pawsplay

yeah the old way created arbitrary thresholds and make it all but mandatory to take a single point of resistance defense.

Looking it over, I think Ron's objection might have been, why do you need a bunch of settings when these bullets all do almost the same thing? Dredd's gun seems like it could just be a piercing Blast, or maybe the Machine-gun power I posted above. Things like skip bullets, different payloads to deal with different kinds of targets, etc. all seem like just special effects. If he just uses AP ammo whenever he needs it, then the attack is Piercing. There is not a situation where he is not using armorpiercing ammo when he needs it.

What kind of different ammo does Judge Dredd have?

The gist may be that Multiform exists so you can make characters who transform, but the text clearly states that one consequence is that a modular weapon is also an option. Also, Ron says that anything is fair game if it works, we should be looking at what the character does, not some abstract concept. Also, also, Ron told me he found it perplexing people kept making characters with several powerful, versatile forms. He called them "Swiss army knife" characters. So focusing on the "actually has multiple forms" aspects can be overdone, too, in the Ron way of thinking. So I think it's safe to say Ron has some opinions, and he's also fine with other people have opinions. Champions Now is his thesis, what you do with it is on you.

It's been months since I've logged in but I still play some. More DDO lately.

Are those 3e numbers? Totally different, and also that also you need to add 10 to the base value for Str and Sta unless you think normal people have 0.

That's still a bet I wouldn't take.

One of those constructions is Mind Control, and another is literally a NND defense, so I think it's still a fair question.

Well things are already off to a wobbly start if the GM *requires* the PCs to be captured. If the PCs fight like hell to avoid capture, and then either do or don't get captured, that's all well and good. It just shouldn't feel cheap. If a determined enemy captures them, there should be a good reason they want prisoners.

1) Each species or race should represent some difference in body or mind from humans. Like elves are aloof and ageless. Halflings are very human-like, but subtle; they hide easily and they don't get caught up in forging empires or become ring-wraiths and such. A half-elemental has some minor super-powers. The purpose is to have an experience outside the ordinary. If you find yourself using species or races as stand-ins for human or human-like ethnicities, back up and turn around, you have made a wrong turn. 2) That really depends. Sometimes I prefer a human-centric campaign, with maybe some elves or snake people in the background. Generally speaking, for high fantasy I prefer the standard Tolkien set, or a different cluster of core species. A friendly world, but not crowded, where some races have significant secrets from each other. 3) Monolithic cultures. Dwarves are one sore spot for me, with dwarves being modeled heavily on Thorin's company and Norse myths. But the dwarves in the Hobbit were distraught over being reduced to coal-mining; they were aristocrats, perhaps not representative of tradesmen, or more stay-at-home types. Dwarves in Krynn do everything underground, and so they eat wear subterranean monsters and drunk mushroom beer and other stuff I find weird. I imagine dwarf fortresses to be mighty mountain keeps, but I also imagine farmlands surrounding, with lower status dwarves, and halfing, gnome, and human tenants farming, ranching, and hunting. Each race, particularly if it's at all widespread, should have cultural and tribal differences within it. Even a small group of extraplanar refugees should have factions. Also, while it's fine in my book for a species to be "evil" in the sense of being almost universally a threat, any intelligent being should have some capacity, however atrophied, to make choices of free will. 4) If you want to do high fantasy, "zero" is too few. If there are giants and elves at all in your setting, there should be some provisions for playing one. But twenty common races is too many. But if the setting has a major metropolitan center, or is at a planar nexus, or in a massive ringworld, there is no such things as too many. There could be hundreds, with some being entirely unaware of each other. 5) Conflict. Reason versus emotion. Talent versus pitiability. Many versus few. Old versus new. Kindness versus cruelty. Indifference versus curiosity. Human versus alien. Supernatural versus mundane.

By default. But Drain PRE as "fear" is not a typical construction and it should have reasonable constraints. If it's a "soul drain" that reduces your ability to resist fear, I guess that's valid. In which case the Thrall construction may need some. But that seems so exotic. At the last Power Drain, Only versus fear, should be worth -1 or -1 1/2 as a limitation because that's maybe one power in the campaign. But honestly if the Thrall has the fear-based defense, and the Darkness of Soul Draining spell is described as inducing fear, I might rule based on the special effects the Thrall's Mental Defense applies against it. Or hopefully, the Thrall's massive PRE buffer is enough. I think most of the time, Presence attacks are based either on an emotional appeal or a test of will, rather than will. But fear-based Pre Attacks are not exactly rare. If a Thrall is affected by a roaring lion man, he or she isn't "afraid," the Thrall hesitates because the opponent's spirit causes them to hesitate and recalculate their tactics. But if a wight pops out and says "boo!" the Thrall just throws alchemical fire on it and then cleaves it with their greatsword. It could also be noted as a 0-pointer that Thralls innately, psychologically resist fear, so Pre-based attacks based primarily on fear always go against their EGO. I think that's a valid choice, and could be noted in the text of the Thrall Fearlessness talent which they all have.

And PD protects against damage, but poisons are built differently. Why would a fear power target Power Defense and not Mental Defense?

Damage Reduction is already Inobvious. While it may be obvious a character glows, it doesn't mean they have Damage Reduction. Some characters might glow all the time. Inobvious powers can be detected in some ways, for instance, if you damage the character, you see they are tough. To be Perceivable, I think it needs to be really clear the power is Damage Reduction. Like for physical Damage Reduction, attacks must slow down or something as they approach the character, or the character takes damage but "There's like a big chunk out of his leg and she's still going like it's nothing."

I'm pretty sure that list was cribbed from Strike Force. If players really and truly hate being captured, that confuses me, because so many scenarios and video games begin with exactly that trope. I think what infuriates players is when they can't tell whether they are supposed to "win" a fight or not and stress out because it looks like they are about to die.

Boy Wonder - Elemental Control (20 points) Bright Green Shorts - 3d6 Flash , Area Child Endangerment: Missile Deflection, two extra uses Boy Hostage: Force Field 16, Shutdown (completely)

Autofire is a special effect. Since a lot of little bullets don't penetrate as well as one big blast, maybe forgo Piercing. You could built it as Multiform with one slot being a cone area. Machine Gun - Multiform (60 points) Concentrated Burst: 12d6 Blast Spray and Pray: 5d6 Blast, Area (cone), Piercing

Honestly I think it goes back to Aaron Allston's players being babies.

I just don't know why you would build a PRE Drain as working against Power Defense. How does that make much sense?

I find that construction weird because I don't think most fear attacks built as Drains would be versus Power Defense, but AVLD in some fashion.

STR 20 is a an axe-wielding fighter. STR 25 is Batman wrestling a bear and winning.

Well a +0 modifier would be equal to STR 10, PRE 10. So a damage modifier of +0 is equivalent to 2d6 N. I think from there you can use some benchmarks. A gun in M&M is about +3 to +4 to DC, and about 5 to 6 DCs in Champions. So I think a good starting place is DC = increase to damage save plus 2. Attack bonus increases a lot faster than OCV, and the d20 distribution is flat whereas the 3d6 distribution is curved. Off the cuff, I think halving the bonus and adding it to 3 might be an okay benchmark. As far as ability scores, older guidelines for D&D suggested an ability score = a Hero characteristic, so I don't see any reason to depart from that guidance for ability scores that don't do damage.

Sounds like one of the Thralls of Talislanta. Psychological Complication: Cannot comprehend magic, frequently, fully impairing. Basically the character would not be able to succeed at any check to understand something magical, could perceive magic but never grasp how it works, and would not be able to do anything magical at all, whether that's activating a scroll, learning any magical skills, and so forth. That would be worth 25 points. It's also pretty impairing. At greatly impairing, the character is very primitive and still won't comprehend magical stuff, but might be able to make some checks to try. At slightly impairing, the character is more ignorant/incomprehending of magic than most people, like maybe a Cimmerian just out of the mountains. or a modern person in a magical world with only pop culture to guide them. If the complication only pertains to doing magical things, and not just general knowledge, I would downgrade it to infrequently. So the character couldn't use a wand to save their life and can't seize control of magical artifact, but still understands that mages cast spells, might have a general knowledge of what different magical orders do, can understand in a simple way that magic depends on energy or entities or whatever, and so forth. It might not be worth any points if all magical items or rituals require a Magic skill to use, and the character simply lacks it. But if the character can't use a necklace of fireballs or activate a magic carpet that requires the will of the user, that is likely worth something. "Fear" in Fantasy Hero is a special effect. I can think of several things it can do. There's fear-based Presence Attacks. There are things that cause people to flee, like Mind Control. And there are fear rolls people have to make. I think the latter is just an application of Ego. Lots of Ego. Assuming this resistance is much higher than even the most strong-willed normal person, I'd say: Fearless: +30 Ego, Only versus fear (-1/2); and +20 PRE, only to defend against PRE attacks (-1/2), only fear (-1/2). That's a hefty 30 points. But this character won't fail any normal Ego Roll related to fear without a substantial penalty, and is almost immune to any kind of presence attack that is supposed to be scary, which includes a lot of intimidation attempts. Fear spells would be pretty much useless against this character. As long as this character isn't also a mage or some kind of omni-competent spy or something, there should be points in the budget for it. An alternative construction: Mental Defense +30, only against fear (-1/2) EGO +30, Only to make Ego rolls (-1/2), only against fear (-1/2) PRE 20, only defensive, only against fear That raises the cost to 45. But it also makes the character immune to fear-based mental blasts, and Drains based on fear that are resisted by Mental Defense.

That has a nice aesthetic. Wealthy city folk might get their weekly wages in gold, but most people don't regularly handle it or see it.

I've paged through the literature, and in my view, literary wizards who can use a sword are more common than those who cannot. Most fantasy literature treats wizards first and foremost as adventurers, mentors, or villains. Garion from the Belgariad uses one, the Grey Mouser, Lythande, some versions of Merlin, Gandalf, most of the wizards in Vance's Dying Earth, and Harry Potter. In movies you can add the evil wizard from the Golden Voyage of Sinbad and the kid from Dragonslayer. Wizards who don't use swords include the old wizard in Dragonslayer, Radaghast the Brown, Skeeve, the conjuror from Krull, Schmendrick.... largely old people and comic relief characters. Almost any character that springs to mind when you say "wizard," with the exception of Raistlin, uses a sword.

I don't agree "we" won the military conflict. The Civil War was fought between two slave-owning powers. At the conclusion of the war, the two powers were stitched back together and slavery was nominally ended. The Confederacy for its part wanted nothing less than the perpetual, state-enshrined institution of racialized slavery. The Union, for its part, wanted to be maintain military and economic strength, at virtually any price. At the beginning of the war, the Union notoriously tolerated a "contraband" policy, and at the end of the war, slavery did not exist in the South but shambled on for some time in the North. Some of the last slaves of that era were in Washington, DC. That is the legacy of the Civil War: absolutely omnipresent racism, oppression of blacks and other minorities, and the expansion of the imperial state. The Civil War dealt a grievous war but did not end it. Slavery exists now. Systemic oppression of African-Americans continues.