Just Joe

Re: KB discussion

Re: KB discussion

Re: KB discussion I'm in agreement with almost all of what Sean Waters has written in this thread regarding the proper role of knockback, but I have different thoughts on how to go about "fixing" it ("fixing" in quotes, because it's only broken for those campaigns and groups that it doesn't work for). I see two problems: knockback being too common, and knockback being insufficiently correlated with the strength of the hit. I have an approach that I have designed to solve both of these problems. It is intended for a particular campaign that defies easy description, but is perhaps similar to street level supers in that I want some knockback, especially for powerful attacks, but want considerably less than the standard rules produce. If you like the general approach, the details can be tweaked to get the results you want. (Note: I personally do not think KB should be tied to how much damage gets past defenses, so this will not appeal to those of you who do). Here is my approach. Everyone gets a default KB resistance of BOD/2. KB dice are d3, not d6. 12 BOD attack on standard rules does avg. KB of 12-7=5" KB 12 BOD attack vs. 10 BOD target (my rules) does avg. KB of 12-5-4 = 3" Many combatants should have more body. 12 BOD attack vs. 14 BOD target (my rules) does avg. KB of 12-7-4 = 1" Many bricks should have a lot more body. 12 BOD attack vs. 20 BOD target (my rules) does avg. KB of 12-10-4 => 0" Note that KBR can be bought up or down (like, e.g., leaping based on strength). Yes, this makes BOD more valuable, but since KBR is overpriced (as SW has argued) and BOD is currently among the lowest primary characteristics on many, many characters, that's fine with me. This reduces the difference between KA/MA and normal attacks and flying target vs. non-flying -- no big deal to me but you can tweak my rules if you care. Whaddaya think?

Re: Timing is everything I misread the suggestion at first. I thought you (SeanWaters) were saying that full actions (including full moves) would be completed in the next segment. Movement per turn would be unaffected (well, except that phase 12 moves would be completed in segment 1). Velocity-based damage could be calculated as if a full move had been made, unless the GM determined that not enough distance was covered to accelerate to full velocity. I really don't think you'd have to muck with much else. This approach is somewhere between your initial suggestion and the "run through a phase twice" suggestions. It would not work easily for games with speeds of 7 and up, but the kind of realism you are looking for probably has less of a place in most such games anyway. I'd probably allow any character to abort who has not attacked in the current phase. Alternatively, you could just treat the new rule as if everyone with a full phase is required to hold of a half-phase action until the next segment. I'm not sure how to handle the problem of the an opponent avoiding LOS by taking cover every time an attacker moves into LOS. My guess is that there's a solution that makes the new approach superior to the standard rules in terms of both realism and tactical flexibility, but I'm not prepared to back up that statement at this moment.

Re: Balance versus flavour Though I like a lot of the ideas about how to handle things after characters are already designed, my emphasis would be on the design process, which I think the GM should generally have a hand in. I wrote a bunch of stuff, but I deleted it because I want to emphasize one main point. Active point and DC limits, and even guidelines, can have an undesirable homogenizing effect, particularly regarding attack, defense, and movement powers.* It may not be a good thing if the brick's punch, the MA's offensive strike, and the EP's energy blast all do 12d6. If the EP's FF gives him about the same defenses as the brick, that's worse. Even if all bricks have almost the same defenses as one another, that can be bad. I recommend looser guidelines that attempt to establish a combination of balance and variety that suits the campaign. I'll give some examples, but even the ones I give become problematic if they are too standard. So maybe the speedster or MA has a higher speed and is good at taking out agents, but can't do more than 10d6. Or maybe the MA can do 12d6, but only has an 18 DEX and needs to apply all levels in damage to get up to 12d6. Maybe the EP with a big multipower with lots of 50 AP attacks while another has just two attacks: a 12d6 eb and a 7d6, 7 DEF entangle. You get the idea. * Though note that even if everybody has 12d6 attacks, defenses around 30/30, and 20" of some movement power, characters can still be distinctive in combat through powers like desol, healing, and invisibility.

Re: So you need a spaceship for your pulp games? Oh man. I know you can poke around the site yourselves, but I just couldn't resist posting a few more: http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/black-rocket.html I wish you could get a better look at the rear of this one: http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/fintasia.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/fintasia-side.html And how about a few "robots" for good measure (though I can't find a pic of my favorite, a 5' tall flightless bird-bot that looked like it could guard the store when the owner is out): http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/velociraptors.html

Re: So you need a spaceship for your pulp games? I was driving on Rt. 28 in NY State through the catskills and stumbled upon this great place. It's nominally a furniture store, but the rocket-ship lamps and chandeliers, as well as other sculptures were great. The pics on the website don't do justice to the real thing, but their still worth checking out. Try these for starters: http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/roswell.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/bttf.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/bttf2.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/rocketchandelier.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/red-rocket.html http://www.fabulousfurnitureon28.com/mib2-rocket.html

Re: Why do we have skills? Ugh, my computer just ate my first reply (halfway complete), so here's the shorter version. I am no fan of Super Skills. I think they're generally amusing, but often inefficient and rarely add to the game. I like regular skills (though sometimes bought at 17- or better). TUS (which I received only yesterday and have barely skimmed) looks like it's going to make me like them even more.

Re: VVP and AP limits It's a moot point from my perspective. I only use AP limits as a rule of thumb, and I believe that most of the GM's I play with do the same. But I'd say that as a general rule, we don't count the AP of a framework, only of the powers within it. Still, the versatilty of many multipowers and VPP's should be factored in -- I just don't feel the need to have a formula for doing so.

Re: Why do we object to mechanics? I would model most or all of these with high DCV and/or low opponent OCV. Not all should need a 3, but maybe many mooks and bigs slow scary monsters should. Others might be able to hit on a 4 or 5, maybe even a 6 or 7. Not my cup of tea, but then I tend to get bored and/or annoyed by Hollywood movies where things like you describe above happen

Re: Why do we object to mechanics?

Re: Why do we object to mechanics? I agree that combat luck is intended as a solution to the problem you describe, but I think it's a poor one. For one thing, as I mentioned above, combat luck rarely produces a true miss. So your character who dives into a hail of gunfire will get stunned to oblivion. Why not DCV levels? Why not NPC's with low OCV's? (Storm troopers, at least in the original Star Wars, have OCV 3 before applying their -1 OCV weapon and range penalties. Or maybe they were just deliberately missing. Soldiers in the real world have certainly been known to do this.) For survivability of a different sort, consider actual armor (as lightweight as the GM allows in Sci Fi games), lots of body, or damage reduction (admittedly quite expensive for heroic level games.

Re: Why do we object to mechanics? Good points, but the mechanic still seems to me to be inelegant and intuitively dissatisfying. Not having taken a serious look at D&D in close to two decades, my comments on this matter are based mainly on guesswork (and maybe prejudice), but I doubt they cover the full range of relevant cases as well as DCV + defences do. Thanks for pointing out this example. I can't stand combat luck. The only thing I think it can represent reasonable well is something like an attack "just happening" to strike a badge, thick wallet, large coin, or whathaveyou, which is corny enough if it happens once, boring and ridiculous if it happens repeatedly. Why in the world should a 6 body, 30 stun attack do zero body and 20ish stun to a character with 6 PD combat luck? (I've heard semi-plausible answers before, but ultimately it strikes me as a poor mechanic).

Re: Why do we object to mechanics? It would take me an hour to list all the things I agree with that have been said so far. A couple of additional thoughts: I don't want a mechanic that forces to much or too little randomness into the game, without GM's and players being allowed to adjust it to their needs. Arguably, this is part of the problem with the STUN lotto. Less controversially, imagine that the standard effect rule dictated the effect of ALL powers (e.g., every 10d6 eb did 30 stun and 10 bod every time). Or imagine that you always rolled 1d6 and multiplied by the number of dice. Ick. I want any mechanic that is meant to be simulating something to do a good job of simulating it, while allowing differentiation between different characters and actions. Thus I'm not fond of D&D AC because it does a poor job of distinguishing between defenses that help against AOE attacks and those that do not. It does not allow a good distinction between a sword that magically seeks out an opponents heart (lightning fast, but stopped by armor as easily as a normal sword) and one that is not particularly accurate but cuts through any armor with ease. I have similar objections to very broad interpretations of DCV and of defensive actions (e.g., game mechanic block used as narrative description dodge or brick laughing off attack).

Re: Hitler and the Himalayas The SS Mission to Tibet 1938-39 This is a tangent, but still relates to Tibet and the pulp era (and earlier, and maybe a bit later). Peter Hopkirk has written a number of fascinating histories of explorers and spies in Central Asia and beyond. Among other things, they are excellent rebuttals to any claim that realistic = boring. Trespassers on the Rooftop of the World is specifically about the exploration of Tibet by Europeans (and American and Chinese). The Great Gameis about the "cold war" between the British and Russian empires in Central Asia, mainly in the late 19th and early 20th century. I love this book. Like Hidden Fire is about a WWI German and Turkish plot to foment Muslem rebellion against the British in the Middle East (and all the way to India, IIRC). Setting the East Ablaze is about the early Soviet Era in the Caucuses through Central Asia. It's funny. I seem to recall not enjoying the other three as much as The Great Game, but thinking back on them, they all have some excellent truth-is-stranger-than-fiction parts. And I enjoyed them enough to complete all four.

Re: Is this Indirect? That's very useful, thanks. I wonder if that was originally posted in the "Rules Question" forum. I would have thought that was more of a question of the best way to design something, which doesn't usually get answered there.

Re: Is this Indirect? OK I still don't have access to my 5ER, but I read the FrED version of indirect yet again and I noticed two mistakes I have been making. 1. The lightning bolt example travelling away from the attacker on a 2-D map but not directly away in 3-D is in fact given as an example of +1/4 indirect. If not for this example, I would interpret the text as meaning the attack really has to travel away from the attacker, not merely in a 2-D projection, but there it is. 2. Though I was correct that there is no mention of curving attacks in the write-up of indirect, there is a mention of bouncing (as a special effect, not the separate rule on bouncing). Nevertheless, before the brief mention of this possibility near the end of the description of the advantage there is nothing in the write-up to indicate that indirect attacks do anything other than following a straight line. So as reasonable as your answers may be, I still don't think they strictly follow the FrED text. Is 5ER different in this respect? Does it actually mention indirect attacks curving? One other thing, your account of the basic +1/4 level of the advantage skips what I read as the paradigmatic case of +1/4 indirect* -- an attack that originates from a fixed point not on the attacker's body (whether in the same hex or not) and goes in a straight line from the attacker toward the target. * Again, unless 5ER changed this.

Re: Is this Indirect? Your first example seems to me a reasonable extrapolation, the lsecond a straightforward application of the standard rules. But maybe I should just shut up until I get my hands back on my copy of 5ER, since I don't remember if I most recently read "indirect" in that or in FrED, and I only have the latter available at this time.

Re: Is this Indirect?

Re: Is this Indirect? I think you're missing my point, though it's certainly possible that I'm just being dense. An ordinary energy blast with no advantages or limitations at all originates at the character (the same point every time). So the fact that the power I described at the beginning of this thread also originates at the character is clearly not enough to establish that it is +1/4 indirect. As far as I can recall, there is nothing in the text that indicates that an indirect attack can do anything other than follow a straight line. I think it's a natural extrapolation to treat the power I'm asking about as indirect, but I don't think it fits the strict definition. And since we're adding abilities not strictly given in the write-up of "indirect", I don't think we can just automatically follow the advantage levels based on the point of origin of the attack. Furthermore, under the standard rules, even at the +1/2 level, the attack moves away from the character (as you point out above). But if the attack can loop back, then it's debatable whether it fits the criterion. I'm not looking at the text right now, but the power we're talking about starts out moving away from the character, while potentially moving back toward the character later. So again, I think we're stuck extrapolating. You seem to think that we aren't, but I don't see why you would think that. Lord Liaden's way of extrapolating strikes me as a reasonable one, though not the only possible one.

Re: Is this Indirect? But doesn't the standard +1/4 originate from a point other than the attacker's hex and then fire straight at the target? I don't recall anything in the text (which I read recently) about the attack following a curved path? Thanks. This sounds about right to me. I was undecided about just how flexible it was. At the +1/2 level, I'm thinking it can make at least one right turn (though I was leaning toward not allowing it to move back toward the user, even at this level). At the +1/4 level, I'm thinking something parabola-ish (left-right, up-down, or whatever). Of course, that means one can get an advantage more flexible than Duke Bushido's mortars for the same cost, but maybe that's an acceptable case of limited granularity.

Re: Is this Indirect?

Re: Populating your Lost World

Re: Did someone mention Trains? Ditto. Did I miss the coach? They seem to have everything but . . . (for a passenger train)

A ball of energy (energy blast) comes from a gun (or a hand). It can curve around barriers, but must cross all intervening space. My gut says that this is an example of a power with the advantage "Indirect". But upon reading the text of the advantage, it seems not to be. I'm guessing it still counts as indirect, but is just not a paradigmatic example. What do you think?