Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Mark Steedman <RSMS@******.EEE.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Spells against Barriers
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 15:01:27 GMT
Georg Greve writes

> Gurth wrote:
>
> > Ram is a combat spell. I think you have to first double the Barrier Rating,
> > and then halve it, so you arrive at the original rating.
>
> Which means you wouldn't be able to open any security door with this
> spell and all occasions where it really matters you can't use it.
>
> So I think this spell is pretty weak if you use the usual (or even
> doubled) barrier rating.
>
> O.K. - I would like to discuss this topic a bit further, so comments
> would be appreciated.
>
ok.
My general opinion of RAM and Wrecker is 'a total waste of time'. As
you point out when you need them they are woefully underpowered. My
preffered solution is 'power bolt it', simple, metal is about target
5, or 8 if they messed about with it so much it counts as a complex
alloy, all you need is 2 or 3 success, bang deadly wound target
explodes, oh its barrier what??, well this is a combat attack spell,
armour/barrier rating is irrelevant.
Then you get the PC that decides to get to the next floor by acis
streaming the floor, melt. That one though fails on decent doors as
the barrier rating counts as armour at full value against damaging
manipulations.
Urban renewal though cannot be replaced by powerbolt as building
structures are not valid!, no you don't get to throw one lucky
powerbolt and watch a whole Archology come tumbling down!!!, just
becasue its a single building.
The what counts as a building [part of the planet though man made,
not valid vs powerbolt] / what is a valid 'object' line is another
fuzzy one. Any comments??, i generally rate walls, floors, ceilings,
anything you need to 'break' off as building, and doors, windows etc,
can be removed with a screwdriver(or similar) as valid.

> Bye...
> Georg
>
Mark

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.