Frenchman

Re: Identify Spell

Telepathy to read the 'mind' of the item.

EGO is related to active points (maybe EGO=AP, or could be a sliding scale). Powerful magical items may have mental defense to resist this, or they may be easier to read.

EGO +0 Tells you whether or not the item is magical and any general magical abilities it has (It is a magic ring with protective abilities)

EGO +10 Will tell you its primary function(s), if they are common or obvious (It is a magic ring which wards off attacks, making you more difficult to target)

EGO +20 Gets you information about uncommon/inobvious primary functions and also about secondary functions (It is a magic ring which deflects attacks via a repulsing force field, which also keeps out harmful gasses)

EGO +30 Will tell you pretty much anything about an item you wish.

Use the rules for number of questions to see how many different things the caster finds out.

Re: How to do Priests use magic???

I've always wanted to try priests with a semi-controlled VPP (like you mentioned), but My current GM didn't want anything to do with that (too much trouble for him, I guess), and no-one else ever plays priest characters except the current GM and I.

Re: Sliding bars measuring each spell's "energy"

There is a form of Charges which permits combining multiple charges for greater effect (it's called Boostable), the problem is its automatically acquired Burnout roll.

We tend to ignore that in our games - but then again it may become a problem if we ever have a boostable power with more than 3 charges.

Re: Large Creatures Versus Head Shots

Sure it is' date=' or at least, much more erratically. A fly has a high DCV. A caterpillar is about the same size. Do you have trouble hitting caterpillars with a flyswatter?[/quote']

 

I meant to point out that while the fly is moving at around the same speed at a dog (call it 10 units per second) it has a much greater relative speed because it can move more of its own body lengths per second than the dog can, thus making it much harder to hit. If the dog could move itself around at the same relative speed as the fly...it'd be a good time to bring back the dog-drawn chariot.

The fly is harder to hit because its relative speed is faster than the dogs. If a dragon (to pick a totally random example) can move itself around at the same relative speed as a human (lets pretend this is 1.5 body lengths per second) then it should have a DCV equal to that of a human. If it can move that fast, then a 50' dragon should also have a flight speed of ~70". I just don't see dragons moving that fast - and I certainly don't see other really big things moving that fast either.

 

In melee' date=' size has practically nothing to do with DCV. The agility of the defender is all that matters. I wouldn't consider an elephant to be easier to hit in melee than a caterpillar. Size should make it easier to hit a target at range, but older Hero versions accomplished this by having size affect range penalties rather than outright DCV. At any rate, it's pretty clear by the discussion here that the size modifiers are out of proportion to game balance requirements.[/quote']

 

Saying that agility is the only factor which determines DCV is a pretty narrow view - this is HERO after all. What about deflector shields and being so ugly that your foes can't stand to look at you?

Remembering that we are using generic example creatures here, the second half of this paragraph seems to indicate that hitting an elephant with a stick in melee is of equal difficulty as hitting a caterpillar. While I've never swung a stick at a caterpillar or an elephant, I have swung sticks at small rocks and horses (training crop). While I missed the stationary rocks plenty of times, I never missed the mobile horse.

Not only do you indicate that a large/small thing is no easier/harder to hit due to its size in melee, but that they become so if I were to step back 3 feet and throw the stick instead. I cannot imagine why an elephant could dodge a stick in my hand, but has a much harder time dodging it if I throw the stick at it from a couple feet away.

 

Because DCV has more to do with agility than with either size or speed.

 

I happen to think that DCV can be represented by many things in HERO, and I think that size (in addition to agility) are the most important factors in determining it.

Thank you for elucidating your position, but I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Re: Sliding bars measuring each spell's "energy"

If you want to have a video-game-esque Mana Bar which allows spells to be more powerful when the caster has more mana available, I can think of two ways right now (not that these are the only two ways, by far):

Each wizard has an END reserve to cast spells from, and it has no more than, say, 1.5 to 2 times the amount of END in it that the casters most powerful spell uses. Preferably with a high recovery (Say 1/2 or more each turn). Casters would be forced to ration their spells in combat, decide whether they want to toss several small fire bolts at a few enemies or one big one at a single foe - but out of combat they could use magic at full power as long as they don't cast several spells in a row.

If you want the amount of Mana (or end or whatever) a wizard has to affect how powerful their spells are without affecting the cost, you could build spells in pieces. Such as firebolt built like: 2d6 EB, +2d6 EB (Only when at 1/4 Mana or more), +2d6 EB (Only when at 1/2 MANA or more), +2d6 EB (Only when at 3/4 MANA or more), +2d6 EB (Only when at Full MANA). Then the caster has a 10d6 firebolt when he first enters combat, but his next firebolt or two is only 8d6. I would reccommend that you make it so that the spells cost the same amount of END/Mana regardless of their power level (by adding increased END/Reduced END where appropriate) for two reasons: Easier to keep track of, and so that the characters first spells don't drain their power so quickly while their last dregs of END are almost impossible to use up.

Re: Large Creatures Versus Head Shots

I read this thread and am totally confused' date=' since I'm still stuck in prehistoric versions of Hero where size had nothing to do with DCV. I can't ever remember fighting a dragon that was less than DCV 7. Size used to decrease penalties for range but that's it. [b']Size[/b] absolutely does not equal slowness and it really absolutely shouldn't reduce DCV in melee. If that's the case now then it's a serious mistake in the current iteration of the rules.

Sorry to derail the thread even further, but this knocked me for a loop, and I'm just curious on why you think that an object's size has nothing to do with how hard it is to hit it, especially in melee. Last time I checked, it's a whole hell of a lot harder to hit a fly with a flyswatter than it is to, say, swat my dog with it. The fly isn't really moving any faster than the dog; at least not absolutely.

So why shouldn't a dragon, or an elephant, or any other big creature be easier to hit? If the relative speed of the dragon was the same as the relative speed of a person, then I could see that, but I'm pretty sure that most Enourmous (16xhuman size) dragons don't have 96" of movement. So since this dragon is the size of a barn, and is moving at a lower relative speed (IOW it can't move its entire body length as quickly as a human can move a human body length), shouldn't it be significantly easier to hit than another human-sized creature?

Anyways, sorry to be so vociferous, I'm just curious as to why size shouldn't relate to DCV. (BTW, I agree with many of your other points)

Re: Name for a school / style of magic...

Ooh, Kleptomancy is better.

This type of magic could also have a Proper Name, instead of a 'scientific' one. You could name it after one of the gods or a pantheon, or you can choose a nifty-sounding word from another language.

Vox is one of my favorites from Latin, if I recall correctly, it means Voice or the power of speaking.

Edit: Oh, and Happy Merry Pagan-Tree-Burning/Worshipping Day, everyone!

Re: Name for a school / style of magic...

Channelling - they are a conduit for the gods power

Klepturgy - they are stealing the power of a greater being

Hubriugy - the way they use magic makes them think/act like they are gods

Celestiology/Celestination - esp. if the divine have a connection to the stars

Deiurgy - god-magic

Divine-ation - if you want to be punny

Re: A variant of standard effect damage

Added in to the debate is that an average dice rolls 3.5 on average, so it can argued that standard effect shortchanges the result, a little.

 

MLG

Have to agree with Shaft here...I always thought that taking standard effect was a sure way to get, well, shafted. The rare times we have used standard effect in our games, it has always been 3.5xdie.

If you commonly have a calculator at your table, you could make standard effect be 3.2+(1d6x0.1) - this gives some variation without taking damage very far from the middle...but I'd rather just roll my sackful of dice.

Re: Too much is still not enough?

1. How much time do you put into prepping a campaign? Not a one-off adventure but a long-term open-ended campaign?

As much as possible. If I am creating a new world (or fleshing out one that was, for some reason, not well-described) I spend a lot of time creating important people and places for my setting, as well as the magic system(s) and packages. I don't really mind if something doesn't get chosen by a PC, because it will get used.

Also - contingencies, contingencies, contingencies - I don't plan out every step of the whole campaign, but I plan out a rough outline and try to stay 2-3 weeks ahead of where the game it. So I create an 'adventure tree' with key events that lead from one to another. This way, I only plan out the key events before the campaign, and so far I haven't had the players do anything so unexpected that I couldn't use the same tree. When things do get a bit out of hand, I delay the main plot by presenting a side quest or two, which my players are always eager for (I reward them richly), while I regain my 2-3 week lead. I try to have at least 5-6 side quests ready to go when I begin a campaign, and make new ones as they come to me.

2. What aspects do you plan in advance, and what do you define as-needed during play? How has this worked, and has it come back and bit you later?

Ooh - I allready said this, but to recap/answer the second part of the question:

I plan out the major events in the plot (Someone being assassinated, characters need to break a seige, etc...) and several of the more likely contingencies which follow. This ends up being a tree or web of interconnected plot points. This makes it difficult for me to not be prepared for what the PCs do - they thwart the assassination? Then the king lives on for a while longer (at least to the next plot point) and rewards the PCs for their aid. They aid the assassin? Then they get chased across the country at the side of their new friend who leads them in a different storyline possibility. Each plot point usually has at least 2-6 outcomes which I plan for, and it hasn't happened yet that something I didn't plan for at least a little bit happened.

I also plan out the setting as much as I can - even if I can't get it all down on paper, I want to at least have it in my head. I want to be able to answer any question a player can ask me about the world - even if I don't tell them because its not PC knowledge, I want the answer for myself.

The only problems I have had are not keeping far enough ahead of the plot, so that I have to come up with several sessions in a row on the fly (I'm not very good at that, and it burns me out), and finding out that something I had planned for (usually a relatively minor thing that has a cascade effect on a big thing) is too wierd/complicated to work well or for the players to swallow. That happened in my last game - I swiped the Trollkin from the Iron Kingdoms and made them a major political power, but my players had trouble grasping that they weren't evil child-eating monsters. This was compounded by them being at war with a race of frog-fish-men over the draining of a wetland area.

3. Do you extensively customize the game, or do you mostly just use the material from Fantasy Hero, Grimoire, etc (or maybe from someone's website) and go with it?

I almost always make things too complicated, and then realize that they are before scaling them back in response. Simplicity is a good thing, and so I find that, especially for my magic systems, I end up altering the system so that I can use spells from other sources, rather than coming up with a list of spells for my system. I have tried having the players come up with their own spells, but then wizards tend to have no more than 6 spells (Attack, AOE Attack, Defense, TK, Flight, and a broad Summon). If they have a list to choose from, especially if that list is in a book (I like the AD&D spell compendiums for this) they tend to have more interesting, more varied, and just plain more spells.

4. Are you very careful about setting and genre fidelity, or do you pretty much allow players to design whatever characters they want?

I tend to have a very clear view of the world when I sit down with the players to create characters - I first describe the world and the tone of the campaign (I like making powerpoints or slideshows for this, they are great) and then ask them for character ideas. Since they have (usually) been hearing about the setting for the past few monthes at least, it doesn't usually take long for the group to settle on party roles and general concepts. If someone has a concept that absolutly doesn't fit into the setting (like the guy who always plays Drow - even on worlds that don't have them... or when someone wants to play a samurai or ninja in a western-style setting) then I try to rework that concept with them so that it has a similar feel, but a more appropriate flavor - ninja has become inquisitor, gunslinger became a blademaster who liked wands...it usually works out.

Then as the players do the character sheet stuff, I go and desparately tweak my world and plot so that they all have a place in it. Then we do backgrounds and I approve/edit character sheets.

Re: Magic Martial Arts

Thanks for your take on the MA magic style. Very cool stuff (though I agree that a few might need a bit of tweeking). I am curious as to how you determined the cost for skill modifiers (is that in UMA somewhere, or just something that 'felt right'?).

 

Thanks again.

The ones I made up just 'felt right.' The others are from the UMA.

Well' date=' it's Killing only if you buy a Killing maneuver or it has a Killing damage weapon as a weapon element. Only the ranged maneuvers are ranged, and the HtH maneuvers are only HtH.[/quote']

 

Here I was just responding to you when you said, "MAs work with normal, physical, HtH damage," in an above post. I just felt like pointing out that since MA allready does work with 5-6 types of damage allready (Normal Physical, Normal Energy, Killing Physical, Killing Energy, NND, and Flash damage) I see no reason it can't work with any other power construct.

 

I'm not so sure that a gun-fu maneuver would apply the same to a regular gun as to a tranq-dart gun. A tranq dart has very different aerodynamics than a bullet.

 

I don't argue that a dart is different in the real world than a bullet - but in the game they can be constructed in very similar or identical ways. Also, the way Gun-Fu has worked in my games has been centered around being an expert at using the gun, not the bullets. Otherwise I may have called it bullet-fu;)

 

I could probably live with that.

 

I'm glad you can.

 

That might be a little too broad' date=' depending on how you define "type". IIRC, a martial are with the weapon element "Swords" can be used with any sword-type weapon: scimitar, long sword, short sword, dagger, rapier, etc., but not with spears, axes, clubs, etc. The spell-type element should have the same level of flexibility. Off hand, I'd say the spell elements (spelements?) should be separated by not only the specific power used (e.g., EB vs RKA), but also by general special effect (e.g., fire vs. lightning). So the Fire Blast element would apply to the regular EB fire spell, as well as any variants of it (more or fewer dice, advantages, limitations, etc.). Or something like that.[/quote']

 

I would agree with you here - If I were to GM a game and this came up, I doubt I'd allow 'Magic' as an element, or even schools of magic. I'd most likely go with something similar to what you just described, though I think I'd allow the 'Fire Blast' element to include fire spells built with RKA as well.

Re: Magic Items go here!!

Sky Shield: An object of unknown origin, the Sky shield is made from silvery-blue brushed steel shield and can be expanded or shrunk between buckler and medium size with a command word (Nel). When it is a buckler, its wielder may use it to deflect incoming missiles with a fair degree of confidence. A second command word allows it, twice per day, to summon a wall of force near the user, useful in protecting him.

Sky Shield: (Total: 69 Active Cost, 13 Real Cost)

Arrow Deflection: Missile Deflection (Arrows, Slings, Etc.) (10 Active Points); Independent (-2), Armor Weight (-1), OAF (-1), Requires A DEX Roll (-1), Linked (Buckler; Lesser Power can only be used when character uses greater Power at full value; -3/4), Will Not Work Against Heavy Missiles (-1/4), STR Min 3 (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1)

Arrow Deflection: +4 with Missile Deflection (20 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF (-1), STR Min 3 (-1/4) (Real Cost: 5)

Second Shield: Force Wall (3 PD/3 ED) (15 Active Points); Independent (-2), 2 Continuing Charges lasting 1 Turn each (-1), OAF (-1), No Range (-1/2), Incantations (-1/4), Restricted Shape: Curved Wall (-1/4) (Real Cost: 2)

Buckler: +2 with DCV (10 Active Points); Independent (-2), Requires A DEX Roll (-1), OAF (-1), Incantations (-1/4), STR Min 3 (-1/4) (Real Cost: 2)

Medium Shield: +4 with DCV (20 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF (-1), STR Min 10 (-1/2), Incantations (-1/4) (Real Cost: 4)

Still more to come!

Re: Magic Items go here!!

Ahh...finals are done. Just finished my last paper.

Now for that ring I promised y'all.

Ring of Autumn: A copper ring shaped like a circle of overlapping leaves, these were first created by Elves to demonstrate the power which can be drawn from the seasons. They were rare, until a certain eccentric elven wizard became convinced that the end of the world was near - eternal winter. He believed that this winter would be preceded by a nigh-endless autumn, and so made a great number of these in the hopes that they would prove especially useful. Useful in any season, the ring provides some magical protection from most attacks, and the constant rain of leaves that is the trademark of this item also provides concealment. Most useful is the ability of the wearer to apparently explode into a flurry of leaves, and reappear some distance away in a similar burst - sadly this can only be done once per day. Not only does the trail of debris that the ring leaves behind it (no pun intended) make wearing this item all the time something of a nuisance, it also can be used to track the character by anyone who knows they possess one of these. This is less of a problem in autumn, when the ground is covered in leaves anyways, and additionally the season grants the ring one additional power - the rain of leaves around the character is so heavy that it becomes almost impossible to see them.

Ring of Autumn Leaves: (Total: 91 Active Cost, 18 Real Cost) Armor (2 PD/2 ED), Side Effect: Leaves constantly fall on and near the Wearer and from his Clothes (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; +0) (6 Active Points); Independent (-2), IIF (-1/4) (Real Cost: 2) PLUS Invisibility to Sight Group , Side Effect: A rain of leaves is constantly falling around the Wearer (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; +0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (40 Active Points); Independent (-2), Only works during Autumn (-1), Always On (-1/2), Bright Fringe (-1/4), IIF (-1/4) (Real Cost: 8) PLUS Teleportation 20", Side Effect: A flurry of leaves bursts from the Wearer at either 'end' of his movement, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; +0) (40 Active Points); 1 Charge (-2), Independent (-2), Cannot be used to escape Entangles (-1/4), IIF (-1/4) (Real Cost: 7) PLUS +1 with DCV, Side Effect: Leaves constantly fall about the Wearer (Side Effect only affects the environment near the character; +0) (5 Active Points); Independent (-2), IIF (-1/4) (Real Cost: 1)

Re: Magic Martial Arts

Usually Martial Arts do work with Physical damage, but it can be either normal or killing, HtH or Ranged. And if someone can learn Gun-Fu then there's no reason to say that a super-powered Blaster can't learn MA with their EB. Is a Metamagic Maneuver with a Life-Draining spell really that much different from Gun-Fu with Tranquilizers? Mechanically, I mean.

I agree that the versatility of them being applied to any spell a character may have is an important point, and thats my only sticking point in the mix as well.

Could either make the character buy a WE for every spell they have, which essentially just makes each spell cost 1 point more...a small but incremental cost, or maybe they can be divided into spell 'types' and tightly regulated maneuvers can be bought only by type of spell (either by school of magic or by the type of power used). Thus DC-increasing maneuvers could be limited to only, say, attack spells and adjustment spells, and EGO-boosting spells are limited to summoning but not available for mental powers.

Re: Magic Martial Arts

True, it does work best with 'traditional' magic systems where most spells have gestures, incantations, and a skill roll. It does most certainly remove limitations from the spells for far less real points than it would cost to buy off the limitation from a single spell.

Of course, I've never played in a fantasy game where wizards had to pay the full real point cost for each of their spells - we have always used frameworks or cost dividers since 150 point characters can hardly afford to spend 15 points on a 2d6 KA spell - and won't if the fighter can get that as equipment.

By the same token, normal MA maneuvers add OCV and DCV for 1 point each, not the 5 points it would cost to buy a DCV level. Damage classes are similarly reduced in cost - so is it any more broken to semi-arbitrarily say that Silent is 2 points that it is to say that +v/3 for 2 points is?

I must agree that I didn't think out the situational implications of these particular 'maneuvers,' but then again I was thinking of the sFX of the maneuver when I assigned CVs to them, not when they'd be used. Personally, I feel that some additional cost should be given to these - whether it be extra END (Extra END cost equal to cost of maneuver?) or a side effect of some kind, I'm not sure. Perhaps a more volountary limitation, similar to that which martial artists (in our games, at least, MAs either don't get weapons or can't take extra DCs) take: These maneuvers are only available to specialist wizards for the type of magic they specialize in, or something else.

One way to make it cost more is by defining how weapon elements apply to spells. If you don't need any (Magic is a single element) then it doesn't offer any restrictions. If each type of magic (enchantment, necromancy, etc) is a different element, then a wizard can have all of them for, say, 10 points (depending on the magic system). If each spell or series of spells (for systems that have Fire, Fira, and Firaga) requires an element, then that imposes a credible limitation on the wizard - each spell costs 1 point more if they want to use it with their Art. Signifigant for a wizard with 20 or more spells.

As for the 'maneuvers' being very, very cheap - well so are normal martial maneuvers, and I don't see that as a reason to dissallow them. More to the point is that, just like a Martial Artist, a wizard with these would have no reason to ever cast a spell without using one - which may or may not be a bad thing.

Re: Magic Martial Arts

I like the idea of thinking of these as "Metamagic abilities" rather than martial arts maneuvers - they could incorporate sFX that appear to be minor spells, and elements such as Silent (spell doesn't require incantations, +2 pts).

Puissant Spell

Elements: +1 OCV (+1), -1 DCV (-1), -2 Magic Roll (-2), +4 DCs (+6) Cost: 4

Channelling the maximum power into their spell and casting aggressively, the mage is able to unleash devastating magic with this method.

Wizard's Guide

Elements: +1 OCV (+1), -2 DCV (-2), +4 vs Range (+2), +4 Magic Roll (+4), +2 DCs (+2) Extra Phase (-2) Cost: 5

By casting a cantrip which displays a visible how-to guide of the casting and proper use of that spell, the wizard finds the execution of the spell to be vastly simplified and more effective. However it does take somewhat longer and exposes the wizard to their enemies.

Voiceless Art

Elements: -1 DCV (-1), +2 Magic Roll (+2), Remove Incantations (+2) Cost: 3

Focusing on their inner voice, the mage doesn't require their external voice to cast spells. The mental focus on the procedures makes the spell more likely to succeed, but the lack of focus on their surroundings may lend an opening to a foe.

Tranquil Magic

Elements: +2 OCV (+2), -2 DCV (-2), +2 DCs (+2), Remove Gestures (+2) Cost: 4

Freezing in place, the spellcaster focuses all of their energy on the spell, eliminating the need for somatic procedures and adding extra oomph to the spell.

Snap Casting

Elements: +1 OCV (+1), +3 DCV (+4), -2 Magic Roll (-2) Cost: 3

Through practice the wizard is able to cast his spells with minimum attention to the procedures, moving defensively and occasionally catching his targets off guard.

Re: Water, Water Everywhere . . .

So, I'm hearing that <1" of water provides signifigant protection, while >1" makes bullets almost useless. So if you're interested in that kind of realism, then how about 50% damage reduction if a target is within 1" of the surface, and complete protection if they are deeper than that.

Alternately, you could say that each 1" of water halves the DCs of the attack, which would allow very large attacks to penetrate deeper.

Also - does this only apply to bullets? I'm getting that vibe from the comments so far. What about other types of attacks? I'd be inclined to say that any attack would function like this against a target in water unless it is specifically meant to be used underwater.

Re: Large Creatures Versus Head Shots

Its too bad that Hit Locations are Optional Rules and there are not powers that are specifically designed to work with them (there are some kluge powers in Valdorian age' date=' but nothing where you can flat out buy reduced stun in a specific location, or something like that).[/quote']

Sure you can. Buy a 1/1 Force Wall with Zero End and Trigger (+1). This knocks off not just a point of body, but also that points stun multiple. Give the dragon 10 points of FW instead of Armor, and it becomes nigh-impossible to deal stun to it.

Re: Armor

I don't have any rules - too much minutia to keep track of for the players. It bogs the game down.

 

What I do instead is require monthly "upkeep" or lifestyle maintence. The cost of this covers the frequent repair of armor and weapons. I should note that I do not use the Wealth Perk in my Fantasy Games.

 

It looks something like this - the $ amount is monthly cost of living.

Homeless: $500 - basically eating, and bad food at that

Dirt Poor: $1,000 - food and a shack

Poor: $1,500 - nothing fancy but the basic needs are met. Crude weapons and armor.

Average: $2,000 - some luxury but not much. soldiering weapon and armor.

Merchant: $3,000 - nice clothes, good food, but nothing extragavant. Soldiering weapons & armor.

Gentry: $4,000 - fine goods, moderate weapons and armor (chainmail)

Great Merchant: $6,000 - fancy house, a servant or two.

Knight: $8,000 - manor house, warhorse, palfrey, plate & chain, any weapon

Lord: $10,000 - squire, keep, warhorse, several other horses, half a dozen servants, plate & chain.

Merchant Magnate: $15,000 - palace or vila, dozens of servants, luxury items everywhere, exotic foods, 2 body guards, a dozen men-at-arms.

Great Lord: $50,000 +++ depends on extragavance, they might have a few knights in attendance, full platemail, a household of 30-40 servants, entertainment, etc... The greater the retinue the more expense.

 

Maybe I should write the whole thing up....

This is revealing...Homeless people make more money than I do. They must be too smart for college, then:rolleyes:

Re: Magic Items go here!!

Dude...thats gross.

 

I like it!

I forgot to mention - the glowing light it emits takes the form of greenish ectoplasm which flows from its mouth and fills the air with strands and clouds of light. Thats why the light has a 2" radius on it, if any were wondering.

Next: An Elvish Ring

Re: Magic Items go here!!

Balam Grumnax - The Wraith-Eater: Forged long ago by a Dark Dwarf in the Lightless Realms far beneath the earth, The Wraith-Eater was forged in complete darkness, without even a forge-fire, from a lump of raw iron. Its highly textured black handle was also made in this way, and it attaches to the head of the hammer in a fashion remeniscent of how the spine attaches to the skull. The head of the hammer is shaped like a feminine face, twisted into a hideous scream, and it glows with a bright, yet ghostly-green, radiance which comes from the spirit of a woman that was used in the forging process and is now trapped in the weapon. Balam Grumnax also imparts the chilling despair of the undead souls it has devoured upon its victims, making it especially effective even if it isn't "charged" with an undead soul. Its primary powers, and its name, come from the weapons ability to eat the souls of those undead which have no other substance - such as wraiths, ghosts, and spectres. If any undead creature, corporeal or not, should approach the horrific face begins to scream in terror and rage, which can be extremely unnerving to its wielder. When the hammer strikes an incorporeal undead being, the it's face distorts even more as it tears and 'eats' great chunks of incorporeal matter from the creature - only when it has devoured the undead does it stop screaming. It rarely takes more than a few blows from this weapon to destroy any undead spirit. Even more horrific is what the weapon can do with the souls that it eats - they ferment inside of it, and after a day or so its wielder can command the weapon to vomit them forth, often in conjunction with a more traditional attack. The inky cloud which results will sap the strength and health of any inside of it as well as terrify them - the wielder should use this power with care as they are not immune to its effect.

Balam Grumnax: The Wraith Eater: (Total: 367 Active Cost, 64 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1 1/2d6, +2 STUN Multiplier (+1/2), Affects Desolidified Any form of Desolidification (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (62 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF (-1), STR Minimum 13 (-1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4) (Real Cost: 13) plus Sight Group Images Increases Size (2" radius; +1/4), +3 to PER Roll, Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (33 Active Points); Independent (-2), Only To Create Light (-1), OAF (-1), STR Minimum 13 (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4) (Real Cost: 5) plus Drain STR, CON, BODY, & PRE 2d6, Doesn't Target Undead and other targets which are immune to this power (+0), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Four Powers Simultaneously (+1), Delayed Return Rate (points return at the rate of 5 per Day; +1 1/2) (90 Active Points); 5 Recoverable Charges which Recover every An Incorporeal, Undead Being must be Slain with Grumnax to regain a Charge (-2 1/4), Independent (-2), OAF (-1), STR Minimum 13 (-1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4), Linked (Hammer; -1/4) (Real Cost: 12) plus Hearing Group Images 1" radius, +5 to PER Roll, Trigger (Activating the Trigger requires a Zero Phase Action, Trigger requires a Turn or more to reset; When undead are closer than 10" to the hammer.; +1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (35 Active Points); Independent (-2), Only To Create Screaming (-1), OAF (-1), STR Minimum 13 (-1/2), No Range (-1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4) (Real Cost: 6) plus Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 2d6, Affects Desolidified Any form of Desolidification (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), NND (Protection from 'Positive Necromancy' or being corporeal; +1), Does BODY (+1) (120 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF (-1), Only vs. Undead (-1), STR Minimum 13 (-1/2), Required Hands One-And-A-Half-Handed (-1/4) (Real Cost: 21) plus Detect A Class Of Things 21-/26- (Unusual Group), Increased Arc Of Perception (360 Degrees), Range, Sense (27 Active Points); Independent (-2), OAF (-1) (Real Cost: 7)

More will be coming as I find the time.

Re: Is Find Weakness mispriced?

I haven't seen anywhere the point that Find Weakness can only affect one 'set' of defenses per roll - it doesn't affect all of the targets PD, only the PD they bought under a particular power build.

Find Weakness also doesn't work against non-visible defenses, such as Armor (the power) and PD (the characteristic)

This reduces its efficacy enough that even with hit locations, our group rarely saw any problems with it.

One thing we did try out (in response to a sniper-type character's behavior) was to roll Hit Location for the weakness - so the Find Weakness roll was made in conjunction with a 3d6 hit location roll, and that location is the area where the weakness was, which could then be halved repeatedly. If they didn't like where they found a weakness, they could try again, or make a called shot with Find Weakness. FrEx, if he wanted to find a weakness in a specific location (the head, usually) he took a -8 to the Find Weakness roll.

Re: Magic Items go here!!

Oh boy - here's just one to start with. I'll post more when I've got time.

But which to choose?

I'll start with one of my favorite - gave this to a player, and told everyone else in the group about the curse. They all played along so well, poor Dwayne had no idea what was going on for a good 10+ game sessions, and when he finally figured out that he had a cursed item, he started throwing away everything else he had - he had gotten the Shroud so long ago in a dungeon, and the curse is somewhat subtle, that he didn't connect them. I don't think any one plot device has made my sides hurt so many times...

The Nameless Shroud: With an origen lost long ago in the blackness of time, The Nameless Shroud is made from the blackened human skin of an unknown victim, studded with the bones of undead creatures. At a casual glance it appears to be light, well-made, and much-used Studded Leather armor made of thin, black papery leather and skull-shaped bone studs. In addition to its mundane defenses, the Shroud provides protection against Necromantic magic, and the wearer's skin takes on the chilly pallor of the dead. The shroud also carries a curse, however - Not only do animals and detection magics react to the wearer as though they were an undead thing, but anyone and everyone the wearer has ever known forgets that the wearer is still alive. Careful inquiry will reveal that most don't remember the precise circumstances of the wearers demise, and hold only the vauge memory that the wearer did die some time ago. This memory reasserts itself whenever the wearer leaves their presence (sleeping near eachother makes them think they had a dream about it) and so they obviously are somewhat confused every time they 'meet' the wearer again. Unbeknownst to most wearers, the armor makes them immortal, though once they pass their normal lifespan they slip into undeath, and removing the armor would then be their end. The armor seems supremely comfortable to its wearer, and they prefer to wear it at all times. Like many cursed items, the Shroud cannot be removed without magical aid, and if one tries to do so, it is quickly discovered that the armor has bonded itself to the wearers skin. Removing it without magically remedying this will result in the wearer taking 4d6 of Killing damage with no defense as their skin and flesh is peeled away - and the lingering effect of the Shroud prevents this damage from being healed by most means.

The Nameless Shroud: (Total: 38 Active Cost, 6 Real Cost) Armor (3 PD/3 ED) (9 Active Points); Side Effects: Everyone Thinks you are Dead when you aren't in their immediate Presence, and the Wearer Detects as Undead, Side Effect occurs automatically whenever Power is used (-2), Independent (-2), Armor Weight (-1/2), OIF (-1/2), Only Protects Hit Locations 7-16 (-1/2) (Real Cost: 1) plus Power Defense (10 points) (10 Active Points); Side Effects: Everyone Thinks you are Dead when you aren't in their immediate Presence, and the Wearer Detects as Undead (-2), Independent (-2), Armor Weight (-1/2), Only Works Against Limited Type Of Attack Necromancy (-1/2), OIF (-1/2) (Real Cost: 3) plus Life Support (Longevity Immortal; Safe in Intense Cold; Safe From Necromantic Magic) (9 Active Points); Side Effects: Everyone Thinks you are Dead when you aren't in their immediate Presence, and the Wearer Detects as Undead (-2), Independent (-2), OIF (-1/2) (Real Cost: 2)

Whenever I get back to this, I'll post an ancient dwarvish weapon: Balam Grumnax - The Wraith Eater

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

luck by definition is random and inconsistant.

www.thefreedictionary.com[/b]]

Luck (lk)n.1. The chance happening of fortunate or adverse events; fortune: They met one day out of pure luck.

2. Good fortune or prosperity; success: We wish you luck.

3. One's personal fate or lot: It was just my luck to win a trip I couldn't take.

I don't see anything about randomness or inconsistancy in there. Maybe you've got a different dictionary.

As I believe I said before, it seems to me that Luck=Random & Unreliable is a sacred cow of most table-top rpgs.

Edit: It just occured to me that one of the definitions of Chance has to do with being unpredictable. In order to pre-empt the inevitable arguments from someone else realizing this, I'd like to point out that that is one definition of chance as a noun. In the above sentance, chance is an adjective. As an adjective, chance has only one definition, "not planned or expected; accidental" which does not mean random or inconsistant - though it certainly can imply those things in the right circumstances.

Re: Luck as a Characteristic

There is luck and there is skill. When Michael Jordan hits a long jumpshot, we marvel at his skill. When Joe nobody who shoots 9.6% from the floor hits a long jumpshot, we call it a lucky shot.

 

Michael Jordan is consistantly good. He is best defined as high dex and lots of applicable levels. Joe Nobody is consistantly bad but occasionally gets lucky. He is best defined as low dex, no applicable levels and some luck (which in a sensible implementation ought not to be reliable)

 

If luck were reliable and constant, then why would we need levels? Why would we call them _skill_ levels? Why do we have luck _dice_?

Joe Nobody isn't particularly lucky. Some people are pretty consistantly lucky over the long run. An example from my own life: At the end of every shift, the drivers flip a coin or play rocks-paper-scissors to decide who goes home first. It's not always the same person flipping the coin, and there are sometimes as many as five of us doing this.

In five years of working 6 nights a week in summer and 3 in school, I have lost one time - and that time I said, whilst the coin was in mid-air, "You go, I'm gonna give Slade13 a ride home." (Obviously I used his real name, but just for anonymities sake.)

If that's not consistently lucky, I don't know what is.

In the end, how luck is done (consistently or inconsistently, as a characteristic or a power) is just a mechanic. Over the long run, statistically, there not a difference between a large bonus once in a while, or a small bonus all the time - and either one can represent being lucky.

Low Dex + Lots of Levels is an entirely valid character design. Even more so if you divorce SPD from DEX. Even if you don't' date=' you could spend 30 points and have 20 Dex, 3 SPD. You could also spend 30 points and have Dex 8, 3 SPD and 8 levels in martial arts. High Dex guy's max ocv is 7 + maneuver bonus. Low Dex guy's max ocv is 11 + maneuver bonus. High Dex guy's max dcv is 7 + maneuver bonus. Low Dex guy's max dcv is 11 + maneuver bonus. Granted, high dex guy is better at more things, but not all characters are universally gifted. Charles Barkley was a excellent basketball player. He is possibly the worst golfer in the world. (Charles Barkley should have a low dex and a bunch of levels in basketball)[/quote']

 

Lessee...20 DEX costs 30 points and gives you 7/7 and a 4 spd.

For a 10 DEX character to get that, they need to buy a point of spd (10 pts), +4 DCV (20 pts), and +4 OCV with HtH and Ranged combat (4 pts each, for 16 pts). Total cost 46 pts.

Hmm...I suppose I can sell my DEX down to 8 if I don't mind going after most undead, or I could change those OCV csls to Martial Maneuvers (3 pts each, bringing the total down to 42), but thats assuming A: I will never use my OCV for anything I haven't bought a maneuver for, B: I fight only in HtH or Ranged, not both, and C: My character is a Sumo Wrestler.

Or I can pay 30 points for high DEX, and in addition to having the same OCV, DCV, and Speed as the guy above, I act before most other heroic characters, have high DEX rolls for any dex-based skills I should decide to buy, and I have an extra 16 character points to spend (thats a bit more than 10% of the total for most heroic characters)

Sure you can put all of your CSLs into HtH combat (or martial maneuvers if you're a martial artist) and be able to min-max your OCV or DCV, but you can only achieve an equal OCV+DCV to the high-dex guy by buying lower-cost (and thus limited in use) CSLs, meaning you won't have your high CV when you decide to do something different or unexpected. You will also be low man on the totem pole of initiative, and your DEX-based skills don't benefit one whit - so how can a CSL-Man, who spends 50% more on their CVs and still gets less, be said to be valid when compared to DEX-Man, who has (Effectively) 10% more points to play around with?

I Know not of this Charles Barkely person of whom you speak, so I cannot comment. I assume a basketball player?