Am I right or Wrong

[JmOz]

I want to know if I have been doing this wrong:

A character has a focus, let's say a magic ring (all those GL threads in Non gaming)

The ring is quite obviously the source of power WHEN IN USE (In example his Entangles come out of the ring), but during the normal day (when not in use) it looks like a simple ring.

I have always said it was an OIF, but I have been told it should be an IIF instead (and some official write ups seem to agree with IIF).

So am I wrong or is the person I was talking to wrong? I realise the GM is the final arbitrator, but would like a concensus

[Wormhole]

I'd go with the the IIF

[Blue]

OIF. Source of the power is obvious when in use is absolutely good enough.

Only example I can think off of the top of my head is actually OAF: The penguin carries an umbrella. Said umbrella shoots sleeping gas. It's obvious that the items in an umbrella, but it's not obvious it has powers until he actually uses it. Either way it's still a focus and it's still obvious.

Sidebar: Was there a modifier for an object being "concealable"? If so, you might consider that. Maybe it was a modifier for being unconcealable; if that's the case then they should take that mod if the ring was always obviously magical, and the normal bonus for OIF if it it's only obvious when used. Wish I had my book with me 24 hours a day!

[Bartman]

Sure sounds like an OIF to me.

[misterdeath]

You can put your OAF pistol in a concealed holster, and slip on a trenchcoat to hide the thing. That doesn't make it any less an OAF. In order to use it, you have to have it out and available, and so it becomes OAF.

So, using that logic, OIF. The power is obvious when the focus is used. You can't disarm the guy of it, so it's not accessible.

IIF would work if the ring is the source, but nobody can tell. That's what Inobvious means, right?

D

[coach]

OIF.

[Agent Escafarc]

I'd go the OIF route myself.

[Lord Mhoram]

Fred page 187
If a Focus is Obvious, it's clear to anyone looking at the character that the Power comes from the focus......
Some examples include most weapons (whose lethal capacities are easily percieved), a magic ring that glows whenever its used, or a shield.

There you go. Rules lawyering fodder.

[DoctorItron]

I agree with OIF because the ring has more limitations, and should be worth more points, than an inobvious focus.

The ring is obvious when in use. Villains can tell that the ring provides your powers. They can eliminate your powers by damaging the ring. It should be just as easy to target as an OIF battlesuit because it gets the same limitation. Maybe not "realistic", but it's balanced and simulates the genre.

(OTOH, as GM I might require the lesser IIF limitation if the ring is indestructible or can't be shot at for some reason.)

Another downside to obvious, rather than inobvious, foci is that you can't use them while in a secret ID or otherwise disguised. Sure, you can wear the ring in your secret ID as Joe Reporter, but as soon as you try to use a power everyone can tell that Joe Reporter is really Cool Power Ring Dude.

[Starcorp Man]

A focus's ability to be damaged has nothing to do with the Obvious/Inobvious aspect of the focus.

The ring would be an OIF, an IIF is something that is hidden, and isn't readibly detectable to an observer, a ring under a gauntlet or contact lenses or something.

[tesuji]

By the book, it is an OIF, obvious when in use is clearly an option.

Stepping beyond the obvious question to the inobvious reason for the dispute... os a ring that glows only when in use as limited as a power suit that is ovious always when worn?

I think the notion is that there will be time when the obvious weapon, the obvious battlesuit and such will be unavailable to the user BECAUSE of their obvious nature. You will not, with some battlesuits, be able to bring them with you to a fancy ball you are attending in secret ID or you might not be able to sneak the Death Blaster 2000 past the metal detectors in the court house.

However a ring that "looks like a normal ring" would get through those right away. Said ring would almost always be worn or carried and ready in an instant without a "change clothes" action required. Heck, if you do not have a secret ID, you can even use it with no concerns.

A battlesuit and such, however, are more problematic in this regard.

What then are the counterbalancing elements that make the ring get the same limitation value?

That, i think, is the source of the question. In fact, except in combat, the rings limitations are much more like an inobvious focus.

In combat, as an o**I**F it cannot normally be targetted.

Arguably, there should be three levels of obvious...
Inobvious at all times, even in use
Inobvious when not in use without concealment effort
never inobvious unless somehow concealed battlesuit, rifle

In PLAY, the way I would handle it as GM would be to have more "circumstantial" scenario effects affect the ring adversely as compared to the "more obvious" gun and battlesuit, so that the overall impact in terms of power downtime between the three is the same, as befits the similar limitation value. (The overall focus lim tells me how serious the problem is and i will use a variety of SFX to make it so, regardless of the "ring" "gun" or "battlesuit" descriptor. All saying "its a ring" does is determine which of the downsides is more prevalent, as a flavor choice it picks the flavor of the shutdowns.)

"Make a perception roll. You made it by three? Good. You notice that, as the fireball faded out, your ring seemed to be glowing strangely. It still seems to sparkle oddly now and again."

Then a moment later "You tried the ring and the command word but instead of a snare it sputters out some ash with a few singed web strands. looks like that fireball's magic has somehow caused it to malfunction."

Then "No, as far as you can tell the ring did not melt or wasn't physically damaged. its physical touchness seems to have withstood the flame fine, but it still has that intermittent sparkle and still seems to spit out ash and not web snares."

Then "How to fix it? make an occult knowledge roll?"

etc...

Overall, in the long run, its your job to make the lim matter. If they choose to make it a "harder to get to" flavor piece of gear, that just means you change the flavor of the limitations in play impacts. It doesn't mean you have to let it slip by.

[Stephen_H-G]

If the ring gives you the power it is an IIF. If the power originates from the ring as a source it is OIF.

[Syberdwarf2]

Originally posted by Lord Mhoram
Fred page 187
If a Focus is Obvious, it's clear to anyone looking at the character that the Power comes from the focus......
Some examples include most weapons (whose lethal capacities are easily percieved), a magic ring that glows whenever its used, or a shield.

There you go. Rules lawyering fodder.

Yup.

Sounds like OIF to me.

[Starcorp Man]

Originally posted by Stephen_H-G
If the ring gives you the power it is an IIF. If the power originates from the ring as a source it is OIF.

Actually that would be incorrect, it has nothing to do with the Obvious/Inobvious aspect of the power, the Universal/Personal option does.

[Talon]

OIF, but with concerns similar to those raised by tesuji. Such a ring /could/ be chosen by power-gamers just because it's a better OIF than a battlesuit; in such a case, the GM might need to provide minor drawbacks as a counterbalance.

[Starcorp Man]

But a power ring and battle suit are conceptional situations. Same thing if you played Mentallo the guy with the Mental Helmet or something. Why punish someone for conception.

[tesuji]

if this is in response to my post...

i am not punishing him for the conception.

I am inflicting an amount of probl;ems IN PLAY that are commensurate with the -1/2 he took as a limitation.

If he chose as his CONCEPT a battlesuit for -1/2 ... these afflictions will more likely be damage in combat and circumstances where he cannot take his battlesuit with him.

If he chose as his concept a magic ring which looks normal except when used for -1/2... these afflictions will match that flavor choice and be things like the ring going haywair when the character gets hit by magic effects or not working when certain planetary alingments occur.

When all is said and done, the ring will be "down" as often as the suit is "down" because they took the same amount of limitation.

[Starcorp Man]

Actually no, it was in response to Geoff's post, but I guess it can be said for yours as well.

With a focus, you don't have to have it missfire, get attacked or whatever to make the limitation valid, hell you don't need to make sure the limitation is constantly used. There's plenty of ways to do it, just because someone doesn't have a battle suit that's breakable do they have to have weird stuff happen to foci, to make the limitation valid. Caps shield never wonks out, it gets taken away, lost, or he can't pop it out due to his previous, now public identity. If said ring dude (Green Lantern) gets his ring taken away, no powers. Isn't that enough of a limitation?

[Celt]

Definitely OIF. While it looks 'normal' when not in use (it may otherwise be spiffy, gaudy, plain, have a whopping large stone, runes, etc.), it is obviously the source of powers when in use. Thus it fulfills the requirements of OIF.

As the GM for this I'd also occasionally have someone detect its magic dweomer for story purposes even when not in use.

[Wormhole]

Well, you can go OIF if you wish. But...
If the ring is built as an OIF, I would require that it look like something way more exotic than the average class ring or wedding ring- if you want something inconspicuous, it still has to be IIF. If the character actually has the audacity to wear the OIF ring in public while in normal ID, I would at the very least give a major NPC- friend or foe- a chance to recognize it and put two and two together.

Of course, that's just how I would do it as GM.:cool:

[caris]

Originally posted by tesuji
i am not punishing him for the conception.

I am inflicting an amount of probl;ems IN PLAY that are commensurate with the -1/2 he took as a limitation.


It sounded like the problems you were describing would those that came from having a breakable focus that had been damaged, and not the problems that would come from the focus being obvious. Two different scenarios.

When I take a limitation I expect to be hit with the downsides appropriate to the type of limitation I took not random ones that apply to the level of limitation I took. Having the ring not work until repaired, would be as disconcerting to me as if the GM were to ask me to make a 14- activation roll to use the fireball.

As a GM, I would go with increasing the number of people the character would encounter that would be able to recognize the ring for what it is. Since the ring is an obvious focus, I would discuss with the player what would be an appropriate skill roll and/or detects for people to be able to recognizes its potential.

[KA.]

Okay, a couple of things.

First, the ring is OIF. If it is obvious where the power comes from, when you are using it, then it is OIF.

The suggestions about having the ring "fry out" when hit with some certain attack, etc., do sound a bit like punishing the player to me.

On the other hand, there is a difference between a ring and a battlesuit.

Since the accessibility rules seem to apply mainly when "in combat", an encounter with Polly the Pickpocket might be disasterous for Power Ring Man. Taking away Captain Armor's battlesuit would be a bit more difficult!

KA

[cubist]

Another way that the ring is limited in ways that the armor is not... Power Ring Dude and his hapless DNPC (who doesn't know his secret ID) are robbed by a mugger and, to protect his identity and not get the DNPC shot, ala The Wayne family, he is forced to hand over his 'fancy'looking ring. When was the last time Iron Man was mugged?

[JmOz]

Originally posted by Wormhole
Well, you can go OIF if you wish. But...
If the ring is built as an OIF, I would require that it look like something way more exotic than the average class ring or wedding ring- if you want something inconspicuous, it still has to be IIF. If the character actually has the audacity to wear the OIF ring in public while in normal ID, I would at the very least give a major NPC- friend or foe- a chance to recognize it and put two and two together.

Of course, that's just how I would do it as GM.:cool:

How does that work with this



Fred page 187
If a Focus is Obvious, it's clear to anyone looking at the character that the Power comes from the focus......
Some examples include most weapons (whose lethal capacities are easily percieved), a magic ring that glows whenever its used, or a shield.

[Talon]

Caris is right that it can be unfair to players to surprise them with new aspects to their limitation. The right thing to do is to talk about it before the campaign starts: the GM should tell the player if he feels that an OIF ring is better than OIF battlesuit, and the two of them can discuss how to balance this.

This isn't punishing someone for conception, it's ensuring that different conceptions are treated equally. Someone who chooses a OIF battlesuit shouldn't feel like a chump if they could have picked a ring instead and avoided a slew of problems.

I often allow OIF battlesuits to take longer than 12 seconds to remove--which might be enough of a balance between the two.

[Talon]

Oops, double.

[Starcorp Man]

Okay Geoff but what if you make a character concept based of the Supreme Squadrin Dr Spectrum, who is basically Green Lantern. You have a power ring, the recharger for it for your end reserve and everything else, it's the character concept. How are you going to feel when your GM says

"Well since you decided to play a Power Ring guy instead of Battle Suit guy, I'm going to add these alternate ways to screw with you, just to make it fair to bob over there, occasional activation rolls, things like that."

"Um Bob didn't say anything about my character Power Ring, he helped me with my last 50 points. Isn't it Bob's choice to take a Battle Suit with Instant Change power ala Iron Man cartoon. He doesn't think I'm not being fair?"

"Yeah but well we still have to give you this extra stuff to balance it out."

"I didn't take an activation roll though, I could of and got more points...."

It's not fair. I don't know, I've never had a competition between players where someone complained that somebody else was getting something more out of it, it was always "Hay I'm battle suit guy, dude your a GL clone, that's cool." situations.

[Killer Shrike]

By the book it fits the mold for an OIF explicitly, but the Focus rules are abstracted to a certain extent. Basically, the player chooses how limiting he wants the FOCI to be.

It could be either an OIF or an IIF or even an OAF. The accessibilty of the FOCI just indicates under what conditions the ring can be taken away from that character. Can someone take it away while you are in combat or not. The Obviousness indicates if it is clear that the power comes from the FOCI or not. Obviousness also how noticible the item itself is = does it have some noticible function or not.

IF a Power Ring were taken as an OIF rather than an IIF as described here, only glowing when powers are used thru it, then I would still have the ring be noticed even while not in combat. The ring should be unusual and/or noticable, be detectable as powered by some odd sence or sences, be recognizable by some odd KS, etc. Those who know the character in thier Hero Id will recognize the ring, etc. If the player wants to avoid these inconveniences, they should take the ring IIF.


As far as applying random mystery lims to compensate for any perceived power imbalance between OIFs...personally I dont think thats a good way to handle it. If it bothers you that much, just insist the player take it as an IIF. Better to get 1/4 less of a known lim that to rely on random GMs discretion for compensatory lims. Arbitrarily imposing lims like that as the GM, particularly as extreme as the example given of effectively a burnout, which prevents the use of the power outright until the GM feels some condition has been met, is tantamount to a slightly less stringent No Concious Control, which is a much bigger limitation.

[Killer Shrike]

Also, another note, Id just like to point out that IIF is the same limitation value as OIHID. They are roughly equivalent in thier imposed downside.

Thus, if the ring is about as limiting to the individual character as OIHID, then it should probably be an IIF. IF it is more limiting, OIF.

In many cases, I find that a Power Ring particularly is really better handled as an OIHID, assuming the classic GL pattern where all powers originate with the ring.


YMMV of course, but it does get around the whole FOCI issue nicely.

[tesuji]

Long post for the punishing and you cannot add more stuff on me crowd...

As for the notion that these "compensating lims" are somehow surprises or sprung on the character... i will explain upfront that the focus lim can mean things like this.

As for the competitoon between players and somehow these occurances of "my lim affects me? What in heck are you talking about." being BECAUSE another player took a lim... nope. They occur because you took -1/2 and you should get as much headache for your -1/2 as any other -1/2. You should get more than a -1/4. You should get less than a -1. Just because you chose as your concept that "its a ring" and so you avoid some of the FLAVOR of problems that would have affected you if you had chosen a battlesuit or a cloak, does not mean that you get away with anything. You will be impacted as much as any other -1/2 will.

Thats the promise i made you and every other player when i agreed yours was a -1/2.

its my job to make that play out as such in my game.

As i explain to my players, the value of the lim is a measure of the severity and frequency of the problems ACTUAL occurance in play. If by concept or by design you manage to eliminate some of the SFX of the drawbacks, you just make it so that you get other SFX. The -1/2 WILL matter, not "maybe will matter" and the reason is because YOU ASKED FOR IT TO MATTER when you took the points as opposed to you "maybe took the points."

Now, should the GM limit his SFX, his "flavor of the drawback" to precisely what is in the text, well thats a judgement call. If you want to handle the OIF ring by having it stolen again and again and again over and over even when the player doesn't really make that reasonable, because the other typical OIF options are not really there (with the "looks like a normal ring except when in use" bit). then thats fine.

I prefer to explain to the player right up front that i will treat the limitation for the ring more fluidly, giving him more than just one flavor of the drawback, to keep it dynamic and interesting. If the player does not like that and wants it to be a predictable and static thing, i will likely tell him not to take any focus lim at all as he will not like how i run them. Try another character concept that we are both on the same page with.

IMO one of the problems with HERo is the notion of "sure i got 20 points back fir it being a ring but that means you can only follow this narrowly defined script of problems that I know about and can do everything in my power to make it hard for you..." etc...

Spiderman does not buy for himself "once in a year or so someone will hit me with an attack that seems to short out my web spinners by accident." yet, it happens.

Spiderman did not buy "once in a year or so my sipder powers will flare up in a bizarre manner and likely cause me some trouble." but it happens.

In HERo there seems to be a pervasice feeling that "if its not on my sheet and i did not approve you doing it to me then you cannot!"

Which is of course, a load of crap in almost every other game or story for that matter.

Last night in my supers game, about 1/3 the way thru a wave of powerful chaos magic swept over the city. It was felt most by the magically inclined. The PC mage knew, made his rolls, that this is a corruptive effect that will taint magic creatures and items and standing spells in dangerous and disruptive manners. he knew that living magics will be able to adjust and adapt, like purging an illness but static magics will need to be cleansed with rituals.

He figured out right there on the spot, the player did, that his AMULET OF POWER would not be safe to use and was effectively down until he could setup the ritual.

Amazingly, that was not on his character sheet.

Did he jump up and down screaming about how unfair i was? I didn't take the item from him out of combat? i didn't have someone pickpocket it from him? heck, i did not even damage it and he wasn't even sure of whether it might work or what effects might occur if he tried.

Amazingly, that was not on his character sheet.

Did he jump up and down in a tantrum?

No.

Did he wave his character sheet in front of me saying "you are only allowed to take it from me out of combat!"

No.

Instead he said... "So what kind of things do i think could have unleashed this foul magic and does my magic sense tell me where the source of this could be, perhaps just a direction that feels worse than the others?"

How he thought this up is still baffling because it, amazingly, was not predefined on his character sheet.

As they pursued his leads to the botched summoning and the loose balrog, he also came to realize that back at stately hawkstone manor, his home with magical wards and some normal servants and some conjured magical servants, the corruptive effect had indeed tainted the house and his living servants were engaged in a fight for their lives against the magical defenses and his four unseen servants.

Amazingly, that did not appear on his character sheet ahead of time either.

Right now as they approach the origin of the initial flush, i am tossing in the occasional description of the scene in the mansion as Dyffud the NPC tries to keep alive. The player is sweating each decision to pursue the greater evil, knowing his close friend is in grave danger back at stately warlock manor.

He told me before leaving last night how much he loved the run and is looking forward to next time.

Amazingly, that did not appear on his character sheet either.

One of the NPCs involved with the party tried her magic staff, she tried to do a neutralize, and it blew the living crap out of her and anyone in a 60' radius including several bystanders who were DEADED right on the spot.

Amazingly, that wasn;t on her character sheet either.

of course, we can do all this without impunity because we are not playing HERO.

Go figure.

In our preferred system it says about devices, roughly since book not in front of me, that devices will be limitng because they will on occasion be stolen or lost, be broken or damaged, malfunction, or just run out of power.

Then, it leaves those up to the Gm to handle and make happen.

No jumping up and down, no quoting the character sheet, just playing the game.

Thats not on the character sheet either.

YMMV...

[Talon]

Uh, what he said. :)


How are you going to feel when your GM says
"Well since you decided to play a Power Ring guy instead of Battle Suit guy, I'm going to add these alternate ways to screw with you, just to make it fair to bob over there, occasional activation rolls, things like that."

As tesuji said, it's not a question of making it fair to Bob, it's a question of making the limitation have the appropriate value. And by discussing it ahead of time, I get a chance to find out how the player feels and plan accordingly. Perhaps the player has an idea of another minor drawback which makes more sense for the character.

[Starcorp Man]

See tesuji now you're just being snide and condescending, do it however you want. What your doing isn't a focus limitation, it's situational modifiers. That's just DM Can Screw With Me This Much (-½) Limitation. Cool your players don't care and that's good and all, but it's not the limitation.

[Starcorp Man]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
As tesuji said, it's not a question of making it fair to Bob, it's a question of making the limitation have the appropriate value. And by discussing it ahead of time, I get a chance to find out how the player feels and plan accordingly. Perhaps the player has an idea of another minor drawback which makes more sense for the character.

When you pick a limitation, that's what the limitation is. Additional minor drawbacks, should recieve sometype of bonus, whether it's a disadvantage, limitation or whatever. You pick "Does Not Work in Water," that's what you get, not "Well there's water in the pond near you, so your powers don't work." Yes that's an extreme example but it's very similar. I have a sword that's an OIF, because it can't be disarmed or taken from me unless I'm out cold, the appropriate time to remove an OIF is done or it's Teleported away, or something along those lines, the character shouldn't lose the power unless it's done, or he gets into a situation that prevents it's use "Damn I can't pull out Soulcutter with the Bank Teller looking at me."

[tesuji]

WHAT!?! Are you accusing ME of not follwing the letter of the text when i runmy games!

My god man, how can you be so cruel!

I am wounded, sir, you have cut me to the quick!

I beseech thee, in the future, show others more mercy than you have shown my pitiful and weak sliver of a form this day.

ooooh, the pain, the pain.

:-)

In all seriousness, if all you got from that post was "just" snide and condescending, if thats the sum total of what you managed to gleam from it, well, then all i can say is... i clearly failed in my attempt to bring up the possibility that not following the letter of the text in something as dynamic as a superhero game is a possibility worth maybe a little consideration.

Of course, i do not have a page in the rulebook to cite for that bit. I am pretty sure its there however.

(Ok, i will confess, not necessarily in ALL seriousness...)

have a nice day.

enjoy yourt games.


Originally posted by Starcorp Man
See tesuji now you're just being snide and condescending, do it however you want. What your doing isn't a focus limitation, it's situational modifiers. That's just DM Can Screw With Me This Much (-½) Limitation. Cool your players don't care and that's good and all, but it's not the limitation.

[Talon]

Battlesuit: hard to conceal, has social implications (one doesn't attend dinner parties wearing one), generally indicates that the character has powers even when not in use.

Ring: Easy to conceal, no social implications, completely conceals the fact that the character has powers when not in use.

Ring is better than battlesuit. Depending on the campaign, ring may be significantly better than battlesuit. In some campaigns, players will never pick battlesuits because of this -- unless the GM does something.

In the ideal world, the GM could say "semi-obvious Foci get a -1/16 reduction in their limitation value" and be done with it. Alas, that can't happen. The reality is that the battlesuit's drawbacks are not worth another -1/4 and the ring's advantages are not worth -1/4 less. One way to address this is to apply other "quirks" to offset the minor advantages of the ring.

Look at it this way: if I said "Bob, your battlesuit is weaker than this OIF ring...so I'll say it takes longer to remove against your will than a normal OIF." Would that be OK?

[Starcorp Man]

No tesuji, I got more from it then that, it's just the other stuff that killed it, sorry. Like I said, that's cool for how you run your game, and it's cool your players like that but it is beyond the scope of the limitation, and that's all I was saying. It is applying more to the limitation then what the limitation is.

Between you and Geoff, man does all your players only look at the cost ratio/benefit of everything, throwing conception to the wind so their battle suits or whatever won't be affected?

[Rick]

OIF

[tesuji]

Originally posted by Starcorp Man

but it is beyond the scope of the limitation, and that's all I was saying. It is applying more to the limitation then what the limitation is.

The difference between you and me is you seem to think that is a significant point whereas i think it matters not a whit.


Originally posted by Starcorp Man

Between you and Geoff, man does all your players only look at the cost ratio/benefit of everything, throwing conception to the wind so their battle suits or whatever won't be affected?


Nope, not hardly.

Matter of fact, since both geoff and i are speaking of how the GM handles the lims, i am curious as to how you derive a question about the players at all.

In that post you got so little from, i described my player taking it in stride, not being all up in arms about whether this event was "within the letter of the limitation."

I am very pleased with my players. They arw wonderful, clever folks and they make my job that much more enjoyable.

[Old Man]

I think it laso has to do with where the powers originate from.

If a guy wears a magic amulet that lets him shoot fire from his hands it would IIF. If the fire comes from the amulet then it's OIF.

[FTJoshua]

I'm with Shadowpup. That's exactly what I was thinking when I voted in favor of OIF based on the original description provided in the thread.

[caris]

Originally posted by Geoff Speare
Battlesuit: hard to conceal, has social implications (one doesn't attend dinner parties wearing one), generally indicates that the character has powers even when not in use.

<snip>

Look at it this way: if I said "Bob, your battlesuit is weaker than this OIF ring...so I'll say it takes longer to remove against your will than a normal OIF." Would that be OK?

If you like you could do that, or you could turn to Bob and say, "Hey, Bob, you know your character concept lends itself to the Distinctive Features, Disadvantage. I'm going to impose it on you anyway why don't you take it and spare yourself the headache of that (insert appropriate disad here) you were going to take?"

All the limitations that you are describing that Bob is under aren’t really necessarily appropriate in a lot of Superhero Campaigns, or inherent to the Focus limitation. When Iron Man is invited to a dinner party, he shows up in his armor. When Tony Stark is invited to a dinner party, he doesn’t wear the armor. The reason for that is Tony Stark took a social disadvantage, not because he took the limitation focus.

Alternatively, you could point out Bob that his armor only has to be noticeable when he is using a power. Normally, the reason that the battlesuit is obviously a focus is because it is always giving the wearer armor. Steve has implied that there is no mechanical reason, for players with foci to have their foci look like a focus during the time they are not in use. A sword cane is still an OAF, or Thor's hammer (back when it could turned into a cane) is still an OIF (after they stopped having people keeping it from him, when it was an SFX for his OIHID and accidental change). Therefor Bob does not need to justify why his battlesuit doesn’t look like a battlesuit when he isn’t getting the power Armor from it. It just doesn’t.

Another possibility is to point out to Bob that he could increase the ways that the armor is limited a bit, maybe making it so that the armor requires more than a zero phase action to put on, and you will let him add a custom limitation to the power. Of course, I’ve noticed that apparently a lot of GMs here consider that part of the focus limitation, when the focus is defined as power armor, but that is for another thread entirely.

[JmOz]

Well I am one GM that does not consider it part of it, as such MOST power armor characters in my games take a Extra Time, only to activate on the majority of there powers as well (most leave there attack powers out)