Doc Democracy

Re: Endurance Disadvantage

Vulnerability is in reference to attacks. The better Disad would be Susceptibility, which is triggered by some environmental factor that doesn't normally cause harm, such as exerting oneself on a somewhat hot day. Since END costs half of what STUN would cost, either each die of END Susceptibility should grant half the character points normally granted by the Disad or the total rolled should be doubled when determining END loss.

 

It's an interesting approach.

It _is_ an interesting approach and I'm not sure that the Vulnerability mod might not actually be the right one.

As you say VULN relies on attacks where something acting reduces your STUN and BODY, in this case you acting would be reducing your END and the VULN would be increasing this by 1.5 or 2 times.

That feels more right than doing a set amount of END whenever you act - if you are working low level then the 2x VULN to heat means that the END ramps up but possibly not enough to really notice but as you begin to get vigorous the END costs mount rapidly leaving you burning STUN...

rep to Mayapuppies for the idea....

Doc

Re: Pulp Era Board Games

Gumshoe was a fantastic game but more cooperative than competitve - now online apparently.

Doc

Re: New Advantage: Stackable

Rep for Doc Democracy for thinking outside the box.

Oof! You really notice when one of these 100+ rep power people hit you with the rep stick!

Doc

Re: New Advantage: Stackable

Hmm.

Not much support then?

The stackable advantage means that the blast can be built up by someone else with compatible effects or can stack onto another attack with the stackable advantage.

I reckoned that it would need GM supervision to avoid the cheesy applications like followers with the stackable EB...but I thought it would be simpler than trying to work out the Aid and Succor for a one off boost.

Never mind - if it works in my game then that's all that counts.

Doc

Re: New Advantage: Stackable

I dunno... this strikes me as more of a campaign ground-rule type thing' date=' rather than an Advantage. In other words, if it makes sense to me as a GM that two fire-based Energy Projectors should be able to combine their blasts into a single, larger blast, then I might just allow that for the campaign. What characteristic of a particular character's fire blast (for example) would make it "stackable," while another character's fire blast wasn't?[/quote']

 

I would allow players to come up with other justifications for stacking, like FlameGuy causing ArrowMan's missile's to burst into flames for extra damage...

 

It is, as rapier pointed out, potentially extremely powerful where caps are in place, so should cost points rather than be just at GM discretion.

Re: New Advantage: Stackable

So do you envision this as a one time thing? Flamelad gives Flamelass a boost for one shot? Why not just coordinate attacks? If its not a one time thing...what is the SFX reasoning?

Well, co-ordinating applies defences against each attack 30ED versus each 12D6, stacked it would be 30ED versus 18D6.

Co-ordinated attacks need two successful to hit rolls and successful co-ordination rolls, this simply requires points paid on two powers and one successful to hit roll (by the controlling player). co-ordinated inflicts (on average) 24 STUN, stacked inflicts 33 STUN.

Who pays the END for the stacked effect?

Both characters pay END for their powers as normal. FireGuy and FlameLass both spend the END for their stacked EBs - obviously more END for each of them than a normal EB.

How would you stack a 12d6 Flame EB and a 12d6 Flame Flash?

No need - that's a multiple power attack. Stackable combines similar damage against a type of defence.

The problem I see is that most characters have fairly equal attack levels (approx 60 AP). Flamelad has a 12d6 Flame EB and FlameLass has a 12d6 Flame EB. If all of the sudden Flamelass can (and if she has the ability' date=' I imagine she will spend MOST of her time Stacked...heh...thats funny...FlameLass is STACKED! At least I know if I was the character I would always be stacked. If you were Voltron would you REALLY ever spend any time in combat as seperate lions or would you immediately go to Voltron and kick some bootay?) throw out an 18d6 Flame EB...that's a problem. I would have to design villains that can stand up to an 18d6 EB which means noone else is going to be able to touch them. Or I go the other way and allow FlameLass to suck all the spotlight and pretty soon the rest of the team will bring lawnchairs to battle and just let FlameLass knock out all the villains.[/quote']

 

Well, it isn't up to FlameLass alone whether her EB is stacked. She needs FlameLad to use his attack action to boost the power of her attack with his own.

 

In an AP limited game the stackable advantage would immediately bring the available power down to 8D6 + 4D6, it only becomes useful once you have three people combining in such a campaign.

I would like to propose a new advantage that would allow powers to stack to someone else's rather than apply to the person using the power.

Stackable

A power with this advantage can stack half the effect of the power with the full power of another character with the same stackable power as long as SFX are compatible. Thus FireGuy with a stackable 12D6 Fire Bolt can use his power to provide FlameLass' stackable 10D6 Flame Strike with an extra 6D6 damage.

A stackable power can accept only one power boost at a time unless an adder is bought to extend its capabilities. For 5 points the number of boosts can be doubled.

A character cannot use a power for other purposes while using it to boost someone else's power stackable power.

Stackable is a +1/2 advantage and can double the number of powers that can be stacked for +5 points.

Obviously this advantage would require careful examination but it allows a number of common effects to be modelled.

Doc

Re: How to do a weapon that has a free trip attack?

My thought would be that the free trip would be skill levels only available to offset penalties due to using a multi-attack. Wouldn't that be the simplest option?

Doc

Re: Incremental End Cost?

It's a really clunky mechanic to purchase multiple pieces in this fashion. The Adder is simple' date=' elegant, and more balanced. Plus it's much easier to write on a character sheet. [/quote']

 

 

I suppose it depends on what you are trying to model. The multiple pieces allow better customisation - you can fire 8D6 all day but as you ramp it up it begins to take a toll.

 

As for messy character sheets, My God! It's Hero....

 

Doc

Re: Duel

Wouldn't it be simply a combat manouevre for energy blasters? Something along the lines of block/grab where you are stopping the other person shooting you and making them focus their eb on you alone...

Something like that?

Doc

Re: Incremental End Cost?

Very few of the powers in the characters I design have full or half END on their powers. I tend to be a bit build crazy and a low END 12D6 energy blast will cost 0 END for the first 5D6, 1 for the next 5D6 and 1 for the final 2D6. So 2 END for the full 12D6.

I tend to break the power down and buy reduced END on various segments and sometimes even increased END on the final few dice.

Sometimes a 12D6 EB that costs 6END to throw will not cost END at all until you get beyond 9D6.

I find that this gives the heroes a lot of power fighting agent types and makes players think about how many D6 they are throwing about as well.

Doc

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

I probably would look extremely closely at someone with a EC and 20 or more points of Power Defense. And if a character had that much PowD in a typical Champions world' date=' I'd give the Limitation a -0 value. IOW, it may come into play, but not often enough to warrant a -1/4. OTOH, if a player voluntarily took the Limitation at the -0 level, I might give him a few minor benefits to compensate for taking this for pure role-playing reasons.[/quote']

 

You're harsh!

 

I'm just a pushover...

Re: Question on Elemental Controls

Unless adjustment powers are fairly common' date=' I would only allow a -1/4 for "drain one drain all". And I might not even allow that if the character has lots of Power Defense.[/quote']

 

I'd feel almost obliged to give the limitation (the -1/4), after all the power is limited in that a drain not even targetted at it has the potential to drain.

 

Would you also remove some of the EC cost break because the player bought loads of POW def? It's a similar argument...

 

 

Doc

Re: Variation on Game Mechanics: Dice Pool

The other thing you might do to avoid the swap low damage dice for high to to hit dice and vice versa is to switch the to hit formula so that you need to roll over a number rather than under to hit, making high dice valuable all the time...that makes the pool less valuable...

Doc

Re: Horror for Superheroes.

ultimately' date=' the Superhero and Action genres are about problems that can be solved by figuring out who to hit.[/quote']

 

 

Now that is sig worthy...

Re: Horror for Superheroes.

I think the horror genre is almost the antithesis of the superhero one.

In my opinion the central facet of horror stories is the removal of control from the player. There is something going on, something awful, and they can't do anything about it. Of course for a good game there has to be something to do but on the face of it there is not.

In a superhero world the heroes have powers that allow them to overcome such things so it is more difficult to put such players (coherently within the framework of a story) in a control free environment.

I'm not a fan of the horror genre but one of my most successful games came with a haunted house scenario when I introduced the Black Enchantress to my campaign (a much more powerful version who got de-powered in the course of the scenario).

Essentially I introduced a house where the players knew that there was something powerful in the basement. The players explored the house looking for clues and I slowly closed off their options to leave (despite them blasting stuff and kicking in doors they always found another room or the first room they had come into.

Eventually they decided just to leave (through the door? what door? The window? What window?) and the only route open to them was towards the red light emanating from the basement.

It was kind of a railroad scenario based on Mental Illusions so powerful that I just didn't bother rolling dice. There was one moment that they could have escaped - when the martial artist used his Chi powers to protect his mind and found the true extent of destruction they had caused - the lack of the horror accoutrements I had been describing and an open door. He switched it back off to see whether everything was still there and found he could not switch the defence back on (powerful Mind Control stopped that!).

It took all the actual control away from the players, they were in an isolated environment with a powerful enemy they didn't want to fight straight up and they slowly had all their options stripped away from them.

Being a superhero story however they did manage to defeat the viallin with a straight up fight (obviously!).

Doc

Re: Intelligent Computer Virus

I think there has to be a Transform. I want the PCs to feel like if they don't watch their step that they could succumb to the Thrall Virus' date=' just like almost every other living thing in the town. It would also represent the fact that the AI targets exceptional normals and supers in order to gain control of their powers and thereby becoming harder to stop.[/quote']

 

Oh! Oh! I have an idea. If you made the Transform a large continuous uncontrollable attack with gradula effect and limited circumstances (only when within 10 feet of 'live' equipment) then ensured that at least some of the heroes were hit with the attack then there would be ticking time bomb in the background.

 

The heroes would be unaware of what the cloud of metal dust was supposed to do to them, there were no immediate effects. The one of them begins to notice strange patches on their skin and a stiffness in their joints.

 

They should be led to thinking of the dust attack and eventually to what triggers the changes to occur.

 

Then it is a race against time - especially as they weill have to decide whether to attack the Thrall Prime which is where the transform attack will be active all of the time.

 

 

Doc

Re: Long Distance Gaming

Some friends and I are looking to see if there's a way that we can game in real time despite the fact that members of the group live in 4 different states.

You might want to take a look at this thread.

Doc

Re: Intelligent Computer Virus

How about this:

Summon 75-point Thrall, Slavishly Devoted (+1) (30 Active Points); OIF Expendable (Very Difficult to obtain new Focus; Requires a person; -1)

I think Treb has the rights of it - excellent advice deserves rep - and you shouldn't worry too much about the mechanics of people turning into thralls unless this is going to be a long running story and the mechanics are going to be central to it.

I would be inclined to do the Summon for all of the Thralls (the transform would convert the target into a pod from which the Thrall would emerge). Obviously the Transform power of Thralls summons a lesser Thrall and the transform power of the lesser Thrall summons a minor Thrall.

Thus a target would be transformed into a pod which would be necessary for a Thrall to be summoned. It keeps everything quite simple.

The size of the Transform depends on how quickly you want the virus to take effect. You could have a continuous uncotrollable attack that begins working on the victim and slowly shows their skin becoming tougher and less flexible until they are just a swollen pod. That triggers the Summon, that was used in a multiattack with the transform, and the pod splits to reveal a Thrall of one form or another.

Cool concept - may have to rep you too....

Doc

Re: Choking The Life Out Of Someone

I'm missing why it's so hard for a Normal?

I think because of the ruling that hit location penalties stay the same? That more than overwhlems a normal OCV...

Re: Quick Question

This is a classic case of for a two slot multipower.

If attacking multiple people then he should use his area effect and if attacking a single person multiple times then switch to the autofire.

If he wanted to attack two people multiple times then I might allow him to use his area effect with rapid attack (I think that's right) same power fired twice up to an agreed maximum (for the number of tentacles).

Doc

Re: Another SPD thread

Changes in DEX allowed me to both change SPD and lower OCV/DCV. It was a lot of fun. Players found it quite challenging at first but quickly warmed to the central premise. Then they started doing a lot of thinking about what weapon they wanted to walk into combat with -- and how they could help each other.

Anything that makes combat more fun has to be a good thing!

Re: Another SPD thread

The problem with this approach (and it is a long while since I have played a StormBull Duck...) is that weapon speeds are not really accurate reflections of how often you can attack with something.[/Quote]

 

No. But in a simulationist world they are a decent replacement.

 

As Markdoc points out a fist is potentially the 'fastest' weapon' date=' capable of striking in the least time and hitting several times in quick succession BUT a bare-hand fighter against a sword wielder will give apparently counter-intuitive results - in fact the 'slow' sword wielder will get in more attacks because the fist fighter just can't get into a position to launch his blistering assault.[/Quote']

 

Well, I had been thinking of things like combat position before now but Utech's ideas might be a good basis for doing this as well - at a mid distance the fist fighter against a sword wielder might only get one hit a round unless he was _really_ good.

 

Moreover I don't see speed in combat as (necessarily) a simple measure of the frequency that you can launch an attack' date=' but rather an indication of the frequency with which you can launch an attack that has any reasonable chance of having an in-game effect. Even a SPD 1 character would swing the sword more than once in a turn, it is just that only one of those swings has a chance to hurt an opponent, or parry a blow - the rest is just sfx.[/Quote']

 

I'm cool with that - Hero is all about sfx at the end of the day...

 

The way you describe things in the initial post' date=' it seems to me that what you might be (or possibly are) doing is giving weapons stats much like vehicles. A vehicle has a speed and a dex, which is the maximum performance that a character can get out of it, but a character may not be able to use it to full efficiency if their own speed and dex are not up to it. That sort of approach could work well...you could then trade off strength over the minimum to enable you to increase the 'maximum' for the weapon (maybe 5 STR = +3 DEX or +1 SPD ?) effectively cutting down on your damage potential to weild the weapon more quickly and accurately?[/quote']

 

Not how I thought of it but its a possible route...

 

 

Doc

Re: Another SPD thread

I was running a fantasy game at Hero Central. I've attached the combat rules I used for the game.

 

These are hardly perfect, but they led to some very interesting combat situations.

 

The most important change here is that fighting at different "hand-to-hand ranges" adds to or subtracts from DEX. This often changed SPD in combat. And was a lot of fun.

So, if someone with a long weapon wanted to gain some distance or someone with a short weapon wanted to close, how did you adjudicate that?

I was thinking of introducing a close/separate manoeuvre. This would be a manoeuvre that allowed you to control the distance at which you fight. The manoeuvre would be in lieu of attacking but the successful combatant would dictate the fight distance until someone else changed it.

I might do this with changes in SPD rather than DEX but good idea.

Doc

Re: Another SPD thread

I think if you base everyone's speed on three you're doing an injustice to the system and the people who've bought that stat up; [/Quote]

 

I'd essentially be removing the stat from play. No-one would have to consider the SPD stat - they'd all be the same (or the PCs would) but would get more or less attacks in combat depending on DEX and STR and the weapon they'd be using.

 

There's already STR minima rules on weapons for swinging purposes and the ability to stack damage. I think if you also apply DEX caps/requirements on them you're over using the DEX stat a bit' date=' and it's already heavily involved in everything in the game as is. You'll also lean towards everyone building up their stats more than usual to take full advantage of a possible 'free attack.'[/Quote']

 

Well - the 3pts paid for DEX would no longer be applied to increasing a SPD stat but instead to a combat speed - so swings and roundabouts - nothing extra for the three points; probably a bit less.

 

 

I guess I just don't see DEX as being a definitive factor here' date=' but that's also because I've been vested in d20 for so long that there's an ongoing struggle at times to unlock certain assumptions in my head of how things should work. If anything, I would possibly consider slowing people down based on STR - we know it reduces damage, you could also roll it in to reduce speed (not only can you [i']not [/i]heft that blade, now you're having trouble actually moving it.)[/Quote]

 

You were worried about giving extra facility to DEX - I think people would be more worried about giving extra facility to STR!

 

Some thoughts.

 

And most welcome. Thank you.

 

 

 

Doc