rravenwood

https://consequenceofsound.net/2020/01/remembering-rushs-neil-peart-the-relentless-idealist/

Rush's lyrics have given me a lot of inspiration -- and encouragement to take risks with my own life throughout the years.  Back in college, I successfully hung out with their tech crew at the hotel bar and snagged the chance to see their sound check.  It was incredible...and seeing Neil drum without any crowd buffers was intense.
 
I got on Rockline -- on a dinky-ass college landline -- to ask Geddy & Alex a question during their TFE tour.  I lucked into front row seats -- with no idea HOW I was gonna get to the show.  I won a college writing I didn't even know I had been entered in and it was enough to rent a limo for that night. I got Alex's pick.  I traveled by myself when a young woman maybe shouldn't.
 
I kept traveling.
 
I went to Cleveland of all places.  Where it started for them here in the US.  Fell in love, got married, kept going to concerts.
 
Tenth anniversary, we go back to Toronto to see R40. 
 
I'm in "Tom Sawyer", guys.  Me and my frizzy hair and glasses, headbanging and air-EVERYTHING in a distinct crowd shot.  That's ME.
 
And I wouldn't have made it this far without them.  Without those words.

An insightful and touching tribute from NPR:
 
Remembering Neil Peart, A Monster Drummer With A Poet's Heart

What you own is your own kingdom.
What you do is your own glory.
What you love is your own power.
What you live is your own story.
 
Thank you for everything, Neil. You will be sorely missed.

This...this is what kept me off the ledge in high school.
 
 

Hello, Sean! 
 
Welcome back! 
 
I'm still at work, so I don't have much time to read the thread at the moment,  but it reminded me of something we tried for an espionage-type game: if you botched a Skill Roll, the Body of the dice were counted to determine how many Phases before you could try again. 
 
I know this is not at all what you are discussing here, but the reminder was nice, and it really added something to the idea of having to try a different approach for the hack, or diagnose and swap out another component in your repair, or switch to a more specialized set of lockpicks- whatever.  It was a fun thing we tried once, and I wanted to share it before I forgot it for another twenty years. 
 

 

Rush was a huge part of my musical life starting from when I first heard them as a young teenager... This is just devastating news.
 
RIP Neil.
 
"The measure of a life is a measure of love and respect"

No matter how pleasing the soap scent, do not walk out of the men's room sniffing your fingers.
 

Wow!  
 
I thought this board was just slowly dying.  I never dreamed it was actively inhabited by potentially thousands of introverts.
 
I have learned a thing here; thank you all.
 
I'm going to stop talking now to increase your comfort, and I'm going to just leave this thing here:
 
 

 
 
Enjoy it at your leisure.
 

A lot of good suggestions in this thread - to me, it comes down to the question of: In your game, since elves don't need a skill roll for regular spells, should they require a Skill in order to perform cantrips? If your answer is no, then just consider it a kind of custom Talent or Perk with a cost that seems appropriate to the level of actual utility you anticipate allowing it to have (3 pts, 5 pts, etc.).  If your answer is yes, elven cantrips should require a Skill, then just go with Power Skill - Chris Goodwin in particular pointed out some other possible applications of it beyond "power stunt" cantrips.

I get where you're coming from; really I do.
 
But there are options beyond just hitting the down vote.  My favorite personally (and one I have used regularly):  once it's clear that no one's mind is going to be changed, it's clear there's no point in continuing the conversation.  Certainly conversations can bring up related or side topics, and they can often be more productive, so chase those for a bit, as long as everyone involved is civil _and_ more or less enjoying the exchange, what's the harm?  But when you realize there's no point in continuing, and one or more of you can't retain simple respect for each other, end the conversation.  Make the (sincere) Gentlemen's offer of agreeing to disagree.  If accepted, then great: we have both agreed that we cannot agree completely with each other, but respect each other enough not to beat this horse (or each other) any longer.
 
Whether it's accepted or not, stop participating.
 
I'm in a weird position on this one, simply because I _don't_ agree with Christopher, but I _totally_ understand where he's coming from, because I was _there_!  Dude, when I read through those sections in 5e, I was _furious_!  I was like "why call it HERO?!   Why not just call it 'simulated slaughter' or 'win initiative or die instantly!'"  Now he did something I _didn't_ do, and that's ask questions on the board.  I don't know if you remember it, Hugh, but _I_ posted lengthy gripes and complaints about how each successive edition seemed more and more about how to spend the least amount of points to kill the most people, and how the whole focus of the game was shifting from being heroes to simply killing everything on a map.  There's no nice way to say it: I was _pissed_ about what I perceived to be massive changes to a game I'd played at that point for-- well let's just call it "half my life or so."   
 
Yeah....  not the smartest reaction.....
 
I didn't participate much after that, but I did read, simply because there were (and are, but many seem to be gone now) a lot of people I respected and viewed as observant and intelligent, even when I didn't agree with them.   It was reading conversations-- mostly involving Sean, Liaden, Chris Goodwin, Keith Curtis, you, and a few others that i began to think "clearly the didn't read the same damned abomination of a rules book that _I_ read!"  (for the record, I used to enjoy Ghost Angel's stuff, too: no-nonsense common-sense approach to things that I liked, but a short fuse that kept me from interacting with him a lot (I've heard tell that two short fuses are a bad thing  ).
 
The absolute hardest damned thing about the entire process was accepting that maybe _I_ had misunderstood what I read.   
 
No joke; no hyperbole.  That was _hard_.  It was (though hearing it in that voice over and over again in Princess Bride has made me _hate_ this word) _inconceivable_ that I had gotten it wrong.  It was _months_ before I got rid of the prejudice enough to divest myself of everything I _thought_ I knew about it and actually re-read it a couple of times.  Even then, I had to run some scenarios-- not in my head, but on one of my trusty "Roses" maps using some villains from the file....
 
I can't even say it just clicked.  Not until I actually sat down to (go ahead: laugh) "play with myself" and actually roll some dice that it finally clicked.
 
It wasn't even until then that I realized that like it or not, even if _had_ been problematic, the rules have allowed it for _years_:  You can have in use as many powers as you can afford (END-wise) to keep running.  You can be using Flight, ForceField, Life Support, Growth, and Density Increase all at once.  You can even add an Energy Blast in there and no one will even _suggest_ you can't do that.  You can add a Damage Shield to that and _still_ use that Energy Blast!  If  you're still covering the END bill, you can be maintaining an Area Affect Darkness (or fire, or electrical storm, or whatever) with your Flight, Force Field, Life Support, Growth, DI, and Damage Shield and _still_ fire off your Burning Eyes of Justice.
 
The rules have _always_ allowed you to use as many powers as you could fuel whenever you wanted, so long as you can keep them fueled.
 
I felt like an idiot when that revelation hit.  I tried to cover it with "No!  That's something the Harbinger of Bullets slipped in!  If that was always legal, there would have been all kinds of rules balancing the problems it creates!"  
 
To "prove" my point, I had _both_ of my weekly groups (I had two at the time.  Well, if the youth group keeps showing up at my picnic table, I guess I still do.  Sort of.    ) to have a big "prove me right, Dammit!" party, and we played straight-up unabashed arena combat for _hours_.  I was actually _angry_ to discover that----    it doesn't cause any balance issues.  :/
 
As many have pointed out: if you're character is shrugging of 12d6 attacks, he's going to keep shrugging them off.  Hit him with one every other Segment or hit him with six on this Phase, he's going to shrug them off.  The only real "advantage" is the potential for a good tactician to pop in something surprising, like a Flash or a Drain along with his Lightning Bolt.  Even then, you're only setting him up for the _next_ attack, as no GM is going to rule the "Drain: ED" took effect _before_ a simultaneous attack landed, and his DCV was full when you launched that attack, so the Flash (if successful) is only good for the next guy; not for you.
 
 
 
Dude, it's unpleasant to learn someone made you wrong, but I can't stress enough how much it sucks to realize that you did it yourself, or even how difficult it is to admit that the _possibility_ is strong enough to go back and try to "understand differently."
 
For me, it was another "Haymaker moment."  Haymaker was, for us, always, a maneuver you could use with a punch.  Why?  Well because we all know what a haymaker actually _is_: it's an uppercut that starts at the knees; it's a good old-fashioned from-behind-the-spine roundhouse swing.  Hell, the first few editions specifically spelled out "it's a kind of punch that...."
 
I remember reading on the old Red October boards (when I first got online) something along the lines of "but if he haymakered his optic blast" and thinking What the *((^%%% is this jackass talking about?!  You can't haymaker an optic blast!
 
Then I thought "well...  why can't you?  Mechanically, a haymakered punch is a kick.  Why can't you "haymaker" a kick?  Why can't you haymaker something else?  (to be fair, we _still_ don't play it that way, but we do accept it as valid).
 
 
the multi / combined stuff?  It was a lot like that.
 
AND IT SUCKED!
 
Yeah; I agree that he could be a little more civil and less insulting in his reply / rebuttals, but I totally get where he's at right now.
 
 
 
Also:
 
Evidently since Bob Munden's death, his youtube channel has be managed by someone else.  Most of the videos I used to really enjoy are gone, including the one I was looking for where he _explained_ "Sure; everyone knows you can thumb the hammer, or fan it with your thumb.  But you've got four more fingers....."   There are a couple of other guys I was looking for (I promised Christopher I would make the effort to find a video akin to what I was talking about), but one has evidently deleted  his account or had it removed for him, and I just can't find the other one.  I did find some smarmy guy called "Cisko; Master Gunman" or something like that.  He doesn't have a video of himself doing it, but I notice that in most of his fanning videos, he _is_ wearing a glove with metal reinforced fingers, as if he's been practicing it.  (haven't tried it that way, and likely won't, as I don't want to have to stop and say "wait!  Let me get my glove!"  I found him doing one fanning that gives the impression of _starting_ that way, but after the first pass it's straight on index finger over and over and over at ludicrous speeds.  It's like he got two then fumbled the third and gave up trying for that particular video.
 
 
Oh, and Christopher:
 
I missed this when I was reading at break today, but the technique you described is the other way around.  You start with the revolver cocked, and pull the trigger.  As you're pulling the trigger, start the fan; you want to catch it just as the hammer falls for the first shot then fan it for the second.  Doing it the other way just incases the chance your going to try to rotate the cylinder while you're fanning or just bind everything up and have to stop and do some quick smithing.

I think Gnome has brought up a point that hasn't been emphasized enough in this particular discussion (not saying it hasn't previously been brought up, I'm just not going back through all the older posts to find examples to quote...): As always, GMs have to consider whether or not any particular character build fits within the guidelines/parameters of their campaign, which in this case includes spotting builds that could make abusive use of Combined Attacks.  I'm not arguing for or against caps in this thread, but just for the sake of example, if I have a 60 AP cap on attacks for beginning characters in my game, I would need to carefully review a character capable of using both a 12d6 Blast and a 5d6 Flash as a Combined Attack - to even consider allowing it, there would have to be some kind of mitigating Limitation(s) that would disincent casual usage of such a Combined Attack (for a couple random examples, the Flash could have 1 charge/day, or  x5 END, etc.).
 
Secondly, the Multiple Attack section of the rules (which contains the separate Combined Attack rules - I agree that this placement was unfortunate) is flagged with a big yellow warning symbol, which I suppose lends even greater weight to any particular GM's decision not to use some or all of the rules within that section.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the Combined Attack rules was a bit of a shock when coming to 6E from the older editions, where we had to take approaches such as Reduced Penetration to represent two tiger claws simultaneously raking a victim (or Speed limited to certain attack actions only [if the absolute simultaneity of the attacks wasn't necessary], or even just a bigger attack than would seem to be called for - with an SFX such as "claw-claw-bite" justifying the quantity of dice purchased), so I can certainly see that might be too great a bridge to cross for some - and absolutely no disparagement intended in that statement!  Everyone has their own preferences, is all.
 
Can we all sing "Kumbaya" now?

Reading the 6th edition rules with prior experience only from 2nd through 4th editions, the Multiple Attack rules were one of the major bogglement moments for me too.  The key distinction between "Combined Attacks" and "Multiple Attacks" - as far as I understand it, which might be mistaken - is that a Combined Attack requires the following:
Character has multiple powers which are not otherwise precluded from being used simultaneously (e.g., Linked limitation, separate slots in a Multipower where the reserve isn't large enough to "fire" them at the same time, a single power requires multiple hands [so two guns/swords/whatever couldn't be used together], etc.) Combined attack is made once in the attacker's phase against a single target  
The Two Weapon Fighting skill applies to Multiple Attacks, eliminating the first -2 OCV penalty, not Combined Attacks.  So for the book example of the robot with a blaster in one hand and a laser in the other, Two Weapon Fighting is inapplicable if the robot makes a Combined Attack with both weapons against a single target.  If the robot decides to attack multiple surrounding foes (to choose just one possible example), then it becomes subject to the Multiple Attack modifiers and could then benefit from having Two Weapon Fighting (assuming, for the sake of this example, the GM ruled that it was applicable [1]).
 
Two Weapon Fighting allows a character to be more successful at Multiple Attacks, and so is useful when doing things (as I believe Chris Goodwin mentioned above) like old-edition Sweep and Double-Fire maneuvers.  Again, AFAIK it has no bearing on or use with Combined Attacks.
 
 
To me, this is specifically referring to the modifiers/requirements for performing Multiple Attacks.  It doesn't preclude characters being penalized with an off-hand penalty, for example, if the game is using that rule.  In such a game, if a character with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other attacks a single opponent with both, the single Combined Attack attack roll would (in my opinion) suffer from any off-hand penalty incurred by the weapon wielded in the attacker's off hand.  In this specific case, the increased chance of missing with both sword & dagger (the Combined Attack) would have to be weighed by the attacker against the potential benefit of both attacks being inflicted upon the target in a single attack action.
 
As far as characters with Ambidexterity, either that resolves any perceived "problem" with dual-wielding characters making constant Combined Attacks (because they've paid points to offset the off-hand penalty, and should therefore be able to enjoy some benefit from that), or the GM can - if they really want to discourage it - set a campaign rule that characters still need something like Two Weapon Fighting in order to make a dual-wielding Combined Attack.
 
 
[1] Two Weapon Fighting does state that "Unless the GM permits it, characters cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed HTH Combat attacks, innate powers like Blast, and so on. As the Skill’s name indicates, it’s generally intended for use with weapons, not personal powers or abilities." (6e1 93) - weapons built into its hands could be seen as "personal powers" for such a robot.

I think Gnome has brought up a point that hasn't been emphasized enough in this particular discussion (not saying it hasn't previously been brought up, I'm just not going back through all the older posts to find examples to quote...): As always, GMs have to consider whether or not any particular character build fits within the guidelines/parameters of their campaign, which in this case includes spotting builds that could make abusive use of Combined Attacks.  I'm not arguing for or against caps in this thread, but just for the sake of example, if I have a 60 AP cap on attacks for beginning characters in my game, I would need to carefully review a character capable of using both a 12d6 Blast and a 5d6 Flash as a Combined Attack - to even consider allowing it, there would have to be some kind of mitigating Limitation(s) that would disincent casual usage of such a Combined Attack (for a couple random examples, the Flash could have 1 charge/day, or  x5 END, etc.).
 
Secondly, the Multiple Attack section of the rules (which contains the separate Combined Attack rules - I agree that this placement was unfortunate) is flagged with a big yellow warning symbol, which I suppose lends even greater weight to any particular GM's decision not to use some or all of the rules within that section.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the Combined Attack rules was a bit of a shock when coming to 6E from the older editions, where we had to take approaches such as Reduced Penetration to represent two tiger claws simultaneously raking a victim (or Speed limited to certain attack actions only [if the absolute simultaneity of the attacks wasn't necessary], or even just a bigger attack than would seem to be called for - with an SFX such as "claw-claw-bite" justifying the quantity of dice purchased), so I can certainly see that might be too great a bridge to cross for some - and absolutely no disparagement intended in that statement!  Everyone has their own preferences, is all.
 
Can we all sing "Kumbaya" now?

Usagi will no longer be joining us on these forums.

Usage, I began to respond to you in a detailed way but there is too much.  If you cannot see that calling Lord Liaden evil is an ad hominem attack, that introducing downvotes to a highly policed topic then I can see you very quickly getting yourself a ban.
 
I do not know what is motivating your ire but you need to contain it, your belief (because that is what it is) that human discourse would be immeasurably improved by abandoning belief in higher beings and religion may be correct, it may not.  It is only slightly easier to prove than most of the religious beliefs out there.
 
Your 'fact' that Christianity is the root of all corporate evil demonstrated a very privileged, Western perspective. 
 
My advice is to back off, find other places to chat.  I don't think you have the restraint necessary to converse here.  Illustrated most pointedly by attacking one of the nicest board members we have as evil. 😞
 
Doc

Or it could just mean that they see a total incompatibility with the Democrat party, rightly or wrongly.  Contrary to the way current politics has been trending, disagreement doesn't equal evil.   Just saying the Bill of Rights for one seems to suggest that.  
 
Religion does get hijacked by hypocrites and other undesirables. But, then so has politics, science, history-telling, and nearly every other human endeavor.

Wow. I've been called many things over my lifetime, but "evil" is a new one.
 
I had composed a response to Usagi, but I get the impression nothing I could write would be well received at this point.

I agree that faith is only compatible with reason up to a point, but I'm not getting the cognitive leap to "evil".  Faith is certainly used as an excuse by many to justify some unreasonable moral positions, but that's not universal, and it's irrelevant to the question of whether faith and reason can coexist.

Reading the 6th edition rules with prior experience only from 2nd through 4th editions, the Multiple Attack rules were one of the major bogglement moments for me too.  The key distinction between "Combined Attacks" and "Multiple Attacks" - as far as I understand it, which might be mistaken - is that a Combined Attack requires the following:
Character has multiple powers which are not otherwise precluded from being used simultaneously (e.g., Linked limitation, separate slots in a Multipower where the reserve isn't large enough to "fire" them at the same time, a single power requires multiple hands [so two guns/swords/whatever couldn't be used together], etc.) Combined attack is made once in the attacker's phase against a single target  
The Two Weapon Fighting skill applies to Multiple Attacks, eliminating the first -2 OCV penalty, not Combined Attacks.  So for the book example of the robot with a blaster in one hand and a laser in the other, Two Weapon Fighting is inapplicable if the robot makes a Combined Attack with both weapons against a single target.  If the robot decides to attack multiple surrounding foes (to choose just one possible example), then it becomes subject to the Multiple Attack modifiers and could then benefit from having Two Weapon Fighting (assuming, for the sake of this example, the GM ruled that it was applicable [1]).
 
Two Weapon Fighting allows a character to be more successful at Multiple Attacks, and so is useful when doing things (as I believe Chris Goodwin mentioned above) like old-edition Sweep and Double-Fire maneuvers.  Again, AFAIK it has no bearing on or use with Combined Attacks.
 
 
To me, this is specifically referring to the modifiers/requirements for performing Multiple Attacks.  It doesn't preclude characters being penalized with an off-hand penalty, for example, if the game is using that rule.  In such a game, if a character with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other attacks a single opponent with both, the single Combined Attack attack roll would (in my opinion) suffer from any off-hand penalty incurred by the weapon wielded in the attacker's off hand.  In this specific case, the increased chance of missing with both sword & dagger (the Combined Attack) would have to be weighed by the attacker against the potential benefit of both attacks being inflicted upon the target in a single attack action.
 
As far as characters with Ambidexterity, either that resolves any perceived "problem" with dual-wielding characters making constant Combined Attacks (because they've paid points to offset the off-hand penalty, and should therefore be able to enjoy some benefit from that), or the GM can - if they really want to discourage it - set a campaign rule that characters still need something like Two Weapon Fighting in order to make a dual-wielding Combined Attack.
 
 
[1] Two Weapon Fighting does state that "Unless the GM permits it, characters cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed HTH Combat attacks, innate powers like Blast, and so on. As the Skill’s name indicates, it’s generally intended for use with weapons, not personal powers or abilities." (6e1 93) - weapons built into its hands could be seen as "personal powers" for such a robot.

Reading the 6th edition rules with prior experience only from 2nd through 4th editions, the Multiple Attack rules were one of the major bogglement moments for me too.  The key distinction between "Combined Attacks" and "Multiple Attacks" - as far as I understand it, which might be mistaken - is that a Combined Attack requires the following:
Character has multiple powers which are not otherwise precluded from being used simultaneously (e.g., Linked limitation, separate slots in a Multipower where the reserve isn't large enough to "fire" them at the same time, a single power requires multiple hands [so two guns/swords/whatever couldn't be used together], etc.) Combined attack is made once in the attacker's phase against a single target  
The Two Weapon Fighting skill applies to Multiple Attacks, eliminating the first -2 OCV penalty, not Combined Attacks.  So for the book example of the robot with a blaster in one hand and a laser in the other, Two Weapon Fighting is inapplicable if the robot makes a Combined Attack with both weapons against a single target.  If the robot decides to attack multiple surrounding foes (to choose just one possible example), then it becomes subject to the Multiple Attack modifiers and could then benefit from having Two Weapon Fighting (assuming, for the sake of this example, the GM ruled that it was applicable [1]).
 
Two Weapon Fighting allows a character to be more successful at Multiple Attacks, and so is useful when doing things (as I believe Chris Goodwin mentioned above) like old-edition Sweep and Double-Fire maneuvers.  Again, AFAIK it has no bearing on or use with Combined Attacks.
 
 
To me, this is specifically referring to the modifiers/requirements for performing Multiple Attacks.  It doesn't preclude characters being penalized with an off-hand penalty, for example, if the game is using that rule.  In such a game, if a character with a sword in one hand and a dagger in the other attacks a single opponent with both, the single Combined Attack attack roll would (in my opinion) suffer from any off-hand penalty incurred by the weapon wielded in the attacker's off hand.  In this specific case, the increased chance of missing with both sword & dagger (the Combined Attack) would have to be weighed by the attacker against the potential benefit of both attacks being inflicted upon the target in a single attack action.
 
As far as characters with Ambidexterity, either that resolves any perceived "problem" with dual-wielding characters making constant Combined Attacks (because they've paid points to offset the off-hand penalty, and should therefore be able to enjoy some benefit from that), or the GM can - if they really want to discourage it - set a campaign rule that characters still need something like Two Weapon Fighting in order to make a dual-wielding Combined Attack.
 
 
[1] Two Weapon Fighting does state that "Unless the GM permits it, characters cannot use Two-Weapon Fighting with unarmed HTH Combat attacks, innate powers like Blast, and so on. As the Skill’s name indicates, it’s generally intended for use with weapons, not personal powers or abilities." (6e1 93) - weapons built into its hands could be seen as "personal powers" for such a robot.