Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[RDU Neil]

There has been a lot of discussion, and I feel a good consensus, on the topic of Limitations, and the fact that they are not created equal. One -1/2 Limitation is not nearly as limiting as another "canon" -1/2 limitation. (Say IAF vs. 14 or less activation as an example IMO).

To this point, I have two questions:

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power. Again, this is anecdotal... but really bugs me.

My main thought is this. A Focus is really only a limitation if it can be taken away/lost in combat. It is not, in any way, worth cutting the price in HALF, most of the time.

To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

Obvious Focus -1/2
Inobvious Focus -1/4

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

My reasons for this are following.

If a character is knocked out or otherwise rendered incapacitated... they are at GM's mercy. If they have a standard issue OIF... it can be taken away to "remove the power"... but heck, as GM I can also have the character shot up with a "Genetic inhibitor" that temporarily inhibits their mutant powers... or implanted with a "mental command" that makes them not use their powers... or WHATEVER GM fiat I see fit. Whether you have a focus or not really doesn't factor into it. Maybe it makes it more "story likely" that the focus is taken... but that really doesn't rate the extra savings derived from a -1 limitation.

I'm sure others will disagree... but I wondered if anyone else had changed the focus limitation in their games. How did it work out?

[BNakagawa]

acessible vs inacessible is still a valid distinction.

There are many more ways to screw with an accessible focus than an inacessible one.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Actually, I think I have to disagree with you, RDU Neil. Here's an example why:

Say the power is in a suit of powered armor. Out of combat (assuming the wearer is knocked out) all that's generally necessary to keep him under restraint is to take his armor off him then use some perfectly ordinary rope, handcuffs, or a simple locked door.

For someone with innate powers, you have to resort to mind control, "power damper" cuffs, an anti-mutant nanobot injection, or whatever. That takes all kinds of special resources. Granted, those are "standard things" from a comic book standpoint, but not everybody in comic books has access to those.

For a guy in a powered armor suit, or whose powers all come from his Staff of the Cosmos or whatever, the Little Old Lady From Pasadena or a reasonably competent 10-year-old can set things up while he's unconcious to keep him restrained.

In other words, for someone whose powers come primarily from a focus, everybody in the world is a potential threat in that they have a way to keep him from using his powers once he's knocked out. For someone whose powers are innate, you need another metahuman or high-tech organization to do that.

I think that's more potentially limiting that your take on things indicates.

YMMV. :)

[Log-Man]

...To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

Obvious Focus -1/2
Inobvious Focus -1/4

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff...

I think it should be the other way around, actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor. I do agree that the limits should be reduced. I've just seen far too many battlesuits and powered armors where the limit never comes into play. Just like an OIHID character that never turns normal. Very annoying.

[Gary]

I'm inclined to agree that focus gives too much of a benefit (assuming that the focus must be specifically targetted to take damage, as the majority of GMs seem to rule). I'd probably go with something like this:

IIF = 0
IAF/OIF = -1/4
OAF = -1/2

However, if any random area effect attack can destroy your 5 Flash Def goggles (1 Def), or any chest shot destroy your 8 Def kevlar, I'd give the full book value for focus. ;)

[Trebuchet]

I think it should be the other way around, actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor. I do agree that the limits should be reduced. I've just seen far too many battlesuits and powered armors where the limit never comes into play. Just like an OIHID character that never turns normal. Very annoying.
Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.

[Log-Man]

Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!
Yes, I think we're all aware of this.

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.
While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players, I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?

[RDU Neil]

Basic Law of Limitations: A Limitation that does not limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

I mess with focus-based and OIHID characters all the time as a GM. If battlesuits and OIHID are never affecting the player characters then that is the fault of the GM and player(s) in question, not of those Limitations in and of themselves. Properly applied they are perfectly valid; improperly applied they are no worse than any other improperly applied Limitation. The rules exist to provide structure to the game, not to save us from our own inadequacies as players or as GMs.

No need to be snarky. It isn't about inadequacies... but that I feel that to really penalize the character adequately for the price break they get... that would really make me as GM have to go above and beyond good story telling and dramatic effect. Essentially, the organic flow of the story being told doesn't tend to really bring the Focus limitation into effect as much as a -1 cost break should warrant.

Again... this is subjective, of course... but it goes to the point of indicating that FOR MY GAME... and OAF really doesn't warrant getting half off all powers! The character concept might call for an OAF... that's fine... but it is a pain in the ass to have to argue "Yeah, I don't care what the book says... it's only worth -1/2 in my game"

And again, I was just asking if others felt the same way. Not right or wrong, here... just wondering.

[David Blue]

There has been a lot of discussion, and I feel a good consensus, on the topic of Limitations, and the fact that they are not created equal. One -1/2 Limitation is not nearly as limiting as another "canon" -1/2 limitation. (Say IAF vs. 14 or less activation as an example IMO).

To this point, I have two questions:

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break?Oh yeah. Definitely.

I've never played with anyone face to face who didn't change the focus rules to give less of a bonus - and I've never seen big focus-based characters be less than abusive anyway. Everyone says they will enforce the focus disadvantage, but over and over that turns out to be a bluff, because enforcement is an excessive hassle for the gamemaster.

Sure it's possible to do a "quest" to repair someone's focus or get it back if it's stolen, but how often? I can run a story about restoring almost any hero's fading or corrupted powers, regardless of any limitations they took or didn't take. (Like Spider-Man. Or Iron Fist at one time. Or Dracula. Etc..) I don't need Powered Armoured Guy, whose every third story should be like that, or else he's getting free points.

And "focus" is often quite a convenient special effect for powers. To pick a petty example: hard ear coverings. Gadgets and power suits are also handy when you want to upgrade your powers of develop new ones. So there's no inherent drawback to the focus route, on average.

Personally, I got to the point where I won't even try to enforce the focus limitation. It gets in the way of scenarios too much. Therefore, with me, "focus" is a special effect, not a limitation. If you really want a limitation, and have a secret identity to protect, and can't use the focus in your secret identity (no invisible slots in your power ring multipower, for example), and can convince me that this secret identity is active enough to matter, take a +1/4 limitation: only in hero identity. Even so, I'll question it. I've seen player characters whose "only in hero identity" comes up as often as the She-Hulk's, and for the same reason.

(You build a Don Blake with bought-down characteristics and a handicap or two, and a godlike hero ID with everything bought with a +1/4 limitation. This is known as "Orion syndrome" - named after a player character, not the Jack Kirby New Gods character. Of course if allowed you also take a focus for everything, and a "god" elemental control, at which point the character becomes mighty. As I suppose a god should be.)

What makes "focus" especially annoying is that while characters that abuse it get rewards, those who play fair can get shorted. Everything a Punisher clone carts around, including his low-defence armour, is universal/breakable, and gets chewed up by area effect attacks, while the Amulet of Orion-ness is indestructible. I'd rather just have the character pay for a gimmick pool, and then say the gimmicks - including guns - work unless there's a story reason why not, at which point non-focus abilities might also be unavailable.

RDU Neil, if I try giving a limitation for foci again, I might try it your way, because it seems to make some sense.

But I don't see treating "focus" as a limitation worth a bonus in my near future. Or my medium future, for that matter.

[Vondy]

It is incumbent on the GM to exploit the lim. The focus lim is fine the way it is. If the GM doesn't target foci, attempt disarms, and play on it situationally (You were required to check the X-9 Discombobulator in with the coat-check girl) its the GMs fault. I don't begrudge my players the points they save when its up to me to extract the value of the lim. If I don't, its my fault.

[David Blue]

In other words, for someone whose powers come primarily from a focus, everybody in the world is a potential threat in that they have a way to keep him from using his powers once he's knocked out. For someone whose powers are innate, you need another metahuman or high-tech organization to do that.

I think that's more potentially limiting that your take on things indicates.

YMMV. :)My mileage does vary. (Which doesn't mean either of is wrong.)

In an Iron Age context, which I have spent some time playing in, there are basically three kinds of non-player characters after you are knocked out (at referee's discretion):
1. Friendly ones with paramedic. That's very good.
2. Friendly ones without paramedic. That's good unless you're dying.
3. Unfriendly ones. Any of these can shove a tennis ball halfway down your throat (or kill the unconscious character in whatever way is most usual in your game). Little Old Lady from Pasadena or Mechanon makes no difference. Except possibly that a higher-powered hostile captor has more options that will seem to keep you from bothering them in future, which is actually good, though it may let you in for torture etc..

In a Silver Age and probably in a Bronze Age there are two more options:
4. "Deathtrap."
5. Villain restrained by some other convention. Then it depends on the convention. He might just wander off and let you recover to lick your wounds.

None of this has anything to do with foci. Tennis-ball=dead, whether you have foci or not. Deathtraps put you at a great disadvantage, whether the setup includes loss of foci or the "bit" is something else. Paramedic/non-paramedic, friendly or unfriendly, it's all unaffected by foci.

What the "focus" bonus does is make you immensely harder to take down in the first place.

[incrdbil]

I'm not that concered. As Foci go...

OAf's--heck of a limit. The Pc's strip them from NPC's with glee, and the same is done to the characters who happen to have them.

OIf's, well, if you can't steal them, break them. Power armor guy's been caught in a painful situation with out access to retrieve is focus, or put it on, damage to it. You know what to try and drain, studying the focus may give ytou clues to a weakness or vulnerability it has. A good period without the focus more than balances the annoyance of the 14- activation.

IAF--this is the one I really don't allow. Either the enemies never notice it, and rarely is it taken away, basically being a 1/4th HIDO, or once the enemy discovers the source, they always try to take it, and its really more of a limit. Once the cat is out of the bag, the Pc is soon to change the character, going to OIF, having reaped the benefit of IAF and now wanting to avoid the disadvantage.

IIF--heck, basically indistinguisable in effects from the HIDO limitation-- sometimes annoying, occasionally notably restrictive, rarey incapacitating.

[incrdbil]

Yes, I think we're all aware of this.

While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players, I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?

The strict percentage of time is not the only measure of the disadvantage.

14- Activation roll: sometimes the power works, sometimes it doesn't. Who knows for sure.

OIF focus: A intelligent enemy knows where the power comes from, and can take actions to remove/destroy the focus when it suits HIS plan.

Big difference right there. Surem the 14- EB might fail a greater percentage of the time, but the focus use can be rendered powerless at a really, inopportune moment. Having you eb fail its activation roll a few times vs agents is annoying. Having your force field belt batteries drained by some trap that Utility has lured you into can realy ruin your day.

In the end, the GM has to decide how limiting the way he will play out the disadvntage will be. If the GM feels OIF isn't that much of a limit, he needs to make sure that the restrictions are indeed not that great. Ony 1/2 for an OAF, then there shouldn't be grabs/takeaways that often. If HIDO guy can't have his powers away when captured, what do you do to OIF Man who you only gave a -1/4th disad to when he is captured?

[tesuji]

A few points from the less of a believer guy...

To make the points work, you must work FOR them. You need for most advantages and limitations and disadvantages play an active rolle in using scripting to make them worth their points and no more and no less. there is no "organic flow" assumed in the rules, but rather a guess at what some Gm might do.

this is NOT just with limitations but with SFX. If you decide a game with a cabal of vampires as a big bad primary nemesis and that vamps have resistance vs cold anbd vulnerability to fire, then you have probably just made the "same cost for 12d6 cold eb and 12d6 fire eb" a LIE, a scam, a shaft for one.

once you hand your players costs, its then beholden on you to make those costs play out in play as "the right price". if you decide thats not your job, then you are going to reap the benefits and the problems.

So... set the costs the closest to what you feel you will SHOW THEM AS WORTH for your game, then do your best to prove yourself right with scripting.

Side note: for me limitation value was never about POTENTIAL but about PROBLEMS. Its not that it MIGHT affect you but that it WILL. if you wanna play "potential" games then try and avoid them, go right ahead, but i got no issues with a future self of you or your successor using a time snatch device to yank your armor right off you. I did not give you POTENTIAL POINTS for the flaw but gave you ACTUAL POINTS, so you better be expecting ACTUAL PROBLEMS not POTENTIAL PROBLEMS.

*************

Some other related points...

1. A good argument can be made for looking at most costs and SFX before beginning a game. Your water breathing and +10" swimming has likely a much bigger "value in play" (VIP) in a new york game where you plan on using an atlantean invasion than a phoenix game or one set in space.

***************

2. In running your game FOR THE POINTS, i think you need to be flexible. Don't let focus be narrowed down to "hit in combat or a turn out of combat" since devices in the comics have all sorts more issues. Make a story out of it and you can get creative.

Example: i had a guy with a magic amulet in one of my games and a house with tons of magical wards. The system we used listed for the device flaw not "hit in combat or a turn ooc" but four general examples of device flaws in the comics "malfunction, break, run out of juice, and get stolen."

So about 1/3 of the way thru a session a wave of "chaos magic" swept over the entire city, nauseating mages for a few seconds and tainting all "unliving magic" like items and static spells. The mage realized immediately his amulet was unsafe to use.

tracking the source, he found a botched summoning and a loosed demon that had to be handled, and he went in hoping he could avoid using the amulet. He got a cell call from his butler letting him know that the spirit servants and mansions defensive spells were gone wild and he was under siege.

So, all thru that session and next, i got to take occasional pauses to show the butler in "die hard moments" as the mage's mansion ran amok at every scene change. Everyone loved it, especially the mage player who cringed well when the poltergeists got to his wine cellar and his occult library.

During the fights, over two sessions against the demon and then the bozos who botched the summons, he did finally have to use his amulet once and got away with just some side effects due to a GOOD ROLL on his part. Another wasn't so lucky and got blasted when her heal backfired.

Even turned out the botch in the summons was sabotage by another mage, who they later hunted down as even more story.

All started as a "hmmm... ought to have a flaw moment for the mage" and a liberal set of "what the device flaw means to you" criteria.

So, it might be as simple as you adding a house rule of "Add "and other problems as decided by Gm" to every limitation and disad, and SFX."

Definitely warn them if you do this, cuz i know last time i posted this example round here i got a heapin' helpin' dose of how i was just screwing the player and abusing his limitations and so forth... which btw the player found worth laughing out loud over as he thought it was beautiful during and after the event.

******************

3. If you want to use a flaw system that fits to the "organic feel" of your game, one in which the points "work for you" instead of you "work for them" consider going to a pay-as-you-pain system.

this is one where you don't give price breaks for flaws up front but instead every time a flaw plays a role and provides problems, the character is rewarded with bonus Xp or some other carrot when the scenario is over. You can think of this as "due to his flaw kicking in, he had to overcome a bigger challenge and so gets more xp" if you want.

The beauty of this type of system is that it automatically fits to what you run.

if his "fire hurt more" flaw comes up five sessions in a row because of your script, thats fine since he gets xp when it shows up. if it shows up hardly ever, thats fine cause he gets no extra points for it. You aren't in need of policing the "what points i gave him already" vs "how much has it hurt him" as the system polices itself.

you run whatever script you want and the system works for you filling in the "rewards" as you go along.

Even better, hindsight (so what did the flaw do to him last night?) is a lot more accurate than foresight (how many times and how seriously will this affect him in my future sessions?)

[Phil]

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power. Again, this is anecdotal... but really bugs me.

My main thought is this. A Focus is really only a limitation if it can be taken away/lost in combat. It is not, in any way, worth cutting the price in HALF, most of the time.

To better reflect the relative worth of the limitation, I think you need to do away with the OAF, OIF, IAF, IIF break down and go with.

Obvious Focus -1/2
Inobvious Focus -1/4

Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

I've been re-reading FRED as bed-time reading (going to need to go to bed a lot more often to get through it this year...!), and I've had a lot of similar thoughts myself about different limitations and constructs, and Focus was one. Firstly, yes I do think a -1 Limitation for OAF is damned good value. Does it seriously halve the effectiveness of the power? Only if it is grabbed literally 50% of the time! However, my thoughts werent to do with Accessibility, they were to do with Obviousness.

After all, there is this nice little advantage called 'Invisible Power Effects'. This costs points. So, unless you take IPE, your power can be seen. It is, to all intents and purposes, 'Obvious'. There's also a small degree of confusion over Foci and OIHID, that I believe can be rationalised. After all, OIHID has to have some restrainable way of preventing characters entering Hero ID, just as inaccessible foci can be restrained out of combat.

I'd do away with both and just have Accessible and Inaccessible Foci, and define OIHID either as a variant of Accessible Foci (or Gestures or Incantations or just Limited Power as appropriate).

It's not that Foci is necessarily abusive or disproportionate on its own, but when OAF is so frequently combined with MP frameworks, you're getting some serious cost breaks for a benefit that is disproportionate. After all, even those of you who believe it is appropriate, and who are better than me at remembering to take advantage of Lims and Disads, can you honestly say that Foci reduce the effectiveness of the power in question by 33-50%? If so, then I guess you're right and it's appropriately costed for your campaign. It certainly aint for mine.

[Phil]

Big difference right there. Surem the 14- EB might fail a greater percentage of the time, but the focus use can be rendered powerless at a really, inopportune moment. Having you eb fail its activation roll a few times vs agents is annoying. Having your force field belt batteries drained by some trap that Utility has lured you into can realy ruin your day.

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained, removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)

[Champsguy]

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained, removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)

You can still break it.

[incrdbil]

Except that Inaccessible means it cant be restrained, removed or grabbed in combat. Which means it can be taken away or limited in inbetween time, but if you havent dealt with it by the time of the big battle, you're stuck with it. And as has been pointed out, if it's OIF, you should be getting rid of it one adventure in three, or one scene in three. (You start enforcing that, I think you'll see Foci dropping like flies from character sheets!!)

If its not unbreakable though, it can be targeted to destroy it. Depending on the FX, certain things will pose a challenge. AAPistol bought OIF isn't going to help a character who is entangled, while an the activation based EB's is going to be blasting away--again, hindered by the activation roll, but not rendefed unable to use the power until he breaks free.

I will note that I'm very careful about unbreakable foci.

There are ample means to make focus chadacters 'pay their dues'. If a GM won't do it, then yes, indeed, they should acknowledge that and make corrections.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Speaking as someone whose character relies almost entirely on foci (gadgeteer + sorceror) I can tell you the limitation does in fact limit my character fairly frequently. Almost every tech gadget the character creates has, in addition to the focus lim, an Activation roll. These do fail from time to time, and I've had my gadgets taken off me in combat (they're almost always OAF). My magic pool is pretty small (35 pts) so I generally make one-charge potions or scrolls with it, things like that. Those don't require Activation rolls (usually) but they do require Extra Time -- usually 5+ hours -- to prepare them. Since the potions & oils are Universal (drink it or splash it on yourself) there have been occassions when someone on "the other side" has ended up benefiting from them. (I still shudder thinking about the time I was tossing a magical +30 STR ointment to another team-mate and it was intercepted by the other side's brick... :shock: )

If I use them up and don't have time to prepare more before the next problem crops up, well...I've got a problem. Though I can cast spells directly with my magic pool, 35 points doesn't go a long way. ;)

The worst it inconvenienced me was the time we'd just got back to our base after a long, hard mission -- in which I'd expended all my magic items and my gadgets all had dead batteries (Fuel Charges) -- only to find the base had been ransacked by a VIPER team, and they had just left so we had a chance to catch them. My character was left with his INT of 40 and a single 4 Real point magical item from his lab to use in the ensuing combat...

Reluctantly, he did use it...reluctantly because it was an item of dark magic (the "Soul Rend" talisman). It ended up saving the life of a couple of team-mates, though it gave my character nightmares for months afterwards, as well as getting him hauled in for review by the council of mages to whom he owes alliegance (Disad: Watched) because he used an item of dark magic.

My experience may be atypical, but I've found foci to be as limiting as their official value.

[BcAugust]

Actually, playing a character with OIHID, in the same game as a battlesuit guy, our GM is making us pay for all those points. Though given his way is "Oh, yeah, your enemy can track you through the battlesuit energy signature" or "The enemy spots you by such." And playing the OIHID character that does spend a fair bit of time out of it, there's an awareness there of how vunerable you can be. Knowing VIPER is hunting you is sobering for someone who can't soak bullets all the time.

*shrugs* Differing gaming styles. I honestly think the points saved weren't worth the limitation, but the limitation is part of the concept of the character.

[Sean Waters]

Actually, playing a character with OIHID, in the same game as a battlesuit guy, our GM is making us pay for all those points. Though given his way is "Oh, yeah, your enemy can track you through the battlesuit energy signature" or "The enemy spots you by such." And playing the OIHID character that does spend a fair bit of time out of it, there's an awareness there of how vunerable you can be. Knowing VIPER is hunting you is sobering for someone who can't soak bullets all the time.

*shrugs* Differing gaming styles. I honestly think the points saved weren't worth the limitation, but the limitation is part of the concept of the character.

You see, I like this approach: rather than thinking in the linear: the battlesuit must be out of commission every third combat, it provides other limitations (which might, admitedly shade into the area of disadvantages, but so what?). A limitation should be exploited, or the value reduced, so I huess everyone is right :) :)

One point I would make is that most PowerArmourCharacters (PACs) tend not to simply be the most powerful in the party as they have the most points, but rather spend those points on stuff the group might not otherwise have access to, like sensors and so on. As a GM, having a character in the group with access to HRRH can be really useful for plot devices and so on.

I tend to judge these things on an individual rather than a policy basis: of course it is possible for a PAC to overshadow everyone else, but it is either a poor GM, or a very skillful one that lets a character through at the start of a game who is likely to dominate.

Does it unbalance the game? It can, but it doesn't have to.

On the limitation value I think that obvious/inobvious is a limitation. I mean if Killer King gets his powers from his crown, but it simply is not obvious that he does (it doesn't glow or anything - he just wears it) then noone might think to snatch it off in combat.

I do, however, think that accessible is a more important limitation, so I'd be inclined to go with maybe

Accessible: -1/2
Obvious: -1/4

With a minimum of -1/4 if there is any kind of focus: after all if you capture an opponent there is a good chance you'll take anything off them that might be equipment. If the character has, for instance, IIF underwear that just seems to be underwear, then no limitation. If it is an amulet or other piece of reasonable obvious jewellry, it is probably worth some limitation: basically if the police would take it off you if you were arrested, it is worth something, if not, it isn't.

So:
IIF would be -1/4 or -0
OIF would also be -1/4
IAF would be -1/2, and
OAF would be -3/4

Or you could call it:

Lose out of combat -1/4
Loseable in combat (requires special knowledge or senses) -1/2
Loseable in combat (requires no special knowledge or senses) -3/4

Mind you, having said all that, I don't actually plan to change the limitations in my game, I just thought that presented a logical basis for doing so if you wanted to. :D

[Phil]

I mean if Killer King gets his powers from his crown, but it simply is not obvious that he does (it doesn't glow or anything - he just wears it) then noone might think to snatch it off in combat.

But for most powers, that is actually an *advantange*: Invisible Power Effects. A Focus should always be obvious, unless you buy IPE. At least, that's my understanding of it, unless Foci use some strange alternate rule :)

[Trebuchet]

While I agree that it takes proper application by the GM and the players, I still think that the limitations are too large. Let me just ask this, and I'm genuinely curious-not trying to be snippy: Do your PCs lose their OAFs a full 50% of the time? Do they lose their battlesuits 33% of the time? If they do, do you feel like you are going out of your way to do it, or does it happen naturally?We have only one PC with an OAF in our campaign, and yes, it has been both broken and taken away. Ditto for our powered-armor character with OIF.

Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation), speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time. That might mean such a character is attacked without his costume, or that it fails in some manner, or that he simply must find a hidden place to put it on in order to protect his Secret ID. It doesn't mean it dissolves into a puddle of goo every third adventure.

[Phil]

Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation), speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time.

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check out limitations, specifically Limited Powers. The value of Conditional Limited Powers is totally dependent on how often the power doesnt work. Sure, it's only one way of measuring effectiveness, but it lays down the general principle for what all those -1/4s and 1-2s actually mean.

A -1 power works at 100% effectiveness 50% of the time. A valid alternative is that it is 50% less effective 100% of the time. Every other option should fit somewhere between these two extremes. Saying that a power should have 'some type of difficulty' means that anyone with a Conditional Power is suddenly getting sold short: while their power fails to work entirely, other people just get 'some type of difficulty'. It's one thing to disagree with the view point that Foci are costed over generously, but your assertion here runs totally in the face of the underpinning mathematics (flawed though it certainly is) to HERO Advantages and Limitations.

[Log-Man]

...Considering that the Limitation bonus for an OIF battlesuit (-½) is the same for a 14- Activation roll (with better than a 90% chance of Activation), speaking of battlesuit characters being without their suit 33% of the time is absurd. The -½ penalty means the Power will suffer some type of difficulty approximately 1/3 of the time. That might mean such a character is attacked without his costume, or that it fails in some manner, or that he simply must find a hidden place to put it on in order to protect his Secret ID. It doesn't mean it dissolves into a puddle of goo every third adventure.
Ok, we seem to have trouble communicating here. Perhaps saying do they "lose" it implied "dissolves into a puddle of goo" but that is not what I meant. Being caught in normal ID counts absolutely. Anytime they don't have access, whether it is taken away, neutralized, unavailable, elsewhere, or dissolved into goo are all viable ways of attacking the limitation. I acknowledge that. I was just wondering how often it came into play, whether it was really worth the points saved. That's all.

[Hugh Neilson]

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check out limitations, specifically Limited Powers. The value of Conditional Limited Powers is totally dependent on how often the power doesnt work. Sure, it's only one way of measuring effectiveness, but it lays down the general principle for what all those -1/4s and 1-2s actually mean.

Actually, YOU are wrong. As Treb has pointed out, a power that acts 14- works 90% of the time, but has a -1/2 limitation. By your logic, that should be the limitation for about 11- (62.5% chance of working). But every time the character fires off a shot, he has no way of knowing if it will work, so from that perspective, the limitation nearly always limits the power (not "always" - sometimes, infinite do-overs are possible). One could argue "limited power" makes all activation rolls a -2 (since the limitation always risks an unavailable power) and this would make as much sense as "all -1/2 limitations must make the power unavailable 1/3 of the time".

[Actually, I don't think it's easy for anyone to be "wrong" when we're talking about matters of popinion, but that's another story.]

Consider the Limited Power: Not in full daylight (-1/2). Does that mean the character should spend precisely 1/3 of his phases in full daylight? I don;t think so. It doesn, however, mean the character may have to make some choices. Do I step out into the light and reduce my range modifiers (but lose access to some powers) or should I stay back here, suffer the penalty to hit but keep access to those powers? Ideally, for a -1/2 limitation, I'd like to see the "daylight" issue make an appearance every three or so game sessions. OIHID is -1/4 - I'd like to see it crop up every 5 or so game sessions. That means "I hagve an issue related to OIHID", not "the character cannot achieve his Hero ID at all every 5th combat".

To the issue of OIF: Yes, comic book staples are available to remocve anyone's powers. But who loses their powers/has them unavailable more often? Iron Man through his armor, Hawkeye through his bow and arrows or Scarlet Witch, who has natural powers? It's a frequency thing. If, every time the characters are KO'd, some tripe is hauled out to remove all their powers, then you're penalizing the characters who DID NOT receive a point break, not just enforcing the limitations of those who did.

The issue of "Limitation X isn't worth Point Break Y" seems to crop up failry regularly. The answer always comes down to whether the GM is running the game in such a fashion as to make the limitation cause enough trouble to justify the point break. The argument comes in two flavours - how often I, or you, or whoever, think the problem should arise, and how difficult it is for the GM to meet this standard without robbing the game of its "realism" (ie every street thug has a chunk of Green Argonite). Foir my money, I don't see foci used in excess abundance in my games, nor do people say "I'm not taking a focus - that just hoses my character", so I'd say it's balanced. Now, I do hear players cringe in fear at even the thought of taking a single die of Unluck, so maybe that ought to be worth more.

[Supreme Serpent]

There has been a lot of discussion, and I feel a good consensus, on the topic of Limitations, and the fact that they are not created equal. One -1/2 Limitation is not nearly as limiting as another "canon" -1/2 limitation. (Say IAF vs. 14 or less activation as an example IMO).

To this point, I have two questions:

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power. Again, this is anecdotal... but really bugs me.


Why not just give them the FOCI for free? They're more limited than real powers! ;)

We haven't changed limits/FOCI values. IAF's are practically unheard of though.

Yeah, OIF is a big price break. So's a -1/4 "not in red sunlight". Generally, they give you a bigger reward than they are a problem. Overall I think that's OK. One limit isn't usually a problem - it's when limit stacking comes in that it really becomes gross, like multiple advantages on a single power. The Kryptonian battlesuit that's an OIF, doesn't work under a red sun and has a 15- activation on a lot of powers gets ridiculous. Generally one "overall" limit per character should be enough. The tendency to make characters totally useless if a limit comes into effect can be a problem too - "OK, GL - you've lost your ring - what're you going to do?" - "I dunno - I've got straight normal stats without it and no useful skills! This blows! This is unfair!"

IMO, limits should be like some of the other point giving/point saving things in the game - disadvantages, EC's, etc. They should be there due to the concept, not shoehorned into it to save pts, which unfortunately often becomes the case. "Hmmm...my electrical gun probably wouldn't work underwater, I'll put that down..." should be the case much more than "Hmmm...in order to keep this butch attack I need to shave some more points...I need to find another limit to put on - OAF isn't enough yet..."

Overall limits should be part of the whole "concept bonus" idea, and sometimes it messes with you, and hopefully makes for better stories as a result. Would Superman be less interesting to read without Kryptonite, would Shazam be less interesting without OIHID, would Hawkeye be a total lame-o if he could just throw out all kinds of weird attacks without needing a bow and arrows? I think so. Why not get them some points out of it?

There is a discrepancy in how limiting things often are. If I could go back in time to the inception of Champions, one of the things I might like to try out is doing limits in 1/8 increments instead of just 1/4, or even making the whole thing decimal based - "-.1 limit", etc. In practice, it hasn't been too big a problem for us as long as the GM keeps a handle on it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why not just give them the FOCI for free? They're more limited than real powers! ;)

It is a bit ironic to argue on one thread that "free gear" is OK, and on another that focus saves too many points... :nonp:

[tesuji]

FWIW... i tend to agree with hugh's benchmark...

it all comes down to the GM's promise to his players.

When he tells them a cost he is promising them it will be worth that and no more. if things play out differently, thats a problem.

if your players do not see X as a freebie too-good-to-pass-up deal getting away with something, and people of other types don't complain about it being cheap you are probably enforcing the limitations at least harshly enough for your crowd.

if your players at the same time do not see x as too bad to consider, to much trouble for its worth, and so forth, you are probably not enforcing the lim too much for your crowd.

if both are true, you are probably doing well enough for your crowd.

now, whats "enough for your crowd" might vary greatly from my crowd or hugh's crowd, but thats really not worth worrying over all that much... IMO that is.

And BTW, i had the same unluck phobia. part of it derives from the lack of specificity of unluck. I think some players read it as "Gm has carte blanche to hose me" and avoid it in favor of more precise limitations and disadvantages. A kind of "the devil you know" thing.

I didn't worry overmuch as i always required a limitation called "Steve is my GM" be taken anyway, to reflect the shenanigans i planned for them.

[tesuji]

If I could go back in time to the inception of Champions, one of the things I might like to try out ...

Along this route (and assuming sticking with loan sharking methodology) my choice for a different take would be...

Universal limitation!

One limitation uber alles.

Basically, UL is generated by making two choices, frequency of the problem occuring and range of severity when it occurs. Choose these two, look at a chart and get a lim value or a disad pts back.

Now, is your lim that you take a -3 to hit when attacking things mostly colored blue? Is it that your power bolts don't work vs wood? is it that on holy days your powers cost double end? or is it that fire attacks make you tired?

Doesn't matter... those are all the SFX of the problem whose value is defined by the agreed upon by player and GM frequency and severity range.

[Trebuchet]

No, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. Check out limitations, specifically Limited Powers. The value of Conditional Limited Powers is totally dependent on how often the power doesnt work. Sure, it's only one way of measuring effectiveness, but it lays down the general principle for what all those -1/4s and 1-2s actually mean.

A -1 power works at 100% effectiveness 50% of the time. A valid alternative is that it is 50% less effective 100% of the time. Every other option should fit somewhere between these two extremes. Saying that a power should have 'some type of difficulty' means that anyone with a Conditional Power is suddenly getting sold short: while their power fails to work entirely, other people just get 'some type of difficulty'. It's one thing to disagree with the view point that Foci are costed over generously, but your assertion here runs totally in the face of the underpinning mathematics (flawed though it certainly is) to HERO Advantages and Limitations.OIHID or Focus are not "Conditional Limited Powers." They are their own unique and individual Limitations. It defies both common sense and genre conventions for a typical Obvious Inaccessible Focus such as powered armor to be totally non-functional 33% of the time for the same -½ Limitation as the 90.7% probability of functioning for a 14- Activation. Kindly explain why OIF should be penalized more than 3.5 times as often (33% vs. 9.3%) for the same value as a 14- Activation Limitation?

Additionally, each stacked Limitation provides a proportionately smaller price break. A 100 AP Power with a -1 Limitation gets a 50 point price break, but the second -1 gets it only an additional 17 point discount and the third only 8 more points. By your method it should only function 12.5% of the time while costing 25% of the full price. That's not only illogical but patently unfair.

[casualplayer]

Hey, if the GM is too lazy to incorporate Hunteds and DNPCs into the game they are free points also. The GM has to step up.

"Obvious/Inobvious" is too subjective and needs to be changed. My awesome mystic wand looks like a pinwheel (A Pinwheel from Hell!) Is it obvious or inobvious? Depends on the viewer. Starts to sound like we should have Distinctive Features for stuff. Maybe gear should be designed like vehicles. Or even Followers.

"Accessible/Inaccessible" is a little clearer but still too binary. Could you take your foci to the movies? Could you carry it onto a plane, especially post 9/11? Would it have to go in the trunk if you took a cab? Does your girlfriend get pissed that you keep leaving your Steamertrunk of Lethality in the middle of her living room? It's way more than just GRABable or no. Vincent Vega got shot in Pulp Fiction because he didn't take his Glock to the can with him. Sounds like we need Physical Limitations for stuff, more than just Bulky.

In a "radiation accident" one of my players was hired by a movie studio to become in real life their cinema star Ronin. The gig came with a suit of high-tech armor, absolutely free. However they had cameras mounted all over the suit (Watched,) anyone could find out the suit's capabilities by watching the movie or reading the press releases (everything was an Obvious Focus, also Reputation and Distinctive Features) and everyone thought he was actually Michael J. Fox, the actor who starred in the movie! The suit was gifted to the player at no point expense, but it wasn't free.

If foci-wielders in your game don't piddle their drawers when anyone with TK shows up, the GM is being way too kind. Firing pins don't work well around magnetic powers, let alone sensitive electronics. The cheaper the players make their powers, the easier they are to Suppress.

If you wargame, Focus is a gravy disadvantage. The more role-playing that sneaks in the less broken it gets.

[RDU Neil]

It is a bit ironic to argue on one thread that "free gear" is OK, and on another that focus saves too many points... :nonp:

1) Gear rarely comes close to the AP or DC effectiveness of actual powers.

2) It is actuallY EASIER to GM access to "free gear" than it is to try and bend a story around "Have a hosed the Foci guy enough in the last six adventures?" Basically, gear doesn't define the character (rarely) so not having it is just part of the story... but losing a power that is critical to "who the character is" causes all kinds of bad blood, even if it isn't conscious.

3) It is the control issue, again. Essentially, the OAF means that "control of the power" is out of the players hands roughly half the time. So... while a character CONCEPT drives the use of OAF (I get my powers through a magic sword) the CONCEPT does NOT really fit a "Half the time my magic sword doesn't quite work" i.e. the amount of control the player is willing to give up doesn't match the -1 limitation that the book says it should.

4) This generates an issue of having to alter the canon to fit the CONCEPT... which is fine, but can be difficult for the player to understand.

Something generic in terms of a limitation... like Tesuji pointed out above (I think it was him) would make sense. The limitation is clearly based on "how much control are you willing to give up to the GM!" So a magic sword could have 0 limitation or -1... but the player would have a clear understanding of what they were choosing.

This is another issue with Hero as a system, not a game. It requires not only a lengthy learning curve of the mechanics... but it also requires an ongoing meta-discussion on gaming philosopy and play style about the How and Why those mechanics are used as they are. Because each mechanic is open to an infinite number of interpretations, it is a lot of work to make sure that players and GM (and players to players) are thinking the same thing when looking at what is written on a character sheet. That level of ambiguity is just as much a detriment to playability as the flexibility is a boon.

And that right there is the crux of the issue. Ambiguity.

Free equipment - no ambiguity, it is entirely in the hands of the GM

Power with no limitations - no ambiguity, this is max player control

Power with limitations - now we are in the weeds of ambiguity... who has control and when... by how much? When does this cause friction and break down the story trying to be told? What level is the GM comfortable with exerting control? What level of control is the player willing to give up?

To me, the Focus lims as stated are examples of "in the book" rules that push the game play into an unpleasant... unfun... friction of control issues. (In fact almost any time limitations that hit -1 or greater start to become an issue... but again, this is play style rubbing up against canon rules.)

[RDU Neil]

If you wargame, Focus is a gravy disadvantage. The more role-playing that sneaks in the less broken it gets.

This is completely opposite my experience.

Role playing and good story often mean that a focus is NOT the focus of the story... thus rarely should be an issue in play.

A wargame is just that... I set up things tactically, to take rules advantage of one power vs. another power... thus all my villain teams would have at least one TK (whether the story and role playing made sense for that) and one Tech-Breaker with their 1d6 RKA, AE, Double Penetrating, Only vs. Foci attacks... etc.

Wargaming... it is a piece of cake to handle foci, because you mathematically hose them 50% or 33% or whatever. Role playing and story don't necessarily work that way at all. A story my work to allow a player to have a powerful artifact... and then the story may never really go in the direction of taking that artifact away... so as a GM, I have to go AWAY from role playing and story to create an event specifically to hose the foci player... even though it really doesn't fit the story or flow organically from the unfolding events.

Shoehorning an event into a game in order to threaten Capt. Focus is not role playing. That is exactly what I would consider wargaming.

[tesuji]

I wonder a few things...

how far apart are we all on "enforcement" in games we run?

For those GMing games where players have foci, lets say their primary attacks are OAF or OIF, how may times in the last dozen sessions of play have they been denied the use of the weapon in a significant way?

How does this compare to other -1 limitations? Or, perhaps it would be fair to ask, how many other -1 limitations than OAF are in use at all by your PCs?

[Fox1]

I wonder a few things...

how far apart are we all on "enforcement" in games we run?


Very far apart in my case.

As far as I'm concerned, the points don't matter in superhero games (i.e., the only games where someone would buy a focus). The characters are built to concept, not budget.

So I 'enforce' such things only to the extent that I feel they should come up in the storyline. No more, no less.

[RDU Neil]

How does this compare to other -1 limitations? Or, perhaps it would be fair to ask, how many other -1 limitations than OAF are in use at all by your PCs?

This is the big question. Good one. I would bet that most players would balk at putting on most other -1 limitations (or combinations their of...) but don't blink at the OAF.

The CONCEPT of the OAF makes sense, so they just go with what the rules say (-1) without stopping to think what that really means. Other limitations that equal or add up to -1... those tend to make the player stop and say, "Do I REALLY want my power only activating on a 8 or less"

Again... IMO... trying to enforce an OAF for the full -1 is usually a major headache... doesn't fit the flow of the story... and generally allows the player to get more than they paid for. YMMV, but I dislike the advesarial relationship that Focus enforcement can create.

[Champsguy]

Very far apart in my case.

As far as I'm concerned, the points don't matter in superhero games (i.e., the only games where someone would buy a focus). The characters are built to concept, not budget.

So I 'enforce' such things only to the extent that I feel they should come up in the storyline. No more, no less.

I've got to spread rep around before giving it to you again.

[Champsguy]

The CONCEPT of the OAF makes sense, so they just go with what the rules say (-1) without stopping to think what that really means. Other limitations that equal or add up to -1... those tend to make the player stop and say, "Do I REALLY want my power only activating on a 8 or less"


8- is a -2 limitation.

Another thing with an Obvious Focus is that, for most of them, when they get taken away in combat, they can be used by the villains. That doesn't happen with any other set of powers.

[incrdbil]

This is the big question. Good one. I would bet that most players would balk at putting on most other -1 limitations (or combinations their of...) but don't blink at the OAF.

Again... IMO... trying to enforce an OAF for the full -1 is usually a major headache... doesn't fit the flow of the story... and generally allows the player to get more than they paid for. YMMV, but I dislike the advesarial relationship that Focus enforcement can create.

If the players don't blink at the OAF, why is that? Something that can be taken away with a simple move, not to mention TK.

I've never had any PC's rely on a OAf as a primary power/defense. Never. I've not seen any PC's who did so more than a game before the error of their ways caught up to them in a hurry. A side item, somethign ok but not essential, maybe. What's especially adversarial about enforcing focus limitations than having villains make any other plot to harm or discomfort heroes?

[nexus]

OAFs are very vunerable. They can be taken away, broken, used against you, etc all with a simple move available and pretty obvious to anyone. There are times when the character will be without them due to circumstance. Its never taken anymore shoehorning than I think is normally required to make a limitation. Its actually felt more natural. I couldn't tell you the number of times I've been without my foci due to role playing in the course of the campaign. I've rarely had my innate powers stripped. That, IMO, requires shoeshorning. The GM has to plan something specifically to take away your powers. Any Agent can attempt a disarm.

I haven't noticed any more adversarial relationship created by Focus than any other Limitation. The player choose to get it of his own violation. He should expect to see it enforced and applied reasonablly to his character. If you want a gun that is never broken, taken away, misplaced, etc. Don't get the limitation, or get a lesser one. Call the "gun" a sfx. I've had players whine about limitations though, including things like Activation Rolls "I didn't think you were going to make me roll it when it was really important!" "It isnt' cool my power doesn't work now" etc. I'd think that would be a problem with player, not the limitation. Being purely "mechanical" such as activation doesn't absolve the gm of the responsbility to enforce it. OAF is just a more story oriented limitation.

I've found most power gamers don't get OAF because its such a limitation. They load up on smaller Limitationsthey think should almost never logically come up. All this is in my experiece of course. The question was about a specific Gm and campaign and when it comes to that, if you feel you don't the hassle, change it! Hero is flexible enough to handle it and if it makes your game more enjoyable, balanced or make more sense for you and your group should do it.

RDU Neil, as an aside (and this is a not a "If you don't like, leave it!" thing) but you seem to be overall pretty unhappy with Hero System for various reasons. Have you tried any of the newer systems out there like M and M or Godlike?

[Lord Liaden]

There is a point about the accessibility of Foci that I would like to raise: it isn't just a matter of the Focus being "taken away" in a combat situation, but of all the other circumstances under which a character can legitimately expect not to have access to it. OIF power-armor guy is going to have a tough time taking a shower with his tin suit on. OAF storm-hammer guy will have to put his mallet down when he wants to grab or lift something, or do any fine work that requires two hands. IIF power-ring guy may have to remove his ring when he goes through an airport metal-detector, or if the cops arrest him in his secret ID. There are usually opportunities for the GM to exploit the inherent restrictions of a Focus outside of combat, if one keeps the SFX of the Focus in mind.

I'm one of those who has never had a problem with most of the Focus Limitations as they're costed, although at times they might seem a little less (or more) limiting than some other Lims of the same price. The differences are IME usually not so dramatic that they would warrant going from, say, -1/2 to -1/4; it's more of a "-3/8" situation, a minor distinction which the rules don't allow for. However, I'm pretty comfortable with a Focus Limitation value that's in the ballpark rather than precisely matching what I think the value should be in my game. That said, I've sometimes reduced the savings for an OAF from -1 to -3/4, when the SFX of the Focus makes it unlikely that the character will ever need to be without it out of combat.

This may be a slight tangent, but the element of Foci that I've had the most difficulty swallowing is Durability not making any difference in the points charged. The rules don't really give you much to work with in terms of how to deal with an Unbreakable Focus, while a Durable one has no mentioned drawbacks vs. a normal Breakable Focus.

FWIW I run Foci Durability according to the guidelines for Expendable Foci: normal Breakable Foci are relatively easy to replace once the character is in an environment where that can happen, like a laboratory or gunshop; Durable Foci require much more time or effort, specialized skills and equipment, money or rare materials, etc. Unbreakable Foci, on those occasions when they are broken (which should be no more than once or twice in a campaign IMO) require unique materials and/or individuals to repair or remake, and the quest to repair it should be the focus of a story arc within the campaign.

[Vondy]

I don't go out of my way to enforce lims - I just keep them in mind for potential exploitation. When I do choose to exploit a lim it is either for story purposes, or it became up as a situational issue. I'd say my players run into a situational issue in terms of foci and costumes and identities one game in three. The exception is when I see the rare charactersheet that I consider an exploitation, meaning the player is being a dink. Then I'll exploit the character's lims with ruthless glee. As it is, my players are more interested in role playing and characterization than miracles of mechanics, and as such, I don't sweat the points too much. I'm more interested in the concept.

[Sean Waters]

But for most powers, that is actually an *advantange*: Invisible Power Effects. A Focus should always be obvious, unless you buy IPE. At least, that's my understanding of it, unless Foci use some strange alternate rule :)

I think you'll find that IPE will just prevent it being obvious that the power emanates from you. You can buy IPE for the power and not the source but not the source and not the power: otherwise the rules wouldn't define any focus as inobvious. This would have to be the case otherwise you could not buy an obvious focus with invisible power effects: the very invisibility of the power effects would make the focus inobvious - in this case you'd buy IPE at half value so the source remained visible.

Incidentally, did you know that inobvious is a made up word? :)

[RDU Neil]

RDU Neil, as an aside (and this is a not a "If you don't like, leave it!" thing) but you seem to be overall pretty unhappy with Hero System for various reasons. Have you tried any of the newer systems out there like M and M or Godlike?

Puh-leeeze! Get over yourself, Nexus. One doesn't come on to a board about a system to sing the praises of what works... you come on to discuss the critical elements that crack under certain pressures, seem incongruent or otherwise don't work up to expectations.

No system is perfect... and the focus is on what doesn't work... not what does. No game system will ever meet my need perfectly... I don't expect them to. I simply asked... in this instance... if anyone else had similar experiences, concerns... and roughly half the folks did. That's all I wanted to konw. It was Hugh and Supreme Serpent that decided to make personal attacks.

I'm always surprised when someone like you... who constantly praises the Tool Kit aspect of Hero... gets all up tight when someone discusses different ways to use, interpret and build with that Tool Kit.

[nexus]

Puh-leeeze! Get over yourself, Nexus. One doesn't come on to a board about a system to sing the praises of what works... you come on to discuss the critical elements that crack under certain pressures, seem incongruent or otherwise don't work up to expectations.


I didn't say any different.



No system is perfect... and the focus is on what doesn't work... not what does. No game system will ever meet my need perfectly... I don't expect them to. I simply asked... in this instance... if anyone else had similar experiences, concerns... and roughly half the folks did. That's all I wanted to konw. It was Hugh and Supreme Serpent that decided to make personal attacks.


1. I didn't say the system was perfect. Its not. I could dig up some quotes for you when I've said as much.

2. No, but I thought perhaps another system might meet them better. That's why there's different systems on the market, to meet different tastes. Its not an insult. It was an attempt to make what I thought was a helpful suggestion.

3. When did I imply you were making personal attacks or did anything wrong?




I'm always surprised when someone like you... who constantly praises the Tool Kit aspect of Hero... gets all up tight when someone discusses different ways to use, interpret and build with that Tool Kit.

Dude, calm down. Like I said, I wasn't saying "Hero, love it or leave it. You didn't seem to happy with the system. I can't recall a thread where you've said anything positive about it (not that you haven't, just I haven't seen it). I was trying to helpful. Hell, man there's crap I don't like about Hero and don't agree with. When exactly did I say you were wrong for wanting to change something or asking about it? I didn't. Go back and read the post again. All of it. I said if you don't think this is right for you game, change it. I've said it more than once in threads you've started I'm actually agreeing with you, but if you weren't apparently so damn determined to be my "enemy" over a silly damn game maybe you would see that.

[Sean Waters]

OK

First limitations are not balanced.

Take, for instance, activation rolls. If you apply them to a power you roll every phase to see if they work. It is sad if your 14- EB doesn't work, but it is only one shot in 11, so no real biggie. Mind you the limitation works the same for constant powers, and losing one of them one time in 11 could be fatal...say flight, just as you're trying to pull out of a dive, or suddenly your force field goes off and you find you have no resistant defences...

So: 1 - let's not pretend this is a science.

Second, there's been much reference to the conditional/limited power guidelines. These are guidelines AND they only reflect powers that either do or do not work, and with reference to other limtations, like activation, they don't do that well. The system is erring on the side of caution: you get less for your money if you buy a generic limitation rather than a Hero-hand-crafted version.

So: 2 - let's not pretend this is a science (I know I've already done this one but it is a biggie)

Finally the focus limitation is not simply a question of how often the power works. Looking at it that way is daft as it utterly fails to take into consideration that a focus is a limitation that can be effected by outside factors, most often the villains. They can attack you when you haven't got it, or they can steal it or whatever: a villain can not control when a power with an activation roll works, or effect the number of charges a power has or changethe increased END cost, but they can darned well effect your focus. Failing to acknowledge that is missing the point of the limitation, which will, of course, make it look like a bargain. 'Internal' limitations can be controlled by the character, 'external' limitations, like focus, are controlled at least in part, by the game world. That's why 'not in intense magnetic fields' is worth a limitation - they hardly ever occur - until the villain finds out that they screw up your main attack....

So: 3 - look at limitations in the round, don't 'focus' on just one aspect of them.

Pun intended, obviously (and accessably). Which means it only cost me half the points :D

[Hugh Neilson]

First limitations are not balanced.

Take, for instance, activation rolls. If you apply them to a power you roll every phase to see if they work. It is sad if your 14- EB doesn't work, but it is only one shot in 11, so no real biggie. Mind you the limitation works the same for constant powers, and losing one of them one time in 11 could be fatal...say flight, just as you're trying to pull out of a dive, or suddenly your force field goes off and you find you have no resistant defences...

I think they're balanced one to another, at least reasonably well. If I don't have my OIF: Blaster Gauntlet, I won't waste a phase trying to fire it, only to see those triple sixes come up.

"Firebolt's force field is down! I've got to get Grond's attention before he pulps poor FireBolt. I'll fire the MegaBlast!" Two 5's and a 6 later, it's Grond's phase...and he's not distracted by that small fizzle *pop* sound the Megablaster just made....Poor Firebolt!

[Dr. Anomaly]

There's one "acid test" I generally use to determine if something (a power, a limitation, a disadvantage, a perk, whatever) is "too good" for what it costs you:

Does it become the "must have" that every character concept finds a way to incorporate it?

In my experience, the Focus Limitation does not meet that standard, so it isn't "too good".

For example, in the current campaign I'm in, there are 5 characters (counting mine) and 2 of the 5 have Foci as part of their write-ups: my character (the gadgeteer) and the power armor wearer.

For that matter, I can't think of a single Power, Advantage, Limitation, Framework, Disadvantage, or Perk in HERO that is so good everyone automatically finds a reason to have it in their character concept.

All Limitations may not be created equal, but none of them stand out to me as "too good" / "broken".

[Sean Waters]

Complete aside, but interestingly enough activation works per phase, according to the rules. In fact mathematically, it makes no difference how often you roll (every phase, every attack, evey turn, every day) SO LONG AS you use the same interval every time: over time you'll have the same total percentage of time you can't use the power.

Mind you it would be very different in approach if you knew you had your EB that worked consistently all day even though it was on a 8- activation.

Could be an interesting concept for a character: loads of 8- powers, never sure what he's going to be able to do that day....

[nexus]

There's one "acid test" I generally use to determine if something (a power, a limitation, a disadvantage, a perk, whatever) is "too good" for what it costs you:

Does it become the "must have" that every character concept finds a way to incorporate it?

In my experience, the Focus Limitation does not meet that standard, so it isn't "too good".


I've found that to be a very good rule of thumb, not just for Hero but any point based system. I called it the "Ya gotta be an idiot..." test. IE: You'd have to be an idiot not to get this.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I've found that to be a very good rule of thumb, not just for Hero but any point based system. I called it the "Ya gotta be an idiot..." test. IE: You'd have to be an idiot not to get this.True, but we were discussing HERO, so I framed it in those terms. ;)

[RDU Neil]

There's one "acid test" I generally use to determine if something (a power, a limitation, a disadvantage, a perk, whatever) is "too good" for what it costs you:

Does it become the "must have" that every character concept finds a way to incorporate it?

In my experience, the Focus Limitation does not meet that standard, so it isn't "too good".

For example, in the current campaign I'm in, there are 5 characters (counting mine) and 2 of the 5 have Foci as part of their write-ups: my character (the gadgeteer) and the power armor wearer.

For that matter, I can't think of a single Power, Advantage, Limitation, Framework, Disadvantage, or Perk in HERO that is so good everyone automatically finds a reason to have it in their character concept.

All Limitations may not be created equal, but none of them stand out to me as "too good" / "broken".

This is a good point... and to an extent, I have found the Focus limitation to be "must have" in many instances.

Primarily the OIF (power suit, what-have-you). I will readily admit that the OAF is not nearly the issue. I got caught up in that discussion and distracted from my point. Sorry about that.

The OIF though. The focus that gives a cost break but is not easily removed... that one is the problem. Again... IMO.

To penalize this... in Hugh's words... to attack the guy in the shower... takes just as much GM plot maneuvering as it would take to capture Inherent Power Girl while asleep and drug her... or zap her with a Drain ray... etc.

Both are GM created plot elements to deprive the hero of their powers... but one character got a price break and the other didn't. There often is no game play difference to "taking away the power" between an OIF character and a non-focus character. Again... most of the time and in my experience.

That is why I consider the main cost break of foci to come from accessibility. Not only is the focus recognized... but a simple way to try and get rid of it is clearly obvious as well. Once it becomes "inaccessible"... i.e. no quick and easy way to get rid of it... then it really loses a great deal of penalty. I would argue it loses almost ALL real penalty in comparison with non-focused powers.

So, yes... the main reason I started this thread was that I was seeing the "must have" concept flowing through the basic builds of many characters. Typically the "must have" being an OIF or IIF or OIHD that lumps a large number of powers into a big price break group. This character then gets a greater breadth or depth bought witht he saved points.

This is not always because of munchkining... but part of character concept, like a power-armor guy, or suit that enhance mutant powers, or whatever. I'd say most of the time it isn't conscious point mongering by players as much as a concept turns out to take advantage of some of the better cost breaks.

Focus is not the only place this happens. (Hand Attacks are another place where you get more than you pay for in comparison to other powers...) it is just that Focus limitations cut across a lot of powers and concepts, and I was just asking if anyone else was seeing an issue like I was. Some yes, some no... as to be expected.

So going back to the beginning... I should have entitled the thread...
INACCESSIBLE Focus = Too Great A Price Break?

[nexus]

It does take GM manipulation to hit Power Armor Man in the shower or Mutant Girl with a Nullifier Ray that is undeniable truth. I think somr people just see the case of the Nullifier ray to be more heavy handed since you can hire two thugs off the street to sneak and beat the crap out of Power Armor Man, but Power Nullification tech isn't that common in most campaigns. Its similiar to the cost difference in Susceptibilities, IMO. Being Suceptible to Water is worth more points than being susceptible to Uranium. One is more easier to get. The situations that limit Power Armor Man can be arranged much more easily than Mutant Girl (assming she has no limitation on her powers). I have seen campaigns where Power negation tech was so commong that "Mutant powers" did get a limitation bonus, so as I've said if it doesn't work in your particular setting. Change it until it does.

[incrdbil]

. The situations that limit Power Armor Man can be arranged much more easily than Mutant Girl (assming she has no limitation on her powers).

In the 'captured and brought the the deathtrap/lair' scenarios, Both OIGGuy and Mutant girl may be captured, but once she breaks off her power-nullifier, its party time. OIF guy is now just..a guy, and hoping he can stay conscious as MutantGirl covers his @$$ and maybe he finds his stuff. Before the game is over. There's nothing wrong with the GM having OIFguy suffer through the rest of the escape powerless, maybe using his normal id stats to fight an agent or two. This is a minor pint, but just one of many ways that the intricacies of the focus limitation can be brought into a game in a variety of ways.

[Log-Man]

...I've never had any PC's rely on a OAf as a primary power/defense. Never. I've not seen any PC's who did so more than a game before the error of their ways caught up to them in a hurry. A side item, somethign ok but not essential, maybe. What's especially adversarial about enforcing focus limitations than having villains make any other plot to harm or discomfort heroes?
Never had the archer type in your game? This must be fixed! An archer in every campaign I say! :winkgrin:

[incrdbil]

Never had the archer type in your game? This must be fixed! An archer in every campaign I say! :winkgrin:

I think once a fellow PC ran one for a bit, but IIRC, the bow was magical and couldn't be taken away--more a HIDO summoned artifact.

[Mentor]

OK

First limitations are not balanced.

Take, for instance, activation rolls. If you apply them to a power you roll every phase to see if they work. It is sad if your 14- EB doesn't work, but it is only one shot in 11, so no real biggie. Mind you the limitation works the same for constant powers, and losing one of them one time in 11 could be fatal...say flight, just as you're trying to pull out of a dive, or suddenly your force field goes off and you find you have no resistant defences...

So: 1 - let's not pretend this is a science.

Second, there's been much reference to the conditional/limited power guidelines. These are guidelines AND they only reflect powers that either do or do not work, and with reference to other limtations, like activation, they don't do that well. The system is erring on the side of caution: you get less for your money if you buy a generic limitation rather than a Hero-hand-crafted version.

So: 2 - let's not pretend this is a science (I know I've already done this one but it is a biggie)

Finally the focus limitation is not simply a question of how often the power works. Looking at it that way is daft as it utterly fails to take into consideration that a focus is a limitation that can be effected by outside factors, most often the villains. They can attack you when you haven't got it, or they can steal it or whatever: a villain can not control when a power with an activation roll works, or effect the number of charges a power has or changethe increased END cost, but they can darned well effect your focus. Failing to acknowledge that is missing the point of the limitation, which will, of course, make it look like a bargain. 'Internal' limitations can be controlled by the character, 'external' limitations, like focus, are controlled at least in part, by the game world. That's why 'not in intense magnetic fields' is worth a limitation - they hardly ever occur - until the villain finds out that they screw up your main attack....

So: 3 - look at limitations in the round, don't 'focus' on just one aspect of them.

Pun intended, obviously (and accessably). Which means it only cost me half the points :DExactly. How mathematical precision should be expected to override fun and a good mutual storytelling adventure is impossible for me to figure.

[Fox1]

Exactly. How mathematical precision should be expected to override fun and a good mutual storytelling adventure is impossible for me to figure.

There is even more to it than that.

The complete loss of a power generally IME causes more of a negative reaction in a player then a simple '50% rule' would indicate. Even one time in ten is enough to make players shy away from the limit.

Players hate not being useful. That dislike is often of such strength that the impact of a limit (or disadvantage) need not even begin to approach the math value given in the rules.

Point systems are not good scientific formulas; they are better viewed as economic values. What the market accepts and avoids is likely the best indication of balance you have.

[casualplayer]

There's one "acid test" I generally use to determine if something (a power, a limitation, a disadvantage, a perk, whatever) is "too good" for what it costs you:

Does it become the "must have" that every character concept finds a way to incorporate it?

For that matter, I can't think of a single Power, Advantage, Limitation, Framework, Disadvantage, or Perk in HERO that is so good everyone automatically finds a reason to have it in their character concept.

All Limitations may not be created equal, but none of them stand out to me as "too good" / "broken".

Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.

[Mentor]

I play the Power Armor guy in the game Trebuchet refers to. More often than not, the fact that the armor is an OIF carried in a briefcase imposesits own limits on utility without the GM having to roll anything. Having to run to a closet or empty office in order to don armor while the villains are wreaking havoc is preety limiting if you see the purpose of your team being to protect society and not just win the fight.

Often the OIF overlaps with the Secret ID in preventing Cyberknight from donning his armor to prevent something from going down or to keep one of his comrades or DNPCs from being affected. There is much more to the limitation that making the batteries drain or something.

[Fox1]

Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.

There is always the option of saying "no" to a player. No GM should run a game where he's forced to contend with things he hates.

If on the other hand you're just a player in a game were everyone buys AP, your options are more limited.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.Funny...in my experience, it's not Armor Piercing that comes close to being that way, but Penetrating. :think:

[tesuji]

Cyberknight from donning his armor to prevent something from going down or to keep one of his comrades or DNPCs from being affected. There is much more to the limitation that making the batteries drain or something.

Ok, I'll bite.

Are you saying that if he did not have OIF armor, he would say "screw the secret id, lets not run into the closet to change and lets start the fight now"?

if not, then it seems like the OIF isn't really making this any worse than the usual secret ID thing, right?


Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.

FWIW, this tends to tell me more about your villains than your players. Ap os good only in certain cases, specifically higher end defenses being typical. In other cases, with moderate defenses, damage reductions or not uncommon hardened defenses, straight shots work best.

You might be able to "solve" this by varying the defensive values and types a bit more.

[Champsguy]

Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.

I've never had the experience that Armor Piercing was "must have". Of course, a decent percentage (probably 25%) of our characters are hardened. More dice is usually more effective than Armor Piercing anyway.

[Gary]

There's one "acid test" I generally use to determine if something (a power, a limitation, a disadvantage, a perk, whatever) is "too good" for what it costs you:

Does it become the "must have" that every character concept finds a way to incorporate it?

In my experience, the Focus Limitation does not meet that standard, so it isn't "too good".

For example, in the current campaign I'm in, there are 5 characters (counting mine) and 2 of the 5 have Foci as part of their write-ups: my character (the gadgeteer) and the power armor wearer.

For that matter, I can't think of a single Power, Advantage, Limitation, Framework, Disadvantage, or Perk in HERO that is so good everyone automatically finds a reason to have it in their character concept.

All Limitations may not be created equal, but none of them stand out to me as "too good" / "broken".

There are plenty of 'must haves' in the hero system. It's just that most GMs wouldn't allow those abusive power combinations in the first place, so they're not experienced in most games.

[Gary]

One thing I wish they'd do about activation rolls is to smooth them out.

Make 12- worth -3/4, 13- worth -1/2, and 14- worth -1/4. 15- would be worth nothing unless you add something like Jammed to it. Then we'd stop having it brought up everytime this topic comes up.

12- and 13- should not have the same limitation value!

[Sean Waters]

It does take GM manipulation to hit Power Armor Man in the shower or Mutant Girl with a Nullifier Ray that is undeniable truth. I think somr people just see the case of the Nullifier ray to be more heavy handed since you can hire two thugs off the street to sneak and beat the crap out of Power Armor Man, but Power Nullification tech isn't that common in most campaigns. Its similiar to the cost difference in Susceptibilities, IMO. Being Suceptible to Water is worth more points than being susceptible to Uranium. One is more easier to get. The situations that limit Power Armor Man can be arranged much more easily than Mutant Girl (assming she has no limitation on her powers). I have seen campaigns where Power negation tech was so commong that "Mutant powers" did get a limitation bonus, so as I've said if it doesn't work in your particular setting. Change it until it does.

Perhaps the villain could bring a shower with him?

I really shouldn't just wander into these discussions half way through....

[Sean Waters]

I play the Power Armor guy in the game Trebuchet refers to. More often than not, the fact that the armor is an OIF carried in a briefcase imposesits own limits on utility without the GM having to roll anything. Having to run to a closet or empty office in order to don armor while the villains are wreaking havoc is preety limiting if you see the purpose of your team being to protect society and not just win the fight.

Often the OIF overlaps with the Secret ID in preventing Cyberknight from donning his armor to prevent something from going down or to keep one of his comrades or DNPCs from being affected. There is much more to the limitation that making the batteries drain or something.

Ever get your fly caught when you're changing into the power armour? Really puts a cramp on your fighting style, let me tell you... :nonp:

[Dr. Anomaly]

There are plenty of 'must haves' in the hero system. It's just that most GMs wouldn't allow those abusive power combinations in the first place, so they're not experienced in most games.I did say single item, Gary, not abusive combo.

[Gary]

I did say [b]single[/i] item, Gary, not abusive combo.


Charges of End Reserve. A single item, but extremely abusive.

[Trebuchet]

Ok, I'll bite.

Are you saying that if he did not have OIF armor, he would say "screw the secret id, lets not run into the closet to change and lets start the fight now"?

if not, then it seems like the OIF isn't really making this any worse than the usual secret ID thing, right?Cyberknight may not be an entirely typical powered armor character. The time and necessity of putting on his armor is further complicated by the fact that he has different Hunteds both as Cyberknight and in his Secret ID as a billionaire industrialist and philanthropist. He's about as public a personality as one can get without actually being in show business or politics. (In fact, our superteam MidGuard most often travels incognito as Dr. Thorssen's entourage; my own character Zl'f actually is his executive assistant and our other MA acts as his bodyguard.)

On one occasion, his neo-Nazi cousin shot down the helicopter Dr. Thorssen was taking off in with a Stinger missile and kidnapped him; leaving the armored briefcase with his powered armor behind in the burning wreckage. So Dr. Thorssen was forced to escape from a ship in the middle of the North Sea without any of his powers. Fortunately he hadn't shorted himself on useful skills, including SCUBA diving. :)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Charges of End Reserve. A single item, but extremely abusive.And in my 15 years as a HERO GM, I've never had to say "No" to that. I've never even had a player suggest it. So where's the "must-have" single-power stuff that only doesn't get seen because a GM has to say "No" to it?

[Gary]

And in my 15 years as a HERO GM, I've never had to say "No" to that. I've never even had a player suggest it. So where's the "must-have" single-power stuff that only doesn't get seen because a GM has to say "No" to it?


That's because either your players haven't thought of it, or they figured they'd never get it by you.

[Dr. Anomaly]

That's because either your players haven't thought of it, or they figured they'd never get it by you.
And every other gaming group has had this come up?

I'd like to hear from anyone else who's thought of or had to deny this.

Really.

[Gary]

And every other gaming group has had this come up?

I'd like to hear from anyone else who's thought of or had to deny this.

Really.


I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly thought of it. And never ran it by my GM except as a joke since I knew he'd simply tear up the character sheet if he thought I was serious.

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, END reserve is a damn fine concept in and of itself. Define everything you do as coming from the reserve.; Sell back your END (say 50 END, for 25 points) and use it to buy a reserve (say 100 points with 15 REC).

You get twice as much END which likely recovers faster and doesn't vanish if you're KO'd. The only drawback is that you can't recover more than once per turn.

[incrdbil]

Armor Piercing. Sometimes MAs go with Find Weakness, but damn few characters go long without an AP attack. Which is why I hate the advantage.

AP.s not that overwhelming. In a campaigh with defenses averaging around a low end of 20, mid point of 25, high start of 30, that AP cuts what you are facing to 10/13/15, and 60 point/12 DC standard starting attacks

On a 60 pt attack 12d6 EB: average 42 stun: 22/17/12 stun gets in through the benchmarks above.

8d6 EB AP: average 28 stun: 18/15/13.

As defenses go up, AP attacks start to catch up..but I'd expect to see more hardened defenses in the more powerful settings as well.

[Hawksmoor]

I want to take the flip side of Neil's argument. I do not see any problem with the existing rules for foci or OIHID. An OAF is a considerable disadvantage because it is so easily messed with. To whit if an attempt to grab or attack a focus or focus-like SFX is not made at least once a combat then the opposition is using Artifical Idiocy. Likewise the use of OIHID does not bother me because for a good OIHID there should be some reason that the PC cannot be in Hero mode 100% of the time. Kingdom Come, that oft cited tome, has Billy Batson mistaken for his superhuman alter ego because of the look (which Luthor cultivated). Thunderstrike (the Eric Masterson version) was very complicated by being temporarily trapped in HERO mode since his coworkers and family couldn't deal with him being 6 foot 4 395 lbs of Hero hunk.

Just my Opinion, but 22 years of HERO gaming can't be that wrong.

Hawksmoor

[David Blue]

I'd like to raise an issue that might seem off topic - fun.

I first became aware of this "fun" issue in a negative way, when a player came to me and said he wanted to sell all his Luck back and buy Unluck like the other players had. Wildly unlucky things happened to their characters all the time, often acting as hooks for their hunters to act against them. The players had a great time constantly trying to wriggle out of all the difficult, often comical situation they were in (there's a famous old Australian cartoon with the punchline "For gorsake, stop laughing: this is serious!"*) and anticipate the menaces coming their way. For the Lucky player, it was like being trapped in the early life of Teela Brown. If he looked for a taxi, there it was, going his way.

The first thing I did was give the man his points and his Unluck, so he could have big fun like the other players.

The second thing I did was take stock of myself. As a wise character once said: "A man's got to know his limitations."

Certain gamemaster are disproportionately effective in enforcing some disadvantages and limitations in ways that are effective, and in ways that are fun. Both factors can and probably should be taken into account when deciding what limitations and disadvantages to encourage players to take.

One gamemaster might be unusually effective in providing roleplaying fun based on the focus limitation. Obviously he should give the full points for foci, to bribe the players to take a limitation that experience tells him will lead to fun for everyone.

Another gamemaster might find their focus-enforcement and roleplaying-encouragement ideas consistently going in different directions. In that case, the gamemaster might well choose not enforce the limitation, in which case it should be worth no points in that game. The risk is: if the gamemaster hews to his duty and enforces the limitation, it's liable to be less fun for everyone than if the focus of the play was elsewhere.

You may be trying to extend your abilities as a gamemaster by focusing on stuff you haven't been as good at in the past - which is a perfectly good idea. Maybe you're lousy with foci, and you're not going to live with that weak point any more. Good for you!

But if that's not the plan, why offer lots of points to the players for doing stuff that will lead them away from where the fun (for everyone) is?

"Know yourself."

*Unluck in action
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/cartoons/

[David Blue]

By the way, I think tesuji has hit some out of the park in this thread. Bravo!

If you've made up your vampire main-campaign-enemies, or in my case if you've just bought hundreds of zombie figures with every intention of using them (surely every game can be improved by hordes of glow-in-the-dark zombies?) - should that affect the limitations you give for "only affects the undead" or "doesn't affect the undead" compared to the limitation points you'd give in a game where it was going to be flying saucers wall-to-wall, baby? I should hope so!

It's the same with focus costs and a game where you know in advance it is or it isn't going to be about foci and what can go wrong with foci and for focus-users.

[RDU Neil]

And every other gaming group has had this come up?

I'd like to hear from anyone else who's thought of or had to deny this.

Really.

Nope... and it's so late right now, I can't even wrap my brain around why it is broken... but that's just because I'm tired.

[RDU Neil]

Actually, END reserve is a damn fine concept in and of itself. Define everything you do as coming from the reserve.; Sell back your END (say 50 END, for 25 points) and use it to buy a reserve (say 100 points with 15 REC).

You get twice as much END which likely recovers faster and doesn't vanish if you're KO'd. The only drawback is that you can't recover more than once per turn.

If I understand you right... that you are saying that END Reserve is one of those stand-alone "must haves" if you could get away with it... then yes, I'd agree. END Reserves... especially in my games where I let players Push up to half the active points in a power (1 for 1) if they want... can be quite a hack to the system.

[WhammeWhamme]

That's because either your players haven't thought of it, or they figured they'd never get it by you.

Or maybe, just maybe, they realize that it only works the way it currently does because... hell, I have no idea what Steve was thinking, it completely defies all existing precedent, all possible analogies AND common sense.

And possibly the RAWIYDIF (rules as written if you don't include FAQ's).

I mean, seriously, there was no earthly reason to have that work.

(vein pops out)

I don't think _anyone_ with decent rules knowledge would think of it, they'd _have_ to have read about the dodge. Because it's not only stupid... it's counterintuitive.

[David Blue]

I've seen a power armoured (obvious inaccessible focus) only in hero identity elemental control of powers based on end reserves (with many powers being bought with a limitation for needing END) be used to piggy-back further tricks that were - effective. The bigger you buy your main attack, the more energy you have for almost everything, while still gaining (yet another) limitation for it, so you're off to a good start building clever things. To me, after that, it always feels like the munchkining is incomplete till the END batteries are set up. (grin)

This is all logical, following from the original focus power-suit concept. It makes sense that powered armoured guy is using END batteries, not his own END. Having someone specialise in END control and "force " for attacks makes sense, assuming you are talking about the sorts of things powered armour guy would concentrate on. It makes at least as much sense as many elemental controls that are often seen, such as mental powers. And haven't you seen Iron Man's hip pods? Two charges of END batteries, obviously! (grin)

It seemed to me at the time, and still does, that it's the way Champions works by default, not any ill-intentions by the player (who was very moderate in using his power compared to what he could have done) that lifts up this character type and others like it and pushes down the value of some others. Powered armour guy wasn't even excessive in the context of a good few of his team-mates, starting with only in hero identity, focused (of course), stats-bought-down-and-then-back-up elemental control god (etc.) man. First you pick your focus, because that's the root of supreme power, and then you build on it, higher and higher.

One of the minor tricks that went with that was to hang a couple of obvious accessible focus items, like a micro-detect-danger radar dish, outside the armour's protection. Of course you could target each dinky little item individually - if you didn't mind missing, and if you didn't mind wasting your actions in trivial ways while Armoured-All-Being was ripping into you with the annihilator cannon. That's a good trick with obvious accessible foci.

When I think of the price break for focus, its effect on the game, and my own desire or non-desire to deal with that, memories of characters such as these are my ghostly guides. (grin)

Bottom line: if you're the gamemaster, nothing is legal till you say it is. If you don't like how a concept is prone to flower, you can trim it at the top (putting a damage cap on how all those extra focus points will be spent), or at the root (which seemed to me to be the dominating influence of foci, which I have little desire to plot around), or at any point in between. Steve Long is not going to come to your house and say: "You have to let the players do that." So it's your choice and your responsibility to decide where you want to say: "Stop!" And my own, personal, individual choice, based on my own strengths and limitations and not meant to apply to anyone else, is to say: "Don't even start that."

[Gary]

Nope... and it's so late right now, I can't even wrap my brain around why it is broken... but that's just because I'm tired.


Basic form of the abuse:

Assume your character spends 20 End a phase when all powers are in use. What you do is to purchase a 20 End Reserve for 2 active points, and then add 1 googol charges for a +1 advantage. Thus for 4 real points, your character essentially has 0 End cost on every single power that uses End.

There are more advanced versions of the abuse that are way more abusive than the simple version.

[Gary]

Or maybe, just maybe, they realize that it only works the way it currently does because... hell, I have no idea what Steve was thinking, it completely defies all existing precedent, all possible analogies AND common sense.

And possibly the RAWIYDIF (rules as written if you don't include FAQ's).

I mean, seriously, there was no earthly reason to have that work.

(vein pops out)

I don't think _anyone_ with decent rules knowledge would think of it, they'd _have_ to have read about the dodge. Because it's not only stupid... it's counterintuitive.

Well, I thought of it. :D

[Trebuchet]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to David Blue again." :(

[Sean Waters]

Erm, if you bought an END Reserve with charges, to my mind, that would just mean that you could only use the END and the REC a limited number of times: it wouldn't change how it works, or give you, in effect, more END Reserves. If you get into advantage territory (the +1 for a googol, or a googolplex, if you fancy) then all it means is you will never run out of uses of the END Reserve, but you'd still have to recover any END you used before you could use it again, so I don't really see that one. Charges is a way to avoid paying END: it is meaningless except as an advantage for powers that do not use END.

I am cogniscent of the rather odd situation outlined by Hugh Neilson: I never saw the need for having END Reserve in the system, when you could just build it with a limited form of END and REC anyway. The END in an END Reserve is 1/5 normal cost and the REC is 1/2 normal cost. Why? Well OK, the REC is probably over priced given that normal REC recovers both END and STUN, but the END itself is ludicrously cheap.

Moreover (and fixing this would largely fix it to my mind) if you drain END from the Reserve (with the drain power) it goes at 2 points per point, not 10 points per point.

Having said that, I've not spotted anyone abusing END Reserves in this way, but if you do, report it immediately to the authorities!

[Hugh Neilson]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.

[Sean Waters]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.

...unless they are also willing to accept the disadvantage:

'Inveterate self abuser and exhibitionist' Common, Strong

Oh, sorry, you said self respecting, didn't you. :nonp:

[WhammeWhamme]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.

But buying a big END Reserve with that limitation on it let's you slap x10 Endurance cost on all your powers....

[Mentor]

Ok, I'll bite.

Are you saying that if he did not have OIF armor, he would say "screw the secret id, lets not run into the closet to change and lets start the fight now"?

if not, then it seems like the OIF isn't really making this any worse than the usual secret ID thing, right?




Well if he was Tarantula Boy, he would simply say screw this secret ID and start whipping the bad guys with his webs, venom blasts, high strength and/or high SPD and Martial Arts. Tarantula Boy is already super tough from his radiation accident, so his costume is just a disguise.

As it is with an OIF Power Armor, Cyberknight would have to say screw this Secret ID and find a safe place to put his armor on, or be vulnerable to super sized attacks as he is just a superior (CON and DEX 20 and SPD 4) but normal human out of his armor.

I think you would agree that it isn't quite the same thing.

[Mentor]

Ever get your fly caught when you're changing into the power armour? Really puts a cramp on your fighting style, let me tell you... :nonp:
OUCH! Hey, Sean, some of my GMs read these threads. Thanks a lot. :D

[Dr. Anomaly]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.
Actually, unless you took them as Continuing Charges, wouldn't it mean you'd have that Charge of END available for just an instant, and then it would be gone again?

[tesuji]

Well if he was Tarantula Boy, he would simply say screw this secret ID and start whipping the bad guys with his webs, venom blasts, high strength and/or high SPD and Martial Arts. Tarantula Boy is already super tough from his radiation accident, so his costume is just a disguise.

As it is with an OIF Power Armor, Cyberknight would have to say screw this Secret ID and find a safe place to put his armor on, or be vulnerable to super sized attacks as he is just a superior (CON and DEX 20 and SPD 4) but normal human out of his armor.

I think you would agree that it isn't quite the same thing.

Absoilutely... a character without a secret ID (including one who has just decided he doesn't have a secret ID) is challenged by his dressup time oif issue.

My point was, as related to the example given not meant as a universal example applying to any concievable case, a character with a secret ID who is playing the secret ID, is not significantly affected by having to don his suit (OIF). The same "i had to jump in the closet and suit up while the bad guys run amok" see-my-disad thing could be said by mutant boy who has a secret ID who has no focus whatsoever.

maybe thats clearer now?

There certainly can be many examples of how OIF can be played into a drawback, but a secret ID guy saying "i must find a closet to don my suit out of sight" isn't one of them. IMO at least.

[Trebuchet]

Absoilutely... a character without a secret ID (including one who has just decided he doesn't have a secret ID) is challenged by his dressup time oif issue.

My point was, as related to the example given not meant as a universal example applying to any concievable case, a character with a secret ID who is playing the secret ID, is not significantly affected by having to don his suit (OIF). The same "i had to jump in the closet and suit up while the bad guys run amok" see-my-disad thing could be said by mutant boy who has a secret ID who has no focus whatsoever.

maybe thats clearer now?

There certainly can be many examples of how OIF can be played into a drawback, but a secret ID guy saying "i must find a closet to don my suit out of sight" isn't one of them. IMO at least.I'd disagree with that premise. Mutant Boy with a Secret ID can slap on just his mask and be in action against the bad guys a second later. Powered Armor Dude has to spend several seconds (at least) putting on his suit before he can engage the enemy, and until he completes that he's vulnerable to attack. Secret ID protection is only part of the equation for powered armor characters.

Look at Dr. Octopus's attack on Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson at the cafe in Spider-Man 2. He threw a car at Peter Parker, which PP was able to dodge only because of his spider sense and super reflexes, plus the car actually hit Peter as he protected Mary Jane with his body. Then Doc Ock threw Parker against the back wall hard enough to collapse the wall on top of him.

Had that been Tony Stark having coffee with Mary Jane Watson, he'd have been a greasy red smear along with Mary Jane.

[tesuji]

[/QUOTE]



I'd disagree with that premise. Mutant Boy with a Secret ID can slap on just his mask and be in action against the bad guys a second later. Powered Armor Dude has to spend several seconds (at least) putting on his suit before he can engage the enemy,

You are making assumptions not presented in the rules or in the example.

The example did not say "and it takes longer to put on an OIF suit than my usual costume." had it said so, that would be a different matter.

By the rules, iirc, putting on one's costume is defined as a full phase action, or at least it used to be. Readying a focus is iirc a half-phase action, though of course room for longer is possible.

if the battlesuit was defined as "takes longer to do than a normal super's costume" then obviously we would be discussing a different issue.

I see to recall IMs armor being zip and don in at least one version.


and until he completes that he's vulnerable to attack. Secret ID protection is only part of the equation for powered armor characters.

As i said, there are a whole lot of ways OIF can be made a disadvantage. The "no power when not suited up" is one of them.

"need to duck into closet to change first" is not when a secret ID is involved.



Look at Dr. Octopus's attack on Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson at the cafe in Spider-Man 2. He threw a car at Peter Parker, which PP was able to dodge only because of his spider sense and super reflexes, plus the car actually hit Peter as he protected Mary Jane with his body. Then Doc Ock threw Parker against the back wall hard enough to collapse the wall on top of him.

Had that been Tony Stark having coffee with Mary Jane Watson, he'd have been a greasy red smear along with Mary Jane.


good example of "other ways OIF can be a disadvantage".

should we continue to list more?

OIF can be stolen, while spidermans webs cannot.

Ok lets play this a different way... if a player said

"Man oh man, last session things went bad. My guy ran into a closet in order to don my SuperDude suit while the villains were wreaking havoc and that was tough cuz he sees the purpose of his heroing being to protect society and not just win the fight."

Armed with that, the players own statement of the limitation as it played out... was he talking about a secret ID or a battlesuit or both?

[Trebuchet]

You are making assumptions not presented in the rules or in the example.

The example did not say "and it takes longer to put on an OIF suit than my usual costume." had it said so, that would be a different matter.

By the rules, iirc, putting on one's costume is defined as a full phase action, or at least it used to be. Readying a focus is iirc a half-phase action, though of course room for longer is possible.

if the battlesuit was defined as "takes longer to do than a normal super's costume" then obviously we would be discussing a different issue.

I see to recall IMs armor being zip and don in at least one version.

As i said, there are a whole lot of ways OIF can be made a disadvantage. The "no power when not suited up" is one of them.

"need to duck into closet to change first" is not when a secret ID is involved.

good example of "other ways OIF can be a disadvantage".

should we continue to list more?

OIF can be stolen, while spidermans webs cannot.That still misses the entire point. We're discussing the values of Focuses in this thread. Spider-Man still had his powers in the example I gave. Even in a "zip on" version of his Iron Man armor Tony Stark would have been badly hurt or killed; never mind that it would have totally blown his Secret ID. (And IIRC the rules do state that powered armor may take longer than one Phase to put on, depending on special effects. As far as I'm concerned if it takes less than several seconds to get it on and operational it's no longer a Focus but rather OIHID. That's how we treat it in our campaign.)

Characters do not exist in a vaccuum; they become characters only within the framework of a campaign. Otherwise they're just stacks of meaningless numbers. Focus rules and Secret ID are simply two factors that can and will interact in a character's campaign. They may complement or complicate each other, but they are certainly not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.


Ok lets play this a different way... if a player said

"Man oh man, last session things went bad. My guy ran into a closet in order to don my SuperDude suit while the villains were wreaking havoc and that was tough cuz he sees the purpose of his heroing being to protect society and not just win the fight." Armed with that, the players own statement of the limitation as it played out... was he talking about a secret ID or a battlesuit or both?Is there any reason he can't be speaking about both? It's not like they're mutually exclusive.

[prestidigitator]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.
You have a few adventures between game sessions. Your out of your 256 charges. They never recover. What now?

EDIT: That was me being Mr. Too Clever for His Own Good GM Man. I couldn't resist.

[Gary]

Actually, the real abuse is buying all your powers "1 googolplex charges" (+1) "Charges Never Recover" (reduces from +1 advantage to -1 limitation).

All your powers are now 0 END and half price.

Oh, and your character never gets into a self-respecting campaign.


The advanced version of the End Reserve abuse combines both of these abuses. Your character who normally spends 20 End a phase now takes X10 End cost for all powers for a -4 cost break on everything. Now he buys a 200 End Reserve (20 active points), and makes it 1 googol charges that never recovers for a -1. Now for the price of 10 real points, the character gets a -4 cost break on everything and never has to worry about End.

[Gary]

Erm, if you bought an END Reserve with charges, to my mind, that would just mean that you could only use the END and the REC a limited number of times: it wouldn't change how it works, or give you, in effect, more END Reserves. If you get into advantage territory (the +1 for a googol, or a googolplex, if you fancy) then all it means is you will never run out of uses of the END Reserve, but you'd still have to recover any END you used before you could use it again, so I don't really see that one. Charges is a way to avoid paying END: it is meaningless except as an advantage for powers that do not use END.

I am cogniscent of the rather odd situation outlined by Hugh Neilson: I never saw the need for having END Reserve in the system, when you could just build it with a limited form of END and REC anyway. The END in an END Reserve is 1/5 normal cost and the REC is 1/2 normal cost. Why? Well OK, the REC is probably over priced given that normal REC recovers both END and STUN, but the END itself is ludicrously cheap.

Moreover (and fixing this would largely fix it to my mind) if you drain END from the Reserve (with the drain power) it goes at 2 points per point, not 10 points per point.

Having said that, I've not spotted anyone abusing END Reserves in this way, but if you do, report it immediately to the authorities!


Your interpretation is logical, but it has been confirmed by Steve that using a fresh charge refreshes all End from an End Reserve.

http://herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3977&highlight=charges+end+reserve

Also, the FAQ is very specific that the End refreshes with each new charge.

[prestidigitator]

I've never much liked End Reserve at all. Why should End be so much cheaper if you buy it in a reserve than if you buy it as a Characteristic? There's no real built-in limitation to the Reserve, aside from its only taking Post-Segment-12 Recoveries (which it takes even if you are unconscious, so I don't view it as much of a limitation).

In my campaigns, End Reserve costs the same amount as normal End, except for the first 20 points of End ("average normal" End value) which costs the standard price for End Reserve.

[Hugh Neilson]

You have a few adventures between game sessions. Your out of your 256 charges. They never recover. What now?

EDIT: That was me being Mr. Too Clever for His Own Good GM Man. I couldn't resist.

That's the problem. It's not 256 charges. It's 1 with a googol zeros' behind it (a googol is 1 with a million zeroes behind it). Try running the charges out - you need to have LS: Immortal!

[prestidigitator]

That's the problem. It's not 256 charges. It's 1 with a googol zeros' behind it (a googol is 1 with a million zeroes behind it). Try running the charges out - you need to have LS: Immortal!
I'm aware of the concept of the number, but you ain't gettin' that for a +1 Advantage. A +1 Advantage is 256 Charges.

EDIT: Or somewhere thereabouts. I believe 16 Charges is a +0, but I'm not 100% sure of that one. It might be 32 for a +0. In any case, every doubling from that point is +1/4 extra.

[Gary]

I'm aware of the concept of the number, but you ain't gettin' that for a +1 Advantage. A +1 Advantage is 256 Charges.


Nope, charges cap out at +1 no matter how many charges you take. Thats under the theory that charges should never be more expensive than 0 End cost for an autofire attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Nope, charges cap out at +1 no matter how many charges you take. Thats under the theory that charges should never be more expensive than 0 End cost for an autofire attack.

Gary, was it you that specifically posed the "1 googol non-recoverable charges" question on the rules board? I recall someone doing that.

As to the "your charges are out" answer, for a player who's going to rape the rules anyway, do you think he's abpve retiring the character once the charges run out?

[Gary]

Gary, was it you that specifically posed the "1 googol non-recoverable charges" question on the rules board? I recall someone doing that.


Yep, guilty as charged. :D

[Mentor]

The advanced version of the End Reserve abuse combines both of these abuses. Your character who normally spends 20 End a phase now takes X10 End cost for all powers for a -4 cost break on everything. Now he buys a 200 End Reserve (20 active points), and makes it 1 googol charges that never recovers for a -1. Now for the price of 10 real points, the character gets a -4 cost break on everything and never has to worry about End.
That would be a Character that is broken because of abusing the power to create something unintended by a player who is abusive, not a rule that is broken, IMHO. There is virtually no power or skill that cannot be bought to the levell of ridiculous and thus be abused.

[Gary]

That would be a Character that is broken because of abusing the power to create something unintended by a player who is abusive, not a rule that is broken, IMHO. There is virtually no power or skill that cannot be bought to the levell of ridiculous and thus be abused.


That was the advanced abuse. The basic level abuse merely buys the power as written.

[prestidigitator]

Nope, charges cap out at +1 no matter how many charges you take. Thats under the theory that charges should never be more expensive than 0 End cost for an autofire attack.
Oh. I'm sorry. I don't have my book with me, and I guess that's one of those silly little rules I completely ignored. Well, in that case I myself would cap the overall Limitation at +1, but that's after figuring in all the modifications such as Charges Never Recover (this would be my common sense approach, though I'm not sure if it jives with the exact wording in the book). So your case of a googol (that's 10^100, BTW, not 10^1,000,000) Charges would be 10^100 ~= 2^330, which equates to approximately a +83 Advantage, -2 for the Charges Never Recover, and thats a +81, capped at +1. Yeah for you. :)

[Gary]

Oh. I'm sorry. I don't have my book with me, and I guess that's one of those silly little rules I completely ignored. Well, in that case I myself would cap the overall Limitation at +1, but that's after figuring in all the modifications such as Charges Never Recover (this would be my common sense approach, though I'm not sure if it jives with the exact wording in the book). So your case of a googol (that's 10^100, BTW, not 10^1,000,000) Charges would be 10^100 ~= 2^330, which equates to approximately a +83 Advantage, -2 for the Charges Never Recover, and thats a +81, capped at +1. Yeah for you. :)


That's still ultra cheap to allow you to place a -4 limitation on every power and essentially have 0 End cost for everything. :D

[prestidigitator]

That's still ultra cheap to allow you to place a -4 limitation on every power and essentially have 0 End cost for everything. :D
Why? I can add 0 End and Persistent to something for a +1, and then, "...place a -4 limitation on every power and essentially have 0 End cost for everything." Or even just the 0 End for a +1/2 and have 0 End for even cheaper. I don't see your point.

[prestidigitator]

Oh. I'm sorry. You meant use those Charges on the End Reserve. Yes. Well, I don't think I go with the whole Charges completely rejuvinate an End Reserve thing. I find that a little ridiculous, no matter who proposed the idea.

[Trebuchet]

That's still ultra cheap to allow you to place a -4 limitation on every power and essentially have 0 End cost for everything. :DIt would still be illegal by the rules as written. An infinite supply of Charges isn't worth -1/4, never mind -4. (IIRC, there haven't been a googleplex of seconds since the Big Bang!) Remember the metarule for all Limitations (5ER, pg. 280):

A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!

[prestidigitator]

Oh. I'm sorry. You meant use those Charges on the End Reserve. Yes. Well, I don't think I go with the whole Charges completely rejuvinate an End Reserve thing. I find that a little ridiculous, no matter who proposed the idea.
To further clarify, Charges on a Multipower apply to the whole Multipower, meaning you get your charges in use on all the Powers together, not each one of them. Why is this so much more restrictive than Charges on an End Reserve? I think if you buy Charges for the End of an End Reserve, it acts like it would otherwise, but you can only pull End out of it when you expend a Charge. If there are Charges on the Rec, then it only Recovers that many times.

[Sean Waters]

I'd disagree with that premise. Mutant Boy with a Secret ID can slap on just his mask and be in action against the bad guys a second later. Powered Armor Dude has to spend several seconds (at least) putting on his suit before he can engage the enemy, and until he completes that he's vulnerable to attack. Secret ID protection is only part of the equation for powered armor characters.


...and if he'd used modern computers and a Windows operating system to run the armour systems, it would be a lot longer than that. An awful lot longer. Then you'd get the thing hanging when you try to do something complicated, like open the calculator or the media player, that could be a bit embarassing, just starting at this little hour glass on your HUD, and...

...sorry, what were we talking about? :)

[Gary]

To further clarify, Charges on a Multipower apply to the whole Multipower, meaning you get your charges in use on all the Powers together, not each one of them. Why is this so much more restrictive than Charges on an End Reserve? I think if you buy Charges for the End of an End Reserve, it acts like it would otherwise, but you can only pull End out of it when you expend a Charge. If there are Charges on the Rec, then it only Recovers that many times.


As I said before, that would be the logical interpretation. However, that is not the official interpretation as voiced by Steve Long.

[Gary]

It would still be illegal by the rules as written. An infinite supply of Charges isn't worth -1/4, never mind -4. (IIRC, there haven't been a googleplex of seconds since the Big Bang!) Remember the metarule for all Limitations (5ER, pg. 280):

A Limitation that doesn't limit the character isn't worth any bonus!


As I said before, the basic form of the abuse doesn't require any limitations at all. Merely that you purchase the power as is.

[Sean Waters]

You have a few adventures between game sessions. Your out of your 256 charges. They never recover. What now?

EDIT: That was me being Mr. Too Clever for His Own Good GM Man. I couldn't resist.

A googolplex is such a big number that if you used 10 charges every segment you'd still have some left when the sun burns out.

In fact I remember it was Carl Sagan's Cosmos (remember that?) that introduced me to the googol and the googolplex. I remember him saying that you couldn't write out a googolplex longhand: even if you turned the entire universe into paper and ink there wouldn't be enough for all the zeroes.

It is (just) possible we're getting a bit silly talking about such big numbers. Maybe. :whistle

[Trebuchet]

...and if he'd used modern computers and a Windows operating system to run the armour systems, it would be a lot longer than that. An awful lot longer. Then you'd get the thing hanging when you try to do something complicated, like open the calculator or the media player, that could be a bit embarassing, just starting at this little hour glass on your HUD, and...

...sorry, what were we talking about? :):rofl:

[prestidigitator]

As I said before, that would be the logical interpretation. However, that is not the official interpretation as voiced by Steve Long.
Yeah, yeah. I know. That's why I said, "...no matter who...." To that I say, tough sh**! We're all human. :)

[prestidigitator]

...and if he'd used modern computers and a Windows operating system to run the armour systems, it would be a lot longer than that. An awful lot longer. Then you'd get the thing hanging when you try to do something complicated, like open the calculator or the media player, that could be a bit embarassing, just starting at this little hour glass on your HUD, and...

...sorry, what were we talking about? :)
:snicker: Cheetos? Oh. Yeah. Linux in our power armor. Definitely.

[Trebuchet]

As I said before, the basic form of the abuse doesn't require any limitations at all. Merely that you purchase the power as is.Nope. There is no functional difference between a googleplex of Charges and 0 END. However, trying to buy X10 END on a googleplex of Charges still runs afoul of the metarule because it does not limit the character and hence is worth -0. Any GM stupid enough to permit that needs to be immediately castrated and burned at the stake so he won't breed and lower Earth's collective IQ.

[prestidigitator]

A googolplex is such a big number that if you used 10 charges every segment you'd still have some left when the sun burns out.

In fact I remember it was Carl Sagan's Cosmos (remember that?) that introduced me to the googol and the googolplex. I remember him saying that you couldn't write out a googolplex longhand: even if you turned the entire universe into paper and ink there wouldn't be enough for all the zeroes.

It is (just) possible we're getting a bit silly talking about such big numbers. Maybe. :whistle
Yep, yep, and yep. We're getting pretty goofy, but whatever.

LOL. "Whatever! Flame on!" Who said that? I need to go find that GIF. That was great!

[prestidigitator]

Nope. There is no functional difference between a googleplex of Charges and 0 END. However, trying to buy X10 END on a googleplex of Charges still runs afoul of the metarule because it does not limit the character and hence is worth -0. Any GM stupid enough to permit that needs to be immediately castrated and burned at the stake so he won't breed and lower Earth's collective IQ.
Yes. This is true. Increased End Cost can only be bought for Powers that cost End to begin with, and any Power with Charges does not (although I kind of like the idea of a Power that is both restricted in the number of times you use it AND costs End; Charges + Costs End; I've done this before). However, I think Gary was talking about how you can put Charges on your End Reserve to effectively multiply your End by the number of Charges, then buy everything with Increased End Cost (that would be all the other Powers).

[Gary]

Nope. There is no functional difference between a googleplex of Charges and 0 END. However, trying to buy X10 END on a googleplex of Charges still runs afoul of the metarule because it does not limit the character and hence is worth -0. Any GM stupid enough to permit that needs to be immediately castrated and burned at the stake so he won't breed and lower Earth's collective IQ.


The basic form of the abuse merely buys 1 googol charges on a 20 End Reserve for a total of 4 real points. No limitations here at all, and now all your powers have 0 End cost.

[Gary]

Yeah, yeah. I know. That's why I said, "...no matter who...." To that I say, tough sh**! We're all human. :)


Hence this is why I'm using this example as an example of a power that is 'too good' when Dr A was asking for one.

[Gary]

Yes. This is true. Increased End Cost can only be bought for Powers that cost End to begin with, and any Power with Charges does not (although I kind of like the idea of a Power that is both restricted in the number of times you use it AND costs End; Charges + Costs End; I've done this before). However, I think Gary was talking about how you can put Charges on your End Reserve to effectively multiply your End by the number of Charges, then buy everything with Increased End Cost (that would be all the other Powers).


Yep. :D

Also, for any power that you don't need to be Persistent, you can take the Costs End limitation for an additional -1/2.

[Sean Waters]

Bit off topic, but stuff I didn't know (and don't agree with...)


Carrying this logic forward, a power drawing END from an Endurance Reserve wouldn’t shut off if the character were Knocked Out or Stunned. You could buy a Personal END (-1/2) Limitation on the Reserve’s END to make the power(s) shut off when the character is unconscious.

Blimey.

And...


Q: What is the effect of taking Charges on an Endurance Reserve?

A: Activating the Charge gives the character the defined amount of END that Phase. If he doesn’t use it all that Phase, the unused END “vanishes,” depriving him of the ability to use it (he could use another Charge next Phase to get more, of course).

Mind you these are both from the old FAQ - they may well be reconsidered and not included in the new one.

A sensible house rule might be to cap the total number of charges you can buy at 500 (the highest the table goes up to). There can't be many non-abusive constructions needing even that many charges in a day... :stupid:

...oh and thanks to Gary for bringing this particular wrinkle in my perception of the order of things to my attention. :cheers

[prestidigitator]

Bit off topic, but stuff I didn't know (and don't agree with...)



Originally Posted by faq
Carrying this logic forward, a power drawing END from an Endurance Reserve wouldn’t shut off if the character were Knocked Out or Stunned. You could buy a Personal END (-1/2) Limitation on the Reserve’s END to make the power(s) shut off when the character is unconscious.
Blimey.
Yep. Yet another reason why End Reserve is more useful than ordinary End for less cost (although obviously there could be bad aspects to the Power staying on when you are Knocked Out, I think they probably don't balance the benefits).

[Trebuchet]

The basic form of the abuse merely buys 1 googol charges on a 20 End Reserve for a total of 4 real points. No limitations here at all, and now all your powers have 0 End cost.Your math is off. According to HDv2, it's only 3 points. I cut and pasted the below directly from Hero Designer:

Endurance Reserve (20 END, 1 REC) Reserve: , Googleplex Charges (+0) (3 Active Points)

In fact, if you cut the Recovery to 0 you can get it for only 2 points.

:nya:

[Hugh Neilson]

A sensible house rule might be to cap the total number of charges you can buy at 500 (the highest the table goes up to). There can't be many non-abusive constructions needing even that many charges in a day... :stupid:

Gary's construct still works, though. How many times will you need to access your END reserve in a day? 500 phases should be plenty.

[Gary]

Your math is off. According to HDv2, it's only 3 points. I cut and pasted the below directly from Hero Designer:

Endurance Reserve (20 END, 1 REC) Reserve: , Googleplex Charges (+0) (3 Active Points)

In fact, if you cut the Recovery to 0 you can get it for only 2 points.

:nya:

Googolplex charges should be +1. :stupid:

[Trebuchet]

Googolplex charges should be +1. :stupid:You're right. I just checked HDv2 and it shows +0 for everything that isn't an actual negative value.

Time to PM Dan. :)

[AmadanNaBriona]

The advanced version of the End Reserve abuse combines both of these abuses. Your character who normally spends 20 End a phase now takes X10 End cost for all powers for a -4 cost break on everything. Now he buys a 200 End Reserve (20 active points), and makes it 1 googol charges that never recovers for a -1. Now for the price of 10 real points, the character gets a -4 cost break on everything and never has to worry about End.

Never before have I said this, but I bow before your munchkin-fu!
Repped

[Mentor]

The basic form of the abuse merely buys 1 googol charges on a 20 End Reserve for a total of 4 real points. No limitations here at all, and now all your powers have 0 End cost.
As GM, I would rule that there is no technology or magic that enables googal charges of any energy to be stored and moreover I would inform the player that they are trying to screw over the system and the campaign.

If the player in question balked and played rules lawyer, I would then explain that as GM, m decision is final and that common sense overrides any convoluted semantic interpretation of the rules as technically written, also per Steve Long in Hero 5th Edition.

I would also inform the individual, if they persisted, they would henceforth be referred to as the ex-player because anyone who wasn't doing this to have fun with our team by being an integral but cooperative part of a hero team was in the wrong campaign.

To repeat, it is the player attempting such a ridiculous ability unintended by the system which is abusive, not the framework set up by the rules which could not possibly anticipate every outrageous attempt at masturbating their ego rather than playing in a game.

[Gary]

As GM, I would rule that there is no technology or magic that enables googal charges of any energy to be stored and moreover I would inform the player that they are trying to screw over the system and the campaign.

If the player in question balked and played rules lawyer, I would then explain that as GM, m decision is final and that common sense overrides any convoluted semantic interpretation of the rules as technically written, also per Steve Long in Hero 5th Edition.

I would also inform the individual, if they persisted, they would henceforth be referred to as the ex-player because anyone who wasn't doing this to have fun with our team by being an integral but cooperative part of a hero team was in the wrong campaign.

To repeat, it is the player attempting such a ridiculous ability unintended by the system which is abusive, not the framework set up by the rules which could not possibly anticipate every outrageous attempt at masturbating their ego rather than playing in a game.


Thank you for proving my point, that there are things built into the system that are 'too good'.

[Mentor]

Thank you for proving my point, that there are things built into the system that are 'too good'.
I believe the term you are looking for is versitile. The rules are merely the nuts and bolts. The GM and players build the campaign. Nuclear fission can create electrical power for a city or destroy a city. it is all in how they are used that determines whether or not it is 'good'.

[Fuzzy Gnome]

You're right. I just checked HDv2 and it shows +0 for everything that isn't an actual negative value.

Time to PM Dan. :)Makes sense to me. END Reserve doesn't cost any END to use, so no amount of Charges should be an Advantage. IDHMBIFOM and stuff.

[Gary]

I believe the term you are looking for is versitile. The rules are merely the nuts and bolts. The GM and players build the campaign. Nuclear fission can create electrical power for a city or destroy a city. it is all in how they are used that determines whether or not it is 'good'.


Nope, this is a specific case of a broken rule, and you did exactly as I told Dr A what any reasonable GM would do. House rule it away. Or tear up the character sheet. ;)

[Mentor]

Nope, this is a specific case of a broken rule, and you did exactly as I told Dr A what any reasonable GM would do. House rule it away. Or tear up the character sheet. ;)
We are at an impasse. I, along with the metarules section of 5th Ed, IMO, consider the character concept, SFX and campaign balance as integral a part of the PC build as the semantic and mathematical correctness of the spaces on the Character sheet. Thus no rule in the book is beyond the scrutiny of the GM in determining whether a power or ability is or is not abusive in a given situation. Even a great power is never inherently abusive unless used inappropriately in context of the campaign.

[Gary]

We are at an impasse. I, along with the metarules section of 5th Ed, IMO, consider the character concept, SFX and campaign balance as integral a part of the PC build as the semantic and mathematical correctness of the spaces on the Character sheet. Thus no rule in the book is beyond the scrutiny of the GM in determining whether a power or ability is or is not abusive in a given situation. Even a great power is never inherently abusive unless used inappropriately in context of the campaign.


How are we at an impasse? You agreed with me that having all powers with 0 End for a cost of 4 points was broken, and you house ruled it away and said you would ban any player who would try it. At what point are we disagreeing?

[Sean Waters]

Gary's construct still works, though. How many times will you need to access your END reserve in a day? 500 phases should be plenty.

His massive savings are predicated on the charges never recovering, so they wouldn't be back tomorrow. If someone was daft enough to spend +1 on 500 charges when they could have had an infinite number of goes all at 0 END for +1/2, more fool them.

As many people have pointed out already though: it ain't gonna happen in my game, so it ain't really a problem.

Mind you half of what we go on about ain't really a problem, but that's never stopped us before. :D

[Doug McCrae]

Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break? I mean, it may be my style of play, but the benefits of extra points to spend tends to FAR outweigh the occasional nuissance of not having access to a power.I agree 100%. By rights an OIF should be unavailable one third of the time. I have never seen this happen in any game. It's always available more frequently.

[Trebuchet]

How are we at an impasse? You agreed with me that having all powers with 0 End for a cost of 4 points was broken, and you house ruled it away and said you would ban any player who would try it. At what point are we disagreeing?A GM's decision on a specific application is not a "house rule" for one thing. A "house rule" is a formal or semiformal list of changes or additions to the official rules in a particular campaign. "No attacks above 60 AP" is a house rule. "I won't allow you to have that Power/Advantage combination" is a GM's ruling.

In our campaign a player who presented such a character would be banned not because he'd figured out a clever way to abuse the rules, but rather because he tried to actually use it in our game. We don't need that kind of player. We would never invite such a player into our game in the first place, and if one did somehow slip through the cracks he would be swiftly uninvited. We've played with quite enough rules rapists and powergamers, thank you.

[Sean Waters]

A GM's decision on a specific application is not a "house rule" for one thing. A "house rule" is a formal or semiformal list of changes or additions to the official rules in a particular campaign. "No attacks above 60 AP" is a house rule. "I won't allow you to have that Power/Advantage combination" is a GM's ruling.

In our campaign a player who presented such a character would be banned not because he'd figured out a clever way to abuse the rules, but rather because he tried to actually use it in our game. We don't need that kind of player. We would never invite such a player into our game in the first place, and if one did somehow slip through the cracks he would be swiftly uninvited. We've played with quite enough rules rapists and powergamers, thank you.

Hmm, don't be too hasty. I knew this mega power-gamer once, always after the strongest the best etc etc. One time I caved in and gave it to him: we were playing DnD and I gave him an 18/00 STR anti-paladin. He loved it, and, oddly, played it really well and in character without the creationist power gaming spilling over into play.

Not saying you'll be so lucky, but.....

[Trebuchet]

Googolplex charges should be +1. :stupid:Dan Simon has replied to my inquiry:


Not sure on a page ref...I know it initially came up in TUV....and was confirmed by Steve.

The basic premise is that you don't get anything for it. If you have a Power that is 0-END without Charges, you can use it 1,000,000,000+ times per day (if desired). If you put even 1,000,000,000 Charges on it, you're not gaining a single thing from the Modifier -- it's not an Advantage.

If the power costs END normally, however, you gain the benefit of it becoming 0-END, and so the cap is placed at +1. Why +1, when 0-END is +1/2, I have no idea....but them's the rules.So my Hero Designer was correct, and that loophole costs even less than you thought. :eek:

[Hugh Neilson]

Dan Simon has replied to my inquiry:

So my Hero Designer was correct, and that loophole costs even less than you thought. :eek:

I'm not sure that's correct, though I don't have the book in front of me. +1 is the cap as the 0 END cost for autofire. Logically, if +0 is the cap for powerswhich cost no END, +1/2 should be the cap for powers which cost the normal +1/2 to get to 0 END.

I think a better answer would be to add -1/2 to the Charges limitation if the power costs 0 END by default, and cap the advantage at +1/2 (+1 if the power is Autofire).

[Hugh Neilson]

His massive savings are predicated on the charges never recovering, so they wouldn't be back tomorrow. If someone was daft enough to spend +1 on 500 charges when they could have had an infinite number of goes all at 0 END for +1/2, more fool them.

OK, let's go over this one more time. I buy a 120 point END battery with 500 charges. That costs 24 points (12 x 2).

I can activate it 500 times per day, each time having 50 END accessible. How much END can you spend in one phase? Well, if you have a 12d6 attack and 30 inches of movement, you spend up to 12 END. You can make those both 10x END (from the Battery) and be able to use then for 500 phases. And you don't spend any acual END to do it since it al comes from your battery.

Character pays 120 points for 12d6 EB, 30" flight costs (ignoring the possibility of frameworks) and spends 12 END each segment he uses them. Making them 0 ED boosts the cost to 180. Character with 10x END on each of those powers pays 12 points each, plus 24 for the Battery = 48 points. [Of course, the book specifically cautions about END battery combined with Extra END]


As many people have pointed out already though: it ain't gonna happen in my game, so it ain't really a problem.

Mind you half of what we go on about ain't really a problem, but that's never stopped us before. :D

Absolutely (on both conts). However, what this exercise really demonstrates is that the Hero rules are more an art than a science. They can't just be blindly applied. Judgement must be exercised in their application.

This, more than anything, is what makes Hero a complex game. It's able to do anything, and some "anythings" are broken in some cases. The system places the onus on the gamer to assess what is broken for their games, and change or ban these constructs. Other systems try to do this by ensuring there are no broken abilities or combinations, issuing errata and updating eitions. Hero relies instead on judgement of the gamers. Another reason Hero is a high end RPG product.

3e D&D almopst challenges players to find "broken" feats/abilities and feat combinations of same. When you find them, you get a powerful character. Hero goes the opposite approach - when you find them, you are expected to change or ban them to keep the game in balance.

[Sean Waters]

OK, let's go over this one more time. I buy a 120 point END battery with 500 charges. That costs 24 points (12 x 2).


OK, got it now. :D


Absolutely (on both conts). However, what this exercise really demonstrates is that the Hero rules are more an art than a science. They can't just be blindly applied. Judgement must be exercised in their application.


...mind you I don't think blindness would be such a problem in this instance if we didn't have what, on analysis, seems to be a pretty silly interpretation in the FAQ. :) All we need to do is make it clear that charges are the number of times you can access a power, and not have a special rule for END Reserves so they work differently from everything else.

[Mentor]

How are we at an impasse? You agreed with me that having all powers with 0 End for a cost of 4 points was broken, and you house ruled it away and said you would ban any player who would try it. At what point are we disagreeing?
I view the GM role in maintaining campaign balance and the requirement that SFX and concept be solidly integrated into the campaign as covered and defined by the rules to ameliorate and compensate for those rules which might be perceived as broken out in theoretical limbo, not as as external to the rules.

We really do just have an honest difference in perception, Gary. My interest in theoretical mathematics has always been nil, but applied to astronomy or physics in a concrete and applicable function, I always have risen to the challenge and become adept at its practical utility. The abstract concepts are simply less relevant to me, and mathematics is far more absolute than a gaming system.

I am not saying that either approach is necessarily wrong, just that we are coming from to very different viewpoints.

[Guyon]

Ask any play that has lost his focus if he thinks it was too cheap to buy?

My opinion is that anyone that thinks a focus is too cheep have never had a villain try to take one away. Which is sort fun playing to try and get it back. Assuming the Villain doesn't break it!!!!!!! :-O

[JmOz]

Have not read the whole thread, just kind of skimmed it

Dan is right, charges max out at +1. In my game I actualy max it out at the cost of buying it at 0 end (Continuing charges add +1/2 because they add uncontrolable, Autofire is +1, total max of +.5 to +1.5 depending on AF or Continuing). I think the original ruling has to do with simplicity...

1/3, 1/2, etc... I think it is an important note that the inconveinence can be greater than a certain number of times:

I don't have time to change into my PA but stop a mugging (2-3 normals, no problem) is a fun diversion, chance to shine w/o armor, and is a slight risk

I've lost my PA and have to escape a base of agent level guys (Who I can still take 2-3 at a time) is difficult

I have to fight a super villain W/O PA: Okay this is tough

I have to go against Dr D...Well I better start making a new character...

Depending on the story arc you might only loose your foci for one fight, but the sheer inconveinence of loosing it THEN makes up for the fact that you still use it 90% of the time

[RDU Neil]

Depending on the story arc you might only loose your foci for one fight, but the sheer inconveinence of loosing it THEN makes up for the fact that you still use it 90% of the time

This is the general player reaction. Four years after the fact, they are still talking about when Gearhead got caught out of armor and hand to fight VIPER agents who had invaded the base in his bathrobe and Pikachu slippers. It was one of two times that I ever really capitalized on the "out of armor" limitation to a great degree... and mostly because the player was comfortable and somewhat enjoyed the occasional "caught with his pants down" scenario.

As a GM, though, I had to contend with that 90% of the time when Gearhead was throwing around more DC... more/different powers... more defenses... because he had more relative points to spend compared to other players.

I do think this is a player vs. GM view of things. Players always remember the one time they got screwed as if it was the defining moment... while failing to remember the 99% of the time they kick ass and take names because they are a notch more powerful than everyone else.

[Mentor]

My PC was caught out of his Power Armor by European neo nazis, who were armed with automatic weapons. As he couldn't possibly beat them, he was captured and taken to a ship to be incarcerated, whereupon he used his skills based on his Secret ID as a billionaire playbo to negotiate the unusual sections of the ship, put on the scuba gear in the secret diving chamber and swim back to the mansion. When he donned his armor and returned to the fjord where the ship had been, it was gone. There were enough clues to what the mastermind villain was after and the experience ultimately openned up a new campaign arc.

At no time did I feel screwed as a player or character, even though Cyberknight never fougt and his alter ego, Dr. Erik Thorssen was captured without a shot being fired.

[RDU Neil]

My PC was caught out of his Power Armor by European neo nazis, who were armed with automatic weapons. As he couldn't possibly beat them, he was captured and taken to a ship to be incarcerated, whereupon he used his skills based on his Secret ID as a billionaire playbo to negotiate the unusual sections of the ship, put on the scuba gear in the secret diving chamber and swim back to the mansion. When he donned his armor and returned to the fjord where the ship had been, it was gone. There were enough clues to what the mastermind villain was after and the experience ultimately openned up a new campaign arc.

At no time did I feel screwed as a player or character, even though Cyberknight never fougt and his alter ego, Dr. Erik Thorssen was captured without a shot being fired.

Sounds cool... but also sounds like a GM plot created specifically to give your character a challenge, using the armorless-ness as a plot device... but also providing the perfect story for the character to still shine out of armor. Sounds like a solo adventure as well.

This is great... but it is nothing like taking the armor away while the rest of the superteam battles on at full power and armorless man just hides.

See, if a GM screws armor man over... but then has to spend the time coming up with clever story elements so that armorman-without-armor is still effective and integral to the story... well, that wasn't really a limitation on the character, now was it. In fact it was DOUBLE THE WORK on the GM. The GM had to come up with the plot and story to take away the armor... AND come up with elements to make the PC still be useful.

This does kind of hit on a hot-button issue for me... the rather common assumption that the GM isn't doing his job if he isn't penalizing for focus... while at the same time, the GM isn't doing his job if he isn't making the game fun for the players... so the GM is given a lose/lose situation, while the players sit back and complain while eathing the chips and driking the pop that the GM bought for them. :mad:

[Trebuchet]

Sounds cool... but also sounds like a GM plot created specifically to give your character a challenge, using the armorless-ness as a plot device... but also providing the perfect story for the character to still shine out of armor. Sounds like a solo adventure as well.

This is great... but it is nothing like taking the armor away while the rest of the superteam battles on at full power and armorless man just hides.I also ran an adventure which Cyberknight and entire our team participated in where the bad guy had cast a magic spell over Manhattan Island which slowly destroyed technology (among other even nastier effects). The more sophisticated the tech, the faster it failed. Guess whose powered armor is "bleeding edge" technology? :eg:

As the spell progressed the armor's abilities began to fail one by one as the team fought its way through packs of werewolves and a dragon in the sewers. By the time Cyberknight and the rest of MidGuard reached the center of the bad guy's plot at the desecrated St. Patrick's Cathedral, the only thing that still worked on his powered armor was Armor and less than half of his super strength. But he led the team through the heart of New York, never faltered, never complained, and ultimately it was Cyberknight who threw the evil sorcerer through the dimensional gateway to Hell and ended the spell. A bad guy, I should mention, who ignored Cyberknight in the climactic battle because he knew Cyberknight was "no threat without his powered armor."

[Supreme Serpent]

This does kind of hit on a hot-button issue for me... the rather common assumption that the GM isn't doing his job if he isn't penalizing for focus... while at the same time, the GM isn't doing his job if he isn't making the game fun for the players... so the GM is given a lose/lose situation, while the players sit back and complain while eathing the chips and driking the pop that the GM bought for them. :mad:

Spike the pop. They'll have more fun then. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

Sounds cool... but also sounds like a GM plot created specifically to give your character a challenge, using the armorless-ness as a plot device... but also providing the perfect story for the character to still shine out of armor.

This could be said of a lot of limitations or disadvantages. "it's not night so my Dark-only charcter is hosed". "The GM ran enough encounters that I'm out of charges. My character is hosed." "I can't change into hero ID. My character is hosed." "I can't leave the wedding without compromising my secret ID. My character is hosed."

OR

"Oh the GM gave him a way to succeed anyway so he didn't really get penalized. Limitations and disadvantages are just free points."

[RDU Neil]

Sounds like fun... in a Kulan Gath kinda way. :)


A bad guy, I should mention, who ignored Cyberknight in the climactic battle because he knew Cyberknight was "no threat without his powered armor."

Also sounds like a clear GM decision to still allow Cyberknight to be effective, even without his power. A mechanic level liability nullified by Play Experience level GM decision making.

Don't get me wrong... I do this kind of thing all the time, myself. I think it is an important part of being a fair and balanced GM... (oh God... I'm part of Fox News now!! Shoot me! :nonp: ) But at the same time, this is what I mean by "not really being a limitation." The character isn't really limited, because the story bends around the loss of the focus to make everything ok.

What I really want to hear is how often Cyberknight/Mentor has to say, "Gee guys... without my armor, I was really a fifth wheel. I really held you guys back and almost got you all killed. Sorry about that."

Now THAT is a limitation being a limitation. But if such a thing happened with any regularity, I'd think the player would be unhappy quite a bit unless they had some masochistic tendencies. "I'm only happy when I suck... :idjit: "

Now... if you read "Limitation" as meaning "Affected by the game/story more than other things"... rather than simply "limiting." That is understandable. Now we are back in the theoretical level... as with Disadvantages, they are not really a lessening of the character, as much as handing over plot hooks to the GM.

(Of course, now we are treading on Amber territory again... because that means that theoretically Limitations are nothing more than "Strings Attached" to a power/skill/part of a character. I don't know if we want to get into that.)

Also... this points out another way to evaluate Limitations. How much does the "work around" disrupt Play Experience?

Example: OIF Man loses armor five minutes into the game, the story can be subtly bent over the course of the evening to keep the character in the game, effective and alive. Players may not notice at all.

Example 2: 14 Or Less Man fails his armor activation and the sniper bullet flat out kills him five minutes into the game... if the GM wants to "work around" this limitation coming into play he has to totally shatter the Play Experience to figure out how to keep 14 Or Less Man in the game, effective and alive.

In the above case, OIF Man isn't nearly as limited as 14 Or Less Man and this tends to be the case over years of play... in my experience.

YMMV and probably does.

[Vondy]

One of the central pillars of the Hero System is the Imperial Power and (hopefully) Magesterial Wisdom of the Game Master.

[RDU Neil]

This could be said of a lot of limitations or disadvantages. "it's not night so my Dark-only charcter is hosed". "The GM ran enough encounters that I'm out of charges. My character is hosed." "I can't change into hero ID. My character is hosed." "I can't leave the wedding without compromising my secret ID. My character is hosed."

OR

"Oh the GM gave him a way to succeed anyway so he didn't really get penalized. Limitations and disadvantages are just free points."


Yep. A different way of stating what my next post was about. Some Limitations end up... in Play Experience... being "free points" where other Limitations are truly limiting. That is the core issue behind my originally starting this thread... that focus limitations, inaccessible focuses in particular... IN MY EXPERIENCE... aren't really limiting. They often tend to end up being "free points."

But to your post... "Free points" or not is a very subjective concept.

[Guyon]

I don't think that a GM should ever put a character in a spot to "hose" him, nor do I let a character off easy, from a situation that he got himself into. If a player sees too much GM control it leaves him with the feeling of either hopelessness of being controlled, or the sence that he can do anything without out any repercussions. I once played in a game where it was impossible to lose or die, it was the most boring game that I have ever played.

I still feel that the focus is not over priced, as it can be taken away, and that should worry a character from time to time. After all it is a disadvantage.

[Guyon]

Am I getting the feeling that in some games players don't roleplay their disadvantages, or GM do not bring them in to play?

That is half the fun in character development.

[tesuji]

Don't get me wrong... I do this kind of thing all the time, myself. I think it is an important part of being a fair and balanced GM... (oh God... I'm part of Fox News now!! Shoot me! :nonp: ) But at the same time, this is what I mean by "not really being a limitation." The character isn't really limited, because the story bends around the loss of the focus to make everything ok.


two things on this...

first, one issue is the scope of the lim. HERo goes into this under limited power IIRC. Its usually not good to allow an overarching all encompassing lim, because its often that enforcing the lim is too great a swipe to be done as a matter of a usual scenario. They state this about things like "only at night" but of course, POWERED ARMOR seems to be a genre specific exception.

One approach i used more often than not with PA characters was to have indivudal powers break frequently and armor wear down and get repaired so that other than the "you have had some time off and now..." it was actually rare for everything on the suit to be working at the same time.

Second, this is why i have come to prefer the pay-as-you-screw basis, where you don't get points in advance for "limitations" but instead get Xp bonus AFTER a session when your "limitation" hinders you noticeably. When your SFX is just a plot device but doesn't hinder you, thats just story. if the challenge i scripted is one that will be solved by your skills and brains, and not your powers, then "i am out of my armor" is just flavor.

[RDU Neil]

I don't think that a GM should ever put a character in a spot to "hose" him, nor do I let a character off easy, from a situation that he got himself into. If a player sees too much GM control it leaves him with the feeling of either hopelessness of being controlled, or the sence that he can do anything without out any repercussions. I once played in a game where it was impossible to lose or die, it was the most boring game that I have ever played.

I still feel that the focus is not over priced, as it can be taken away, and that should worry a character from time to time. After all it is a disadvantage.

I agree, but there is a fine line... very blurry, between a GM being expected to "enforce a limitation" and "hosing" a character. It is all perception... and very muddy ground.

My concern is that "good GMs" (and yes, good is subjective) will err on the side of NOT enforcing the full limitation, because it would be hosing... so that players who take limitations on their characters are really no more/no less the focus of difficulties than the players who didn't take limitations.

Essentially, all players have challenges presented to them that are based around who and what the character is... but SOME players get a point break for who and what their characers are, others don't.

It really does get into Play Styles. If you have generic Adventure X where you can insert Generic Char 1, 2 and 3. If Adventure X happens to have elements that trigger Gen Char #2's limitations... then for this adventure, Gen Char. #2 is less effective. Limitation points earned.

That is pretty theoretical, and follows a long outmoded game design platform where adventures were designed to have any random characters inserted. (The module concept.)

These days... or at least in more mature play groups... adventures are designed AROUND the specific characters. You design an adventure specifically to challenge the known characters, thus the expectation is to base what happens in the adventure around the ability of the character to handle it/interests them as players. Thus, while a Limitation may be priced with the concept of "generically 1/3 of the time it will be limiting to a character" the fact is that stories/games are designed "non-generically" so if it was affecting the character it was planned... if it DIDN'T affect the character, this was planned. So why does one person get a point break for "being affected by the story" and another doesn't?

Of course, random events do spring up occassionally that trigger limitations in the course of games... but I would argue this happens much less often than the amount of points saved would indicate with Limitations like Inaccesible Foci.

[RDU Neil]

two things on this...

first, one issue is the scope of the lim. HERo goes into this under limited power IIRC. Its usually not good to allow an overarching all encompassing lim, because its often that enforcing the lim is too great a swipe to be done as a matter of a usual scenario. They state this about things like "only at night" but of course, POWERED ARMOR seems to be a genre specific exception.

One approach i used more often than not with PA characters was to have indivudal powers break frequently and armor wear down and get repaired so that other than the "you have had some time off and now..." it was actually rare for everything on the suit to be working at the same time.

Second, this is why i have come to prefer the pay-as-you-screw basis, where you don't get points in advance for "limitations" but instead get Xp bonus AFTER a session when your "limitation" hinders you noticeably. When your SFX is just a plot device but doesn't hinder you, thats just story. if the challenge i scripted is one that will be solved by your skills and brains, and not your powers, then "i am out of my armor" is just flavor.

And this is a fascinating Game Rules level interpretation of a mechanic... one that is deviating quite a bit from the original build... but could very well work for a group, depending on their play style. Great example. Different in execution, but the same in concept as changing the Focus limitation to be 0, -1/4, or -1/2 to fit a Game. Both are deviations from core mechanics to better create a Play Experience you want in your game.

[Supreme Serpent]

Example: OIF Man loses armor five minutes into the game, the story can be subtly bent over the course of the evening to keep the character in the game, effective and alive. Players may not notice at all.

Example 2: 14 Or Less Man fails his armor activation and the sniper bullet flat out kills him five minutes into the game... if the GM wants to "work around" this limitation coming into play he has to totally shatter the Play Experience to figure out how to keep 14 Or Less Man in the game, effective and alive.

In the above case, OIF Man isn't nearly as limited as 14 Or Less Man and this tends to be the case over years of play... in my experience.

YMMV and probably does.

Activation seems to be coming up a lot as a comparison. Different limitations come into play different ways. Charges/increased END = player's choice to use the power or not. Activation = up to the dice. Pretty much everything else = GM's call/plot driven.

Perhaps one could house rule FOCI to nudge them a little out of the "GM's call" area and a little into the "dice roll" area? Sidestep some of the damage to Foci rules (for Foci with a lot of points in them, it's extremely rare in my experience to actually see them get damaged via the rules as writ). Work out a chart based on the value of the Foci limit to check when appropriate - higher the Foci limit, higher chance something goes wrong.

Thor throws his hammer, and the villains with saved phase drop a huge boulder on him. Does Mjolnir return before Thor is pinned under the rock? Make a roll and see.

Iron Man's hit by a massive attack. Any systems damaged? Make a roll and see.

Starman tries a tricky power stunt with his Cosmic Rod. Might there be a problem? Make a roll and see.

Black Knight swings at a villain and misses. Might the Ebony Blade be stuck in the I-beam behind the villain? Make a roll and see.

There'd still be a good deal of GM involvement, but some of the blame for the character getting "hosed" would fall to the dice, as it does for an Activation roll.

Maybe something like:
OAF: 14-
IAF/OIF: 11-
IIF: 8-

for a rough example. Or make it a flat roll across the Foci types, as there are presumably more situations when a roll would come into play for an OAF than for an IIF (It's easier to screw with Swordsman's sword than to interfere with someone's bionics).

Could also use if at a "random" point, to determine if it would be inappropriate for the hero to have his Foci on/be in hero ID, etc. "Ok, start of game, everyone's communicators goes off. Iron Man, make a check." "Dang! A seven!" "Ok, Tony Stark's in the middle of a board meeting, and the armor's upstairs in his office. Whatchagonna do?"

[RDU Neil]

Activation seems to be coming up a lot as a comparison. Different limitations come into play different ways. Charges/increased END = player's choice to use the power or not. Activation = up to the dice. Pretty much everything else = GM's call/plot driven.

Perhaps one could house rule FOCI to nudge them a little out of the "GM's call" area and a little into the "dice roll" area? Sidestep some of the damage to Foci rules (for Foci with a lot of points in them, it's extremely rare in my experience to actually see them get damaged via the rules as writ). Work out a chart based on the value of the Foci limit to check when appropriate - higher the Foci limit, higher chance something goes wrong.

Thor throws his hammer, and the villains with saved phase drop a huge boulder on him. Does Mjolnir return before Thor is pinned under the rock? Make a roll and see.

Iron Man's hit by a massive attack. Any systems damaged? Make a roll and see.

Starman tries a tricky power stunt with his Cosmic Rod. Might there be a problem? Make a roll and see.

Black Knight swings at a villain and misses. Might the Ebony Blade be stuck in the I-beam behind the villain? Make a roll and see.

There'd still be a good deal of GM involvement, but some of the blame for the character getting "hosed" would fall to the dice, as it does for an Activation roll.

Maybe something like:
OAF: 14-
IAF/OIF: 11-
IIF: 8-

for a rough example. Or make it a flat roll across the Foci types, as there are presumably more situations when a roll would come into play for an OAF than for an IIF (It's easier to screw with Swordsman's sword than to interfere with someone's bionics).

Could also use if at a "random" point, to determine if it would be inappropriate for the hero to have his Foci on/be in hero ID, etc. "Ok, start of game, everyone's communicators goes off. Iron Man, make a check." "Dang! A seven!" "Ok, Tony Stark's in the middle of a board meeting, and the armor's upstairs in his office. Whatchagonna do?"


On a theoretical level, I really like this. It does tend to "even things out" a bit in terms of Limitation worth.

On a practical level, I'm probably not comfortable with so many role playing situations being mechanically driven... but...

What might be interesting is to have this kind of chart as a "Guideline" for how often things happen. Some GMs might use it all the time, wishing to avoid being decision makers... others never, or once in a blue moon when the random "available or not" is an dramatic swing in the story that could go either way.

Hmmmm... I'd fall lin the latter category, but I like the idea. :thumbup:

[tesuji]

BTW, I just cannot let a focus fixing/issues discussion go by without mentioning what is IMO one of if not the biggest focus discrepancy...

to paraphrase... any focus which provides defenses is automatically hit by an attack that the defense applies against and this focus/defense is outside/on top of the defenses.

this is a freebie, not worth any value, and it means that my force field ring OIF providing 15/15 ff is always hit by an attack against me "for free" while my ring of flight oif cannot be attacked in combat (normally) and damaged that way at even. even with deliberate attention.

This, IMO, meeds to be an option chosen when you buy the power, not the default. it makes sense for armor, not necessarily for force field beltas an example.

Also, this is not a "no points" feature at all. Except for unbreakable foci, it will impact the odds of getting broken in combat pretty severely.

returning you to your otherwise normal thread now.

[David Blue]

Let's not forget that the greatest limitation of all is simply not having enough power, in context. And the way to not have power is not to take the limitations that some people are saying are so tough. "Straight/plain vanilla/iconic/non-munchkined/unlimited" is the worst limitation.

This limitation is enforced all the time, automatically. Being always a few dice, a few combat value levels, a dozen or so armour points and a few speed pips off the pace is a very harsh limitation. It has a lot to do with your character's chance of earning legendary status.

Think your character suffers too much concern that someone might some day take away his twelve dice obvious inaccessible focus energy blast? Then go for glory! With an 8d6 energy blast not so limited. And so on.

[David Blue]

OK, this is only from my experience but - yes, foci can drive everything else out of the game, in time. Very easily. Not just in one game but repeatedly, with different gamemasters. Even the team Batman clone may develop a super-focus like a "Battle-Staff"™ that totally takes over the character sheet. Because you have to do that to keep within a reasonable distance of the dominating totally-limited focus-dweebs.

Whether this is fun depends on what kinds of characters you like and have adventure ideas for.

(Though if your adventure and roleplaying ideas run to what will work best for the focused-up characters, I think there's a case for restricting the number of player characters to the number of focused-up characters you're willing to allow. Don't have any player characters that will have less power and an uninterested gamemaster.)

[David Blue]

Having talked before from a gamemaster's point of view, I'll say as a player, I don't find focus-dweebs heaps of fun. I don't respect them, and I don't want to play one. But I also don't like how their floods of free points can ratchet the power level of the game easily beyond what I would regard as more satisfactory heroes' ability to be effective/heroic.

(Damage caps, if "hard"/inflexible/genuinely applied, can bring some sweet relief, though not total. I might have a kinder opinion of foci if I had seen damage caps brought in on games where the focus-dweebs took over. If.)

"The rules" say you shouldn't make a character built totally to work at night, or by day, or whatever. But if you're in a party with focus-dweebs, you'd be wise to do that, if you were allowed to. Because that would get you into the game some of the time, instead of being shut out of the top level all the time.

When focus-dweebs dominate the power level of the game - which they will when villains are written to challenge the greatest heroes, which will be them - there are really only two power levels: dweeb and non-dweeb. Being "hosed" for a scenario is pretty meaningless in a game where it takes a 20d6 attack not to be a wimp. Having a three dice punch is not really different from having a pathetic plain vanilla martial artist's 7d6 punch and 9d6 kick, against opponents with 40+ defences - except that you get credit for it: "Night-Man fights - without his powers!"

That's one of the reasons the focus-dweebs don't have to be afraid of being evicted from their armour. First, it doesn't happen. Second, if it did it would be a special scenario written to make the campaign's mightiest hero look good even without his armour. But third, even if they did have to sit around the base and play solitaire, a sufficient power imbalance, which fully munchkined-up, fully-limited focus-dweebs can easily achieve, means: "So, I was useless in that one unique scenario, in years. You guys are useless all the time." To which there is no answer from Plain Jane, but Night-Only-Man does have an answer.

[Mentor]

Sounds like fun... in a Kulan Gath kinda way. :)



Also sounds like a clear GM decision to still allow Cyberknight to be effective, even without his power. A mechanic level liability nullified by Play Experience level GM decision making.

Don't get me wrong... I do this kind of thing all the time, myself. I think it is an important part of being a fair and balanced GM... (oh God... I'm part of Fox News now!! Shoot me! :nonp: ) But at the same time, this is what I mean by "not really being a limitation." The character isn't really limited, because the story bends around the loss of the focus to make everything ok.

What I really want to hear is how often Cyberknight/Mentor has to say, "Gee guys... without my armor, I was really a fifth wheel. I really held you guys back and almost got you all killed. Sorry about that."

Now THAT is a limitation being a limitation. But if such a thing happened with any regularity, I'd think the player would be unhappy quite a bit unless they had some masochistic tendencies. "I'm only happy when I suck... :idjit: "

Now... if you read "Limitation" as meaning "Affected by the game/story more than other things"... rather than simply "limiting." That is understandable. Now we are back in the theoretical level... as with Disadvantages, they are not really a lessening of the character, as much as handing over plot hooks to the GM.

(Of course, now we are treading on Amber territory again... because that means that theoretically Limitations are nothing more than "Strings Attached" to a power/skill/part of a character. I don't know if we want to get into that.)

Also... this points out another way to evaluate Limitations. How much does the "work around" disrupt Play Experience?

Example: OIF Man loses armor five minutes into the game, the story can be subtly bent over the course of the evening to keep the character in the game, effective and alive. Players may not notice at all.

Example 2: 14 Or Less Man fails his armor activation and the sniper bullet flat out kills him five minutes into the game... if the GM wants to "work around" this limitation coming into play he has to totally shatter the Play Experience to figure out how to keep 14 Or Less Man in the game, effective and alive.

In the above case, OIF Man isn't nearly as limited as 14 Or Less Man and this tends to be the case over years of play... in my experience.

YMMV and probably does.
A couple of points.

We have all played in campaigns where the PC who had their limitations used whined as if they were being singled out. The players in our campaign trust the GMs (Trebuchet is not the only GM who runs scenarios in this campaign) not to hose the player or character. On the other hand, the GMs expect the players not to do something stupid, at risk of harm and embarassment to the characters.

In the example Treb gave, he was only able to set up the situation. He did not, nor could he, cause me to play Cyberknight in such a way as to be effective. The limitation of the OIF prevented many of the powers from working at all and the rest were limited by 50% except for the armor itself which is physical. Unless one defines an OIF limitation as meaning that the Power Armor should freeze up and paralyze the PC while openning up a door for vulnerability over his heart a la "Life of Brian", :D that was a pretty good use of the limitation. The difference was that my character's concept and personality was such that, given the horrendous and immediate nature of the threat, he was willing to be hurt or die in order to save the world from a Demonic ruler. Giving the PC a chance for a do or die situation is necessary for the GM. Superhero is a compound word defined as both Super and Hero. It is unfair and unreasonable to suggest that the only reason the Hero was able to do instead of die was GM fudging. In addition, given the nature of a team, his comrades were willing and able to step up to compensate for Cyberknight's weaknesses and allow him to bypass the werewolf guardians and throw the evil mastermind into the mystic portal.

My main point is that the GM can only "manipulate" events to keep the PA guy effective if the player is willing and able to play him that way. 14 or less man only loses one blast of one punch or one phase worth of force field in an average battle, but failed Power Armor is down until he fixes it or gets out of the limiting or even harmful environment.

The game balance is determined by playing the game, not comparing the possible misuses of the construction of the PC.

[Black Omega]

I'm with RDU on this. There is a difference between enforcing a limitation and making sure the PC is a liability.

I'm currently playing a gadgeteet, so might be biased, but my power level is pretty even with the rest of the group. I don't try to be too terribly efficient, the character is more artistic than efficient.

I don't mind running around without most of my powers since the foci is a limitation. But if the GM felt obligated to also nullify my ability to think on my feat, my tactics skill, etc, also because I bought a foci I'd be pretty annoyed. My characters don't need the powers to be useful.:)

[Gary]

A GM's decision on a specific application is not a "house rule" for one thing. A "house rule" is a formal or semiformal list of changes or additions to the official rules in a particular campaign. "No attacks above 60 AP" is a house rule. "I won't allow you to have that Power/Advantage combination" is a GM's ruling.

In our campaign a player who presented such a character would be banned not because he'd figured out a clever way to abuse the rules, but rather because he tried to actually use it in our game. We don't need that kind of player. We would never invite such a player into our game in the first place, and if one did somehow slip through the cracks he would be swiftly uninvited. We've played with quite enough rules rapists and powergamers, thank you.


Nobody's campaign allows for such a construct. That's my point. This specific rule, that each new charge refreshes an End Reserve completely, is too good. It's a rule that's broken, so most if not all GMs would alter the rule and not allow it.

[Gary]

I view the GM role in maintaining campaign balance and the requirement that SFX and concept be solidly integrated into the campaign as covered and defined by the rules to ameliorate and compensate for those rules which might be perceived as broken out in theoretical limbo, not as as external to the rules.

We really do just have an honest difference in perception, Gary. My interest in theoretical mathematics has always been nil, but applied to astronomy or physics in a concrete and applicable function, I always have risen to the challenge and become adept at its practical utility. The abstract concepts are simply less relevant to me, and mathematics is far more absolute than a gaming system.

I am not saying that either approach is necessarily wrong, just that we are coming from to very different viewpoints.

Umm, it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.

[prestidigitator]

Umm, it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.
Dude! Gary! LOL.

Hmm. Sometimes I think of Limitations the way I think of Disadvantages. Are they limiting? Yes. Do they always have to be, and is that all they are? No. They help to define the way the Power works. They help to flesh it out and define its concept.

[Trebuchet]

Nobody's campaign allows for such a construct. That's my point. This specific rule, that each new charge refreshes an End Reserve completely, is too good. It's a rule that's broken, so most if not all GMs would alter the rule and not allow it.In this particular case you may be correct. I don't recall if it worked the same way in 4th Edition, but I don't think so. Guess I'll dig out my BBB this weekend and check.

[Seenar]

...And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. ....

This is a key point on being a good GM.

[RDU Neil]

Dude! Gary! LOL.

Hmm. Sometimes I think of Limitations the way I think of Disadvantages. Are they limiting? Yes. Do they always have to be, and is that all they are? No. They help to define the way the Power works. They help to flesh it out and define its concept.

For disadvantages this is fine... exactly how I do look at them... and I can do that because EVERY CHARACTER HAS THE SAME AMOUNT! Base builds for beginning characters in my campaign are 150+150... so every character has 150 in disads to be used as plot hooks and character bits and occasionally to make things really hard for them.

If everyone had just enough limitations to, say, save them 50 points... then I could run Limitations the same way, because nobody is getting a bigger cost savings than anyone else.

Unfortunately that isn't the case... and the whole point of this thread is pointing out where I feel some Limitations are really not worth the price break they bring (as per the canon limitations).

good point, though. This helped me clarify in my own mind why I don't treat Lims the same as Disads.

[Mentor]

Umm, it's not just your campaign that requires SFX and concept. It's most campaigns. And most GMs when faced with a broken rule acknowledge that the rule is broken and fix it. You apparently have difficulty acknowleding that the rule is broken even though you're fixing it anyway.
Gary, I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

[Dr. Anomaly]

I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.Bravo!

:hail:

[Seenar]

Gary, I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.

That is a good way to put it

[RDU Neil]

Gary, I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.


Good point... but I don't think it is either or...

Gary's way: If the rule allows absurdity, the rule is the problem.

Mentor's way: If the player pushes for the absurd because he can, the player is the problem.

I think BOTH are correct... no either or. It's a continuum kind of thing.

If the rule is constantly being abused, even unintentionally because the simple use of the power is unbalancing... this tends more towards Gary's way. (IMO, Hand Attack is a good example.)

If the rule is is "legal" but rarely abused except by those really looking for loopholes, the it tends towards Mentor's way. (The "END Reserve w/Charges" would have been a good example until Steve's ruling.)

The point being... if something is causing balance issues in a game BOTH questsions have to be asked. "Is it a fundamentally flawed rule... or is it just a munchkin player?" The answer may be different, depending on play groups and play styles.

So... you both are right.

(Sorry for trying to be a peacemaker. I'll go find another burning thread and dump some gasoline over there. :) )

[Gary]

Gary, I just do not consider "Look what I can get away with" following the language of the rules ad absurdium to be an automatically negative reflection on the rules, but on the person doing the bogus construction. It is still the ultimate responsibility of GMs too keep balance and playability and no amount of rules lawyering should be allowed to supercede that.

Although there was no rule written in D&D prohibiting Chaotic Evil assasins from adventuring with Lawful Good parties, as DM, I did not allow it. The book legality of the CE construction was not the issue. The negative impact on the game was.


Very bad analogy. Your example is a roleplaying/adventuring issue, not a mechanical issue. A better example would be a 1st level spell in D&D that does 100d6 damage and can be cast by a first level mage. Yeah any responsible GM would house rule it away, but it doesn't change the fact that such a spell would be broken. It's the same way with Charges of End Reserve. It's broken no matter how much in denial you are over this fact.

Despite your protestations, the rules are not perfect and never will be. There are things that any reasonable GM must change to maintain stability and balance. This happens to be one of them.

[Mentor]

Very bad analogy. Your example is a roleplaying/adventuring issue, not a mechanical issue. A better example would be a 1st level spell in D&D that does 100d6 damage and can be cast by a first level mage. Yeah any responsible GM would house rule it away, but it doesn't change the fact that such a spell would be broken. It's the same way with Charges of End Reserve. It's broken no matter how much in denial you are over this fact.

Despite your protestations, the rules are not perfect and never will be. There are things that any reasonable GM must change to maintain stability and balance. This happens to be one of them.
If the whole point of your is that the rules are not perfect, I readily concede. Except I never contended that they were perfect. I do contend that they are not perfectable.

My point is that no system or rules in an RPG are perfect as a stand alone set without the game play itself considered.

War games are a comparison of mathematical ratios with formation, terrain and distance, among other completely quatifiable variables, mitigating the predictable outcome. Dice are often used as randomizers to represent the unknown, but the ratios still lead to relatively consistent and predictable patterns.

RPG rules are a relatively consistent set of comparisons arranged to reflect certain genre driven rather than real world physics driven effects for the characters and in the campaign in which they will be played. Hopefully, character concept and campaign choices will lead to PC individuality and differentiation.

Neither absolute incremental granularity, mathematical/physical consistency, or perpetual logarithmic expansion of cost to supposedly prevent abuse will replace the role of the good will of the players and DM in not being abusive. Role playing by definition assumes the human factor as being equal in importance to the mathematical balance in the construction.

No amount of control of power construction will predict the actions of the players in a game of role playing, at least in one which involves non combat situations and other than one on one arena battles.

Judging PC success only by hitting the most opponents the most often for the most damage while taking the least damage to ones own charater is, IMO, about one of the least interesting and fun criteria I could imagine.

[Gary]

If the whole point of your is that the rules are not perfect, I readily concede. Except I never contended that they were perfect. I do contend that they are not perfectable.

Except that you weren't even conceding that there was a problem.




My point is that no system or rules in an RPG are perfect as a stand alone set without the game play itself considered.

Who ever said otherwise?




War games are a comparison of mathematical ratios with formation, terrain and distance, among other completely quatifiable variables, mitigating the predictable outcome. Dice are often used as randomizers to represent the unknown, but the ratios still lead to relatively consistent and predictable patterns.

Maybe you should play more wargames. Wargames just like RPGs have something that mitigates consistency and predictability, an opponent. Math is the least of your considerations in a wargame.




RPG rules are a relatively consistent set of comparisons arranged to reflect certain genre driven rather than real world physics driven effects for the characters and in the campaign in which they will be played. Hopefully, character concept and campaign choices will lead to PC individuality and differentiation.

Neither absolute incremental granularity, mathematical/physical consistency, or perpetual logarithmic expansion of cost to supposedly prevent abuse will replace the role of the good will of the players and DM in not being abusive. Role playing by definition assumes the human factor as being equal in importance to the mathematical balance in the construction.

No amount of control of power construction will predict the actions of the players in a game of role playing, at least in one which involves non combat situations and other than one on one arena battles.

Judging PC success only by hitting the most opponents the most often for the most damage while taking the least damage to ones own charater is, IMO, about one of the least interesting and fun criteria I could imagine.


May I ask you who out there judges success by who hits most often for most damage? You don't seem to be describing anyone here at all, so I must assume you're creating a strawman.

[Statikk HDM]

Yes, Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken. And the limited use example is perfect. Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.

[Seenar]

OAF is pretty darn limiting. Let me give a case in point:

I had a character with lots of OAF foci, which included a nasty rifle. He had a cool helmet with lots of bonus to hit. The works. He was doing great.

Well, great until I hit him with a one hex AOE RKA. Suddenly, all his OAF devices took body and broke (too bad a multipower is only one power). Even is OIF armor was penetrated, and lost its ability to fly. He was not in good shape at all.

Meanwhile, his buddy standing next to him, with powers all natural, turned and just kept fighting.

[Trebuchet]

Yes, Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken. And the limited use example is perfect. Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.If it's too much of a price break, how would you propose to change it to bring it back in line? Seems to me if a character is too powerful compared to his teammates or opponentsthen there's a game balance problem, not a Focus problem.

None of the three most powerful members of our PC team in our campaign even use Foci (except for our identical team communicators); much less abuse them. And fewer than half the members of our team use Foci at all except for those communicators. So tell us again how Focuses are too unbalancing?

[Statikk HDM]

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways
The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.
The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player. Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.

[incrdbil]

Yes, Focus is definately far too big a price break. The fact that a GM has to always keep thinking "Gee, if the ring/gauntlet/staff/headband/belt of PWNAGE that only costs 50 points but really ought to cost 100 points is too much of a problem how can I screw with it?" shows it is broken.

So, if you haver a limitation, and the GM has to think about how to make the limitation have an effect, the limitation is broken? :nonp:

If the ring above actually grants 100 points of power for 50 points (assuming 100 point powers are allowed in the game), then it is apparently an OAF. Well, a player who relies on an OAF for his main source of powers is just asking for the obvious when villains take away the ring. Just like 'doesn't work in magnetics field guy' realizes its time to pay the piper when he wakes up in such a field, or when Firedude finfds himself tossed into an airless environment where his powers don't work. Of course, those guys have much lesser limitations, so those situations are harder to do, and a bit more rare. But they do take some thought..so are they broken?

Of course not.

[incrdbil]

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways
The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.

Um, how? Assuming the GM actually looks at characters or sets limits, ring guy is going to have prtetty much the same level of powers. What abotu characters with other limitatiosn that grant the same, or close to the same disadvantage level? Are they tearign up the game as well?



The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player.

Limitations. They do, indeed, occasionally limit a player. Oh dear.



Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.

Well, yes, and when a GM turns off their brain and not paying attention to the campaign or characters, not settign standard attacks and limits, game breaking things will happen with or without Focus limitations being used.

[Trebuchet]

Its somewhat unbalancing because it gives a plethora of powers to one object all at half cost. It can break a game in 2 ways
The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods.
The only real solution is stealing or destroying the object. Unfortunately, that usually neuters a player or at the very least severely cripples the player. Using the 75 point power cap and essentially bumping it to 150 can result in game-breaking things happening.Your assumptions seem to be based entirely on OAF, which in my 22+ years of Hero experience is used far less often than OIF or OIHID. Obvous Accessible Foci are far too easy to take away; that's why they provide a 50% discount in the first place.

And if a campaign has power caps (ours doesn't), then it would be a violation of campaign rules to have a 150 point power if the cap is 75 points, in which case that particular Focus would be illegal anyway. Out of 392 CP our most Focus-based PC, Cyberknight, a powered-armor type, has 117 points in Characteristics outside his suit and 75 points in Skills and Perks. And while Cyberknight is fairly powerful, he is by no means the most powerful member of our team. His armor is highly versatile and has excellent Senses and a wide array of attacks and stout defenses, but he's no match for either our totally unfocused mentalist or for either our non-focus-using brick or Energy projector.

In short, my experience with Foci seems to totally contradict yours. And you have still failed to provide even a single concrete example of how you would "fix" the Focus rules.

[Sean Waters]

A couple of points, linked by a single example:

1. Catch the problem early, and
2. Bear in mind other balancing factors

I was thinking about this again, and reading through the posts. A lot of the posts seem to be giving examples and/or solutions for focus being a problem in play.

One option, in many cases, is simply to look at the character carefully before allowing it into play. If the power suited hero is better than everyone else at everything else, speak to the player and either tell them they can't play the character as it is written or make it very clear that you will be enforcing focus limitations very strictly and that the focus will be unavailable or underpowered or some other problem a significant number of times. If they are a known whiner, write it down and both sign and date it.

ALSO bear in mind that other constructs can make a character as or more powerful than a focus based character.

The example: if you've still got the BBB go look atthe Champions, specifically Quantum and Defender.

I've heard plenty of criticisms of the design of this incarnation of the Champions, but I like them: they are flawed, they are not minimaxed. There's plenty of room for character development and improvement, but they are still effective and viable characters.

Anyway compare these two. Defender uses focii, Quantum uses frameworks. There powers are not the same but Quantum, can fly faster and has better total physical/energy defences, and Defender has a slightly higher attack, but it is based on strength so is not ranged. In a straight fight. I'd expect honours to be reasonably even with a slight edge to Quantum.

The point is that the character designs are effective and appropriate and that the focus limitation does not make a character all-powerful. Frameworks can hugely increase a character's power if they are not watched, and so can any number of other limitations or advantages or combinations thereof.

Now my logic is flawed in that you could build a power armoured character with frameworks and be twice as beefy, but the flaw isn't really there is you take into account the first part: that is not an appropriate character.

Now I GM Champions more than I play Champions, and I always make it a point to look at the characters before I start. I'm not looking to stifle creativity and I'm not looking to prevent intelligent use of the rules, but I am making sure no one is (whether on purpose or not) taking the piss.

Taking the time to look at the characters beforehand, compare and contrast and discuss any concerns with the player really does work wonders. :)

If you are already in a campaign when you begin to realise just what a monster you have on your hands, FIRST see whether it is spoiling the enjoyment of the other players. If not, you might want to just leave it.

If it is, discuss it with the player and try to reach a compromise. They can always have a radiation accident and become fused with their suit (so it is no longer a focus) and a number of the systems just plain won't function anymore (to equalise the points). There's always a way around it.

[Trebuchet]

Good post, Sean. :thumbup:

It seems to me that as long as Limitations are applied evenhandedly across the board that the actual numerical value of the Limitation(s) is largely irrelevant. In other words, if Plasma Babe has OIHID on all of her Powers for a -¼ Limitation and all of her Powers are also Not Underwater for an additional -¼, then if her Powers fail approximately as often as Powered Armor Dude's at -½ then we're on the right track. It doesn't really matter if they fail 1 out of 3 adventures or 1 out of 10 as long as it's applied roughly the same to all, heroes and villains alike.

Also in our campaign, and I suspect in many others, SFX can have a considerable and uncounted value as a Limitation. As an example our Champions campaign is currently in a multisession space based story arc. Thunderbird, at least arguably our team's most powerful member, is the avatar of the Apache weather diety. Consequently, because large portions of this adventure are taking place in outer space or in spacecraft or spacestations many of his best Powers are totally non-functionnal or severely hampered. How do you call up a 1 KM radius thunderstorm in a 20 meter room on a spacecraft? You don't. Similarly our earth-Powers character Vesuvius can normally Desolidify right through ordinary dirt and rock, but not through refined metals or plastics. Guess what the bulkheads of starships are made out of? The several GMs in this story arc are in fact taking extra measures to provide at least some scenarios where T'bird's and Vesuvius' powers work at full efficiency because it's unfair for them to go through more than a half dozen game runs where their powers are not working properly simply because they have tight concepts and we're in a long story arc that effects their characters far more than our powered armor character or our martial artists.

[David Blue]

It seems to me that as long as Limitations are applied evenhandedly across the board that the actual numerical value of the Limitation(s) is largely irrelevant. In other words, if Plasma Babe has OIHID on all of her Powers for a -¼ Limitation and all of her Powers are also Not Underwater for an additional -¼, then if her Powers fail approximately as often as Powered Armor Dude's at -½ then we're on the right track. It doesn't really matter if they fail 1 out of 3 adventures or 1 out of 10 as long as it's applied roughly the same to all, heroes and villains alike.And if Plain Vanilla Man took less power but no limitation, is it irrelevant whether he is competing against a power that is 1.5 times as powerful as what he has but which fails a third of the time, or whether he is competing against a power 1.5 times as powerful as what he has and that fails only one time in ten?

[David Blue]

Now my logic is flawed in that you could build a power armoured character with frameworks and be twice as beefy, but the flaw isn't really there is you take into account the first part: that is not an appropriate character.I will agree that if the gamemaster successfully applies a rule never to allow an inappropriate character, then the +1.5 limitation for an obvious inaccessible focus ready to be tacked onto any power build is not a problem, as if it doesn't result in an inappropriate character, that's all right, and if it does result in an inappropriate character, by our hypothesis it wouldn't be allowed and there's also no problem.

[David Blue]

And if a campaign has power caps (ours doesn't), then it would be a violation of campaign rules to have a 150 point power if the cap is 75 points, in which case that particular Focus would be illegal anyway.Maybe. A damage cap could be based on real points, rather than active points. (Which does not mean I think that would be a good idea.)


In short, my experience with Foci seems to totally contradict yours. And you have still failed to provide even a single concrete example of how you would "fix" the Focus rules.I'm not sure what "totally contradict" means in this case. He has his experience, you have yours - which I do not deny is impressive. From what you are saying, "The Object just dominates everything. Its no fun seeing a guy with a ring showing up 2 or 3 superhumans and in some cases demigods." didn't make any old scars ache for you. It did for me, and probably for some others. That could have a lot to do with our feelings and how we see foci.

The title of the thread is: "Focus = Too Great a Price Break?" I think it's OK to say "yes, in my experience" whether you have a solution ready or not.

[Trebuchet]

And if Plain Vanilla Man took less power but no limitation, is it irrelevant whether he is competing against a power that is 1.5 times as powerful as what he has but which fails a third of the time, or whether he is competing against a power 1.5 times as powerful as what he has and that fails only one time in ten?In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words, it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.

Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless, it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers always work. :)

[David Blue]

In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words, it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.So your experience is that the points that are gained are ... fun! Hence good for everyone.


Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless, it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers always work. :)Is it this simple: you're happy when with your players taking points from foci (or other limitations), because you know those points are spent in ways that will make the game more fun. And you're not cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy at all. Why should a character who's not as much fun be balanced against a character who is fun?

I think the ideal is to tweak the rules (or have the sense to leave them alone if they already work for you) so that they favour the same outcome as you do. It seems the current foci rules do produce outcomes you like, so logically you'd no more want them changed than I would want strength nerfed. I have no argument with that. (And I'd hate to see every character with foci need to be re-written.)

But for me, like Statikk HDM, foci limitations (not necessarily foci themselves but the floods of points associated with them) recall majorly no-fun experiences, and for me a complicated character sheet is a my-eyes-glaze-over moment, while something like the Doom Patrol Elastigirl, or a mid-sixties Marvel character, like Iceman when he was still covered in snow, sparks my imagination and starts me off in a good mood. I am cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy, or something quite a lot like him (like the Incredibles), and the rules aren't favouring what I do until building someone like Marvel Girl or the Thing is about as good an option as you can possibly achieve.

Q: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?
A: Too great for who? Too great for what purpose? Nothing's too great a price break as long as all the extra points are spent in ways that improve the game for everyone.

Since I suspect I've now said everything I have to say on this topic, twice, I should bow out of this thread, assuming that there are no serious misunderstandings at this point.

[Trebuchet]

So your experience is that the points that are gained are ... fun! Hence good for everyone.

Is it this simple: you're happy when with your players taking points from foci (or other limitations), because you know those points are spent in ways that will make the game more fun. And you're not cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy at all. Why should a character who's not as much fun be balanced against a character who is fun?Different people have different ideas of what constitutes fun. Personally I enjoy playing relatively straight forward character concepts. Other players prefer extremely complicated character builds and personalities. I can't see any reason to penalize either type of player; they're both equally valuable. But I simply don't see combat as the sole arbiter of what constitutes being "useful" or "fun" in a campaign. Foci and other Limitations are simply tools; to be used or not used as the player sees fit. I believe I already pointed out earlier in this thread that our team's most powerful member, a mentalist with a 95 point VPP, does not use Foci except for his communicator. He's basically bought straight with Limitations on what type of Powers he can put in his VPP. Take away (Suppress, Drain) his mental powers and what you have left is a reasonably athletic normal with a somewhat unusual skillset (He's also 800 years old).


I think the ideal is to tweak the rules (or have the sense to leave them alone if they already work for you) so that they favour the same outcome as you do. It seems the current foci rules do produce outcomes you like, so logically you'd no more want them changed than I would want strength nerfed. I have no argument with that. (And I'd hate to see every character with foci need to be re-written.)

But for me, like Statikk HDM, foci limitations (not necessarily foci themselves but the floods of points associated with them) recall majorly no-fun experiences, and for me a complicated character sheet is a my-eyes-glaze-over moment, while something like the Doom Patrol Elastigirl, or a mid-sixties Marvel character, like Iceman when he was still covered in snow, sparks my imagination and starts me off in a good mood. I am cheering for Plain Vanilla Guy, or something quite a lot like him (like the Incredibles), and the rules aren't favouring what I do until building someone like Marvel Girl or the Thing is about as good an option as you can possibly achieve.That's a campaign issue rather than a rules issue. There's nothing to prevent a GM from requiring all powers to be inherent rather than focused (as it apparently was in the world of The Incredibles) if that's the type of campaign he wants to run. I'd probably enjoy playing in such a campaign myself. But I can't see that it's fair for me to say as a player "Since I want to run Plain Vanilla Man, the rest of you also must run plain vanilla heroes so I won't be too ineffective." :nonp:

[Statikk HDM]

I think foci are good, but to a point. OAF does get used, not a lot as the inaccessable stuff, but a lot. The main thing that people are bringing up is that the focus should be able to be screwed with but if people can't reach it they're in a world of hurt. If the weaponmaster with the flaming kendo stick of badassery is causing too many problems you mess with the stick.
If the guy with an implanted, force-fielded amulet in a pillbox is ticking you off your options are that much more limited.
Lots of cool superheros use focuses so banning them out of hand is out of order. You can't take away Green Lantern's ring or Spawn's suit and expect them to hang with Superman.

[Trebuchet]

I think foci are good, but to a point. OAF does get used, not a lot as the inaccessable stuff, but a lot. The main thing that people are bringing up is that the focus should be able to be screwed with but if people can't reach it they're in a world of hurt. If the weaponmaster with the flaming kendo stick of badassery is causing too many problems you mess with the stick.

If the guy with an implanted, force-fielded amulet in a pillbox is ticking you off your options are that much more limited.

Lots of cool superheros use focuses so banning them out of hand is out of order. You can't take away Green Lantern's ring or Spawn's suit and expect them to hang with Superman.If a "focus" can't be taken away without surgery then it doesn't qualify as a focus under the rules, so an "implanted force field amulet" probably won't pass that test. Wolverine's claws and adamanium skeleton would not be foci under Hero System rules but rather sfx.

The only hero in our campaign who uses an OAF is one of our martial artists, who has a multi-function staff/sticks/three-sectional-staff/bow weapon. However, since he's almost as bad without the staff as with it it's not all that important, and it's been taken from him or broken more than once. He most often uses it as a bow for ranged attacks.

Villains with OAF Omni-Guns™ are far more common, as they are in the comics as well.

[Gary]

In my experience Limitations are usually used to provide a character with more versatility rather than simply a bigger attack. In other words, it often allows a character to purchase a Multipower, EC, or other ability they might not otherwise be able to afford as opposed to simply buying 50% more damage dice. And a broader range of abilities and skills are at least as beneficial to the GM's storytelling as to the player.

Nobody forced Plain Vanilla Man to take no Limitations. I assume he had good reason to do so; an aspect of his character concept that Focus Lass lacks and which will allow his Powers to work 100% of the time whereas Focus Lass will sometimes not be able to use hers. A Focus doesn't have to fail or break down to be useless, it just has to be unavailable. If their 747 to Miami is being hijacked by terrorists, it doesn't do Focus Lass much good if her foci are stored in the baggage compartment due to airport security restrictions while PVM is happily kicking terrorist tushies because his powers always work. :)


Well it depends. If Limitations are very rarely/never applied, then PVM is almost forced to take some in order to remain competitive. As an example, Champsguy has posted some sample characters in the past that had gigantic use of frameworks and limitations (some would argue munchkined and illegal) which most GMs wouldn't allow. However the point is that his GM does allow it and a PVM type character would be crushed quickly in such a campaign.

Limitations are sorta like Steroids in sports. If everyone takes steroids, no single athlete dominates or has a competitive advantage over another. However if you have a mixed group of steroid users and clean athletes, there are going to be problems unless the GM is diligent about enforcing the drawbacks of steroids. And the frequency that those drawbacks are enforced have a direct correlation on whether PVM is a viable concept.

[Hugh Neilson]

If a "focus" can't be taken away without surgery then it doesn't qualify as a focus under the rules, so an "implanted force field amulet" probably won't pass that test. Wolverine's claws and adamanium skeleton would not be foci under Hero System rules but rather sfx.

The claws could be restrainable. Of course, that would mean an Entangled Wolverine has a problem (which is why you get that -1/2 limitation - you may sit the occaisonal fight out because SpiderGuy gets you in Ph 12). In the comics, he seems to carve through entangles, so the claws in question appear not to be Restrainable.

[Sean Waters]

[QUOTE=David Blue
Q: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?
A: Too great for who? Too great for what purpose? Nothing's too great a price break as long as all the extra points are spent in ways that improve the game for everyone.

Since I suspect I've now said everything I have to say on this topic, twice, I should bow out of this thread, assuming that there are no serious misunderstandings at this point.[/QUOTE]

Oh we can always manufacture a serious misunderstanding :)

Interested in your use of the Incredibles as examples: of course Syndrome was the ultimate 'Focus' villain in some ways: look what happened to him when the focii went wrong! :nonp:

I do think though that there is a general consensus forming summed up in your question and answer: not so much what you've got, more how you use it! :D

[Kristopher]

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...


Oh, and I think there were quite a few foci in The Increadibles. Frozone's boots, Syndrome's bracers and boots, and several mentioned in the DVD's profiles of the other supers.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...

Well, yes and no. The "Stan Lee Woman" archetype (looks good, semi-useless powers, gets captured and used as a hostage a lot) isn't the character most players have in mind when they go to RPG Supers (or any other genre).

I like to look at all the character sheets for the team and ask myself "one on one, who wins eash fight?" If one character would pretty much clean up each of the others, I have to ask why he's so uniquely superior.

We have two characters in game we're currently playing where first shot should logically end the combat. My character normally has a Flash available, but 10 Ego and no mental defense. The other is a mentalist. If she gets flashed, count her out. If she moves first...well, tell the Fat Lady she should be on stage!

[Sean Waters]

Well, yes and no. The "Stan Lee Woman" archetype (looks good, semi-useless powers, gets captured and used as a hostage a lot) isn't the character most players have in mind when they go to RPG Supers (or any other genre).

I like to look at all the character sheets for the team and ask myself "one on one, who wins eash fight?" If one character would pretty much clean up each of the others, I have to ask why he's so uniquely superior.

We have two characters in game we're currently playing where first shot should logically end the combat. My character normally has a Flash available, but 10 Ego and no mental defense. The other is a mentalist. If she gets flashed, count her out. If she moves first...well, tell the Fat Lady she should be on stage!

I think this is a good test: I like every one of the players' characters to be (at least statistically) likely to lose to at least one of the other PCs in a straight fight. Similarly, I design villains that can probably walk all over one or two Heroes and then get taken down by one or more of the others - so long as you can rotate the ones taking a pounding, you're probably doing something right.

[Sean Waters]

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...


Oh, and I think there were quite a few foci in The Increadibles. Frozone's boots, Syndrome's bracers and boots, and several mentioned in the DVD's profiles of the other supers.

OK, you have a point: the PCs are not up against each other BUT I find that it is good for group harmony if they don't feel that one of their number is supreme over all the others. Moreover, if there is one, and they get mind controlled....

RE: Frozone - I didn't get the impression that his boots did anything other that keep his feet warm, and his ice slides were a manifestation of his power - like X-Men's IceMan. I could be wrong though: it happens :)

[Trebuchet]

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...Amen. An excellent point, Kristopher, and one which often seems to get lost in these "game balance" threads. I don't give a damn if my character can beat any one or all of her teammates; I only care that I have an interesting and challenging character to play and that other players enjoy playing alongside her. And a character is far more than just a row of numbers on a sheet of paper.

[RDU Neil]

Amen. An excellent point, Kristopher, and one which often seems to get lost in these "game balance" threads. I don't give a damn if my character can beat any one or all of her teammates; I only care that I have an interesting and challenging character to play and that other players enjoy playing alongside her. And a character is far more than just a row of numbers on a sheet of paper.

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.

The idea about "review characters before play" is great... but often the things that are clear problems early, are not the issue. Things are fine at the beginning and in concept... but over time, indications of imbalance and group disgruntlement and an unconscious tendency to predominate characters with these "not so limiting limitations" that this stuff surfaces. Focus Lims... specifically Inaccessible Foci of which OIHID is practically the same... are one of these subtle problems... IMO.

[Hugh Neilson]

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.

Stepping on toes is a similar issue. If the Brick is clearly superior in combat, the EP is likely to get disgruntled if the Brick can also effectively do everything the EP can do by throwing objects of opportunity that are available in virtually all battles.

If the game is "Mighty Man and his Amazing Sidekicks", how many players want to play a Sidekick?

[tesuji]

not to harp...

but this is where scripting balance comes in.

its not "how do we fare in fights vs each other" (even though those do happen enough to be in genre) or even "how do we fare in fights vs a generic average foe" but very specifically "how do we fare against the actual enemies the Gm throws at us in the circumstances he uses as the setting".

The more the Gm focuses his script and the myriad setting decisions he makes on "how do i highlight the PCs ups and downs" and on providing "balance" thru syncing "scenario needs" and "PC abilities", the less important for his game PC vs PC comparability becomes.

Of course, for some players, the notion of "me vs bob", even if only theoretical, can be something they care about. i find that, for most of those, all it takes is keeping them playing for a while and seeing "script balance" in play for that to quickly take a backseat.

Once they ACTUALLY SEE that "numbers balance" and "play balance" aren't the same thing, I find they calm down on it quite a bit.

Of course, if the Gm soends a lot of time on "numbers balance", or emphasizes that with rules and chargen, thats sending them a different message and so they ought to be hung up on "points balance". After all, he seems to be and he's in charge.

[Trebuchet]

It's not so much how the fair against each other... as how much they dominate the combat and make the others feel ineffectual. It's not an all-or-nothing issue, either. A character can be fine 75% of the time... but after a while, that other 25% of the time when they are just "better" at what they do than others, begins to become annoying... or when a challenge for the rest of the team is much more easily handled by OIHID Man, because he's got "that much more flexibility, power, defenses, etc." The others at the table start grumbling... and what seemed fine, is suddenly an issue.I agree to a large extent, but this is an issue that to my mind needs to be addressed by the players as well as the GM. And I don't just mean the players who may feel their own characters are being overshadowed, but also by each individual player of the potentially dominating PC. Players need to be certain that their characters aren't stepping on each other's schticks too much. And that requires a certain level of trust and communication between the players about these issues. In our group before we purchase a new Power or Skill that with XP which might step on another player's toes we ask the player in question if that would be a problem. And of course it's also incumbent that GMs try to design scenarios that allow each individual character to shine on his own. If that means the ninja character has to sneak into the villain's base while the other PCs wait for the main door to be opened by said PC then so be it.

If our primary brick has a 75 STR, then another 60 STR brick isn't going to overshadow the first even if he has other useful abilities. And while my own character is at least 50% faster than any other member of our team, she also does the least damage, has the fewest odd attacks and unusual defenses, and is by far more fragile than any other PC. While the temptation to buy her defenses up has been pretty high at times, she's stuck with her original 12 PD/12 ED and 18 CON, and I think it's accurate to state that no other member of our team has been KO'd or Stunned even half as often as Zl'f has.

[Trebuchet]

not to harp...

but this is where scripting balance comes in.

its not "how do we fare in fights vs each other" (even though those do happen enough to be in genre) or even "how do we fare in fights vs a generic average foe" but very specifically "how do we fare against the actual enemies the Gm throws at us in the circumstances he uses as the setting".

The more the Gm focuses his script and the myriad setting decisions he makes on "how do i highlight the PCs ups and downs" and on providing "balance" thru syncing "scenario needs" and "PC abilities", the less important for his game PC vs PC comparability becomes.

Of course, for some players, the notion of "me vs bob", even if only theoretical, can be something they care about. i find that, for most of those, all it takes is keeping them playing for a while and seeing "script balance" in play for that to quickly take a backseat.

Once they ACTUALLY SEE that "numbers balance" and "play balance" aren't the same thing, I find they calm down on it quite a bit.

Of course, if the Gm soends a lot of time on "numbers balance", or emphasizes that with rules and chargen, thats sending them a different message and so they ought to be hung up on "points balance". After all, he seems to be and he's in charge.Precisely my point. :)

[RDU Neil]

Stepping on toes is a similar issue. If the Brick is clearly superior in combat, the EP is likely to get disgruntled if the Brick can also effectively do everything the EP can do by throwing objects of opportunity that are available in virtually all battles.

If the game is "Mighty Man and his Amazing Sidekicks", how many players want to play a Sidekick?

Exactly... and often those extra points for OIF or OIHID allow that character to be "omni-competent" and do all the toe-stepping.

Funny you should use the brick vs. EP example... because in my current campaign, it is the EP with IIF and a MP of attacks that is doing everything the brick can do, only better. Move faster, farther more. Blast at range and with many different advantages. Hit harder with a Hand Attack in a MP slot, etc. Even has better defenses than the Brick... with an EC for movement and defense powers.

This is a standard build for a EP type character, to make them compatible with a brick... but with an IIF cost break, the EP in this case is just fundamentally better than the brick (or anyone else in the game for that matter) and nothing is really munchkined or breaking concept at all.

[RDU Neil]

I agree to a large extent, but this is an issue that to my mind needs to be addressed by the players as well as the GM. And I don't just mean the players who may feel their own characters are being overshadowed, but also by each individual player of the potentially dominating PC. Players need to be certain that their characters aren't stepping on each other's schticks too much. And that requires a certain level of trust and communication between the players about these issues. In our group before we purchase a new Power or Skill that with XP which might step on another player's toes we ask the player in question if that would be a problem. And of course it's also incumbent that GMs try to design scenarios that allow each individual character to shine on his own. If that means the ninja character has to sneak into the villain's base while the other PCs wait for the main door to be opened by said PC then so be it.

If our primary brick has a 75 STR, then another 60 STR brick isn't going to overshadow the first even if he has other useful abilities. And while my own character is at least 50% faster than any other member of our team, she also does the least damage, has the fewest odd attacks and unusual defenses, and is by far more fragile than any other PC. While the temptation to buy her defenses up has been pretty high at times, she's stuck with her original 12 PD/12 ED and 18 CON, and I think it's accurate to state that no other member of our team has been KO'd or Stunned even half as often as Zl'f has.

Totally agree. GM and Player decision making and play compatibility trumps all... but I will say that much of this stuff is not obvious until... over time, during play... balance seems to be out of whack. It is the rare player that will recognize that they are overshadowing the others in subtle ways... it may be a rare group that realizes some underlying tension coming from these things that can be easily brought to light. Then... when examined... what I'm saying here... is that often the root cause being exposed can be traced back to some fundamental/core rules... like OIHID, OIF/IIF, or Hand Attack.

Hence... my original question here was... is anybody else noticing a tendency (not an absolute... a tendency) for Inaccessible Focus characters to tip the scales, cause some friction in game play, etc? The answer to me seems to be "Yes..." or "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." A qualified yes all around.

Now, how should this issue be addressed? I dunno, but looking at point costs is one way, especially when the same mechanics tend to be behind a lot of the issues. Looking at play styles and compatibility is another, but pointless to discuss on the boards, because it is about a unique play group dynamic which only exists at the table.

[Trebuchet]

Totally agree. GM and Player decision making and play compatibility trumps all... but I will say that much of this stuff is not obvious until... over time, during play... balance seems to be out of whack. It is the rare player that will recognize that they are overshadowing the others in subtle ways... it may be a rare group that realizes some underlying tension coming from these things that can be easily brought to light. Then... when examined... what I'm saying here... is that often the root cause being exposed can be traced back to some fundamental/core rules... like OIHID, OIF/IIF, or Hand Attack.

Hence... my original question here was... is anybody else noticing a tendency (not an absolute... a tendency) for Inaccessible Focus characters to tip the scales, cause some friction in game play, etc? The answer to me seems to be "Yes..." or "Yes, but..." or "No, unless..." A qualified yes all around.

Now, how should this issue be addressed? I dunno, but looking at point costs is one way, especially when the same mechanics tend to be behind a lot of the issues. Looking at play styles and compatibility is another, but pointless to discuss on the boards, because it is about a unique play group dynamic which only exists at the table.The difficulty comes not only because each play group is unique with their own dynamics so blanket "solutions" are seldom universal, but because what individual players desire also varies just as much. Not everyone wants to be most powerful or toughest or whatever.

As an example, my oft-discussed character Zl'f saves about 35 CP by using OIHID on a large percenttage of her Powers. I could quite easily have bought off that Limitation by now with the 54 XP she's earned in her career, but to be honest I don't want to. Not because it would make her less marginally powerful, but because I want her to have the vulnerability that comes with not having superpowers all the time. It's an important part of her character concept that she not be super when she's going about her daily mundane job, running out to go shopping, or hanging around with her normal friends and family, nor if she's sick or drugged. And I frankly don't know how to represent that fairly, so that the GM has control over it and not me, without building it as a Limitation. And the Limitation that fit best this idea was OIHID, although I looked seriously at Extra Time to Activate as a possible option.

[bblackmoor]

First, Has anyone out there "rewritten" the standard limitations in the book to better reflect the actual worth of the limitation in their games?

No.


Second, specifically, does anyone but me feel that Focus is WAY too much of a price break?

Yes. I feel that way about Elemental Controls, as well. Why give a character a 50% cost break just because their powers all have roughly the same number of points? (All characters should have unifying special effects, so that's an irrelevant qualification for the cost break.)


Obvious Focus -1/2
Inobvious Focus -1/4
Focus is defined as inherently something that can be taken away or lost in combat. None of this "Inaccessible" stuff.

I think that would be a profound improvement.

[bblackmoor]

I think it should be the other way around, actually. I think the obviousness should be ditched while accessability stays as the determining factor.

I'd cut it down to just Only In Hero ID (-1/4) and Focus (-1/2), personally.

[bblackmoor]

Yes, Focus is definately far too big a price break. ... Not even using your power 20 times: Half price. Unlimited use but everyone knows what is whupping their arse: Half price.

That's a fun example. :)

[RDU Neil]

I'd cut it down to just Only In Hero ID (-1/4) and Focus (-1/2), personally.

Yah... that works better for me... though even OIHID has been the current stinker in my campaign.

Then again, I realize my campaign has little reason for players to be OUT of hero id. They are professionals working for UNTIL/UNITE. It is there job to be "on" all the time... responding to crises around the world. It isn't a game where characters have "mundane lives" to attend to. In fact, most of the campaigns in my world have moved beyond this... so it is very rare... but still could be an issue.

It may be that some classic Limitations are, in fact, very genre dependent... not as universal as they are implied to be in the core mechanics. A character in the Mavericks... our New York local superteam... OIHID would make a difference, because that game is about being part of society as well as apart from it. Characters would have normal lives alongside their super-ids, etc. OIHID would come into play more often than my UNITE or Vanguard games... which are more Stormwatch/Authority like in scope.

[bblackmoor]

Then again, I realize my campaign has little reason for players to be OUT of hero id. They are professionals working for UNTIL/UNITE.

Even the most gung-ho, zealous, patriotic super-warrior takes R&R from time to time, and no one wears combat armor to the grocery store.

[Kristopher]

Yah... that works better for me... though even OIHID has been the current stinker in my campaign.

Then again, I realize my campaign has little reason for players to be OUT of hero id. They are professionals working for UNTIL/UNITE. It is there job to be "on" all the time... responding to crises around the world. It isn't a game where characters have "mundane lives" to attend to. In fact, most of the campaigns in my world have moved beyond this... so it is very rare... but still could be an issue.

It may be that some classic Limitations are, in fact, very genre dependent... not as universal as they are implied to be in the core mechanics. A character in the Mavericks... our New York local superteam... OIHID would make a difference, because that game is about being part of society as well as apart from it. Characters would have normal lives alongside their super-ids, etc. OIHID would come into play more often than my UNITE or Vanguard games... which are more Stormwatch/Authority like in scope.

It seems to me that OIHID might not be an appropriate Limitation in games where the PCs won't typically be caught out of hero ID. Unless there's a way you can come up with to make OIHID a potential vulnerability.

How many GMs consider OIHID to be something that can still make a character vulnerable once he's already changed into his Hero ID?

[WhammeWhamme]

Actually, 'who beats who' can be a valid question. Because sometimes, heroes DO fight each other, and it should NOT be a one sided masochistic pounding... that don't make for an exciting story, and it sure as heck CAN make for hurt feelings.

(Incidently, I'm trying for a new standard of 'Can beat the rest of the team hands down simultaneously' for my PCs after what happened to one of my PC's...)

[RDU Neil]

Even the most gung-ho, zealous, patriotic super-warrior takes R&R from time to time, and no one wears combat armor to the grocery store.

True, but the games aren't about those "down times." That happens off camera for the most part. Not to say it wouldn't come into play occassionally... but it would be rare. Again, coming back to my original problem, which is that I don't want to have to create events that really have no place in the bigger story/plot I'm running. In order to catch Maser with his pants down at the grocery store I'm going to have to shoehorn this scene in, because going to the grocery store has no place in the story I'm trying to tell.

[Trebuchet]

Yah... that works better for me... though even OIHID has been the current stinker in my campaign.

Then again, I realize my campaign has little reason for players to be OUT of hero id. They are professionals working for UNTIL/UNITE. It is there job to be "on" all the time... responding to crises around the world. It isn't a game where characters have "mundane lives" to attend to. In fact, most of the campaigns in my world have moved beyond this... so it is very rare... but still could be an issue.

It may be that some classic Limitations are, in fact, very genre dependent... not as universal as they are implied to be in the core mechanics. A character in the Mavericks... our New York local superteam... OIHID would make a difference, because that game is about being part of society as well as apart from it. Characters would have normal lives alongside their super-ids, etc. OIHID would come into play more often than my UNITE or Vanguard games... which are more Stormwatch/Authority like in scope.As with any Limitation OIHID will fail to work properly if it's not applied. In a game where no one ever takes off their armored costumes except inside their impenetrable Fortress of Solitude it's meaningless. In a campaign such as ours where the characters have non-super friends, family, and down time from superheroing it works just fine. IMO any campaign that can't justify OIHID probably can't justify DNPCs or Secret IDs as Disads either.

[bblackmoor]

IMO any campaign that can't justify OIHID probably can't justify DNPCs or Secret IDs as Disads either.

That seems reasonable.

[bblackmoor]

True, but the games aren't about those "down times."

Then that's the GM's fault, and the other players should bring that failing to the GM's attention. A character without a personal life is not a character, it's a caricature.

[Trebuchet]

Then that's the GM's fault, and the other players should bring that failing to the GM's attention. A character without a personal life is not a character, it's a caricature.I would tend to agree, although I'm not sure that's everyone's cup of tea. I do think it makes character development (as opposed to power improvement) difficult. And I think scenarios where characters get to use little or none of their superpowers can be fun as a change of pace.

[tesuji]

Then that's the GM's fault, and the other players should bring that failing to the GM's attention. A character without a personal life is not a character, it's a caricature.

Just my two cents here.

regarding campaigns where the on screen events are most always the supers side...

i personally think thats a perfectly fine style of campaigning, and reflective of not too few sources in the genre. remember the older "ages" of comics were not at all as "personal life" focused as the more modern Xmen and Spiderman ones.

its not anyone's "fault" that this choice is made for a campaign at all. its just a different choice than obviously the one you seem to prefer.

The Gm needs to look at all disads lims, advantages and powers when he sets up his game and evaluate their proper cost. i think "social disads" and circumstantial lims need to be looked at with the "my campaign" filter very closely.



(All characters should have unifying special effects, so that's an irrelevant qualification for the cost break.)

Again, while this may be your preference for your games, its certainly not a genre wide consensus. many famous supers have widely diverse powers only really linked by "the classic character." Superman is about as diverse as you can get. Wonder Woman and Martian Manhunter fit the "collection of powers i want" theme quite well.

if i turn to TV, Nightman was a psychic telepath with a captured battlesuit, two totally diverse power suites whose only justification was that the former helped him discover and steal the latter.

unifying SFX again is more common to the Xmen and Spiderman later comics, though even now its far from widespread.

as always, its fine to use campaign expectations to filter rules, but when making somewhat broad comments about rules, more than just one subgenre should probably be considered.

Now, whether, in a campaign (unlike yours) where unifying sfx themes are not the baseline expected, having such is worth the 405 or so price break of an EC... thats still open for debate of course.

Am i reading you right that you feel ECs and focuses are both "too good" but you allow them because you see them as offsetting? if so, do you have any characters in your games who do not use either focus or ecs to shave points? if so how do they fare?

[RDU Neil]

As with any Limitation OIHID will fail to work properly if it's not applied. In a game where no one ever takes off their armored costumes except inside their impenetrable Fortress of Solitude it's meaningless. In a campaign such as ours where the characters have non-super friends, family, and down time from superheroing it works just fine. IMO any campaign that can't justify OIHID probably can't justify DNPCs or Secret IDs as Disads either.

Which is about right. These characters are public figures who live in a UN compound on Cyprus, where they have plenty of interaction... but it is with fellow UNTIL agents, politicians, alien ambassadors, etc. When going into public, they have to set PR dates and avoid causing a major disturbance in the city. For the 11 episodes of the game so far, it has been about six days of downtime, where they crash for a little while between debriefings, before dealing with the ongoing metahuman terrorists linked to alien invasion plotline. DNPCs don't play into it much... it is very high level politics and crisis management. Those typical "neighborhood superhero" conventions don't really apply at all.

But again... with Disads... that stuff is very comfortabley "possible" complications... which doesn't unbalance one character against another. Everyone has 150 points of Disads... no one benefits over another, and Disads are just plot hooks when/if I need them as GM. Like I said earlier... if every character also had a balanced number of limitations... say roughly -1/2 on most of their powers... then one wouldn't have a point cost break over another. That is rarely the case, though... as concept tends to determine Limitations... not a set campaign rule.

[RDU Neil]

Then that's the GM's fault, and the other players should bring that failing to the GM's attention. A character without a personal life is not a character, it's a caricature.


Well then it's my fault... but I don't think it's a fault. There literally hasn't been TIME to relax except for one episode. Metahuman terrorists linked with an alien invasion mean episode after episode means it's a constant "Go Go GO"

In fact, during last episode, one player said, "I just realized, I don't think my character has slept in 72 hours!" and proceeded to role play that exhaustion and stress quite well... as the character finally returned to Gateway, and had time to sleep under quarantine, since they'd just had an impromptu contact with an alien world.

Plenty of character growth goes on... interactions between players... with their agents and commanders and with the strange beings they come into contact with. They are super... so their lives are super. The whole "pretend I'm normal" bit doesn't really work when you are very far from normal. (A giant rock and crystal creature... a man who talks to the dead... a living microwave emitter... a mentalist psychologist who spends her free time rock climbing or surfing alone... and a professional soldier who can absorb and mimic other genetic mutation metahuman powers and has no personal family but the team is his family.)

Role playing supers is about the super stuff... not the mundane. Not to say that couldn't change... and with different characters that most definitely is the case... but role playing going to the grocery store and doing laundry? I get enough of that in the real world. Don't need it at the game table.

[OddHat]

Well then it's my fault... but I don't think it's a fault. There literally hasn't been TIME to relax except for one episode. Metahuman terrorists linked with an alien invasion mean episode after episode means it's a constant "Go Go GO"

In fact, during last episode, one player said, "I just realized, I don't think my character has slept in 72 hours!" and proceeded to role play that exhaustion and stress quite well... as the character finally returned to Gateway, and had time to sleep under quarantine, since they'd just had an impromptu contact with an alien world.

Plenty of character growth goes on... interactions between players... with their agents and commanders and with the strange beings they come into contact with. They are super... so their lives are super. The whole "pretend I'm normal" bit doesn't really work when you are very far from normal. (A giant rock and crystal creature... a man who talks to the dead... a living microwave emitter... a mentalist psychologist who spends her free time rock climbing or surfing alone... and a professional soldier who can absorb and mimic other genetic mutation metahuman powers and has no personal family but the team is his family.)

Role playing supers is about the super stuff... not the mundane. Not to say that couldn't change... and with different characters that most definitely is the case... but role playing going to the grocery store and doing laundry? I get enough of that in the real world. Don't need it at the game table.

In most campaigns, I wouldn't role-play going to the grocery store unless it was for comic effect, or to have the character engage in some conversation with NPCs for plot or character development reasons. On the other hand, even in high-power games I do make an effort to set scenes where the characters have time to eat, sleep, clean up, etc. I think it adds a nice pace to the adventure, and adds some texture to the world.

As to too-cheap focusses, I just don't care that much. ;)

[Supreme Serpent]

But again... with Disads... that stuff is very comfortabley "possible" complications... which doesn't unbalance one character against another. Everyone has 150 points of Disads... no one benefits over another, and Disads are just plot hooks when/if I need them as GM. Like I said earlier... if every character also had a balanced number of limitations... say roughly -1/2 on most of their powers... then one wouldn't have a point cost break over another. That is rarely the case, though... as concept tends to determine Limitations... not a set campaign rule.

Could try disallowing "overall" limitations as Limitations, and do them as Disads instead.

"Not Always Super" - There are circumstances when a significant portion of the character's power will be unavailable to them or experience other problems. What powers are involved and the level of the disadvantage should be decided upon by the player and GM working together, based upon character conception and the campaign.

-Without "powers" PC is still competent - +5 (Thor)
-Without "powers" PC is significantly weaker - +10 (Nick Fury)
-Without "powers" PC is essentially human - +15 (Tony Stark, Billy Batson)

-Inconvenienced occaisionally - +5 (OIHID, IIF, Kryptonite, Red Sun)
-Inconvenienced regularly - +10 (OIF, combo of effects)
-Inconvenienced frequently - +15 (OAF, combo of many effects)

So, Captain Marvel (SHAZAM!) might have a 25pt disad (essentially human without powers, OIHID + must be able to say magic word to transform), as would Nick Fury (still pretty good without gear, but easy to take away his blasters). Spider-Man might wind up with 15pts for his web shooters, as he's still very competent without them, but they're IIF+run out of fluid, etc.


Could still allow regular focus limits for minor things like radios, kevlar suit etc. that are a very small % of the PC's points, compared to battlesuits, magic words and Kryptonian powers.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well then it's my fault... but I don't think it's a fault. There literally hasn't been TIME to relax except for one episode. Metahuman terrorists linked with an alien invasion mean episode after episode means it's a constant "Go Go GO"

I don't like the word "fault" here. I do believe the GM has a mandate to assess whether the standard book limitations are appropriatre for his campaign. If the campaign will remain one where there is rarely or never a reason to be out of Hero ID, perhaps the li,mitation should be recosted to -0.

On the other hand, if the current scenario arc is one where there's no time to be out of Hero ID, and the limitation will come into focus when the arc has ended, I don't see the issue. OIHID won't alwyas be a problem, but it should create an issue on some semi-regular basis.

It sounds like your campaign is one of "professional supers". How would you have replied to a character who had, say, Secret ID on his character sheet?

You mentioned disad's are OK because everyone has 150 points of them. I don't agree. I could make up my 150 largely from Vulnerabilities, Susceptibilities, Enraged's, etc. which are commonly triggered in combat. Another player could take a number of social limits, psych's that come up outside combat situations, and Hunteds and DNPC's who never show up because the scenario structure makes it hard to bring them in. Are those two characters being equally disadvantaged by their disadvantages?

Maybe you make every character take 35 points in Hunteds, and they rarely appear. Now it's not too bad since EVERY character got the same 35 points and the same (in)frequency of disadvantage. But if one character has 50 points in these Hunteds, and another took 50 points of Vulnerabilities, which show up far more frequently, this seems less balanced/.fair to me.

Overall, it's my opinion the onus is on the GM to ensure the disadvantages and limitations he allows carry some weight in the game.


In fact, during last episode, one player said, "I just realized, I don't think my character has slept in 72 hours!" and proceeded to role play that exhaustion and stress quite well... as the character finally returned to Gateway, and had time to sleep under quarantine, since they'd just had an impromptu contact with an alien world.

If I paid for LS: Need not Sleep, I doubt I'd be to impressed if the team goes 72 hours without sleep and no one has any problems functioning. I didn't get an extra d6 of energy blast for free when I paid for "need not sleep".


Role playing supers is about the super stuff... not the mundane. Not to say that couldn't change... and with different characters that most definitely is the case... but role playing going to the grocery store and doing laundry? I get enough of that in the real world. Don't need it at the game table.

And that's a fair campaign style. But I wouldn't let a player take "point savers" that deal with going to the grocery store and oing the laundry in that game, since it will never come up.

[Sean Waters]

Here's a thought, dark though it may be:

Can I suggest you occasionally kill a PC?

First off there is often a feeling of invulnerability: you might get KO'd or captured, but never killed, surely...well, in a world where people fling about the equivalent of small nuclear explosions (in some cases) in hand to hand combat, death should never really be too much of a surprise.

Secondly, it will really make players think about their limitations if the death is caused when Power Armour Guy is attacked by The Mad Slasher whilst out of armour, because it's down for trepairs, or stolen, or....

OK, it's a bit extreme but it certainly puts the balance in: you may only lose the armour one game in 10 or 20, but if that could prove fatal.... :D

If you don't actually want to kill someone how about beating them up so badly it takes weeks or months to recover - they can play someone else in the interim.

Part of the problem with the criticism of the FOCUS limitation is that the worlds we are playing in are just not dangerous enough...

[Storn]

Well, I have a OIHID in the UNITE game that Neil is running. And I think the points are totally justified. My character Geist doesn't particularly WANTS to be Geist full time... he likes being Dorian from Vienna just fine. There is a split personality of sorts. Some day, some super villain is going to capture him, beat him severely or what have you because he isn't Geist at that moment.

Where OIHID limitation comes in is when the character gets caught with their pants down. And this doesn't happen often, but it happens enuff. Even if it means that PC gets to the battle 2 rounds after everyone else... the limitation has made its point. Maser w/o his suit can only blow up uncontrollably, no direction possible. Just by spending the points for the uncontroled power OUTTA the suit which will rarely be used since it is lethal and dangerous, one has balanced the point cost savings of OIHID. Yet the character concept is cool and nuanced.. so the occasional times when you want to do a 5d6 explosion, it can happen.

Really, I think Limitations and Disadvantages are just saying "here, here is where my Hero is vulnerable." Whether it is a DNPC, OAF, Side Effects...what have you.... it is the player telling the GM, this is where things don't work at optimum condition... use that when it is appropriate and dramatic. It is not just the situational trigger that is gets you the points, it is the THREAT of that situational trigger.


But I wouldn't let a player take "point savers" that deal with going to the grocery store and oing the laundry in that game, since it will never come up.

If you don't allow "point savers", then allow me unlimited points. I'll build a balanced character for the story that will suit my concept to a tee.

I think one thing that Neil is forgetting is that his world is HUGE. That limitations and disads that are not affecting the PCs now, can easily do so in the future. We've had supers change teams. We've had supers move into different levels of genre (Typhoon Dragon going from trad'l super team to a family of martial artists). Bryan Fury's "Too Dense to Swim" disad probably should go up since he moved to live on an island. Because there is this "cross polinization" of storylines, subplots and characters... you're right... sometimes the Disads don't quite fit the current situation. But that doesn't mean it won't down the road.

Often I take Disads that "aim" my PC towards the situation. Dorian (aka Geist) was a UNTIL intel analyst. He has a 15 pt "Loyal to UNTIL". It doesn't really come up as a specific Disad, but it is the WHOLE reason that he is part of the UNITE team. It is woven so deeply into the character AND the situation (being the Cyprus UNTIL super team) that it really is never an issue. But it is there. Same with power limitations. I dont' want to derail plotlines... that is why Geist's clairsentience is GM Control with Side Effects (bad, doom doozy visions). I spent points for a power I have no control over. Just because I thought it wuz cool for the concept.

[Storn]

Sorry, had an add'l point.

I think I'm onto something with "situational trigger".

Take the PC who has OIHID and stays in OIHID constantly. That is the "situational trigger" already gone off. That is a choice made based on the limitations and disadvantages. By staying in OIHID, OIHID is ALREADY IN PLAY.

Or put another way, the player feels that life is threatening enuff...or that his civilian personae is so bland... or what have you, that this other personae is only one that counts. That is a choice colored.

Having Maser get lots of points for being OIHID also means that if Maser is always Maser, his fame and popularity will follow him at all times. THAT is limiting. Dorian can shuck Geist and slip out to Paris for a glass of wine at a cafe.. that is my decision. And THAT has consequences too.. if anyone puts Dorian/Geist together... bang, soft target vs. hard target. OIHID has given its consequences in either case.

Sometimes Disads and Limitations are invoked by the player, not the GM. And sometimes, it is in ways so subtle, that it might seem like those Disads are "worthless" or "not worth the points" because they didn't impair or hamper the PC directly. But what about indirectly? What about all the judgement calls made by Players trying to AVOID those situational triggers?

[Mentor]

I've always found the concern with PCs remaining "competive" with each other that underlies so much of these discussions to be...perplexing. Who are the superheroes suposed to be fighting, again? It's not each other, is it? Is the point of being a superhero to go out and see who can kick more ass? Not the last time I checked...


Oh, and I think there were quite a few foci in The Increadibles. Frozone's boots, Syndrome's bracers and boots, and several mentioned in the DVD's profiles of the other supers.
Absolutely! The Heroes are supposed to stop the villains, most often by fighting them, not each other. So many of the concerns I read about PC "imbalance" revolve around the issue of concern that the fellow hero appears on paper to be more effective than the writer's character. Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Flash and Green Lantern do not have to be perfectly balanced with one another in power to work as a team.

[OddHat]

Absolutely! The Heroes are supposed to stop the villains, most often by fighting them, not each other. So many of the concerns I read about PC "imbalance" revolve around the issue of concern that the fellow hero appears on paper to be more effective than the writer's character. Batman, Wonder Woman, Superman, Flash and Green Lantern do not have to be perfectly balanced with one another in power to work as a team.

Absolutely, and I'd rep you and Kristopher if I could.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mentor again.

[Mentor]

In most campaigns, I wouldn't role-play going to the grocery store unless it was for comic effect, or to have the character engage in some conversation with NPCs for plot or character development reasons. On the other hand, even in high-power games I do make an effort to set scenes where the characters have time to eat, sleep, clean up, etc. I think it adds a nice pace to the adventure, and adds some texture to the world.

As to too-cheap focusses, I just don't care that much. ;)
I think it is more accurate, at least in our campaign, to view the down time or non combat IDs of the PCs as the adventure hook. Bruce Wayne is always going to the charity gala de jure in formal attire when the Joker or Penguin strike to institute their nefarious scheme. Clark Kent has Lois or Jimmy hanging around inconveniently when the Space Baddies start in on the Metropolis science gadget unveiling. Spiderman has to take in to account tha Mary Jane will always find herself in the place of greatest danger whenever the baddies show up.

Limitations are not only randomizers fro combat but defining attribute of the characters which must determine how they address any given threat and not just at the random roll of 8 or less on the dice.

[Trebuchet]

Sorry, had an add'l point.

I think I'm onto something with "situational trigger".

Take the PC who has OIHID and stays in OIHID constantly. That is the "situational trigger" already gone off. That is a choice made based on the limitations and disadvantages. By staying in OIHID, OIHID is ALREADY IN PLAY.

Or put another way, the player feels that life is threatening enuff...or that his civilian personae is so bland... or what have you, that this other personae is only one that counts. That is a choice colored.

Having Maser get lots of points for being OIHID also means that if Maser is always Maser, his fame and popularity will follow him at all times. THAT is limiting. Dorian can shuck Geist and slip out to Paris for a glass of wine at a cafe.. that is my decision. And THAT has consequences too.. if anyone puts Dorian/Geist together... bang, soft target vs. hard target. OIHID has given its consequences in either case.

Sometimes Disads and Limitations are invoked by the player, not the GM. And sometimes, it is in ways so subtle, that it might seem like those Disads are "worthless" or "not worth the points" because they didn't impair or hamper the PC directly. But what about indirectly? What about all the judgement calls made by Players trying to AVOID those situational triggers?I'm not certain I entirely agree here. If the character takes OIHID but always maintains that heroic ID then there's no justification for getting a price break on Powers that are on 100% of the time. At most it becomes a hindrance to maintaining a Secret ID ("Gosh, Jim, your Captain Amazing costume looks just like the real thing. And it's March 19th; what's up with the Holloween costume year 'round?")

To qualify as a Limitation the Power bought with it has to suffer some type of penalty. I don't see how that applies to OIHID if the character never stops being in his Hero ID at all.

[David Blue]

OK, a new aspect to the issue!


Can I suggest you occasionally kill a PC?It certainly can be done.


First off there is often a feeling of invulnerability: you might get KO'd or captured, but never killed, surely...well, in a world where people fling about the equivalent of small nuclear explosions (in some cases) in hand to hand combat, death should never really be too much of a surprise.Feeling of invulnerability?

When focus dweebs are pushing the power level and lethality of the game and the villains (and worse in my experience the mega-deadly agent teams) so high that other characters are descending into abject helplessness, there's no feeling of invulnerability. You're taking more BODY pretty much every time you take a hit from anything, and the logic of what's going to happen sooner or later is clear: "No safety or surprise: The End."


OK, it's a bit extreme but it certainly puts the balance in: you may only lose the armour one game in 10 or 20, but if that could prove fatal.... :DAnd in those other nine out of ten or nineteen out of twenty combats you're the one playing someone from the Authority, and the characters that aren't focused up are playing clone-tank heroes.

Moreover, there's a natural tendency for the focus characters, being the ones everyone looks to in time of crisis, when the going gets tough and so on, to be the real heroes, and to be treated as such, including by the gamemaster. Which means if someone's head is going to be found in the fridge, it's more likely to be one of Focus Lantern's less-mighty friends than the hero himself.


If you don't actually want to kill someone how about beating them up so badly it takes weeks or months to recover - they can play someone else in the interim.Same deal. This happens to the weaker characters more or less automatically, more and more (as increasing numbers of experience points add more to inherently efficient than inherently plain-vanilla character designs, and the power gap grows and grows).

(Introducing a surprise levelling factor: everybody contributes to the team base, which will increasingly need medical mega-tech. Some characters will be using that constantly. Others won't. So in effect this is a straight transfer of points from champs to wimps.)


Part of the problem with the criticism of the FOCUS limitation is that the worlds we are playing in are just not dangerous enough...Iron Age style makes being comparatively weak maximally costly. This punishes the weaker characters.

If you're playing a character whose heroic power level is leaking or deflated, next to a focus hero growing stronger and stronger, it's much, much better to be doing so in the Silver Age than in the Iron Age. This is true out of combat (head-in-the-fridge) and even more true in combat, which is 90-95% of the danger time anyway. (I'm at negative BODY and bleeding again - how is this going to end??)

Grasshopper: violence and slaughter are not the answer.

[OddHat]

OK, a new aspect to the issue!

It certainly can be done.

Feeling of invulnerability?

When focus dweebs are pushing the power level and lethality of the game and the villains (and worse in my experience the mega-deadly agent teams) so high that other characters are descending into abject helplessness, there's no feeling of invulnerability. You're taking more BODY pretty much every time you take a hit from anything, and the logic of what's going to happen sooner or later is clear: "No safety or surprise: The End."

And in those other nine out of ten or nineteen out of twenty combats you're the one playing someone from the Authority, and the characters that aren't focused up are playing clone-tank heroes.

Moreover, there's a natural tendency for the focus characters, being the ones everyone looks to in time of crisis, when the going gets tough and so on, to be the real heroes, and to be treated as such, including by the gamemaster. Which means if someone's head is going to be found in the fridge, it's more likely to be one of Focus Lantern's less-mighty friends than the hero himself.

Same deal. This happens to the weaker characters more or less automatically, more and more (as increasing numbers of experience points add more to inherently efficient than inherently plain-vanilla character designs, and the power gap grows and grows).

(Introducing a surprise levelling factor: everybody contributes to the team base, which will increasingly need medical mega-tech. Some characters will be using that constantly. Others won't. So in effect this is a straight transfer of points from champs to wimps.)

Iron Age style makes being comparatively weak maximally costly. This punishes the weaker characters.

If you're playing a character whose heroic power level is leaking or deflated, next to a focus hero growing stronger and stronger, it's much, much better to be doing so in the Silver Age than in the Iron Age. This is true out of combat (head-in-the-fridge) and even more true in combat, which is 90-95% of the danger time anyway. (I'm at negative BODY and bleeding again - how is this going to end??)

Grasshopper: violence and slaughter are not the answer.

I'd say that this was campaign dependant rather than "Age" dependant. In my own campaigns, I make a point of taking away Foci whenever it will increase the dramatic value of the story, sometimes in the middle of a fight. I also make a point of reviewing character designs and suggesting that players use builds that are not comparatively weak when balanced against the threats they will be facing, unless that's the player's choice.

And yes, I have killed PCs, when it added to the story.

[Statikk HDM]

That's a good point games, David. The more realistic the campaign and the more likely a PC is to die the less likely people are going to be playing vanilla or cute characters and inventive characters and more likely to crank out foci and characters pulling out the stops. I've never really seen it get quite as bad as some people have stated but an arms race(so to speak) could quickly escalate into one-hit kill terrritory.