Just Joe

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Slightly OT: I think that any SP overhaul should do something about the fact that you pay by the phase' date=' not segment or turn, for continuous powers. If movement is divorced from speed, separating the END cost of continuous powers from SP could help balance it back.[/quote']In principle, I agree (and would, even if there weren't a speed / movement problem). In practice, I doubt I'll bother with this, at least not until/unless I solve all of the movement problems (unless something just "comes to me").

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Whenever I hear of a "fix" that requires other areas to then be "fixed" after the original "fix" is instituted' date=' I get real suspicious of the original "fix".[/quote']You sure shouldn't institute part of my proposal without carefully thinking through the implications, and I admit to not having done that yet. But I'm in the process and am optimistic about the way things are looking. I'm not sure I'd see these as separate fixes as much as parts of a larger project of fixing the movement / speed ineraction in the system.

 

Answer: Twice as fast. But to put it in perspective it's comparing 8.9 mph to 4.5 mph.

Then why do they do their velocities have the same effect on damage due to move-by's, move-throughs, and trips, for example? (I raised this issue earlier.)

 

Perhaps' date=' instead of creating a (to me) complex set of rules, the GM & player should keep their eyes on balanced builds so the martial artist doesn't run at 60 mph. This is easily achieved by either using Limitations on some of his Speed (a bit cumbersome, but works), or by not buying up the Running so much, or even selling some back if needed (now [i']there's[/i] an idea!).

We discussed these possibilities earlier, and gave what I regard as good reasons for rejecting them. (Actually, I don't think we discussed limitations on speed, but that strikes me as a more cumbersome approach than my own, especially if you're going to apply it to ever character with SPD > 2).

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

I think I might have an adequate way to deal with teleportation. (Mind you, the standard rules work fine for teleport, but it would be nice to have a way to deal with it that meshes well with MPT rules for other forms of movement.)

So here's my idea. A character buys MPT and maximum single teleport. The former costs 1 point / 2" (not 1 / 1" like most other forms of movement). The latter costs 1 point / 1".

Examples:

1. 2 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 12" max teleport (12 points). Same as standard rules.

2. 3 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 12" max teleport (12 points). Can teleport three times per turn for a total of 24" (no more than 12" per phase), or can teleport twice up to 12" each time and still run 4" (12"/3), assuming usual running.

3. 3 speed, 24" MPT (12 points), 8" max teleport (8 points). Same as 3 speed, 8" teleport using standard rules (except 4 points cheaper).

Whaddaya think?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Changing how Speed and inches of movement interact will have to deal with the following:

 

1. Calculation of Move-By/Through damage

2. Turn Modes

3. Adjustment Powers (Aid/Succor, Drain, Transfer, Suppress, etc.)

4. What about Gliding, Swinging, and especially Teleportation?

1. My and Hierax's proposal deal with this in straightforward ways that have little or no effect on point balance.

2. I haven't given this much thought, but the two most obvious solutions would be to use the existing system tweaked to an MPT standard or to base turn mode on movement in the phase (the latter option making higher speeds more manueverable).

3. Unless I'm missing something, Hierax's and my proposals would not have results identical to the standard rules, but neither would they produce radical results.

I see no problems whatsoever with 1-3.

4. I have not had sufficient time and inclination to deal with this adequately yet, though I suspect I can do so. Teleportation is actually an unusual case of a kind of movement that works OK with the standard rules, but it would probably need tweaking to make it balance with the other forms that I've proposed changing. Leaping should probably be handled similarly. I hadn't thought about gliding or swinging. My first thought is that swinging will be handled much like leaping. I don't see any problem with gliding, but I'll have to give it more thought

Some of these rules suggested will (IMO) greatly penalize the primary asset of Speedsters. To achieve even modest super-speeds' date=' Speedsters will have to dump a [b']lot[/b] more points into their movement.

I'm mainly interested in heroic level games, and especially relatively realistic ones. And to the extent that I play Champions and other high-powered games, I'm inclined to think that it's more trouble than its worth to change the rules for these games (as much as it's theoretically desirable). Nevertheless, I don't think Hierax's and my MPT proposals hurt speedsters. To achieve the same MPT, a character with a high speed will need to spend a lot more points on movement, but:

(a) to get the same nominal movement, with its corresponding effect on move-by damage and the like, costs the same as before, and

( I proposed cutting the cost of speed, which will save the character points.

I have no real problem with the Speed Chart and its effect on Combat Movement Velocity. It may produce a dichotomy at times . . .

. . . but I see that as a generally unavoidable byproduct of translating something that happens in real-time into a time-segmented system. Especially if one wants to keep a handle on bookkeeping and simplicity.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Another quick thought here:

 

Maybe the SPD chart could be tweaked to avoid the slower going faster by Segment X problem.

 

I haven't worked it through but it's an idea so crazy it might just work...

1. For most purposes, use one of the MPT proposals (yours or mine) discussed above. But have different numbered counters showing a character's path on a segmented basis. This way, the player decides on movement only on his character's phase, but if someone wants to intercept or outrun him, you have the segmented movement marked out. This probably works best with a mini showing where the character intends to end up* and flat counters showing the path.

* Your map will be more accurate if the mini represnts the actual current position, but I'm guessing that will slow things down.

2. An idea I have considered for a Dinosaur Island game, where outrunning the dinosaurs can be quite important, has features resembling segmented movement, your latest suggestion, and the original poster's suggestion. It only works for speeds 6 and below. All characters can move on all even segments (once started). They can start moving on their own phase. Movement rate is determined by an MPT method. 6 speeds have phases as normal (all even numbers). Others:

5: 4, 6, 8, 10, 12

4: 4, 6, 10, 12

3: 6, 10, 12

2: 6, 12

1: 8?

. . . or something like that. Starting to move would be a 1/2 action, stopping a zero phase action. Attacking while moving at 1/2 max rate would incur a -1 OCV penalty, at full rate, a -2. (Or substitute a penalty based on current rate in inches per turn). Move-by and -through penalties would supercede these, not add to them.

1st idea is half-baked, but I see no major problems except possibly slowing down the game, which I suspect will happen with any approach that acheives your desiderata.

2nd idea is 2/3 baked, but I think it might work nicely for the right kinds of games.

Re: Your scenario style

In the past, I've tended to run serial campaigns with one long continuous "plotline" (I use the word loosely). In recent years, I have switched to adventures of around 3-5 sessions each, only loosely connected (the three I've run have had large overlap of players and PC's, but a few players have come, gone, or switched characters). My goal for my next campaign is to compromise: short-medium adventures, but with some ongoing "plotlines".

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

OddHat' date=' I was speaking specifically to JustJoe's build in that post above. I feel the "must do Body" limitation is best used only for those things that have to get into the bloodstream or at least past the skin in order for a linked effect to occur. For example, simulating a drug-filled dart or a venomous snake's bite. In those examples, the killing damage is truly minimal and the greatest damage comes from the linked effect. This is not an appropriate mechanic to simulate something that will have no problem getting through the sole of your average running shoe.[/quote']I'm not sure whether you're misunderstanding me or I'm misunderstanding you (or both). But for the record, it was OddHat's build as an alternative to mine that used the "must do body" limitation. My idea had some resemblance to such a limitation, but not that close of one

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

As far as "no STUN unless it does BOD", I think that might be a viable limitation for specific attacks, but I wouldn't want it as the standard.

 

First, you can eliminate the +X Stun Multiple advantage - it's useless to trade down BOD to do more STUN under this model.

But most critically is that it doesn't match the reality. A mace clanging across a helmet will still hurt' date=' even if the helm prevents severe injury. A bullet striking a kevlar vest fails to penetrate, but can still KO the vest's wearer. I can't, off the cuff, think of any great examples where STUN is dependent on BOD damage being inflicted, and while I suspect they exist, I also think they are rare enough that they are best handled as a modifier to the standard, rather than being made the standard.[/quote']So you're with me, right Hugh?

 

As for must do BOD to do STUN, possibly lasers and shurikens (though the latter might just be so small as to make this generally true). For weapons that do little STUN (compared to bullets and maces) unless they do BOD, add switchblades, light bows, hacksaws, and monofilament knives, to name a few.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

One of the "other things" I mentioned above related specifically to the types of attacks that you're classifying as "must do Body to do Stun." Some of those attacks are just extremely likely to cause Body (e.g. lasers) due to very high dice' date=' Armor Piercing, and/or (especially) Penetrating.[/quote']I'm no expert on lasers, but I think they can vary in power extremely widely. A relatively weak laser could be a small number of dice and need not be AP or penetrating. I wasn't thinking of it being likely to do body, I was thinking it's hard for it to hurt you if it doesn't do body.

 

Penetrating would take on a much greater degree of importance' date=' because it fulfills the Body damage requirement. Now, granted, I feel that more KAs [i']should[/i] use it, but this would perform an end run on your mechanic.

I don't generally use penetrating, nor is it at all common in my group. My approach would just mean that the higher stun X would apply to whatever body penetrated, just like body that got past armor by any other means. If it were likely to come up in a game of mine, I would have to give more thought as to whether this might be unbalancing, but right now it does not seem that way to me.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

I might do it differently.

 

Xd6 RKA, No Knockback, Beam, -2 Reduced Stun Multiple linked to Drain Stun, Ranged, RKA Must Do Body (-1/2). That gets you the extra stun only after defenses with less fiddling around. YMMV, of course.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

My simplistic question: does this rules change render Swashbuckler Guy useless against the opposition as well? He paid points for his powers too, right? It sounds like the real issue is "Power Armor Guy should be invulnerable to Swashbuckler's attacks for no point expenditure to PA and no savings to Swash". My preference is a game where Powered Armor Man and Swashbuckler can both be on the same team and feel like equal contributors. No player, in my experience, likes his character to be the less than effective sidekick.

 

So, in other words, what offsetting advantage does Swashbuckler get to level the playing field so PA (or any high rDEF concept) does not become the superior SFX?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

OK, I think it will be helpful to look at a moderate variety of cases as they are handled by the standard rules, your (Hierax's*) MPT approach, and my MPT approach. I want a big enough variety to illustrate the main issues, but not so big as to be overwhelming. Let us take running MPT ranging from 12" ("average") to 24" (twice "average"). As for speeds, 1 is boring**, and 2 gets treated virtually identically by the three different approaches, so the lowest I will consider is 3. I will also look at speeds 4 and 5, for two reasons: because I see MPT as much more valuable for heroic level games (where speeds above 5 are very rare) than for superheroic ones, and because 5 is the lowest number that can cause ugly rounding problems. So here we go.

Standard rules:

Speed 3 can have running of 4", 5", 6", 7", or 8", yielding an MPT of 12", 15", 18", 21", or 24".

Speed 4 can have running of 3", 4", 5", or 6", yielding an MPT of 12", 16", 20", or 24".

Speed 5 can have running of 3" or 4", yielding an MPT of 15", or 20". (2" or 5" per phase would yield respective MPT's of 10" and 25".)

Notice that the standard rules cause a problem: for any given MPT range, higher speed characters have fewer choices of MPT than lower speed characters. For example, a speed 5 character can't have average running speed! This problem is the other side of the problem of the hassle of characters with MPT's not divisible by their speed. We each have to decide how to balance these two problems.

Your approach:

A character of any speed can have running of 6", 7", 8", 9" 10", 11" or 12", yielding an MPT of 12", 14", 16", 18", 20", "22" or 24".

Speed 3 has no rounding problems with MPT of 12", 18", or 24".

Speed 4 has no rounding problems with MPT of 12", 16", 20", or 24".

Speed 5 has no rounding problems with MPT of 20".

So your approach presents greater rounding difficulties than the standard rules, hence making the "careful builds" inconvenient (e.g., a carefully built 5 speed character who runs faster than average must run A LOT faster, and exactly as fast as -- or else twice as fast as -- other reasonably realistic 5 speed characters).

If we are to use your approach, we will probably want a rule that allows for some MPT's not divisible by speed, but I don't think that means we need to allow for all such possibilities. I would allow any possibly MPT for 3 speed. I would simply alternate between rounding up and rounding down, restarting the pattern at the beginning of each turn (which meshes nicely with your rule of staring each combat in phase1). Hence speed 3, MPT 14 would go 5", 4", 5"; 5", 4", 5" and

speed 3, MPT 16 would go 5", 6", 5"; 5", 6", 5".

For speed 4, I would allow any MPT divisible by 2 (which is any MPT that can result from your approach anyway). I’d probably round up on phases 3 and 9, down on phases 6 and 12.

For speed 5, I would allow MPT’s that, when divided by 5, yield a remainder of 2 or 3. I would alternate as per 3 speed.

Hence speed 5, MPT 12 would go 2", 3", 2", 3", 2"; 2", 3", 2", 3", 2" and

speed 5, MPT 18 would go 4", 3", 4", 3", 4"; 4", 3", 4", 3", 4".

I would reject remainders of 1 (e.g., MPT 16”) or 4 (e.g., MPT 14”) as too much hassle.

Combined with my rounding recommendations, your approach yields the following results:

Speed 3 can have running of any value from 6" to 12", yielding an MPT of any even value from 12", to 24".

Speed 4 can have running of any value from 6" to 12", yielding an MPT of any even value from 12", to 24".

Speed 5 can have running of 6", 9”, 10” or 11", yielding an MPT of 12", 18”, 20", or 22"

For speeds of 6 or higher, you can follow the pattern: MPT/speed must be either an integer or a yield a fraction that can be dealt with by alternating between rounding up and rounding down (in either order as needed, and restarting each turn).

My approach:

A character buys MPT for each form of movement directly (for running, starting from a base of 12”), for half the cost given in the standard rules. If I were to stringently avoid rounding problems (i.e., require that MPT/speed be an integer) then the resulting MPT’s would match those of the standard rules (again, assuming we are looking at MPT’s ranging from 12” to 24”). Suppose instead I allow remainders in the manner I recommended for use with your approach? Then:

Speed 3 can have running MPT of any value from 12” to 24" (as could speed 2, it now occurs to me).

Speed 4 can have running MPT of any even value from 12” to 24" (same as your approach with my rounding suggestion).

Speed 5 can have running MPT of 12", 13”, 15", 17”, 18”, 20", “22”, or 23" (i.e., any value from 12” to 24" except 14”, 16”, 19”, 21”, or 24").

I’ll have to go back later and carefully reread my post in which I was convincing myself that your approach is better than mine, as the above analysis leaves me favoring mine. It gives the largest variety of possible MPT’s, and it does so without the need for a complex chart or rule.

Note that regardless of other details, your and my approaches both remove the contradiction present in the standard rules between MPT and “velocity”. On the hand, also note that I have yet to solve the problem of how to deal with leaping and teleporting (though I have some ideas, and have not yet made a concerted effort to solve these problems).

Are you still with me? If so, what do you think?

* This post is addressed to Hierax, but I certainly hope others will read it and reply.

** To keep speed 1 characters from getting a big jump on speed 2's (and others) I would institute 1 special rule to say that speed 1's can only move 1/2 their MPT on phase 7, and must wait until phase 12 to move the rest.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

I was looking at how much they move by Phase 6 not in Phase 6 (cumulative total for the Turn)..

Also' date=' I should say that I [b']start a Turn in Phase 1[/b], so with that you don't have the everyone going on Phase 12 problem, but this is a change from the standard starting on Segment 12. This just seems more logical to me.

And quoting your last comment out of order . . .

If you can live with the slower SPD character moving cumulatively more in a turn on a given phase than a faster SPD character then this isn't a big deal. But I do think that it is a concern.

(a) it's a consequence of the standard rules, so your and my movement per turn (MPT) approaches don't create a new problem, they just faill to solve all of the old ones,

( the lower speed character does not have an advantage in races (at least not if we use your start on segment 1 rule or adopt another fix, such as treating everyone as speed 2 for the initial phase 12), the higher and lower speed characters just trade leads, and

© GM judgement can always impose segment-by-segment movement or a rough equivalent in the rare cases where this small difference matters.

I guess my main problem is that I have a pet peeve for round numbers and the non-divisible by SPD x movements bother me. Hence the buying Movement Down (and sometimes Up) to adjust to fit.

 

Maybe it's really not such a big deal afterall, I guess one could just work up a chart with roundings nicely divided . . .

 

[Chart omitted]

 

. . . But I still see problem break-points that need Buy-Down/Up tweaking. And you'd pretty much have to work out a table with the rounded SPD for every Movement/SPD combination -- that's a lot of permutations to detail! And theres too many different break points to make adjustments for all Movement/SPD combinations so that you don't have slower moving more than faster. Maybe with some more persistence it could work but I'm not convinced so I didn't bother.

1. A compromise: semi-careful builds + a simple rule capturing the main idea of your chart, or

2. Use my MPT approach rather than your own.

For the sake of digestibility, I will discuss this in another post (if time allows, to be posted soon after this one).

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

I think you pretty much covered the worst aspect within your own post. The system would be awkward under the best conditions. There are other things that also bother me a little' date=' but the big factor - and the one that seals its fate for me - is the awkwardness of the system.[/quote']Fair enough, though a simpler solution has since come to mind that could work for lasers and other KA's with essentially no physical impact.* The stun X for the body that does not exceed rED would be 0. So stun would just be (bod rolled minus rED) times stun multiple (determined as you see fit, e.g., 3, 2-4, stun lotto, or hit location).

 

But even my original suggestion is not so hard to implement. Say a bow has a -1 stun X before defenses. Suppose an attacker rolls 5 body, 3 X stun against a target with 2 rPD + 4 non-resistant PD.

 

Stun is [(2)(3-1) - (2+4)] + (5-3)(3) = [4-6] + 6 = 6

 

[4-6] + 6 = 6 ??? Well, kind of. I don't know the way to express in mathematical formulas that the first term in brackets (the stun caused by the body that does not exceed armor) cannot be less than zero.

 

Hmmm . . . I'm thinking that this is not too complicated to use, but it might be too complicated to explain (though probably less so FTF, with a few examples and the learner able to quickly ask questions).

 

 

* or similar way to cause stun without body, as a fire attack might, for example.

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

I can't tell if I am glad or not to have never used the Stun Lotto.

 

I've only run in Heroic level campaigns were we use the Hit Locations table.

BTW, isn't anyone going to reply to my post (#48, on p. 4)?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Also' date=' some movements rates don't nicely divide by Phase -- E.G., SPD 5 with 12"/turn, so you may find yourself tweaking movement rates to get things to divide out more evenly or rounding things off on different phases.[/quote'] That's not so bad. My suggestion has the slight advantage that movement per turn (MPT) need only be divisible by SPD. Yours requires (or makes desirable) that odd-SPD characters also have MPT divisible by two. (See my post on page 1).

 

These are probably the reasons why the standard rules use Movement by SPD/Phase instead of by Turn ... remember thought that Movement per Turn has a few little things that aren't immediately apparent so you might not want to use it all of the time...

I haven't seen any problems worse than the official rules have. Are there other problems you haven't mentioned?

 

To be clear' date=' I guess I should have said that if you want to try it, movement per turn offers some neat options but it does tend to cause a bunch of problems that aren't immediately obvious.[/quote']IBID.

 

It can work if you can work around these problems with tweaks and careful builds but buying down the per Phase movement of high SPD characters who need a lot of actions but are not "Speedsters" so that they get a more reasonable amount of per turn movement addresses the problem without the complications. (conceptually it isn't as nice but it seems to work better in practice' date=' at least as far as I've been able to figure out).[/quote']One of us is missing something. (I'm not being snide . . . I genuinely don't which of the two of is the one who is missing something). See my post above. How does buying down the per Phase movement of high SPD characters and using the standard rules get rid of the problems we're discussing?

 

I tried it out but wasn't able to successfully get through all these problems without extra hoop-jumping or carefully balanced builds (easy division) -- so I'd only use it sparingly but the original poster was bothered by the SPD movement problem, so I mentioned what I tried.

 

That said, I still really like the concept of "per turn movement" (makes more sense making actions in combat and movement speeds distinct in a point system) and maybe someone else with a better 'Heroized brain' has more successfully by-passed these issues. Play with it and see if you can make this seemingly simple change work better/cleaner/smoother... I'd really like to see it work out fully with all character builds instead of specifically balanced ones...

I wouldn't think the balancing issue would be that bad. It should become second nature. Does the slight tweak of my idea help? (e.g., 3 SPD character could move 9" or 15" or 21" per turn, not just 6", 18" or 24"). I don't know if my brain is "Heroized" better than yours, but I'm tempted to think that both of our (similar) ideas are better than the official rules. If we continue to discuss these ideas (hopefully with the help of others), we might be able to improve them even more.

 

Can anyone find some other big problem with Hierax's and my suggestions that I'm missing?

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

N.B.' date=' However, there is [b']something to be careful of when using Movement per Turn[/b] is that it makes "Segmented Movement" option appealing: Sometimes you have to be careful that slower SPD characters don't get more movement than higher SPD characters on a certain Phase

-- E.G., assume 6" --> 12" Movement:

• Slower: SPD 2 gets 6" on each phase (Phases 6 and 12)
  
  
• Faster: SPD 3 gets 4" on each phase (Phases 4, 8, and 12)

At the END of his First Phase (Phase 6) the "slower" SPD 2 Character has moved 6" (1/2 his 12") but the "faster" SPD 3 Character has only moved 4" (1/3 his 12"). You won't get this problem with SPD 4 vs. SPD 2 though.

I am not sure what the best solution is. I'm inclined to think that on the phase 12 that begins combat everyone's movement in that phase should be speed-independent (e.g., movement per turn divided by two). This only solves half of the problem, though. But in any event, I think the approaches we discuss are better than the standard rules. Consider the case where you want to build a character who is faster thinking and better trained to deal with emergencies than most people, but who runs no faster than average. The standard build would be something like 3 SPD, 6" running. But this build fails to match what we are looking for. We may be accustomed to this problem, but if we accept this design, then we are accepting a huge flaw: the character goes 1.5 times as fast as we want him to. That's A LOT faster. So suppose we buy down his running to 4". Then we end up in a situation that is essentially identical to the one created by our proposed alternate rules, plus the additional problem that he does less damage with move-bys and such (and takes less from being tripped). So the official rules have the same problems; they just hide them by encouraging us to build our high SPD characters so that they run quickly (. . . without that increased velocity affecting move-throughs and such).

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

High-SPD characters will not be penalized by these rulings (other than removing the movement multiplier normally given by SPD). SPD will then reflect their ability to *act* faster. In fact, a high SPD character can move the same distance as a lower SPD character in a turn but perform more actions along the way. Because they have such a high SPD they can opt *not* to use non-combat movement to move the maximum allowable distance in a Turn.

 

Example:

 

Bob the Postman (Run 6", SPD 2) wants to run from one end of the block to the other (48"). He is limited by his maximum movement per turn of 24" so he'll only get halfway at the end of phase 12. There are a bunch of zombies in the way though. He breaks into a dead run on phase 6 and gets 1/4 of the way there (12"). At the end of phase 12 he'll be halfway there (24"). During this entire time he is at OCV0 and at lowered DCV, subject to attacks from the zombies.

 

Dan the Apprentice Ninja (Run 6", SPD 4) wants to run that same distance (48"). He is also limited by his max movement per turn of 24" so only will get halfway there at the end of phase 12. However, unlike Bob he can split his movement into 4 phases (6" per phase) so can utilize Combat Movement and perform Move-Throughs on the Zombies as necessary. His higher SPD allows him more flexibility and choice in action, while still allowing him to cover the same total distance as Bob the Postman.

Re: Yet Another Alternate SPD Rules Thread

Counterveil, I am sympathetic to your concerns, but I don't like your solution, mainly because I think it mucks with things more than necessary. I think that for most Champions games, a change would be theoretically desirable, but may be more trouble than its worth. For heroic level games, my current thinking is that some kind of change is called for.

Here's what I do.

Movement Rate per Turn instead of per Phase:

I like an approach along these lines, but there are still details to be worked out (which you might have done, but have not told us here):

1. How much does speed cost? One could use the current costs, while requiring higher-speed normals to sell back running, but I think repricing makes more sense. I'm thinking 8 points (something like a -1/4 limitation on speed -- does not add to movement, though I would not let players exploit rounding here; as in the standard rules, if you pay for 2.9 speed, you have a 2 speed). A -1/2 limitation is also worth considering.

Do Movement Rate x2 per Turn = effectively no change for 2 SPD Characters others have to buy up their movement power instead of SPD to move faster.

 

E.G., Run 6" per Phase

= Run 12" per Turn

2. How do you handle a move rate per turn not divisible by the character's speed? At least initially, I would not allow it. If my group got comfortable with this approach and liked it, I might consider changing this.

I think my approach would be slightly different from yours. You seem to be suggesting that all rates of movement/turn will be divisible by two. I would have characters buy movement per turn instead of movement per phase. Your approach is perhaps simpler, but mine avoids the messiness of movement rates not divisible by speed.

3. How much does movement cost? Considerations are similar to 1 above. I would advocate 1/2 the cost given in the rules (but would NOT treat this as a limitation; I'd start with half cost and then apply any lims). This is, of course, movement per turn, not per phase. (Perhaps another advantage of your approach; it might be OK to leave movement costs alone).

4. How do you handle formulas involving velocity, such as move-through damage? Unless I'm missing something, this is easy. STR + (V/6) where V is velocity in inches per turn. Same approach for move-by's etc. (Though again, advantage to you, your approach leaves the formulas unchanged).

I seem to be convincing myself that your idea is better than mine. I will have to give this more thought; I was about 3/4 done before I even realized that your approach is not identical to mine. (Here's another complication I haven't thought through yet: how does one handle discontinuous movement forms like leaping and teleporting?)

= Run 1" per Segment (when you want that extra detail).

Re: House Rule Question: STUN From Impotent KA's

On the one hand, I think there is merit in the arguments that bricks should just buy their defenses higher and that taming the stun lotto is the real solution (and these approaches may be combined). On the other hand, Lord Liaden's solution is rather elegant, and has numerous advantages already mentioned in this thread (provided that one is playing something close to 4-color Champions).

I would like to consider another perspective, not yet considered in this thread. Whether or not a KA should be able to do substantial stun without getting through any body depends in part on what the KA represents. I will give examples more applicable to heroic level games (recall that we aren't on the Champions board), but the issue could still come into play in a 4-color Champions game as well.

Consider the following weapons: a light bow, a laser, a mace, and a bullet. The light bow can be pretty painful to an unarmored target, but if it doesn't do body, it's probably not going to do much, if any, stun. A laser, arguably, is a more extreme case: it can do horrendous amounts of stun if it gets past armor, but may do little or none if it does no stun (possibly depending on the kind of armor -- armor that converts the attack to heat and disperses it might leak through considerable stun, while reflective armor should stop all stun). Also, notice that it is not clear that the 0 body / 1 body line is all that crucial. Light bows and (even powerful) lasers that net 1 body through defenses still might not do much stun. By contrast, a mace which does no body might cause considerable stun. Of course, body damage can penetrate without the mace itself penetrating armor, but still I think this attack can do significant stun without doing body and can certainly do a LOT of stun without doing much body. Similarly, bullets from at least some guns hitting some kinds of armor (e.g., kevlar) can cause considerable amounts of stun while doing little or no body.

How do we represent the difference between these two types of attacks? I have a suggestion that is theoretically quite simple, though in practice it might be a bit unweildy. My suggestion (#1) is to build weapons like light bows and lasers (as well as whips and switchblades, perhaps) with an increased stun X that only applies to body that gets past armor and/or a decreased stun X that only applies to body that does NOT get past armor. Weapons like bullets and maces can still be built according to the ordinary rules, with or without increased stun X.

To this, I would add (though these suggestions are theoretically separable) the suggestion (#2) that for all KA's, the minimum stun after defenses be equal to the body past defenses times the stun X (modified, if applicable, by suggestion #1 above).

Whaddaya think?

Re: Slow reload/flintlocks, muskets etc.

How about "clips" of 1 charge each with increased reloading time? (5ER, p. 285). For example, 16 clips that take 1 turn each to reload would be a -1.25 limitation, I believe.

I stumbled upon the Hero version of Fires of War: Algernon Files Volume Two at my FLGS this morning. Anybody own this? Heard anything about it? Is it any good?

http://www.blackwyrm.com/Products.htm

I stumbled upon the Hero version of Fires of War: Algernon Files Volume Two at my FLGS this morning. Anybody own this? Heard anything about it? Is it any good?

http://www.blackwyrm.com/Products.htm

Re: Pulp Hero Resources

I can think of a few methods-

In printer options or advanced printer properties, can printer scale up the output?

You could also try printing to a PDF file, and then using adobe reader to increase the scale.

Finally, you could save the webpage to your hard drive, and put the images in a Word (or other wordprocessor) document and rescale them there. Or in a graphic program.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Curufea again.

Re: Pulp Hero Resources

I've bought them. I don't like them as much as SJohn Ross's SPARKS' date=' but they're still plenty useful . . .[/quote']Thanks, Steve. I just bought the pulp bundle from PIG. I'm definitely pleased. SPARKS have some great features, but I must say I'm partial to full color. The problem I'm having with my PIG figures is that they seem to be printing at 94% normal size. In any event, they're smaller than SJG's figures, which is the size I'd like to match. Can anyone advise?