feywulf

In the original Macross, it wasn't, but when Carl Macek combined 3 totally separate anime series to make Robotech, he had to change things to tie the stories together. In Robotech, according to the glossary in the palladium rpg based on the series, protoculture is a special plant, a source of unique bio-energy drived from the Invid Flower of Life. The invid use it for nourishment and metaphysical enlightenment. In essence, protoculture is an alien form of pot, which is used as fuel.

I'd throw in difficult to dispell to make the light spell more "durable". You could use the option of the perception modifier making the image easier to percieve as a way of representing brighter lights, or the +1/4 advantage to increase the area.

I agree that the dragon form would be the true form and would pay for multiform if you go that route. The multiform could still retain some of the dragon's defenses and powers, but would make it more expensive. If you go with shapeshift, the greater dragon on pg 67 in the beastiary has an optional power, assume human form. You would probably want to increase it to cover smell and hearing as well, maybe even mental and radio sense groups too. You would probably want to buy some shrinking linked to the shapeshift so the dragon's human form isn't dragon sized. Personally i don't like the 5th ed version of shapeshift. It is now sense deception instead of being shape alteration. It seems to me that the new shapeshift could be represented by images with the limitations no range -1/2, and self only -1/2(and of course, no extra radius), and the "real" shapeshift power could have been left alone or altered in another way.

So then that would be: greater ignite/extinguish:eb 1d6 area:radius(x2radius 2") +1.25, selective +1/4, variable effect +1/4 no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 5b 14a 6r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0" Which would result in a 1 pt slot cost for an MP to light or extinguish any candles or other small flamable objects within a 2" radius. Whether you make it be a 1d6 eb, or a 1 pip rka wouldn't really make much of a difference, since a candle wick, or tinder and other such easily flammable things wouldn't have any defenses. And it keeps it under 15 active points to line up with the spell level conversion chart i'm using.

The greater douse/extinguish spell should have the same area as greater ignite, 2" radius. The sfx would be something like freezing the flame so it stops, a gust of wind to blow the candles out, or snuffing out the oxygen so they stop burning. The small flames would just die out. Its probably the kind of small cantrip like effect that could be handled freeform rather bothering to write it up. I like the idea of it being a 1d6 stun only eb with the sfx of a tiny gust of candle snuffing wind. That way it has the same base and active cost as ignite, and can use the same advantage that turns ignite into greater ignite to make the greater douse/extinguish spell. douse/extinguish:eb 1d6 stun only -0, no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 5b 5a 2r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0" greater douse/extinguish:eb 1d6 area:radius(x2radius 2") +1.25, selective +1/4 stun only -0, no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 5b 12a 5r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0"

Hey I'm working on a list of spells that are conversions of d&d spells. The baseline i have set up is Active points ~ d&d Spell level 01-15 ~= 0th level 16-30 ~= 1st level 31-45 ~= 2nd level 46-60 ~= 3rd level Anyways, i was working on a small spell to represent the way wizards can light and extinguish candles(and other small flammable things) with magic. My first idea for how to do an ignite/douse spell was to use a minor transform: ignite/douse:minor transform 1d6 "create or extinguish small flames" increased target group +1/4 no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 10b 12a 5r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0" However, someone mentioned on the boards that they do an ignite spell with a 1 pip rka, which sounds like a better way to do ignite. ignite v2:rka 1pip no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 5b 5a 2r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0" My question is, with ignite written as a 1 pip rka, what would be the best way to write a spell to extinguish a small flame? I could use the minor transform and remove the increased target group, but i'd like to see if anyone else has a better idea. I've already written a greater ignite that can do multiple candles within an area at once, so the write up for douse should be expandable to handle extinguishing many candles at once. greater ignite:rka 1pip area:radius(x2radius 2") +1.25, selective +1/4 no range -1/2, g&i -1/2, rsr -1/2 5b 12a 5r 1 END, -1 to roll, range 0"

Re: Parity for EB You could always convert normal dice into the equivalent number of killing dice and roll body damage with a stun multiplier, to determine the ammount of stun and body dealt. It would still be normal damage, just rolled a different way. Or you could go the other way and roll killing dice with the equivalent number of normal dice. I'm not sure what affect either of those solutions would have on game balance. It is a question of what ammount of variability you want the dice to have when it comes to stun and body rolled. There is already the standard effect option when buying a power which alters the ammount of randomness involved in the dice, so i don't think that this optional idea would be too unbalancing.

Well someone could use a SPD drain on ya.. And if your GM was using fractional SPD rules, then you might.

If one hasn't had their spd stat adjusted, you could precalculate which turns you get a bonus spd. At .5 you get an extra spd every other turn, at .2 you get a bonus spd every 5 turns. Or to make it more random, you could determine an activation roll for however many fractions of a spd point you have. 2d6-1 less than or equal to your tenths of a spd point, then you get a bonus spd. The fractional spd chart is visually interesting, but i wouldn't use it in a game.

Can a character with two hand to hand weapons do a multiple power attack? Example: Two scimitar guy wants to strike a single opponent with both blades at once. Can two scimitar guy use multiple power attack to do this, or does he have to use the sweep maneuver? If he can use multiple power attack and also has access to the sweep maneuver( either from purchasing two weapon fighting, or because the GM allows sweep as a standard option), can he do a sweeped multiple power attack with his two weapons? Given that this could get very abusive, would you make an exception to the rule of only paying END for the maximum ammount of strength used in a phase regardless of how many times strength was used?

Weapons with str min cost endurance to use based on the strength minimum. It is logical that other equipment with a str min would also cost END. The large shield with an 18 str min will cost 2 END to use per phase. It may be easier on the book keeping to make a house rule that using equipment with str min reduces your effective strength for the encumbrance table. The next encumbrance category also reduces movement, and has an endurance penalty. The one weapon shield fighter will be moving slower and wearing out sooner unless they also spend points on extra running and a higher recovery. The two weapon fighter using lighter weight gear can spend those points elsewhere to get an advantage while the shield fighter is trying to negate the encumbrance penalties.

If it is only meant to affect the wearer of the armor, how about using damage shield instead of area:hex? That would negate the use of no range limitation, but then you wouldn't need the +2 all magic simultaneously. You'd use +1/4 any magic.

If someone is using a large shield as well as a weapon, and probably body armor, you will probably want to check the encumbrance rules. Two weapon fighters tend to use lighter armor and don't use weapons that weigh as much as a large shield. I don't know if the dcv penalty for encumbrance would be applied before or after the halfing of dcv by the sweep maneuver.

Re: B5 Hero: Aurora Starfury Looks pretty cool to me. The fuzion batteries probably shouldn't be immobile, since the ship can move with the batteries in it right? And 500Rec for 500end? That might be a bit high. The grappling arm should be clinging, not TK, and isn't the grappling arm part of the B5 hangar, not part of the Starfury? You may want to redo the sensors and com systems individually rather than as a VPP.

If a character moves v inches per turn, then their velocity is: (v inches/turn * 2 meters/inch * 300 turns/1hr)*(1km /1000 meters) = (600* v inches* meters * turns * km )/(1000 inch*meters*turn*hr) = (600* v * km )/(1000 *hr) = 600/1000 * v kph = 0.6 * v kph

That should work.

You could probably define the naked IPE to apply to any melee weapon(HA or HKA). You would want to buy it large enough to cover the largest DC weapon you want the invisibility to keep hidden. If the invisibility is strong enough to hide even a great sword at 2d6k(but nothing larger) then the cost of IPE would be based on 30 base points.

If i was your GM i would say that it depends on how the sfx of the attack is visible. A sword swing is visible because the focus is visible, but invisibility makes what the invisible character carries(including foci) invisible as well, so the sword wouldn't become visbile just because it is swinging(unless the invisibility has the limitation, not while attaching). If it was a flaming magic sword, then the flames may become visible, because they are generating light and not simply reflecting light. An invisible archer's arrows cease to be in his possession as soon as they are let loose and thus become visible, same for an invisible gunman's bullets. However the rule book does specifically state that a character's weapon based attacks are not made invisible. To get around that you could buy invisible power effects as a naked advantage, linked to invisibility.

Re: YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING! The multiforms do not get 5 exp per exp given to the true form. A multiform gets as many points as the true form spends on it, with the following restriction. Any points that the multiform has beyond the total of basepoints and experience of the true form must be accounted for with disadvantages. A character with multiform can spend 1 out of every 5 experience points to keep his multiforms as experienced as the true form. A multiform may have more disadvantages than the true form and isn't spending any of its points on multiform, and thus may have more points than the true form. At least that is what i think that the write up for multiform in 5th edition means.

a possible fix You could buy the multipower pool with limitations on part of it. Any spell needing more active points than the "regular" pool has to take all of the limitations on the extension for the entire spell, not just the part that exceeds the regular pool. 30 multipower 60pts (rsr -1/2, gestures & incantations -1/2) (60 active 30 real) 10 additional 30pts of multipower (rsr -1/2, gestures & incantations -1/2, extratime: 1 turn -1) (30 active 10 real)