austenandrews

I've done that in the past, but I gain little or nothing from it. The number-crunching is not the difficult part, and I prefer that the numbers not change around if I'm not explicitly changing them. Also, I need scribble room to hash out my ideas. I like to write down an equation every now and again and play with it, which can be troublesome in a spreadsheet. Of course I'm an unabashed "power user" when it comes to making characters, so I'm particular about my tools. (After I created a witch for someone playing in a friend's FH game, he told me he was going to make a new rule: if one PC was created by me, they all had to be created by me. In the interest of fairness. ) -AA

I'm with you. Lately I keep hearing statements to the effect of "I wanted to do X but I couldn't get the software to do it" or "X isn't legal because the software didn't let me." Pencil, paper and rulebook, that's the real way to make a character. Computer programs are just a convenience. If they get in the way, ditch'em. -AA

Re: Really Stunning Good grief, now I've seen everything! Actually it's clever, in an utterly twisted way. But I can't wait to see someone with CON Usable As Attack to help their friends escape the Stun-net. -AA

I don't know anything about GURPS, but I did steal that "Science!" bit from a game book (I guess it was that one) I saw in a store years ago. It was so funny it became a running gag in my gaming group (shouted as per the Thomas Dolby video). Naturally it had to be included in my Atomic Space Adventures, thus apparently making a complete circle. I did play in a short Space:1889 game long ago. Awesome game setting. -AA

In my Atomic Space Adventures short-run (50's space opera) I've got several "tricks" (talents) that have proven lots of fun. Bear in mind that the genre is bigger-than-life. For engineers, I've got three levels of Succor (Aid) to a single ship's system. They all require an engineering skill roll. The lowest level is a 5pt Succor (1 Phase) with a side effect of a modest Activation Roll on the system being enhanced. The middle level is a 15pt Succor (0 END, shuts off by the engineer) with a middling Burnout roll on the system while the enhancement is in effect. The highest level is a 30pt Succor with a high Burnout roll. These are technically defined as massive boosts from the ship's power systems. There are also a couple of more specific "tricks" that increase the ship's acceleration and DCV by manipulating the rocket engines. For scientists, I've got two "tricks." The first is the ability of a scientist to analyze something (an enemy rocket, an alien monster, etc.) to find a weakness in its defenses. It's bought as a mild Suppress v.s. all defenses. The benefits of the Suppress are only available to those who (a) the scientist has told the weakness, and ( who take a -4 OCV penalty to hit the weak spot. It's a genre schtick, obviously. Though it's designed for scientists, engineers can also buy it. The second scientist trick is essentially the same as the highest level engineering enhancement, but the amount of Succor is determined by the Science! skill roll. It applies to any machine. Again, engineers can use it as well as scientists. -AA

Try an AE Regeneration. You'll have to bypass that pesky "self-only" rule. -AA

Hey, that's it, Suppress CON, "Only for purposes of Stunning." It's just as good as Suppress STUN but, um, a little more expensive. Have we tapped this out yet? -AA

As an aside, I think one of the best ways to simulate small uses of the Force (minor prescience, empathy, etc.) is with Overall Levels. It's simple, not underpriced and very widely applicable. For the Dark Side I'd use a Cumulative Mental Transform, Partial Effect. The effect would be to progressively add negative Psych Lims (probably from a list tailored to the specific character). I would allow partial healing (atonement seems like a good mechanism) but only up to the last full level of a Psych Lim. For example, if the Transform is slowly adding a common, total Highly Aggressive psych lim, it will first add an uncommon, moderate version. Once that level is reached, you can't "heal it away" - you're stuck with it permanently ("forever will it dominate your destiny"). But you can heal back partial points before the next level is reached, staving off destiny for awhile. Of course the higher your negative Psych Lims get, the more difficult it is to resist further Dark Side behavior (though someone well-disciplined with a good EGO roll could conceivably resist for a very long time). When to apply the Transform Side Effect is another matter. It depends on how you interpret the milieu. Myself, I'm in the camp that believes the Force itself is neutral; the Dark Side is defined by the nature of the person using it. Hence I believe that -all- Force powers should buy the above Side Effect, defined as activating when it's used with angry, selfish or evil motivations. (Think of Anakin using his lightsaber in the camp of Tusken raiders.) By convention certain powers (like Force lightning and Force choking) are overtly aggressive and should therefore have a stricter definition of what constitutes "good use." But ultimately it's a matter of motivation, which the GM must judge. On that topic I'd caution against restricting Jedi too much. A lot of people have the same misconceptions about the Jedi that they had about Lawful Good characters in D&D. But the Jedi are warriors. They play to win. They use reasonable tactics like stealth, ambush, mind control, teaming up against a single enemy, etc. Obi-Wan deceived the cloners, but that wasn't Dark Side behavior. Qui-Gon Jinn cheated a cheater to get off of Tatooine. Heck, Yoda flung Force lightning back at Count Dooku. None of these were done selfishly or with evil intent, though, so the Dark Side was not invoked. I'd suggest using the same kind of judgement with your players. -AA

It seems reasonably game-balanced, but may not fit the power that's being built (like Burnout's static shock power). Plus, I bet a lot of GMs wouldn't allow Trigger to be used that way. Myself, I'd have to review the specific instance before I allowed it. -AA

For that matter, is it legal to Dispel STUN? Just wondering. -AA

Trigger is logically workable, except don't you have to set up each Trigger beforehand? So if you were simulating a Damage Shield with Trigger (though the rules specifically discourage that), you'd have to spend a lot of time setting up however many Charges it has? -AA

Right, don't roll to hit the hex with No Range AE. Technically you should, but if you miss, the shot will go astray by 0" (since it has No Range) and you wind up with the same effect. So don't bother. Unless ... As a GM, I would probably allow someone with a No Range AE to center the effect in an adjacent hex. After all, STR is inherently No Range and you can punch someone in the next hex. The same should be true for any No Range attack (depending on the Special Effect, of course). If your GM decided to run it that way, it's possible you could miss your own hex and center the Flash in an adjacent hex. However, that's a lot of rolling for a generally meaningless effect. I wouldn't mess with it unless the Special Effects demanded it and both player and GM agreed. Then again I rate a hex as DCV 0, not DCV 3, because I just don't think they should be more difficult to hit than a Stunned person. So I'm biased that way. -AA

I think that's a great idea. I've had the same problem recently, building powers that should only burn charges when they work (which especially applies to skill rolls). At first glance +1/4 seems fair, but something's nagging me that it might need to be +1/2. Not sure why; I'll have to dig out my copy of 5E and investigate. -AA

I'd call it Stun Only (since that's the only effect it's designed for), which is a -0 Lim, then add -1/2 "only for Stunning." Anything more seems gratuitous to me. It'll probably have a bunch of other Limitations on top of that (Focus, et al.) so the cost ought to work out in the end. -AA

I judge Stunning an opponent to be a lot more potent that others here. Often one Phase of being Stunned is all it takes to turn a battle. As a GM I'd rule that you have to buy extra dice of damage with Limitations, but I'd be hard-pressed to give more than -1/2 for it. Certainly not as high as -1. The idea is to build a power that will in a single shot reduce the target to 0 OCV/0 DCV and effectively Dispel an entire Phase. In my view that's worth more than 2.5 pints per 1d6. -AA

Q: I'm trying to update the Lone Ranger. What characteristics would a superhero have in modern-day Texas? A: Twists around a thousand times but ends in a straight line. -AA

I think it's a fine way to go. It's analogous to a character with Weaponsmith creating weapons. You've got more of an ongoing challenge as a GM, of course, making sure the potions don't become unbalancing. I'd suggest coming up with some general guidelines for figuring out the difficulty of creating a potion, such as: - Divide the Active Points by 10 (or whatever) and count up the Time Chart, starting with 1 Hour, to see how long it takes to make. - Multiply the Real Points by 100gp (or whatever) to get a rough idea of cost. Judge each case separately, but use such guidelines to make your job easier and to keep player expectations in line. Also, make sure that you as GM have a mechnism to stop the character from making a potion, if you don't want him to for some plot reason. I've done well restricting the raw materials. ("I know you normally make a new healing potion every day, but that unseasonal frost last week killed all the kingsfoil buds in the area. So I'm afraid you won't be able to heal the dying prince and mess up my assassination plotline.") -AA Edit: Just as an aside, I've had some problems using skill rolls as a primary limiting factor. If the task doesn't take long, the player can just keep rolling until he makes it (usually within 3 or 4 levels up the Time Chart, btw, no matter how low their roll is). If the task takes a long time, players inevitably come up with ways to improve their roll. I'm not saying don't use it, but don't rely on it as your primary means of preventing a flood of potions into your world.

I'd approach the issue in a slightly different way. To solve the problem of same-size people having no size bonus/penalty, just reduce the DCV modifier by the difference (that is, net DCV mod = (defender's DCV mod) - (attacker's DCV mod)). Then the DCV modifier acts as normal. This methods seems simpler to remember & calculate. DCV of little people against little people: - regular-size (+0 DCV) v. regular-size (+0 DCV): 0-0 = +0 DCV - small (+3 DCV) v. regular-size (+0 DCV): +3-0 = +3 DCV - tiny (+5 DCV) v. regular-size (+0 DCV): +5-0 = +5 DCV - tiny (+5 DCV) v. small (+3 DCV) = +5-(+3) = +2 DCV - tiny (+5 DCV) v. tiny (+5 DCV) = +5-(+5) = +0 DCV DCV of big people against big people: - huge (-3 DCV) v. regular-size (+0 DCV) = -3-0 = -3 DCV - giant (-5 DCV) v. regular-size (+0 DCV) = -5-0 = -5 DCV - giant (-5 DCV) v. huge (-3 DCV) = -5-(-3) = -2 DCV - giant (-5 DCV) v. giant (-5 DCV) = -5-(-5) = -0 DCV You can extend this method to combat between big people and small people. I probably wouldn't do that, but the math works out: DCV of big people against little people: - huge (-3 DCV) v. small (+3 DCV) = -3-(+3) = -6 DCV - huge (-3 DCV) v. tiny (+5 DCV) = -3-(+5) = -8 DCV - giant (-5 DCV) v. small (+3 DCV) = -5-(+3) = -8 DCV - giant (-5 DCV) v. tiny (+5 DCV) = -5-(+5) = -10 DCV DCV of little people against big people: - small (+3 DCV) v. huge (-3 DCV) = +3-(-3) = +6 DCV - small (+3 DCV) v. giant (-5 DCV) = +3-(-5) = +8 DCV - tiny (+5 DCV) v. huge (-3 DCV) = +5-(-3) = +8 DCV - tiny (+5 DCV) v. giant (-5 DCV) = +5-(-5) = +10 DCV NOTE: I would not apply this rule to the DCV of normal-size people. Characters with Shrinking/Growth (and equivalent constructs) are specifically changing their DCV. Normal-size people shouldn't be penalized for being normal-size, IMO. Should Frodo hit Boromir more easily because he's little? Should the cave troll hit Boromir less often? Somehow that doesn't ring true to me. That's one reason I prefer DCV modifiers to OCV modifiers. (The main reason, though, is for simplicity.) However, the method does work if you do want to apply it to normals: DCV of regular-size people: - regular-size(+0 DCV) v. huge (-3 DCV) = 0-(-3) = +3 DCV - regular-size(+0 DCV) v. giant (-5 DCV) = 0-(-5) = +5 DCV - regular-size(+0 DCV) v. small (+3 DCV) = 0-(+3) = -3 DCV - regular-size(+0 DCV) v. tiny (+5 DCV) = 0-(+5) = -5 DCV Hopefully that makes some sense. -AA

You could probably work out some concrete numbers based on how many points you save with various combinations. I'm not that industrious, so yeah, judgement call. Admittedly, in some sense you're getting more than you deserve by taking the Gestures lim. If "No NCM" is -1/4, "Limited NCM" shouldn't get you more than that. You could modify the custom Limitation above to read "NCM costs 3xEND and requires Gestures Throughout" and keep it at -1/4. In fact that's probably the more reasonable approach, numbers-balancing-wise (though there are many "official" cases where a less-limiting construct gets you a better Limitation value). Yeah, for ease of play I'd rule that the Limitations apply to all NCM. If the player pushed back, though, and didn't mind handling the extra bookkeeping himself, I'd probably relent on the technicality. -AA

1) Personally, I'd buy the extra Running with a Limitation "NCM costs 3xEND" (-1/4). 2) Gestures on the extra Running for NCM seems reasonable to me. I'd call it Gestures Throughout, which is -1/2 IIRC, but since it's only for NCM I'd reduce it to -1/4. Note that when you're buying extra Running with Limitations, your normal NCM is unchanged. So technically the first +6" you get for NCM would not be limited (which makes sense; surely he can sprint upright like anybody else). -AA

If you want to be thorough, you might consider Indirect. It would seem silly if you could reach through ultradense power armor but not a plaster wall. BOECV gives you some of Indirect's advantages, granted, especially if you combine it with Mind Scan. -AA

What exquisite munchkinism, Gary! I applaud you. I agree. I'm not actually building a BODY Suppress; that was just an easy example. The actual spell in question saps a couple of other characteristics. -AA

Talon has it right. The duration of the Damage Shield is independent from the duration of the Suppress. Frex, I cast a "death touch" spell that lasts one minute; anyone who touches me gets a BODY Suppress that lasts one day. My first thought was to buy the Continuing Charge Limitation/Advantage twice, but I'm not sure if that's legal (which is why I originally posted in the Rules section). I'm guessing that's what Steve was working around when he suggested naked Advantages, which sort of bypass those kinds of issues. Buying Uncontrolled also avoids the uncomfortable "double trouble" of duplicate Continuing Charges. That's probably how I'll go, unless someone has a better idea. The trouble with Drain on a Damage Shield is that after the first shot it's not much of a deterrent, because Drain effects don't stack. I could buy up the maximum effect, but I like the mechanics of Suppress better (especially the fact that it shuts off all at once). -AA

Simulate Death as an attack wouldn't stop anybody by itself, but it would make unconsciousness look like death (though you might have to change or get rid of some of its Limitations, as you mentioned). As an alternative, I'll give this quote from the FAQ: 'If reduced to negative his BODY solely due to Suppress, a character “dies†for all intents and purposes, but comes back to life when the Suppress ceases to apply.' Slap on Uncontrolled or a Continuing Charge and you've got your temp-death effect. Also, unlike Drain, the effects of Suppress now stack, which would mean you could just give a high-BODY victim more potion to make it work. One hitch is that killing someone via Suppress (BODY=0-starting value) is point-for-point 4x as expensive as rendering them unconscious (STUN=0). So unless the target's STUN is more than 4x their BODY, it's probably more cost-effective to Drain/Suppress STUN and add in the Simulate Death attack. But we're mini-maxing at this point, of course. -AA

I'm coming in late, but I did want to add that far-future settings are perfect for justifying certain inherent PC advantages. For instance, in my FF game computers were part of most people's biology. That allowed perfectly-encrypted, neural-controlled, unlimited-range, person-to-person communication. In other words, the PCs could talk to each other in-game just as easily and privately as the players would talk to each other OOC. That freed up the players to chat as they liked, as opposed to the usual "you're not there" self-censorship that is usually imperfect anyway. It also reduced the hassle of splitting up the party, as they were always in effortless contact with each other (unless I created a situation to the contrary). I also decided that future-enhanced biology made the human body resistant to environments that would be dangerous or deadly to "natural" humans. So they could traverse vacuums without physiological damage, survive in toxic planetary atmospheres, endure unchecked solar radiation, etc. This freed me up as a GM to put them into exotic environments that would otherwise be impassable. It also placated my own sense of realism by allowing colonization of non-Earth-like planets, rather than contriving a series of planets that are conveniently Earth-like. (In fact this technology led to the sentiment that terraforming a planet was an abomination that destroyed budding alien biospheres. Terraforming was an archaic technology and terraformers were despised as genocidal criminals.) In many ways a far-future setting is a pain to run, but in other ways it's a lot easier. -AA