[Powers] Super Luck questions

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Quixotic Qlippoth

Nice troll.

SMH

No. I am not a nice troll. I'm not even a mean troll. I am a werebear with anger mangement issues.

If you weren't asking a newbie question about Turn order you should probably go back and explain what you did mean rather than insultiing people.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Lamech

Provide a bonus to resistance rolls. I suppose the GM should probably come up with something to replace it like for high pain threshold. (It is resistant to pain +3)

Good idea! Perhaps the +3 or +8 could work this way:

1. You roll the dice. Note your result.
2. Opponent uses Super Luck, chooses your result.
3. You can use the bonus +3 or +8 (in either direction, so, for most rolls, you'd want to apply -3 or -8) to negate the difference between your actual result and the result chosen for you via the application of Super Luck. This can never result in a better roll than the one you originally made.

For example, you make an attack; your weapon skill is 15. You roll and get 5; critical success! But your opponent has Super Luck, and decides maybe you rolled an 18 instead; critical failure! Luckily, you have Resistant to Super Luck +8, so you can negate by 8 the difference between the two results. Your roll was 5, the chosen "roll" was 18. You can push this down to 10 (=18-8). It's not a critical success, but a success is better than a failure and much better than a critical failure! OTOH, if you had rolled a 14, you could reduce the 18 to no lower than 14 (even though you have a pool of -8 to lower the chosen "roll", you can't make it better than the one you actually rolled).


I think this seems fair and balanced. Thoughts? I thought maybe price this as at least an Occasional category, but maybe price it as Common or even Very Common to represent a fair way to negate an advantage (Super Luck) that costs a lot.

[aesir23]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

Good idea! Perhaps the +3 or +8 could work this way:

1. You roll the dice. Note your result.
2. Opponent uses Super Luck, chooses your result.
3. You can use the bonus +3 or +8 (in either direction, so, for most rolls, you'd want to apply -3 or -8) to negate the difference between your actual result and the result chosen for you via the application of Super Luck. This can never result in a better roll than the one you originally made.

For example, you make an attack; your weapon skill is 15. You roll and get 5; critical success! But your opponent has Super Luck, and decides maybe you rolled an 18 instead; critical failure! Luckily, you have Resistant to Super Luck +8, so you can negate by 8 the difference between the two results. Your roll was 5, the chosen "roll" was 18. You can push this down to 10 (=18-8). It's not a critical success, but a success is better than a failure and much better than a critical failure! OTOH, if you had rolled a 14, you could reduce the 18 to no lower than 14 (even though you have a pool of -8 to lower the chosen "roll", you can't make it better than the one you actually rolled).


I think this seems fair and balanced. Thoughts? I thought maybe price this as at least an Occasional category, but maybe price it as Common or even Very Common to represent a fair way to negate an advantage (Super Luck) that costs a lot.

I like it.

I'd make it power source dependent, like Static and Neutralize, for balance and consistency.

Or perhaps, instead of making it Super Luck only, it could be Probability Manipulations (One Power Source only) and would allow the same resistance to Luck with Wishing.

[Lamech]

Originally Posted by aesir23

I like it.

I'd make it power source dependent, like Static and Neutralize, for balance and consistency.

Or perhaps, instead of making it Super Luck only, it could be Probability Manipulations (One Power Source only) and would allow the same resistance to Luck with Wishing.

Why make it power source dependent? Immunity to paralysis doesn't need to be power source dependent. Nor does immunity to mind control. Or immunity to fear. (A.K.A. unfazeable). I mean in certain campaigns it might not make sense to have a unified immunity to super luck, but ditto for immunity to paralysis.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by aesir23

Or perhaps, instead of making it Super Luck only, it could be Probability Manipulations (One Power Source only) and would allow the same resistance to Luck with Wishing.

Wouldn't that just be Static?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Lamech

Why make it power source dependent? Immunity to paralysis doesn't need to be power source dependent.

It also actually has a resistance roll. Which come to think of it, would be an interesting way to do attack Super Luck (Wishing).