G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...

There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.

I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...


------
Recovering MCSE/MCT/MCP
"Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they
have rebelled they cannot become conscious." -- Winston Smith, _1984_
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

NonMCSE wrote:
> I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...
>
> There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
> Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
> Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
> I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
>
> I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

Depends how similar it is to the one in the Tomb - that one
was a special Sphere that was immovable, IIRC.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players had
been known to drain seas with them.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

John H wrote:
> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
had
> been known to drain seas with them.

I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
interesting whirlpools and such.

Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

NonMCSE wrote:

> I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...
>
> There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
> Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
> Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
> I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
>
> I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

Possible Ecological Havoc.

How fast does the water get destroyed?
Does it, since air doesn't?
Maybe the Sphere only affects "objects".
But if it will destroy water then that sea likely links to other
seas including surface ones. Possible eventual loss of much of
the water in the world unless you are sure you can get someone there
to move the sphere back above water.

Plus the water will replenish to a higher level as new water filters in.
(IOW, dry out a lake, it will refill as streams or rain empty into it.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

NonMCSE <midnightcomp@comcast.net> wrote:
>I love when the DM doesn't take consequences into account...

>There's a trap near the drow city Orbb Elg'cahl. It's a Sphere of
>Annihilation, similar to the Tomb of Horrors.
>Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
>I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.

>I'm looking for a downside, but I'm not seeing one...

Well, it's not the easiest thing in the world to move, but
if you can make the checks, yeah, it sounds like a good plan.
Why only 100 feet below sea level, though? Get yourself some
protective and breathing magic and send it straight to the bottom.

As far as downsides go, who or what else relies on that
underground sea? If a non-evil city also needs it, you're
screwing them over, too. And if it's got anything living
in it (and every proper underground sea has at least
dinosaurs in it) you'll be killing all of them, as well.
You wouldn't kill all of them if you stuck to 100 feet
below the surface, so that might be a good idea.

Another, riskier tactic, would be to move the Sphere
into an important area of the Drow city and cast Gate
on it. You'd have a 15% chance of essentially destroying
a large chunk of the city. That'd ruin their day. Of
course, you'd have an 85% chance of not doing anything
in particular besides probably destroying the Sphere.

The danger of bringing the thing inside the Drow city,
of course, is that someone's going to try to steal
control away from you. That could end badly.

I can't think of any other uses against the city without
knowing more about the geography of the area. It's
underground, obviously. Is it in a huge cavern? The
roof high above the city, I mean? If so you might be
able to use the sphere to cause ginormous hunks of rock
to fall on the city. It'd be tricky as hell to manage
seeing exactly where the Sphere is as you work, though,
not to mention that you'd have to avoid detection.

You could do something similar with Transmute Rock to Mud,
of course, especially if you then followed it up with
Transmute Mud to Rock. The inhabitants of this kind of
city might put a lot of effort into fiddling with the roof
of the cavern until it counts as "worked stone," though.

Pete
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
> John H wrote:
>> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
>> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
>> had been known to drain seas with them.
>
> I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
> the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
> from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
> had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
> it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
> up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
> inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
> interesting whirlpools and such.

I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless Water
dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to create
biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate number of
endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably balanced by the number
of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.

--
Mark.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
news:399f8vF5u8jhnU1@individual.net:

> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
>> John H wrote:
>>> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
>>> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
>>> had been known to drain seas with them.
>>
>> I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
>> the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
>> from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
>> had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
>> it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
>> up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
>> inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
>> interesting whirlpools and such.
>
> I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless
> Water dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to
> create biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate
> number of endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably
> balanced by the number of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.
>
Perhaps a SoA is what's left after you create a DEW.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:05:10 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
>it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
>of the planet)?

"A sphere of annihilation is static, resting in some spot as if it were a normal
hole"

If it can be shown that an SOA has mass, or weight, then it should be affected
by gravity. What is an SOA made of? The text calls it "nothingness" with a shape
of 2-foot-diameter sphere.

I rather think that if an SOA existed, what would actually happen is not that
the SOA falls to the center of the planet, but that the planet would be drawn
wholly to the SOA until its center of mass was coincident with the SOA, all the
while being slowly eaten away.

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I always assumed in my games that it levitated slightly above what ever
surface it was near. And that only matter actually touching it would get
annihilated. It would actually float above the water if controlled by a
character and only submerge if forced to do so by the controller.

Matthias wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 00:05:10 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
>>it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
>>of the planet)?
>
>
> "A sphere of annihilation is static, resting in some spot as if it were a normal
> hole"
>
> If it can be shown that an SOA has mass, or weight, then it should be affected
> by gravity. What is an SOA made of? The text calls it "nothingness" with a shape
> of 2-foot-diameter sphere.
>
> I rather think that if an SOA existed, what would actually happen is not that
> the SOA falls to the center of the planet, but that the planet would be drawn
> wholly to the SOA until its center of mass was coincident with the SOA, all the
> while being slowly eaten away.
>
> --
>
> Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)
>
> "Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
> do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
> when they're out of their depth."
> -Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"No 33 Secretary" <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96149E3902311taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50...
> "Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> wrote in
> news:399f8vF5u8jhnU1@individual.net:
>
>> firelock_ny@hotmail.com wrote:
>>> John H wrote:
>>>> There was a rule once that there were 2 items players could never
>>>> create themselves. One was Sphere of Annihilation because players
>>>> had been known to drain seas with them.
>>>
>>> I wonder how the SoA water annihilation rate compares
>>> the average ocean's rate of evaporation? I remember
>>> from the AD&D Manual of the Planes that most oceans
>>> had at least one elemental gate to the Plane of Water,
>>> it may be the flow rate from a Water Gate would make
>>> up for one or more submerged SoA's - though the water
>>> inflow to a submerged SoA could make for some
>>> interesting whirlpools and such.
>>
>> I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless
>> Water dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to
>> create biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate
>> number of endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably
>> balanced by the number of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.
>>
> Perhaps a SoA is what's left after you create a DEW.


or drop a LOAD
--
zimriel sbc dot
at global net
..
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/zimriel/
*new improved shorter .sig*
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Mark Blunden" <m.blundenATntlworld.com@address.invalid> writes:


>I've seen several suggestions related to using Decanters of Endless Water
>dropped into the ocean on maximum setting as an attempt to create
>biblical-style floods. Maybe, on a global level, the aggregate number of
>endless-decanter-flooder-conspiracies is comfortably balanced by the number
>of annihilation-sphere-drainer-conspiracies.

That's brilliant, and it also gives True Neutrals something
to conspire about.


--
Chimes peal joy. Bah. Joseph Michael Bay
Icy colon barge Cancer Biology
Frosty divine Saturn Stanford University
www.stanford.edu/~jmbay/ got my mojo properly adjusted
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
>>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
>>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
>>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
>>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.


Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
rock will rotate around the big rock? This of course leads to the
obvious conclusion that everything that falls, spins around it's
center of mass. As your head heads for the ground, your feet would
float up off the ground, briefly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in news:4230559f.133190964
@news.telusplanet.net:

> As your head heads for the ground, your feet would
> float up off the ground, briefly.
>
>

I believe this is called a "facefault"

--
Shadow Wolf
shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:

>
>>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
>>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
>>>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
>>>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
>>>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
>>>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.
>
>
> Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
> rock will rotate around the big rock?

Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply trail
behind at the length of the rope.

And since it was my world, my imagining would be the most important.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you keep
>it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to the center
>of the planet)?

Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem and embed
a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark portal.
--
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:

> In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you
>>keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to
>>the center of the planet)?
>
> Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
> and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
> portal.

I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way too
much time on one's hands.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 10:33:00 -0500, "NonMCSE" <midnightcomp@comcast.net> wrote:


>Less than three hundred yards away is a massive sea.
>I say we move the Sphere to 100 feet below sea level, and walk away.
>

One wonders what would happen if it got moved way down. I'm thinking the earth's core, but you'd probably get
bored before it got there. Still do a lot of damage, tho, over time, once it hits the molten part.
 

Matthias

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2003
137
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:19:24 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
>news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:
>
>> In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
>> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do you
>>>keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing to
>>>the center of the planet)?
>>
>> Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
>> and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
>> portal.
>
>I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way too
>much time on one's hands.

And what's wrong with that ! :)

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
>news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:
>
>>
>>>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
>>>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients thought
>>>>>they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself - a modern,
>>>>>educated professional engineer - who wanted his character to be a
>>>>>military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he figured out that a
>>>>>big rock really did fall faster than a small rock.
>>
>>
>> Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
>> rock will rotate around the big rock?

Actually I should have said "swing around". It won't complete an
orbit.

>
>Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
>combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply trail
>behind at the length of the rope.

If they are dropped while side by side then the slower rock will,
constrained by the rope, move in a circle imparting angular momentum
to the faster rock which will begin to rotate back and forth as the
smaller rock tic-tocs from side to side like a upside-down pendulum.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
>> thing came from.
>>
>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum cannot,
>under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the barrel
>pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants, that is.)

Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing. Doubled for a Head
shot, that's a maximum damage of 24. Typical person has 8 to 10 body.

Instant death. Or do you think of hit location as a "variant"?. But
if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
them dead by GM fiat.)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:42307fac.143957963@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:04:04 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
>>news:4230559f.133190964@news.telusplanet.net:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>(And, BTW, one of my favorite hobbies is to screw with the basic
>>>>>>physics of the world, to make things work the way the ancients
>>>>>>thought they did. Had a blast with a guy who was running himself -
>>>>>>a modern, educated professional engineer - who wanted his
>>>>>>character to be a military engineer. Imagine his confusion when he
>>>>>>figured out that a big rock really did fall faster than a small
>>>>>>rock.
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that mean that if you tie a big rock to a small rock, the small
>>> rock will rotate around the big rock?
>
> Actually I should have said "swing around". It won't complete an
> orbit.
>
>>
>>Why would that be the case? Assuming you're talking about dropping the
>>combined rock structure, I would imagine the little rock would simply
>>trail behind at the length of the rope.
>
> If they are dropped while side by side then the slower rock will,
> constrained by the rope, move in a circle imparting angular momentum
> to the faster rock which will begin to rotate back and forth as the
> smaller rock tic-tocs from side to side like a upside-down pendulum.
>
I don't see it that way at all. There's a continuous force on the small
rock, relative to the larger one, that simply pulls the rope taught, and
keeps it that way.

(Are you beginning to understand why the licensed, professional engineer
who ran the character found it . . . challenging?)

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:cdm131d0af1ejuk2mjbcqtgjlrl0trjnv2@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 21:19:24 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote in
>>news:d0qcpb$77v$1@knot.queensu.ca:
>>
>>> In article <Xns9614A3A334828taustinhyperbookscom@216.168.3.50>,
>>> No 33 Secretary <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>>>Does it say that a SoA isn't affected by gravity? If not, *how* do
>>>>you keep it in a box, without it simply falling out (and continueing
>>>>to the center of the planet)?
>>>
>>> Just do what Gygax and design-alikes did: totally ignore the problem
>>> and embed a sphere of annihilation in a wall to look like a dark
>>> portal.
>>
>>I agree completely. Worrying about such things is a sign of having way
>>too much time on one's hands.
>
> And what's wrong with that ! :)
>
You go through a lot of soap trying to wash it off.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:423080f7.144288849@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
>>> thing came from.
>>>
>>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum
>>cannot, under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the
>>barrel pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants,
>>that is.)
>
> Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing.

Ah. I recalled it as 1d6+1. Has it changed? Or has it just been too long.

(Nevertheless, it's not nearly enough damage.)

> Doubled for a Head
> shot, that's a maximum damage of 24. Typical person has 8 to 10 body.
>
> Instant death. Or do you think of hit location as a "variant"?.

Technically, it is optional, but I was assuming its use. Just had the
damage wrong.

>But
> if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
> someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
> them dead by GM fiat.)
>
Only if the GM doesn't worship the rules to excess.

But let's face it, Hero isn't *supposed* to be realistic.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 23:53:37 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:

>rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
>news:423080f7.144288849@news.telusplanet.net:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 22:41:39 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> ...which is of course where the "guns=magic wands of instant death"
>>>> thing came from.
>>>>
>>>Yeah. Or you could go the other way, like Hero, where a .44 magnum
>>>cannot, under any circumstances, instantly kill someone, even with the
>>>barrel pressed to the base of the victim's skull. (Without variants,
>>>that is.)
>>
>> Do tell? Lemme see now. 44 mag does 2d6 killing.
>
>Ah. I recalled it as 1d6+1. Has it changed? Or has it just been too long.

No, 1d+1 was the damage for a more typically sized gun like a 9mm, or
a .38 special.

>>But
>> if you have no hit locations, how can you press a gun to the base of
>> someone skull except by GM fiat? (In which case you can also declare
>> them dead by GM fiat.)
>>
>Only if the GM doesn't worship the rules to excess.
>
>But let's face it, Hero isn't *supposed* to be realistic.

Realism is supposed to be an optional add-on to Hero.
 

TRENDING THREADS