headers
Brandon Cope | 1 Oct 2008 18:52
Picon
Favicon

[3e][25 point] Old West domestic help

All characters copyright 2008 by Brandon Cope

These two NPCs are geared for the mundane support of a party (or just a single PC) on the field.
-----------------------
Joe the Chinese Manservant
Setting: Old West

ST: 11 [10]; DX: 10 [0]; IQ: 12 [20]; HT: 10 [0]

Advantages: Absolute Direction [5]; Strong Will +1 [4]

Disadvantages: Compulsive behavior (Generosity) [-5]; Gigantism [-10]; Overweight [-5]; Poverty
(Struggling) [-10]; Social Stigma (Chinese) [-10]
Skills: Animal Handling-12 [4]; Carpentry-12 [1]; Cooking-12 [1]; Diplomacy-11 [2]; Fast Talk-11 [1];
First Aid-12 [1]; History-10 [1]; Judo-9 [2]; Literature-10 []]; Musical Instrument (Flute)-11 [2];
Packing-12 [2]; Scrounging-13 [2]; Stealth-10 [2]

Languages: Chinese (Mandarin)-12 [0]; English-12 [2]; Spanish-11 [1]

Notes: This rather imposing NPC came from Hong Kong at an early age. He has a relatively wide range of skills.
---------------------
Jane the Mexican Cook

Setting: Old West

ST: 10 [0]; DX: 10 [0]; IQ: 12 [20]; HT: 11 [10]

Advantages: Attractive [5]; Fit [5]
Disadvantages: Gluttony [-5]; Phobia (Magic) [-5]; Poverty (Struggling) [-10]; Semi-Literacy [-5];
Social Stigma (Mexican) [-10]
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jeff Wilson | 1 Oct 2008 21:26
Picon

Re: [3e][25 point] Old West domestic help (Brandon Cope)

> Joe the Chinese Manservant
> Jane the Mexican Cook

If the GM cares to give them slightly more ethnic names, Je (pronounced 
"jee" as in gee-whiz) and Juana are the equivalents.

--

-- 
Jeff Wilson - jwilson@...
< http://www.io.com/~jwilson >
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Brandon Cope | 1 Oct 2008 23:16
Picon
Favicon

Re: Re: [3e][25 point] Old West domestic help (Brandon Cope)

--- On Wed, 10/1/08, Jeff Wilson <jwilson@...> wrote:

> > Joe the Chinese Manservant
> > Jane the Mexican Cook
> 
> If the GM cares to give them slightly more ethnic names, Je
> (pronounced 
> "jee" as in gee-whiz) and Juana are the
> equivalents.

These characters are very losoely based on two NPCs in my GURPS Deadlands campaign, Fei Leng and Rosa.

Brandon
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Captain Joy | 5 Oct 2008 09:12
Picon

Regular vs Melee type spells question.

I just sent an e-mail to my GM, but I thought I'd send it to this list  
as well.

---   ---   ---
 From M11 on Regular spell types:

"If you cannot touch the subject, apply
a skill penalty equal to your distance in
yards from the subject; e.g., -5 at five
yards. Figure distance at the moment you
roll the dice for the spell."

I've been playing this as Doolish casts
at no penalty if he's next to the subject.
Now I'm wondering if there should be a -1
to skill if I'm not touching the subject.

If we do decide to go this way, then I
have a question about what I need to do
to touch a subject that doesn't want to
be touched?  I initially thought it would
require a roll to hit; but that would
make it no different than a Melee type
spell.  from M11:

"Melee spells “charge” your hand or
magic staff (see box) with harmful ener-
gies that affect the first target you
strike. These spells require two skill
rolls: a roll against spell skill to cast the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Funk | 5 Oct 2008 20:44
Favicon

Regular vs Melee type spells question

Assuming gurps 4e

> From M11 on Regular spell types:
>
> "If you cannot touch the subject, apply
> a skill penalty equal to your distance in
> yards from the subject; e.g., -5 at five
> yards. Figure distance at the moment you
> roll the dice for the spell."
>
> I've been playing this as Doolish casts
> at no penalty if he's next to the subject.
> Now I'm wondering if there should be a -1
> to skill if I'm not touching the subject.
>
> If we do decide to go this way, then I
> have a question about what I need to do
> to touch a subject that doesn't want to
> be touched?  I initially thought it would
> require a roll to hit; but that would
> make it no different than a Melee type
> spell.  from M11:

at less than 1 yard (3 feet), then the penalty is 0. A GM may enforce that 
<1.5 yards (1 1/2 feet) is required to round down to 0.

this is a reason to carry a Staff-enchanted two yard staff (see box p. 13). 
A full staff eliminates -2 in distance penalties for Regular spells, thus 
targets up to two yards away are effectively at "0" range for Regular 
spells.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Abrigon Gusiq | 6 Oct 2008 04:12

Tolkien - Middle Earth

http://www.othermindsmagazine.com/about
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Onno Meyer | 6 Oct 2008 19:28
Picon
Picon

[VEHICLE] of the week 728 – SAR Rover

  This is a weekly posting with GURPS vehicles (and the like) to the 
GURPSnet mailing list. I grant the permission for all non-commercial 
redistribution of my work, but I would like to know if you put it on 
a website or the like. My site is down for rebuilding, but sooner or 
later the old stuff should reappear at   omeyer.gmxhome.de
  Onno Meyer, 2008-10-06

SAR Rover v1.0 (TL10)
  Copyright 2008 by Onno Meyer

  The SAR Rover is a variant of the basic Transport Rover for Search And 
Rescue on worlds with little or no atmosphere. It consists of two linked 
units with four wheels each. The forward unit mounts the cab with twelve
seats, the power plant, and the life support. The rear unit contains an 
enlarged airlock and the medical gear - two automeds and an examination 
table. Other upgrades include a bulldozer blade and improved sensors.
  The Rover fits into Traveller games where contragrav is less effective 
(or more expensive) than described by GURPS Traveller. The cover of VXii
could represent a Rover with additional trailers.

Subassemblies: Articulated Body +5, eight Off-Road Wheels +3. 
Powertrain: 875-kW all-wheel drivetrain; 1,000-kW RTG; 16 360,000-kWs 
  rechargeable power cells.
Occ: 12 RCS.   Cargo: 380 cf

Armor       F      RL       B       T       U
Body:     4/120   4/120   4/120   4/120   4/120
Wheels:   4/120   4/120   4/120   4/120   4/120

Equipment:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Captain Joy | 7 Oct 2008 19:07
Picon

Re: Regular vs Melee type spells question

Thanks for your insight.

On Oct 5, 2008, at 11:44 AM, Eric Funk wrote:

> Assuming gurps 4e

Correct.

>> So, I can see it one of two ways.
>> A. It requires a normal melee attack roll
>> to touch someone who doesn't want to be
>> touched.  A successful melee attack roll
>> is required to successfully cast a Melee
>> type spell.  A successful melee attack roll
>> is not required to successfully cast a
>> Regular type spell, but there will be a -1
>> distance penalty to the effective skill of
>> the spell.
>
> yes, yes and no to your sentances.

Got it: so if I'm close--within a yard--but not touching, then I have  
no penalty.  Touching confers no bonus.

>> B. Casting a spell *and* attacking on
>> the same round is what Melee type spells
>> allow you to do.  Simply touching someone
>> you're close to, for the purposes of a
>> Regular type spell, is a free action that
>> does no damage in and of itself.  The hit
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Eric Funk | 9 Oct 2008 03:03
Favicon

Re: Regular vs Melee type spells question

> Thanks for your insight.

a pleasure to exercise.

>> Assuming gurps 4e
>
> Correct.

Note that most of what we're discussing is also in BASIC pp. 235-241.

> Got it: so if I'm close--within a yard--but not touching, then I have
> no penalty.  Touching confers no bonus.

Right. Regular spells /immediately/ affect a space, with whatever's in that 
space possibly resisting.

>> read M11, right column, paragraph 2:
>> cast the spell, then "On your /next/ turn, hold the spell or attack
>> with it."
>
> Right, for Melee type spells.  But, for a Regular type spell, I don't
> think you can have have you spell go off *and* attack in the same
> round.  Am I wrong about that?

incorrect. yes, I'm afraid that you are mistaken.

Regular are the most common, with effects activating /immedately/ after 
casting is complete. (see "Casting Spells" paragraph 4  p. B235) This also 
applies to Area, Information, and Enchantment spells.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Captain Joy | 9 Oct 2008 12:01
Picon

Re: Regular vs Melee type spells question

On Oct 8, 2008, at 6:03 PM, Eric Funk wrote:

>> ...for a Regular type spell, I don't
>> think you can have have your spell go off *and* attack in the same
>> round.  Am I wrong about that?
>
> incorrect. yes, I'm afraid that you are mistaken.
>
> Regular are the most common, with effects activating /immedately/  
> after casting is complete. (see "Casting Spells" paragraph 4  p.  
> B235) This also applies to Area, Information, and Enchantment spells.

B235 "Casting Spells" first paragraph: "...take the Concentrate  
maneuvers for the requisite number or turns....  At the end of the  
last second of concentration, make a success roll for the spell....  
Its effects take place immediately."

 From this I read that if I want to cast a Regular spell that takes 1  
second to cast, then my action for that combat round is to take the  
Concentrate maneuver.  I can not take a Concentrate maneuver *and* a  
Step and Attack maneuver in the same round can I?

> A Melee or Missile spell is special in that its effect is created in  
> hand, possibly enlarged, and then released at an unspecified  
> subsequent turn.

Exactly.  First one or more Concentrate maneuvers for the Melee or  
Missile spell.  Then, on the next or later rounds, you make a separate  
attack roll, and if successful, the spell energy hits its mark (and  
adds its damage to whatever damage the attack itself does).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane