| From: | Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Sustained Damaging Manipulations |
| Date: | Fri, 21 Apr 1995 00:04:09 +1000 |
> Perhaps they meant that the nature o the spell should be "compatible"
> with the nature of sustained damaging manipulations. Its hard to imagine
> a sustained Flame Bomb spell - would that be a constantly reocuring explosin
> or an explosion that never ends :) .
Well, what's wrong with a spell idea such as:
INFERNO
This spell creates a circle of flame which bursts up through the ground or
floor, and envelops all in the area. The flame burns for as long as the
caster sustains the spell. Damage blah blah blah...
---------------------
Mark Steedman writes:
> [GAME BUST]
Yep, I agree with you, they are rather too powerful. All the more good
reason to make a house rule disallowing them (after you've used it on your
players and they complain about the terrible effectiveness of such a
spell... <evil GM grin>)
> [Troll doing 26D]
Nope, he could quite probably _hold off_ a dragon in HtH combat, but he'd
have absolutely _no_ chance of hurting the creature. Remember, dragon armour
is _hardened_. Hence we have a situation such as:
First we reduce the damage category by one. 26S
Since the weapon is non-armour piercing (ie is not an AVM or the like), we
subtract both the armour rating, and the Body rating of the dragon from the
Power. 2S
We then roll Body + (Armour/2) against the resulting damage.
Result? Absolutely _NO_ damage to the dragon whatsoever.
(Check the rules on pg 218 for the comment "Creatures with hardened armour
have an exoskeleton possessing the same qualities as vehicle armour." Then
check pg 108 for the rules I used above on vehicle armour.)
--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au
(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !au a19 w+ v(?) C++ US++>+++ P+ L !3
E? N K- W M@ !V po@ Y+ t+ 5 !j R+(++) G(+)('''') !tv(--@)
b++ D B? e+$ u@ h* f+ !r n----(--)@ !y+
