|
2 years ago ::
Jan 12, 2011 - 6:00PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2011
|
Hi there,
I have a player who has a pyrokinetic doppelganger. What happens if he's riding a mount with his fiery aura? Is the mount getting burned every time it "ends its turn adjacent to the character", or is the mount immune to it? Does the aura emanated out from the mount? I'm not really sure how to do this. Thanks,
David
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 12, 2011 - 6:08PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
I would say the pyrokinetic player get a fire resistant mount.
But you could also say that part of his equipment is a fire proof saddle blanket. He can also control the aura so as not to burn his mount.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 12, 2011 - 7:26PM
#3
|
|
|
i have a pyrokenetic cockroach in the party i dm for and the aura thing has been an inconvience for both the player and myself. we got together and decided that it'd probably be better for both of us if we made it toggle like the human torch's "flame on". for a minor action he gets to turn it on and off.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 12, 2011 - 7:34PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 17, 2008
|
Yeah, I suggest doing what The_Reverend_Morbid suggests -- adopting the D&D rule that says an aura can be turned off or on with a minor action.
Also note that by the D&D rules, if the horse is being ridden, the mount does not have a turn. Thus it can't end its turn, thus it won't take damage. (See page 254 of the Rules Compendium.)
While D&D rules don't always apply in Gamma World, I think it's a good place to start when looking for what rulings you can make as a DM in your own games.
So yeah, turn off/on with a free action, and the rider doesn't burn his own horse as long as he's mounted.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 12, 2011 - 9:12PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2005
|
What Oraibi said. You can use 4E rules, which work on two counts:
1. A ridden creature doesn't actually have a turn, so doesn't take aura damage.
2. Auras can be suppressed as a (usually) free action.
Secondly, it's Gamma World. The rules aren't expected to be entirely fair, or balanced, but they ARE expected to be fun. So if something is a proble, just handwave it. Maybe the pyrokinetic extends his aura to his mount while he's riding something. Maybe it creates a bubble which excludes the mount, or maybe he just turns it off.
GW it about creativity. Let the player decide, IMO.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 13, 2011 - 3:17AM
#6
|
|
|
And its actually not even a question of using D&D rules, since being able to turn off an Aura is presented on GW p105. Its really a question of wether or not Fiery Aura is an "Aura" as defined under monster traits, or its just something aura-like that happens to share the same buzzword. 
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 13, 2011 - 10:06AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
@Serpine: I've maintained that Fiera Aura is "just something aura-like that happens to share the same buzzword," since the "Aura" entry on page 105 only applies to monsters.In faithfulness to my "Amazon Tribe" theory of GW, I'm going to try to answer this using only Gamma World rules. Fiery Aura only affects "creatures." Page 26 of GW gives us the best definition of creatures: Creatures or enemies: If a power targets creatures, it affects both your allies and your enemies. If it targets enemies, it doesn't hurt any of your allies. Enemies include anything that isn't your ally, whether it's hostile to you or not.
So, according to GW, "creatures" only include enemies and allies. A mount is listed in the "Starting Gear" table on page 75, so it doesn't fall into either of those categories (even though it's an animal). In fact, it's better characterized as an "object," like the other items in that table. It doesn't have full stats, and it's similar in usefulness to a pickup truck, which no one would argue is a "creature."
Since a mount is an "object," not a "creature," it is not affected by Fiery Aura. It can, however, still be attacked, since the definition of "Target" on page 26 informs us that "[a]t the Game Master's discretion, a power that normally targets a creature can also target an object."
So, to answer your question...the mount is safe. And we don't need to rely on D&D to get there.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:03PM
#8
|
|
|
A mount is listed in the "Starting Gear" table on page 75, so it doesn't fall into either of those categories (even though it's an animal)
Your creative definition of a mount as an object rather then a creature doesn't however cover what happens if the character is riding on one of the mounts from the creature section of FoG. Or are you proposing that a Podog becomes an object when hops on top of it, or that a flaming aura from a rider impacts a horse from the equipment table differently then Brutorz from that section.
I would personally assume that an Amazon Tribe with the knowledge of English and grounding in gaming required to use this product as a game rather then kindling or decoration ("Pretty box. Makes good hat!") might be more likely to believe that an "aura" is an "Aura" then that a horse is a piece of machinery.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 13, 2011 - 12:56PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 11, 2006
|
Your creative definition of a mount as an object rather then a creature doesn't however cover what happens if the character is riding on one of the mounts from the creature section of FoG. Or are you proposing that a Podog becomes an object when hops on top of it, or that a flaming aura from a rider impacts a horse from the equipment table differently then Brutorz from that section.
You're assuming rules that don't appear in any of the books. Unless I'm mistaken, the term "mount" is not defined in the Gamma World Roleplaying Game. There are no rules for a "mount," other than what's specified on the "Gear Description" table on page 76 of GW. There is no rule allowing you to turn a monster into a "mount," or describing how that process would work. So the rules, as written, do not allow a character to ride one of the creatures from the "Monsters" chapter of Famine in Far-Go.
I'm not trying to say that it can't be done. I'm just saying that it should be up to the DM's discretion, since there aren't explicit rules for it. My post above was an attempt to answer the OP's question while staying within the written rules of Gamma World. Other people didn't think it could be done, and used D&D rules to answer the question. That method is perfectly logical, but I disagree with it. I use the Amazon Tribe as an illustration—to the tribe, D&D doesn't exist, so all they have to answer their questions is the written rules of Gamma World. It's my belief that the game was designed to be self-contained, and so I adhere to that belief when trying to answer rules questions.
(To answer the second part of your statement: As a DM I would allow PCs to "domesticate" monsters and turn them into mounts. In an effort to stay true to the written rules of GW, I would probably also consider that mount an "object," utilizing some of the monster's stats for limited purposes. But keep in mind that all those decisions would be based on DM discretion; nothing in this aside is contemplated in the written rules of Gamma World.)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Jan 13, 2011 - 1:49PM
#10
|
|
|
So the rules, as written, do not allow a character to ride one of the creatures from the "Monsters" chapter of Famine in Far-Go.
Several of the monsters in question have notations about features that they grant riders, positive or negative, which would be rather useless if they can't be used as mounts (and this isn't just a "monster rules only" thing since there are no specific rules for monsters mounting other monsters either).
Anyway, to play devil's advocate here for the sake of the Amazon Tribe: Since "Enemies include anything that isn't your ally, whether it's hostile to you or not" says "anything" rather then "any monster" wouldn't all non-allied objects (including mounts, buildings, and that chair over in the corner) be considered an enemy? Since this is establishing the behavior of the targeting label "creatures" it can't be justified that the targeting is limited to "creatures" since that would be a circular definition.
|
|
|
