. Did you have any thoughts on the 1 point for 2 on a specific spell penalty? Does that seem balanced versus the purchase of over maxima skill points?

First off, apologies to the original poster as this is pretty far from your original question. I think that you have a point here, Duke, and I agree that everyone should do what works for them in their game. But I think the flip side here is that the official rules are there for a reason, so that everyone has a baseline to work from. Other official publications should hew to those rules, which then allows the local house rules to be applied in a consistent manner as well. If the "official" rules have 3 different ways to interpret something it gets very difficult to figure out which one a particular instance is referring to and even more difficult to apply your own house rules or modifications to it. I am greatly in favor of having more "optional" rules, although I would have liked it if they were all compiled somewhere so you could just have a check list of which optional or house rules you use. @Killer Shrike does an outstanding job of this on his campaign / setting pages, for instance. It's not that any one interpretation is "right", but it does allow for consistency, ease of common understanding and ease of adaptation. Back to the original posters question: I played with the BBB for years and loved it. I played 3e for years and loved it. I have played 6e for years and love it as well. I find that the experience granted by years of the authors playing it and receiving feedback have encountered more potential issues than my individual experience and that gives them insight that would otherwise be lacking. To me, this makes for a more complete ruleset and is desirable for that reason. Does that mean any particular version is perfect? No. Do I still have house rules or things I prefer to play differently? Yes. - E

I'd say the IPE on Desolidification would not be required unless the player expected to be able to turn on the Desolidification when they are already invisible. Turning on Desolidification would (IMO) make them "flicker" for a moment as the invisibility covered it, as it does when an attack power is used. Otherwise I would say they would remain invisible. Note that Desolidification (and all other "obvious" powers) must be perceived by two sense groups (errr... 3 sense groups in 4e, I looked it up to make sure) when they are in use, so unless the invisibility covered all those sense groups they could possibly be sensed in another group. As to your other question about IPE on Desolidification, Desolidification is an Obvious power, so making it Inobvious would be +1/4, or Invisible (to sight) for +1/2. That would remove the haze, but for +1/4 someone could still make a perception check to see through it (like a fringe on invisibility). All of the above is the technical detail, but really what you need to decide what works for your game. Some folks in 4 color games would hand wave a lot of that stuff and just let the player not be seen until it was important for the story that they be seen. In gritty street level games, every point of power may be scrutinized and you only get exactly what you pay for. So the rules are are a good guide on this type of thing but don't let them override your story. - E

I am working on a setting and am encountering various scenarios that I'd like some outside opinions on as I go. Here is the latest one. One of the magic "schools" in this setting requires a skill roll on all spells at the -1 per 5 AP level. This is to represent that these spells require more study and practice to cast successfully. Because the spells can have AP's in the 50-60 range for some, I am trying to decide on the best way to show the study and practice. Right now I am leaning toward using PSL's, not because of the pricing, but because they allow granularity for the spell. So say the caster has these 3 spells: Summon X: 54 AP, -11 Roll 3d6 Flash, Armor Piercing: 19 AP, -4 Roll Resistant Protection: 21 AP, -4 Roll If I simply allow the casters to raise their skill to the point where the summon will probably to work, the Flash and Resistant Protection become trivial. I would rather use PSL's. So if we have a skill Maxima of 14- and the caster pays double to get to 15-, the Flash and RP become a little better than 1 in 2 propositions. The Summon is a 1 in 200 shot. If I set the PSL at 1 character point per +2 roll, the caster could spend 5 points to offset the majority of the penalty for the Summon. To bring eliminate the penalty on the other 2 would be 4 more points. For the same 4 points they could buy +1 to the base casting skill. Does this seem too harsh? Too lenient? I like the flavor, just trying to work out the balance for the math. Outside of the simple math, these spells will have some effects that are restricted or not found in other schools. - E

Yep, that agrees with what I was thinking, Chris, there was just not an even breakpoint for the large group versus single action. I am fine with her starting her turn at Dex+5 if she wants to move. To your question on whether LR allows attacks at the higher Dex, as far as I know it's the only thing that allows you to act faster besides buying up your DEX. Here is the definition at the back of 6E1:

I am working on a setting and fleshing out some NPC's. One of them is a spell caster that tends to be very mobile but has a relatively low dexterity score. I would like for her to be able to move and cast (two things she has practiced extensively) before she would otherwise act. I have this bought as: 2 +6 Lightning Reflexes: Spells 1 +5 Lightning Reflexes: Running Basically, considering spells to be a large group and running to be a single action. Thoughts on this implementation? I think some people assume that if you have the LR and are using the attack that has the LR that you can half move with it, but I have never really played it that was as I saw it more as a traditional "quick on the draw" type of power. I realize she will be slightly slower if he wants to move first but I see that as reasonable and probably even fitting. - E

I'd go with something combining the above. Change Environment [4] -1 to DEX rolls and all rolls based on DEX [9] -3 to CON rolls [4] Long Lasting: 1 Turn [3] -1 PER rolls 20 points No Range (-1/2) No effect versus those with Acrobatics, Teleportation, EDM, FTL (-1/2) 10 RP AND Flash 3d6 Sight NND: Not versus those with Acrobatics, Teleportation, EDM, FTL (+0) [15 AP] No Range (-1/2) Linked to CE (-1/2) 7 RP Total: 17 RP Effect is that unless you have one of the stated defenses, you take a 3d6 Sight Flash and for the next turn you have to make a CON roll at -3 to remain standing. If you fail, you fall. If you don't have the defenses, you suffer -3 to all CON rolls, -1 to DEX rolls and associated skills as well as -1 PER. Talk to your GM about whether the defenses are common enough to qualify in your campaign, but generally having a 3 point skill would qualify. - E

I think that provides some further background to your responses. I don't make the same distinction, for me either way the GM gets to call what is going to happen. I see why some might make the distinction though, valid option, just not the one I would default to. - E