drunkonduty

Hmmm, a couple that spring to mind: Capture Foam. (Entangle) STUN only attacks. (Stun guns, knock out gas.) Forcefield Traps.

I've enjoyed the various writers on the Renew Your Vows series. Umm... <checks title pages> That's Dan Slott, Gerry Conway, & Jody Houser.

I think that's awesome. I like the clear strong lines. They make it easy for game play. And there's enough fungusy detail to give it the feel of "fungus caverns." Sooo much better than anything I can do.

Assuming "average" heroes with OCV/DCV 8-10; 12-14 DCs; Defences 15-25 (about half resistant); SPD 4-5; STUN 35-50. I'd go with: Basic Mugger/Petty Criminal/Bank Robber: OCV/DCV: 4, Damage: 1d6K-2d6K (depending on how well armed they are likely to be); Defences: 5 with no resistant def; SPD: 2; STUN20. Tough Mook/Enforcer/Trained VIPER thug: OCV/DCV: 6 Damage: 8-10DC; Def 10 (about half resistant); SPD3; STUN 25. Elite Thug/Senior Henchperson: OCV/DCV: 7-8; Damage: 8-10 DC; Defences 10 (about half resistant); SPD 3-4; STUN 30.

Like a lot of HERO game build questions, it's a matter of session 0. What are the GM/players working out for the campaign? I'd work something out with the player. What counts as Evil (capital "E")for the character AND the campaign? How common are Evil opponents? That is modified by the value of the limitation. If someone takes a -1 Limitation, well that halves the cost of the attack. That means, half(ish) the time that attack isn't going to be of use. I'd base it on potential combats that might happen. That way the player can have more agency about who they get into fights with and when the limitation comes into play. Let's say Dwarfie McDwarfface buys an Axe of the Ancestors. 2d6HKA, only vs Evil (-1). Well, what's Evil in this campaign? Are all Orcs Evil? Are all Dragons? Is it the gamut of classic Dwarven ancestral enemies? Whatever answer you come up with it's going to account for about half the (potential) combats that character is going to be in. If it turns out that the player really wants it to be orcs and dragons and campaign world doesn't have dragons and that orcs are just people then the value of the limitation is going to go down. That or the GM includes more dragons and "classic" orcs. As an adjunct, one area I can potentially see "Only vs. Evil" being royally abused is for area of effect attacks. e.g.: Fireball, only vs Evil! No need to worry about hitting your friends. In this case I'd insist on the the write-up including the Selective advantage. Only vs. Evil then becomes a limitation and can be added to the mix.

I voted "sometimes." Basically I'm a "yes" but I don't want to rule out the occasional time where the attack might not be sufficient to do one of the following: Any good hit will probably make the target stumble over their words as they hiss with pain. A shot to the stomach can knock enough wind out of someone that speech becomes difficult (at least.) A shot to the leg might knock someone off balance such that they throw out and arm to catch themselves, thereby disrupting the gestures. But in a big, dramatic scene, where the caster just has to get the spell off, I might allow a "concentration check" based on the spell casters magic skill, modified for amount of damage actually taken.

This is the most non-gaming discussion in the non-gaming discussion forums. I like it. As for sleeping nude - sometimes is good. Like when you've got fresh bedclothes and you just want to feel them.

Not me. But it wouldn't be too hard to cobble together setting stuff from Western Hero and Fantasy Hero. IIRC all the types of spell casting in Deadlands comes with their own unique limitations (having a deck of cards, or taking time, or being tight with the spirits.) Re-costing spells to represent these specifics would be the most labour intensive thing. But you can always handwave it, or make it a character complication, or something.

Whoops, my bad.

I think L. Marcus meant this guy.

Nerts indeed.

Spidey has been a fave since I first watched the old animated series (the one from the sixties, although I watched in the seventies.) I always liked his sense of humour and never-say-die attitude. Special mentions to Thor, Submariner, Shadowcat, Nightcrawler, and Rachel Summers/Phoenix. As to what I like about them... so much of it depends on a given writer. I've come to the decision to treat different writers' takes on a given character to actually be different characters. Sure, somewhere back in the wealth of published material there is the ur-character, the platonic ideal, the baseline on which all the other versions are based. But that ur-character is different for each writer (and each reader.) So when I hear there's a new writer on a character I like, I give this new version of the character a chance. If like them, that is if it fits with my concept of the ur-character, I'll keep going. If I don't, I drop it. For example, I've enjoyed Dan Slott's Spiderman. There's no hint of clones or One More Day. It's Peter all grown up; a father and husband as well as super hero. Anyways, just some ruminations.

Re. the OP: I thought about doing something like this with my own L5R homebrew. But in the end I've gone the route that theinfn8 suggested: just gonna use it for magic. Still haven't fixed on a definite idea but I'm thinking that each element is its own multipower. Or maybe one MP for all magic with a different skill for each element. Allow the MP (or skill) of the favoured element to be higher than the other elements. Or... just riffing here so bear with me... One magic MP & One magic skill. Charges (Boostable maybe?) are bought as a Naked Advantage for each element.

The following is written on the assumption that the reader is only vaguely familiar with Legend of the Five Rings (L5R.) I've drawn up a whole bunch of house rules with the intent of modelling L5R. For the actual honour system I've just stolen the one from L5R. That is, a character's honour is measured as a value from 0 - 5; and it goes up or down according to character actions. I decided to divorce it from the points buy/XP systems because I want honour scores to be a direct consequence of game play. I did this because I want to avoid the situation in which a character does all sorts of dishonourable things through an adventure then, when it's over, the player going and spending XP to buy up the PC's honour. In L5R honour is essential for certain school techniques (read: powers.) In order to model that I've gone with a power limitation along the lines of "Does extra DC equal to honour score." (sorry, don't have my notes handy so I can't say exactly how I worded it or what value I gave it as a limitation.) I also used a separate glory system, again just stealing it from L5R, and have "Does extra DC equal to glory score" limitation for use with those school techniques that rely on a character's glory. The starting value for both honour and glory is 2. That is, 2 represents the norm that samurai are expected to have. Both honour and glory have an effect on social skills. I've used a modifier of: <Score> - 2. So the modifier for most new characters is 0. Rather than list specific situations where each can be used I've simply said the modifiers have effect in situations in which glory and/or honour would be a consideration. In theory honour and glory could both be modifiers to the same skill check. In terms of game mechanical effects honour and glory are intended to give very similar benefits. Where they differ is the in-game actions that modify them up and down. Reading Massey's post above I am reminded why having these stats as 2 separate things is problematic. I'm also using a VOID characteristic. This is basically like, for example, STUN. Like stun it goes up and down during game play. Unlike stun the player actively spends it to power certain school and general techniques, like charges.* I'm valuing it at 10 points/void. Everyone starts with 1 point of void. It can be bought with limitations such as "Only for duels," "Only for skirmish," "Only for school techniques." *Initially I tried modelling void as charges. I opted against it for 2 reasons: in order to get it to do what I wanted the build got very messy very fast; and the cost of buying lots of charges is relatively low whereas in L5R void scores in excess of 4-5 are pretty rare.

Good. I mean, what's sounds better? Duke of Hell or Baatorian Commander? Actually the second one sounds good for a sci-fi setting.

I'd like to say I'm surprised that there are people who think that making a game more inclusive and less offensive to people is bad in some way. I'm not, but I wish I was. There are people who think that Political Correctness is some evil thing, akin to the removal of their basic human rights. It's not. It's what my Nanna would have called Good Manners. So the next time you see something that makes you think "Argh! No! Polical Correctness!" maybe instead try to think "Good Manners." After all, they cost nothing. So any way, here's links to Parts 1 & 2 of a very well written article about the issue of inherently evil races in games and how the language used to describe them in gaming parallels the language used by real world racism. https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/1/13/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-i-a-species-built-for-racial-terror https://jamesmendezhodes.com/blog/2019/6/30/orcs-britons-and-the-martial-race-myth-part-ii-theyre-not-human I am sure that those who need to read them the most will not bother to, but I can hope.

Rival thieves guild. Someone starts hitting the PC's operations and henchfolk. International Diplomacy. They must prevent a war. Or start one. Maybe arrange a marriage. Or arrange a trade treaty. Obviously by itself this is kinda dull. So enter the rivals who wish to assassinate, frame , and just generally derail the PC's efforts.

Lol. Yes, I did miss that. Nicely done.

Looking forward to seeing this LL.

A lot of the write ups of fear effects, as created by different NPCs, are PRE Drains. Hence the Power Defence.

Immune to Fear depends on how the campaign builds fear as an attack. Mind Control is a common way to build a fear attack. (Mind Control, Only to cause fear.) So a character could buy: Mental Defence, Only vs. Fear based attacks. But this won't work against PRE attacks to cause fear, unless you house rule it. PRE attacks target EGO or PRE, whichever is higher. So you can buy EGO, Only vs. Fear. This will work against both Mind Control and PRE attacks. This then begs the question what is Only vs. Fear worth as a limitation? I'd give it a blanket -1 but it is actually campaign dependent. Specifically, it's dependent on how often other types of mental attacks/telepathy occur. If you want to avoid the mucking about with complicated power builds and just have a simple power that does a thing then you will have to guess at it's cost. To get a sense for the correct cost compare it to other things that the players could buy for that many points. If you price Immune to Fear at 10 points, what else could the player get for 10 points? Are these other things as useful as Immune to Fear?

Step 1: Move up to the target Step 2: do the Grab-by manoeuvre Step 3: finish the rest of your movement Step 4: Running throw. (Distance thrown is, I think, halved for being straight up. Or is that movement is halved for being straight up? Or is it both?)

Technically correct is the best kind of correct.

Other: a villain team. It allows for a bit of variety in characterisation and power sets. More fun for me as the GM. But I'd go with a Magneto type as my second choice.

1) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where Player Characters are captured. Yeah most players I've ever had have had issues with it. I, as a player, have had issues with it. But sometimes it's a legitimate trope to use. It can be a way to force the players to follow a plot; and that gets old fast. But it can also be used an an alternative to death. The PCs wake up in chains. Possibly they will be forced to fight in gladiatorial combat or be thrown into some sort of Hunger Games for the amusement of their captors. (The classic DnD Module A4: In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords is a good one.) Maybe it's an excuse for the players to play The B Team and mount a rescue. Use sparingly. Maybe also ask your players if they're okay with this sort of plot. 2) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where enemies and villains return after the players thought they were dead. & 3) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where captured villains escape or get released from prison. I think that in a Supers game recurring villains are pretty much mandatory. I wouldn't want to use the same villain every session, it rapidly turns into Inspector Gadget if you do that. But if the players like a villain (love to hate would be the best way to say it) then finding a good way to bring them back is worth it. The trick is doing it right. eg: Kingpin goes to jail then the heroes learn that he's still running his crime syndicate from inside, good. Joker walks out through Arkham's revolving doors yet again, bad. In fantasy games this is a much rarer trope. At least in my experience. I've had it happen twice, and both times by accident. The first case was years ago - the villain was meant to recur once. Had been a petty villain, went to prison then came back as a major villain pulling off amazing heists. When the heroes finally caught up with her I expected her to die. And she ever so nearly did. But one player grudgingly said "I check to see if she's alive. She is a citizen after all and she has a right to a trial." She was alive. She went to prison and then, because she had stolen so much loot, started manipulating the powers that be from her prison cell. The campaign fizzled out shortly after that. But the players genuinely enjoyed it while it lasted. Second time is a game I am currently running. There's a wizard who had kicked off the campaign by betraying the good guy army and let the undead hordes in the back door of the fort. A few sessions later the heroes have him cornered in a tavern in an abandoned city but are so damn incompetent the guy got away. So I had him join the main bad guy team. The heroes have just met him again, this time at a a party. The party was being held in a neutral kingdom so no fighting allowed. I had so much fun watching the players gnashing their teeth fighting to restrain themselves. The players may have enjoyed that too. They certainly love to hate him and when they finally get him I don't doubt they will be shouting with excitement. 4) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where the villain will threaten innocents with death or dismemberment to force the PC to allow them to escape or capture the PC’s. I'm with everyone else who says this is standard villain behaviour. Violence and disregard for innocents is a classic villain trope. I've only once had a player who hated this and walked. Not someone I played with much and I don't miss having him in my games. He was very much of the "an RPG is a game to win"" player. That's fine, but it doesn't gel with my sort of game. Like all tropes, use it sparingly. But some days the players are just going to have to come up with better plans or wait to fight the villain again at another time. 5) Players completely dislike and will not play in a game where an NPC friend/subordinate will turn out to be a betrayer or enemy. Now this one I've been wary of for a long time. The earliest days of DnD* seemed to be filled with untrustworthy NPCs bent on shooting the PCs in the back. So the players reaction that every NPC was out to get them was fair enough. I don't want that sort of game so I avoid this trope. I honestly can't remember how much I might have used it 35 years ago. Not much, I hope. But nowadays I want a game where the PCs actually interact with the game world, so this is a trope I am very reluctant to use. I did do something similar just recently. A game I run has the three PCs being half brothers. Somewhere out there was their dead beat dad. For a long time now, maybe 4 years in the real world, there's been a recurring NPC; a charming rogue who has been on several adventures with the heroes. Just last session I dropped the bomb shell that he was the dead beat dad. And I had a great reaction. It worked as well as it did, I believe, because the game has a huge list of recurring NPCs so no-one thought this character's recurrence was in any way suspicious. I can have a huge list of NPCs because I studiously avoid the "all NPCs are out to get you" trope. * I say DnD did this. And it did. But Shadowrun is the friggin' poster child of this trope. Very few tropes are so bad they can never be used. It always depends on how, and how often, you use them.