From owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Mon Oct 5 15:10:33 1998 Return-Path: Received: from lists.io.com (majordom@lists.io.com [199.170.88.15]) by pyramid.sjgames.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA17916 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:10:33 -0500 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by lists.io.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) id OAA07773 for in_nomine-digest-outgoing; Mon, 5 Oct 1998 14:13:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 14:13:26 -0500 Message-Id: <199810051913.OAA07773@lists.io.com> X-Authentication-Warning: lists.io.com: majordom set sender to owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com using -f From: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com (in_nomine-digest) To: in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Subject: in_nomine-digest V1 #964 Reply-To: in_nomine-l@lists.io.com Sender: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Errors-To: owner-in_nomine-digest@lists.io.com Precedence: bulk in_nomine-digest Monday, October 5 1998 Volume 01 : Number 964 In this digest: Re: IN> New Superior? Re: IN> New Superior? Re: IN> Hellacious stats Re: IN> Spawn Re: IN> Spawn IN> Spawn IN> Spawn IN> Ras al-Ghul RE: IN> Spawn Re: IN> Hellacious stats Re: IN> [NPC] Re: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal Re: IN> Discord Re: IN> Another convert Re: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal IN> A couple of questions RE: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal Re: IN> A couple of questions Re: IN> A couple of questions Re: IN> Hellacious stats Re: IN> A couple of questions Re: IN> Hellacious stats Re: IN> A couple of questions IN> EEEAMEEH Re: IN> Hellacious stats Re: IN> Hellacious stats IN> game quotes and a q. Re: IN> What Dreams May Come Thoughts and Musings ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:58:50 -0400 (EDT) From: Pee Kitty Subject: Re: IN> New Superior? On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Eric Kidder wrote: > It's 12am. I'm bored. My friend Hitherby has already broken our minds with > a new version of the Attunements for a Servitor of Faith. Hmm...any chance we'll see these? (Or did I miss 'em?) > So, I present my version of the Archangel of Coffee. Feel free to mock me > after a careful reading :) I'm pondering more Superiors along these > lines. :) Funny. Humorous, even. :) - -- Rev. Pee Kitty, of the order Malkavian-Dobbsian Meow! ::: Thinking about a Tampa Bay Devival in the future - email me! ::: Or go to http://www.cris.com/~pkitty (hell, go there anyways!) ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 17:36:26 -0500 (EST) From: Eric Kidder Subject: Re: IN> New Superior? > On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Eric Kidder wrote: > > It's 12am. I'm bored. My friend Hitherby has already broken our minds with > > a new version of the Attunements for a Servitor of Faith. > Hmm...any chance we'll see these? (Or did I miss 'em?) Ah, my fault - that was online on TooMUSH :) Lessee if I can remember.. Seraphim of Faith know a person's religion is wrong, no matter what it is. Ofanim of Faith can use the Ethereal Song of Projection without spending Essence. They firmly believe, although many disagree, that their Attunement is useful. Elohim of Faith, the most balanced of Choirs, can look into a person's eyes and know how far a person will go for what they most believe in. Mercurians of Faith can, by simply touching a preacher, teleport to any other preacher in sight. _Sigh_ All that I can remember :( > > So, I present my version of the Archangel of Coffee. Feel free to mock me > > after a careful reading :) I'm pondering more Superiors along these > > lines. :) > > Funny. Humorous, even. :) Ah, but wait until the Demon Princess of Donuts is finished. :) "Asmodeus and Dominic believe that have the world's police in firm hand, but both Archangel of Coffee and Demon Princess of Donuts knows who - -really- runs the police." - -- "Yes, evil comes in many forms, whether it be a man-eating cow or Joseph Stalin, but you can't let the package hide the pudding! Evil is just plain bad! You don't cotton to it. You gotta smack it in the nose with the rolled-up newspaper of goodness! Bad dog! Bad dog!" -- The Tick ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 01:48:34 +0100 (BST) From: Steve Jessop Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 eswhanu@juno.com wrote: > My question is then **Why** the upper limits on stats? 1) Because at the moment, a starting character Seraph of Dominic can get auto-success on his resonance in certain situations, with minimum check digit of 7. Thankfully, we have carefully-considered stat limits to make sure this kind of character doesn't get out of hand. 2) Because linear scale purchase systems *have* to roof somewhere, or you could have a starting character with a Strength of 27, which would ask questions the system doesn't answer. Like what happens when they sneeze, or lean against a lamp-post. > On a related point, an celestial with a 4 in Corporeal Forces, an 8 > in strength, and a 4 in Large Weapon (a combative, but non-Munchkin > character) needs to roll a (4 Forces + 8 STR +4 Fighting=) 16 or less on > the d666. In other words, barring Intervention, he hits, and does a > minimum of 5 Body hits on a CD of 1, without the weapon bonus added in. I dunno if that ever got errata'd, but my impression was that this is a changing-your-mind-while-you-write-the-book thing. The correct combat target number is (relevant power attribute) + (relevant combat skill) + (assorted modifiers). Adding forces is only ever mentioned for combat, and never in the same paragraph as a mention of combat skills... Bear in mind also that *everyone* gets passive dodge, and it is sheer insanity to expect somone to fight before you have trained them up to Dodge 6 (or more in the case of Mercs of Laurence). Combat between competent characters only ever needs dice rolls for Intervention. > I don't think I read the section wrong, as I just came from a gaming > convention and my Soldier of God that the GM looked over for me came out > with a Dodge of 14 or less, but is anyone as confused as I? Max human attibute is 10, not 12 (I think). Add a Dodge skill of 4-6 and Bobiel's your celestial guardian. Such a character would have to be 4-1-1 forces, though, or 3-(2,1) if you have Agility 8, Dodge 6. They would probably suck at almost anything else. Steve. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 23:17:00 -0300 From: Felipe Pereira Subject: Re: IN> Spawn At 02:51 PM 10/4/98 EDT, you wrote: >In a message dated 10/4/98 3:57:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >fwp@globalsite.com.br writes: > ><< How about Angela, what kind of Malakite she is, and her stats? >> > >Be more specific, is she Wynn's Side kick, Angel, or Lady Spawn > > Angel! And for the one that have the ideas about the Batman's villains, please send me. Just guessing, but wouldn't the joker be a servant of Kobal??? But two faces would be really interestiong, Malphas?? And the riddler? Poison Ivy would become an outcast servant of Novalis??? :-) How about Azrael ( You know, Jean Paul Valley):-) And Bane, what would you say?? Don't forget the frost demon, Mr. Freeze. thank you for your attention and ideas. Felipe W. Pereira a.k.a. Azrael fwp@globalsite.com.br ICQ number: 2192991 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:27:26 EDT From: Akumsa@aol.com Subject: Re: IN> Spawn In a message dated 10/4/98 10:30:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, fwp@globalsite.com.br writes: << Just guessing, but wouldn't the joker be a servant of Kobal???>> Possibly... But with less style then most of his servitors. <> No way! He has to serve Asmodeous. Justice has 2 sides you know. <> Kronos or Mabey a word bound all his own. Riddles dont seem to follow much, but using riddles to bait someone into a trap is kinda like driving tem to thier fate. <> She did her share of good stuff, methinks she may be Lilim, borderline Bright. She switches sides sometimes though, and is very honorable for a demon. <> Who? << And Bane, what would you say??>> Fluerty, Demon of Drugs, has to be, the guy is high all the time, since thats how he gets pumped up. He might be loaned to War though. <> Hmmm, thats a toughie... Considering his many one liners, Id say its a toss-up between Kobal (Ice to see you, batman), or Some sort of Demon of snow/winter/cold. There is a few left: Harlod Tempus, DEFINATELY a guy of Kronos. Kiodikan the Ninja, Servitor of Baal. ClayFace Master of Disguises, May be his own Word Bound. The Penguin, Word bound, Birds. And not necessarily working for Demons: Chief Gordon, Mercurian of Destiny The Armoured Batman (I think it was that suit the bat made), Archangel of War Robin (#2), Lawrence, AA of swords. Catgirl, Janus AA of Wind. Nightwing (Robin#1), Michael, AA of War - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- John T Perkowski, Ofanite of Arcade Games Maker of Attunements (Go ahead, Gimme a word and some details, and in 24 hours, you'll get yerself some attunements). ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:58:40 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Spawn >>>I'd like to think that this version is not munchkinish...just incredibly, incredibly tough and dangerous.<<< Yes -- it doesn't immediately get thrown into the munchkin drawer, because there's been some thought put into the design rather than a lot of arbitrary '6's and fanboyish new Discords and artifacts. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:58:35 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Spawn >>>Har Har har... Lets see YOU convert Spawn.<<< Not interested. >>>And it wasnt HORRID. Hmmph<<< A matter of opinion either way, naturally. - -David ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1998 23:58:46 -0400 From: David Edelstein Subject: IN> Ras al-Ghul >>>Actually, it means THE Demon's Head.<<< Actually, it means Head of the The Demon (and there is a slight semantic difference there), if you accept the very loose translation of "ghul" as "demon." - -David (relying on my rusty Arabic) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 00:08:55 -0400 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> Spawn > <> >Who? You know, "Azbats," the armored Batman - the guy who took over during Nightfall. I'd guess that he is ... um ... a Dark Malakite. (Pre Az-Bats: Malakite. As Az-Bats, Dark Malakite. Now, since he's striving for redemption, an outcast Malakite. Serving whom, though? Dominic is my best guess - fits the "Azrael punishes!" and "Azrael, the Avenging Angel of St. Dumas," etc.) Matt. [Angel of Weird Ideas, servant of Eli, kind of kicking it for now.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 03:29:08 -0400 From: eswhanu@juno.com Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats On Wed, 23 Sep 1998 eswhanu@juno.com wrote: > My question is then **Why** the upper limits on stats? 1) Because at the moment, a starting character Seraph of Dominic can get auto-success on his resonance in certain situations, with minimum check digit of 7. Thankfully, we have carefully-considered stat limits to make sure this kind of character doesn't get out of hand. - ----- Ok... 2) Because linear scale purchase systems *have* to roof somewhere, or you could have a starting character with a Strength of 27, which would ask questions the system doesn't answer. Like what happens when they sneeze, or lean against a lamp-post. - ----- Ok, this I know, and makes sense. But perhaps the game mechanic could have taken this into account, being that you should not have a starting character that tops out the probabilities. > On a related point, an celestial with a 4 in Corporeal Forces, an 8 > in strength, and a 4 in Large Weapon (a combative, but non-Munchkin > character) needs to roll a (4 Forces + 8 STR +4 Fighting=) 16 or less on > the d666. In other words, barring Intervention, he hits, and does a > minimum of 5 Body hits on a CD of 1, without the weapon bonus added in. I dunno if that ever got errata'd, but my impression was that this is a changing-your-mind-while-you-write-the-book thing. The correct combat target number is (relevant power attribute) + (relevant combat skill) + (assorted modifiers). Adding forces is only ever mentioned for combat, and never in the same paragraph as a mention of combat skills... - ---- This is the way I have been doing it, but according to everyone I have played In Nomine with at a convention, "I'm doing it all wrong". Just trying to get a clarification (any official-type person out that can give me a response to this?). Bear in mind also that *everyone* gets passive dodge, and it is sheer insanity to expect somone to fight before you have trained them up to Dodge 6 (or more in the case of Mercs of Laurence). Combat betweencompetent characters only ever needs dice rolls for Intervention. - ---- And this is the problem I have, that you only have to roll for Intervention! That is a 0.0046 chance of missing! You think there is something wrong with that? I do. Even with the roll for Dodge to take away body hits, it just seems ridiculous that someone would hit *every* time. In any other game system, that would be called munchkin, or an inbalanced system. But it's normal here... > I don't think I read the section wrong, as I just came from a gaming> convention and my Soldier of God that the GM looked over for me came out> with a Dodge of 14 or less, but is anyone as confused as I? Max human attibute is 10, not 12 (I think). Add a Dodge skill of 4-6 and Bobiel's your celestial guardian. Such a character would have to be 4-1-1forces, though, or 3-(2,1) if you have Agility 8, Dodge 6. They wouldprobably suck at almost anything else. - ---- Actually, that was including the addition of the Forces, with Agility 5, Dodge 6, Corporeal Forces 3. And he did not suck at most everything else, being that he was a former military attack dog (yes, I was playing a dog as a Soldier, made by Eli and loaned out to Michael) It becomes managable if you yank the use of Forces from the calculations, in which the book is unclean. ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:31:58 +0100 From: "Hart, Joanna" Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] BillionSix@aol.com: >It's nice to know that even in a country as notoriously >conservative as yours there are people mindless enough to base their entire >life around one sports team. I'd always assumed our hooligans had a rep for the level of mindless violence attained, but I guess not :) I'm not sure if it is as bad now as it used to be, but some of the worse types used to be very organised -- almost as if they really were conducting military campaigns against equally violent supporters of other teams. (Millwall, Chelsea, West Ham and Leeds were particularly notorious I think). >One question: Why Baal? Why not Belial? No special reason except that I've been using Baal as an adversary in my game and was considering ways to set players up with a demon that they should be able to handle, but would be good at using lots and lots of mortal resources rather than always going head-on. I'm sure the general idea could work for pretty much any calabite! jo - -- "I am not made for compromise; but it seems that in these wilderness years we become what we were never meant to be. Something less than we were meant to be." ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1998 16:00:01 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal On Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 03:34:08PM -0400, BillionSix@aol.com wrote: > I loved Nutter. It's nice to know that even in a country as notoriously > conservative as yours there are people mindless enough to base their entire > life around one sports team. > As an Irish person, and someone who therefore picks up a fair amount of English news, I find this deeply amusing. Some people would have you believe that England is the home of football hooliganism, but it does exist in other parts of Europe, too. There's a whole unit/division of the police devoted to nothing other than tracking down hooligans. Many of the more prominent hooligans are linked to neo-nazi or otherwise racist organisations like the BNP (British National Party) or Combat 18 (18 = AH, standing for Adolf Hitler). There have been a few incidents where riots at football matches resulted in dozens of deaths. > One question: Why Baal? Why not Belial? With his penchant for destruction it > would be appropriate. Gang wars are certainly something that I'd see Baal promoting, especially when they're mainly about issues of local pride. Speaking of films, ID (no, not Independence Day) is quite a good one about football hooliganism. The ending is somewhat predictable, but it's quite a powerful film. It can be rented in Ireland, but I don't know where else it can. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 11:27:32 +0100 From: Kevin Walsh Subject: Re: IN> Discord On Sun, Oct 04, 1998 at 08:25:49AM +0100, Jo Hart wrote: It also instinctively avoids dissonant > actions. Aw. If the celestial has more than one vessel, each vessel has its own > 'mortal personality' but they never overlap (he will genuinely believe that > he is different people, so any knowledge carried over from one vessel to > the next must simply be a sign of a strange mystical connection or mental > bond). > Yes! > (This would be an amusing one for Shedim.) But much more amusing for Seraphim. I find this Discord hilarious, overall. Kevin Walsh, Balseraph of Nitpicking, Demon of Off-Topic Trivia. - -- "We have been fortunate enough to live to a time when virtue, though it does not triumph, is nevertheless not always tormented by attack dogs." Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Gulag Archipelago. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 09:29:05 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Another convert Akumsa@aol.com wrote: > Batman is a Soldier of God, a real nasty one who decided NOT to > graduate to full angel status when he recieved his 9th force. I don't think I've seen this addressed, so-- Soldiers of God, being human, don't have the option of becoming angels. They can become Saints or Boddhisatvas, rather than ascending to the Higher Heavens, if they want, and if they can find an Archangel to sponsor them. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 10:05:52 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal Very nice. Okay, well, not "nice," but clear and, um, pungent. I didn't notice much impenetrable London slang. Has "droog" actually caught on as slang for "companions" or whatever? Does "dodgy" mean "illegal" or "shady" or what? An audacious servitor of Jordi might try to leverage the rats into getting Nutter to go Renegade. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT) From: EEEAMEEH Subject: IN> A couple of questions Hi there. Just a few questions that I thought of and wondered if someone could answer them for me. 1. What is the maximum number of forces a Soldier or Sorcerer can achieve. I know they have to have 6 Forces at the begining (either natural or given to them) but can they increase it. 2. Can Sorcerer's use Ethereal songs? What about Dream Soldiers for example Soldiers of Blandine and Beleth or certain worshipers of Ethereals? 3. Servitors of Gabriel must punish the cruel they have detected in 3 days or suffer disonance, and then go on to a next person. But what if, say an Elohim, detects a sadist and before he punishes them detects an even crueler person. Does he have to punish the first before going after the second or suffer disonance or can she go after the big fish and pick up the little one later, perhaps after the 3 days have elapsed without the pain. 4. Does anyone know what my fourth question was? I've forgotten. Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 10:58:39 -0400 From: "Matthew Stein" Subject: RE: IN> [NPC] Nutter, Calabite of Baal >I didn't notice much impenetrable London slang. Has "droog" >actually caught on as slang for "companions" or whatever? >Does "dodgy" mean "illegal" or "shady" or what? I kind of hope not; droog is, after all, from A Clockwork Orange, and is simply anglicized Russian. (Droog, in Russian, is friend - hence the reference in ACO.) Dodgy is kind of a synonym for sketchy, so I guess that it just means "borderline odd" more than anything else. (Incidentally, speaking of ACO, wouldn't it make sense if the scientists experimenting on Alex were servants of Vapula?) Matt. [Angel of Weird Ideas, servant of Eli, kind of kicking it for now.] ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 11:59 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> A couple of questions >Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT) A servitor of Yves, perhaps? According to my computer, it's currently 11:40 (EDT).... >Hi there. Just a few questions that I thought of and wondered if >someone could answer them for me. > >1. What is the maximum number of forces a Soldier or Sorcerer can >achieve. I know they have to have 6 Forces at the begining (either >natural or given to them) but can they increase it. This is mostly answered in the FAQ (http://www.sjgames.com/in-nomine/faq/). As far as I know, the only thing that limits their Forces is the human attribute maximum of 10, which means a human *theoretically* can go as high as 15 Forces. I'm not sure I'd allow that as a GM, though. For one thing, humans don't have the access to Superiors that normal celestials do, so that path of Force growth is unlikely. And I'd be *really* dubious about any human who went over 10 Forces on his own, since even the *potential* for adding a 6th Force is rare, and natural 6-Force humans are even rarer. This implies to me that "natural" Force increases in humans are rather hard to achieve. >2. Can Sorcerer's use Ethereal songs? If someone taught them (i.e., a summoned demon), they *might* be able to. I think the Songbook has more to say on this, when it's published (soon now). David? > What about Dream Soldiers for >example Soldiers of Blandine and Beleth or certain worshipers of >Ethereals? I believe it's in canon somewhere that Dream Soldiers can use Ethereal Songs (but there may be some question about Corporeal ones...). Certainly one of the FAQ items mentions this ability, in explaining something else. >3. Servitors of Gabriel must punish the cruel they have detected in >3 days or suffer disonance, and then go on to a next person. But >what if, say an Elohim, detects a sadist and before he punishes them >detects an even crueler person. Does he have to punish the first >before going after the second or suffer disonance or can she go >after the big fish and pick up the little one later, perhaps after >the 3 days have elapsed without the pain. I don't think there's a canon answer on this one. As a GM, I'd rule that they could choose either, as long as they punished one cruel person at least every three days (assuming they know of any -- if there's no one on their list, they don't get dissonance, but I'd still give them dissonance then, if they weren't *looking* for cruel people). For an Elohite, in particular, I think the decision would be based on it's estimation of whether the worse person might escape while they were busy with the current one. I think the basic issues here are the nature of Fire (burning quickly and moving on) and whether the character is delaying unreasonably and deliberately in punishing someone -- any PC who tries to loophole their way out of dissonance deserves to be hit with some.... >4. Does anyone know what my fourth question was? I've forgotten. Yves probably does, but he'd expect you to figure it out for yourself.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 13:12:12 -0300 From: Felipe Pereira Subject: Re: IN> A couple of questions At 03:22 PM 10/5/98 -0400, you wrote: > >Hi there. Just a few questions that I thought of and wondered if >someone could answer them for me. > >1. What is the maximum number of forces a Soldier or Sorcerer can >achieve. I know they have to have 6 Forces at the begining (either >natural or given to them) but can they increase it. I think that the maximum of force that a soldier can have is 5, and the maximum of caracteristics (Strengh, Agility, etc) is 10, you can see that it is the upper limit. >2. Can Sorcerer's use Ethereal songs? What about Dream Soldiers for >example Soldiers of Blandine and Beleth or certain worshipers of >Ethereals? Don't know, sorry. >3. Servitors of Gabriel must punish the cruel they have detected in >3 days or suffer disonance, and then go on to a next person. But >what if, say an Elohim, detects a sadist and before he punishes them >detects an even crueler person. Does he have to punish the first >before going after the second or suffer disonance or can she go >after the big fish and pick up the little one later, perhaps after >the 3 days have elapsed without the pain. I think he can punish the crueler person, but he has his his number in celestial forces to find the first one and give the punishment. >4. Does anyone know what my fourth question was? I've forgotten. > I dont know, but the answer is 42. Like a servitor of Janus would say. "The answer my friend is blowing in the wind." Was Bob working for him? > See ya; Felipe W. Pereira a.k.a. Azrael fwp@globalsite.com.br ICQ number: 2192991 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 12:08 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats >> On a related point, an celestial with a 4 in Corporeal Forces, an 8 >> in strength, and a 4 in Large Weapon (a combative, but non-Munchkin >> character) needs to roll a (4 Forces + 8 STR +4 Fighting=) 16 or less on >> the d666. In other words, barring Intervention, he hits, and does a >> minimum of 5 Body hits on a CD of 1, without the weapon bonus added in. > >I dunno if that ever got errata'd, but my impression was that this is a >changing-your-mind-while-you-write-the-book thing. The correct combat >target number is (relevant power attribute) + (relevant combat skill) + >(assorted modifiers). Adding forces is only ever mentioned for combat, and >never in the same paragraph as a mention of combat skills... Actually, no, it's in the errata... From the FAQ: - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What's the difference between the Fighting skill and the Corporeal Combat rules on p. 62? From the errata: Hand-to-hand combat is either [Strength + Corporeal Forces + Fighting] or [Strength + Corporeal Forces + Weapon skill]. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:31:16 -0400 (EDT) From: EEEAMEEH Subject: Re: IN> A couple of questions On Mon, 05 Oct 98 11:59 EDT Walter Milliken wrote: > >Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT) > > A servitor of Yves, perhaps? According to my computer, it's currently > 11:40 (EDT).... Good guess, servitor of Eli in service to Yves but I'm pretty sure 15 - 4 is 11. Thanks for answering my questions. Starsurfer, Seraphim of Creation in service to Destiny, Angel of Words ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 12:28 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats >2) Because linear scale purchase systems *have* to roof somewhere, or you >could have a starting character with a Strength of 27, which would ask >questions the system doesn't answer. Like what happens when they sneeze, >or lean against a lamp-post. > >----- Ok, this I know, and makes sense. But perhaps the game mechanic >could have taken this into account, being that you should not have a >starting character that tops out the probabilities. I suspect this was a case where they wanted simple game mechanics, and figured a ceiling was better than adding complexity to the skill system, or making die rolls more complex. One of the principles of IN design is to keep the mechanics simple and out of the way, sometimes at the expense of realism. The system is intended to be cinematic, not realistic, which tends to cause this sort of problem. >I dunno if that ever got errata'd, but my impression was that this is a >changing-your-mind-while-you-write-the-book thing. The correct combat >target number is (relevant power attribute) + (relevant combat skill) + >(assorted modifiers). Adding forces is only ever mentioned for combat, >and >never in the same paragraph as a mention of combat skills... > >---- This is the way I have been doing it, but according to everyone I >have played In Nomine with at a convention, "I'm doing it all wrong". >Just trying to get a clarification (any official-type person out that can >give me a response to this?). The FAQ and the errata are quite clear on this, actually. Elizabeth and John (the official-type people here on the list) are likely to just point you there. >Bear in mind also that *everyone* gets passive dodge, and it is sheer >insanity to expect somone to fight before you have trained them up to >Dodge 6 (or more in the case of Mercs of Laurence). Combat >betweencompetent characters only ever needs dice rolls for Intervention. Actually, this is only true for *warrior* types... A lot of angels and demons aren't necessarily combat monsters, and don't need to be. But they do wind up in fights occasionally. >---- And this is the problem I have, that you only have to roll for >Intervention! That is a 0.0046 chance of missing! You think there is >something wrong with that? I do. Even with the roll for Dodge to take >away body hits, it just seems ridiculous that someone would hit *every* >time. > > In any other game system, that would be called munchkin, or an >inbalanced system. But it's normal here... Remember that an IN combat round is 5 seconds. It's not all that uncommon for competent fighters in GURPS, for example, to hit more often than that, since GURPS uses a 1-second combat round. It's much less common in GURPS for a Dodge to be close to automatic, but then GURPS Dodge is all-or-nothing, while IN Dodge only reduces damage somewhat. Overall, you're seeing more evidence of the cinematic design leanings -- faster combat is better for a game which isn't really about combat, even at the expense of some realism. (If you've ever seen competent GURPS fighters in combat, with half-way decent armor, you'd know why they opted to leave out the realism aspects of combat in IN....) >> I don't think I read the section wrong, as I just came from a gaming> >convention and my Soldier of God that the GM looked over for me came out> >with a Dodge of 14 or less, but is anyone as confused as I? > >Max human attibute is 10, not 12 (I think). Add a Dodge skill of 4-6 and >Bobiel's your celestial guardian. Such a character would have to be >4-1-1forces, though, or 3-(2,1) if you have Agility 8, Dodge 6. They >wouldprobably suck at almost anything else. > >---- Actually, that was including the addition of the Forces, with >Agility 5, Dodge 6, Corporeal Forces 3. This is definitely incorrect, as I read the rules/errata/FAQ. Only the *attack* skills get the Forces bonus, not the defensive ones. > And he did not suck at most >everything else, being that he was a former military attack dog (yes, I >was playing a dog as a Soldier, made by Eli and loaned out to Michael) >It becomes managable if you yank the use of Forces from the calculations, >in which the book is unclean. The book only ever calls for them for attacks, as I recall, but is unclear on whether it's additive to attack *skills* -- I think the original text talks about Strength+Fighting in one place, and Strength+Corp Forces in another. This was one of the first things to be errata'ed, if I remember right. I'm pretty sure the official rules are: Attribute + Corp. Forces + attack skill (for combat attacks) and Attribute + skill (for all other skills) Note, however, that a few other things can result in nasty target number levels -- for example, a talisman with Dodge skill in it can be *additive* to personal Dodge skill level. So someone with skill/6 and talisman-with-skill/6 has an effective skill/12, which is otherwise not possible. Fortunately, talismans are fairly expensive, and also fairly obvious -- they tend to mark you as a celestial. And they can be stolen, or taken away at your Superior's whim. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 17:36:22 -0400 (EDT) From: EEEAMEEH Subject: Re: IN> A couple of questions Felipe Pereira wrote: > >4. Does anyone know what my fourth question was? I've forgotten. > > > I dont know, but the answer is 42. Like a servitor of Janus would say. "The > answer my friend is blowing in the wind." > Was Bob working for him? Bob, Malakim of Creation in service to Flowers? The Guy that fights Demons with a Punnet of Logan berries? or another Bob? Starsurfer ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 12:40 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: IN> EEEAMEEH >On Mon, 05 Oct 98 11:59 EDT Walter Milliken wrote: >> >>Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:22:54 -0400 (EDT) >> >> A servitor of Yves, perhaps? According to my computer, it's currently >> 11:40 (EDT).... > >Good guess, servitor of Eli in service to Yves >but I'm pretty sure 15 - 4 is 11. Actually, I was pointing out that your computer seems to believe it's in the Eastern US (or maybe Canada) -- the Eastern Time timezone -- while your address suggests your mail dates should be showing "GMT" instead of "EDT". The "Date:" line was created by your machine, not mine. Hence you appear to be several hours in the future.... >Thanks for answering my questions. No problem... it's more fun than doing work.... - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 12:41:36 -0500 From: Earl Wajenberg Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats Walter Milliken wrote: > One of the principles of IN design is > to keep the mechanics simple and out of the way, sometimes at the > expense of realism. The system is intended to be cinematic, not > realistic, which tends to cause this sort of problem. I guess the feeling was that "realism" was already negated by the nature of the game's premise, unless you have a particularly imaginative theology. Earl ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 05 Oct 98 13:19 EDT From: Walter Milliken Subject: Re: IN> Hellacious stats >> One of the principles of IN design is >> to keep the mechanics simple and out of the way, sometimes at the >> expense of realism. The system is intended to be cinematic, not >> realistic, which tends to cause this sort of problem. > >I guess the feeling was that "realism" was already negated by >the nature of the game's premise, unless you have a particularly >imaginative theology. Not necessarily -- GURPS is supposed to be a realistic system, yet covers a number of genres which are clearly not so. To speculate a little (I wasn't directly involved in In Nomine until fall of last year, though I've been a GURPS playtester and some-time writer for many years): I think this was more a matter of game "feel" -- that using a "realistic" game system like GURPS might have bogged the game down too much, especially in combat, when the focus is supposed to be on moral/ethical issues that aren't particularly amenable to quantification and rules. So, rather than publish IN as a GURPS setting, SJGames chose instead to create a lighter weight rules system. As it is, I know some In Nomine GMs who think the IN combat system is too heavyweight, and use more of a descriptive approach with less die-rolling. - ---Walter ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 15:01:44 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Seiger Subject: IN> game quotes and a q. Well, I ran the second session of my first _real_ IN campaign yesterday, and there were two good quotes: First, from my seraphim of Judgement to my Malakite of Protection, "Tim, Tim, you're the muscles, I'm the brains ok. Let's leave it that way." And second, from the malakite, "My resonance is _not_ hitting people!" Finally, my question: Can someone clarify the statement about using acrobatics in addition to dodge when trying to dodge non-missle attacks? I'm afraid I don't have the page reference handy, but I was trying to figure this out yesterday, and I'm still not getting anywhere. Thanks, - -Tim ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1998 12:09:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Jayson Howell Subject: Re: IN> What Dreams May Come Thoughts and Musings What was that? Did the long lost Angel of Widescreen Entertainment hear a question pertaining to a movie? First off, before we deconstruct it too much, the film was great. Usually, films don't kill the lead characters, and when they do, they usually muddle around on Earth (As in The Ghost and Mrs. Muir, Ghost, Heaven Can Wait, etc...) Very cool visuals, both in set design and in cinematography. The storyline was pretty cut and dry really, it dealt with a lot of internal growth and change. While personal growth is often an element in RPG's, seldom does it serve as a focus for more than an adventure or so. Players up to a challenge may enjoy the excercise, but action oriented characters may get a bit jaded. POTENTIAL SPOILERS BELOW! You have 10 seconds to close this mail. 10... 9... 8... 7... 6... 5... 4... 3... 2... 1... The biggest problem with adapting this to In Nomine is that the film takes an entirely different view of it's definitions of Heaven and Hell. In In Nomine, those domains are defined by selfless action and achievement of Destiny/Fate. In the film, these realms are defined simply as the ability to cope with what happened. Atheists don't go to Hell for sinning, they go to hell because their brain can't comprehend what's happened to them. They decided long ago existence ends with death, and now they can't reconcile the contradiction. As far as relating to the characters as Saints, it could provide a similarity as far as Saint oriented adventures go, with a few problems. First off, how do Saints sneak into Hell with Dominic's two guardians at the gate? Secondly, in the film, characters are much more powerful because their faith defines their environment. Not so with In Nomine. That being the case, where does the Saint's power come from? He's greatly outclassed in Hell. Scary place to fling someone who doesn't deserve it... I think the film is great for it's visuals of both heaven and hell, and the idea of games involving soul mates, but it can't be converted "as is"... there are just too many points of difference. Either the game gets butchered, or the film does. -Jayson a.k.a. Querent, Angel of Widescreen - ---Benjamin Acosta wrote: > > Has anyone else seen What Dreams May Come yet, and if so, any thoughts on > In Nominizing it? > While the Hell in the movie doesn't seem like anything from In Nomine, it > does give me an idea on another reason why saints are considered a > valuable resource in the War. They can sneak into Hell and not be > noticed, while an Angel would set off a huge disturbance. If a Superior > desperately needed information on what was going on in Hell, having a > saint or two sneak in to spy might be the only way he could get it. The > saints would be able to pose as damned souls, and songs and attunements > might give them the suprise edge in coping with the dangers of Hell and > escaping intact. _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of in_nomine-digest V1 #964 ******************************* The material here is (C) 1997 Steve Jackson Games, Incorporated. All rights reserved.