Duke Bushido

Re: Detect Vulnerability See what you've done, Sean?! That's why I like my version--- it deals with all the 'why is he not weaker the next time?' "Oh, he's been training; he's not going to let me exploit him like that again...."

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

Re: I know I have seen this lim before You are absolutely right: it should not be the be-all, end-all, but when you look at most of the examples in the book, it becomes evident that it is. I don't like it; I don't use it. But that's also why I don't post characters, etc---- My group is out of tilt with the 'combat effectiveness' slant that started back in BBB. There is more to being a Hero than Pounding a Villain. But look at the construction of the power in question: Only for half-moves. Where do you use half-moves? In combat. This power was designed _specifically_ _for_ _combat_. And with that in mind, not being able to use it outside of combat is not going to be very limiting at all. Crud! I've been here an hour, and I logged on for a 'quick peek.' I really, really, mean it-- I'm out!

Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules. okay, if you're opinion shopping: I don't care who pays what for what. And the reason that I don't _personally_ care is becuase I don't _personally_ think that points-- in any system, as presented in HERO or anywhere else-- will ever really indicate any sort of rational balance between abilities, powers, etc. It's the old "How much EB is 20" of Flight worth?" discussion. Points be damned, they are well beyond apples and oranges, which are at least both edible fruits. For that reason, I don't really mind (again, _personally_) if two people buy a base and spend 30 Xp each on it, and ban me from it entirely. It's not going to do them a lot of good when we get sent to Bismark, and I've still got _my_ 30 XP worth of skills to solve the crime. I don't care if one guy buys the floorplan, one guy buys the computer, one buys the defensive weaponry, etc, and that is because, again, I don't care if they spent it equally or not, there is no way to asses what is equal to something else, and what will be used more than what, etc, etc, etc. Add in things like Disads, Limitations, Advantages, Adders, etc--- and the whole thing gets so incredibly out of whack that there is not anyway to even reconcile the concept of balance, let alone actually do any balancing. So for me, _personally_, I don't really care. My whole interest in this thread is for me, _the GM_, and what has or has not been a meta-game issue with my players. And for the most part, players see points, and points alone. Unfortunately, they seem to think that those points have an actual balanceable value. That's why I'm in this discussion. Looking for ideas, enlightenment, and sharing issues that have come up with us. So in short, I mostly agree with you (I disagree on that 'MF means two characters. I agree that it can, but I don't think it's an implicit requirement). But that doesn't mean that I don't still have problems that have nothing to do with my opinions. I don't know; if I'm not getting this across the way I would like, let me take a line to tell you that I'm not being hard or obtuse. I'm just 'splainin'.

Re: I know I have seen this lim before that movement and turn mode thing can bite you in the keester if you're not looking where you're going! That was the basis of why I put up the 'die of direction' joke. And if you're just wondering, the best way I have found to avoid the "I move; I shoot; I move again" thing when characters are full-move attacking is to require that the attack be made at the end of the full move. Not particularly realistic in ---what's the word? Not symbolic. Crud. A very basic role-playing word: like 'representational,' but different. Man this is embarrasing....... (Forgive me. I mentioned before that years ago I got a good concussion in a racing accident. Generally I just have problems tracking elapsed time, but occaisionally I forget words. Not too often, but enough to be annoying.....) Anyway, it's not an accurate SIMULATION! That's it! Simulation! Not an accurate simulation of what's actually happening when you move _and_ fire, but by the same token 'SPD v Phase' is not a completely accurate simulation of how a fight works. But they are both useful mechanics for orderly play, and it stops abuses. Anyway, I'll see y'all later!

Re: Feints

Re: I know I have seen this lim before 'Salwright! I'm getting used to it. I can't argue with you, at least not right now-- no time, and no book (my player picked his copy back up, and mine is still awaiting the move). But for the record, your examples agree with me: Again, more briefly: Is the dragon swooping away from his target, or towards him?

Re: The Problem with Even Characteristic Costs We had similar realizations years ago, in our Sci-fi campaign. To combat it, we stopped using 'base 10' characters to build aliens and instead built up from base 0. It's involved, and really not of a lot of interest to anyone not doing it, but it had the nice effect of changing default NCMs, etc, and the prices changed accordingly. Of course, we had to 'break' the figureds, at least for the base template, to make it work right. It led to some interesting things such as races who pay 15 cp to raise DEX, or 2 pts for STR, etc. But I warn anyone wanting to do something like it: It's a _lot_ of bookkeeping to make a template, and more again when it's time to build on it.

Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules. I agree with the examples you provide. what I was thinking was a situation where a group of characters together (say a few players in a campaign) want to build a base for whatever reason and agree to split the cost evenly, etc. The MF guy only has to chip in 1/5 the earned experience to do so. That sort of thing.

Re: I know I have seen this lim before I do, too. Great minds and all that? No? hmmmm.....

Re: telekinesis I may have missed something in the thread. I was unaware that we were discussing using this to Block at Range. Perhaps because it's 2 AM here; perhaps not. But at any rate, I think I'll retire for the evening, and recheck this thread (if it is still active) when I get back after the weekend) before commiting myself further. Y'all have fun!

Re: I know I have seen this lim before more or less what Sean said, minus the head staggers comment. Though I've figure out what bugs me about this construct beyond the price (which, like a few others, was my primary complaint), and simultaneously that it does not apply to any of my campaigns anyway, so after this post, I will properly remove myself from this conversation. What I did not like about the construct (other than the double-value of the Limitations) was that at first glance it seemed like a cheasy way to get around not being able to attack with a full move. And essentially, it is. What I do like about the construct: It is probably the only way under the current rules to simulate a character that is so well-trained and combat skilled that he _can_ run flat-out and attack without penalty. While this has potential to be abusive, if managed well enough (perhaps require an END bump to simulate the strain of the concentration or something; I don't know) it can lead to some of the super-ninja or super-soldier characters seen in movies (and probably comics). When looked at that way, it seems less munchinkiny. Why I can't use it: I allow characters to attempt to attack while full-moving. I put them at CV 0, and allow them to apply appropriate CSLs to counter the penalty. As we already have a way to handle this situation, and are completely happy with it, I withdraw my participation in this discussion. Thanks for the banter, though!

Re: telekinesis

Re: About Naked Advantages... I'm with G-A; I am under the impression that, while not specifically called for in the book (that I can recall), Naked Advantages are intended for specific use. Otherwise, they can become very powerful, and in some cases, very wierd: Hey, my 'Naked Ranged' covers up to 30 AP! I want to use it on my Flight.....

Re: Multiple Attack: EC vs. MP Wha.....? I'm not doubting you, Sean, but that makes precious little sense.

Re: "Shallow" Purchases Well, I never actually did anything like that-- spent points out of concept, or whatever you wish to call it.... But I _did_ do something 'vain', kind of on a lark, back in the early 80s. We were still using those character sheets with the outlines on which you could draw a picture of your character. We were playing a non-super campaign, so all characters were 'normals,' at least after a fashion. I got bored looking at my character in the same get-up, so I mimied about ten blanks of the same pose and made a series of cut-out suits for him (he was a proffessor by trade), and took to paper clipping a different one on to the sheet every game day. Mostly, it was done as a joke, and it was well-recieved. But decidely vain!

Re: sweep question Oh yeah. forgot about 'Blazing Away.' The other, far superior Autofire....... We don't use it. You want more than one shot? Get Autofire. That's why it's there, and why it always has been. YMMV

Re: I know I have seen this lim before Oh--- Like the new avatar, by the way! Looks like y'all are having a pretty good time!

Re: I know I have seen this lim before

Re: I know I have seen this lim before I am inclined to agree with Sean here, mostly because if a player handed me this I would choke. Essentially, the character is getting 'No Hands' per finger: If it is 'only to figure 1/2 moves,' then that would preclude that additional 'No NCM,' would it not? Further, I don't much like the excessiveness of it. I would instead talk with the player to see exactly what his justification was for this ability, and try to work out a better construct. As it stands, the character essentially is able to run a full move so fast as to be able to do it in a half-phase. I can't see why the character can't do this for the second half of the phase, which grants the 'normal' full move of his base Running plus the additional Running. (and negating the 'only for a 1/2 move' Limitation) It smells of cheddar. And bullets. Lots and lots of bullets. Now if the player had some very unusual reason why this was possible, I would go quite a long way, I think, to find some other way to model it. Hell, I think I'd go with a T-form before I went with this. As always, though; your mileage may vary. What works at my table might not at yours, and vice-versa.

Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules. Conceeded. In fact, I have just finished reaquainting myself with the details of this thread, and was just about to withdraw the question. But as you beat me to the finish, I will happily acknowledge that yes, you did exactly that.

Re: WWYCD: Omelas Martin Power: hopefully, he would not ever run into such a situation. He's the uber-brick that was played for nearly twenty years. Lots of EPs into his brickishness over the years..... And in spite of his desire to be ignored and left alone, and his resistance to champion any cause, at his heart, he was an unwanted and abused foster child, as was his sister. The mistreatment of children triggers his only Berserk. Mark 2: Suffering from Martyr Syndrome himself, he would first offer to replace the children, offering his services for eternity. But as someone else noted, I do not have a character that would not willingly throw away utopia in this situation.

Re: Worst Fear! Martin Power: Something would happen to his sister and he would be powerless to protect or avenge her. Mark 2: Final proof that he would never be able to regain his physical body. Brian Tresdin: Finding a road totally out of the T-maze with no exit portal. Halelujah: Discovering a person who truly has no 'good' in them at all. Tommy: His quest to scientifically reconcile the Occult proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that magic and mysticism have a genuine 'otherworldly' source. The Good Guy: the world continues to doubt the validity of his work, and the werewolves succeed in their mission to split the moon into halves, bathing the earth with a constant full moon, even during the day.

Re: I don't quite grok the Multiform rules. All in good spirits, of course, G-A, but why is it that you can see the abuses of MF with regard to equipment, but not with regard to the advancement? heh heh heh heh heh heh... Sorry. Just had to do that. Prestidigitator--- I'm curious to know why you don't think there is potential abuse from the 1/25 discont that MF provides multiples. Thoughts?

Re: Rate these Disadvantages! I think along the lines that Sean does--- but I'm thinking 5 and 10.