Board index » Across the Megaverse® » Palladium Books® Games Q. & A.

 


Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
Unread postPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:45 am
  

User avatar
Adventurer

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:22 pm
Posts: 408
Location: Oklahoma
I have searched high and low for an answer. I have consulted the other magical categories within the book and find no conclusive answers to this. I have checked the FAQ section on the main site, as well as the FAQ archive here, and HU FAQ archive to no avail.

Page 146 of Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition states the following.
Quote:
Creates a costume or "battle dress" out of thin air. This battle dress can be of classic, comic book superhero appearance or in­clude full body armor (usually an ancient style of armor).


It states previously though...
Quote:
Weapons and Armor: Other than the magic weapon, unless the character is extremely wealthy, only conventional weaponry and body armor would be available. Remember, that "battle dress" is magically created whenever the character goes into action.


It makes a point to mention the battle dress a few times. So *could* it create mechanically functional armor - (Armor rating and SDC) or does it only create a cosmetic appearance of armor of no more use than cosplay gear? (though some cosplay gear is functional).

I would think thematically it could go either way. And if so wouldn't be so different from the Empowered Demi-God transformation, especially since this character's whole purpose and mindset would be combat. Like a paladin or warrior on the side of light. The other Magic classes are a little more "Sorcerer Supreme" in flavor, whereas this is more of a "Magic Warrior/Knight" type.

Otherwise this is wonky wording.

Thanks in advance for your consideration

_________________
Image


If I quote you, you will get spell-checked.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:34 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
The Battle Dress can take the appearance of armor, but does not provide any extra SDC to the char above the listed SDC bonuses.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


Last edited by drewkitty ~..~ on Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:59 pm
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 644
Comment: They/Them
Please disregard the above poster for not only being incorrect, but for claiming personal opinions are definitive statements.

Examples I've found of an Enchanted Weapon category character manifesting armor with a bonus to S.D.C. independent of the personal bonus granted by that category are Shadow Dragon on GM's Guide pg 133, and the following listings in Armageddon Unlimited: Hades Bane, Chaos Caller, Skull Splitter, Hell Slayer, Soul Saver, and Sun Shaft.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:05 pm
  

User avatar
Adventurer

Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:22 pm
Posts: 408
Location: Oklahoma
Curbludgeon wrote:
Please disregard the above poster for not only being incorrect, but for claiming personal opinions are definitive statements.

Examples I've found of an Enchanted Weapon category character manifesting armor with a bonus to S.D.C. independent of the personal bonus granted by that category are Shadow Dragon on GM's Guide pg 133, and the following listings in Armageddon Unlimited: Hades Bane, Chaos Caller, Skull Splitter, Hell Slayer, Soul Saver, and Sun Shaft.


Thanks, this is very helpful! I wasn't aware of these examples, as I never gave those books a very fine-toothed combing-through.

I will consider this answered, and work out something appropriate.

_________________
Image


If I quote you, you will get spell-checked.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:13 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
The description says that the battle dress can be ancient or modern armor (usually ancient), so that's what it can be.
No way in heck would I tell a player that he could have a costume that LOOKS like full plate armor, but that only protects him as much as spandex would!

Ultimately, it'd be up to the GM, to the extent that character costumes are usually up to the GM.
"No, your battle dress cannot be a Koteka."
"No, your battle dress cannot be a robot."
or just
"I can't let you have that costume, because your character would be a laughingstock and it would disrupt the adventure."

As long as it's not something super-fancy, or power armor, I don't see that it makes much difference balance-wise.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Feb 24, 2020 8:15 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
NPCs in the books are, in essence, have been okayed (given an 'Act of GM') by their G.M.....Keven S. The ultimate editor (aka GM) of the books.
Thus the statement 'To change the canon character creation rules takes an 'act of GM' ' is true.

Said examples can be used to argue your case to get an 'Act of GM' but are not, in themselves, a part of the canon char creation text.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 12:30 am
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 644
Comment: They/Them
Writing the word canon and the name Kevin in no way constitutes an argument and never has, regardless of how very many times you have attempted it these decades.

The enchanted weapons depicted in Armageddon Unlimited are not NPCs. They are examples of the Enchanted Weapon Power Category. More immediately:
HU2E p17 wrote:
S.D.C. Type Two: Inanimate objects, such as the walls of buildings, vehicles, furniture, body armor, and so on, also have S.D.C.
HU2E p146: Weapons & Bonuses Bestowed to its Mortal Champion wrote:
Creates a costume or "battle dress" out of thin air. This battle dress can be of classic, comic book superhero appearance or include full body armor (usually an ancient style of armor).
Armor has S.D.C.. Armor with 0 S.D.C. is described as broken and beyond repair. The manifestation of battle dress is not similarly described. That the description of battle dress doesn't append a specific S.D.C. value is irrelevant. The supposition that armor in an S.D.C. setting does not have S.D.C. is a fundamental redefinition of terms. Armor is armor, not the appearance of armor, and to attempt to twist words around otherwise so invalidates meaning that not only does rule adjudication become entirely a matter of handwaving, it makes appeals to authority like the above even more laughable. Of course, if a particular table wishes to come to an agreement that battle dress does not provide S.D.C. that's great, but to suggest that's something other than a house rule is more than a little disingenuous.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:23 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
HURPG 2nd ed, page 146 wrote:
Creates a costume or "battle dress" out of thin air. This battle dress can be of classic, comic book superhero appearance or include full body armor (usually an ancient style armor). Whatever the costume/battle dress looks like, the basic design will usually reflect its owner's personality and imagination. Although the costume can be damaged, ripped and torn, it always reappears fresh and new.

This is the complete text from the 1st printing enchanted weapon/weapons of order about the battle dress. The Weapons of chaos text is also missing any mention of battle dress SDC when mentioning the battle dress.

The only other mention of the battle dress was in the Weapons and armor section on page 144.
Quote:
Weapons and Armor: Other than the magic weapon, unless the character is extremely wealthy, only conventional weaponry and body armor would be available. Remember, that "battle dress" (a costume) is magically created whenever the character goes into action.


Turns out I am not the one pushing their house rules as canon.

I stand by my statements that: 1) The the 'battle dress' provided by Enchanted Weapons have no inherent SDC value to them (even if the battle dress looks like armor), and 2) the NPCs in the books may be used by players as supporting arguments to petition their GMs to make an 'act of GM' to allow any armor made by the 'battle dress' provided by the enchanted weapon to have SDC.

Standard Comment: Please stop pronouncing your house rules as canon.
----------
The NPCs detailed in the books not being NPC's. What is this nonsense?
Every char detailed in the books are NPCs. And as such, IF they do not follow the creation standards of the PC char creation because the writers have taken creative liberties that take them outside the canon char creation rules. (Why? someone might ask....to make them 'different' then what players can do with the strait up char creation rules.) This has been happening in all the 2nd ed books.
------
What is this about Keven S. not being the person to finalize (ether writing or editing) every book in the catalog not setting the published canon? What nonsense is this?
--
Since he has allowed non-standard NPC's it does say to GMs that they should let their players modify their chars outside the canon char creation standards. But only with the GM's permission.

In other words, Players and GMs working together to make the chars.
However, if the GM is being strict about being canon only, the player is SOL.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Feb 25, 2020 11:34 pm
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 644
Comment: They/Them
Consider taking an actual look at Armageddon Unlimited. The weapons described are not NPCs. If a wielder of one of those weapons was given a stat line, that would be an NPC. Instead, these weapons often clearly state that their associated battle dress is armor with A.R. and S.D.C. values. More importantly, the line "include full body armor (usually an ancient stlyle of armor)" on HU2p146 would necessarily lead one to look at the relevant chart of Body Armor: Ancient Armor on p342. To suggest that this common sense interpretation is invalidated without including an explicit disclaimer stating this instance of armor possesses S.D.C. in the same way as every single other instance of armor not only invalidates the quote above from the definition of S.D.C., but begs the question of what else must, to your perspective, be repeated? If there isn't a mention made of a GM every few posts does something happen? Is the usage of "canon" not compulsive, but somehow apotropaic?
This is why arguments predicated on word definitions and the concept of object permanence are more useful than appeals to authority.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:43 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
Weapons are weapons and are not characters. Neather NPCs nor PCs. And I got rid of all my Rifts books, but this is question about the Enchanted weapon power cat. not a question about weapons made for the Rifts setting. (save arguments otherwise for something else. you will not get anywhere with that line of argument.)

I know where the armor charts are. What YOU are not understnding that the 'battle dress' only takes the appearance of different outfits. And don't have any inherent SDC.
I can explaine this till the day is done to you. But I can't understand this for you.

Example of a NPC that is an example of extream artistic lisence: Kelven (Cen.Station page 190.) This is an NPC that CAN NOT BE MADE WITH THE CANON RULES. Therefor, puts to rest the idea that the NPCs in thebooks are examples of canon char creation.
So your insistance that NPCs are really examples of how chars are to be made is not on par with the canon char creation rules say.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 5:42 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
HURPG 2nd ed, page 146 wrote:
Creates a costume or "battle dress" out of thin air. This battle dress can be of classic, comic book superhero appearance or include full body armor (usually an ancient style armor). Whatever the costume/battle dress looks like, the basic design will usually reflect its owner's personality and imagination. Although the costume can be damaged, ripped and torn, it always reappears fresh and new.

This is the complete text from the 1st printing enchanted weapon/weapons of order about the battle dress. The Weapons of chaos text is also missing any mention of battle dress SDC when mentioning the battle dress.


Probably because different kinds of armor has different amounts of SDC, NOT because armor (or even clothing) created this way has NO SDC.
As written, the rule is that your battle dress can be armor.
As written, there is nothing stating that the usual SDC for armor is absent.

Strict interpretation is that your Battle Dress armor has the same SDC as usual.

Quote:
The only other mention of the battle dress was in the Weapons and armor section on page 144.
Quote:
Weapons and Armor: Other than the magic weapon, unless the character is extremely wealthy, only conventional weaponry and body armor would be available. Remember, that "battle dress" (a costume) is magically created whenever the character goes into action.


Or, even more succinctly:
Weapons and Armor:
A "Battle Dress" is magically created whenever the character goes into action.

The fact that Battle Dress is mentioned under "armor" indicates that yeah, it can be armor.
Again, zero mention of that armor NOT having any SDC.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 6:34 pm
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 644
Comment: They/Them
Armageddon Unlimited isn't a Rifts book. It is a crossover book primarily for Heroes Unlimited. That's why the title uses the word Unlimited, and the subheadline is "A Sourcebook for the Heroes Unlimited RPG." Is your argument that because it's a crossover book that it's somehow not canon? Much like pretending that previously defined terms like armor and ancient armor do not retain that meaning during use, that would be another example of someone believing headcanon is something other than that, and trying to say the word canon enough to make that noncanon canon. Canon canon Kevin canon.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2020 8:34 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
Killer Cyborg wrote:
snip...
Again, zero mention of that armor NOT having any SDC.

Again, zero mention of that battle dress having any SDC. Which is why it takes a GM to give it SDC. Even if it looks like armor.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 1:43 am
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
snip...
Again, zero mention of that armor NOT having any SDC.

Again, zero mention of that battle dress having any SDC. Which is why it takes a GM to give it SDC. Even if it looks like armor.


The problem with your idea there is that the book doesn't seem to say "looks like armor."

What it says is:
Creates a costume or "battle dress" out of thin air. This battle dress can... include full body armor (usually an ancient style of armor).

The whole "only looks like armor" appears to be something that you've made up, and inserted into the book.

Unless it's in the rules somewhere that nobody's bothered to quote...?

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 4:53 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5876
Curbludgeon wrote:
Examples I've found of an Enchanted Weapon category character manifesting armor with a bonus to S.D.C. independent of the personal bonus granted by that category are Shadow Dragon on GM's Guide pg 133

I never paid close attention to Nimiko Kusami and am just learning of this today... and this was done in June 1999...

"covers the wielder with a suit of chain mail armor (STATS) on command"

That doesn't have any kind of "uses per day" or actually be that Shadow Dragon can re-create this chainmail as often as she likes... we do know it will return at full SDC though based on pg 146 of HU2:
    Although the costume can be damaged, ripped and torn, it always reappears fresh and new

That's pretty awesome! Not necessarily broken either considering how powerful some stuff like Bio Armor / Force Aura is.

We should keep in mind that Shadow Dragon probably has to follow the standard rules for doing this. 147 says "same as weapons of order" and 146 says "weapon, battle dress and available magic are activated when the wielder speaks it's name".

I assume that would normally take at least 1 melee action to do. I see no mention of how to revert, but if we can channel Captain Marvel for a second, it's most likely the same thing (say the name a 2nd time and you change back). So to refresh armor SDC should probably take 2 melee actions, in between which you are vulnerable because you not only lack the armor, but the SDC bonus you normally have in altered form (which WON'T renew... probably?) and whatever other protective powers you might enjoy.

I would also that even though it's likely that the Battle Dress is meant to inherently give SOME protection (not be just AR 4 SDC 0 spandex), perhaps the generous amount Shadow Dragon enjoys is not meant to be free? Like maybe unless you take special options, you get the lowest possible protection mentioned on Pg 342 (AR 8 SDC 15 Quilt) perhaps even at "home-made" (see 343) quality of AR 6 SDC 12 regardless of how strong it looks? That would also mean no prowl penalties, of course.

Notice for example the number of "Powers Held" (pg 148) her weapon gives:
    1) Power of Darkness (#13)
    2) Cloud of Smoke (#15)
    3) Portal of Fear (#11)
    4) Power Bolt (#3)
    5) Damage Bonus (#2)

Magic Weapons (whether Order or Chaos) normally give SIX abilities.

These are mentioned after the phrase the weapon's other "magic" abilities include which seem to imply to me that this "create chainmail" aspect of Shadow Dragon is actually her 6th power.

A point for comparison is #12 (Mystic Shield) which uses the same stats as Weapons of Order on pg 147.

That gives a 200 SDC bubble (you could do a handheld shield, but that's silly, why not just parry using your indestructible weapon?) which can be created up to once per 30 seconds up to 10 times per day. It has no AR so the SDC has to be depleted.

AR 14 / SDC 55 is so inferior that apparently it makes up for the other advantages it has relative to Mystic Shield (can be created unlimited times, can fight while it's up)

I could be wrong though... pg 133 also follows up with "The sword can also" and talks about it emulating Portal of Fear in some ways through extending a chain.

That MIGHT have just been intended to be how "Portal of Fear" (in 1st paragraph) manifests... but the exact phrasing makes it seem like she can create normal Fear Portals and ALSO do the chain thing which functions like a fear portal mechanically.

In THAT case, the missing 6th power is probably that chain-thing (basically bought Portal of Fear TWICE) and the creation of the armor is the 0th power, or maybe she has 7 powers?

Pg 132's story is pretty terrifying too. Apparently if your evil sword is more impressed with some other evil person trying to kill you, it can just decide to make your armor vanish so someone can cut off your fingers.

Curbludgeon wrote:
the following listings in Armageddon Unlimited: Hades Bane, Chaos Caller, Skull Splitter, Hell Slayer, Soul Saver, and Sun Shaft.

I think those would just set precedent for those particular examples, as they don't appear to be made using the normal category rules.

For example, weapons of chaos if you select magic give only PEx3+lvl*12 for spellcasting. Pg 56 of Armageddon gives PEx4+lvlD6 plus a separate pool of 100 in the weapon itself. Soul Slayer on pg 56 gives WAY more SDC than you're meant to have from a Weapon of Chaos.

Rifts Conversion Book did mention weapons had 2D4x10+40 PPE though, so it might be written with that in mind? Rifts had an influence on Armageddon.

Getting back to GMG...
132 "But the liquid landed on something unseen before hitting his lips"
133 "This is another of the sword's powers, and it provided the invisible force that had a hand in thwarting Nimiko's assassination of the Russian tycoon"

I don't understand this... how exactly would Bio-Ghost stop liquid BEFORE it hits your lips?

Reviewing pg 255 of HU2, there isn't anything about having a force field...

All I can figure is this is what the SDC bonus from the weapon is interpreted as being? "Invisible force that hand a hand" just doesn't really seem like Bio-Ghost could represent it.

Come to think of it... the usual 2D4x10 bonus to SDC that Weapons of Chaos gives looks like it's already built into Nimiko Kusami's stats...

She should only have "4D6 plus those gained by magic" and she has 100. It doesn't have ("when transformed") like her PB bonus, so it seems like once you bond to one of these weapons you ALWAYS get the weapon's bonus, when when not transformed into battle dress.

I assume that would also apply to the bonus against possession/horror factor that WOC give, the fire/cold resistance that WOO give, and the bonus vs magic BOTH give, would also be always-on too.

This is supported by her bonuses, she just has the magic/horror bonuses listed without parenthesis (only when transformed) like PB, so they must always be active. Looks like they overlooked including the possession bonus though. I would assume that oversight doesn't matter and that she enjoys it.

... then again, when I check out Century Station 111 (Feb 2000, released 8 months after GMG) Haven lists parenthesized attributes but his Bonuses only reflect his transformed state, there's no separate listing of bonus in his non-transformed state, which would be lower since his PP would drop from 18 to 9

...but then on page 120, Durandal actually lists 2 sets of SDC...
20 in non-transformed form could be representing getting 10 on 1D6x10 and 10 on 4D6 though....
The +630 boost to 650 is because of his "Mega" category since he has "Tremendous SDC" (HU2p181). That adds a maximum of 560 points so I'm not really sure how to explain where the other 70 points comes from...

Mega-Heroes increase SDC by 50%. I always assumed that did not apply to Tremendous SDC. If it did, that would add 1D4x150+240 so the top 2 results would be 690 and 840... the next one down is 540 which is an even larger gap...

A typo on his base SDC can't really explain it (even if it was 90, +50% of that would only account for +45) so if there was a typo it's probably on the 650. If we look at the lesser amounts other than 560 that could be added they are 260/360/460...

If we assume the +50% applied to +360 created +540 then 20+540=560, which could easily be a typo for 650. But that would mean author didn't apply the +50% to the base 20 SDC...

If we don't apply the +50% to 460, then 20+10+460=490... not a plausible typo...

Anyway, getting back to Shadow Dragon... her PB bonus also doesn't really make sense though, it looks like it only goes up 3 points, while 1D4+3 should produce a range of 4-7 points. That could be easily explained a couple ways though:
    1) the PB bonus for WOC battle dress is 1 less, just like the anti-magic bonus
    2) typo: might've intended to write PB16 baseline (left keyboard) or PB21 (right keyboard) transformed.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:11 pm
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2000 1:01 am
Posts: 15627
Location: Eastvale, calif
Yes, this is a ambiguity that can not be argued to conclusion. Thus, when something can not be fully argued one way or another based of an un-ambiguous citation to support ADD something more then what the text says, the only conclusion can be is that it can't be added as a canon item.

As such the best way is to let the individual GMs resolve this for their own games with their own house rules.

Again, it is known that the NPCs presenting in the books have creative liberties within them to make them into ""Characters"". But that liberties have taken those chars outside the realm of accessible to players.

I am done with this. Whether y'all contenue as a (empty) self-congragulating thread is your choice.

_________________
Q's on this board need canon answers first for the question that was asked. Then you can post your own opinions or house rules, they need to be listed/declareds as your own opinions or house rules.


My Artwork


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:34 pm
  

Adventurer

Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 7:08 am
Posts: 644
Comment: They/Them
The only addition that was proposed to be added to the canon is that armor only means armor with a damage capacity when it's explicitly stated as such. Plain language interpretations are always preferable to tortured ones, and when the latter better reflects authorial intent it is incumbent on the author to provide clarification. This appears to have been a non-issue according to canon for 35 years.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Sat Feb 29, 2020 2:17 pm
  

User avatar
Priest

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 2:01 am
Posts: 28850
Location: In the ocean, punching oncoming waves
Comment: "Your Eloquence with a sledge hammer is a beautiful thing..." -Zer0 Kay
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Yes, this is a ambiguity that can not be argued to conclusion. Thus, when something can not be fully argued one way or another based of an un-ambiguous citation to support ADD something more then what the text says, the only conclusion can be is that it can't be added as a canon item.


No.
Your interpretation is going out of its way to subtract an inherent trait from an item that you are allowed to have according to the rules.
Looking at a canon statement that you can have armor, and deciding that it does NOT mean that the armor has SDC, is akin to claiming that just because the rules say can have a weapon, that it doesn't mean that the weapon can inflict any damage.
Or just because the book says you can have a vehicle, it doesn't mean that the vehicle can actually travel anywhere.
Or that just because the book says you can have an apartment, it doesn't mean that the apartment isn't filled entirely with concrete.

That's not how ANY of this works.

When the books say you can have armor, then guess what?
You can have armor.
And you can have that armor without any kind of bizarre monkey's-paw-like flaws or downsides.

_________________
Annual Best Poster of the Year Awards (2012)

"That rifle on the wall of the laborer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." -George Orwell

Check out my Author Page on Amazon!


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Mon Mar 02, 2020 11:00 am
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5876
The description of MBA on 154 seems like similar could apply to this category too:
    The costume design is left entirely up to the player and can be as elaborate, sublime, or simple as he/she may desire.

Given how prone to abuse this could be (just keep instantly repairing your armor) to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, I think perhaps charging something like a token 1 PPE per each renewal of armor to full SDC might be appropriate for a house rule. Consider pg 149 how it costs 15 PPE to activate a super ability.

Weirdly unlike the 2 other categories (object, bestowed) the weapons category doesn't seem to mention anything about Negate Magic or Anti-Magic Cloud messing with it. Is that an oversight a later book possibly corrected?


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:29 am
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 13126
Location: Snoqualmie, WA
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
snip...
Again, zero mention of that armor NOT having any SDC.

Again, zero mention of that battle dress having any SDC. Which is why it takes a GM to give it SDC. Even if it looks like armor.

So a statement like the waiter gives you water doesnt include a glass
Or
The waiter gives you a glass doesnt mean that you can put anything into it because it doesn't state that it is a drinking glass.

How about
-Siegfried and Roy make a White Tiger magically appear before you.
-I attack it, you can't it has no SDC

So monster summoning circles just summon the image of a monster because most dont give the specific stats for the monster.

Everytime I hear battledress I think the magic weapon users are magical girl characters like Sailor Moon. :lol:

_________________
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper

BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid

Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech

Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus

The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 12:33 am
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 13126
Location: Snoqualmie, WA
Killer Cyborg wrote:
drewkitty ~..~ wrote:
Yes, this is a ambiguity that can not be argued to conclusion. Thus, when something can not be fully argued one way or another based of an un-ambiguous citation to support ADD something more then what the text says, the only conclusion can be is that it can't be added as a canon item.


No.
Your interpretation is going out of its way to subtract an inherent trait from an item that you are allowed to have according to the rules.
Looking at a canon statement that you can have armor, and deciding that it does NOT mean that the armor has SDC, is akin to claiming that just because the rules say can have a weapon, that it doesn't mean that the weapon can inflict any damage.
Or just because the book says you can have a vehicle, it doesn't mean that the vehicle can actually travel anywhere.
Or that just because the book says you can have an apartment, it doesn't mean that the apartment isn't filled entirely with concrete.

That's not how ANY of this works.

When the books say you can have armor, then guess what?
You can have armor.
And you can have that armor without any kind of bizarre monkey's-paw-like flaws or downsides.

What? Why cant I have monkey paw like flaws? I like Monkeypaws... your statement is offensive to monkeys. Bet you dont feel the same way about ape paws.

_________________
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper

BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid

Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech

Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus

The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 2:30 am
  

User avatar
Megaversal® Ambassador

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 12:20 am
Posts: 445
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Yes, I can say with 100% certainty that the original poster's character gets armor when transforming, to include SDC and a reasonable AR. Ask me how I know this....

_________________
Image


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:49 am
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 13126
Location: Snoqualmie, WA
Jack Burton wrote:
Yes, I can say with 100% certainty that the original poster's character gets armor when transforming, to include SDC and a reasonable AR. Ask me how I know this....

Pffth whatever. I was for the idea before but now that I know you're opinion I've changed my mind.
;p

You know what ol' Jack Burton says. If your driving cross country and some guy whips out a magic sword but doesn't have armor... it may be time to get a new magic sword.

_________________
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper

BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid

Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech

Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus

The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:05 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5876
Zer0 Kay wrote:
Everytime I hear battledress I think the magic weapon users are magical girl characters like Sailor Moon. :lol:

Respect the spinny wands.

Jack Burton wrote:
Yes, I can say with 100% certainty that the original poster's character gets armor when transforming, to include SDC and a reasonable AR. Ask me how I know this....

Reasonable being class 4 enhanced by an Analytical Genius, obv.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:22 pm
  

User avatar
Megaversal® Ambassador

Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 12:20 am
Posts: 445
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Axelmania wrote:
The description of MBA on 154 seems like similar could apply to this category too:
    The costume design is left entirely up to the player and can be as elaborate, sublime, or simple as he/she may desire.

Given how prone to abuse this could be (just keep instantly repairing your armor) to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, I think perhaps charging something like a token 1 PPE per each renewal of armor to full SDC might be appropriate for a house rule. Consider pg 149 how it costs 15 PPE to activate a super ability.

Weirdly unlike the 2 other categories (object, bestowed) the weapons category doesn't seem to mention anything about Negate Magic or Anti-Magic Cloud messing with it. Is that an oversight a later book possibly corrected?

This implies that the GM has absolutely no say in the mechanics of the game and that the player can do what he/she chooses at will.

_________________
Image


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Tue Mar 03, 2020 5:50 pm
  

User avatar
Knight

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:13 pm
Posts: 5876
I understand resistance to the idea that Enchanted Weapon gives armor. The illustration on pg 145 of HU2 looks like pure spandex, for example. Page 145 for MBA looks like tights under a cloak.

Pg 90 of the pre-HU2 revised edition had a woman with a nifty-looking high collar and sweet thigh-high boots and forearm-covering gloves. She actually is holding a shield...

The interesting thing about that, is it couldn't be the "Mystic Shield" described on the preceding page since it could only be the force field option that covers a 5ft area. The option for this to be a normal shield (like a knight holds) wasn't added until HU2p147.

That could mean in revised even a SHIELD was creatable as part of the costume / "battle dress".

One interesting thing is how the "Weapons and Armor" notation changed from 1st to 2nd ed. Originally it just said:
Other than the magic weapon, unless the character is extremely wealthy, only conventional weaponry and body armor would be available.

An additional sentence was added in for HU2:
Remember, that "battle dress" (a costume) is magically created whenever the character goes into action.

While the term "costume" doesn't inspire much confidence... this note is added under "and Armor" which seems to imply you could choose to have it be armor.

Jack Burton wrote:
This implies that the GM has absolutely no say in the mechanics of the game and that the player can do what he/she chooses at will.

I suppose. Not like I wrote "entirely up to the player". KS wrote the original HU in the 80s, with "Enchanted Weapon" on page 88. "Creates a costume or battle dress out of thin air" was present, but it didn't include the PB bonus.

Pg 95 for MBA had "entirely up to the player" back then, so it's not like we can blame Breaux for this.


          Top  
 
Unread postPosted: Wed Mar 04, 2020 4:55 am
  

User avatar
Monk

Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:59 pm
Posts: 13126
Location: Snoqualmie, WA
Jack Burton wrote:
Axelmania wrote:
The description of MBA on 154 seems like similar could apply to this category too:
    The costume design is left entirely up to the player and can be as elaborate, sublime, or simple as he/she may desire.

Given how prone to abuse this could be (just keep instantly repairing your armor) to avoid upsetting the balance of power too much, I think perhaps charging something like a token 1 PPE per each renewal of armor to full SDC might be appropriate for a house rule. Consider pg 149 how it costs 15 PPE to activate a super ability.

Weirdly unlike the 2 other categories (object, bestowed) the weapons category doesn't seem to mention anything about Negate Magic or Anti-Magic Cloud messing with it. Is that an oversight a later book possibly corrected?

This implies that the GM has absolutely no say in the mechanics of the game and that the player can do what he/she chooses at will.


Wait... you have no say? (So not taking that out of context) I'm gonna go inform the guys...

_________________
:thwak: you some might think you're a :clown: but you're cool in book :ok: :thwak:--Mecha-Viper

BEST IDEA EVER!!! -- The Galactus Kid

Holy crapy, you're Zer0 Kay?! --TriaxTech

Zer0 Kay is my hero. --Atramentus

The Zer0 of Kay, who started this fray,
Kept us laughing until the end. -The Fifth Business (In loving Memory of the teleport thread)


          Top  
 
 
Post new topic Reply to topic



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group