Mazeus Xenon

Re: STR Minimum I posted to Steve Long about this and he directed me to an FAQ - essentially the weapons were all build with a generic KA attack and assumed they all worked with strength, so the Lim applied. However, in the "Ultimate Weapon" (oh, okay...) he said he might address this better... So I got my answer - game creator bonus! (+2?)

Re: STR Minimum I don't want it to be a roll but a required characteristic. That way if someone is drained of INT they can't use or suffer a penalty to use their spell. And in regards to the bow - I full understand why extra STR won't help. I am just wondering why the "STR Does not add/subtract Damage" is a further limitation if the base power - like an RKA - doesn't benefit from a high STR anyway? All of the guns and bows and things in the core rules also apply this limitation but I don't fully get why it benefits as a limitation - nothing is actually being limited!

Okay Steve, question: Under the STR Minimum for equipment in Revised 5ED it says that the STR Min limitation can gain an additional -1/2 if the "Cannot Add/Subtract Damage" is applied. Makes perfect sense - I follow this just fine. What I don't get is how it applies as a limitation to a gun. A gun is built using an RKA, right? And an RKA can never benefit from a high STR score. So why would this qualify for a limitation? It seems like you get a 'free' -1/2 Limitation on all guns that way. Sure you suffer the OCV penalty but big deal - I would have suffered that anyway! Please explain as I am using a "Characteristic Minimum" in my game (spells req. an INT or EGO minimum, etc.) and I want to wrap my head around this one so I can potentially apply it to spells and abilities. Thanks!

Okay, I have my own variation of the "STR Min" limitation in my game - essentially any characteristic can be used. Those worth more points/+1 benefit from a higher Limitation than others. Regardless of that, I was wondering about the "Does not Add/Subtract Damage" limitation within STR Minimum. I know why it exists - no matter how much STR you have it won't do any more damage - but why is it applied to pistols and crossbows and the like? Aren't they built as an RKA, which would never benefit from a high STR anyway? What I am getting as would it sensible to apply an INT Minimum (my variation) to spell that is simply a temperature control and add the "Does Not Add/Subtract Damage"? Nothing directly adds to a Change Environment power but the same is true for an RKA yet it is applied anyway... (and I saw nothing in the book to cover this)

Re: Hitting Hex Variant What about linking a Negative Skill Level to penalize the Dive for Cover roll? 5 Negative Skill Levels to DEX (25pts) AoE (+1) Only to Reduce DFC Roll (-2), Linked to AoE (-1/2) Final Cost: 14pts, or about 3pts/-1 to the roll 5 Levels might be excessive (any 'typical' person would be at a 6- roll) but it would get the job done... And if you don't need the AoE on the Negative Skill Levels you can go crazy and get 10 Negative Skill Levels at the same cost!

Let's say I have "Autofire x10" as a Naked Advantage for up to 60AP. I then drain the Naked Advantage by 30pts. Would this mean I can only have it up to 30AP or would it lower to only applying to a "Autofire x5"? Or could it be either? And if I have Armor Piecing (x4) and I drain it by 25%, could it go down to only AP (x3) or just affect 75% of the original AP it could before? I want to ask the source before I open this to discussion... Thanks as always...

Okay, I am sure I read something about this in the Ultimate Skill book but I don't have it handy so I am just going to ask (and I am going right to the source!). Perception is essentially a INT-Skill. If I was to take Skill Levels in INT Skills, would that affect PER rolls? And on the same note, if I created a "Change Environment" to affect all INT-Based skills, would that also penalize PER rolls? I only ask as I am developing a "Mental Static" power that disrupts the target's ability to think and perceive and wondering if I can accomplish it with a single effect (INT-Skill Penalty) or should I buy it for INT-Skills and each possible Sense? I know the final say is mine (as I am the GM) but hey, always like to know the "official" rule... Thanks!

Re: Giving Power to Multiple People So I have been thinking about this and I thin applying a +1 Advantage - essentially a "Usable As Attack" would be perfect. The defense is that you must be a willing target. It does work if you think about it: -- Making "Flying" a UAA Power allow you to force someone to fly into a wall -- Making "Spatial Awareness" UAA forces someone to be able to see with a new sense Works for me - and then a possible option is another +1/4 Adv to allow the target to pay the END rather than the caster (or something like that). I do like the other idea of a whole-lotta charges but because I want to have a END cost associated with it, this (IMHO) is a great way to go!

Re: Giving Power to Multiple People That works - I had forgotten that Charges don't go anywhere after +0 when the original power costs not END!

Re: Giving Power to Multiple People Or another idea: -- Caster can create a FF spell -- Wants to be able to put it on any amount of recipients -- Each recipient must spend their own END to maintain it Ideas? Or would this fall into the "Usable As Attack" but then the defense is "Only Willing Targets"?

Now I know it says in the rules that "Usable On Others" is how you define a power you give to someone else, either to share or just give them the power. However, what about if you wanted to have something you could give to any number of people but each time costs as if it was a new "cast" of the power? Essentially, here's the situation (this is just a talking point - I wouldn't dare give this to my players) -- A power like "Spacial Awareness" is defined as an oil you smear on your face -- A device can make endless amounts of this oil (it's magic, don't'cha know) -- Each recipient must spend END to maintain the effect How would you define that? Just as a "UBO" with one other person and consider the item has "cast" the effect an endless amount of time? Or would/should I go with a Transform that just remains in effect until the user stops paying END? Or what? Just need a sounding board for this as I can always house rule it but I do like to try and get an official ruling on it!

Re: A Torch is a Torch? I am shocked it took someone this long to do that... here I was hoping it would be my first response but hey...

Re: A Torch is a Torch? Yeah, that works. Again, I am just overthinking things... sigh...

Re: A Torch is a Torch? Oh, I know I needn't worry about stupid things like this but I get latched onto an idea and need to talk it out to make myself feel better. Plus, I am just crazy enough to want to "stat" out everything (you may even remember me asking how to define a Backpack some time ago?). I do that primarily for a magical item idea now and then (the Smokeless Torch or something) so I always want to know the basic concept. Thanks anyway - I am probably just beating a dead horse on this one (again) but no big deal... my quotient of dead horse beatings is down for the month!

Okay, I have been officially driving myself crazy thinking about this so, as always, I am posting something here to either club me back into my sanity or push me over the edge... Anywho, How does one define a torch? I have heard the following ideas: Images, 1-Hex or 2-Hex (-4 PER to "offset" the darkness penalty) Images, multiple hex, "explosion" limitation (to define how the light fades over distance) Change Environment to off-set the PER Penalty to Darkness (and the strangest to me) +to Sight PER; Only to offset Darkness Penalty, explosion effect While the last one seems almost like a Rule Lawyer effect, I do follow it and it (techinically) is a viable option. However, how would most people do it? The biggest question is does "Images" fade over a distance? Meaning would a 1" Hex of light fade as normal? Of course all of this is up to me (I am GM and all) but I do like to hear what others think. I handle it now with the first point but still... what do you think?