eepjr24

Done with the race templates, they can be found here: http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Contributions/eepjr24/Default.aspx

Invocations are done, can be found here: 

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Content/ActiveFantasyEffects.aspx?EffectTypeId=15&EffectCategoryId=111

Feats are mostly done and can be found here:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/Content/ActiveFantasyEffects.aspx?EffectTypeId=14&EffectCategoryId=81

As always, feedback, corrections and constructive criticism are welcome.

- E

While I am sure there are other examples out there, the only one that comes to mind immediately is the Grey Mouser. I would certainly not call it a common trope.

Autofire possibly with autofire skills?

Linked attacks? (single target only)

I generally just use the multiple attack rules. The missing and not being able to continue is quite fair for something you are paying no points for. Autofire allows you to continue after a miss, but you pay points for the privilege.

If you don't like this or find it too under powered for Multiple Attack, just make it a campaign house rule that you can keep attacking? I think you will find Multiple Attack gets used a lot more in those cases.

- E

I don't think it works that way in 6e. I seem to remember it did in 4e and maybe 5e? The stuff I see in 6e indicates that another application would simply raise the points up to the maximum effect of the aid in use.

- E

No, that is actually what I wanted to discuss, is how different people would adjust it! I find in some situations (like this example) the limitation is too much. In others it seems to work out about right. Looking for a nice middle ground or guideline if anyone has one or can think of something that might scale.

- E

When the two perfectly align, that works well. But when you want something in between....

27 4d6 Aid to Body, fade 5 points 20 minute (+1 1/4), (54 Active points) Time Limit: 1 Hour (-3/4), Gestures (-1/4)

vs

53 4d6 Aid to Body, Time Limit: 1 Hour (+1 1/2), (67 Active points) , Gestures (-1/4)

The points are different and the effect is different as well. I mean, I guess you could construct it as 1d6 limited to 20 minutes, 1d6 limited to 40 minutes and 2d6 limited to an hour, but I still don't think the points would work out right? And that gets very difficult to do with some dice and fade combinations? Am I missing an obvious point you are trying to make? 

- E

Let me provide an example, since I am not getting how the two are not different.

This one is a bit extreme, but based on an actual feat I modeled for &D& 5e:

2d6 Aid to both Body and Stun, fade 5 points per day (+2 1/4), Time Limit: 1 Day (-1/4), Extra Time: 10 minutes (-2), Gestures  Throughout (-1/2), Incantations Throughout (-1/2), Concentration 1/2 DCV Throughout (-1/2)

It maintains the full effect for a day, essentially.

At the lower levels it does not make as much difference, but as you get into higher dice, it is much easier to increase the fade rate and then have it cliff to 0 after an hour or 20 minutes. That is the effect I am trying to achieve that delayed return does not seem to provide.

- E

Huh? I quoted the relevant section of 6e, not sure what you mean since it specifically identifies Adjustment powers. I guess I could have noted that it also calls out that it should NOT be used for attack powers so that leaves out drain, and the nature of the limitation leaves out Healing since it is by nature permanent. You could do something like I was saying above with Absorption as well, but it does not fit what IU am looking for at the moment. And I don't really see how time limit could be applied to casting the spell. Are you thinking of Extra Time?

To the second bit I could see doing that, but I like the granularity of the Time Limit. I'd prefer to work from that as a base.

- E

Just looking for a discussion around this one. Here is the only text I found referencing the combination in 6e, p 346

 

If a Power has its own rules for altering its duration (such as Adjustment Powers with the Delayed Return Rate Advantage or Change Environment with the Long-Lasting Adder), characters shouldn’t buy Time Limit for it without the GM’s permission.

So in this case, I would be the GM, but I would like the things I am creating to be generally acceptable to the community, understanding that individuals can always adjust to taste.

The effect I am after here is an aid that does one of two things:

1. Raises some characteristic(s) for a period (may or may not tick down some, depending on how the return rate is bought) and then suddenly goes away after a fix period.

2. Raises some characteristic for a set period (may or may not tick down some, depending on how the return rate is bought) and then suddenly goes away inside of some window (based on skill roll, random dice roll or other determining factor).

In case 1 the expiration is generally a known quantity to the player (I can make you stronger, but it will gradually weaken and then wear off in exactly 20 minutes). In case two the player is dealing with some amount of unknown, from fixed plus random to completely random (The Gods will grant you the strength of 3 men.... but I don't know how long their favor will last).

Notes: These generally come in the form of spells or granted abilities from some patron so the GM can easily control which (if any) of them are offered. And is in control of creating or modifying them as needed.

Now, after all that, my question. Would you say that Time Limit should be used at it's published values or modified to be off less value? If the latter, what are your thoughts on how and why to adjust?

- E

I would either buy the powers separately and switch at will or have Lockout (-1/2, cannot be used at the same time as other powers in same focus) or do the variable SFX like BDH suggests above. 

- E

The 5th Edition Ultimate Brick lists it at -1.5. I think that's a bit too generous, but it's the only official source I have handy that gives a cost. I think me and the GM agreed on -1 the one time that I used it in a game (pre-Ultimate Brick). STR does so many things, especially in pre-6th editions, that it really breaks the curve on assigning limitations, so anything the player and GM agree on seems reasonable. Here's the (well, it's been years, so more like a crime scene recreation) breakdown I used to get to -1 limitation:

 

Things the extra STR doesn't let you do:

 

• Does not affect figured characteristics (a -1/2 limitation by the book)
• Does not affect jumping. (I'm not sure if that's included in DNAFC without looking it up.)
• Does not increase melee damage.
• Does not increase ability to escape from holds/grabs.
• Does not affect lifting capacity.
• Does not affect throwing ability.

 

OK, pretty long list. It looks like you lose enough of Strength's abilities to justify a -2, given that DNAFC is -1/2 and that a -1 means losing about half of the stat's effectiveness. HOWEVER . . . let's look at what it does do:

 

In two fairly common circumstances, including one combat circumstance, it saves you a phase. That's a pretty danged useful. It's not as universally useful as something you use constantly, but it's very useful when it comes up. Ultimately, it's so useful -- and STR is so cheap in 5th edition and below -- that I'd hesitate to give it better than a -1 limitation. If I was GMing, and someone used the Ultimate Brick version at -1.5, I'd be OK with that, too. But when I thought it up prior to UB, I arrived at -1 and the GM was OK with it. A few other common limitations like "Only for Lifting and Throwing" were also at -1 in official writeups IIRC, so it seemed an appropriate level for specialized bonus strength.

Emphasis is mine above. If you exclude those two things, I would give a -1. At that point it is really for smashing through things and shrugging off things that a brick should be able to ignore. And this is all under 6e for me, where figured characteristics don't matter. As I researched I also realize that in 6e you would end up having to pay full END for the casual STR and then again if you wanted to use the STR so that helps balance it out.

- E

Gonna second what Chris said here. As a GM it is MUCH easier to decide later on that something is worth more limitation than initially thought than it is to force a player to spend more points on something "because it is too valuable for the price". That said, if a player was reasonable about it and willing to do a trial, I'd let them start at the higher limitation value and then leave it if it worked out or spend experience to raise it as needed.

And as many of us also put content out that is used in a variety of settings (our own and others), it is better to err on the side of caution because you don't KNOW how those other peoples campaigns look and what is frequently used or not. And players will quote your source at GM's and make them not want to use your source material. 

- E

Massey - You are making some assumptions about what STR is legal / normal for a campaign. In your run of the mill 12 DC attack campaign, all of the constructs you propose are out. You last point is the most salient one for me.

- E

I'm gonna have to go with Surrealone on this one. The purpose of a brick character is to be able to punch, throw stuff, and beat a guy to death, yes, but the use of the strength as a 0-Phase Action is too much. Imagine that you could easily break out of pretty much any entangle or use your strength to resist knockback  as a large amount of 0-Phase Actions. This proves for unbalance. Additionally, I can see a situation where someone buys their Casual STR ABOVE their normal strength, thus proving for a large amount of chaos. And they save points too. 

 

Using a power casually, yes, can only be done once per phase. However, using STR is a different story as casual STR is usable several times as it is regard as a Characteristic, not a power. 

6e does not make that last distinction. From "Casual use of Powers" 6e1. 131:

 

For example, a character with STR 40 has a “Casual STR” of 20; a character with a Blast 12d6 has a “Casual Blast” of 6d6.

It uses STR interchangeably with other powers. Also, 6e1, 178 states that limited or advantaged characteristics as well as those in power frameworks are powers.

- E

6e does change it slightly.

 

Using a Power Casually costs END, but the character only pays for the amount of the Power he’s using (i.e., he pays half the END he’d pay for using it at full strength).  \Unless the GM permits otherwise, a character can only use a Power Casually once per Segment, and can only make Casual Use of a single Power in a Segment. After using a Power Casually in a Segment, the character can then use that same Power again in that same Segment for its usual purposes (even the same purpose he used it Casually for). However, he must pay the standard END cost for using the Power again.

THERE's the disconnect!

 

40 points is the cost of +60 STR with a -1/2 limitation. Casual STR is 1/2 of normal STR, so a 60 STR Brick needs to buy another 60 STR, only for Casual STR, to have a Casual STR of 60.

 

To get a cost of 20, you would have to apply a -2 limitation (60/3) which implies the STR loses most of its base utility. I could agree with a cost of 20. 

 

 

Normal STR gets the ability to exert at half value as a 0 phase action as casual STR. STR only usable for casual STR increases the base STR for purposes of that halved casual STR only.

 

 

To me, assuming two otherwise identical characters use the same number of points to buy two different abilities is a pretty effective means of evaluating the relative merits of those two separate abilities. Even a 20 points, I would not think our 60 STR Brick with 60 Casual STR would be as effective as an 80 STR Brick, a Brick with a SPD 2 greater or a Brick with +2 OCV and +2 DCV, or 4 levels in HTH combat (the same 20 point investment), but we're getting closer in that casual STR does have some benefits outside straight up one on one combat. I think that "casual STR = full STR" will be something of a vanity purchase, rather than core to the construct.

Okay, got it on the math, glad that was just me not accounting for the doubling.

With the total points in mind, I could see perhaps going to -3/4, but I would be more likely to point them to another ability that does what they want (contortion, or others depending on effect) or just make the limit more restrictive and value at -1 for "Only for breaking free of grabs and entangles". But in the end as a player I would be more likely to just spend 10 points on +5 OCV for blocks. =P

- E

+10 STR adds to damage against combat-viable opponents. You won't be using casual STR in that context. Having 60 STR and full 60 casual STR will not help you lift an object requiring a 70 STR to lift either.

 

 

normal STR gets that ability already. We're purchasing only that benefit of STR, and surrendering everything else. The limitation is "only increases casual usage", which could be applied to any ability which has casual use available.

 

 

 

For half cost, or at a -1/2 limitation? The former is a -1 limitation. And I will still pit a 90 STR Brick with 45 Casual STR against your 60 STR Brick with 60 Casual STR confident of the outcome.

Yes, I already granted that it cannot be used to damage opponents, that is why it is a limitation at all.

Normal STR gets the ability to exert as a 0 phase action at full value? Can you point me to the rule book on that?

I was using your value when I said half cost. So, -1 (half) versus what I would normally pay at -1/2 (about two thirds). Your numbers are off. Your brick would have 80 STR, 40 casual if using my limitation value. If using yours it would be 75 STR, 38 casual.

And "my bricks epeen is bigger than your bricks epeen" arguments are kinda pointless. I am just trying to figure out a fair assessment of a limitation not speculate about imaginary battles. =P All of this in a vacuum of not knowing DC limits for a campaign, not knowing defense values or other powers makes it pretty moot anyway.

- E

Casual STR only is worth at least a -1; it has extremely limited uses and usefulness compared to where STR is otherwise applied.

 

"For Casual STR Only" has no Lift capability, no Damage capability, and can only be used to overcome a small set of the overall situations in the system.

Not sure where you get that last bit? Nothing I see in 6e removes the capability for Casual Strength to be used for lifting or damaging. It actually gives a specific example of using it to damage:

 

Example: Ironclad has 60 STR. He’s chasing Fenris, who runs through a door and slams it  shut behind him. Not wanting to slow down to open the door, Ironclad uses his Casual STR — 30 STR — to smash through it. He rolls 7 BODY on his 6d6, easily enough to smash  through the 3 PD, 3 BODY door. This costs him 3 END but takes no time. Since he didn’t have to slow down he catches up to Fenris in that same Phase and punches him with his full 60 STR. He can use his STR again  this way, but he has to pay 6 END for doing so.

And given that it allows uses of STR that are not normally allowed (zero phase or no action)....

 

At the GM’s option, a character can make Casual Use of a Power or ability that he uses as an attack (defenses, movement, and other Powers can’t be used Casually). This means the character uses the Power without conscious effort as a Zero Phase Action (or in some cases even as an Action that takes no time).

YMMV, but I see STR as quite useful and when I am playing a brick make extensive use of casual strength because of that. I would certainly be happy if I could buy more casual strength for half cost (assuming I applied no other limitations to it).

Singularity Mask?

Persona Mask?

Phizog Mask?

Nucleo Mask?

I use NCM only as a campaign rule for heroic and other appropriate settings, not as a disadvantage. I never really liked it as a disadvantage since there are WAY too many ways to circumvent it purely based on character concept. I mean, Iron Man could easily fall into it. Or any number of aliens. Etc.

- E

According to Google Maps, the Daugova from Riga (Latvia) to Belarus is about 500km. The Dneipr from Orsha, Belarus to the Euxine is about 2000km. The portage between the two is about 80km as the crow flies, but the terrain is pretty wet-looking which might mean floating some of the way... Mouths of the Dneipr to Constantinople is 650km.

 

2kmh upstream, 10kmh downstream, 8 hours a day makes the 5000km riverine round trip take 2500/16 + 2500/80 ~ 160 + 32 days. 8 days each way for the portage, say, and 10 for the return crossing of the western Euxine. Plus however long it takes the particular Norseman to get to the Gulf of Riga from wherever he calls home. Call it 6 months without much in the way of distractions. Quicker to get there than back because of the larger downstream portion of that direction.

 

You might go faster than 10kmh downstream, but it would be risky in parts. You might go faster upstream with a favourable wind, but longships, being square rigged and shallow draught are not known for being able to sail even crosswind in the confines of  a river, so the winds would have to be just right to give the rowers a rest. The the Rhine-Danube route would be the longest way round though. And you could be stuck rowing, even on the open sea, if the wind was against you. You could travel longer each day, light permitting, but there has to be time set aside for foraging and mooring/camping.

 

That any use as a basis to work from?

I like most of that. I would quibble a little and go for 2 weeks on the portages, moving boats in mud is not any easier than dry land, maybe harder unless it is deep enough to actually float. 

I would probably go with 10 hour travel days as well but the distances per hour feel right. 

All of that assuming no hostile natives to deal with, I don't know enough about the route to gauge that bit.

- E

I would view those as two strikes. Which means no combined attack, but multiple attack is certainly possible. And if the SFX they want for the multiple attack is that it is a single blow, sure.

- E

I would for sure be investing in some OCV for blocks in that game. 

I'd go with -1/2 most likely. It still has multiple uses in combat (entangles, grabs, breaking through barriers, etc) and can be used in the same phase when you use your full strength for another combat action. And as I noted above there are other ways to accomplish the original goal of just escaping the grab.