Wise Turtle Publishing

I understood what you meant. ^_^ I was just saying Focus exists for just that reason.

Clay wrote:I understood what you meant. ^_^ I was just saying Focus exists for just that reason.

But it still seems a bit odd to me. I mean, if you take Weapon +2 (Katana) and Focus -1 (need katana), and are disarmed in combat...can your opponent really use the katana? Technically he didn't take the Weapon ability, so according to the rules he can't. But we all know that if someone gets a weapon taken away, it can be used against them...it happens all the time!

I'm sorry, Clay....I'm just very analytical, and it's not always a good thing >.<

I guess I always try to make good things better...and don't get me wrong, I love OVA...I just think that it can be made better if a few things were...umm...tweaked?? I don't want to say "changed," or anything like that...just a few minor tweaks and I think OVA can be made even better!!

Back on track...the way that I interpreted Focus--at least for Weapon--is that you need to channel the attack through another weapon. For example, Rally from Gunsmith Cats would probably have Weapon +3 (ranged) and Focus -1 (weapon requires a gun in hand), just because she's gotten to be SUCH a good shot. But, in order to actually make the shot, she needs a gun.

I honestly think that the mecha ability can be changed to item without a problem...same rules and all...just by making it an item ability, there is no doubt--rules-wise--of what happens when the item is lost...and it lets the GM AND players know that it can indeed be lost/stolen/left behind/broken/etc.

Just like you can combine servent and animal companion...same thing, basically...but servent gives more back...so why take animal companion, when I can have an animal servent, who would be cheaper, points-wise? I know, I know....character concept. And, I admit, it's animal COMPANION, not animal SLAVE. The companion is more a GM character....well, that's how it seems in most anime with them...Luna (Sailor Moon), Kon (Bleach), etc.

Sorry for the long winded post, but I've been mulling this over for about 4 hours tonight/this morning at work...when you work the night shift, you get bored and tend to think a lot. Well, I do anyway...

I'll shut up now >.<

TBP

TheBouncyPherret wrote:But it still seems a bit odd to me. I mean, if you take Weapon +2 (Katana) and Focus -1 (need katana), and are disarmed in combat...can your opponent really use the katana? Technically he didn't take the Weapon ability, so according to the rules he can't. But we all know that if someone gets a weapon taken away, it can be used against them...it happens all the time!

The answer to this is "Yes, but use common sense." Spike and Vicious may be able to switch weapons after disarming each other, but a giant, beserker monster isn't likely to suddenly pick up a sword.

Changing this to "Item" doesn't really change the problem. It just adds a cumbersome step in creating abilities. Item describes nothing of what an Ability is. Weapon, mecha, etc. do.

And you don't even need the Focus Weakness for a weapon to be "losable." A character with claws can be declawed. A robot can lose an arm. Heck, a CHARACTER could lose an arm. If you think of it in this manner, nothing is actually permanent. Focus exists just for things that are easily lost or openly takable or destroyable and not replacable. A character can get a new weapon, but can they replace the magical amulet that's the source of their power?

In a number crunching way, OVA doesn't work well. Weapon and Strong have practically the same benefits; why bother taking a Weapon that you can lose?

I considered, after OVA was published, doing away with Weapon, Power Move, and Martial Arts and instead making a generic Damage Ability. While this would be, statistically, far more agreeable, (Weapon is Damage + Focus; Martial Arts is just Damage; Power Move is Damage + Endurance Cost) it would drastically alter both the Abilities & Weaknesses Chapter and the Index. Besides the work and design destruction, I eventually decided it was too COLD. Weapon, Power Move, Martial Arts have sudden and recognizable meanings. You can look at them and learn something about the character. Something like Damage tells you nothing.

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I'm sorry, Clay....I'm just very analytical, and it's not always a good thing >.<

Doesn't bother me. ^_^

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I honestly think that the mecha ability can be changed to item without a problem...same rules and all...just by making it an item ability, there is no doubt--rules-wise--of what happens when the item is lost...and it lets the GM AND players know that it can indeed be lost/stolen/left behind/broken/etc.

I realize BESM has the Item of Power, but I never saw the purpose. Weapon and Mecha are far more descriptive and also detail the rules about them. Item of Power lumps a lot of different things with very different rule applications together. I think keeping them separate and specific is more conducive to newbie gamers. Besides, doesn't BESM have the "Own a Huge Mecha" attribute?

Just like you can combine servent and animal companion...same thing, basically...but servent gives more back...so why take animal companion, when I can have an animal servent, who would be cheaper, points-wise? I know, I know....character concept. And, I admit, it's animal COMPANION, not animal SLAVE. The companion is more a GM character....well, that's how it seems in most anime with them...Luna (Sailor Moon), Kon (Bleach), etc.

This is a complete rules oversight that I've mentioned in the past. I've often wanted to remove Animal Companion altogether, but it does have specific anime uses (like Luna) so I kept it. It's descriptive, and that's important. It using different rules than Servant is kind of iffy though. I'll look into it.

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I'll shut up now >.<

Don't worry about it. ^_^

Clay wrote:The answer to this is "Yes, but use common sense." Spike and Vicious may be able to switch weapons after disarming each other, but a giant, beserker monster isn't likely to suddenly pick up a sword.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, anything that the character would normally use on a regular basis--that is condisered and item (gun, armor, etc) then just take the appropriate ability, and the Focus weakness? Then just use common sense to decided when/if it itsn't available, and what happens if taken away?

Hmm....I guess I don't have the Common Sense ability....maybe the Senseless weakness?? ~_^

Clay wrote:Changing this to "Item" doesn't really change the problem. It just adds a cumbersome step in creating abilities. Item describes nothing of what an Ability is. Weapon, mecha, etc. do.

Based on the above, I understand better....I think...

Clay wrote:And you don't even need the Focus Weakness for a weapon to be "losable." A character with claws can be declawed. A robot can lose an arm. Heck, a CHARACTER could lose an arm. If you think of it in this manner, nothing is actually permanent. Focus exists just for things that are easily lost or openly takable or destroyable and not replacable. A character can get a new weapon, but can they replace the magical amulet that's the source of their power?

This makes sense...again, it's just something that I'm not too use to yet.

Clay wrote:In a number crunching way, OVA doesn't work well. Weapon and Strong have practically the same benefits; why bother taking a Weapon that you can lose?

Yeah, but that's what makes it good ^_^ Crunchiness is good to an extent, but some games *cough* d20 *cough* have taken it too far, IMHO. I am very egar to see what happens to OVA....how far it goes, what all people do with it, etc. It's gonna be a fun ride!!

Clay wrote:I considered, after OVA was published, doing away with Weapon, Power Move, and Martial Arts and instead making a generic Damage Ability. While this would be, statistically, far more agreeable, (Weapon is Damage + Focus; Martial Arts is just Damage; Power Move is Damage + Endurance Cost) it would drastically alter both the Abilities & Weaknesses Chapter and the Index. Besides the work and design destruction, I eventually decided it was too COLD. Weapon, Power Move, Martial Arts have sudden and recognizable meanings. You can look at them and learn something about the character. Something like Damage tells you nothing.

Another good point. Not to mention, it would change the way that Perks and Flaws are used. I would have to agree with you that the Ability names do indeed tell a story in and of themselves about the character...but an Ability called "Damage" would not do so as easily.

Clay wrote:

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I'm sorry, Clay....I'm just very analytical, and it's not always a good thing >.<

Doesn't bother me. ^_^

I'm glad that you don't take offense of my constant questionings. ^_^

Clay wrote:

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I honestly think that the mecha ability can be changed to item without a problem...same rules and all...just by making it an item ability, there is no doubt--rules-wise--of what happens when the item is lost...and it lets the GM AND players know that it can indeed be lost/stolen/left behind/broken/etc.

I realize BESM has the Item of Power, but I never saw the purpose. Weapon and Mecha are far more descriptive and also detail the rules about them. Item of Power lumps a lot of different things with very different rule applications together. I think keeping them separate and specific is more conducive to newbie gamers. Besides, doesn't BESM have the "Own a Huge Mecha" attribute?

Well, in 2eR, yes. But, I was a playtester for 3e, and since Mark has already disclosed what I'm about to say, I can legally say it: Own a Big Mecha(OBM), Item of Power(IoP), and Personal Gear(PG) have all been united into one Attribute--Item. The difference between an IoP and an item of PG is the setting. As stated in the 2eR book, "a gun is a minor item in a modern game, but an IoP in a fantasy setting!"

I just figured that maybe you could do the same thing, combine like Abilities into one. But, based on arguments stated above, I can see the design reason to keep 'em seperate.

Clay wrote:

Just like you can combine servent and animal companion...same thing, basically...but servent gives more back...so why take animal companion, when I can have an animal servent, who would be cheaper, points-wise? I know, I know....character concept. And, I admit, it's animal COMPANION, not animal SLAVE. The companion is more a GM character....well, that's how it seems in most anime with them...Luna (Sailor Moon), Kon (Bleach), etc.

This is a complete rules oversight that I've mentioned in the past. I've often wanted to remove Animal Companion altogether, but it does have specific anime uses (like Luna) so I kept it. It's descriptive, and that's important. It using different rules than Servant is kind of iffy though. I'll look into it.

I'm taking this to mean that they should have the same rules? It's kinda hard to tell weather to use 1 for 1 ratio (as seen in Animal Companion and Flunkies) or use 2 for 1 ratio (as seen in Servent and Transformation).

Clay wrote:

TheBouncyPherret wrote:I'll shut up now >.<

Don't worry about it. ^_^

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I really like your game, and am looking forward to the start of school so I can get back with my gaming group and try it out!!

TBP

Another interesting twist was brought to my attention by a devious player in my PbP campiagn. With the flunky ability it is possible to give the flunkies you create flunkies and their flunkies have flunkies etc. etc. . I quickly found my campiagn at the mercy of this players army of extra deimensional soldiers. While I know I could've made something up on the spot to prohibit him I like to encourage innovative thinking in my campiagns, but a friendly heads up to other DMs nonetheless.

As far as Animal Companion and Servant abilities, i've just swapped 'em both out for a single "companion" ability. To my thinking, this can include a servant (trusty ol' Alfred) an animal friend (Luna, Battlecat, whatever), a sidekick (i'm sure i don't even need to give examples here) or even a love interest (so long as he/she tends to be an active participant in adventures, at least to the degree these other types of companions would be).

I'm sort of thinking that a character who has to be protected (the object of a Guardian weakness) is probably not going to be a Companion. In certain rare instances, a Companion might have certain very helpful abilities (worthy of the character being an Ability him/herself), but might be particularly vulnerable in combat or whatever (so a GM might allow stacking a Guardian weakness on top of the Companion ability on a case-by-case basis).

As for the ability ratio, my thinking is that if the companion is genuinely subordinate (like a servant or well-disciplined sidekicks or the like), his abilities should total his rating. A more independant companion (most love interests, mentors & 'bosses' like Luna) would probably get the two-for-one rating, since the character isn't so automatic about doing what the player wants. That's just my way of thinking.

The issue of weapons...
My thinking is that the damage of a weapon depends more on skill/experience than (necessarily) on the weapon itself. For example, Pitch Black's Riddick (whom I statted out to get the hang of OVA - it was gorgeous, btw) is absolutely deadly with 'shivs,' small blades. In most RPGs, his choice of little blades would be a hindrance, as he'd do minimal damage; but in OVA, he can take Weapon (shiv)at +4 or even +5 and kill aliens and super-soldiers left & right because he's just that good.

But when a 'merc' (bounty hutner) picks up a knife that Riddick dropped, he doesn't get the +5 damage bonus - he's not a dedicated master of the blade like our anti-hero. So here's where we get to my rule of thumb: being armed is generally a +1 damage bonus, as a matter of circumstance. At the GM's discretion, certain weapons may grant a higher bonus, but it will probably depend on the character concept as much as the weapon. Part of my reasoning is to get away from the common RPG syndrome where you discard your father's sword because you found one with the magical "+1" rune factory-installed.

E.g., Dorian is a fantasy hero with Hobby: Swords up the wazoo, and usually fights with a broadsword; when he picks up his comrade Galen's claymore that's been bought at +3, Dorian might get a +2 because the sword is hefty and he can use it well; conversely, Jashin is a swift, sleek combatant, with sword-skill equal to Dorian's; but if he picked up Galen's Claymore, he'd only get the basic +1, because big slow weapons just aren't his style (but he still gets a bonus, 'cos it's better than fist-fighting). Little Mina is something of a pacifist, with no particulary skill in swordplay, but if she swings Galen's Claymore and actually hits something with it, she'll still get that basic +1 bonus to her damage, because again, the thing is more deadly than her fists. She'd be equally deadly with Jashin's rapier or with the knife she keeps for self-defense.

The only thing is that this isn't really codified into rules, as such - there's nothing in the Weapon ability to say how much of the damage is from the weapon vs how much is from the user's skill. [Now, maybe Clay intended that skill belongs entirely in the attack roll and damage arises entirely from the weapon used - but if that were the case, i'd have expected some kind of guidelines as to what size or whatever weapons tend to have what ratings. The closest we've got is the example from Hammerspace; speaking of which, i would regard the Hammerspace ability to supercede my rule of thumb just because. Spending the points has to be worthwhile.

And speaking of spending points, I was thinking of a wacky idea. I know Clay talked earlier about the difference between Martial Arts & Strong (to the effect that strength can vanish due to e.g. a simple shapechanging curse), but i'm not completely and totally convinced. I was actually thinking of altering Martial Arts in my campaign to make it a little more like a "weaponless weapon;" in that taking the Ability would be be devoted to a particular style, and grant access to perks & flaws. Right now there's little reason for a character to practice multiple martial styles (through multiple Hobbies, i mean; i'm not counting the 'master of all styles' through Combat Skill), which is fine for many players; but i'm thinking that if a player has a particular concept in mind, the rules ought to support and encourage that concept.

My thinking is that if one player bought up Martial Arts and the other bought up Strong, I don't want the martial artist to say later, 'man, i really should have just made this guy strong.' I want to see the rules support characterization, so that the players are both saying, 'wow, that was cool,' to each other, as well as 'ha! watch this!' [This is as close as i get to the 'balance' fetish; i don't care about numbers as much as player satisfaction.'

Bhikku wrote:As far as Animal Companion and Servant abilities, i've just swapped 'em both out for a single "companion" ability. To my thinking, this can include a servant (trusty ol' Alfred) an animal friend (Luna, Battlecat, whatever), a sidekick (i'm sure i don't even need to give examples here) or even a love interest (so long as he/she tends to be an active participant in adventures, at least to the degree these other types of companions would be).

This does make sense, rules wise, but the different names let you know right away what the Ability is. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would do it the same way, but Clay likes the names to be as descriptive as possible.

Bhikku wrote:...
As for the ability ratio, my thinking is that if the companion is genuinely subordinate (like a servant or well-disciplined sidekicks or the like), his abilities should total his rating. A more independant companion (most love interests, mentors & 'bosses' like Luna) would probably get the two-for-one rating, since the character isn't so automatic about doing what the player wants. That's just my way of thinking.

I've actually been talking to Clay over AIM, and we've come to the agreement that most things like this--Servent, Animal Companion, Transformation, Mecha--should all use the same rules. In this case, 2 for 1.

Bhikku wrote:The issue of weapons...
My thinking is that the damage of a weapon depends more on skill/experience than (necessarily) on the weapon itself. For example, Pitch Black's Riddick (whom I statted out to get the hang of OVA - it was gorgeous, btw) is absolutely deadly with 'shivs,' small blades. In most RPGs, his choice of little blades would be a hindrance, as he'd do minimal damage; but in OVA, he can take Weapon (shiv)at +4 or even +5 and kill aliens and super-soldiers left & right because he's just that good.

But when a 'merc' (bounty hutner) picks up a knife that Riddick dropped, he doesn't get the +5 damage bonus - he's not a dedicated master of the blade like our anti-hero. So here's where we get to my rule of thumb: being armed is generally a +1 damage bonus, as a matter of circumstance. At the GM's discretion, certain weapons may grant a higher bonus, but it will probably depend on the character concept as much as the weapon. Part of my reasoning is to get away from the common RPG syndrome where you discard your father's sword because you found one with the magical "+1" rune factory-installed.

E.g., Dorian is a fantasy hero with Hobby: Swords up the wazoo, and usually fights with a broadsword; when he picks up his comrade Galen's claymore that's been bought at +3, Dorian might get a +2 because the sword is hefty and he can use it well; conversely, Jashin is a swift, sleek combatant, with sword-skill equal to Dorian's; but if he picked up Galen's Claymore, he'd only get the basic +1, because big slow weapons just aren't his style (but he still gets a bonus, 'cos it's better than fist-fighting). Little Mina is something of a pacifist, with no particulary skill in swordplay, but if she swings Galen's Claymore and actually hits something with it, she'll still get that basic +1 bonus to her damage, because again, the thing is more deadly than her fists. She'd be equally deadly with Jashin's rapier or with the knife she keeps for self-defense.

I would actually do it a bit differently. I see Weapon more of a "This is a knife (Weapon +1)." For specializing in a certain weapon, I thought more along the lines of Power Move and Focus. You can use your Power Move to do more damage, but you need your focus: Riddick's shiv, Dorian's broadsword, etc.

But, your arguments do make sense:
"Similar weapons act as 1 less than they actually are, dissimilar act as 2 less, with a minimum of +1."

It makes sense, and I might actually steal that idea. It could actually make Hobby more worthwile, if you limited your Weapon bonus to that of your Hobby with that weapon...but that adds a bit too much crunchiness to OVA...it's really not too crunchy...like oatmeal. Really good, but not crunchy like Cheerios...~_^

Bhikku wrote:The only thing is that this isn't really codified into rules, as such - there's nothing in the Weapon ability to say how much of the damage is from the weapon vs how much is from the user's skill. [Now, maybe Clay intended that skill belongs entirely in the attack roll and damage arises entirely from the weapon used - but if that were the case, i'd have expected some kind of guidelines as to what size or whatever weapons tend to have what ratings. The closest we've got is the example from Hammerspace; speaking of which, i would regard the Hammerspace ability to supercede my rule of thumb just because. Spending the points has to be worthwhile.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see when OVA Mecha and OVA Fantasy come out. I hear there will be gear lists--weapons, animals, "stuff," etc.

Bhikku wrote:And speaking of spending points, I was thinking of a wacky idea. I know Clay talked earlier about the difference between Martial Arts & Strong (to the effect that strength can vanish due to e.g. a simple shapechanging curse), but i'm not completely and totally convinced. I was actually thinking of altering Martial Arts in my campaign to make it a little more like a "weaponless weapon;" in that taking the Ability would be be devoted to a particular style, and grant access to perks & flaws. Right now there's little reason for a character to practice multiple martial styles (through multiple Hobbies, i mean; i'm not counting the 'master of all styles' through Combat Skill), which is fine for many players; but i'm thinking that if a player has a particular concept in mind, the rules ought to support and encourage that concept.

My thinking is that if one player bought up Martial Arts and the other bought up Strong, I don't want the martial artist to say later, 'man, i really should have just made this guy strong.' I want to see the rules support characterization, so that the players are both saying, 'wow, that was cool,' to each other, as well as 'ha! watch this!' [This is as close as i get to the 'balance' fetish; i don't care about numbers as much as player satisfaction.'

You could just change the text of Martial Arts to that of Weapon. Have them do--mechanically--the same thing, but with different names, like Clay has done with a few things. But, it seems to go against what you've done with Animal Companion and Servent.

Perhaps just make a Special Flaw:
Finess(-5): This attack deals damage due to the finess of the strike, rather than the strength. Only add Martial Arts--not Strong--bonuses to the DT.

Or, perhaps do the opposite, since Strong gets plenty of stuff as-is:
Special Perk: Mighty(+5): This weapon is designed to use the weilders great strength. You may add your Strong Bonus to your DT.

This would allow Martial Arts to have a slight advantage over Strong, which might be better, since Strong has other applications. Than again, the Special Flaw and Special Perk acomplish the same thing, only one gives back for Martial Arts, and the other takes away for Stong.

TBP

TBP, thanks for your comments. It sounds like we're working on similar wavelengths here.

TheBouncyPherret wrote: This does make sense, rules wise, but the different names let you know right away what the Ability is. I'm not saying you're wrong, I would do it the same way, but Clay likes the names to be as descriptive as possible.

I can dig it. In that case, Animal Companion, Servant, Sidekick, Sweetheart (to avoid confusion with 'love interest' as a weakness) would all be viable Abilities, as would others. For myself, I like to keep things fairly open; i feel like Companion tells us that this is a secondary character, and suggests a role in the game, but keeps the players feeling free to invent whatever kind of relationship suits. But either way you look at it, we've got groove here.

And I can dig 2 for 1 ratio being across the board. Anything that keeps me from having to open the book when i'm making characters or helping my players do so is good news to me. (In my mind, the perfect RPG is one with rules sufficiently robust for all occasions, but which fit entirely into a little corner of my brain. OVA's pretty much there.)

TPB wrote: I would actually do it a bit differently. I see Weapon more of a "This is a knife (Weapon +1)." For specializing in a certain weapon, I thought more along the lines of Power Move and Focus. You can use your Power Move to do more damage, but you need your focus: Riddick's shiv, Dorian's broadsword, etc.

Well, as I said, I wasn't sure if the Weapon rating was intended to describe the weapon, in which case I'd have expected some kind of guidelines as to how big/how nasty a weapon merits what kind of rating. Sort of like Fudge does: if it's itty bitty like a knife or a sap, make it +1; if it's a good-sized hand weapon, make it +2; if it takes two hands to swing it, make it +3; that sort of thing.

But I figured that for some characters, being deadly with a weapon is a matter of skill, much like being deadly with your hands is a matter of Martial Arts.

TPB wrote: "Similar weapons act as 1 less than they actually are, dissimilar act as 2 less, with a minimum of +1."

It makes sense, and I might actually steal that idea. It could actually make Hobby more worthwile, if you limited your Weapon bonus to that of your Hobby with that weapon...but that adds a bit too much crunchiness to OVA...it's really not too crunchy...like oatmeal. Really good, but not crunchy like Cheerios...~_^

Actually, i hadn't really intended to make it quite so clear and rulesy, but it does sound good the way you put it. I was just envisioning a fencer trying to swing a claymore, and figured that his clumsiness would make up for any advantage the weapon itself might have. But that might be accounted for more in having a Fencing hobby rather than a broad Combat Skill, so that the margin of success (and thus the multiplier on the weapon) isn't as impressive as it might otherwise be. Which makes sense. (but for reasons i'll leave to another thread, that particular facet of the system isn't likely to help me so much.)

TPB wrote:You could just change the text of Martial Arts to that of Weapon. Have them do--mechanically--the same thing, but with different names, like Clay has done with a few things. But, it seems to go against what you've done with Animal Companion and Servent.

As a matter of fact, that is almost exactly what I was proposing. You just put it very succinctly. The only trouble I'm seeing with it now is that comparing a Weapon, which can be disarmed, versus a Martial Art, which can't (unless the character is crippled or helpless, in which case a weapon won't be much good either), i find i may have brought exactly the same bother in my head as previously.

I guess what it comes down to is pretty simple: Martial Arts, Weapon, and Strong are not going to be perfectly balanced, and they don't have to be. But different groups can decide if they want Martial Arts to work as strength without the special effects, or as a weapon that can't be disarmed. Maybe somebody will think of some other minor tweak or special effect for Martial Arts that will help to distinguish it as more than just a damage bonus.

Bhikku wrote:Text Regarding Weapon and Combat Skill

The reason I do not give examples of Weapons is for this very reason. A fan may be totally useless for some, but put in the hands of one of anime's many fan-wielders...it could be a Weapon +3.

To be honest, characters using each other's weapons wasn't taken much into account. No one picks up Kenshin's backwards-bladed sword (as far as I know), No one takes Luke's lightsaber, etc. etc.

If the situation arises and you feel it warrants drastically reducing its DT, then go for it. Personally, I'd probably give the character a major penalty for using an unfamiliar weapon instead. (A lightsaber doesn't cease being as powerful, it's just very difficult to use without training). A -3 should deter most rampant damage dealing. Likewise, you can account for an expert knifewielder being super-damaging with a knife by having ungodly Combat Skill. In the end, a Combat Skill +5 and and a Weapon +1 should be about the same as a Combat Skill +1 and Weapon +5. One you hit more often and more accurately for less damage, and the other you hit less often and less surely for greater damage. This is how I'd do it.

Bhikku wrote:And speaking of spending points, I was thinking of a wacky idea. I know Clay talked earlier about the difference between Martial Arts & Strong (to the effect that strength can vanish due to e.g. a simple shapechanging curse), but i'm not completely and totally convinced. I was actually thinking of altering Martial Arts in my campaign to make it a little more like a "weaponless weapon;" in that taking the Ability would be be devoted to a particular style, and grant access to perks & flaws. Right now there's little reason for a character to practice multiple martial styles (through multiple Hobbies, i mean; i'm not counting the 'master of all styles' through Combat Skill), which is fine for many players; but i'm thinking that if a player has a particular concept in mind, the rules ought to support and encourage that concept.

I suppose there's no reason you can't apply Perks and Flaws to Martial Arts. After all, playtesters in the past have added perks and flaws to magic, even though it's not implicitly stated that you can.

My personal opinion however is that, generally, martial arts is generic in its presentation. There's just not enough difference between how Karate Kid A and Judo Kid B fight in GAME terms that it matters, in much the same way that a Fencer Fiend and a Knight Knave going at it would change dice rolls very little.

Most of the "flavor" comes in Power Moves. Fencers can have counter/reversal moves, knights beserk strikes or holy spells, karate kid can have a triple roundhouse, and judo man might have a special throw.

Bhikku wrote:as a weapon that can't be disarmed.

Not all weapons can be disarmed. ^_~ See claws, robots with built in guns, etc.

TheGreyReversed wrote:Another interesting twist was brought to my attention by a devious player in my PbP campiagn. With the flunky ability it is possible to give the flunkies you create flunkies and their flunkies have flunkies etc. etc. . I quickly found my campiagn at the mercy of this players army of extra deimensional soldiers. While I know I could've made something up on the spot to prohibit him I like to encourage innovative thinking in my campiagns, but a friendly heads up to other DMs nonetheless.

This may be true, but it's not the end-all be-all you think it is. Think about it this way: your Flukies are your subordinates, but their Flunkies follow their orders, not yours. What happens when part of the "chain of command" is broken? Well, most of the time, when someone's commander is killed, so is their morale...

So I'd say let 'em do that...but remember, as Flunkies go down, those under them are very likely to run away. They are, after all, not your Flunkies, they belong to those already taken out.

Just an idea, but one worth looking into, I think.

TBP

I was editing the OVA document to incorporate changes suggested on the forums, including the above-mentioned incosistencies between Servant/Animal Companion/Transformation/and Vehicle.

However, as I think about it, I wonder if I should downgrade Servant to 1 per 1 like Animal Companion and upgrade Vehicle to 2 for 1 like Transformation.

Reasoning: Transformation and Vehicle, when used, automatically "replace" or augment the character's current skill set. While Servant and Animal Companion acts independently of that skill set. The latter two seem more "powerful" to me and may warrant a more expensive cost.

But in practice, it may not be. What do you all think?

I think the companion/servant abilities and transformation/vehicle abilities function well like that. Why should a servant, just because he isn't an animal companion, be allowed to be much more powerful? Likewise, when I was working on Fly-cycles for my Future Force stuff getting them within the point tolerance was difficult. The only reason it wasn't prohibitive is because they have to use Transformation to even get their equipment without the horrible inconvenience of running across town and out into the wilderness. If you allowed Vehicles to do 2 for 1 (which honestly would be great in my opinion) I would take the Fly-cycles out of the Transformation block. I'd let players summon them via radio control or something instead.

It's pretty much a given I'm upping Vehicle to 2 for 1.

What I'm debating is the future of Servant. I'd like to keep it 2 for 1, too.

But that leaves Animal Companion, which essentially IS servant. But Animal Companion, under most circumstances, hardly warrants 2 for 1 points. Should it be left alone to keep it "different" from Servant? But why would someone purchase Animal Companion instead of Servant?

Well unless you are giving the animal companion something special just for being an animal companion then the two abilities are almost identical. Point wise, because it will eventually be a points issue, servant is a bargain if their effects are the same except for the 2 for 1 difference.

Well you could keep it 2 for 1, but give it a weakness total cap, or let it be 1 for 1 without a cap, and keep the abilities separate as a matter of fluff, or combine them into Companion. The reason I say use both is if someone wants a bargain bodyguard or attack dog, they shouldn't be able to go completely crazy and make a major character with a total of +30 in Abilities and -20 in Weaknesses just because they bought level 5 Servant. If they want to go really crazy they should almost have to make another character and make sure their total isn't higher than their level in the Ability itself. Say the cap is a total number of Weaknesses of -5 total.

Because I may not sound like I'm making sense here is an example:

Servant 1(2 for 1) will get you the Soldier from page 112. You could go higher without adding other levels by adding up to 3 more points of Weaknesses.

Servant 1(1 for 1) will let you build a much more detailed, fleshed out, and powerful character. Essentially a PC with a total allowance of +1 in Abilities over Weaknesses. Much like a PC they can't get too far from Zero, but unlike a PC they have a lesser role in events and probably don't get to make any party level decisions. Still, the extra hands in a fight are welcome enough.

You actually have it backwards. 2 for 1 is more powerful than 1 for 1. Essentially, you are getting two points for every one level you have in Servant, but only one for one in Animal Companion.

I may just leave Animal Companion alone. As it stands, it's a completely useless and redundant Ability. I might as well make it slightly different, if less useful, than its counterpart.