Jump to content

Lee

HERO Member
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lee

  • Rank
    Skilled Normal
  • Birthday 03/18/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Shreveport, Louisiana, United States
  • Interests
    Gaming, Art, Writing, Theoretical Physics, Cosmology, Advanced Mathematics (Group Theory mainly), Science in general, Software Engineering
  • Biography
    I have been interested in Role Playing Games since I was first introduced to them in 1977 at the ripe old age of twelve. I started with the original boxed set of D&D + Chainmail and Traveller. In the early eighties (1981 I think) the gaming group I was in discovered Champions. I continued to play until the late eighties or early nineties. Then, real life reared its ugly head. As my friends and I grew older and up, we no longer had as much time to devote to gaming and all of the friends that I gamed with eventually moved away. So, I dropped out of role playing for many years. My interest was renewed when I discovered MMORPGs and specifically Star Wars: The Old Republic. I thought it would make a great setting and wanted to use Champions. I rediscovered Champions, or actually the HERO System, and along with my interest in writing, my love for RPG's (HERO System especially) was rekindled.
  • Occupation
    Software Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

326 profile views
  1. You're welcome. And, thanks for finding me. I hate being lost.
  2. Did you mean 60 AP in the second sentence instead of 120 AP (I hope)? Or maybe "Four 30 AP attack powers..."? Otherwise, you've lost me.
  3. Likewise, I could see Mark Twain saying it, too. But, a quick search seems to favor Groucho. Maybe he was quoting Twain when he said it?
  4. "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." -- Groucho Marx
  5. "That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens
  6. Actually, that isn't the way I read the Linked Limitation: So, only the "lesser" power is limited. I think this is probably due to trying to prevent abuse, such as taking a very expensive power, linking it to something like a 2-3 AP power and get a (possibly huge) discount on the very expensive power. That's my take on it anyway. Lee
  7. p71: The GM may restrict which types of CSLs can have Limit; for example he might rule that only 3-point or more expensive CSLs can have Limitations. Just below that reference on p71 it goes on to say: So, if we are talking about using CSL's to offset the DCV penalty for attacks from behind, it seems (if I am reading the RAW correctly) that you can't. That means, to me at any rate, that if we want to stat out what the offset "should" cost, it shouldn't be based on CSL's but on Limited DCV. That's assuming that I'm understanding what we're trying to accomplish here. And, I know what happens whenever I assume something... Lee
  8. Lee

    Gods in RPGs

    I really don't want to know how they do this. I know people can call it rain, but... Lee
  9. Nothing about how defenses are used changes. Killing attacks have an advantage cost because you only get resistant defenses against the body of the attack, same as now. Body from normal attacks just go against normal defenses. Hence; less body damage dealt by normal attacks. Nothing has changed about how defenses are calculated. I think what he was getting at is that, assuming the target's defense is fully resistant (meaning it counts the same whether it is a KA or not), the KA will deal less BODY than the normal attack (since it uses fewer dice). Lee
  10. Lee

    UOO vs Focus

    Exactly the point I was trying to make by raising the questions I did. Agreed. But this doesn't have to happen immediately, or in my opinion any time soon. The player got to have the advantage of having a power greater than the others for a while (due to the Focus limitation). They will have to live without it for a while now, too. As I mentioned in another thread, this "problem" is exactly why I wouldn't allow (or be very reticent to allow) a character to start off with a magic item like that, in spite of a great character concept. I would want all the magic items to be "found" and have the equivalent of the Independent/Universal Focus, probably along with "Real <Equipment>". That way, not only can the item be lost/stolen/damaged/whatever, it can be that forever. For a player that has a great character concept, I'd try to work it out so that they didn't start the campaign with the item, but at some point along the way they would obtain it. That would allow me to, at various other points in the campaign, provide items for the other players, too, keeping things (mostly) "fair". But, it would also mean that if the first player decided to throw their nifty new character concept magic item into a bottomless pit to see if it makes a sound and thus prove the pit is not actually bottomless, they can do so, but if it is indeed bottomless, they lose that item forever and won't get it back. I also get the example of Captain America's shield--he never seems to lose it permanently. Using the MCU, in the Winter Soldier he throws it out of a crashing Helicarrier, yet somehow gets it back. In Endgame it's severely damaged by Thanos, but somehow "old Steve Rogers" has an intact one to "pass on". But, as a GM I'd rather arrange for something like that between me and the player and not (necessarily) be bound by game mechanics. It sounds more like a story/character/campaign plot point. I just see scenarios like the following in my head (in various forms): Player 1: "Elric throws Stormbringer into the maw of the burning pit fiend to see if it is hot enough to melt it. GM: <Shocked> "Um, well, it melts." Player 2: <To Player 1> "Why in the world would you do that!?" Player 1: "Don't worry, I paid points for it. I'll just get it back." GM: "Uh, no, you won't." Player 1: "Yeah huh, the rules say I do". GM: "No, it was a stupid thing to do with such a powerful item." Player 1: "Well, I'll just get my points back and make a new item that's just like Stormbringer". GM: "No, you're not getting those points back. It was a stupid thing to do." Player 1: "That's not fair!" The argument goes back and forth until either Player 1 or the GM leaves the table. If I'm the GM, it would be me leaving because I will not be rules lawyered into doing something I think is wrong. Now, if Player 1 and I had decided to make Stormbringer like Cap's shield (and perhaps it should have been), it would be a different story. It just seems to me that it is open for all kinds of player abuse, destroying all their various Foci, at whim, because they know they will always get them back. I'd rather try and nip that expectation in the bud, so to speak, and then in very special and specific circumstances allow it to happen. Just like, I try very hard not to kill the characters (and certainly not have a TPK). But if a character jumps naked into an erupting volcano for fun just because, "the GM won't kill my character", they might be surprised (actually they shouldn't) that their character will be utterly dead. No miraculous last second save, no resurrection, just dead. Now, if jumping naked into the volcano is the answer to stopping it from erupting onto the city below by placating the volcano god, I might be willing for something to happen where the character doesn't die (i.e. the honest intent was more important the actual act). But only in that very special and specific circumstance. Do it again somewhere else and you're toast. "Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." Lee
  11. I found this in 6e2 page 18: That's how it is in 6e. I don't know about prior editions.
  12. You might try something similar to what you see in some MMORPG's, where spells are "learned" from a trainer for coin, not points. The mage has a skill they pay points for, such as Magic, that allows them to cast any spell they have learned. The Magic skill is modified by how powerful the spell is: the more powerful the spell, the harder it is to cast. The trick is to try and make the modifier such that a low level spell (i.e. Magic Missile) that does 1d6RKA is about as easy to cast as a firing a bow that does 1d6RKA on average. That helps keep things balanced between magic users and non-magic users (but not perfect by any means). More powerful spells cost more coin, just as better weapons and armor do. You might also want to consider other balancing factors, such as weapons and armor can be taken away, but a spell can't. That could tip things against the Mage (increasing cost and/or the skill modifier). However, if you require all spells to have a focus then they can be taken away and the balance tips back. For instance, requiring the Magic Missile spell to use a wooden shaft the caster holds in their hand (like a wand) that flies out of their hand and turns to a magic arrow in flight. Then, it requires "arrows" just like a bow does. However, I like the idea of only a very few, special spells requiring a focus, but I'm probably the only one. A disadvantage to all this is, in addition to a list of weapons and armor, you now need a list of spells, too. No player made spells! (Unless approved by the GM, of course). That puts a huge burden on the GM, but I think gives them more control over balancing casters versus non-casters. For what it's worth, I've been working on just such a magic system and I like the way it is going. I just don't have anything yet to release into the wild. Lee
  13. Lee

    UOO vs Focus

    Great question. I'm sure we all have at one time or another--I know I have. It was certainly a mistake on my part.
  14. Lee

    UOO vs Focus

    But should those powers supposedly gained from those items be purchased with the Focus limitation? Isn't the entire purpose of Focus to create an item that can then be taken away or is it just a way to pay less points for the powers? If Stormbringer can never be taken from Elric, I would rather see it built without a Focus and simply use the sword as a special effect. I realize (although it has been a long time since I've read the Elric novels) that the powers of Stormbringer don't come from Elric, but from the sword itself. That screams Focus to me, too. But, if it cannot ever be taken from him it seems inherent (not the Advantage) to him.If it's a Focus that can never be taken away, it seems like a cheap points grab, to me. It's a Limitation that isn't a limitation, from my point of view.
×
×
  • Create New...