Inherent, does anyone use it? How? [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Robyn

Oct 13th, '06, 06:10 PM

An example of what inherent is good for is extra limbs. An entity that simply has extra limbs all the time would be perfect for buying extra limbs as inherent. A low cost power like extra limbs is very easy to suppress/drain into nothingness and it doesn't make any sense for a cheap adjustment to make someone's limbs disappear.

Nor for dying to make them go away, but that's what lack of Independent would do. (Logically speaking, of course; but do SFX matter when the power isn't build that way?)

This is why I was looking for the writeup of normal squids or octopi a while back - I was wondering whether they included "Inherent" or "Independent" in the build.

(FWIW, the HERO Bestiary includes neither of those Modifiers under "Giant Squid", "Giant Octopi", and "Giant Spider".)

So what happens when the PC's are starving to death on a small raft, and about to fight each other for the right to cannibalism, when all of a sudden a giant squid attacks and they kill it? How much Life Support: Does Not Need To Eat can they get from eating the creature's flesh? Doesn't the flesh vanish when the power goes away? Or, if the flesh is merely part of the story (SFX justifying the power "Extra Limbs"), how does this SFX justify so many meals?

If you ask me, this is one of the "Assumptions within HERO". Anything which is defined as having physical mass, continues to have physical mass, without some power which specifically makes it vanish.

CrosshairCollie

Oct 13th, '06, 06:11 PM

Well, it's house rule territory, but I've determined that I don't like the official rules for being always big or always small (thanks to this board, naturally), and use Persistent, Inherent, and Always On for such.

ghost-angel

Oct 13th, '06, 10:16 PM

My shapeshifting character has a form that is a Ghost. Two Powers were bought Always On and Inherent (plus all the other needed Advantages) to simulate their ethereal nature: Desolid and Flight.

You can't make this shape Solid by Supressing/Draining/Dispeling their Desolid Nature. It's just a fact that they are that way all the time in that shape. A Transform and forcing a Shapeshift are the only ways to not make this character a ghost in this shape.

There is as good a logical use for the Inherent Advantage as I can give you.

Inherent does not, however, remove the ability to restrict the character. Sure your arms are Inherent, but that doesn't prevent you from restraining or otherwise prevent someone's arms from being used (lopping them off for instance).

Sean Waters

Oct 13th, '06, 10:19 PM

inherent is a good way to build cheap stuff that can't normally be adjusted, for instance, if you have extra limbs, a drain would not make them go away, for a lot of sfx, so it makes sense to make them inherent, and it is cheap to do so and far more convenient than buying a lot of power defence and limiting it heavily.

Incidentally uou could make an entire 350 point powerset inherent for about 95 points :)

Also it avoids confusion over transformations, which also use power defence as a defence.

Robyn

Oct 13th, '06, 10:44 PM

Inherent does not, however, remove the ability to restrict the character. Sure your arms are Inherent, but that doesn't prevent you from restraining or otherwise prevent someone's arms from being used (lopping them off for instance).

Hmm . . . so, lopping someone's arms off could be done as a Transform (with reversion condition: healing the BODY damage; rather convenient, that, considering the overlaps between their defenses and conditions for "effects going away"), essentially? Interesting.

That would, if nothing else, be an interesting way to get heroic players to have their characters act heroically:

"I'm sorry . . . you cannot hurt the villain that way, because you have not paid the points for an appropriate Transform. Save up your XP, and we can talk about it."

It would also be an interesting way for Point of Origin rules to affect play; if the beam comes from your arm, then logically you can no longer use that power if you no longer have that arm (attached to your body) :nonp:

That's almost a Focus-like effect, though, so should the player write it down on their sheet?

Another thought - if the character took Inaccessible to reflect the fact that their cybernetics could not be disabled without access to the PC's arm, a toolkit or workshop, and stillness on the arm's part; this would be (as a Limitation) worth something. But if the energy blast came from the character's hand, would this be just SFX since the power could not normally be blocked? Or would the Limitation be valued at -0, and written down on the character sheet anyway?

Another thought - if the hand is smashed/mangled, does the power stop working? I mean, the hand is still physically there - it's just been deformed, injured some. We're not talking "lopping off the hand" here. But maybe we can take the skin off. If the power normally comes from the hand, and visibly comes from a single point on the surface of the hand (not making the whole arm glow with energy), wouldn't it be logical to assume that the skin was the source of a power? Or would this only be if the power was bought as "Indirect": any point of origin? If you skin the hero, do the powers go away?

This topic is related to too many other threads, IMO ;)

Incidentally uou could make an entire 350 point powerset inherent for about 95 points :)

Does that cost include the reduction for those 95 points which aren't being made Inherent? I mean, assuming that you got the points for Inherent out of those 350.

Sean Waters

Oct 13th, '06, 10:48 PM

Does that cost include the reduction for those 95 points which aren't being made Inherent? I mean, assuming that you got the points for Inherent out of those 350.

I didn't solve it as a quadratic equation, I just added 125 (your base characteristic cost) to 350 and divided by 5. Yes it does make the inherent points inherent: double protection :)

Robyn

Oct 13th, '06, 11:09 PM

Yes it does make the inherent points inherent: double protection :)

I'm confused as to how this part works. Are you applying the Inherent modifier (not normally a power, just a Modifier) as a Naked Advantage?

I didn't know NA's could apply to multiple powers at once, though I suppose that treating the character as one giant power is the most sensible way of affecting every ability they have at once.

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 02:40 AM

It seems to me that Inherent is trying to make Common Sense a game mechanic. As a GM, I am not going to allow someone to Drain a ghost's Desolidification. Why? Common sense. Nor am I going to allow someone to Drain a monkey's tail because it's an Extra Limb. That's all Common sense. They are BODY parts. Buy a Transform! Come on, I know the human race totally lacks common sense as a whole but damn!
If you build an energy blast with no limitations, to me that's Inherent. If you don't want it Drained, buy Power Defense! The more I think about this thing the less I like it. Can't anyone give me a common sense justification?

On another note:

Originally Posted by David Johnston
Well of course as of current editions, Drain Running isn't a particularly good way to represent slippery ice sheets. Never really was of course, but it was the only available alternative in the past. However the beefing up of Environment Change represents such things much better than the clumsy workaround of a Power attack.

To me Change Environment was never supposed to have any real effect on combat. This is one of those 'using one power to create the effect of another power' things. Drain and Suppress are designed to do just that, Drain and Suppress. That isn't Change Environment's purpose, it is supposed to simulate minor effects a character can have on the surrounding area. The key word is minor. By taking an CE that provides a -6" of Running to an area, you effectively stop the movement of anyone with only 6" of ground movement no matter how powerful they are. Is that a minor effect? I don't think so. It's just a cheap way of duplicating an existing Power.

For example:

Change Environment 16" radius, -6" of Running costs 40 Active points

Drain Running 4d6 (standard effect: 12 points), Area Of Effect (16" Radius; +1 1/2) costs 100 active points.

Does Change Environment seem like a minor effect at that point? No. Seems pretty major to me. 60 points worth of major. I smell Munchkinism.

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 02:52 AM

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 02:56 AM

Try and build an energy blast that can't be drained without using 'inherent', then come on back and we'll chat about common sense.

Power Defense. Isn't that what it's for?

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 03:03 AM

Besides, Inherent can only be applied to Persistant powers that cost Zero END.

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 03:06 AM

Trebuchet

Oct 14th, '06, 03:33 AM

You should still take special effects and common sense into account when adjudicating Inherent. Sure, you can't Drain or Suppress a monkey's prehensile tail and make it permanently vanish, but you could still disable it (Entangle, Grab, duct tape, etc.) even if it's bought Inherent. Or you could chop it off; which Inherent would in no way prohibit. The sfx of both the Inherent Power and the specific attack needs to be considered.

Consider the alien's infrared vision in the movie Predator 2. The government agents filled a room with a gas that prevented the predator from using its IR Vision, so you might consider that a Suppress. Even if the IR Vision was Inherent, that doesn't mean it will always work or won't be functional on occasion. Inherent is just a little extra protection from Drains and the like; and a rather expensive one in most cases. I think it's mostly intended to protect low-cost Powers like IR or UV Perception or Extra Limbs from being Drained and leaving a character blinded or crippled for absurdly long periods because of the low Active Point cost.

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 03:39 AM

Power Defense. Isn't that what it's for?

Master Blaster is an energy spirit and,even at his lowest ebb, can always summon a 6d6 EB, which cannot be taken away from him while he lives.

Using inherent it would have to be 0 END and persistent, so would cost
30 x +1 1/4 = 67 points. In effect you have devoted 22 points to making the power undrainable, as you would have bought the power to 0 END anyway. The persistent probably does not add much to the build so we will say the whole cost of that, and of inherent contributes.

Now doing the same style of thing with power defence, you would need enough power defence to stop the largest drain or supress the campaign can muster, so assuming 12DC attacks, we are looking at 6d6 drain or 12d6 supress. Now a 12d6 supress averages 42 points, but you should probably cover at least 50 to be sure.

Then you'll need to harden that to make sure penetrating and AP attacks don't sneak through. Actually better cover both, so that is +1/2, so we are up to 75 active points. Realistically the largest limtiation you are likely to get is -2 for limtiing the power defence to the energy blast and itself, so we are down to 25 real points, i.e. more than we spent using inherent AND you are not protected against really lucky rolls, adjustment powers with the 'cumulative' advantage, NND or AVLD adjustment powers, triple penetrating drains....the list goes on.

Now this uses an example where the only reason to add persistent, really, is to gain the inherent advantage and it is STILL a better bargain, and a more effective and sensible build. If you were applying this to something like shapeshift, wehre you are getting positive advantages from persistent, it is even more of a bargain (assuming the 'base cost' of shapeshift is again 30 points, you would only be devoting 7 character points to make the power undrainable).

Now inherent DOES have a downside - it stops ALL adjustment powers, so you cannot succor or aid the power either. Can anyone think of a really cheap and easy fix for that little problem?

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 03:55 AM

FYI:

Energy Blast 10d6 plus Power Defense (50 points); Only Provides Defense for this power (I'd have to give it a -2 because it's pretty severly limiting a power that normally affect the entire character; -2) costs 67 points, 75 if you reduce the limitation to only -1

Energy Blast 10d6, Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) costs 112 points.

How's that? Is it my turn to get all munchkiny?

See my other post above (I must admit I missed this one when posting it :o )

The problem with this build (and it is nice to see us agree onthe appropriate elvel of power defence for the effect) is that it is not a perfect or even near perfect defence. I will give you that the larger the power that yuo want to protect the more economical the effect becomes as the cost of the power defence is effectively fixed (although as you protect more the limtiation value would fall and so the cost would in fact rise).

The point to ask yourself though is this: do the power defence and inherent options do exactly the same thing? I would have to say they do not. If that is the case then it is nice to have both because then you can model the effect you want.

Now your original post referred to a GM/newbie who wanted to make life support inherent.

This makes a great deal of sense in the right situation. If the character is an air elemental it makes no sense for any power to be able to suffocate her, so buying LS: Extended breathing (self contained, inherent) 12 points makes enormous sense. LS is already persistent so no worries about wasted costs there. If the LS (self contained) comes from an oxygenating implant in the lungs ogf an otherwise normal human metabolism, it shouldn't be built that way as it makes no contextual sense: an implant like that probably could be affected by the right sort of adjustment power. However adding limited power defence at a meaningful level tot his will cost just as much as for your 10d6 energy blast, and so does not make economic sense. Making the power inherent and limiting the inherency (not inherent against EMP type effects, for example) would make more sense.

The newbie may be overusing the advantage but that does not make the advantage worthless.

Oh, and if you would like to get all munchkinny, do feel free.

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 04:03 AM

I'm confused as to how this part works. Are you applying the Inherent modifier (not normally a power, just a Modifier) as a Naked Advantage?

I didn't know NA's could apply to multiple powers at once, though I suppose that treating the character as one giant power is the most sensible way of affecting every ability they have at once.

It ws a bit of a throwaway comment.

The actual cost of making an entire character build 'inherent' will vary with the character build as, in order to apply it, the power or whatever it is to be applied to has to be 0 END and persistent. You might be able to build a brick with entirely persistent powers and characteristics and, applying 'inherent' to each one will cost about 95 points (there will be some rounding and you probably won't need it for your skills as they generally cannot be drained)

A character built mainly with instant powers is going to cost an awful lot more.

I don't hink that you can really buy 'inherent' as a naked advantage.

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 05:33 AM

Utech

Oct 14th, '06, 07:19 AM

I just mention the Life Support, and its LS vs. all Toxins, as an example. She also wants Inherent on Damage Resistance, Mental Defense and Regeneration. All of whichs she also wanted to add Always On. Is this just paranoia?

I think it is clear that you do not care for Inherent. That's cool. Why not just tell your player that you won't be using it in your game? You can go on to explain that you prefer Power Defense if that is, in fact, your preference.

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 07:31 AM

I think it is clear that you do not care for Inherent. That's cool. Why not just tell your player that you won't be using it in your game? You can go on to explain that you prefer Power Defense if that is, in fact, your preference.

I have. And it was will trying to explain my reasons that the whole heartburn thing came up. I was just wondering what others thought of it.

Robyn

Oct 14th, '06, 08:38 AM

I just mention the Life Support, and its LS vs. all Toxins, as an example. She also wants Inherent on Damage Resistance, Mental Defense and Regeneration. All of whichs she also wanted to add Always On. Is this just paranoia?

Does the Regeneration have "from death"? It seems to me that she wants to make sure her character cannot be (negatively) affected in the ways she doesn't want to play. There's nothing wrong with that; she's trying to use the system to ensure that the sessions you run don't wander into stories that are uncomfortable for her to roleplay. Ask her in what ways she does see her character being negatively afflicted; if she seems to have so few that you don't think you could challenge her character often enough, point out that fun can arise from complications and difficulties.

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 08:56 AM

Power Defense applies across the board to Adjustment Powers. Or it heavily limit it to apply to just the Powers you don't want Adjusted.

Inherent Powers also can't be turned off (without GM permission).

Going back to the Ghost:

Desol Boy can turn into a Ghost Form and walk through walls, all the nifty stuff (Desol). But it's not an Inherent part of his nature, he can become solid. You can stop Desol Boy with Drain/Supress/Dispel of appropriate SFX (we'll assume someone has one).

the spooky Ghost in the attic is always Desol, it can never become solid and affect the real world. It's Desolid capabilities in Inherent to it - it can no more turn off "Desol" then you can turn off your arms.

Inherent is saying more than "you can't Drain/..." my Power. It's saying "This capability is an inherent, integral part of the character/creature at a basic level"

The player who is buying Inherent to prevent Adjustment Powers from hurting them is a munhckin and should be stomped. And should buy Power Defense. It'll probably be cheaper in the long run anyway.

Vondy

Oct 14th, '06, 09:54 AM

I hate adjustment powers specifically designed to neuter a character, so I use it where I think its logically apropos. There's nothing like a 277 point character who is purchased +1/4 Inherent. :D I kid, I kid. But yes, I use it, on just about any power that is, by definition, inherent.

keithcurtis

Oct 14th, '06, 12:12 PM

Lucius

Oct 14th, '06, 01:18 PM

Power Defense. Isn't that what it's for?

How much Power Defense do you need to stop any concieveable Drain etc. from working?

Consider the alien's infrared vision in the movie Predator 2. The government agents filled a room with a gas that prevented the predator from using its IR Vision, so you might consider that a Suppress.

No, it’s Darkness VS the Infravision.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary wonders if Inherent is inherently inherent?

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 01:34 PM

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 02:46 PM

I just mention the Life Support, and its LS vs. all Toxins, as an example. She also wants Inherent on Damage Resistance, Mental Defense and Regeneration. All of whichs she also wanted to add Always On. Is this just paranoia?

Well she can't have 'always on' on life support, damage resistance et al: there is no disadvantage to being unable to turn off a defence, or such esoteric disadvantage that it is not worth a limtiation value. Bear in mind that to make a 350 point character completely inherent is going to make that character, even under optimum conditions, a 255 point character, being drained will be the least of her worries: being beaten by every opponent every time is going to be her problem.

She has probably had a bad experience with drain. Give her a bad experience with normal combat and that will help to re-focus her perceptions :)

Sean Waters

Oct 14th, '06, 02:54 PM

I just want to know what would be the logical justification for Drain: Desolidification or Drain: Extra limb? I think the whole inherent question can be eliminated in nearly every case by a gm who enforces reasonable Drains.

Keith "common sense-er" Curtis

Realistically you are not going to ancounter a 'drain extra limbs' power, but you (as ghost-angel points out) going to have broad sfx drains that cover the sfx of the extra limb now and then.

However, as a GM, if you really think that an extra limb cannot under any circumstances be drained, buy it as inherent. Applying common sense is rarely a good idea, because no two people seem to stock the same variety and, frankly it is the start of the rot: if your mutated tail cannot be drained, then it makes little sense that your life support, based on mutated lungs, can be drained, and your armour, based on mutated skin and...

The point is none of this actually makes sense, so applying 'common sense' is never going to work - it will just create a series of arbitrary exceptions. A GM never has to justify forgetting to buy inherent anyway - it is not as if you will be handing out villain character sheets - just remember to add it in and re-cost it later. A player with the same problem (the 'I forgot' problem) can get inherent for free as far as I am concerned, but has to devote their next X character points to covering the cost.

Vondy

Oct 14th, '06, 02:56 PM

Well she can't have 'always on' on life support, damage resistance et al: there is no disadvantage to being unable to turn off a defence, or such esoteric disadvantage that it is not worth a limtiation value.

/snark on!

What if the only counter to a lethal non-terrestrial disease built as a power is a strain of the common cold?

/snark off!

keithcurtis

Oct 14th, '06, 03:35 PM

Realistically you are not going to ancounter a 'drain extra limbs' power, but you (as ghost-angel points out) going to have broad sfx drains that cover the sfx of the extra limb now and then.

However, as a GM, if you really think that an extra limb cannot under any circumstances be drained, buy it as inherent. Applying common sense is rarely a good idea, because no two people seem to stock the same variety and, frankly it is the start of the rot: if your mutated tail cannot be drained, then it makes little sense that your life support, based on mutated lungs, can be drained, and your armour, based on mutated skin and...

The point is none of this actually makes sense, so applying 'common sense' is never going to work - it will just create a series of arbitrary exceptions. A GM never has to justify forgetting to buy inherent anyway - it is not as if you will be handing out villain character sheets - just remember to add it in and re-cost it later. A player with the same problem (the 'I forgot' problem) can get inherent for free as far as I am concerned, but has to devote their next X character points to covering the cost.

Let's look at this from a game world perspective, since that's where the justification for a power build comes from.

If a spell is a Drain: Life Support, with the intention of causing someone who would normally be able to breathe underwater to drown, then I can easily see it working against mutated lungs. It's magic. It makes you drown. The Spell isn't called "close gills", it's called "make you drown". If the SFX is closing gills, and the target is using an aqualung, it shouldn't work. But the character with the aqualung or the mutated lungs shouldn't bear the onus of building to suit whatever wonky power might come along. That would lead to needless point inflation and likely never come into play anyway. The wonky power should bear the onus. In the "Make you drown" spell, it should be a straight out Drain: Life Support. For the "Close Gills" spell, it should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from gills. If it's a "Remove Air Supply" Spell, should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from carrying around extra air.

I dislike "inherent" because it is not broadly applicable. If a spell is "Remove Tail", you should be able to remove a tail, regardless of whether a creature naturally (inherently) has one or not.

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work. If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor), are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?
I say no. The spell-caster should either build "Remove Armor" (Drain: Armor, -1/2 only versus worn armor) or "Make Vulnerable" (Drain: Armor, no limitations).

To require Inherent is to needlessly complicate a campaign with endless what-ifs (I'm an Ogre. Ogres are strong. Should my Strength be Inherent?). To build logically limited powers is to build the resolution of any power usage into the power itself. Far more elegant to my thinking.

Keith "Inherently right on this ;)" Curtis

Ghost Archer

Oct 14th, '06, 03:50 PM

I totally agree with "Keith "Inherently right on this ;) " Curtis". I wish I had been as eloquent.

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 04:03 PM

While I'm pretty much in agreement with Keith, I don't think Inherent is as quite as bad as it's been made out to be.

Drain: Energy Blast defined as "Magical Disarm" vs a Damage Shield built using Energy Blast (a Fire Nimbus on an Efreet let's say). Should it work? What if the Damage Shield is built as Inherent because it's an intergral part of the creature involved and a Magical Disarm can't simply remove the Fire Nimbus.

Beyond common sense the Mechanics do have to back things up, as Sean Waters points out everyone uses a different version of Common Sense. If we're going with Common Sense as the only measure then why have specific Powers at all. Attack, Defend, Move, Adjust, Perceive should be all we need and Common Sense will mitigate the rest.

The original question was not "Justify Inherent on Life Support" it was "Give me a reason to use Inherent."

On Life Support itself it's a silly construct, has no place there IMO. On many other constructs I see it's use and believe it should be there.

And also: maybe your Remove Tail spell is built wrong, not the other way around. There are plenty of things that get past Inherent: Transform, Damage, Resrtaints, Images, Shapeshift.

TheRavenIs

Oct 14th, '06, 04:17 PM

I use Inherent on those powers that I see should be, with that said ..... sometimes/many times ...... I can see that it can be over used.

The C's that I do it for usually have a few abilities that are racial ones or the build works better even if it costs more to use it.

Lucius

Oct 14th, '06, 04:38 PM

I got rep once for something I said in a thread regarding Drain and Life Support.

Someone asked "Why can't I drain the Life Support for a character's free default environment (usually "oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere.")"

I responded "Because it's inherent."

I'm not sure that's true; I'll ask Mr. Long.

But if I'm right, it seems to imply that other Life Supports can be Inherent too.

And if I'm wrong - the original question stands, why can't I drain your "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere?"

You COULD answer that, I suppose, by saying no one can Drain, Dispel, etc. Life Support, making it always automatically Inherent.

Lucius Alexander

Dispel Palindromedary: Sator Arepo Tenet Opera Rotas

Vondy

Oct 14th, '06, 04:40 PM

I tend to agree with Keith on this. It adds needless complexity to the system, as well as increased costs without much increased utility.

Robyn

Oct 14th, '06, 04:52 PM

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work.

This is, after all, the "book-legal" build for invulnerability.

If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor), are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?

This is where consistency, in advance, is valuable for the GM to enforce: it prevents questions of who should include an effect in the writeup for their character. It also prevents inconsistencies from arising later on, during game play.

To prevent questions of how much the defense costs, or how much the appropriate dice would cost, I think that immunities/resistances should be built as part of the attack power and extra dice of effect should be built as Susceptibility for the characters in question. Depending on where the line is drawn for "what makes it into the actual writeup for a character sheet", this may be inflicted with VPP's or Naked Modifiers (gravity may slam a character into the ground, but surely there is some sort of Susceptibility that states they take damage proportionate to the impact?) instead of included in the main writeup for that power, but the effect is the same.

If a player says "Hey, my fire EB could destroy that Continuous paper cut HKA, does it burn?", the GM could insist on statting this out as a Dispel and Linking it to the fire attack, but if the effect were deemed consistent to all paper, and not just a quality of that fire attack, the villain would get some points back for taking Physical Manifestation on their HKA (if they hadn't already) or a similar custom Limitation (such as collapsing if intersected with fire SFX), and everyone else with paper SFX would be required to do the same. That's consistency.

If you aren't careful to do this (from the beginning), you end up with odd cases like one PC having the Dispel with their EB and another having Physical Manifestation on their HKA; what happens then? If the interaction should only take place in reaction to fire attacks from the EB, what is the other character receiving points for? Conversely, if the interaction should only take place for the paper cut power, what is the other character paying points for? The GM needs to figure out which of the described effects would be common to all such SFX, and (from there) whether to apply it globally (as per "common sense") or let it be a power/Disadvantage/Advantage/Limitation for only that character.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 14th, '06, 05:35 PM

I wonder what would happen [he mused aloud] if you allowed the player in question to spend the points on Inherent, and then left a power writeup laying around like:

"Alter Natural State: 6d6 Minor Transform: Person with Inherent powers to person lacking Inherent powers"

:nonp:

Trebuchet

Oct 14th, '06, 05:55 PM

And if I'm wrong - the original question stands, why can't I drain your "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere?"Because that would in effect be an NND Does BODY attack which will kill. Why not just Drain BODY and take the more direct route? Sure, it's clever, but this isn't a game about clever - it's a role-playing game.

As a more practical approach, I'd observe that since Life Support is very inexpensive, Drains against it would be far too effective to be balanced. I'm not going to allow a PC to easily kill a villain using a mere 10 point attack which has a very uncomon defense; that would be blatant munchkinism and therrefore a hanging offense. I'm darn sure not going to build a villain that way either. If he's going to suffocate a hero, he's going to build it properly as a Killing Attack or a Drain on BODY with appropriate Advantages, Limitations, and sfx.

No amount of number crunching and fast talking by players removes the ultimate responsibility of the GM to enforce game balance in his campaign. If it's unbalancing, it doesn't get the stamp of approval.

keithcurtis

Oct 14th, '06, 08:45 PM

Also, you don't have a "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere". That is your default environment. There is no power involved. You buy Life Support to cover environments beyond your default.

Keith "It's like buying Drain: Physical Body" Curtis

zornwil

Oct 14th, '06, 11:25 PM

zornwil

Oct 14th, '06, 11:27 PM

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 11:35 PM

Exactly.

But here we are into the entire realm of problems created when HERO first took on Adjustment powers, the confluence of SFX and mechanics in a way that still hasn't quite meshed. So I can understand how Inherent can come up, as a way of trying to "mechanize" in a way that tries to be again agnostic of SFX - but thus trips up on exactly the SFX issues you raise. What I do not understand, though, about Inherent is why yet another absolute has been introduced into a system demonstrably troubled by them (consider, there is no counter to Inherent, it's a basic invulnerability), this could have been avoided with some simple counter-Advantage or such, and, second, and more importantly, what in fact drove this need in terms of why give such a basically cheap discount to avoiding Adjustments for a power. I mean, that alone is an interesting system point which begs for an explanation.

PS - in short, Ghost Archer, I agree Inherent doesn't work well for many of us, the only "issue" I perceive in not following it is the issue of how SFX and mechanics could be seen as arbitrarily interplaying into or against a character's favor. But I don't think that should throw one's GMing out the window.

I wouldn't say there's no "counter" to Inherent. Transform is, after all, a rather permanent solution to many issues.

They way I look at Inherent is you're saying "this is as integral to the base character as the base stuff that comes with the character: arms, legs, perception points" all of which can be reduced, blocked, removed or otherwise prevented from being used to their full function - just not by Drain, Supress or Dispel.

zornwil

Oct 14th, '06, 11:38 PM

I wouldn't say there's no "counter" to Inherent. Transform is, after all, a rather permanent solution to many issues.

They way I look at Inherent is you're saying "this is as integral to the base character as the base stuff that comes with the character: arms, legs, perception points" all of which can be reduced, blocked, removed or otherwise prevented from being used to their full function - just not by Drain, Supress or Dispel.
Sure, but that doesn't answer why it's priced as it is, the 2nd of my points in a purely-mechanics-related objection (the SFX-related objection being a whole different argument, unrelated to either your last post or the 2 points I brought up in the last couple sentences).

It does however speak to why it might be built as an absolute, since HERO bows to practicality over consistency in design.

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 11:45 PM

Sure, but that doesn't answer why it's priced as it is, the 2nd of my points in a purely-mechanics-related objection (the SFX-related objection being a whole different argument, unrelated to either your last post or the 2 points I brought up in the last couple sentences).

It does however speak to why it might be built as an absolute, since HERO bows to practicality over consistency in design.

The only reason I can think for cheapness in cost is two fold.
First, it shouldn't be used that often to begin with and in the long run doesn't provide that much benefit.
Second the Power already has to be Persistant; and in the case of many Powers that are targeted for what Inherent protects against (face it we just don't see Drain Extra Limbs or Drain Life Support with any real frequency) also need 0END/Persistant making the total +1 1/4.

But as I said, I'm mostly in agreance with Keith "instert tagling here" Curtis. It's supurfluous in most cases that people try to use it in. Or just silly. If you're buying Inherent just to protect against Adjustments then you're using it incorrectly, have firmly entered in Munchkin Land and should be stomped appropriately.

zornwil

Oct 14th, '06, 11:48 PM

I understand your general agreement, and as I share it must admit this line of discussion is rather academic.

But anyway (since I enjoy academic discussions), I can see your point in particular to the Persistent issue. Very good points.

ghost-angel

Oct 14th, '06, 11:58 PM

Pertaining to the original question/request; since we are in an academic discussion around the subject.

I think it's been proven that Inherent does have it's uses in the system. But they are limited to a Right Time/Right Place situations. In a properly defined game, with set constructs for various SFX Inherent can certainly have a place.

In a more broad and open ended game where an SFX can be represented in multiple ways Inherent starts to muddy up, becoming either a useless waste of points, a nonsensical use of points, or a munchkiny use of points.

Robyn

Oct 15th, '06, 12:18 AM

Keith "It's like buying Drain: Physical Body" Curtis

Would that be anything like buying "Transform: solid PC to ghost PC"?

Or would that be an EDM (adjacent dimension only), UAA . . . ?

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 02:50 AM

/snark on!

What if the only counter to a lethal non-terrestrial disease built as a power is a strain of the common cold?

/snark off!

This is only going to happen if the GM is determined to get you, and if the GM is determined to get you, nothing you can do or buy is going to save you. Anyway:

1. Life support only stops you suffering the harmful effects of disease: does not mean you cannot be a carrier, and so immune to the alien disease anyway.

2. Realistically if the life support was some sort of cunning immune response (as opposed to conscious magic or a technoliogical fix) you are unlikely to be able to turn it off voluntarily anyway - can you turn off your acquired immunity to chicken pox?

No, you don't get 'always on' here. Do feel free to snark away though, if I'm wrong :)

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 03:13 AM

Let's look at this from a game world perspective, since that's where the justification for a power build comes from.

If a spell is a Drain: Life Support, with the intention of causing someone who would normally be able to breathe underwater to drown, then I can easily see it working against mutated lungs. It's magic. It makes you drown. The Spell isn't called "close gills", it's called "make you drown". If the SFX is closing gills, and the target is using an aqualung, it shouldn't work. But the character with the aqualung or the mutated lungs shouldn't bear the onus of building to suit whatever wonky power might come along. That would lead to needless point inflation and likely never come into play anyway. The wonky power should bear the onus. In the "Make you drown" spell, it should be a straight out Drain: Life Support. For the "Close Gills" spell, it should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from gills. If it's a "Remove Air Supply" Spell, should be Drain: Life Support, -1/2 only vs. life support that comes from carrying around extra air.

I dislike "inherent" because it is not broadly applicable. If a spell is "Remove Tail", you should be able to remove a tail, regardless of whether a creature naturally (inherently) has one or not.

It should fall upon the builder of the Drain to define the conditions under which their power will work. If one character in a campaign has a "Remove Armor" spell (Drain: Armor), are you going to penalize every character in a campaign who has natural armor to buy the "Inherent" advantage on their armor? What if no one builds that spell, do you still require the Inherent when it will never be used? What if three years into the campaign someone builds the spell; do you force everyone who should have non-artificial armor to scrape up the points for Inherent?
I say no. The spell-caster should either build "Remove Armor" (Drain: Armor, -1/2 only versus worn armor) or "Make Vulnerable" (Drain: Armor, no limitations).

To require Inherent is to needlessly complicate a campaign with endless what-ifs (I'm an Ogre. Ogres are strong. Should my Strength be Inherent?). To build logically limited powers is to build the resolution of any power usage into the power itself. Far more elegant to my thinking.

Keith "Inherently right on this ;)" Curtis

Some of the points I make here have been made buy others as I am slow out of the blocks, but I make them anyway for completeness sake.

Your solution requires a level of responsible gaming that you will rarely see and an approach tot eh philosophy of the game that simply does not exist.

If I understand you right, you are suggesting, in terms, that all defensive powers should be bought 'generically' defined only by sfx, and that all attack powers should have appropriate limtiations, whether in terms of capital 'L' Limitations or sfx limtiations to define when they are not effective. OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the gist.

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template? There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage, IMO.

I appreciate that you do not like the 'inherent' advantage but I do feel that is because you are only looking at construction of characters from a limitied perspective. Moreover you are assuming that I, like this newbie GM, would use 'inherent' for everything. I wouldn't. I'd just use it when it is the right way to build the concept I have in mind. Now if you want to argue that 'inherent' is overused, or misused, fine, but to argue that it shouldn't be used is just not sensible.

Equally I am not a fan of simply handing out goodies based on sfx: I'm a sentient rock so you can't drain my ability to breathe in vacuum. Buy the ability to not be drained, and pay the points for it. It does not cost much. It is not difficult to work out that is a consequence of being a sentient rock, when you first create the character. Moreover, if you do come up against a logical inconsistency after starting play, speak to the GM - it is not unreasonable to either have a character re-design or take an XP mortgate to have 'always had' the power. Saying 'it is al in the sfx' and not thinking about it until it comes up (and thus making the GM's job a lot harder) is just abdicating responsibility.

Finally, if you really don't like inherent, you can ban it from your games, and require power defence to be used instead. Now if you want a discussion about a power that makes almost no sense at all unless you define it properly, let's talk about power defence....

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 03:15 AM

Hugh Neilson

Oct 15th, '06, 03:58 AM

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

By this same logic, Lucius' question of why we can drain FishMan's ability to extract oxygen through his gills, but not NormalMan's ability to process oxygen using his lungs. There are certainly SFX which would support this - "My character causes atrophy of the diaphragm, so characters reliant on the ordinary mechanics of breathing can no longer breathe." There is no logical reason you can drain one and not the other. From a balance perspective, it is just as cheap, and just as deadly, to drain the ability to breathe water when you're 60' down as it is to drain the ability to breathe oxygen when you're walking down the street.

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 05:34 AM

By this same logic, Lucius' question of why we can drain FishMan's ability to extract oxygen through his gills, but not NormalMan's ability to process oxygen using his lungs. There are certainly SFX which would support this - "My character causes atrophy of the diaphragm, so characters reliant on the ordinary mechanics of breathing can no longer breathe." There is no logical reason you can drain one and not the other. From a balance perspective, it is just as cheap, and just as deadly, to drain the ability to breathe water when you're 60' down as it is to drain the ability to breathe oxygen when you're walking down the street.

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

And I agree with you on that last point. The 'official' way to do it is with change environment, I belive, but this really is a cop out.

As to Lucius' contention that you cannot drain the ability to breathe, well, it doesn't say in the rules that you can't, but your description of what you want the power to do is fluff, or as many seem to like to call it sfx :D

There are several strands coming together here, from different threads.

First off, Hero does not define itself in game terms: the suffocation rules are a seperate mechanic, not defined in terms of a 'power build' and not really replicateable with the power build rules, without a lot of handwaving. Gravity manipulation might be another example.

Second, the system assumes a human base template, and assumes that is where everyone starts, making the more unusual builds disproportionately complex (but probably making the more usual builds more straightforward)

Third, the system does not really discuss whether basic assumed abilites (like breathing, seeing etc) can be affected, although I think that the clear assumption is that the cannot (other wise you would not beed powers like flash and darkness)

Now Hero does not use a system of self reference in building itself, but this is not Unified Field theory - you can't build a game system entirely from basic building blocks, not if you want it to be playable, but you CAN perhaps make the underlying assumptions and mechanics more transparent. At present the paper over the cracks tends to be sfx - they do serve a useful purpose. I would like to see the balance shift a little though sot hat there is less need for the papering over because the cracks are less evident.

Lucius

Oct 15th, '06, 07:11 AM

As a more practical approach, I'd observe that since Life Support is very inexpensive, Drains against it would be far too effective to be balanced. I'm not going to allow a PC to easily kill a villain using a mere 10 point attack which has a very uncomon defense; that would be blatant munchkinism and therrefore a hanging offense. I'm darn sure not going to build a villain that way either. If he's going to suffocate a hero, he's going to build it properly as a Killing Attack or a Drain on BODY with appropriate Advantages, Limitations, and sfx.

In other words -

You COULD answer that, I suppose, by saying no one can Drain, Dispel, etc. Life Support, making it always automatically Inherent.

For what it’s worth, Trebuchet, the more I think of it, the more I think you’re right. Drain just normally should not be allowed against Life Support. Buy it as an attack power.

Mind you, I was never actually in favor of Draining Life Support. Well, okay, there are a few individuals whose Life Support I’d like to see Drained, but they’re exceptions…

Also, you don't have a "Life Support: Oxygen-Nitrogen Atmosphere". That is your default environment. There is no power involved. You buy Life Support to cover environments beyond your default.

Keith "It's like buying Drain: Physical Body" Curtis

Good one, but does that mean if I have character with a natural innate ability to breathe and survive in two or more environments, does Lungfish Man get to have two “default environments” with no powers involved?

This is a little bit like arguing that normal Human senses aren’t a power, or that Running isn’t a power.

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template? There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage, IMO.

....

Right. And I’m not draining the physical reality of your lungs, just their ability to extract oxygen from air.

I agree, although, for the record, I think overusing 'inherent' is non-sensical rather than munchkinny, and so I don't really care unless I'm required to play a character built that way.

It’s munchkiny in that it’s a cheap way to avoid adjustment powers being used against a given power. Consider that + ¼ buys only one level of Difficult to Dispel.

Of course, I'm biased in that I believe the absence of an ability to prevent another character from breathing and achieve the same precise effects of suffocation which arise when the character is removed from his default environment - not a 6d6 "You're Drowning" NND - is a hole in the system.

You have a point, in so far as it would be a challenge to create an attack that exactly mimics the rules for suffocation. Unless you allow a Drain vs Life Support – which I think most of us regard as having way too much “bang for the buck” to be permissible.

Of course, the drowning rules look like they kill pretty slowly (as I remember – haven’t looked at them recently.) Then again, the assumption is you’ll be rescued before you’re dead, or find a way out of the deathtrap.

And I agree with you on that last point. The 'official' way to do it is with change environment, I belive, but this really is a cop out.

As to Lucius' contention that you cannot drain the ability to breathe, well, it doesn't say in the rules that you can't.

That may be about to change, if you consider answers to Hero System Fifth Edition Rules Questions to be officially “rules.” I posted my question.

Of course, we’re Hero Gamers – Rome can speak, but the debate rage on.

Lucius Alexander

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Palindromedaries is objecting to my use of a Suppress Palindromedary power….

Ghost Archer

Oct 15th, '06, 08:39 AM

I like Steve's answer to Lucius' question over in Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions!

Originally Posted by Steve Long
Life Support is Persistent, not Inherent.

What's keeping you from, say, Draining it should be your own common and dramatic sense. If those are lacking, hopefully the GM's are working.

ghost-angel

Oct 15th, '06, 08:43 AM

Sadly I can't Rep Steve for that at the moment.

Trebuchet

Oct 15th, '06, 08:47 AM

Sadly I can't Rep Steve for that at the moment.No worries, mate, I got him for you. :)

Robyn

Oct 15th, '06, 12:14 PM

No worries, mate, I got him for you. :)

Me three (my first stop after PM ;)).

zornwil

Oct 15th, '06, 12:18 PM

Got him also!

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 02:34 PM

I think we can all agree that to drain the ability to breathe is pretty daft. Mind you, I'm not sure how much that would actually cost.

There are different ways to build it, of course, but one way to look at it is that it is built in such a way that it is limited, so that characters can normally breathe, except in certain quite rare situations i.e. the normal restrictions on breathing are worth perhaps -1/4, Now the ability not to breathe, bought as LS (extended breathing/self contained) is worth 10 points. if that represents 'plugging the gap' in the normal ability to breathe, it is the reduction for a -1/4 limitation, and so the full cost power must cost an additonal 40 points. That's quite a bit to drain, not the point or two we seem to be assuming :D Whatever ther build, the full cost of breathing is 50 points. Cool.

Anyway, we are not doing it that way, are we?

Although I have recently repped Steve for something else recently and so cannot do so for his comments in any event, I have to be the voice of dissention.

I mean, the reason this common and dramatic sense need to be excercised at all (if only on low weight and low reps) is because breathing and suffocation are opaque mechanics in Hero and it is not at all straightforward to build a 'suffocation/O2 removal/vacuum power. it would have been nice to see that fixed by now in an official way.

All of this, whilst fascinating, is a little off topic in any event.

Inherent.

OK, is there a difference between the basic ability to breathe and the power 'LS: SCB 10 points' conceptually or actually?

Well, yes. The LS can specifically be drained according to the rules, so there is an actual difference, so I assume there must be a conceptual one too. It is at this stage that I'm going to saunter back and subtly indicate my killer point.

If LS: EB SCB is built into a character that has it not because they have a power that enables them to not need air, but because they have no use for it. They have no lungs or method of processing oxygen or any other respiratory gas or liquid. They are indeed the sentient rock of the previous example, or an entirely mechanical robot character with a positronic brain, or whatever.

Now in this instance 'inherent' is just right, is it not? Power Defence is useless for this kind of thing - there should be absolutely no way (barring the use of 'transform to a character that does need to breathe!') that any LS adjustment power could make the character suffer in any breathing related way. None at all.

So in answer to the question: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

Yes, and see above.

Robyn

Oct 15th, '06, 02:48 PM

There are different ways to build it, of course, but one way to look at it is that it is built in such a way that it is limited, so that characters can normally breathe, except in certain quite rare situations i.e. the normal restrictions on breathing are worth perhaps -1/4, Now the ability not to breathe, bought as LS (extended breathing/self contained) is worth 10 points. if that represents 'plugging the gap' in the normal ability to breathe, it is the reduction for a -1/4 limitation, and so the full cost power must cost an additonal 40 points. That's quite a bit to drain, not the point or two we seem to be assuming :D Whatever ther build, the full cost of breathing is 50 points. Cool.

This is certainly a different way of looking at it. I would Rep you, but apparently I have done so too recently.

Wolfgar

Oct 15th, '06, 03:17 PM

Personally I think Inherent is a perfectly fine modifier.

Largely I think it works best for things that are mostly on/off affairs: Desolidification, Enhanced Senses, Extra Limbs, Life Support and the like. Damage Reduction may fall into that category. For most of those if you really want to mess with them, you should buy Transform, KA for LS, or Flash for Enhanced Senses; Draining them is kind of silly.

Things that have a scale and can be partially reduced without being eliminated entirely should stay subject to Drain. Pretty much all your Defense powers fall into this category, except possibly Damage Reduction.

Wolfgar

Oct 15th, '06, 03:36 PM

So in answer to the question: Inherent, does anyone use it? How?

Yes, and see above.

Ghosts and Spirits would have Inherent Desolidification. A magician might have the ability to become desolified, and that can be subject to Drain, Dispel, or Suppress normally.

Air Elementals would be inherently Invisible to Sight Group. Being Invisible is just part of what the elemental is.

Likewise a fire elemental is made of living fire, and cannot be completely drained of its RKA Damage Shield, or it's Defenses against fire damage. Part of that may be purchased Inherent and part not, to allow for mild Suppresion effects, but you just can't snuff it out completely without killing it.

Undead and Robots may have Inherent Life Support powers versus poisons and Disease. They don't have any biological system, so therefore there really is just no way to make a poison or disease affect them, outside of an Attack power. By contrst a magician could have temporary LS granted by a spell, or a gadgeteer could have LS granted by some fiddley gidget. A Dispel, Drain, or Suppress that targeted Magic or Fiddley Gidgets might very well be able to affect those.

A Slime has Inherent Physical Damage Reduction. Boy, that's a mouthful. Eww, mouthful of slime. Anyway, The Damage Reduction is based on the physical make-up of the slime. You could theoretically describe the Drain as changing the slime into a substance easier to hit, but doesn't that sound more like a transform? Conversely, someone who just has the Protection of the Gods or has cast Bufshnu's Adamantine Skin could be theoretically Drained.

I think my examples go to show it's mostly useful for non-human types.

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 03:44 PM

....................

I think my examples go to show it's mostly useful for non-human types.

B-b-b-bingo! The hidden template once more reveals itself by the shadows it makes in the water!

Hugh Neilson

Oct 15th, '06, 05:13 PM

You have a point, in so far as it would be a challenge to create an attack that exactly mimics the rules for suffocation. Unless you allow a Drain vs Life Support – which I think most of us regard as having way too much “bang for the buck” to be permissible.

Of course, the drowning rules look like they kill pretty slowly (as I remember – haven’t looked at them recently.) Then again, the assumption is you’ll be rescued before you’re dead, or find a way out of the deathtrap.

Suffocation means you spend 1 END per phase and cannot take recoveries. If you run out of END, you use STUN instead. Once all STUN is gone, you move on to BOD. As you say, it's a slow process. I'd peg the ability to remove someone's ability to breathe at 10 or 15 points on a gut feel.

Reasonable? Well, a 1d6 NND (+1) Does BOD (+1) (defense is appropriate life support) 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1?), Uncontrolled (+1/2?) costs 25 points and will kill the same target quite a bit faster.

Silbeg

Oct 15th, '06, 05:20 PM

My shapeshifting character has a form that is a Ghost. Two Powers were bought Always On and Inherent (plus all the other needed Advantages) to simulate their ethereal nature: Desolid and Flight.

You can't make this shape Solid by Supressing/Draining/Dispeling their Desolid Nature. It's just a fact that they are that way all the time in that shape. A Transform and forcing a Shapeshift are the only ways to not make this character a ghost in this shape.

There is as good a logical use for the Inherent Advantage as I can give you.
GA, I was going to use the same example (well, perhaps without the flight)!

Trebuchet

Oct 15th, '06, 05:48 PM

B-b-b-bingo! The hidden template once more reveals itself by the shadows it makes in the water!You say that like it's a bad thing. There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

Robyn

Oct 15th, '06, 07:54 PM

There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

It's easiest (for most players) to determine how much the template is in accordance with "common sense", too.

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 11:39 PM

You say that like it's a bad thing. There had to be some kind of basic template; and given that 98% of characters are human (or a minor modification thereof) "human" is the obvious and logical choice as a template.

No, I say that like it is something that the Hero System does not acknowledge and that the lack of discussion over the fundamental principles underpinning the system is a bad thing.

'B-b-b-bingo' just seemed so much more concise.

Sean Waters

Oct 15th, '06, 11:42 PM

Suffocation means you spend 1 END per phase and cannot take recoveries. If you run out of END, you use STUN instead. Once all STUN is gone, you move on to BOD. As you say, it's a slow process. I'd peg the ability to remove someone's ability to breathe at 10 or 15 points on a gut feel.

Reasonable? Well, a 1d6 NND (+1) Does BOD (+1) (defense is appropriate life support) 0 END (+1/2), Continuous (+1?), Uncontrolled (+1/2?) costs 25 points and will kill the same target quite a bit faster.

OTOH removing all REC instantly and keeping it gone while the power is up would be built as cheaply as possible as:

Supress REC 10d6 (which at standard effect is 30 points, or 15 REC - probebly reasonable in a superhero game), which would cost 50 points and will never kill the target on its own.

Don't you just love Hero?

Robyn

Oct 16th, '06, 12:06 AM

No, I say that like it is something that the Hero System does not acknowledge and that the lack of discussion over the fundamental principles underpinning the system is a bad thing.

Maybe if I avoided all mention of any possible practical application of learning/knowing such principles . . . ?

Sean Waters

Oct 16th, '06, 12:09 AM

Maybe if I avoided all mention of any possible practical application of learning/knowing such principles . . . ?

Maybe :)

Robyn

Oct 16th, '06, 12:25 AM

Maybe :)

Zornwil was asking something recently about moving to more practical discussions - this would be an intriguing possibility for why we prefer the theoretical questions so much.

Some things are all very well and good as an abstract, in pure theory - but if we're uncomfortable thinking of their likely applications, we may shy away from those.

To get things done around here, the HERO forums then could have evolved a defensive measure of isolating an abstract principle which supported the practical application you desired, then presenting it alone (omitting the purpose for it) to elicit discussion.

This strikes me as sneaky, though, and not in a good way either (though perhaps this is one of the areas subject to situational ethics; key to getting something from the boards), so even if this were the case I wouldn't adopt its practice.

keithcurtis

Oct 16th, '06, 12:35 AM

Some of the points I make here have been made buy others as I am slow out of the blocks, but I make them anyway for completeness sake.

Your solution requires a level of responsible gaming that you will rarely seeI might be phenomenally lucky, but the gamers I have gamed with have by and large been easily this responsible. YMMV
and an approach tot eh philosophy of the game that simply does not exist.see below

If I understand you right, you are suggesting, in terms, that all defensive powers should be bought 'generically' defined only by sfx, and that all attack powers should have appropriate limtiations, whether in terms of capital 'L' Limitations or sfx limtiations to define when they are not effective. OK, I'm paraphrasing, but that seems to be the gist.Not at all. I advocate the simplest build which requires the least number of characters to be whacked for extra points. For example. Turrn Undead. I dislike clerics having to buy a clunky Extra PRE only to send away undead. Buy the Undead with a VULN to PRE attacks from holy people or symbols. Don't buy a church with some weird invisible forcefield that only affects undead. Buy your undead with a PHYS LIM: Cannot enter hallowed ground. Both of these require an alteration to defenses or limitations, not an attack power. In short, Keep it Simple.

Let us look at your 'close gills' suggestion.

First off the attack power has to be built with a limtiation 'only against targets using gills to breathe'. Depending on setting that might be anywhere from -1/4 to -2, and then, yes, it would prevent the attack working on anything using an aqualung.

However, I would not say that LS: extended breathing, defined as having gills, should be bought as inherent - I can see how that ability could be drained. You are not draining the physical reality of the gills, necessarily (and if you were I'd want you to build it as a transform), but the ability of the gills to extract oxygen from water.We agree here, if I read you correctly

Now what if you have built a character that is a piece of sentient rock and does not breathe i.e. is, in effect, NOT an offshoot of the assumed human template? Well from a rules standpoint, everything is an offshoot of the human template to some degree. Even vehicles and robots. They have to buy abilities that humans do not have. There are exceptions, but this is the general philosophy.
There is nothing to drain. The LS: extended breathing simply reflectts the reality that rocks do not breathe. No amount of adjustment power is ever going to MAKE a rock have to breathe. That would be a perfectly legitimate use of the 'inherent' advantage, IMO.For some campaigns, yes. I'll grant that it does have some use. One thing I didn't say earlier was that I felt the entire Drain power to be cheesy to begin with, but that was the example provided. I would never build it that way, but instead use an appropriate NND. This would circumvent the requirement for inherent in this case. I am sure that we could find one that I would agre is legitimate, but it's likely a vanishingly small number of cases.

I appreciate that you do not like the 'inherent' advantage but I do feel that is because you are only looking at construction of characters from a limitied perspective. Moreover you are assuming that I, like this newbie GM, would use 'inherent' for everything. I wouldn't. I'd just use it when it is the right way to build the concept I have in mind. Now if you want to argue that 'inherent' is overused, or misused, fine, but to argue that it shouldn't be used is just not sensible.You are assuming a lot here. I never said that I assume anyone uses Inherent for everything. Merely that I find it generally superfluous and clunky. I'm paraphrasing myself here, for brevity.

Equally I am not a fan of simply handing out goodies based on sfx: I'm a sentient rock so you can't drain my ability to breathe in vacuum. Buy the ability to not be drained, and pay the points for it. It does not cost much. It is not difficult to work out that is a consequence of being a sentient rock, when you first create the character. Moreover, if you do come up against a logical inconsistency after starting play, speak to the GM - it is not unreasonable to either have a character re-design or take an XP mortgate to have 'always had' the power. Saying 'it is al in the sfx' and not thinking about it until it comes up (and thus making the GM's job a lot harder) is just abdicating responsibility.I never advocated letting SFX replace the rules. I said they should dictate a logical build. I do modify some interactions based on SFX, but not often or by much, depending on the genre. I would als argue that buying all of the Life Supports inherent to a sentient rock with the Inherent Advantage is expensive in the extreme in fifth edition.

Finally, if you really don't like inherent, you can ban it from your games,Don't need to ban it. We just don't use it. It has literally never, ever come up.

and require power defence to be used instead. Now if you want a discussion about a power that makes almost no sense at all unless you define it properly, let's talk about power defence....I can point you to numerous post on this board upon which I have stated my dislike for universal Power Defense. Here we can easily agree.

Keith "Setting it straight" Curtis

Robyn

Oct 16th, '06, 01:05 AM

FYI, Keith - the Reply With Quote put all your text in one large paragraph, as if you had not used any line returns. This might be just me (I tried reloading the page several times, no change), but if something went wrong when you posted, an edit would make future replies a lot easier ;)

Well from a rules standpoint, everything is an offshoot of the human template to some degree. Even vehicles and robots. They have to buy abilities that humans do not have. There are exceptions, but this is the general philosophy.

This is one of the reasons why figuring out the underpinnings of that human template is so important. The cost of Inherent abilities could then be balanced between templates.

I never advocated letting SFX replace the rules. I said they should dictate a logical build.

I agree with you quite strongly on this. You can see my system for applying this theory on the suffocation thread (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1187008#post1187008).

Sean Waters

Oct 16th, '06, 01:43 AM

I might be phenomenally lucky, but the gamers I have gamed with have by and large been easily this responsible. YMMV

Perhaps 'responsible' was the wrong word. Consistent and foresighted would probably be better

Not at all. I advocate the simplest build which requires the least number of characters to be whacked for extra points. For example. Turrn Undead. I dislike clerics having to buy a clunky Extra PRE only to send away undead. Buy the Undead with a VULN to PRE attacks from holy people or symbols. Don't buy a church with some weird invisible forcefield that only affects undead. Buy your undead with a PHYS LIM: Cannot enter hallowed ground. Both of these require an alteration to defenses or limitations, not an attack power. In short, Keep it Simple.

This is very sensible gaming and requires what Hero specifically does not do, being a generic system, which is set up a plan in advance for character builds. A GM setting build limtis for characters and his own NPCs can make life so much easier, but when discussing the system as a whole I stick by my point (with a small modification) that the advocated approach is ALLOWED by Hero but it is not part of the Hero philosophy.

Personally I do not see inherent as a 'clunky' advantage - it does what it says on the tin in a very straightforward way as far as I can make out.

Well from a rules standpoint, everything is an offshoot of the human template to some degree. Even vehicles and robots. They have to buy abilities that humans do not have. There are exceptions, but this is the general philosophy.

You are quite right, everything is an offshoot of the Human Template. It is just that I see 'inherent' as a tool for modifying that template ina a way that other advantages simply can't.

One thing I didn't say earlier was that I felt the entire Drain power to be cheesy to begin with, but that was the example provided. I would never build it that way, but instead use an appropriate NND. This would circumvent the requirement for inherent in this case. I am sure that we could find one that I would agre is legitimate, but it's likely a vanishingly small number of cases.You are assuming a lot here. I never said that I assume anyone uses Inherent for everything. Merely that I find it generally superfluous and clunky. I'm paraphrasing myself here, for brevity.I never advocated letting SFX replace the rules. I said they should dictate a logical build. I do modify some interactions based on SFX, but not often or by much, depending on the genre. I would als argue that buying all of the Life Supports inherent to a sentient rock with the Inherent Advantage is expensive in the extreme in fifth edition.Don't need to ban it. We just don't use it. It has literally never, ever come up.I can point you to numerous post on this board upon which I have stated my dislike for universal Power Defense. Here we can easily agree.

Keith "Setting it straight" Curtis

I think all adjustment powers need excellent build definition, and sfx are an important part of that definition, supporting but not replacing advantages and limtiations. Here we certainly agree.

Modifying a human template is probably not cheap, if you make inherent all the things a sentient rock should 'be' but that is because you cannot balance the cost with things that the sentient rock IS NOT as the Human Template is mechanically opaque - you can use disadvantages but that does not help that much - you simply do not have as many points to spend on powers if you have to scrap normal sight using an advantage and replace it with some other targetting sense (perhaps some sort of magnetically based spacial awareness). The cost does not come from 'inherent' though, it comes from the lack of access to the underlying game structure.

keithcurtis

Oct 16th, '06, 08:24 AM

Personally I do not see inherent as a 'clunky' advantage - it does what it says on the tin in a very straightforward way as far as I can make out.

By clunky, I mean it solves a problem that by and large for me does not exist. It adds unnecessary cost if improperly or inconsistently applied. In my experience, this is most uses. Your games undoubtedly differ.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

keithcurtis

Oct 16th, '06, 08:28 AM

Sean Waters

Oct 16th, '06, 11:30 AM

By clunky, I mean it solves a problem that by and large for me does not exist. It adds unnecessary cost if improperly or inconsistently applied. In my experience, this is most uses. Your games undoubtedly differ.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

But Keith, my boy, you play the game with foresight, consistency and responsibility. We don't need strictly defined parameters for people like you or, apparently those you play with.

Not one munchkin? Ever?

keithcurtis

Oct 16th, '06, 01:18 PM

:)

Not in a long time. I have players with problems, and even occasionally a couple of power builders, but it's all relative. I haven't had anyone try to really rape the rules in over 20 years.

Keith "People wonder why I whined and cried about leaving my gaming group" Curtis

Lucius

Oct 16th, '06, 06:43 PM

I like Steve's answer to Lucius' question over in Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions!

That was obviously a popular answer.

I'm afraid I don't think I quite understand it.

First he says Life Support is Persistant, but NOT Inherent.

Then he seems to imply that "common sense" would forbid ever removing it with a Drain, etc. - which basically is saying that it IS automatically Inherent and immune to such effects.

Mind you, I have no problem with considering it Inherent - I've already expressed the opinion that "Drain Life Support" like "Drain Skills" is too much power for too little points - but I guess what I don't understand is saying it's NOT Inherent. If it basically gets the benefits of Inherent, in what sense isn't it Inherent?

Lucius P. Alexander

Buying an Inherent Palindromedary

Robyn

Oct 16th, '06, 07:40 PM

I guess what I don't understand is saying it's NOT Inherent. If it basically gets the benefits of Inherent, in what sense isn't it Inherent?

In the sense that nobody has to pay points for it?

I wonder if he's trying to give us the best of both worlds: point balance, and common sense.

Hoovdog

Oct 16th, '06, 08:00 PM

In the sense that nobody has to pay points for it?

I wonder if he's trying to give us the best of both worlds: point balance, and common sense.

If the person who writes the rules also defines the point cost then it could inhernt could be built in with no cost to the charecter because the power is by defentoin Inherent.

Robyn

Oct 16th, '06, 08:07 PM

If the person who writes the rules also defines the point cost then it could inhernt could be built in with no cost to the charecter because the power is by defentoin Inherent.

But that's not what he said - he said it didn't have Inherent, not that it did but with no cost.

Sean Waters

Oct 16th, '06, 11:34 PM

..................

Mind you, I have no problem with considering it Inherent - I've already expressed the opinion that "Drain Life Support" like "Drain Skills" is too much power for too little points - but I guess what I don't understand is saying it's NOT Inherent. If it basically gets the benefits of Inherent, in what sense isn't it Inherent?

Lucius P. Alexander

Buying an Inherent Palindromedary

By the same token then, if being able to REMOVE life support cheaply is too much utility, then it is because the powers themselves are so cheap that draining them is so easy, so perhaps life support should cost more?

Just saying :)

braincraft

Oct 17th, '06, 12:18 AM

Sean Waters

Oct 17th, '06, 12:47 AM

A De-Evolution Ray defined as a Drain on all powers based on race? It would also mess up mutants, I guess.

...yes, well, it depends what you point it at. I mean, you REALLY don't want to go pointing it at budgies.

(and I'll be quite impressed if anyone knows what THAT is a reference to :))

Teflon Billy

Oct 17th, '06, 01:02 AM

Inherent, IMO, works great for making Characters that have some sort of Cosmic Being. That is they are imutable in certain Foundations of the Universe kind of ways.

TB

Hugh Neilson

Oct 17th, '06, 03:22 AM

First he says Life Support is Persistant, but NOT Inherent.

Then he seems to imply that "common sense" would forbid ever removing it with a Drain, etc. - which basically is saying that it IS automatically Inherent and immune to such effects.

The precedent for such a structure seems to be Telekinesis, which isn't Indirect, but shares a number of effects of Indirect. A Rules Question post some time ago indicated that there was nothing Steve could think of which an Indirect (+3/4) power could accomplish that could not be achieved by Telekinesis. To me, that begged the question "Why not reduce the cost and make it Direct by default?"

Similarly, it makes no sense to me that Aid costs no END by default, but Healing costs END by default. The only reason I can see is that Aid was considered underpriced at 5 points per die, but overpriced at 10,and pisking a point in between was perceived as less desirable than building in an advantage and pricing it at a breakpoint evenly divisible by 5.

Vondy

Oct 17th, '06, 09:51 AM

I might be phenomenally lucky, but the gamers I have gamed with have by and large been easily this responsible.

I've seen both ends of the spectrum. I also think birds of a feather flock together. My last group developed its own internally responsible zeitgeist that pervaded play, and as a result, problems seldom cropped up, and were handled in an amiable way when they did. Also, the gravely sober and responsible (ahem....) silent cues given off to newcomers (read: overriding moral gravity and outright and peer pressure) seemed to curb newbie excesses before they began. I too have been, for the most part, very lucky. On the other-hand, I developed my style after - and perhaps in reaction to - having been exposed to some world class munchkins and powergamers, so I can definately understand the concern that someone out there will assume the GM is an idiot and try to slide these little system-breakers through the gauntlet.

Wolfgar

Oct 17th, '06, 10:46 AM

A de-evolution ray would be a Transform, not a Drain.

Life Support should not normally be the target of Adjustment powers by itself, largely because it makes no sense. Most variants of a power that do so would be beter represented with an Attack power.

Life Support as a power should still be affectable by an Adjustment power that focuses on a large group of powers, such as an anti-magic Suppress vs. Underwater Breathing, or a technology-scrambling Drain on a characters Power Armor LS systems.

PhilFleischmann

Oct 18th, '06, 03:57 PM

Robyn

Oct 18th, '06, 04:13 PM

I agree. I never use Inherent. I prefer common sense.

I wonder if we can stat out common sense . . . :bounce:

Enforcer84

Oct 18th, '06, 04:33 PM

Enforcer84

Oct 18th, '06, 04:34 PM

I use it sparingly I have no problem with it.

Wolfgar

Oct 18th, '06, 06:11 PM

As a side thought, Inherent may be useful for certain artifacts and relics that are in and of themselves magical. I wouldn't do this with your typical run-of-the-mill magic sword, or even most enchanted objects, but for the Ark of the Covenant or Vecna's Left Testicle it's perfect.

Enforcer84

Oct 18th, '06, 09:16 PM

Sean Waters

Oct 19th, '06, 05:23 AM

I wonder if we can stat out common sense . . . :bounce:

Yep: Common Sense +1/4 When applied to a power that is already 0 END and persistent it prevents the power being affected by adjustment powers. Should only be used when appropriate. AKA Inherent.

Robyn

Oct 19th, '06, 12:33 PM

Yep: Common Sense +1/4 When applied to a power that is already 0 END and persistent it prevents the power being affected by adjustment powers. Should only be used when appropriate. AKA Inherent.

I was thinking more of a general, "cover all bases" build for it. But this will do for now.

ghost-angel

Oct 19th, '06, 01:21 PM

Yep: Common Sense +1/4 When applied to a power that is already 0 END and persistent it prevents the power being affected by adjustment powers. Should only be used when appropriate. AKA Inherent.

Sean, first - nice shot.

Second - you've been having ENTIRELY too much fun with your avatar recently.

Sean Waters

Oct 19th, '06, 03:31 PM

I was thinking more of a general, "cover all bases" build for it. But this will do for now.

I should point out that I full expect everyone's defintion of 'Common Sense' to be different from everyone else's, sometimes radically so :)

Lucius

Oct 19th, '06, 04:40 PM

I should point out that I full expect everyone's defintion of 'Common Sense' to be different from everyone else's, sometimes radically so :)

Thus the saying that there is nothing common about common sense.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary says "Hey, it's not here under Enhanced Senses!"

Wolfgar

Oct 19th, '06, 05:00 PM

Common sense says the Earth is flat. I put very little stock in it as a concept.

Ghost Archer

Oct 20th, '06, 06:35 PM

I gave my player 5 xp and told her to buy some Common Sense. She promptly started arguing that if I took her OAF from her, she'd lose the points forever because it could never be replaced. I took the 5 xp back.

eternal sage

Oct 21st, '06, 07:18 AM

I just mention the Life Support, and its LS vs. all Toxins, as an example. She also wants Inherent on Damage Resistance, Mental Defense and Regeneration. All of whichs she also wanted to add Always On. Is this just paranoia?

First, I preface this as being a Hero GM for only about 4 months, being a vetern D&D, WoD, and SR GM.

It is my understanding that Inherient is something that can't be turned off either.

For an example I have an NPC named Geode who is a solid block of living diamond, and has been for her entire life. She cannot "turn it off" as this is her true form. It also may not be drained or anything else, (at least in my rational) because her body is made of diamond, which is naturally the hardest substance on earth, so it does not make any sense to turn off or drain her armor (for example).

Thus, the character has her Armor, Density*, Size*, and Damage Reduction Inherent, Persistant, and Always On, plus whatever you need to make those powers have those modifiers legally (my sheet is not nearby).

I may be over simplifying the rules when I say this, but I feel that any power that is a natural (physical) part of the character could be made Inherent, because those are the natural results of their makeup, build, ect. To affect Geode's armor, for instance, you would need a Transform, because by definition that is able to change the very structure and nature of the victim/object in question.

Also, I feel that LS is a good place to use Inherent, because if the character doesn't breath, nothing can make them need oxygen, because that is not their natural state (Examples being superman. He doesn't need oxygen, because he can fly through space without ill effects.)

So, in closing, I have to argue that Inherent merely sets the natural state for a character, and should often be used with Always On and Persistant, altough there are certianly times when that is not neccessary.

* I realize that Density and Size should not be made this way, because it says so in the book, and that I should use disadvantages ETC. But this is much simpler, so I tossed that out because I didn't see any inherent game breakers involved. Pun only partially intended.

Vondy

Oct 21st, '06, 09:25 AM

Sense is far from common and wisdom is seldom conventional.

Lucius

Oct 22nd, '06, 03:03 PM

* I realize that Density and Size should not be made this way, because it says so in the book, and that I should use disadvantages ETC. But this is much simpler, so I tossed that out because I didn't see any inherent game breakers involved. Pun only partially intended.

And many of us who have played for years - decades even - are in agreement with you about this.

In my opinion, either the Size powers shouldn't exist at all - and you should always buy Extra STR, DCV Levels, whatever, and package it and call it "Change Size" - or if you use Growth, Shrinking, Density Increase, there is no reason NOT to allow it Always On, Inherent.

Lucius Alexander

Should I buy the palindromedary Always On, Inherent? It's already a Persistant beast....

ghost-angel

Oct 22nd, '06, 04:49 PM

PhilFleischmann

Oct 23rd, '06, 02:48 PM

It is my understanding that Inherient is something that can't be turned off either.
A minor quibble: Technically, that is not necessarily the case. Inherent could reflect an ability that is natural, but you don't use all the time. Geode's fists (like the rest of her) are made of diamond, so she might have a few extra dice of HA, which would be Inherent, but not Always On, because she isn't continuously punching people all the time (at least I hope she isn't!).

And (not contradicting anything you said) a GM could also simply declare certain characters' powers Inherent or not, based on common sense, without treating it like a +1/4 Advantage (which is what I do in the infrequent times when I feel it's warranted).

Ghost Archer

Oct 24th, '06, 01:10 AM

And (not contradicting anything you said) a GM could also simply declare certain characters' powers Inherent or not, based on common sense, without treating it like a +1/4 Advantage (which is what I do in the infrequent times when I feel it's warranted).

I agree, Phil. If you choose to be a living diamond, or a member of the 'winged people', why should you have to pay extra to make things Inherent if a 'human' isn't required to do the same?

Sean Waters

Oct 24th, '06, 03:18 AM

Whilst I do not want to discourage sensible GMing, a word of warning: yes, 'human' has certain inherent abilities (probably), or at least abilities that cannot normally be drained (but CAN still be affected by other powers), simply assuming that you can make certain abilities 'inherent' as part of the template of that character can lead to considerable imbalance.

For instance a character made of diamond CAN have their armour drained, by the right sfx: what if your drain works by destabilising molecular bonds to reduce defences: you might still be made of diamond, but now it flows like hot toffee. There are very few absolutes in Hero, and I would rather see some sort of imputed inherence used (if at all) for abilities that the character template logically couldn't need (like a living rock not needing to breathe) rather than assuming that any powers that a character has due to background and or sfx are in some way inherent i.e. undrainable.

Of course I'd argue that is the perfect territory for the 'inherent' advantage...

One other quick caveat, you don't get points for 'always on' unless it really is a limitation: it will be extremely rare that armour is a real limitation: they can always find some other way to give you an injection :)

Sean Waters

Oct 24th, '06, 03:24 AM

I agree, Phil. If you choose to be a living diamond, or a member of the 'winged people', why should you have to pay extra to make things Inherent if a 'human' isn't required to do the same?

You might not be able to drain the SFX 'wings' but there is not reason not to be able to drain the POWER 'flight'. That is if hit by a flight drain, your wings would not vanish, they just would not keep you aloft. I don't think this is a proper use for inherent whether bought or granted for free. A normal human's running can be drained - it does not make their legs disappear, they just can not use them for movement (although they could still technically jump and kick just as well as normal if hit by a running drain: you do need to be careful how you buy these powers, with at least half an eye on how it will work in practice).

Ghost Archer

Oct 24th, '06, 01:01 PM

You might not be able to drain the SFX 'wings' but there is not reason not to be able to drain the POWER 'flight'. That is if hit by a flight drain, your wings would not vanish, they just would not keep you aloft. I don't think this is a proper use for inherent whether bought or granted for free. A normal human's running can be drained - it does not make their legs disappear, they just can not use them for movement (although they could still technically jump and kick just as well as normal if hit by a running drain: you do need to be careful how you buy these powers, with at least half an eye on how it will work in practice).

Maybe that's the problem. I don't believe in 'Drain Extra Limbs' I believe in 'Drain Running or flight or whatever'. I don't believe in 'Drain A Sense' I believe in 'Flash' or 'Darkness' that affects that sense. I don't believe in 'Drain Life Support' to suffocate a target, I believe in an attack that has that affect. And by those inherent rules :D I see no reason for Inherent.
Once again, one might argue that Inherent, on say Armor, might be appropriate but again I say buy the Power Defense. It's good to be the GM.

PhilFleischmann

Oct 24th, '06, 03:08 PM

I don't believe in 'Drain Extra Limbs' I believe in 'Drain Running or flight or whatever'. I don't believe in 'Drain A Sense' I believe in 'Flash' or 'Darkness' that affects that sense. I don't believe in 'Drain Life Support' to suffocate a target, I believe in an attack that has that affect. And by those inherent rules :D I see no reason for Inherent.
In general, I agree, but I think there may be occasions where Drain Sense, or Drain Life Support is the power you want. When you come down to it, no "power" or natural ability is ever truly Inherent. People can lose their sight or other senses to disease or injury or other conditions, lose limbs (or the use of them), etc. Just because most of the SFX possible for a particular power would not logically work against some other ability does not mean that there isn't some reasonable method for removing that ability.

Example: The evil Squid Man attacks his arch enemy the Atlantean King with a power that takes away AK's ability to survive on the surface world. Atlantean King has LS: Water Breathing, and is currently in his undersea kingdom, so all is well. However, his ability to breathe air has been removed by the dastardly Squid Man. He takes no damage as long as he stays underwater.

Squid Man: "Ha ha! Now you won't be able to interfere with my plan to take over the surface world!"

One possible way to build this power is with some type of Drain of regular breathing - what seems like an inherent ability of just about every character, but isn't necessarily.

zornwil

Oct 24th, '06, 08:11 PM

It's all about SFX, environmental interaction, and a reasonable attempt at non-exploitive (or non-unreasonably-exploitive) mechanics, to me.

"Drain Flight"...well, how? Are you increasing the gravity of the object so it cannot rise? Are you draining "thrust power"? Are you magically entangling "that which makes one fly?" That guides whether a Drain against Flight works against "Flight: SFX Wings" or "Flight: SFX Booster Rocket Shoes".

Ghost Archer

Oct 25th, '06, 01:01 AM

Ghost Archer

Oct 25th, '06, 01:05 AM

In general, I agree, but I think there may be occasions where Drain Sense, or Drain Life Support is the power you want. When you come down to it, no "power" or natural ability is ever truly Inherent. People can lose their sight or other senses to disease or injury or other conditions, lose limbs (or the use of them), etc. Just because most of the SFX possible for a particular power would not logically work against some other ability does not mean that there isn't some reasonable method for removing that ability.

Example: The evil Squid Man attacks his arch enemy the Atlantean King with a power that takes away AK's ability to survive on the surface world. Atlantean King has LS: Water Breathing, and is currently in his undersea kingdom, so all is well. However, his ability to breathe air has been removed by the dastardly Squid Man. He takes no damage as long as he stays underwater.

Squid Man: "Ha ha! Now you won't be able to interfere with my plan to take over the surface world!"

One possible way to build this power is with some type of Drain of regular breathing - what seems like an inherent ability of just about every character, but isn't necessarily.

Isn't this an example of how to use a Transform more than an example of a Drain and Inherent?

Lucius

Oct 25th, '06, 02:37 AM

Isn't this an example of how to use a Transform more than an example of a Drain and Inherent?

Is it?

When you use Transform, you're saying that what counts is the target's total BODy. Or EGO.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary sends me a dish by parcel post.

Sean Waters

Oct 25th, '06, 05:10 AM

INHERENT PART 1

It's all about SFX, environmental interaction, and a reasonable attempt at non-exploitive (or non-unreasonably-exploitive) mechanics, to me.

"Drain Flight"...well, how? Are you increasing the gravity of the object so it cannot rise? Are you draining "thrust power"? Are you magically entangling "that which makes one fly?" That guides whether a Drain against Flight works against "Flight: SFX Wings" or "Flight: SFX Booster Rocket Shoes".

Arguably all (or almost all) adjustment powers should be defined as operating against sfx rather than system mechanics (or a combination of sfx and mechanics, if that makes sense) if you want anything approaching a comprehensible set of powers.

Nonetheless I think there is still a place for inherent, if you want a power that can't be taken away from one character because of their background/sfx/build logic, but a differently constructed character with the same power CAN have it taken away then it seems to me only right that the first character pay more points for the ability.

It doesn't even make a great deal of sense to argue the logic of it, if that is how a PC wants to build it, given that we are dealing with characters whose build requires suspension of at least seven types of disbelief (it would have been 8, but we can do invisibility now). Ultimately a power that can't be drained is more useful than a power that can and should cost more. It does not really matter if that power is extra limbs, or LS, or EB - you have three choices:

1. NO! You can't have a power that can't be adjusted.
2. YES! You can have a power that can be adjusted but you have to pay more for it.
3. YES! Nice background and sfx. So the power can't be adjusted? Cool.

I am all for 2.

1. is fine - you are just setting ground rules for your campaign.

3. does not make sense to me: better characters for the glib and imaginative? Why?

Sean Waters

Oct 25th, '06, 05:30 AM

INHERENT PART 2

The other side of this is whether abilities not defined (like the ability to breathe) should be 'drainable' or are 'naturally inherent' (or just not a part of the system you can effect with powers.

To me this is a cost argument more than anything.

If the ability to breathe in a O2/N atmosohere is a 5 point LS, then i'd say you can't drain it as it is too cheap and easy. However, if it cost a lot more I'd be more inclined to let you at it.

Robyn had a very interesting take on this: instead (and I'm paraphrasing) of treating the 'hidden ability' as a power, treat it as a disadvantage - assume that the ability of a 'basic' charcter is that they DO NOT NEED TO BREATHE and then build the requirement to respire as a disadvantage that the human template (amongst others) will take, which, in terms, helps to offset the cost of freebies, like the 125 points of characteristics that starting heroic humans have.

In that case, of course, there would be nothing TO drain.

This is interesting because it assumes that there is not just one layer of hidden template, but several: the human template being a modified basic template, which is far more generic in build.

So you can't drain the ability to breathe, as it is a disadvantage. What about draining the ability to see?

Well there is far more precedent to suspect that senses are hidden powers, and the cost of them is far more impressive (I make it 32 for normal sight, Hero claims it is 25, but on their stated build it is 27) and I would be less bothered about someone being blinded with a drain that had to total 25-30 points, which would be several hits in most games, and would not be any more effective really than a similarly built power like flash or darkness, or even transform. Mind you we are off exploring here - there are 'official' ways to do loss of sight - I'm just saying I would not dismiss out of hand a build that blinded an opponent by draining their 'hidden ability to see'.

keithcurtis

Oct 25th, '06, 06:52 AM

INHERENT PART 1It does not really matter if that power is extra limbs, or LS, or EB - you have three choices:

1. NO! You can't have a power that can't be adjusted.
2. YES! You can have a power that can be adjusted but you have to pay more for it.
3. YES! Nice background and sfx. So the power can't be adjusted? Cool.

or
4. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The guy who is buying a drain is the one who needs to worry about this. You shouldn't have to build your character on the contingency that someone in the campaign might someday have Drain: Extra Limb.

Keith "Always an alternative" Curtis

zornwil

Oct 25th, '06, 07:09 AM

Sorry, I was just using the generic term. I do require something more specific than 'Drain Flight'.
No worries, I figured as much, I just wanted to make the point, which I'll come back to in response to Sean's post as well.

zornwil

Oct 25th, '06, 07:19 AM

or
4. IT DOESN'T MATTER. The guy who is buying a drain is the one who needs to worry about this. You shouldn't have to build your character on the contingency that someone in the campaign might someday have Drain: Extra Limb.

Keith "Always an alternative" Curtis
Yes, basically this is how I see it.

In fact, as I think through this thread, I would more heavily dispute the need for Inherent as its invocation breaks a tenant regarding how attacks and defenses normally work, essentially calling in a 100% Damage Reduction/Invulnerability effect, whereas we already have DR and PowDef as standard mechanical tools, along with SFX adjudication.

To Sean's second point, the Drain of fundamental bio-functions and other "template" features would seem to me to be more often a direct attack that can be best represented with standard mechanical tools - whether that's a Killing Attack, a Transform, or other methods.

Which sums up, to me, to be a weak case for an Inherent Advantage as a standard toolkit offering. Of course, it's fine "in one's game" and I like the idea of it as an option. But I think we can state there are literally millions of options we COULD put into the core system - it doesn't mean we should.

(After all, doesn't it also make sense to give DOJ some space to publish more books with more options, too? :) )

TaxiMan

Oct 25th, '06, 07:50 AM

Cool posts, made me think. If you want perfect defense against Drains etc., you could buy everything Inherent. So for a 350 pt character, you could end up spending 70 points for the +1/4 advantage (fuzzy due to beginning stats and Limitations applied).

For 70 pts, you could buy a lot of Hardened PowD. But I guess Inherent also protects against NND Drains too....

Vondy

Oct 25th, '06, 09:41 AM

Sean Waters

Oct 25th, '06, 11:13 AM

keithcurtis

Oct 25th, '06, 01:57 PM

Well, from an SFX view, you are mixing science and magic. Which one trumps (ignoring mechanics for the moment)?
In the posited campaign world, does someone with a molecular vibration dampener/IR filter actually have the ability to affect a spiritual personification of fire?

If YES, then the fire effects should be dampened. The fire elemental could become a pale, ghostly thing with no real heat or energy until the effect is terminated. A creative GM who doesn't really care about every possible mechanical interaction might even treat it as a dispel or suppress. (Just a possibility).

If NO, then the character with the drain should buy, "only versus natural fires (-1/4)" on his drain. After all, unless this is a firefighter campaign, his power is the oddball causing the problem. He's the one who should have the complicated build. I won't ding every magical fire because there's one character out there with the ability to suppress.

My personal take is that the interaction would probably be so rare, I would GM fiat it, especially if the elemental is an NPC. It's a function of the posited game world. It's like hiding in a snow bank to give you extra defense against a flame blast, or diving into water to protect yourself from a hail of bullets. I didn't buy "Armor, Focus: Object of opportunity". That's too much write-up. If the interaction above were more common, I might require some specific mechanics. Possibly even Inherent. ;)

Keith "" My take" Curtis

PhilFleischmann

Oct 25th, '06, 02:16 PM

I don't care what you call your drain, it isn't going to work against my EB, I AM fire: you can't take that away from me.
Why not? Because you used bold and underlined type? This was my earlier point: *nothing* is truly inherent. Fires can be put out, and fire elementals can be killed/disrupted.

So, when Hoser, with his 'drain fire' (a field of wave energy that dampens molecular vibration above a certain amplitude and frequency and filters out IR) power attacks Fire Elemental, what happens?
The same thing that happens to any other fire - it goes out.

How does Fire Elemental build a single power that can't be drained, and do it in a simple and straightforward way?
He doesn't. Fire can be put out. Even the sun is going to burn out someday.

GM fiat?
Sure, that's one way. The GM could declare that Fire Elementals are godlike cosmic beings that can never have their flames diminished; Elemental Fire is special such that it always burns despite any laws of physics, chemistry, or common sense.

Limited Power Defence?
Probably the best way, if you're really worried about it. It can still be overcome by a bigger Drain, but the rules are consistant and logical: Attack - Defense.

Something else?
All powers must be justified with their special effects, and that includes any advantages on the power. As a GM, I'd want a reason why your attacks are Armor Piercing (especially intense energy, especially pointy projectiles, etc.), not just, "Because I want to bypass half of my opponents' defenses." Likewise Inherent must also be justified. "I don't want anyone to Drain or otherwise take away my power," is not a good enough reason to make a power Inherent. Which leads me back once again to my opinion that there is almost no SFX justification for Inherent that I can think of. The only thing that comes to mind would be what I mentioned above: godlike, cosmic beings that can't have their essential natures changed. But even in that case, certain SFX might justify Draining something, with some environmental effect that doesn't specifically change the target, but acts like a Drain because of the incompatibility of the target's power.

Sean Waters

Oct 27th, '06, 09:26 AM

Why not? Because you used bold and underlined type?

Do you have issues with underlining, Phil? Is bold bad?

Tell me about your father....

This was my earlier point: *nothing* is truly inherent. Fires can be put out, and fire elementals can be killed/disrupted.

I understand that in a game world that you run, nothing is truly inherent. Yes, you can kill a fire elemental, you just can't put him out without killing him. Extinguish the life force, extinguish the fire: they are one and the same.

.................

All powers must be justified with their special effects, and that includes any advantages on the power. As a GM, I'd want a reason why your attacks are Armor Piercing (especially intense energy, especially pointy projectiles, etc.), not just, "Because I want to bypass half of my opponents' defenses." Likewise Inherent must also be justified. "I don't want anyone to Drain or otherwise take away my power," is not a good enough reason to make a power Inherent. Which leads me back once again to my opinion that there is almost no SFX justification for Inherent that I can think of. The only thing that comes to mind would be what I mentioned above: godlike, cosmic beings that can't have their essential natures changed. But even in that case, certain SFX might justify Draining something, with some environmental effect that doesn't specifically change the target, but acts like a Drain because of the incompatibility of the target's power.

We are not arguing, with respect, about whether A or B is a good enough justification for taking inherent, we are talking about whether inherent has a place at all: whether there can ever be any justification for it. If we were going to start criticising what passes for game logic in many character builds, we would be here all night shredding character sheets.

casualplayer

Oct 29th, '06, 10:31 PM

keithcurtis

Oct 29th, '06, 11:31 PM

Sphere should cost 5 points.

Keith "You did pay for a specific existence in space/time, didn't you?" Curtis

Lucius

Oct 30th, '06, 01:28 AM

Sphere should cost 5 points.

Keith "You did pay for a specific existence in space/time, didn't you?" Curtis

Why should I pay for that?

If DON'T have a specific point of presence in gamespace (like an AI with no focus limitation) doesn't that make me effectively invulnerable?

Lucius Alexander

Oh no! The palindromedary tries to hide as Lucius uses the "I" word!

keithcurtis

Oct 30th, '06, 06:58 AM

With no point of reference, it's kind of hard to interact with the rest of reality.

Keith "where am I?" Curtis

Lucius

Oct 30th, '06, 05:22 PM

So buy Clairsentience.

Lucius Alexander

The palindromedary wonders who Clair is, and if she's not already sentient, why would you buy it for her as a gift?

ghost-angel

Oct 30th, '06, 06:08 PM

Everyone gets 1000 points.

"Woohoo!"

You have no form of locomotion, have no senses, and all your stats are 0. Oh and you need to spend 10 pts for every year you've been alive.

Sean Waters

Oct 31st, '06, 06:05 AM

You won't hear me make this recommendation often because in most cases I despise them, but wouldn't Inherent work better as an Adder? An Adder that can only be applied to Persistent, 0 END powers? 5 pts tops.

Sean Waters won't be satisfied til every character starts out as a featureless sphere and we build from there. :p :D

Sphere should cost 5 points.

Keith "You did pay for a specific existence in space/time, didn't you?" Curtis

You should be very worried, Keith: that is exactly what I thought :)

I am not quite suggesting we go that far though, but I do think it is interesting that we are beginning to see the shadows of the underlying structure of the game. Mind you I don't think we have made it all the way down to fundamental particles just yet....

Sean Waters

Oct 31st, '06, 06:09 AM

Everyone gets 1000 points.

"Woohoo!"

You have no form of locomotion, have no senses, and all your stats are 0. Oh and you need to spend 10 pts for every year you've been alive.

I have no problem with templates. I use them all the time for villains: I have five different villain templates I tack stuff onto and they work fine for generic villains, and if I want something with a bit more colour and detail I just build from the ground up.

Or rather I build from where the ground is considered to be by consensus. :D

zornwil

Oct 31st, '06, 06:13 AM

It would be interesting to hear more about your templates, you may want to set another thread for that (if it's for a genre, please let me know which forum you put it in).

Sean Waters

Oct 31st, '06, 06:30 AM

It would be interesting to hear more about your templates, you may want to set another thread for that (if it's for a genre, please let me know which forum you put it in).

I have templates for Blaster, Brain, Brawler, Brick and Basic (a sort of catch all), which are designed for Champions type characters, and (I think) come in at about 200 points apeice, that you can then customise. I have them on my home computer so I'll post them tonight if I remember :)

casualplayer

Oct 31st, '06, 06:15 PM

I was really hoping I would get some input on my suggestion of Inherent as an adder, but I think I derailed us into a discussion of Reductionist HERO.

Teflon Billy

Oct 31st, '06, 06:19 PM

I was really hoping I would get some input on my suggestion of Inherent as an adder, but I think I derailed us into a discussion of Reductionist HERO.
As usual.

I think there is a mathematical limit to all Hero Rules System discussions, they all converge to a discussion of Reductionist HERO.

TB

keithcurtis

Oct 31st, '06, 07:40 PM

As usual.

I think there is a mathematical limit to all Hero Rules System discussions, they all converge to a discussion of Reductionist HERO.

TB

I hereby declare this to be known as Teflon Billy's Law, by virtue of my authority as former NGD Pope.

Keith "Godwin, eat your heart out. You Nazi." Curtis

zornwil

Oct 31st, '06, 09:45 PM

When did you lose the papacy?

Teflon Billy

Oct 31st, '06, 09:56 PM

When did you lose the papacy?Edsel ascended to the Papal Throne and was crowned Pope Enui I.

TB

zornwil

Oct 31st, '06, 10:01 PM

Cool, I just missed the transition

keithcurtis

Oct 31st, '06, 10:30 PM

I briefly toyed with the title of Anti-Pope, but then figured it just wasn't worth it. Shortly afterward I ascended, so nyah.

Keith "Bigger than the Beatles" Curtis

Kelvin

Oct 31st, '06, 10:32 PM

INHERENT PART 2

Robyn had a very interesting take on this: instead (and I'm paraphrasing) of treating the 'hidden ability' as a power, treat it as a disadvantage - assume that the ability of a 'basic' charcter is that they DO NOT NEED TO BREATHE and then build the requirement to respire as a disadvantage that the human template (amongst others) will take, which, in terms, helps to offset the cost of freebies, like the 125 points of characteristics that starting heroic humans have.

In that case, of course, there would be nothing TO drain.

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the thread up to this point.

Taken to the extreme, we could have the following initial conditions:

Endures all environments
Possesses all senses
Possesses no physical characteristics

I.e. a "cosmic" being, indestructable and and pseudo-omniscient, but unable to affect the game world in any way -- strictly an observer.

Then you take "disadvantages" like needing to breathe (or not being able to see the future), to pay for having the ability to interact with the game world (including buying physical characteristics)

This would be sort of like the Daniel Jackson's dilemma on Stargate (he achieves an "ascended" state, but as an "ascended" being he's not permitted to interfere with the world, even to save it. He has trouble with this restriction, and opts to "de-ascend".)

However, I can't imagine how one could reasonably point-balance such an approach, or what practical purpose it would serve. Sure, you might theoretically be able to harmonize the human vs. automaton template vs. sentient rock template, but does this make the game more playable?

I like the practical examples Keith Curtis gave for resolving resolving apparent conflicts -- it seems most of these cases are more apparent than actual. Such conflict resolutions put a burden on the GM to define the game world. Of course, this probably helps the campaign more than it hurts the GM. A clear sense of the game world keeps the campaign itself from seeming generic -- in spite of the system being generic. I wish I had understood this better back when I was actually playing....

-- Scott

Sean Waters

Nov 1st, '06, 12:10 AM

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read the thread up to this point.

Taken to the extreme, we could have the following initial conditions:

Endures all environments
Possesses all senses
Possesses no physical characteristics

I.e. a "cosmic" being, indestructable and and pseudo-omniscient, but unable to affect the game world in any way -- strictly an observer.

Then you take "disadvantages" like needing to breathe (or not being able to see the future), to pay for having the ability to interact with the game world (including buying physical characteristics)

This would be sort of like the Daniel Jackson's dilemma on Stargate (he achieves an "ascended" state, but as an "ascended" being he's not permitted to interfere with the world, even to save it. He has trouble with this restriction, and opts to "de-ascend".)

However, I can't imagine how one could reasonably point-balance such an approach, or what practical purpose it would serve. Sure, you might theoretically be able to harmonize the human vs. automaton template vs. sentient rock template, but does this make the game more playable?

I like the practical examples Keith Curtis gave for resolving resolving apparent conflicts -- it seems most of these cases are more apparent than actual. Such conflict resolutions put a burden on the GM to define the game world. Of course, this probably helps the campaign more than it hurts the GM. A clear sense of the game world keeps the campaign itself from seeming generic -- in spite of the system being generic. I wish I had understood this better back when I was actually playing....

-- Scott

A lot of what I say has no practical use, but sometimes, just occasionally, it triggers an idea in others, so I keep doing it :D

Sean Waters

Nov 1st, '06, 12:14 AM

I was really hoping I would get some input on my suggestion of Inherent as an adder, but I think I derailed us into a discussion of Reductionist HERO.

I don't like the idea because inherent is potentially quite powerful and useful and I don't like the idea of being able to 'adjustment proof' a 60 point power with a 5 point adder.

If we were playing in a very high powered game (1000 points or so) then I can see how an adder might be a better bet - otherwise it WOULD be cheaper to just buy power defence, even for just one or two powers.

Sean Waters

Nov 1st, '06, 12:17 AM

No real magic here, it just gives a decent starting point for three colour villains. The 30 points for skills should all be non-combat. I have little skill templates you can drop in here too :)

Edsel

Nov 1st, '06, 04:15 AM

As usual.

I think there is a mathematical limit to all Hero Rules System discussions, they all converge to a discussion of Reductionist HERO.

TB

I hereby endorse this idea. Since I have actually gotten a PM or two beceehing me to do so.

Edsel

Nov 1st, '06, 04:19 AM

When did you lose the papacy?

Actually when Dr. Anomoly reached the 100-rep power level (the first to do so) he decided that being a new god he needed a church and Pope. I did the best job sucking up and he made me the Pope of the Anomolous Pantheon. Ironically I now have more rep than him but I kinda like this humongus mitre hat so I still dress-up this way when at the computer. :cool:

I have no problem with Mr. Curtis remaining the Pope of the NGD. Much more chances for pointless religious strife that way. :D

zornwil

Nov 1st, '06, 05:36 AM

No real magic here, it just gives a decent starting point for three colour villains. The 30 points for skills should all be non-combat. I have little skill templates you can drop in here too :)
Cool, thanks.

keithcurtis

Nov 1st, '06, 08:07 AM

Actually when Dr. Anomoly reached the 100-rep power level (the first to do so) he decided that being a new god he needed a church and Pope. I did the best job sucking up and he made me the Pope of the Anomolous Pantheon. Ironically I now have more rep than him but I kinda like this humongus mitre hat so I still dress-up this way when at the computer. :cool:

I have no problem with Mr. Curtis remaining the Pope of the NGD. Much more chances for pointless religious strife that way. :D

I thought you were elected during the coup, er, second election.

Keith "Or a watery tart lobbed a miter cap at you" Curtis

keithcurtis

Nov 1st, '06, 08:18 AM

I like the practical examples Keith Curtis gave for resolving resolving apparent conflicts

The world needs more people who think like this.

Keith "I'm Keith Curtis and I approve this message" Curtis

Edsel

Nov 1st, '06, 09:23 AM

I thought you were elected during the coup, er, second election.

Keith "Or a watery tart lobbed a miter cap at you" Curtis
No, I got my title by pure boot licking. I remember some shouting and gnashing of teeth about a religious schism within the NGD but I didn't take part in it, or at least I don't recall doing so. The Pope of the Anomalous Pantheon and the NGD Pope were always two different sects.

So who did pinch you mitre cap? Is the NGD church adrift in these turbulent times?

Vondy

Nov 1st, '06, 09:36 AM

No, I got my title by pure boot licking. I remember some shouting and gnashing of teeth about a religious schism within the NGD but I didn't take part in it, or at least I don't recall doing so. The Pope of the Anomalous Pantheon and the NGD Pope were always two different sects.

So who did pinch you mitre cap? Is the NGD church adrift in these turbulent times?

There's a Board Pope?

keithcurtis

Nov 1st, '06, 12:30 PM

I dunno. Maybe I'm still Pope. I was originally elected without my knowledge to begin with.

Keith "missed the meetings" Curtis

Sean Waters

Nov 2nd, '06, 11:16 AM

I dunno. Maybe I'm still Pope. I was originally elected without my knowledge to begin with.

Keith "missed the meetings" Curtis

Perhaps when you become Pope it can never be taken away while you live.

Like inherent.

Sean 'back on track' Waters

keithcurtis

Nov 2nd, '06, 01:18 PM

Perhaps when you become Pope it can never be taken away while you live.

Like inherent.

Sean 'back on track' Waters
Touché.

Keith "Power Transfer: Papacy" Curtis

PhilFleischmann

Nov 2nd, '06, 02:57 PM

I understand that in a game world that you run, nothing is truly inherent. Yes, you can kill a fire elemental, you just can't put him out without killing him. Extinguish the life force, extinguish the fire: they are one and the same.
That sounds more like a Vulnerability/Susceptibility than anything to do with Inherent.

We are not arguing, with respect, about whether A or B is a good enough justification for taking inherent, we are talking about whether inherent has a place at all: whether there can ever be any justification for it. If we were going to start criticising what passes for game logic in many character builds, we would be here all night shredding character sheets.
Well then perhaps I misunderstood you. But you understand correctly: IMO, and IMG, there is almost no place for Inherent at all.

1) Most things that seem to warrant Inherent, are things no one ever buys Drains for anyway.
2) Even the godlike, cosmic beings who seem to have Inherent on some/all of their abilities might still have powers Drained by yet more powerful beings.
3) Certain SFX of Drains (or other Adjustment powers) might work by not removing the power from the target, but by changing the target's surroundings so that his power, while still there, can't be used. This is functionally the same as a Drain/Suppress, so it should best be bought as one. And yet, it should logically bypass Inherent.

Back in 4th ed., I once tried to calculate the actual value of a 0-point character. It starts off like this:

STR = 10 points (assuming you agree with the book price of STR :angel: )
DEX = 30
CON = 20
BODY = 20
INT = 10
EGO = 20
PRE = 10
COM = 5
SPD = 10
Running = 12
Swimming = 2

149 points so far, then you have to add in the price of all the Senses that a base human has (I don't recall exactly, and I'm not going to do all the math right now, but let's estimate that they're worth a total of 75 points - that's for normal Sight, Hearing, Smell, Taste, Touch, [and Balance and Kinesthetics, if you like]). And speech, worth, say 20 points? Manipulatory limbs, another 20 or so. Anything else? Probably, but I can't think of it now.

So that's a total of about 264 points for a base, 0-point character.

From this, you can then subtract the implied Disadvantages that a base character gets without getting points: Must have an oxygen atmosphere to breathe, Harmed by temperature extremes, Harmed by vacuum, Harmed by radiation, Harmed by various diseases/poisons, Limited life span, Requires food/water to live, Needs to sleep and excrete, etc. These together are arguable worth 50 points, since that's what it costs to buy them off.

So a base human is a 214+50 character. Granted, some of these numbers are just estimates, so adjust to taste as needed. The 200+150 that superheroes get is added on top of that.

Edsel

Nov 2nd, '06, 03:25 PM

I dunno. Maybe I'm still Pope. I was originally elected without my knowledge to begin with.

Keith "missed the meetings" CurtisGreat men do not seek leadership but often it is forced upon them.

schir1964

Nov 3rd, '06, 12:08 AM

Okay, I'm finally ready to weigh in on this. (8^D)

There is only one instance as far as mechanics that would require the use of Inherent per the rules (no GM handwaving allowed or exceptions).

Extra Limbs may require the use of Inherent based on the SFX in question.

SFX Example:
Character is a Sentient Octopus and therefore has the standard eight tentacles. In order to build the character Extra Limbs is required to allow for the extra four tentacles since the first four (legs and arms) are freebies per the rules. So per the mechanics, these four tentacles could be affected by Adjustment Powers, which makes no sense mechanically or SFXwise, thus Inherent in this case would be required to prevent this non-sensical situation.

Now that that's out of the way, I need to expound upon a couple of things.

The first thing is that Extra Limbs probably shouldn't exist as a mechanic. Since a character's normal limbs are simply SFX of other powers/stats to start with, Extra Limbs should probably be treated the same way. You don't buy Extra Limbs to simulate extra SFX, you buy other powers with the SFX rationale that you have more than two limbs.

The second thing, based on the presumption of the first, is that Inherent is designed so that when applied to mechanics, it forces them to be treated as if they were SFX instead. Adjustment powers don't affect SFX, they affect mechanics. The SFX is used as guide to determine which mechanics get affected. If the mechanic targeted has the appropriate matching SFX, then the mechanic is Adjusted per the rules.

So the question on whether there is any need for Inherent?
Only as long as there exist mechanics that need to be treated as SFX instead.

Of Course... Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

Sean Waters

Nov 3rd, '06, 04:32 AM

keithcurtis

Nov 3rd, '06, 06:38 AM

All of this skirts around the fact that Drain: Extra Limbs is a nonsensical idea. Aside from a bizarre magical spell, what could this power possibly be modeling? Besides, a magic spell that drains extra limbs should be able to drain Extra limbs, regardless of whether a creature has them or not.
Coming up with a solution to something which is not a problem is not worth the effort. Drain Extra Limbs would be a better candidate for Transform. This would avoid the problem of the inability to drain limbs that are not "Extra".
The Drain: Fire Powers argument made much more sense.

Keith "Fire Elementals should be bought with SUSC: xd6 from Fire Drains ;)" Curtis

zornwil

Nov 3rd, '06, 07:45 AM

Here is where I think 'inherent' is appropriate:

Modelling what a character IS rather than what a character DOES.

As Christopher says it makes no sense to be able to drain the extra limbs of a character that naturally has extra limbs, and as I've said before it makes no sense to be able to drain the LS ability of a character than never needed to breathe before the power was added.

Now whether you use the 'inherent' advantage or you just take a trip in the GM Fiat and say 'makes no sense, I'm not allowing it', you have still done the same thing: you have decided that there are some things that adjustment powers cannot adjust. All we are then arguing about is whether that out to have a cost (I think it should), or not.

Phil makes an excellent case for suggesting that you can create a kind of base template for a character and my view is that most of the 'visible' template i.e. the bits that stick up above the surface like strength and running, should be drainable. I doubt I'd get much argument to that.

The bits below the surface, the invisible abilities, like breathing and senses, which have assumed builds and costs, shouldn't be, until and unless we have explicit costs for those abilities, which the system does not currently supply.

If we want to 'expand the invisible' and make more of a character untouchable, inherent is an excellent way of labelling additions tot he invisible template EVEN THOUGH we are having to make those additions with costed powers.

Anyway, that is what I think.
The problem is, the system is schizoid on how to address what a character "IS".

It says "you can be any size, no points, just say so." Then says "extra limbs cost". Then says "human template implied, but you might have an arm where your nose is, up to you" (the latter phrase more by default and its reasoning-by-effect).

I agree with schir1964 - Extra Limbs is a game-level rather than a mechanical rule. And it runs afoul of the core mechanics at that point. Nothing wrong with that...but that doesn't mean we need an Inherent mechanic. We can address it a number of ways.

But even more, I still see no real trouble with addressing Extra Limbs without Inherent. It still, to me, depends on the Adjustment. How does the Adjustemtn drain limbs? If it works so that it would drain "any" appendage, then shouldn't it be bought as a Transform to begin with? Again, reasoning by effect.

Hugh Neilson

Nov 3rd, '06, 10:15 AM

All of this skirts around the fact that Drain: Extra Limbs is a nonsensical idea. Aside from a bizarre magical spell, what could this power possibly be modeling? Besides, a magic spell that drains extra limbs should be able to drain Extra limbs, regardless of whether a creature has them or not.

Further, how does that spell differentiate between "extra limbs" and natural limbs? An octopus starts with 8 limbs, a human with four (2 arms, 2 legs) and an ant with 6. How does the spell know those two extra arms on that strange human are "extra", but that the octopus started out with 8 tentacles?

Sean Waters

Nov 3rd, '06, 11:45 AM

zornwil and Hugh make the point that 'extra limbs' is often something that is (are?) indistinguishable from 'normal' limbs, and normal limbs cannot be drained.

Hmm.

Well, I agree normal limbs cannot be drained, but I might build some sort of telekinesis power with extra limbs, and that could, but if I was of a species that naturally had four arms then I would not expct that they could be drained (transformed, yes: drained, no).

SO 'normal four limbs' are inherent, why not be able to make extra limbs inherent if they represent the natural state of the charcter, but you don't want to assume that extra limbs in an inherent quality as there are clearly situations where they are not.

The way to differnetialte is with the 'inherent' advantage, or GM Fiat. I prefer to put a price on it. You may not.

schir1964

Nov 3rd, '06, 12:47 PM

Sean,

The reason why I brought up the idea that Extra Limbs may not be a mechanic is that it really doesn't grant anything unique mechanic wise apart from other mechanics.

Perhaps I am overlooking something specific.

What SFX do you have in mind that couldn't be handled easily with other mechanics? (Telekinesis, Limited STR, Stretching, Higher SPD)

Just Curious

- Christopher Mullins

PhilFleischmann

Nov 3rd, '06, 03:09 PM

A Drain of Extra Limbs makes as much or as little sense as a Drain of human standard limbs. Has anyone ever seen/used either? If not, why spend points protecting yourself from an attack that doesn't exist?

Checkmate

Nov 3rd, '06, 05:25 PM

...and just to stir the pot with other useless things to think about: What about that characters that can use their feet as well as hands? That ability is purchased with Extra-Limbs, can they be drained of that ability?

Hugh Neilson

Nov 4th, '06, 06:49 AM

Sean,

The reason why I brought up the idea that Extra Limbs may not be a mechanic is that it really doesn't grant anything unique mechanic wise apart from other mechanics.

Perhaps I am overlooking something specific.

It grants the ability to have a hand free if you are Grabbing someone with two arms, or being grabbed with two arms pinned.

schir1964

Nov 4th, '06, 11:21 AM

It grants the ability to have a hand free if you are Grabbing someone with two arms, or being grabbed with two arms pinned.
Having one's arms pinned doesn't prevent someone from using thier Full strength against the attacker. Unless you are suggesting thier legs and head is pinned also. So effectively, this particular aspect can easily be accomplished by the skill Hogtie, or a more bust version would be entangle.

Now let's see if we can accomplish the same thing with other powers mechanically:
Entangle: SFX multiple arms
Stretching: SFX Multiple arms
Growth: SFX Single hand growth only to grab character, other hand pummels
Skill: One arm/hand grabs target pinning the character, the other hand pummels.

Standard Ability by everyone: Grab character pinning arms, use STR for damage.

Mechanically, there is very little difference as far as the results.

The only thing I could find that was mechanically specific to Extra Limbs is a free combat bonus due to SFX/Surprise. Free Combat Bonus can be achieved by inventive thinking on the players part and not worth enough to be mechanic on its own.

Hugh, this alone is not unique enough to be considered its own mechanic.
Is there something else I'm missing?

- Christopher Mullins

Hugh Neilson

Nov 4th, '06, 07:17 PM

Having one's arms pinned doesn't prevent someone from using thier Full strength against the attacker. Unless you are suggesting thier legs and head is pinned also.
************************************************** ********
Hugh, this alone is not unique enough to be considered its own mechanic.
Is there something else I'm missing?

The words "in my opinion" would be what I think you're missing.

For 5 points, the character shouldn't expect a lot of benefits from the advantage. In most games I've sen, a character who is Grabbed (and lacks extra limbs) does not have the option of Striking the person who grabbed him, or anyone else. A person in a bear hug will have a tough time inflicting a full STR head butt, and is too close for a very effective kick, or so it is generally assumed.

A person with extra limbs, on the other hand, can make an effectie Strike against the person grabbing him. That is a mechanical advantage.

Can the same advantage be purchased a different way? Sure. If all abilities should be streamlined to one mechanic, we need to ditch two of Force Field, Armor and PD+ED+Damage Resistance - they all do the same thing.

casualplayer

Nov 4th, '06, 08:53 PM

Didn't Extra Limbs used to actually have a substantive effect back in the day? Seems I recall it cost 5 pts for each doubling of limbs and gave an OCV bonus for each level. Now Extra Limbs is just a vestigial power left over from editions past.

BTW, shouldn't Wings be Inherent? Extra sensory organs? Most SFXs of Regeneration? Teeth and claws?

schir1964

Nov 4th, '06, 10:30 PM

The words "in my opinion" would be what I think you're missing.
No, it is not missing. I was asking for you to provide evidence that would convince me that Extra Limbs is unique enough mechanically to be listed as a separate power. I gave my reasons why I didn't "think" it should be.

For 5 points, the character shouldn't expect a lot of benefits from the advantage. In most games I've seen, a character who is Grabbed (and lacks extra limbs) does not have the option of Striking the person who grabbed him, or anyone else.
Well, if that's your house rule, then obviously you've just created situation where Extra Limbs has a benefit. However, the rules don't support that interpretation. In fact, they give specific rules on how the grabbed character may attack the grabber. There is also a special note about grabbing a character with one hand (penalty of -5 STR only) and using the other to attack normally, just as you describe for Extra Limbs. So the slight advantage you get with Extra Limbs easily falls within SFX territory, in my opinion.

A person in a bear hug will have a tough time inflicting a full STR head butt, and is too close for a very effective kick, or so it is generally assumed.
Who said anything about a Bear Hug? A Grab by default is not a Bear Hug, although a Bear Hug would imobilize both arms and qualify as a grab, but with a Bear Hug, both characters would be resticted from attacking each other normally (the grabber always has the squeeze option, but normal strikes would be ruled out due to the nature of the bear hug) regardless of the number of Extra Limbs.

A person with extra limbs, on the other hand, can make an effectie Strike against the person grabbing him. That is a mechanical advantage.
Not true with a Bear Hug.
Also note that you can do the same thing with two limbs at a slight penalty to STR for the Grab portion.
The mechnical advantage you refer to is small enough to be considered SFX, in my opinion.

Can the same advantage be purchased a different way? Sure. If all abilities should be streamlined to one mechanic, we need to ditch two of Force Field, Armor and PD+ED+Damage Resistance - they all do the same thing.
The same type of manuever can be achieved without purchasing anything, as descibed above.

However, my main point was this. Extra Limbs has been so restricted from granting any ability that would step on the toes of other mechanics, that it is little more than SFX as far as effect.

Logically, Extra Limibs should grant you multiple attacks inherently (since you get the full STR with all of them by default).
Logically, Extra Limbs should grant you multiple independent grabs.
Logically, Extra Limbs should increase your Lifting capability.

Just My Own Thoughts

PS: I'm done sidetracking this thread. Sorry Sean. (8^D)

- Christopher Mullins

schir1964

Nov 4th, '06, 10:44 PM

BTW, shouldn't Wings be Inherent? Extra sensory organs? Most SFXs of Regeneration? Teeth and claws?
Wings (SFX) is inherent, but the power it grants, Flight (Mechanic), is not.

Additonal Eyes (SFX) is inherent, but the power it grants, 360 Degree Sight (Mechanic), is not.

Regeneration might be a good candidate for Inherent, but I don't know what SFX an Adjustment Power would have to justify affecting Regeneration. The same could be said for the others I suppose.

Teeth and Claws.... same answer as the others.

- Christopher Mullins

Sundog

Nov 4th, '06, 11:15 PM

I use Inherent on my Ninja Hero character - 1 Level of DCV, inherent, because she is small. I thnk that's the kind of thing Inherent is supposed to cover.

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 01:22 AM

Having one's arms pinned doesn't prevent someone from using thier Full strength against the attacker. Unless you are suggesting thier legs and head is pinned also. So effectively, this particular aspect can easily be accomplished by the skill Hogtie, or a more bust version would be entangle.

Now let's see if we can accomplish the same thing with other powers mechanically:
Entangle: SFX multiple arms
Stretching: SFX Multiple arms
Growth: SFX Single hand growth only to grab character, other hand pummels
Skill: One arm/hand grabs target pinning the character, the other hand pummels.

Standard Ability by everyone: Grab character pinning arms, use STR for damage.

Mechanically, there is very little difference as far as the results.

The only thing I could find that was mechanically specific to Extra Limbs is a free combat bonus due to SFX/Surprise. Free Combat Bonus can be achieved by inventive thinking on the players part and not worth enough to be mechanic on its own.

Hugh, this alone is not unique enough to be considered its own mechanic.
Is there something else I'm missing?

- Christopher Mullins

Being pinned certainly does prevent you using your full strength against an attacker but it is mechanically messy to simulate this by reducing the effective strength of the defender so we do it by increasing the effective strength of the attacker, at least in martial grappling. The rather schizophrenic relationship in Hero between strength and effect (exponential/linear) is one more demonstrated here: does adding +10 STR to hold to the oppponent mean that you can only appply a quarter of your effective strength or doe sthe proportion have to be calculated fromt eh strength you start with (i.e. if you are 20 STR abnd the grappling opponent is also 20 str and adds +10 for the martial grapple, what effect has that had?)

Whilst I appreachiate your take on this, Christopher, extra limbs is a seperate power. Even if it does not add a great deal mechanically. I mean, to bind all an opponent's limbs, a normal human would probably need to use all of theirs. Someone with four extra limbs could effectively bind all of TWO opponents' limbs. That seems like a mechanical difference to me, albeit one that probably is not even worth 5 points.

Extra limbs increases your ability to manipulate objects, which is not something that you can easily do any other way in the system.

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 01:23 AM

I use Inherent on my Ninja Hero character - 1 Level of DCV, inherent, because she is small. I thnk that's the kind of thing Inherent is supposed to cover.

Perfect example - inherent covers something the character IS, not something they DO - in this case they are small and harder to hit because of it.

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 01:24 AM

Wings (SFX) is inherent, but the power it grants, Flight (Mechanic), is not.

Additonal Eyes (SFX) is inherent, but the power it grants, 360 Degree Sight (Mechanic), is not.

Regeneration might be a good candidate for Inherent, but I don't know what SFX an Adjustment Power would have to justify affecting Regeneration. The same could be said for the others I suppose.

Teeth and Claws.... same answer as the others.

- Christopher Mullins

Arguable extra senses could logically be bought as inherent as 'normal senses' are effectively inherent. Does not stop normal sense affecting powers working.

Hugh Neilson

Nov 5th, '06, 07:04 AM

No, it is not missing. I was asking for you to provide evidence that would convince me that Extra Limbs is unique enough mechanically to be listed as a separate power. I gave my reasons why I didn't "think" it should be.

That all sounds like opinion to me, so I think we're just into semantics.

Well, if that's your house rule, then obviously you've just created situation where Extra Limbs has a benefit. However, the rules don't support that interpretation. In fact, they give specific rules on how the grabbed character may attack the grabber. There is also a special note about grabbing a character with one hand (penalty of -5 STR only) and using the other to attack normally, just as you describe for Extra Limbs. So the slight advantage you get with Extra Limbs easily falls within SFX territory, in my opinion.

So you don't see being able to hold on with both hands (thus no -5 to STR for the Grab) and still strike with a third being a mechanical advantage over being required to take a -5 penalty to Grab strength in order to be able to Strike with your other arm? It seems to me that it would be appropriate to have a character wanting that advantage pay points for this extra STR usable only for a specific purpose.

Who said anything about a Bear Hug? A Grab by default is not a Bear Hug, although a Bear Hug would imobilize both arms and qualify as a grab, but with a Bear Hug, both characters would be resticted from attacking each other normally (the grabber always has the squeeze option, but normal strikes would be ruled out due to the nature of the bear hug) regardless of the number of Extra Limbs.

If you Grab with two manipulatory limbs and you don't have Extra Limbs, you can't use a third limb to do something a manipulatory limb could not. Neither do the rules allow you to Grab your opponent with your feet and still have your hands free. Extra Limbs adds these options without a penalty to the Grab. Regardless of whether that Grab is a bear hug or some other SFX.

Logically, Extra Limibs should grant you multiple attacks inherently (since you get the full STR with all of them by default).

Why? You have two arms now, and you get one attack, not two, per phase. Just having the limbs doesn't mean you can effectively co-ordinate them independently. And extra attacks would cost more than 5 points, in my view.

Logically, Extra Limbs should grant you multiple independent grabs.

As a subset of "extra attacks", see above. I would allow a four armed haracter to use two arms to Grab one target, and the second set to Grab a second target. A two armed character wishing to do so would have to hold each target with one limb, taking a -5 STR penalty against each.

Does any creature in nature demonstrate these extra attacks? Do squid and octopi fend off multiple attackers, or capture multiple food sources, at the same time due to their surplus of limbs? In many games, we grant them these multiple atacks, but does reality support this, or is it "gamer artistic license"?

Logically, Extra Limbs should increase your Lifting capability.

They should? Do they make your back and legs stronger so you can support the extra weight? Most lifting injuries are to the back, not the arms, aren't they?

There are limits to how far logic can be taken in the game (and they don't just apply to extra limbs).

Logically, Extra Limbs should reduce your cardiovascular fitness since your blood has that much further to travel to cirle the body. You paid for extra limbs, not an extra heart ;) And you should need more food to sustain that greater body mass. A similar, but lesser, issue to that which should arise with Growth.

Of course, logically, if a human body could effectively support four arms and they would be advantageous, we should have evolved as a four-armed species.

keithcurtis

Nov 5th, '06, 07:40 AM

I use Inherent on my Ninja Hero character - 1 Level of DCV, inherent, because she is small. I thnk that's the kind of thing Inherent is supposed to cover.

Who buys Drain: DCV levels?

Keith "solution without a problem" Curtis

keithcurtis

Nov 5th, '06, 07:42 AM

They should? Do they make your back and legs stronger so you can support the extra weight? Most lifting injuries are to the back, not the arms, aren't they?

There are limits to how far logic can be taken in the game (and they don't just apply to extra limbs).

Logically, Extra Limbs should reduce your cardiovascular fitness since your blood has that much further to travel to cirle the body. You paid for extra limbs, not an extra heart ;) And you should need more food to sustain that greater body mass. A similar, but lesser, issue to that which should arise with Growth.

Of course, logically, if a human body could effectively support four arms and they would be advantageous, we should have evolved as a four-armed species.

Wow, there must be half a dozen dead catgirls in here.

Keith "think of the catgirls!" Curtis

schir1964

Nov 5th, '06, 09:48 AM

Whilst I appreciate your take on this, Christopher, extra limbs is a seperate power. Even if it does not add a great deal mechanically. I mean, to bind all an opponent's limbs, a normal human would probably need to use all of theirs. Someone with four extra limbs could effectively bind all of TWO opponents' limbs. That seems like a mechanical difference to me, albeit one that probably is not even worth 5 points.
This is exactly my point. Extra Limbs by itself, not combined with any other power, might be worth 1 or 2 points if it is actually worth anything, which for me falls within the realm of SFX, since you have minor detriments for having Extra Limbs also.

I guess I'm having trouble understanding what the real purpose of binding the limbs? Why bind the limbs?
If it's to stop the grabbed person from attacking the grabber, the rules don't support this regardless of the number of Extra Limbs (perhaps it should, but it doesn't.
If it's to control the grabbed person, this isn't any different than a grab with two limbs as opposed to 100 limbs via the mechanics.
If it's to allow the grabber to cause damage to the grabbed, then again, the mechanics make no difference between 1 Limb and 100 Limbs.

Extra limbs increases your ability to manipulate objects, which is not something that you can easily do any other way in the system.
I respect you opinion Sean, but I have to disagree on two counts here.

1) Manipulation isn't really detailed or fleshed out with the Hero System. I had a thread on this one, remember. (8^D)
2) Actually, I think the system does handle the same level of detail with other mechanics as it does with Extra Limbs easily. Examples follow.

STR purchased as a power (SFX: Extra Limbs) allows just as much manipulation as your normal two limbs. Agree or Disagree?

Telekinesis (SFX: Extra Limbs) allows just as much manipulation as your normal two limbs. Agree or Disagree?

As far as how easy it is... well I can see how perhaps Telekinesis may not be as easy to simulate the SFX Extra Limbs, but I don't know why anyone would think STR purchased as a power with SFX Extra Limbs is any more difficult than Extra Limbs.

If you disagree, that's fine, I just don't understand it.

Perhaps if the system had Limbs as a power which you had to purchase and granted extra STR sort of like how Growth works I could understand the need for it. But I won't derail this thread any further. If you wish, I can start another thread to continue this conversation.

All Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

schir1964

Nov 5th, '06, 09:57 AM

Hugh, I'm not derailing this thread further.

But I did want to clarify. The Logic section was based on how the current rules have defined things. The logic was based on the rules state, not SFX.

Rules:
Characters with a single arm usually get a STR (mechanic) penalty via a Character Disadvantage.
Extra Limbs are granted Full STR of the character by default.
STR grants increased Lifting capacity.
Thus, Extra Limbs should grant extra Lifting capacity via the mechanics.

This is just another one of the restrictions on Extra Limbs that makes no sense.

I'm done here.

- Christopher Mullins

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 02:13 PM

Who buys Drain: DCV levels?

Keith "solution without a problem" Curtis

This is Hero, SOMEONE will.

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 02:22 PM

Who buys Drain: DCV levels?

Keith "solution without a problem" Curtis

Actually to advance a slightly more coherent answer, say the smallness is as a result of a mutation (think Puck from Alpha Flight):

The attacker has 'drain mutation' (as a +2 drain power)

Now SHOULD the target character suddenly get bigger (well it happened in Alpha Flight) or not - is the root CAUSE of the smallness a mutation, but it is not a mutant power that is keeping the character small - it is the effect of mutation over many years of development. If the latter, it makes no sense for the character to suddenly grow and so lose their DCV level.

So even defining drain against sfx is not going to necessarily eliminate the need for 'inherent'.

If the character is kept small by a mutation then your very sensible approach works, if not then....well, you could use GM fiat (the mutation made him small but he is not actually KEPT small by the mutation) and just guess OR you could actually have bought it that way in the first place.

The point I make - and this really is the point you will need to address if you want to convicne me - is that WITHOUT inherent, any power drain makes the character more like the 'human' base template. What f they are not like that 'naturally'?

This goes on to another level, of course, at a pure 'cost' level: if one character effectively CANNOT be drained of their +1 DCV level, and another CAN, should the first character have paid more?

I'd say yes.

Sean Waters

Nov 5th, '06, 02:23 PM

Actually Puck's smallness may have been as a result of magic, but the principle still applies.

keithcurtis

Nov 5th, '06, 06:08 PM

Not sure I parsed all that correctly, but here is my take:

OPTION 1
The mutation keeps him small and the root cause of the +1DCV is the smallness.
Drain: Mutant Powers drains the level. He grows to normal size.

OPTION 2
The mutation kept him from growing, and the root cause of the +1DCV is the natural smallness.
Drain: Mutant Powers does not drain the level. Neither does he grow to normal size.

The power Drain is Drain: Mutant Powers, not Drain: every implication of mutant powers.

The point I make - and this really is the point you will need to address if you want to convicne me - is that WITHOUT inherent, any power drain makes the character more like the 'human' base template. What f they are not like that 'naturally'?
Alternatively, you could say any poorly worded or defined power drain makes the character more like the 'human' base template. Note that neither of the solutions I posited above requires Inherent. Neither requires the character with the DCV level to buy his powers any differently. The wording of the Drain determines the vulnearbility of the level from being drained.

This goes on to another level, of course, at a pure 'cost' level: if one character effectively CANNOT be drained of their +1 DCV level, and another CAN, should the first character have paid more?

The question is loaded. It's not a matter of a character having a level that cannot be drained, its a matter of defining the Drain properly. In the case of Puck, whose height was magically suppressed (yuck), then Drain: Magic Energy should take the level. If it's merely an effect of being naturally short, then an attacker will have to come up with some rationale (which escapes me) for defining a character that can drain it.
In other words, I'm not going to cause characters with Ice Powers to spend more for their powers simply because every attacker buys Drain: Fire Powers.

Keith "Not trying to convince you, but the conversation doesn't seem to be dying" Curtis

Sean Waters

Nov 6th, '06, 12:20 AM

Vondy

Nov 6th, '06, 03:57 AM

Who buys Drain: DCV levels?

Keith "solution without a problem" Curtis

Someone in a kung-fu action campaign who wants to build a character who mail ordered Learn-The-Mighty-Fighting-Techniques-Of-The-Dragon-Society-In-Just-Three-Weeks that includes the bonus chapter "cut through your opponents defensive techniques like a hot knife through butter?" And in response, as a justification for DCV Levels Inherent, a couch potato watching infomertials who was conned into ordering "Uber-Secret Techniques of the Ancient One (TM)" that renders the Dragon Society's kung-fu miserably weak. Even though I don't care for Inherent much, or that style of character build (I do grittier heroic games), I don't think such a drain is as "out there" as you are making it out to be.

Von "a time and a place for everything" D-Man

zornwil

Nov 6th, '06, 06:35 AM

In your game you use careful definition to regulate drains, but that is not how the rules are written, and there are any number of 'official' characters with poorly defined adjustment powers. If you could re-write the rules to make more logical sense we may not need inherent. Until they are re-written, I think it has a place.
I'm a bit confused by your comment "you use careful definition to regulate drains, but that is not how the rules are written." How are the rules not supportive of "careful definition"? Especially given comments on SFX and so on?

I don't disagree re standard write-ups, but that's a different problem, and by itself doesn't really go against the necessity in a complex system to define SFX carefully, which HERO might not be so clear on but does make some mention of. And this is true of any similar system, by which I mean any system that is or attempts to be "SFX-agnostic," whether HERO or Dogs in the Vineyard.

keithcurtis

Nov 6th, '06, 06:40 AM

Someone in a kung-fu action campaign who wants to build a character who mail ordered Learn-The-Mighty-Fighting-Techniques-Of-The-Dragon-Society-In-Just-Three-Weeks that includes the bonus chapter "cut through your opponents defensive techniques like a hot knife through butter?" And in response, as a justification for DCV Levels Inherent, a couch potato watching infomertials who was conned into ordering "Uber-Secret Techniques of the Ancient One (TM)" that renders the Dragon Society's kung-fu miserably weak. Even though I don't care for Inherent much, or that style of character build (I do grittier heroic games), I don't think such a drain is as "out there" as you are making it out to be.

Von "a time and a place for everything" D-Man
This requires a drain? Why not some skill levels? Much, much simpler.

Keith "simpleton" Curtis

Sean Waters

Nov 6th, '06, 06:42 AM

...........................

I guess I'm having trouble understanding what the real purpose of binding the limbs? Why bind the limbs?
If it's to stop the grabbed person from attacking the grabber, the rules don't support this regardless of the number of Extra Limbs (perhaps it should, but it doesn't.
If it's to control the grabbed person, this isn't any different than a grab with two limbs as opposed to 100 limbs via the mechanics.
If it's to allow the grabber to cause damage to the grabbed, then again, the mechanics make no difference between 1 Limb and 100 Limbs.

I respect you opinion Sean, but I have to disagree on two counts here.

1) Manipulation isn't really detailed or fleshed out with the Hero System. I had a thread on this one, remember. (8^D)
2) Actually, I think the system does handle the same level of detail with other mechanics as it does with Extra Limbs easily. Examples follow.

STR purchased as a power (SFX: Extra Limbs) allows just as much manipulation as your normal two limbs. Agree or Disagree?

Telekinesis (SFX: Extra Limbs) allows just as much manipulation as your normal two limbs. Agree or Disagree?

As far as how easy it is... well I can see how perhaps Telekinesis may not be as easy to simulate the SFX Extra Limbs, but I don't know why anyone would think STR purchased as a power with SFX Extra Limbs is any more difficult than Extra Limbs.

If you disagree, that's fine, I just don't understand it.

Perhaps if the system had Limbs as a power which you had to purchase and granted extra STR sort of like how Growth works I could understand the need for it. But I won't derail this thread any further. If you wish, I can start another thread to continue this conversation.

All Just My Humble Opinion

- Christopher Mullins

Character A has a normal compliment of limbs and , let us say, prehensile feet, something he can have for free in Hero as it has so little game effect, but which is potentially useful in some situations.

Character B has 10 arms, bought with the 'extra limbs' power.

Character A could, at best, grab 4 opponents and headbut either one of them or someone else.

Character B could potentially grab 10 opponents, plus whatever he manages to get with his feet, and still has his head handy.

If you are fighting minions, having lots of extra limbs can be useful. Think grab-by or sweep grab. Or human shield if you are a villian.

Of course you COULD just buy extra limbs as extra strength and call it SFX, but to do that you would have a character that cannot actually grab more opponents than a normal human.

Arguably 5 points is too much for the utility, but it is a discernable effect that cannot be replicated with other powers, and the cost, being relatively insignificant, does not bother me.

keithcurtis

Nov 6th, '06, 06:48 AM

In your game you use careful definition to regulate drains, but that is not how the rules are written, and there are any number of 'official' characters with poorly defined adjustment powers. If you could re-write the rules to make more logical sense we may not need inherent. Until they are re-written, I think it has a place.

There are any number of 'official' characters with poorly defined powers, period.
And the rules are written that way, IMHO. That is where SFX, Common Sense, Dramatic Need and Game Balance are needed. Look at the number of times these phrases are used in the rulebook. There's a reason they are there.
You are free to interpret the rules however you wish, as am I. But to claim that they support one style of play officially is a bit overmuch, methinks.

Finally, you might remember that early in this discussion I stated that there are times when Inherent might be valid. I just don't see them too often. So far the Fire Elemental example has come the closest, but even there, it would depend on a lot of campaign specifics.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

Sean Waters

Nov 6th, '06, 07:17 AM

There are any number of 'official' characters with poorly defined powers, period.
And the rules are written that way, IMHO. That is where SFX, Common Sense, Dramatic Need and Game Balance are needed. Look at the number of times these phrases are used in the rulebook. There's a reason they are there.
You are free to interpret the rules however you wish, as am I. But to claim that they support one style of play officially is a bit overmuch, methinks.

Finally, you might remember that early in this discussion I stated that there are times when Inherent might be valid. I just don't see them too often. So far the Fire Elemental example has come the closest, but even there, it would depend on a lot of campaign specifics.

Keith "YMMV" Curtis

I still see cost as a problem: someone magically shrunk getting bonuses for that can have the shrunkenness and the bonuses taken away. Someone naturally short and getting bonuses for that can't.

I'm having difficulty seeing why the second character is not getting a more useful power. In a game where magic sfx are common, the character could be losing his DCV bonus every few sessions. That being the case the second power should cost more, and inherent is a way to make it cost more that seems to fit the bill. If you don't like 'inherent' then you can change the label, but it should still, IMO, be a more expensive power.

Now I do like the approach you espouse, if I have it aright. Basically that adjustment powers should always be targetted on sfx rather than on powers. This means that it is nice and logical as to when they work and when they don't. I'd be interested to know how you handle power defence.

I do see some problems with the approach though. Although theoretically having a particular sfx for a power has both advantages (aid powers help it) and limtiations (drain powers remove it) that balance, realistically, unless you have an appropriate aider in your Hero group, you will get hit by drains far more often. Given that this is the case, picking a really esoteric sfx is an advantage - you are rarely going to encounter a drain that works against it. Quabnabita powers. Go figure.

The problem is not with the idea which, as I have said, I like, it is with the way in which Hero seperates sfx and powers: there could and should be far better integration. This is difficult because Hero is a generic system, but there could, for instance, be an advantage applied if the power uses uncommon sfx as it is less likely to be affected by adjustment powers.

keithcurtis

Nov 6th, '06, 08:47 AM

I still see cost as a problem: someone magically shrunk getting bonuses for that can have the shrunkenness and the bonuses taken away. Someone naturally short and getting bonuses for that can't.

I'm having difficulty seeing why the second character is not getting a more useful power.
In a game where people are buying powers based on their mechanical usefulness against other powers, this could indeed be a problem. I haven't run into it since I stopped playing Champions and started concentrating on other genres. Where there is less of an "anything goes" attitude, SFX and game rationale for powers becomes far more prominent and important. I would never let anybody buy Drain: DCV level, because it doesn't make sense. Even Drain: Magical Energy is too broad for any useful application.

In a game where magic sfx are common, the character could be losing his DCV bonus every few sessions. That being the case the second power should cost more, and inherent is a way to make it cost more that seems to fit the bill. If you don't like 'inherent' then you can change the label, but it should still, IMO, be a more expensive power.
If you buy Inherent, but no one buys the particular type of drain that would affect you, then the second power is more expensive for no reason. Should a player be forced to spend more points for something that is essentially an SFX that has no game utility?

Now I do like the approach you espouse, if I have it aright. Basically that adjustment powers should always be targetted on sfx rather than on powers. This means that it is nice and logical as to when they work and when they don't. I'd be interested to know how you handle power defence.
You probably won't be surprised to know that I am in the camp of those who intensely dislike Power Defense. It is purely a game mechanic that has no in game rationale. (Like the old can't teleport through hardened defenses, so buy Armor Piercing rules). It exists to counter such a wide variety of powers that it is essentially meaningless. My Power Defense (and how does your character refer to this defense?) protects equally against Rattlesnake venom, A disorientation ray (Drain Dex), A frictionless field (Drain Movement) and a Suppress Magic Field (Drain: Magical Powers (+2))?
The usual examples trotted out to show a universal Power Defense involve some sort of cosmic or godlike being who is just "immune from someone trying to make him not like himself." Bleh.
In my Savage Earth game, I have a wide variety of powers simulating a single SFX (altering things to make them more or less like other things). Where possible, I try to have the same defense for every power. In this case, I chose Mental Defense, since the SFX for resisting is willpower, your desire to remain as you are. It made more sense to me than using Power Defense for this application, Mental Defense for that one and so forth. Especially, since the various powers are all applications of the same "meta-power" that simply require different mechanical constructions to model.

I do see some problems with the approach though. Although theoretically having a particular sfx for a power has both advantages (aid powers help it) and limtiations (drain powers remove it) that balance, realistically, unless you have an appropriate aider in your Hero group, you will get hit by drains far more often. Given that this is the case, picking a really esoteric sfx is an advantage - you are rarely going to encounter a drain that works against it. Quabnabita powers. Go figure.
I, as a GM, would never allow this type of player chicanery.

The problem is not with the idea which, as I have said, I like, it is with the way in which Hero seperates sfx and powers: there could and should be far better integration. This is difficult because Hero is a generic system, but there could, for instance, be an advantage applied if the power uses uncommon sfx as it is less likely to be affected by adjustment powers.As stated above, I prefer to limit the adjusment power appropriately than to increase the cost of the Defense.

Keith "Different approaches" Curtis

Vondy

Nov 6th, '06, 09:07 AM

This requires a drain? Why not some skill levels? Much, much simpler.

Keith "simpleton" Curtis

Its not how I build characters - I too prefer simple solutions - but I've seen many characters (official and otherwise) that make use of these kinds of builds and I consider them perfectly valid ways to model certain effects.

schir1964

Nov 6th, '06, 09:15 AM

Character A has a normal compliment of limbs and , let us say, prehensile feet, something he can have for free in Hero as it has so little game effect, but which is potentially useful in some situations.
You actually highlighted one of the problems with this statement right here. STR doesn't differentiate between hands, feet, or mouth. As far as STR is concerned, they are all have the same manipulation capability. So you don't even have to specify prehensile anything, they get the manipulation for free.

Which then begs the question about the Human Template SFX overlay... which is actually never mentioned but heavily implied...

Character B has 10 arms, bought with the 'extra limbs' power.

Character A could, at best, grab 4 opponents and headbut either one of them or someone else.
Or.... he could grab 5 opponents and squeeze all of them for damage. I know, it would look ridiculous, but that what GM is for. (8^D)

On the serious side, if you want to affect multiple targets with EB, RKA, HA, or Entangle, what do you do? Area Effect.

Wouldn't applying Area Effect to STR be more consistent with the system than narrowly defined SFX driven power?

If you are fighting minions, having lots of extra limbs can be useful. Think grab-by or sweep grab. Or human shield if you are a villian.
And what stops a two armed character from doing these same things mechanically with the system?

Wouldn't Area Effect applied to any mechanic allow for this?

Of course you COULD just buy extra limbs as extra strength and call it SFX, but to do that you would have a character that cannot actually grab more opponents than a normal human.
No, that is not what I suggested.

I said buy STR as a Power, not limited Extra STR.

But the system allows you use multiple STR with only a single cost. Add in the standard Rapid Fire, or Sweep that is there to affect multiple targets/attacks. So the system has all the mechanics you need already to do what you want without Extra Limbs.

Maybe I'm myopic, but I just don't see how Extra Limbs has added anything unique mechanic wise. But if you are fine with it then don't worry about what I think. It's your game after all. (8^D)

Arguably 5 points is too much for the utility, but it is a discernable effect that cannot be replicated with other powers, and the cost, being relatively insignificant, does not bother me.
Agree: 5 Points is too much for SFX based ability.
Disagree: It has no discernable effect mehanically that isn't already handled by other mechanics. I've already given examples of how you might do it with current mechanics that would be more consistent with the system.

Feel Free To Ignore My Opinion

- Christopher Mullins (8^D)

casualplayer

Nov 6th, '06, 10:01 AM

On the serious side, if you want to affect multiple targets with EB, RKA, HA, or Entangle, what do you do? Area Effect.

Wouldn't applying Area Effect to STR be more consistent with the system than narrowly defined SFX driven power?

Good call, Area Effect: Selective on STR would probably represent additional manipulatory limbs better if they are fully usable limbs and a GM handwave would suffice if the additional limbs are minimally useful. Being a modifier it couldn't be Drained but the core STR could be. You might have something there.

zornwil

Nov 6th, '06, 11:57 AM

You probably won't be surprised to know that I am in the camp of those who intensely dislike Power Defense. It is purely a game mechanic that has no in game rationale. (Like the old can't teleport through hardened defenses, so buy Armor Piercing rules). It exists to counter such a wide variety of powers that it is essentially meaningless. My Power Defense (and how does your character refer to this defense?) protects equally against Rattlesnake venom, A disorientation ray (Drain Dex), A frictionless field (Drain Movement) and a Suppress Magic Field (Drain: Magical Powers (+2))?

I got around it by basically defaulting all Adjustment powers to a broad SFX type of "Supernatural" and embedding Supernatural into the system along the exact same lines as Physical, Energy, and Mental.

As to another point you made, I think the higher-powered genra (not just supers, but high fantasy, space opera) have built-in balance issues which can never be fully resolved with points. The rulebook should serve as the point to discuss those issues but I don't think it can resolve them (as the full-scale retreat on size characteristics demonstrates).

Hugh Neilson

Nov 6th, '06, 03:25 PM

You actually highlighted one of the problems with this statement right here. STR doesn't differentiate between hands, feet, or mouth. As far as STR is concerned, they are all have the same manipulation capability. So you don't even have to specify prehensile anything, they get the manipulation for free.

So in your game characters can Grab with their mouths and their feet. OK. My games assume that a human comes equipped with two arms (manipulatory limbs).

On the serious side, if you want to affect multiple targets with EB, RKA, HA, or Entangle, what do you do? Area Effect.

This assumes I want to affect multiple targets using a single attack roll. I want to be able to Grab a target this phase, maintain my hold on him with both hands, and:

(a) Pick up the newspaper so I can read it while he tries to break out.

(b) Pour a glass of milk and drink it while maintaining that hold.

(c) Grab his teammate next phase without loosening my grip on my first target.

No one is arguing that Extra Limbs allows you to effect multiple Grabs as a single attack action.

Maybe I'm myopic, but I just don't see how Extra Limbs has added anything unique mechanic wise. But if you are fine with it then don't worry about what I think. It's your game after all. (8^D)

OK - maybe you're myopic.

TheRavenIs

Nov 6th, '06, 03:41 PM

I use Inherent, when I think it's required. The main GN in our group is very careful on how it works, so she made a modification to some of the ways it can be used.

All or Nothing: now she does this when the ability is an extra.
Automatic difficult to dispell: this is on things like come from a focus or HIDO, that are intregial to the C.

Sean Waters

Nov 7th, '06, 04:57 AM

If you buy Inherent, but no one buys the particular type of drain that would affect you, then the second power is more expensive for no reason. Should a player be forced to spend more points for something that is essentially an SFX that has no game utility?

...and you might invest 5 points in lack of weakness and never have Find Weakness used against you.

Hugh Neilson

Nov 7th, '06, 05:20 AM

...and you might invest 5 points in lack of weakness and never have Find Weakness used against you.

Very true. And isn't having an unusual physical structurfe (a common reason for purchasing LoW) as much "just SFX" as having a couple of extra arms.

zornwil

Nov 7th, '06, 07:22 AM

To be fair, KC's point was centered around a non-possible use of Drain to begin with.

That being said, there's a bit of circularity in the air, let's dispel it: the question really isn't "is Inherent useful" so much as "should invulnerability to Adjustment powers exist." To me, the only argument supporting a yes to the latter is the question of interaction of SFX ("you can't drain my limbs, they're part of me"). This is a dangerous path in HERO and even a flimsy one, even if we conclude the necessity is there. I'm really not sure why we don't require additional PowD just as with other constructs along with the normal caveats about SFX interaction. If the SFX "necessity" perceived is the notion that some abilities can be innate, immutable, then I am not sure why we don't fix the real issue of "what is innate to a character" (this is a hotter topic now that the system has declared that any size can be innate and therefore falls outside mechanical interaction. hence the arguments around Extra Limbs).

I simply see no issue, especially in the kinds of games that have the situation, with simply saying "Dr. Negato's Drain Appendage Ray can't work against Octoboy's 8 arms because the Drain Appendage Ray reverts an object to its natural state. But Captain Cutlery's Cut-a-Rama Drain DOES work because it is defined to chop off limbs, and the player even has a Transform for the base limbss people have." (yes, I made a simple example, but the GM could just as easily rule either way as makes sense re the Captain if he's defined otherwise)

Sean Waters

Nov 7th, '06, 11:01 AM

....................

You probably won't be surprised to know that I am in the camp of those who intensely dislike Power Defense. It is purely a game mechanic that has no in game rationale. (Like the old can't teleport through hardened defenses, so buy Armor Piercing rules). It exists to counter such a wide variety of powers that it is essentially meaningless. My Power Defense (and how does your character refer to this defense?) protects equally against Rattlesnake venom, A disorientation ray (Drain Dex), A frictionless field (Drain Movement) and a Suppress Magic Field (Drain: Magical Powers (+2))?
The usual examples trotted out to show a universal Power Defense involve some sort of cosmic or godlike being who is just "immune from someone trying to make him not like himself." Bleh.
In my Savage Earth game, I have a wide variety of powers simulating a single SFX (altering things to make them more or less like other things). Where possible, I try to have the same defense for every power. In this case, I chose Mental Defense, since the SFX for resisting is willpower, your desire to remain as you are. It made more sense to me than using Power Defense for this application, Mental Defense for that one and so forth. Especially, since the various powers are all applications of the same "meta-power" that simply require different mechanical constructions to model.

...........................

Keith "Different approaches" Curtis

Now we agree that Power Defence makes little sense (and, presumably about my awesome poetic powers :)

However, there are only so many things you can do about that, given the existence of adjustment powers in the game at all. We could just ditch power defence: that would work. We require adjustment powers to be properly defined, so we don't need them: it is obvious if your drain (movement) is defined as a frictionless field then anything that requires friction is not going to work, like normal running, swimming, possibly swinging and leaping, some types of flight etc etc.

OK, cool, but what that does, in effect, is change every adjustment attack into NND, and, my bigger concern, means that the same points spent on the same power have different utility, depending on what sfx you pick: drain movement could be defined, for instance as 'air hardening' and then it would effect virtually everything except teleport - more utility than the 'frictionless field, but no difference in cost.

The other problem is that is not really scaleable except fromt he attack end - you can't build a power that makes the adjustment power LESS effective - just have a SFX that makes it ineffective.

The other alternative would be to substitute a different defence, say flash defence for drain INT, which works by distracting the mind with a pretty lightshow. That is converting all attacks into AVLD for free, but at least it has scaleability.

Then you have other problems: four characters have STR 60: the first is a mutant, the second is a demon, the third is a robot and the fourth is a touch telekinetic. When exposed to a strength drain, you apply the SFX: well we have a number of candidates: muscle relaxant gas, for example. Who would that effect? Probably not the robot or the touch telekinetic: what about the demon? Is the mutant's strength actually derived from having mutated musculature or are subtler forces at work - in fact anything he touches has mass and density momentarily drained, giving the effect of massive strength.

I don't know many characters who have their characteristics described in enough detail to make that work.

So, I come back to my suggestion that it might be nice to talk about SFX/rules interaction in more detail. At present SFX are just a colour wash: there is no reason they cannot be embedded in the system without limiting people's creative freedom. And, as a bonus, it might all make more sense :)

keithcurtis

Nov 7th, '06, 12:31 PM

Now we agree that Power Defence makes little sense (and, presumably about my awesome poetic powers :)
:)

OK, cool, but what that does, in effect, is change every adjustment attack into NND, and, my bigger concern, means that the same points spent on the same power have different utility, depending on what sfx you pick: drain movement could be defined, for instance as 'air hardening' and then it would effect virtually everything except teleport - more utility than the 'frictionless field, but no difference in cost.

The other problem is that is not really scaleable except fromt he attack end - you can't build a power that makes the adjustment power LESS effective - just have a SFX that makes it ineffective.

The other alternative would be to substitute a different defence, say flash defence for drain INT, which works by distracting the mind with a pretty lightshow. That is converting all attacks into AVLD for free, but at least it has scaleability.
You could combine the two approaches. Have a defensive ability that reduces the effect, and conditions under which it does not work. As for AVLD, anything that affects Power Defense is already essentially AVLD, so I don't see a problem.

Then you have other problems: four characters have STR 60: the first is a mutant, the second is a demon, the third is a robot and the fourth is a touch telekinetic. When exposed to a strength drain, you apply the SFX: well we have a number of candidates: muscle relaxant gas, for example. Who would that effect? Probably not the robot or the touch telekinetic: what about the demon? Is the mutant's strength actually derived from having mutated musculature or are subtler forces at work - in fact anything he touches has mass and density momentarily drained, giving the effect of massive strength.

I don't know many characters who have their characteristics described in enough detail to make that work.
Most characters in my campaign have origins/powers/abilites/concept whatever well-detailed enough to at least extrapolate. THe above examples suggest a superheroic campaign, which I stated earlier I felt to operate under different assumptions. Champions is much more of a math contest than heroic level campaigns, at least in my personal experience. For Champions, I have less of a beef with Inherent and Power Defense. I still dislike their ubiquitous use, but I can overlook it. After all, Super heroes don't make a lot of rational sense to begin with.

So, I come back to my suggestion that it might be nice to talk about SFX/rules interaction in more detail. At present SFX are just a colour wash: there is no reason they cannot be embedded in the system without limiting people's creative freedom. And, as a bonus, it might all make more sense :)
Agreed.

Keith "And that was that" Curtis

zornwil

Nov 7th, '06, 05:57 PM

Now we agree that Power Defence makes little sense (and, presumably about my awesome poetic powers :)

However, there are only so many things you can do about that, given the existence of adjustment powers in the game at all. We could just ditch power defence: that would work. We require adjustment powers to be properly defined, so we don't need them: it is obvious if your drain (movement) is defined as a frictionless field then anything that requires friction is not going to work, like normal running, swimming, possibly swinging and leaping, some types of flight etc etc.

OK, cool, but what that does, in effect, is change every adjustment attack into NND, and, my bigger concern, means that the same points spent on the same power have different utility, depending on what sfx you pick: drain movement could be defined, for instance as 'air hardening' and then it would effect virtually everything except teleport - more utility than the 'frictionless field, but no difference in cost.

The other problem is that is not really scaleable except fromt he attack end - you can't build a power that makes the adjustment power LESS effective - just have a SFX that makes it ineffective.

The other alternative would be to substitute a different defence, say flash defence for drain INT, which works by distracting the mind with a pretty lightshow. That is converting all attacks into AVLD for free, but at least it has scaleability.

Then you have other problems: four characters have STR 60: the first is a mutant, the second is a demon, the third is a robot and the fourth is a touch telekinetic. When exposed to a strength drain, you apply the SFX: well we have a number of candidates: muscle relaxant gas, for example. Who would that effect? Probably not the robot or the touch telekinetic: what about the demon? Is the mutant's strength actually derived from having mutated musculature or are subtler forces at work - in fact anything he touches has mass and density momentarily drained, giving the effect of massive strength.

I don't know many characters who have their characteristics described in enough detail to make that work.

So, I come back to my suggestion that it might be nice to talk about SFX/rules interaction in more detail. At present SFX are just a colour wash: there is no reason they cannot be embedded in the system without limiting people's creative freedom. And, as a bonus, it might all make more sense :)

Although SFX discussion is still warranted, I don't think PowD is so terribly flawed from a mechanical perspective. The issue is that Adj. Powers (Transform excepted) target powers, not individuals. As such, there's 2 issues there: one is the system providing yet another attack/defense option to vary things (and so eliminating it reduces options, not necessarily a bad thing, though); and second is that there is just as much question as to why a character's defense is synonymous with defense of a power, along with the "double protection" that such defenses would yield against a presumed concern that Adj. Powers get reduced in abillity.

It's simple enough to just reduce the option and make things simpler, as you've suggested, and I think it would basically work fine (some costing to figure out, some dynamics around SFX still in terms of defining reasonable SFX against reasonable defenses and so on, but all resolvable).

Alternately, PowD does make sense as an essentially mechanical statement of "this power is hard to reduce." The question is in some part as to why PowD applies to all powers - well, I think that's 2-fold, it's a hold-over of supers thought where supers tend to have more unified (at least ostensibly) powers and you can claim one thing applies to all, but also it's simple balance of course. You could just as easily apply PowD similar to the way Adj. Powers are built, with "one power = 4 defense per 1 CP, all powers of an SFX = 2 defense per 1 CP, all powers = 1 defense per 1 CP" or the like. We do run into SFX problems as always, but I'm not sure that's any big deal in terms of it being "my magic is tougher than your electronic drain" if the Drain is taken with no particular Advantage (NND or such). At least it becomes clearer in this scenario as to the real purpose and place of PowD and Adj. Powers. Maybe. I have to run, wish I had more time to think about this post, but primarily while I have issues with PowD I think mechanically there's still a role there for "attack on power" and "defend power" which is separate from and tactically enriched from "attack you" and "defend myself."