From: basestu@bnr.ca (Jean Giblin)
Subject: Re: Permenant damage in HERO
Reply-To: basestu@bnr.ca (Jean Giblin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 17:30:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.060042.29290@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <RATINOX.92Sep10200915@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu writes:
|> >* All Transfomation Attacks will either wear off over time, or have a
|> >  way of being immediately reversed. And that means anyone resurrected
|> >  by this method is meat on a spit. Again.
|> 
|> There is a way of immediately reversing the transformation.  Kill the
|> newly revived character.
|> --
|> "the bogosity in a field equals the bogosity imported from related areas, plus
|> the bogosity generated internally, minus the bogosity expelled or otherwise
|> disposed of."  -- K. Eric Drexler
|> 
|> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
|>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
I've toyed with the idea of ressurection myself, in HERO, but I must
admit this manner of working it out doesn't cut it, IMHO.  While your
method of reversal makes sense, it violates the spirit of the rules.

Let's just take that 'killing the person to reverse the transformation'
thing to another example, shall we?  How about:  transform into toad,
reverse procedure:  kill toad.  To me, that the reversing procedure is
worse than the transformation itself sorta flags it as being a bit
munchkin.  Sure the ROOLS don't say anything against it, but it's not
like it isn't obvious to anyone that the reverse procedure should have
some feasible implementation.  If not, we could use 'must poke eye out'
to reverse the transformation example they give for turning a man into
a blind man (I don't remember where..it's in the fourth edition).

Of course, the ressurection example is obviously a special case.  But
if we are to allow that method of reversal in that case, we have to
be prepared to allow it in other cases, if we are to be consistent.
Anyway, it just seem to me that what you basically said is "to reverse
the transformation, reverse the tranformation."  One could as easily
make the reversal of a man to toad be a corresponding toad to man
transformation.  While this does make sense, it doesn't really do
anything.  If you were not required to provide a method of untrans-
formation, wouldn't you expect it to work anyways?  (This is just as
true for the ressurection example).  What I'm basically saying is, a
limitation that doesn't limit, isn't a limitation.  Well, this isn't
a limitation per se, but you do seem to be dodging around something
that would normally hamper you.


Anyways, as for my ideas for ressurection, I came upon the summoning
thing, and liked it.  But the problem I found (with the transformation
as well) is that it did work, but there's nothing in the rules that
says that the result would be a PLAYER character.  Just because you
have something that looks and works exactly like the player, doesn't
mean the player should control him.  If that were so, we could have a
summon power that summoned duplicates of ourselves WHILE WE WERE STILL
ALIVE which we would use a PCs too.. sounds unbalancing.  My guess as
to why this is so, is BECAUSE RESSURECTION IS IMBALANCING!

Geez...

Okay, there are ways that I have found to fix that..

Does anyone have that old Dragon Mag where they give a couple of extra
skills and powers?  One perk I found interesting was effectively a
one-use all-sixes luck roll that was called Extra Life.  I don't see
any reason why it couldn't have a usable on others advantage on it...but
then, you could only use it once, and it would eat up your cps.  (15cps
one 3d6 all sixes luck roll)

The other (which works best with the Dr. Who example that someone gave
somewhere along this thread) is kinda a kuldge, but it works for me:
Considering that ressurection should only be done off-camera anyways,
being such a mega-powerful thing, why not ask the GM to just let you
remake your character, instead of coming up with a completely new one...
If your GM doesn't give new characters experience to match other PCs, fine,
the ressurection took something out of him, or give him weird psych-
disadvantages for having been dead.  If your GM won't let you back in
until the next adventure, fine, ressurection in xD&D always had a
recuperation time anyways.


For the Doctor, this was great, cause you weren't really twisting the
rules at all, 'cause each new character was a new incarnation..the
whole regeneration thing was just a device in you new character
conception.  Think about it..it might be interesting:  John the Superguy
could be the reincarnation of Jack the MegaGuy from a previous
adventure...give him psych. disadvantages that he wants to avenge his
previous death, etc..

None of the ideas have I actually used, however, because I usually GM.
Anyways..


Nok