Limitations Issues

[Steve Long]

Hi folx! Here are some thoughts about Limitations that have occurred to me over the years, along with my brief thoughts on them. I’m posting them here to stimulate discussion, but not to limit or restrict it. These aren’t necessarily all the issues about Limitations that could be considered, nor the only thoughts about them. Feel free to post anything here that you think is relevant and reasonably constructive; you don’t have to limit yourself to what I’ve posted.

Regardless of whatever opinion I post on an idea, I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise if you think you can do it. ;) The fact that I’m posting an opinion doesn’t necessarily mean my mind’s made up on an issue; it just indicates my current thinking on the subject.

Periodically I may post other questions and thoughts that occur to me.


Actually, right now I don’t think I have any particular ideas for Limitations; they seem to be working just fine. I’ll probably change “Only In Heroic Identity” to “Only In Alternate Identity” to “genericize” it a bit more, but that’s about it.

[Simon]

Caveat (this should be taken for anything that I post): IANAGD (I am not a game designer).

That said, I think that Charges needs some serious looking into. Having had the nightmare of trying to work it into HD, it's unlike just about any other Modifier. The main problem that I see with it is that it tries to do too much all in one, monolithic Modifier.

I'd love to see it split up into multiple, simpler Modifiers that follow the rules structure of all the others. Remove the "0-END" aspect of it. It's broken, points-wise, since Charges max out at +1 if the Power costs END, but max at +0 if the Power is already 0-END (which only costs +1/2 to achieve).

Boostable, Recoverable, etc. all get split out into separate Modifiers that have the requirement of a Charges-based ability.

Just my thoughts...and by no means a requirement for me to look forward to 6th.

[Just Joe]

It seems to me that some limitations reduce the effectiveness of a power in such a way that they ought to reduce the active points of the power. Examples come up more often when trying to build unusual abilities, but standard examples include "entangle has no DEF", "entangle has no BODY", and perhaps the desol limitations "cannot pass through solid objects" and "does not protect against damage".

IMO, powers with such limitations tend to cost too much END, are to hard to dispel, and can be too expensive when limitations are stacked (i.e., the diminishing return of further limitations seems to me inappropriate in the cases of such limitations).

One possible solution is to create a second category of limitations, but I suspect the more elegant solution involves finer granularity in the purchase of powers (e.g., allowing one to purchase various aspects of desol for less than 40 AP each). This second possible solution would not be in the realm of "limitations", but since I perceive the underlying problem to be one related to limitations, I thought this post should be placed here.

[Chris Goodwin]

My opinion: Do away with Independent. Do away with the silly notion of giving characters character points embedded in materials that they can use to build magic items with, so they don't have to permanently spend any of their own.

If you need a way to ease the medicine, just advise that Foci work the same in Fantasy Hero as they do in Champions. If you pick up something and want to keep it, you pay the points. If you don't pay the points, your ability to keep it is at the GM's whim. If you do pay the points, you can keep the item and it becomes part of your character; if the GM later takes it away, you have to be able to either get the item back or spend the points on something else.

The idea of "wizards flooding the world with magic items built on assembly lines" is, IMO, totally bogus. We don't see gadgeteers in Champions flooding the world with blasters and force field belts and flying cars (unless the GM runs with it as a story element). Why do we assume wizards will do the same in Fantasy Hero?

[Edsel]

I agree with Mr. Goodwin that Independent is not needed. It does seem an alien element to the system.

I see merit in Simon's suggestions about charges as well.

[Lord Liaden]

I have a couple of concerns about the Focus Limitation.

One, I'd like to see some official standard, at least optionally, to assign a BODY score to Foci. As it stands the rules for breaking Foci are inconsistent with other objects. Not only does that tend to confuse new players, it becomes problematic when comparing environmental objects made of certain materials, to Foci made of the same materials.

Two, the categories of Durable and Unbreakable Focus generally grant these types of Foci considerable benefits over normal ones, but without any additional expenditure of points or built in drawbacks. If these categories of Foci are to be maintained, I would suggest some type of negative balancing factor be assigned to them as a default. As a suggestion, in my own campaigns I've applied the replacement requirements for Expendable Foci to any Focus which is broken, i.e. the more durable the Focus is, the more difficult/time consuming/dangerous it is to replace.

[Zeropoint]

I have to agree on that. I've looked over the rules a few times, and I have NEVER been able to see ANY reason to make a focus breakable, except for modeling purposes--there's no downside at all to making your focus indestructible, that I can see.

[Chris Goodwin]

I have a couple of concerns about the Focus Limitation.

One, I'd like to see some official standard, at least optionally, to assign a BODY score to Foci. As it stands the rules for breaking Foci are inconsistent with other objects. Not only does that tend to confuse new players, it becomes problematic when comparing environmental objects made of certain materials, to Foci made of the same materials.

Hear, hear!

[Enforcer84]

I'd say that "Durable" and "Unbreakable" might actually need to have a negative limitation value...

[Xotl]

I think that Charges needs some serious looking into. Having had the nightmare of trying to work it into HD, it's unlike just about any other Modifier. The main problem that I see with it is that it tries to do too much all in one, monolithic Modifier.

I'd love to see it split up into multiple, simpler Modifiers that follow the rules structure of all the others. Remove the "0-END" aspect of it. It's broken, points-wise, since Charges max out at +1 if the Power costs END, but max at +0 if the Power is already 0-END (which only costs +1/2 to achieve).

Boostable, Recoverable, etc. all get split out into separate Modifiers that have the requirement of a Charges-based ability.

I was coming here specifically to post the Charges 0-END issue that Simon had, but as he's covered it nicely with more besides let me just add

"ditto"

[BobGreenwade]

I do have a specific thought regarding Focus.

Currently we have the basic categories of Obvious Accessible (OAF), Inobvious Accessible (IAF), Obvious Inaccessible (OIF), and Inobvious Inaccessible (IIF). The structure starts at IIF, and doubles separately for obviousness and accessibility.

Between Obvious and Inobvious, I'd suggest adding a sort of Semi-Obvious or Disguised level that increases the value by x1.5 (hence my thought elsewhere about 1/8 levels for Power Modifiers). This level would be for things that are obvious when used, but don't obviously have the function in question, like the Penguin's umbrellas or many of James Bond's gadgets. So a DIF would be -3/8, and a DAF would be -3/4.

Similarly, there have been a few cases discussed on the boards where being "Semi-Accessible" -- somewhere between easily grabbed in combat and requiring effort to remove -- has come up. They're not nearly as prevalent as "Semi-Obvious," but they do happen, and it could be handled in a similar way.

As a suggestion, if you go to decimals, you could structure the Focus Limitation this way:

Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (basic): -.2

Semi-Obvious: -.2
Obvious: -.4

Semi-Accessible: -.2
Accessible: -.4

(And so an OAF is still -1.)

Also, I'd make "Focus Of Opportunity" (FOO) a completely separate category from the others, still worth -1/2 (or -.5) but with characteristics of its own.

[Chris Goodwin]

I just want to point out my post here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1542533&postcount=21), as it addresses Limitations as well as Advantages.

[ajackson]

I have to agree on that. I've looked over the rules a few times, and I have NEVER been able to see ANY reason to make a focus breakable, except for modeling purposes--there's no downside at all to making your focus indestructible, that I can see.
A breakable focus is easily replaced if stolen. This rarely comes up, but I've rarely seen foci broken either.

[Lord Liaden]

A breakable focus is easily replaced if stolen. This rarely comes up, but I've rarely seen foci broken either.

That's a reasonable assumption, and may be inferred from some of the other rules about Foci; but nowhere in the rules is it explicitly stated, nor any suggestions offered for how to adjudicate the situation. There's no downside offered to making a Breakable Focus Durable, either. I see that as unfair, and that's what my suggestion earlier on the thread tries to address.

[Opal]

One rule that is consistently ignored is that a focus that provides a defense takes damage when the character does. By this rule, anyone who takes body from a gunshot watches his bullet-proof vest shatter into a million unuseable pieces.

Why keep printing a rule that it seems no one uses?


Charges are poblematic, too, since they give Reduced END for free, they have to turn into advantages at some point - but that point really varies with the amount of 'action' in campaign. Add that not all plots progress in neat 'days' and you have a real problem.

Charges might work better if they didn't affect END cost (any power with charges that shouldn't cost END just takes the advantage).

Or, they might work better if they worked based on two factors: Number of charges before re-charging, and time/difficulty to re-charge. For instance, a firearm might have 8 charges, and take a phase to re-charge (changing clips). While a holy relic might have 3 charges, and restore charges when placed on an altar to the propper deity. That sort of thing.


I'm also going to mention END Rerves - the limitation you pay points for. While END Reserve is a nice idea, the real default should be that any power that uses the reserve can also use your regular END. The Reserve is END and REC that can only be used for one or some of your powers. If the power can only draw off the Reserve, and the Reserve & it's REC are limitted in some way, the power deserves a limitations, too.



Independent: I don't object to the existance of Independent, but if it is going to exist, or if there are going to be foci you don't have to pay for floating around as a technological baseline in a campaign, then a limitation to give a cost break to powers that are to some extent duplicated by such readily avialable 'free' (in character points terms) foci would be in order. 1st Ed Star Hero had a limitation like that called 'Replaceable.' It's not a bad idea.

[ajackson]

Hm. I feel like it would simplify the game by a lot if we could somehow do away with power limitations. Suddenly, no more confusions about active points vs real points. No more division by fractional values, which many people find frustrating. No more quarter limitations from hell. The trick is how to actually implement this in a way that doesn't lose us too much functionality.

It seems to me that limitations fall into a few broad categories:

Power Loss -- the power doesn't work under specified conditions. This includes Foci, OIHID, doesn't work under condition (X), etc. This can be replaced with a Complication.
Partial Effect -- the power only accomplishes one of several effects of the basic power (e.g. Strength, Only for Damage). If powers are sliced up so they don't have so many different effects, this becomes unnecessary.
Limited Use -- includes Charges, End Reserves, increased END cost, etc. This is, arguably, just Power Loss (out of ammo).
Limited Target/Limited Defense -- only works vs a certain category of problem. This doesn't work terribly well under the current rules anyway (saving a couple points on a multipower slot that isn't any more active points than any other multipower slot is rarely worthwhile, and limited defenses are almost always too expensive for what they get you). Limited Target is tricky; a Bane type ability (bonuses vs one type of foe) works if the power is something that should work on anyone, just better vs one foe type, but if it's a power that should only work on one class of foe (e.g. banish vs demons) I don't see a clever implementation. Limited Defense is easier -- rather than dividing cost, just multiply Def.
Activation Requirements -- the power only works under special conditions, or takes a lot of time to use, or takes special materials, or some such. I would actually be tempted to reverse this whole thing and just add some rules for boosting powers by taking extra time, etc.
Mechanical Limitation -- things like No Range, Visible, Costs Endurance, Self Only, Not Persistent. Can be removed by simply setting the default for powers as the most limited form.

[Opal]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

[JmOz]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

tell me about it

[Chris Goodwin]

It's official: there really is an 'eliminate all cost breaks' conspiracy out there.

tell me about it

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.

[Opal]

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.I'm getting a tinfoil hat.

Steve Jackson has launched Mind Control Satelites to sabotage Hero. It's the only possible explanation. Follow the money. (Hmm... not much money, must be another reason...)

:sneaky:

[Vondy]

Come on, now. It's only a conspiracy if we they are working together.

I hereby agree to work with you to advocate balancing point costs.

There, now its a conspiracy.

[gojira]

I think Linked needs to go away.

With MPA and similar constructions, we don't really need Linked anymore. And it was never terribly balanced to begin with, even though it's in the earliest edition I have. Just drop in a hole somewhere and forget about it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't have a problem with Linked. Two powers that only go off together and never separately... Linked is perfect.

[ajackson]

Linked is a response to the basic observation that hitting someone with 2 6d6 energy blasts is less effective than hitting them with a 12d6 energy blast; aside from blowing past active point caps in a way the GM might not notice, linked (or MPA) is really not very useful. In terms of effectiveness for the points spent, linked should probably be closer to a -1 limitation.

[Tonio]

I have issues with Linked. Not of the "I think it should go" type, but of the "I'm not sure I get how it currently works" type. First off, if I want to build a power that's an EB and a Flash, do I apply Linked to both powers? Seems logical, but I can't find a single example of it. Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

[Opal]

Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.It's presumably because you could add a low Apt power and link a high active point power to it, just to save points, for one thing. It's also because employing a high Apt power is a more significant undertaking - more END, more of your MP or VPP pool, a larger penalty if it's RSR, greater risk of collateral damage if it's an attack, etc.

[Supreme Serpent]

Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

"Ok, so I'll link my 30d6 Energy Blast to my 5pt IR vision..."

[McCoy]

Doesn't look like anyone has mentioned this, either I missed it or everyone thouth it was too obvious to mention, but:

IF a change is made to advantages, if they go decimal or become adders rather than multipliers, limitations need to follow suit.

[Gideon]

I have a problem with Gestures, Incantations and Restrainable.

Gestures and Incantations both say that if properly restrained (hands tied, gagged) you can't use the power. They also say you can be interrupted using the power because you need to declare at the top of the DEX order for the segment that you are Gesturing or Incanting and someone who goes on the same dex, or is holding can prevent you from using the power. Both limitations are worth -1/4

EX:

Magestrix the wizard goes on SPD 5 DEX 23. Warhead also goes on SPD 5 DEX 23. As soon as segment 3, DEX 23 goes, before any other actions take place, Magestrix's player anounces that the character is Incanting a spell. Before the spell actually goes off, Warhead (and anyone who might have a held action) can attempt to stop Magestrix from finishing his spell. And if I remember correctly (don't have my book on me) simply dealing Magestrix damage is enough to interrupt the spell, as well as darkness to sound, entangling his head or anything else that will prevent him from talking.

Gestures works the same way.

Restrainable says that if properly restrained (hands tied, gagged) you can't use the power, but otherwise you are unrestricted. This limitation is worth -1/2.

If instead of having Incantations on his spells, Magestrix had restrainable (must be able to speak), the ways to stop him from using his powers would be the same, but since he doesn't start the power at the top of the dex order, he can't be interrupted as easily.

I think that Restrainable is a good limitation for what it represents and in all aspects other than cost it makes sense. I simply think that it should be equal to or lower in cost than Incantations and Gestures.

[Gideon]

I have issues with Linked. Not of the "I think it should go" type, but of the "I'm not sure I get how it currently works" type. First off, if I want to build a power that's an EB and a Flash, do I apply Linked to both powers? Seems logical, but I can't find a single example of it. Second, why is Linked worth less when it's on a power more expensive than the one it's linked to? It's being subject to the same limitation, it should get the same cost break.

Dunno, I'd state clearly that Linked means that the power with it can only be used when the other power is used, and that the reverse isn't true, and have it cost the same for each direction.

OK, I have characters with liked so I think maybe I can help.

Lest say you have a 50 AP Energy Blast and a 50 AP Flash.

If the Flash can only be used in combination with the EB, then Flash gets the limitation. This means you can blast people without using the flash, but not the other way around.

If the EB can only be used in combination with the Flash, then the EB gets the limitation. This means you can flash people without using the EB, but not the other way around.

With the above example the limitation is the same cost regardless.

The way Linked works is that usually you link a small power to a bigger one.

EX: A small energy blast linked to an entangle.

The smaller power gets the linked limitation because it can only be used if the bigger power is also being used.

So, we'll say the main power costs 50 AP (with no limitations and no framework), and the linked smaller power is 20 AP (with only the linked limitation). If the linked is worth -1/2 then you pay a total of 63 points for the two powers. 50+(20/1.5)

If on the other hand the main power cost 20 and the linked power cost 50, if the limitation was worth the same amount the total cost would be only 53 points. 20+(50/1.5)

So to keep the costs relatively closer, the value of linked is reduced if the linked power is of higher cost. 20+(50/1.25)= 60 (A three point difference as opposed to a 10 point one.)

[Chris Goodwin]

I think that Restrainable is a good limitation for what it represents and in all aspects other than cost it makes sense. I simply think that it should be equal to or lower in cost than Incantations and Gestures.

Or maybe Incantations and Gestures should be subsets of Restrainable.

And we need to take a hard look at Focus. It's still pretty much what it was in 3e. It needs to be looked at in light of things like OIHID and Restrainable.

[dstarfire]

I'd like to see 'requires a skill roll' reviewed / reworked. The current model makes it near-impossible to succeed with a high-ap power unless you buy the power skill up to ridiculous lvls (well beyond the normal skill caps).

If you build it at so that there's no ap penalty and everythign else is the default, it's worthless (literally, -0 value). I'd think a power that making a power fail 15-20% of the time is worth a limitation.

[Chris Goodwin]

Okay, this has annoyed me for years, and I'm going to say something now.

The whole point of Requires A Skill Roll is that the Power doesn't work some of the time. If you want it to work all the time, don't buy RSR. It's that simple.

[Doc Shadow]

I want to agree with the folks who have suggested going decimal. I think it would make things much easier, for the newbie especially. I mean do any of us really use fractions in our regular lives much?

Maybe, as television is switching from the old analog to digital, it's time for HERO to go decimal and leave the fractions behind.

[Gideon]

I want to agree with the folks who have suggested going decimal. I think it would make things much easier, for the newbie especially. I mean do any of us really use fractions in our regular lives much?

Maybe, as television is switching from the old analog to digital, it's time for HERO to go decimal and leave the fractions behind.

Honestly I have to disagree. From a purely esthetic point of view, I like fractions better. I think they look better in print

1/4

.25


And I'm sorry, but anyone I know who passed high-school senior math knows that 1/2 and .5 are the same thing. So why not go with the estheticly pleasing choice?

[BobGreenwade]

And I'm sorry, but anyone I know who passed high-school senior math knows that 1/2 and .5 are the same thing. So why not go with the estheticly pleasing choice?Well, I learned that much in junior high school (back when we had junior high schools). And I happen to find the decimals more aesthetically pleasing, so that's a matter of taste.

[Teflon Billy]

Honestly I have to disagree. From a purely esthetic point of view, I like fractions better. I think they look better in print

1/4

.25


And I'm sorry, but anyone I know who passed high-school senior math knows that 1/2 and .5 are the same thing. So why not go with the estheticly pleasing choice?I've got to agree with this.

Keep the stepping in quarters, and keep the text using the fraction glyphs.

TB

[GamePhil]

My opinion: Do away with Independent. Do away with the silly notion of giving characters character points embedded in materials that they can use to build magic items with, so they don't have to permanently spend any of their own.


Well, I think that Independent is kind of misused on normal equipment. If no one is paying for it, the idea that it is Independent is kind of odd, as all that Limitation really does is removes the association between the character and the points in the item.

It is also a purely metagaming Limitation. It doesn't limit how the power can be used, it just means that the points can be lost permanently. Again, odd, and not in keeping with most of the game.

Still, I think it fits for a game where you have to give up something in order to create an item or an effect. Some chunk of your life, some items laying about, whatever. I used it for the concept of researching common spells (ones that anyone could use, within reason) for a game, and it worked reasonably well on the one occasion someone did it. So I'm not sure it should be axed, just changed in definition or explained better.

[Chris Goodwin]

Well, I think that Independent is kind of misused on normal equipment. If no one is paying for it, the idea that it is Independent is kind of odd, as all that Limitation really does is removes the association between the character and the points in the item.

It is also a purely metagaming Limitation. It doesn't limit how the power can be used, it just means that the points can be lost permanently. Again, odd, and not in keeping with most of the game.

Still, I think it fits for a game where you have to give up something in order to create an item or an effect. Some chunk of your life, some items laying about, whatever. I used it for the concept of researching common spells (ones that anyone could use, within reason) for a game, and it worked reasonably well on the one occasion someone did it. So I'm not sure it should be axed, just changed in definition or explained better.

The problems I have with it are that the points are lost permanently, that the rationale sticks out like a sore thumb for Fantasy but no other genre (Champions gadgeteers don't and have never had the same problems), and that it's (IMO) so counter-genre that we actually have to find ways to give PC enchanters points with which to make magic items so as not to use up their own. The first one is odd, and seems artificial; we never really had any "permanently use up points" bits* in the system before Independent came along. The second speaks for itself, and the third is very odd and to my thinking a little backward. Easier just to say, when making magic items it takes a long time and requires very expensive materials that you may need to go adventuring to find.

* I'd actually like to see everything that permanently costs points go away.

[ajackson]

The whole point of Requires A Skill Roll is that the Power doesn't work some of the time. If you want it to work all the time, don't buy RSR. It's that simple.
Actually, the point of RSR is to emulate first edition Fantasy Hero. The theoretical balance is really the fact that you have to pay points for the skill; depending on how your character is constructed, getting an uber-roll with the skill roll may cost more than you save with RSR. It's most unbalanced if you allow the relevant skill roll to be an otherwise useful skill.

[Tonio]

It's presumably because you could add a low Apt power and link a high active point power to it, just to save points, for one thing. It's also because employing a high Apt power is a more significant undertaking - more END, more of your MP or VPP pool, a larger penalty if it's RSR, greater risk of collateral damage if it's an attack, etc.

I can see how the "just to save points" argument would be an issue... but I think it's kludgy to just reduce the limitation value. I mean, linking a 60AP power to a 55AP power is hardly any different from doing it the other way around, except for usage. I think I would've preferred a "savings from Linked cannot exceed the APs in the Power the Linked one is linked to".

"Ok, so I'll link my 30d6 Energy Blast to my 5pt IR vision..."

Ok, I see this point. On the other hand, if IR vision is always on, or there is no drawback to using it (no END cost, no visible effects, etc.), then Linked should be a -0 Limitation. Also, what I mentioned above could also work (i.e. you can't save more points than the power you're linking to costs).

OK, I have characters with liked so I think maybe I can help.

Lest say you have a 50 AP Energy Blast and a 50 AP Flash.

If the Flash can only be used in combination with the EB, then Flash gets the limitation. This means you can blast people without using the flash, but not the other way around.

If the EB can only be used in combination with the Flash, then the EB gets the limitation. This means you can flash people without using the EB, but not the other way around.

With the above example the limitation is the same cost regardless.

The way Linked works is that usually you link a small power to a bigger one.

EX: A small energy blast linked to an entangle.

The smaller power gets the linked limitation because it can only be used if the bigger power is also being used.

So, we'll say the main power costs 50 AP (with no limitations and no framework), and the linked smaller power is 20 AP (with only the linked limitation). If the linked is worth -1/2 then you pay a total of 63 points for the two powers. 50+(20/1.5)

If on the other hand the main power cost 20 and the linked power cost 50, if the limitation was worth the same amount the total cost would be only 53 points. 20+(50/1.5)

So to keep the costs relatively closer, the value of linked is reduced if the linked power is of higher cost. 20+(50/1.25)= 60 (A three point difference as opposed to a 10 point one.)

Well, I understand that much. The problem is when I want to design a power that's both an EB and a Flash, and it can only be used like that. Do I then apply Linked to both Powers? Why aren't there any examples of this? I don't think it's such a weird construct. Also, many of the examples seem to imply that both powers can only be used together, that neither can be used separately, yet only one of them has the Linked Limitation.

I dunno, I LIKE the concept of linking powers; I think it's integral to HERO's building-block ideal. But I think the current implementation is, at best, iffy.

[Tonio]

Actually, the point of RSR is to emulate first edition Fantasy Hero. The theoretical balance is really the fact that you have to pay points for the skill; depending on how your character is constructed, getting an uber-roll with the skill roll may cost more than you save with RSR. It's most unbalanced if you allow the relevant skill roll to be an otherwise useful skill.

I also find RSR "iffy". It lends itself to metagaming ("hm, buying my skill roll to 14-, considering the APs in the power, minus the savings I get from RSR on the power.... or getting a 14- activation roll on it... which saves me more points?"). It can turn out to be more expensive than not getting it (considering you have to buy the skill, which isn't useful for anything else), or it can be humongous savings if you base more powers on that same skill. It produces skill rolls outside the normal range (it's common to see someone with skill rolls between 11- and 15-, but with a skill for RSR in the 20s-, mostly to account for AP penalties).

Iffy.

[GamePhil]

The problems I have with it are that the points are lost permanently, that the rationale sticks out like a sore thumb for Fantasy but no other genre (Champions gadgeteers don't and have never had the same problems), and that it's (IMO) so counter-genre that we actually have to find ways to give PC enchanters points with which to make magic items so as not to use up their own.

Point 1, I kind of agree with. At the same time, there are some things or some projects where I can see the logic of having to invest so much of your time and energy into them that you can't also practice your powers, learn new things, or what have you. And, yes, it will typically be Fantasy, you might have to give up "life force" to do certain things, represented by XP.

Point 2, that's a flaw in the way the Limitation has always been presented, yes. However, I could see using it in a similar fashion to my mentioned Common Magic rules for creating a new invention and thereby changing the world in a small way. Similar things are also possible. In this case, though, I think you should be able to possibly be awarded with some Wealth or the Perk: Creator Of The X.

I personally have no real problem with enchanters having to find materials. It's just a measuring stick by which we know when they have enough. Other methods of doing this are also possible, of course, but this one has worked well for me. While it certainly originated as a work around, I think it is a valid method of measuring when you have enough raw materials to get your job done.

That said, I think Independant needs an overhaul if kept. I don't like free equipment having Independant, although that's really a quibble (it's free, it doesn't really matter, but it does make the equipment description slightly longer). I don't like the idea that so much of fantasy is constrained by this idea: a lot of Enchantments could be better done in other ways that don't require Independant Limitations or the sacrifice of points. I'd like several non-traditional examples of what it can be used for in the game, and what that loss of points means to the character rather than to the player. Without something along those lines, I'd just as soon see it dumped.

[Chris Goodwin]

Point 1, I kind of agree with. At the same time, there are some things or some projects where I can see the logic of having to invest so much of your time and energy into them that you can't also practice your powers, learn new things, or what have you. And, yes, it will typically be Fantasy, you might have to give up "life force" to do certain things, represented by XP.

This can easily be handled by requiring lots of Extra Time, END cost, etc. when creating a magic item. And the XP = "life force" thing is part of the whole Independent construct.

Independent is in general a fantasy-only Limitation that never would have been necessary had fantasy magic items been treated the same way as Champions treated Foci and gadgets from the get-go.

IMO, it was flawed from the beginning and unnecessary.

[Chris Goodwin]

No Range: IMO, No Range should be a -1 Limitation, based on the functionality it takes away as well as the need for finer grain in the Reduced Range suite. At the moment, for a Power's range we have, not counting Advantages, either 5x Active Points, No Range, or for -1/4 something in between. Whether to make Usable At Range a +1 or not is really up to Steve; it would make sense to do so, if No Range becomes -1.

[ajackson]

Enchantment is really 'perk: can give others an excuse to spend experience points on magic items'. It's kind of like a Teaching skill.

[Opal]

Well, they could change the basic range to Apts instead of Apts/5, with 'increased range' Advantages to boost it from there. I've never seen a battlemat where the difference between Apt/5 range of the strongest and weakest ranged powers in use would have made a difference. Then a reduced range limitation or short range advantage could give you less. 'Reach' - a limitted form of stretching - perhaps, could take care of /very/ short, highly granular ranges.

[dsatow]

Focus damage and loss.

Personally, I've seen focuses get taken away. Sometimes too often some times too little. I've hardly ever seen focii destroyed.

For focii destruction, I think just having a simpler method of how often a focii gets damaged would be good. This is just off the top of my head, so take it with a grain of salt. Say 0- for nothing, 14- for 1/2, 11- for 1, and 8- for 2. The GM would then roll the X- or roll anything an attack has a chance of breaking the focii. If the roll "hits", then the focii takes 1 body and loses an ability like the vehicle rules. If the focii has no abilities, its dead. For an extra 1, the effect is Abaltive. Each roll increasing the chance of breakage by 1.

[SCUBA Hero]

Try to unify Limitations. For example, Full Power Only is (or was) a common -1/2 Limitation for attacks. But guns don't have it.

Add a Limitation for something that's not universally applicable. For example, currently:

1. Sword, xd6 HKA etc plus +1 OCV with OAF (5-point since that's the minimum level that can have Limitations).

2. Combat Talisman, +1 with Hand-To-Hand Combat (5 points), OAF.

#2 applies with every HTH attack the character does, #1 only with one Focus. There should be some additional Limitation to reflect this.

[Vondy]

I think Linked needs to go away.

With MPA and similar constructions, we don't really need Linked anymore. And it was never terribly balanced to begin with, even though it's in the earliest edition I have. Just drop in a hole somewhere and forget about it.

It is a limitation if the power the other powers are linked to is targeted by drain, supress, and the like. As such, I do think its needed. Balancing it is a separate issue.

[GamePhil]

I think Linked needs to go away.

With MPA and similar constructions, we don't really need Linked anymore. And it was never terribly balanced to begin with, even though it's in the earliest edition I have. Just drop in a hole somewhere and forget about it.

Actually, MPA is a primary reason why Linked now makes sense. Without the Limitation, you can use all of your Attack Powers at once. With it, you must use the Linked Powers together, whether or not you want to. That's why it's a Limitation.

Also, for non-Attack Powers, it means you must have one Power on in order to activate the other. Whether that's actually worth a Limitation is dependant upon what the Powers are, but it is often worth a Limitation.

This is in addition to what Von D. mentioned about Drains.

[Chris Goodwin]

Suggestion: "Naked Limitation Buyoffs" written into the rules. Act as a Constant Power, costs Endurance. Can be bought with Advantages and Limitations on them. Sort of the equivalent and opposite to a Naked Advantage. I'm going to suggest something similar for Disadvantages over in that thread as well.

[PhilFleischmann]

That said, I think that Charges needs some serious looking into. Having had the nightmare of trying to work it into HD, it's unlike just about any other Modifier. The main problem that I see with it is that it tries to do too much all in one, monolithic Modifier.

I'd love to see it split up into multiple, simpler Modifiers that follow the rules structure of all the others. Remove the "0-END" aspect of it. It's broken, points-wise, since Charges max out at +1 if the Power costs END, but max at +0 if the Power is already 0-END (which only costs +1/2 to achieve).
The way I've been doing this (which I think ought to become an official rule in 6th edition), is to simply say that a power that already costs no END gets an additional -1/2 Limitation when Charges is applied, or 1/2 less of an Advantage. Thus, use the chart as-is for powers that normally cost END, and for powers that don't cost END, 1 charge is -2 1/2. 8 charges would be -1. 16 charges would be -1/2. 32 charges would be -1/4. 64 charges would be -0. etc.

Also I think some of the Limitation charts could be modified a bit. Perhaps just as optional rules, depending on the feel of the game. These values that I've presented below seem a little more balanced with their actual utility. These are just some thoughts, that I haven't playtested.

Alternate Activation Values
Roll Lim Actual % change of success
(7- -6 16.20%) - I doubt anyone would want a roll this low.
8- -3.5 25.93%
9- -2 37.5%
10- -1.5 50%
11- -1 62.5%
12- -3/4 74.07%
13- -1/2 83.80%
14- -1/4 90.74%

I also came up with alternate values for charges, but I can't seem to find the file now. If it turns up, I'll post it. For now, suffice it to say that I think 1 use per day is probably worth a bigger Limitation than -2.

Also, in the name of granularity, you can add additional interpolated values for various Limitations (and Advantages, and even Disadvantages), such as Extra Time: One Minute is a -1.5, and Five Minutes is -2; so why not let Three Minutes be a -1.75 Limitation? Etc, for the other values and many other Limitations, such as Increased END, and Power Set-up (Dim Mak).

And I would urge you to consider the use of decimals for power modifiers, both in the writing of the book, and in allowing for the possibility of limitation values other than in multiples of -0.25. As I've mentioned on other threads before, you could easily go down to the "nickel" level, instead of the "quarter" level, thus allowing the possibility of values like -0.05, -0.1, -0.15, -0.2, etc. This allows for increased granularity, while still allowing the -0.25, -0.5, -0.75, etc., values to remain the same.

And for those of you concered about RSR, remember that a failed RSR roll does not necessarily mean that the power fails to work entirely. See the use of RSR in The Valdorian Age's magic system. Also, note that an Activation roll needs to be made every phase the power is used, while RSR is only rolled when the power is turned on. And you can also get circumstantial bonuses to the roll (such as for taking extra time, etc.).

[BobGreenwade]

Phil was just speaking of the Limitation values for Activation Roll, and while he doubts anyone would want a roll so low as 7-, there are a few cases, such as small bits of armor covering discrete locations, where the roll could go all the way down to 3 only -- take, for example, a steel cap covering just the crown of the head, which would cover Hit Location 3.

As a sidebar to two of my articles in DH (Terran Diplomatic Security Force, and The Helmet of Doctor Destroyer) I extended the Activation Roll table thus, noting that the existing Limitation doubles for every -3 to the Roll:

3: -6
4-: -5
5-: -4
6-: -3
7-: -2 1/2

Of course is Phil's altered table is used, or any other alteration, then these values would change accordingly.

Some means of mapping specific Hit Locations being covered to a roughly equivalent Activation Roll, based on the actual probability of the dice rolling the respective Hit Locations, would also be good. If you decide to schedule The Ultimate Armor (or whatever you'd want to call it under the new scheme) and want reserve it for that book I wouldn't complain (much), but there have been plenty of people creating such systems so there's clearly a desire for it.

[Gideon]

I think Linked needs to go away.

With MPA and similar constructions, we don't really need Linked anymore. And it was never terribly balanced to begin with, even though it's in the earliest edition I have. Just drop in a hole somewhere and forget about it.

I totally disagree. There are character concepts that never use MPA, but rely on linked.

I have a growth based character who couldn't function without Linked (regardless of the point value). Every power he has is bought linked to growth. Increased stats, running, defenses, etc.

I use in in a similar way to OIHID, but it really doesn't work the same way, because turning on his growth doesn't have any of the limitations needed to for OIHID. The only way to "easily stop" the character from growing, is to suppress/ drain his powers or knock him out.

There are other concepts that I have heard of that use linked in interesting ways that don't involve MPA. A density controller concept I heard of based on Mass-Master from Power Pack for example. The character gets smaller as he gets denser, so he has shrinking linked to his DI, and he becomes a gaseous cloud when he gets less dense so he has flight linked to desolid.

[CTaylor]

NEW LIMITATIONS:

DELAYED USE: With this Limitation, a power can only be used after a given period of time has passed. The power may be used immediately, but then not again until the phase after the time limit is up. The Limitation varies based on the delay between uses, based on the time chart:

Deterioration:
One Turn -1/4
One Minute -1/2
Five Minutes -3/4
Twenty Minutes -1
One Hour -1 1/4

DETERIORATION: This limitation represents a power that loses some of it's defense or body with time. This can apply to Entangle, Force Walls, or any static construct that has a defense or body, and the amount that deteriorates is given a value as follows:

Deterioration:
Loses 1 DEF or BOD/Turn -1/4
Loses 1 DEF or BOD/phase -1/2
Loses 1 DEF or BOD/segment -3/4

[PhilFleischmann]

Another issue worth considering: Limitations that are specific to a particular power, affecting the specif way in which the power works, should be considered to alter the Active Cost of the power, that is to say, they modify the Base Cost.

Examples include:

Clairsentiance with Blackout
Desolid with Can't Pass through Solid Objects
Entangle with No DEF
Images Only to Create Light
Invisibility, Not while Moving/Attacking

So, for example, Desolid with Can't Pass Through Solid Objects (-1/2) would be considered a 27 Base Points power, with an END cost of 3. This would then be further modified by Advantages and Limitations.

[CTaylor]

Like I said in the advantages section: find all the power-specific limitations and list them in the limitations section (with page references) so they're all in one spot. Easier to find them and you would be surprised to see what's out there you have missed.

And I agree with Phil's idea: some limitations should lower active cost and END. Not many, but some.

[BobGreenwade]

Another issue worth considering: Limitations that are specific to a particular power, affecting the specif way in which the power works, should be considered to alter the Active Cost of the power, that is to say, they modify the Base Cost.

Examples include:

Clairsentiance with Blackout
Desolid with Can't Pass through Solid Objects
Entangle with No DEF
Images Only to Create Light
Invisibility, Not while Moving/Attacking

So, for example, Desolid with Can't Pass Through Solid Objects (-1/2) would be considered a 27 Base Points power, with an END cost of 3. This would then be further modified by Advantages and Limitations.It would be far, far easier to just start with the lesser ability and let it be "bought up" with an Adder or Advantage.

[Tonio]

It would be far, far easier to just start with the lesser ability and let it be "bought up" with an Adder or Advantage.

I think I agree. In fact, which Limitations should lower Active Cost and END use is probably a good guide to see which parts of a Power should be turned into Advantages or Adders.

[GamePhil]

I'd like to see the Independant Limitation re-worked or possibly eliminated. Right now, the Independant Limitation, along with a few other abilities, create an odd disconnect with the game world. They disassociate points from a character, but points generally have no meaning in the game world. I think it would be better applied the majority of the time to GM given awards, rather than being used to build things that "stand on their own" otherwise. The vast majority of standalone powers could be bought in other ways, and probably should be.

So, if the GM awards a Contact, that could be bought as Independant, because it can be lost, but if the character buys a Contact, if the contact is lost the points are refunded. A captured Death Ray is Independant and can be taken away at whim. And so on. This may not be worth a Limitation, it would just be noted on the character sheet of the character possessing the reward.

Another thing I don't mind is the reward of "unspent" points to be put toward special projects. The typical example is the materials and trinkets that go into making a magical item, but it could also be favors and moneys that go into building a base (or a starship, those things get expensive), or the various resources to build a new gadget, or some form of "research points" spent to develop a new spell, all mainly in Heroic games. In these cases, the points are being used to represent how close the character is to reaching a goal, so they can have in-game meaning.

One possible use of personal points spent to buy an Independant Power is research for a Heroic game. In a game in which spells are not purchased individually but are the equivalent of a pistol in a modern Heroic level game (if you have the skills and the materials, you can cast the spell), a new spell might be added to the overall list by buying it Independant, defined as putting those points into the world's pool of magic. Likewise, you might invent a new laser pistol by doing the same. You'd see a return in having first crack at the new spell/gizmo, and might get some temporary Wealth or Reputation. The points are removed from the character and made part of the world. Likewise, some forms of lasting legacy could use such a system.

What I'd like it not used for is making an "ordinary" magic sword in a High Fantasy game, or a spell scroll, or like that. Possibly in a low-magic world or someplace where it just really takes a lot out of you.

Clear as mud, I'm sure.

[Opal]

Independent seems to fill a need for rewards that are sepparate from the character - an idea that's common in games with a treasure-hunting theme, where PCs collect wealth or special items to make themselves more powerful, instead of or in addition to gaining experience and improving themselves.

Since Hero strives to be ultimately generic, having such a mechanism isn't completely unreasonable. If a GM wants treasure hunting and the sorts of reversals of fortune that can be engineered by placing and/or taking away important items, Independant can be part of that.

It gives players the option of starting with such items, and gives such players an initial boost in power (that, eventually, will go away as the points are lost, and/or other players acquire independent points in play). It also allows players to refrain from that.

Independent can also be helpful in any game where you have some equipment or other source of power that is generally available, for similar reasons. It allows a character to start with such a power that he otherwise might not qualify for, or to start with a slightly customized version.


The original Star Hero had a similar limitation, Replaceable, that gave characters a discount for powers that were somewhat redundant along side the equipment generally available in the game. IIRC, the example was that if anyone who wanted one could pretty easily get a lasergun, the alien with laser-beam eyes wouldn't be getting the full benefit of the points invested in it, so should get a limitation.

If it came down to player preference, letting some players throw points away on more powerful Independent items, while others kept thier points by paying for items that were merely 'replaceable' could work.

[Sean Waters]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great. If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

It has a real place in character and game realisation.

[Sean Waters]

Okay, this has annoyed me for years, and I'm going to say something now.

The whole point of Requires A Skill Roll is that the Power doesn't work some of the time. If you want it to work all the time, don't buy RSR. It's that simple.

Not sure anyone is suggesting that a mechanic like RSR is not useful for the game, but it just doesn't cost the right amount: compare to activation rolls which do much the same thing.

In a FH game where spells might have from -0 to -6 (or maybe even more) on the roll, to be able to use a decent spell even 50% of the time you need a 16- roll, and you only get a -1/2 limitation.

A -1/2 as an activation roll would get you a 14- roll.

Also the more points you invest in the power the more of a limitation it becomes.

Finally (as has been pointed out) it means that some skills have to be bought to very high level - far more than any other skill - to be useful.

One option would be to simply replace RSR with activation roll, but that doesn't quite do it, as it would be nice to simulate using a spell at a lower level in order to make it easier to cast. I do think that the limitation needs carelfully looking at though, either in terms of the limitation valuie or the mechanic - or both.

[Sean Waters]

Burnout. I think this should cost the same as the base activation roll. Sure it is useful to be guaranteed one use, but that is more than balanced by potentially losing the power altogether after that.

[Sean Waters]

Can we have a limitation that simulates recharge and heat build up, please?

Basically (recharge) you have to wait a period before using the power again (you can't use extra time as written as this prevents any other attack actions while you are waiting. It could easily be based on extra time though).

Heat build up might allow one or more attacks but each would have a 'heat' cost and once it reaches a certain level means the power cannot be used (or maybe that it aquires a different limtiation like side effects, or jammed). You can do this with END Reserve - sort of - but you are then paying extra points to limit the power.

[Doc Democracy]

Can we have a limitation that simulates recharge and heat build up, please?

Basically (recharge) you have to wait a period before using the power again (you can't use extra time as written as this prevents any other attack actions while you are waiting. It could easily be based on extra time though).

Heat build up might allow one or more attacks but each would have a 'heat' cost and once it reaches a certain level means the power cannot be used (or maybe that it aquires a different limtiation like side effects, or jammed). You can do this with END Reserve - sort of - but you are then paying extra points to limit the power.

I'd always done this using charges (easily recoverable - just wait a bit and you get it back). It is all a matter of presentation as far as players go.

I tell them that they have a charge unit that powers their laser. They can use the laser as often as they wish but if they use it all the time that it will overheat. I work it that the charges take 30 seconds to recover (for example) but if they use all of the charges then it takes an hour for the first charge to recover and then 30 seconds as usual.

Never had a player complain about it.


Doc

[GamePhil]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great.


I'd much prefer that to be a character-defining moment with a Irreplacable Focus than have an artificial Limitation that only relates to the game system. I can take such a focus away just as easily, forcing the player to go to the trouble of retrieving it or begin to plan out where to spend those points.

Mean? Maybe. But not as mean as taking the points away if he fails to retrieve it, or if it is destroyed.


If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.


Which is one of the primary things I was arguing it is good for. My main concern is that it no longer be the default means for creating magic items in Fantasy games, but rather an alternative solution. If someone wants to spend points that may eventually be lost to get some oomph out of that magic sword, I say let him, but he should not have to do it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great.

Like Gamephil said, that sounds like an unbreakable and irreplacable focus. To me, Independent means you don't necessarily get the opportunity to retrieve it, and it can break or otherwise be permanently lost. To me, Focus says "I want the GM to make this power unavailable to me for periods of time during the campaign" while Independent says "It is your job to permanently eliminate those character points at some point in the campaign".

If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

Yes, you can. Without Independent. It's gear you didn't pay points for so it can be taken away at any time.

[Sean Waters]

I'd always done this using charges (easily recoverable - just wait a bit and you get it back). It is all a matter of presentation as far as players go.

I tell them that they have a charge unit that powers their laser. They can use the laser as often as they wish but if they use it all the time that it will overheat. I work it that the charges take 30 seconds to recover (for example) but if they use all of the charges then it takes an hour for the first charge to recover and then 30 seconds as usual.

Never had a player complain about it.


Doc

My problem is this: what if you want to have a gun that can only shoot every other phase? It is one thing to have a 30 second recharge - most combats are over before then. If you want a recharge significantly before then though, you are really chancing it with that build. Also you don;t need to do anything to recover the charge - the mechanic speifically allows for chrges to be ruled NOT recoverable (for instance your recoverable chareg arrows could have gotten lost in the woods or snapped).

p287 specifically says that recoverable charges should not generally be used to simulate charges that recover faster than per day.

A seperate limitation just seems cleaner.

[Sean Waters]

Like Gamephil said, that sounds like an unbreakable and irreplacable focus. To me, Independent means you don't necessarily get the opportunity to retrieve it, and it can break or otherwise be permanently lost. To me, Focus says "I want the GM to make this power unavailable to me for periods of time during the campaign" while Independent says "It is your job to permanently eliminate those character points at some point in the campaign".

OK, but either way Independent is still useful. It can, for instance, be used to give a significant temporary power boost to characters that they will not have access to after the current scenario, and do it without the arbitrary 'deus ex' I was talking about. Moreover, the deal with foci is that they are generally available. I think the whole 'indestructible irreplaceable' should go. to be replaced by Independent :) It would make the focus limtiation far more logical and consistent.

In any event it is not necessarily that the GM HAS to take it away at some point, it isn't their job to permanently remove the character points. The PC can pay off the limitaiton over time, thus allowing faster development in the short term where that is desireable, or sometimes the threat of loss, or the quest to retreive are enough to justify the cost break.

Yes, you can. Without Independent. It's gear you didn't pay points for so it can be taken away at any time.

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

[BobGreenwade]

Some of the discussion on Requires a Skill Roll makes me wonder if it might not be better off rolled together with Activation Roll. Many of the options for either Limitation could then be applied to the other (such as Burnout, or Active Point penalties), saving space while at the same time expanding build options.

[GamePhil]

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

Independent has had a stranglehold on the creation of magic items since 1st Edition FH. Although there are many methods of simulating and restricting the creation of magic items, the artificial need to force PCs to sacrifice points to do it is still around. It should be one alternative, for example in a game where that type of sacrifice is required, not the go-to method.

It is a metagame construct. If it is kept, and I am not actually arguing for not including it, I would like a better explanation of what losing "points" can mean within the game world. I think it has a place in making a "contribution to the world", and Independent points I think have use in keeping track of how close to certain goals the character might be. Otherwise, though, I don't like it's use much, as it gives artificial meaning to a game concept.

[Chris Goodwin]

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great. If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

Sure, but all you have to do is say no. I mean, don't have Wiz-Mart stores in your fantasy worlds where people can go to pick up six packs of magic wands; if you do have these, the problem is not with the mechanics.

If the player loses his non-Independent magic item, for which he has paid points, you can tell him, either you can retrieve your item, quest for or commission another one, or otherwise re-spend the points, but the latter will go slowly, as if you were spending experience (and the second won't be a walk in the park either). There's nothing about Independent that forces him to make the choice either way, except for the part about the points being spent and gone; they're gone whether he gets that item back or another one that may be less or more powerful.

That might be appropriate in a heroic game. I'm really not sure what the resistance to thsi limitation is based on.

The notion of points that go away when you spend them works if you're treating points as some kind of currency that characters exchange for goods and/or services. But it's not, even though we talk about "buying" stuff with them. They're a measure of how powerful the character is. They're a yardstick rather than a checking account. Philosophically the difference is huge, and when you try to treat them as currency you run into a big disconnect with how the rest of the system works.

A 150 point character who has bought a 35 point magic item out of his initial points is really a 115 point character with a 35 point item, and if he loses the item he's a 115 point character who is 35 over on his Disadvantages. Essentially, by being a 75 point base character with 75 points worth of Disadvantages, he's "allowed" to have up to 150 points of power.

This is all why Independent needs to go away and never return.

[Doc Democracy]

My problem is this: what if you want to have a gun that can only shoot every other phase?

Hmm. Well that would be an extra time kind of thing, or a limitation on the power that it could not fire on consecutive phases.

It is one thing to have a 30 second recharge - most combats are over before then. If you want a recharge significantly before then though, you are really chancing it with that build.

Well eight charges recovering in 30 seconds allows a SPD 4 character to fire for two full rounds out of three before the first charge comes back. That's not bad.

It would be up to the GM to decide how limited the power was by the recoverable charges.

Also you don;t need to do anything to recover the charge - the mechanic speifically allows for chrges to be ruled NOT recoverable (for instance your recoverable chareg arrows could have gotten lost in the woods or snapped).

As for the ease of recovery - I might even consider going three steps down the chart or even more depending on how quickly the charges would recover but this method works for me.

p287 specifically says that recoverable charges should not generally be used to simulate charges that recover faster than per day.

5ER I suppose - I have not yet upgraded and in FREd on page 187 it says that charges can ordinarily only be recovered when the combat has ended. My system tends to work that way.

[quote=Sean Waters;1557407] A seperate limitation just seems cleaner.

But it would have to introduce a bureacracy of its own to
count the 'heat' build up. Why introduce another bureaucracy when we have a readily available one?


Doc

[CTaylor]

Hmm. Well that would be an extra time kind of thing, or a limitation on the power that it could not fire on consecutive phases.

An official limitation that let people build this kind of power would be useful. It's all over the place in D20, I have never understood why there's no official "can only be used every x time period" limitation in the rules.

[PhilFleischmann]

And for those of you concered about RSR, remember that a failed RSR roll does not necessarily mean that the power fails to work entirely. See the use of RSR in The Valdorian Age's magic system. Also, note that an Activation roll needs to be made every phase the power is used, while RSR is only rolled when the power is turned on. And you can also get circumstantial bonuses to the roll (such as for taking extra time, etc.).
(emphasis added)

And BobGreenwade is right that Burnout and Jammed options should be added to RSR.

[GamePhil]

Sure, but all you have to do is say no. I mean, don't have Wiz-Mart stores in your fantasy worlds where people can go to pick up six packs of magic wands; if you do have these, the problem is not with the mechanics.


That's only a "problem" if you're not running the world of the Case of the Toxic Spell Dump or something similar. In those, it makes perfect sense. Although I'm not sure what that has to do with Independent.

The notion of points that go away when you spend them works if you're treating points as some kind of currency that characters exchange for goods and/or services. But it's not, even though we talk about "buying" stuff with them. They're a measure of how powerful the character is. They're a yardstick rather than a checking account. Philosophically the difference is huge, and when you try to treat them as currency you run into a big disconnect with how the rest of the system works.


They're also a yardstick of how powerful items or other individual Powers are, so I see no reason they can't be used for Powers that are separate from characters, which are Indepenedent. They're a yardstick by which you know you've got enough appropriate "stuff" to accomplish your project (or the GM knows, if they exact point count is being kept secret). I don't see how that's an unreasonable measure.


A 150 point character who has bought a 35 point magic item out of his initial points is really a 115 point character with a 35 point item, and if he loses the item he's a 115 point character who is 35 over on his Disadvantages. Essentially, by being a 75 point base character with 75 points worth of Disadvantages, he's "allowed" to have up to 150 points of power.


That is one possible use of the Limitation. Just about the least appropriate use, in my opinion, but it happens to be the default. I've tried to describe ways I'd like to see it used, I'm sorry if I've failed in that. Of course, in the case of GM rewards and not-bought-with-points Equipment, it is not really worth a Limitation, but it also doesn't matter if it's used as one.


This is all why Independent needs to go away and never return.

I doubt I'll ever agree. I do want it to be re-defined, and certainly would prefer it to be removed rather than stay in its present state.

[Sean Waters]

Independent has had a stranglehold on the creation of magic items since 1st Edition FH. Although there are many methods of simulating and restricting the creation of magic items, the artificial need to force PCs to sacrifice points to do it is still around. It should be one alternative, for example in a game where that type of sacrifice is required, not the go-to method.

It is a metagame construct. If it is kept, and I am not actually arguing for not including it, I would like a better explanation of what losing "points" can mean within the game world. I think it has a place in making a "contribution to the world", and Independent points I think have use in keeping track of how close to certain goals the character might be. Otherwise, though, I don't like it's use much, as it gives artificial meaning to a game concept.


I've got a magic sword 'GodsGrace': +2 OCV and +1d6 HKA.

SnaggleTooth has the magical sword 'ToothBreaker': +3d6 HKA against weapons.

Snaggletooth destroys GodsGrace in a fair fight.

I should be able to make another? I should get the points back in some other way?

THAT is metagaming.

My magic items are not a part of me, and do not define what I am. If they are destroyed or lost, they are gone. It was nice while it lasted, but let's move on...

[ajackson]

I should be able to make another? I should get the points back in some other way?
In just about any fantasy game, you can reasonably expect to get a new magic sword on relatively short order (within an adventure or so).

[Sean Waters]

Sure, but all you have to do is say no. I mean, don't have Wiz-Mart stores in your fantasy worlds where people can go to pick up six packs of magic wands; if you do have these, the problem is not with the mechanics.

I'm not getting how this commects to anything I said.

If the player loses his non-Independent magic item, for which he has paid points, you can tell him, either you can retrieve your item, quest for or commission another one, or otherwise re-spend the points, but the latter will go slowly, as if you were spending experience (and the second won't be a walk in the park either). There's nothing about Independent that forces him to make the choice either way, except for the part about the points being spent and gone; they're gone whether he gets that item back or another one that may be less or more powerful.

How is that realistic? If I've got hold of Stormbringer and I manage to sit on it and break it, how does that mean I should get another, or suddenly become more powerful or able to compensate?

Independent is a choice when you buy the item that way. Focus, with the assumption that a lost time will return one way or another is OK for the mundane, but for the unique it is a bit silly. If the GM ONLY uses focus or independent, i can see that causing problems, but that is a problem witht he GM rather than the game options.



The notion of points that go away when you spend them works if you're treating points as some kind of currency that characters exchange for goods and/or services. But it's not, even though we talk about "buying" stuff with them. They're a measure of how powerful the character is. They're a yardstick rather than a checking account. Philosophically the difference is huge, and when you try to treat them as currency you run into a big disconnect with how the rest of the system works.

A 150 point character who has bought a 35 point magic item out of his initial points is really a 115 point character with a 35 point item, and if he loses the item he's a 115 point character who is 35 over on his Disadvantages. Essentially, by being a 75 point base character with 75 points worth of Disadvantages, he's "allowed" to have up to 150 points of power.

This is all why Independent needs to go away and never return.

Actually a 150 point character with a 35 point (independent) magic item is really a 115 point character with a 105 point item. He's getting a lot of bang for his buck, and if it does not last forever, well, that was his choice.

People are not points. Characters are not defined simply by their abilities OR by their possessions. Jerry Cornelius is Jerry Cornelius even if he doesn't have his needle gun. Points are not currency, they are a way of balancing the abilities of PCs at a metagame level to hopefully ensure as enjoyable a game as possible. Points are ALWAYS going to be a metagame construct because, in real lfe, things are not so fair. However, as far as it goes, Independent seems to be a reasonable way to either build an indestructible but irreplaceable focus or simply to simulate rewards that are not going to last forever.

I mean, we have Charges (never recover); how big a step is it to a magic sword that is yours until it isn't any more?

[Sean Waters]

In just about any fantasy game, you can reasonably expect to get a new magic sword on relatively short order (within an adventure or so).

Sure you can get a new magic sword, but can you get one as good as the old one? If you can easily replace it, it should be built as a focus. If you can't replace it it should be built as Independent. I'm failing utterly to see why that is a problem.

[GamePhil]

I've got a magic sword 'GodsGrace': +2 OCV and +1d6 HKA.

SnaggleTooth has the magical sword 'ToothBreaker': +3d6 HKA against weapons.

Snaggletooth destroys GodsGrace in a fair fight.

I should be able to make another? I should get the points back in some other way?

THAT is metagaming.

My magic items are not a part of me, and do not define what I am. If they are destroyed or lost, they are gone. It was nice while it lasted, but let's move on...

No, that's not metagaming, unless you mean by metagaming "how the game works for everyone in every genre except Fantasy". If my pseudo-unbelievium shield gets broken, you can bet there will be something suitable to replace it (until the original gets reforged by wild coincidence and fan demand), but if I lose my magic sword that I forged with my own two hands and lovingly enchanted, I can't get another because I have to save up points for it? Even though I made it myself?

If I build a special gun that is more accurate than the norm, not only do I not usually lose points if it is lost, I probably didn't pay points in the first place. And I can build another.

As for the rest, Gandalf had a new staff when he came back. Arther got his sword back when it was broken at the bridge. Elric never even loses his sword. Most characters with magic items of significance are, in fact, in part defined by that magic, it adds to their myth. I would not use Independent for any of them.

Conan, on the other hand, didn't have such a signature item, and picked up and lost magic swords on a fairly regular basis. Doubt he paid points for any of them, though, so Independent is irrelevant for him. I don't care if the sword that can slay the Elephant God is bought Independent, because it's just a MacGuffin.

If you're going to reward items then take them away, that's fine. D&D has done that for years, and I think it can trivialise magic, but in High Fantasy it makes perfect sense. I just object to the requirement of having to put points into making them when other systems for doing that exist.

Can't imagine why you're arguing with me so much, though. I'd actually like to keep the Limitation, I just want it better defined. Odd.

[GamePhil]

Sure you can get a new magic sword, but can you get one as good as the old one? If you can easily replace it, it should be built as a focus. If you can't replace it it should be built as Independent. I'm failing utterly to see why that is a problem.

If you can't replace it, it's an Irreplacable Focus. A mechanic for that already exists, and I'm failing utterly to see why that is a problem. But if it works for you, fine, it's not like I want to see it dumped.

[Sean Waters]

Hmm. Well that would be an extra time kind of thing, or a limitation on the power that it could not fire on consecutive phases.

Extra time doesn't work well at present, for attack powers, and if we are going to make up a limitation anyway, why not define it as a seperate limitation? It has come up often enough ont he discussion boards to warrant inclusion.



Well eight charges recovering in 30 seconds allows a SPD 4 character to fire for two full rounds out of three before the first charge comes back. That's not bad.

It would be up to the GM to decide how limited the power was by the recoverable charges.

..and that would be a -0 limitation. That is not going to bother me much :)

The problem to my mind is that there is no mechanism for defining how long charges take to recover, and if you can use recoverable charges like that it makes a bit of a mockery of the charges limitation, to my way of thinking. 4 recoverable charges is what; -1/2? If you can get them back in 30 seconds that is in fact 11520 charges a day. I'm thinking not....



As for the ease of recovery - I might even consider going three steps down the chart or even more depending on how quickly the charges would recover but this method works for me.

p287 specifically says that recoverable charges should not generally be used to simulate charges that recover faster than per day.

5ER I suppose - I have not yet upgraded and in FREd on page 187 it says that charges can ordinarily only be recovered when the combat has ended. My system tends to work that way.

Recoverable charges are there to realise concept: a knife that, once thrown, cannot easily be recovered until things calm down. You might not find it. It might have got bent. Moreover you need to go and find the kife: that is not something you can normally do until all the excitement is over, or unless you take a serious risk to run out and retreive it. A slowly rechaging battery does not require that same exposure to danger.

A slow recharging batery is something very different to my mind. The cost might be exactly the same as recoverable charge but the mechanic is the important thing and this is a concept called for often enough to warrant defining it properly.



But it would have to introduce a bureacracy of its own to
count the 'heat' build up. Why introduce another bureaucracy when we have a readily available one?
Doc

Should there be a cost difference between a gun that can fire 4 times and then takes 30 seconds to cool down so that it can be fired safely and one that takes 5 minutes to cool down?

If the answer is 'yes', then recoverable charges is not doing the required job.

[Sean Waters]

No, that's not metagaming, unless you mean by metagaming "how the game works for everyone in every genre except Fantasy". If my pseudo-unbelievium shield gets broken, you can bet there will be something suitable to replace it (until the original gets reforged by wild coincidence and fan demand), but if I lose my magic sword that I forged with my own two hands and lovingly enchanted, I can't get another because I have to save up points for it? Even though I made it myself?

If I build a special gun that is more accurate than the norm, not only do I not usually lose points if it is lost, I probably didn't pay points in the first place. And I can build another.

As for the rest, Gandalf had a new staff when he came back. Arther got his sword back when it was broken at the bridge. Elric never even loses his sword. Most characters with magic items of significance are, in fact, in part defined by that magic, it adds to their myth. I would not use Independent for any of them.

Conan, on the other hand, didn't have such a signature item, and picked up and lost magic swords on a fairly regular basis. Doubt he paid points for any of them, though, so Independent is irrelevant for him. I don't care if the sword that can slay the Elephant God is bought Independent, because it's just a MacGuffin.

If you're going to reward items then take them away, that's fine. D&D has done that for years, and I think it can trivialise magic, but in High Fantasy it makes perfect sense. I just object to the requirement of having to put points into making them when other systems for doing that exist.

Can't imagine why you're arguing with me so much, though. I'd actually like to keep the Limitation, I just want it better defined. Odd.

The thing is if you don't like Independent in your game you don't need to have it. I'm simply arguing that it is a limitation with value. If you agree with that, cool. If not, also cool, but differently so.

In any given game you might not even charge anything for magic items, assuming (as DnD does) that a character of a given level will have a certain level of magic items. Not a problem with that. It is a campaign decision though and in some campaigns, independent is really useful for defining the way the world works.

[Sean Waters]

If you can't replace it, it's an Irreplacable Focus. A mechanic for that already exists, and I'm failing utterly to see why that is a problem. But if it works for you, fine, it's not like I want to see it dumped.

I'd quite like to see indestructible, irreplaceable foci dumped: the don't fit in well with the overall focus framework. Independent is ideal for an irreplaceable but indestructible 'focus'. IMO.

[Sean Waters]

(emphasis added)

And BobGreenwade is right that Burnout and Jammed options should be added to RSR.

Are you quoting yourself, Phil? Thing is The Valdorian Age is not how RSR generally works: fail the roll, the power doesn't work is how it is 'core' defined. If you want activation as an enabling mechanism for side effects, build that into the side effect mechanism, possibly as a limtied limitation (eg side effects only on 11-)

Moreover the fact that activation rolls are a much bigger problem to powers that are constant, and RSR is a much bigger problem for powers that are instant is not a selling point for me. This could and should be addressed in a single limitation: say define a cost for a given level of activation and halve or otherwise reduce the limitation value if the power is constant and only requires activation to turn on.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure you can get a new magic sword, but can you get one as good as the old one? If you can easily replace it, it should be built as a focus. If you can't replace it it should be built as Independent. I'm failing utterly to see why that is a problem.

To me, the problem is that we set the game parameters to hopefully havce reasonably balanced characters. Let's say we have two characters, both 75+75 point characters. Each wants a magic sword, and will invest 25 points in it.

Character #1 makes his Sword OAF. He gets 50 points worth of powers. The sword can be diaarmed or removed, but the player knows the sword will be back in reaosnably short order. After all, he paid for it.

Character #2 makes his sword OAF, Independent. He gets 100 points worth of powers. He gets an extra 50 points of power until the GM takes away the sword, at which time he is effectively a 50 + 75 point character, lagging 25 points behind everyone else.

Independent effectovely allows you to start with a more powerful character at the expense of ultimately becoming a less powerful character. Or, of course, it lets you be a more powerful character because the GM doesn't want to hear all the whining if the limitation is actually enforced and the points are lost permanently.

[Chris Goodwin]

Sure, but all you have to do is say no. I mean, don't have Wiz-Mart stores in your fantasy worlds where people can go to pick up six packs of magic wands; if you do have these, the problem is not with the mechanics.

I'm not getting how this commects to anything I said.

You did say....

Independent is useful. If I want to build a unique item that the character is going to have to retreive if they lose, rather than just go get another one, independent is great. If I want to reward PCs with items that can be taken away later, thus adjusting their power levels without any great deus ex intervention, I can.

It has a real place in character and game realisation.

"Rather than just go get another one" sounds like there are a lot of magic items sitting around waiting for the PCs to just pick them up. Apologies for inferring.

Still, my points (NPI) are:

* The overall system isn't built with the idea that points are something you give up in exchange for something else; nothing else in the system is built to take advantage of this notion (with the possible exception of Favors, for which see below). The Independent Limitation results in oddities like leaving character points lying around for characters to find so they don't have to use their own to make magic items (which says to me that we already recognize that the notion of permanently spending points just doesn't sit well with the rest of the system).

* The "problem" Independent was introduced to ostensibly solve isn't a problem unless the GM actively makes it one; there's never been a problem in any HERO System game, that I'm aware of, with characters churning out Foci and flooding the landscape with them. It's certainly not a problem the GM has to resort to the Independent Limitation to solve. In the Fantasy genre, magic items are infrequent enough, and important enough, that their existence is largely GM driven. Even characters starting with them take a lot of GM oversight and back-and-forth, to work into the GM's story if nothing else. If you don't want player characters to "just go get another one," don't let them. If you don't want player characters mass producing magic items, then don't let them. Requiring it to take longer, requiring special materials or tools or rituals to be found only in dusty tomes in dark towers, are all well within genre for Fantasy, and are all entirely under GM control. That's if player characters can even make them at all; they're as often named artifacts with world-shaking power, frequently existing only to give characters a quest to find them and, usually, neutralize them (again at the discretion of the GM).

I'm fond of comparing magic items to Champions gadgets, and of treating them similarly in general. If the comparison is not apt it's because Champions gadgets are even more prevalent than Fantasy Hero magic items; relatively more Champions characters start with Foci than do Fantasy characters, and a larger proportion of superheroes than Fantasy characters have the ability to originate new ones. Most superhero campaigns assume a world just like our own, with the existence of superheroes that almost explicitly don't change the world with their inventions (enough that the few exceptions draw attention to themselves through hanging a lampshade on them (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging)). In short, the notion of mass producing Foci is far less prevalent in a superhero game, despite their being more player driven there.

If the GM thinks that magic items are a problem, he's got plenty of tools without resorting to Independent to fix it.

Regarding Favors: I'll note that they appeared in the system after Independent, and I'll also note their description strongly recommends the GM award them with experience points, implying the same issues with permanently spending points as with Independent.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'd quite like to see indestructible, irreplaceable foci dumped: the don't fit in well with the overall focus framework. Independent is ideal for an irreplaceable but indestructible 'focus'. IMO.

They're well in genre for some things (Thor's hammer, the One Ring). They probably don't need more than a passing note. (And Independent doesn't equal indestructible, in any event, and shouldn't imply it.)

[ajackson]

They're well in genre for some things (Thor's hammer, the One Ring). They probably don't need more than a passing note. (And Independent doesn't equal indestructible, in any event, and shouldn't imply it.)
In fact, previous editions forbade indestructible independent foci, and given that the tradeoff for indestructible foci is that they cannot be readily replaced, the same restriction makes sense in 5e.

Incidentally, the One Ring is not an Independent focus. It's a Plot Device.

[Doc Democracy]

If the answer is 'yes', then recoverable charges is not doing the required job.

Well, like I said, for different concepts I'd be more than willing to shift the value of the recoverable charges up and down the table.

My concern is that the rules will provide a flexible system for the GM to riff with - I wouldn't want a system where everything is nailed down so tight that we need charts for this, that and the next thing.

If we need something like this then I think that we should look at what systems we have that might be suitably adapted to include more specific guidance rather than introduce yet more specific rules...


Doc

[Sean Waters]

They're well in genre for some things (Thor's hammer, the One Ring). They probably don't need more than a passing note. (And Independent doesn't equal indestructible, in any event, and shouldn't imply it.)

Focus has a mechanism for physical destruction. Independent doesn't, so there's no problem defining it as indestructible: it makes far more sense than doing it with focus, to my mind, and it should be worth more if you can permanently lose the thing in question.

[ajackson]

Focus has a mechanism for physical destruction. Independent doesn't, so there's no problem defining it as indestructible: it makes far more sense than doing it with focus, to my mind, and it should be worth more if you can permanently lose the thing in question.
Um, no. For normal foci, there is a tradeoff: indestructible items can't be broken but also can't be replaced. For independent foci, there is no tradeoff -- indestructible is strictly better than breakable.

[PhilFleischmann]

Thing is The Valdorian Age is not how RSR generally works:
AFAIK, it's the only setting book that makes extensive use of RSR, and that's how it works.

fail the roll, the power doesn't work is how it is 'core' defined.
IDHMBIFOM, but I don't believe that is the case. It says something to the effect of, "it doesn't work exactly as expected." It may still work to some extent.

And the power turned on with a RSR, does not even have to be a constant power. It could easily be an instant that can be "turned on" once and then used several times.

[Opal]

My main concern is that it no longer be the default means for creating magic items in Fantasy games, but rather an alternative solution. If someone wants to spend points that may eventually be lost to get some oomph out of that magic sword, I say let him, but he should not have to do it.I guess we can thank D&D for that. D&D is a treasure-hunting game, one of the big rewards for success in an adventure is wealth and magic items. In Hero, you pay character points for magic items (and possibly even wealth) and if you recieve some and don't dole out the points, they eventually go away somehow. Lots of incentive to adventure to get exp, little to adventure for material gain.

I prefer the Hero way, as it gives me maximum control over the definition and development of my character, but if a GM wants to emphasize treasure-hunting, then making all items independent is a way to do it, and an effective one.

For Fantasy Hero (and some other genres, like pirates or heist movies), it would be very apropriate to have one dimension of the campaign definition be "treasure hunting" vs "adventure seeking." The former would call for independent items and wealth, the latter for normal focus rules and wealth perks.

However, while it might be reasonable to /let/ characters spend thier points on items in a 'treasure hunting' game, 'making items' should mostly be a matter of spending wealth, expending special materials, and canabalizing unwanted items - all of which you went treasure hunting for.

[BobGreenwade]

AFAIK, it's the only setting book that makes extensive use of RSR, and that's how it works.Turakian Age does also, by way of the Grimoires; nearly every spell uses it. Valdorian Age stands out from those books in that VA also includes specific rules for RSR, whereas the TA setting uses the RSR rules straight from the book.

[Sean Waters]

AFAIK, it's the only setting book that makes extensive use of RSR, and that's how it works.


....by changing the core rules as to how RSR works. Sensors are detecting an anomaly...


IDHMBIFOM, I have no idea what that means :)

but I don't believe that is the case. It says something to the effect of, "it doesn't work exactly as expected." It may still work to some extent.

And the power turned on with a RSR, does not even have to be a constant power. It could easily be an instant that can be "turned on" once and then used several times.

What it says is you need to make the roll to activate the power, which means that it is either activated or not. That also means I think you are wrong about turning on an instant power and then using it multiple times as each time you turn it on is an activation, and so requires a skill roll.

Both RSR and Activation need to address, in terms of cost, the difference between instant and constant powers.

[Doc Democracy]

I have no idea what that means :)

You realise by having me type this that the original idea (time saving) is simply shifted from him to me? :)

"I dont have my book in front of me"

[cookj71]

For clarity: Ability = power+advantages+disadvantages+concept
Please ignore grammar and spelling mistakes as well.

I'm going to be critical, because well, life has told me in "analytical" situations, which rules always are, you have to be critical.
As some point a genralized item be it an adjustable wrench, or a rules book for an imagination game will be unable to perform it's intended function. That is why the HERO system has things like "STOP", and "CAUTION" on certain powers and says GMs are welcome to not allow abilities created around these features.
Every last rule change I see here is really a request for clarrification of a power, advantage, or limitation not a problem with the power. Please keep giving feedback it's needed, but I think you are just not understanding the system.
You all are trying too hard to get the HERO system to replace your imagination. From the very beginning Steven says that due to the flexibility of the system many things can be easily abused.
If someone creates an ability that a GM finds abusive then he needs to state its abusive, dis-allow it, and state an alternative. Listen to player feedback, it may change his mind. Then as GM make a final decision and move on. The best GM I have ever played under, knew how to say no to a player, let unmanagable players leave the group, and almost never said no to a concept or power. He was very clear at times that a players design of an ability had found a loophole in the system and would not be allowed. The ability was never not allowed, just certain advantages or limitations were changed or removed. Many of you see a rule/power you don't understand and instead of asking for clarrification, assume you understand it and it is broken. If something unbalances your game stop using it in it's current format or create an advesary that exploits it's weakness.
A new threat has appeared in "Fantasy Land" it is searching for and consuming all magical items and gaining power from them. As our heros investigate this they stumble across the fact that those who have items linked to their essence seem to be immune to the creatures ability to destroy it. Now everyone is scrambling for non-independent items. Example villian abilities: Dispell Magic Foci, Only Independent Foci are affected; Aid to Variable Characteristics, Linked to Dispell Magic Foci, Only if Dispell Works, Reduced return rate(5points a day), +50maximum, Can not Aid More than Actual Points of independent power. Ensure that base characterisitcs of villian are no more than a "normal" of the land. Through investigation, user cast spells, and linked items they eventually defeat the monster. To not penalize players for this major change allow them to be notified that an archmage has developed a ritual that allows unique items to be melted down and their magical essense used to create linked magic items. On defeat the villian fades into nothing and vows his return. End result in your campaign independent is rarely used anymore. The reason, as GM you allowed it to become abusive and you have now made things more managable for your style. The players now have a great adventure to remember as well. In the end everyone is happy.

PS: As GM don't screw your players. If you hate Unbreakable Focus don't allow it. If you think that even durable is too weak then come up with something in-between. Or, better yet just don't have your villians exploit something you feel can be exploited and don't allow the players to do so as well.

Cowboy

[IndianaJoe3]

Can we have a limitation that simulates recharge and heat build up, please?
I've been using, "Limited Power: Requires Cooldown" for this. The limitation is the number of phases before the power can be used again (i.e. a power that can only be used every other phase gets a -1 limitation).

[Hugh Neilson]

I've been using, "Limited Power: Requires Cooldown" for this. The limitation is the number of phases before the power can be used again (i.e. a power that can only be used every other phase gets a -1 limitation).

While I like the concept, that limitation is vastly excessive IMO. "Use every other phase" should be a much lower limitation than "Once per turn", which is also -1.

I think this can be folded in as an "extra time" variant under which only passage of time is required, no effort to activate the power.

[CTaylor]

-1 seems a bit excessive as a limitation but the game does need this kind of construct. I was thinking more along the lines of -1/4 for phase, -1/2 for turn, and doubling from then on.

[IndianaJoe3]

-1 seems a bit excessive as a limitation but the game does need this kind of construct. I was thinking more along the lines of -1/4 for phase, -1/2 for turn, and doubling from then on.
A power that can only be used every other phase is only usable half the time, so it loses half its effectiveness, right? That would be, by definition, a -1 Limitation. A power usable every third phase would get a -2 limitation, resulting in it costing 1/3 the points. I just extrapolated from there.

[IndianaJoe3]

There should be a -1/4 level of RSR. The Power would still activate if the roll was missed, but at reduced effectiveness (i.e., half power). Or, if the Power has Side Effects, they affect the character but the Power activates anyway.

[Hugh Neilson]

A power that can only be used every other phase is only usable half the time, so it loses half its effectiveness, right? That would be, by definition, a -1 Limitation. A power usable every third phase would get a -2 limitation, resulting in it costing 1/3 the points. I just extrapolated from there.

But a power that takes a full turn to activate gets only a -1 limitation. I'd say being able to fire immediately, then every other phase, is less limiting than requiring a full turn to fire, then another full turn to fire again.

Note that requiring a full turn to activate, then being available every phase, is only a -1/2 limitation.

There should be a -1/4 level of RSR. The Power would still activate if the roll was missed, but at reduced effectiveness (i.e., half power). Or, if the Power has Side Effects, they affect the character but the Power activates anyway.

To the first, let's consider a 12d6 attack. Your way gets me a -1/4 limitation, so it costs 48 points and I have a skill roll penalty of -6. Or I could buy 6d6 EB + 6d6 EB, RSR for 30 + 20 = 50 points and have a skill roll penalty of -3. Or I can make the RSR -1 per 5 AP, pay 30 + 15 = 45 and have the -6 skill roll penalty. I'm thinking we don't need a special rule for a skill roll that fails allowing half effect.

To the second, I think this would better be a modifier on side effects that they will occur if a roll is missed, but the roll has no impact on whether the power itself works.

[CTaylor]

Or from the other side, a -3/4 version that lets you activate your power, but you only get 10 active points of the power, with +10 for each 1 point you make the roll by.

[Opal]

A power that can only be used every other phase is only usable half the time, so it loses half its effectiveness, right? That would be, by definition, a -1 Limitation. A power that works half the time isn't always half as useful. An 11- activation roll for instance, works about half the time, but you never know when it's going to work or not: anytime you try to use the power, it might work or not, if it doesn't, you've wasted an action or whatever. In constrast "only works at night" is also available about half the time, but you're very much aware when it will be unavailable, and can plan accordingly - when it's available, it's as dependable as a non-limitted power. Similarly, useable ever other phase is unavailable half the time, but it's always available the first time you need it in a combat, and you can do something else on the off phases. Definitely not as limitting as 11-.

[CTaylor]

A power that can only be used every other phase is only usable half the time, so it loses half its effectiveness, right?

Yeah I know where the logic came from but a power that only works once a day is only worth a -2 limitation. Once, ever, per day. You have to work within the present framework of limitations. A power that only works 16 times per day is worth no limitation at all. That means you have to think outside terms like "half as effective" and more in terms of "how much does it actually limit the character to only be able to use this every x time period."

[Thia Halmades]

My opinion: Do away with Independent. Do away with the silly notion of giving characters character points embedded in materials that they can use to build magic items with, so they don't have to permanently spend any of their own.

If you need a way to ease the medicine, just advise that Foci work the same in Fantasy Hero as they do in Champions. If you pick up something and want to keep it, you pay the points. If you don't pay the points, your ability to keep it is at the GM's whim. If you do pay the points, you can keep the item and it becomes part of your character; if the GM later takes it away, you have to be able to either get the item back or spend the points on something else.

The idea of "wizards flooding the world with magic items built on assembly lines" is, IMO, totally bogus. We don't see gadgeteers in Champions flooding the world with blasters and force field belts and flying cars (unless the GM runs with it as a story element). Why do we assume wizards will do the same in Fantasy Hero?

Sorry, I disagree but for a weird reason. There's this idea that seems to flood old-school heroites that "everything" has to be paid for in points, from Armor to a pistol to a Zippo to a Galaxy Eating Gun. Some things make sense, some things are just things.

The Dark Champions Resource Pools do a WONDERFUL job of modeling this correctly, and I'd like to see them instituted into all heroic-setting games. That said, I disagree that just because a thing is "built" it must be paid for; and in that, I think that the Independent Limitation makes a weird amount of sense, but not 'as written.' I would abolish and simply clarify the rules for Universal Foci as to what that really means (at this level, you don't necessarily pay points, nor do you have 'Point Ownership' of an object).

In some settings, magic items really are insanely prolific (Atlantis) whereas in others they're almost nowhere to be seen (Valdorian). They're different settings that interpret foci & utilities differently; the system needs to support both sides, from "Gen Giant picks up a Man-Portable Rail Gun" to "Gen Giant buys Density Increase as a power."

[CTaylor]

Most of the benefit of independent is to push down the real cost of items so they are reasonable to buy with character points.

[Chris Goodwin]

Sorry, I disagree but for a weird reason. There's this idea that seems to flood old-school heroites that "everything" has to be paid for in points, from Armor to a pistol to a Zippo to a Galaxy Eating Gun. Some things make sense, some things are just things.

The Dark Champions Resource Pools do a WONDERFUL job of modeling this correctly, and I'd like to see them instituted into all heroic-setting games. That said, I disagree that just because a thing is "built" it must be paid for; and in that, I think that the Independent Limitation makes a weird amount of sense, but not 'as written.' I would abolish and simply clarify the rules for Universal Foci as to what that really means (at this level, you don't necessarily pay points, nor do you have 'Point Ownership' of an object).

In some settings, magic items really are insanely prolific (Atlantis) whereas in others they're almost nowhere to be seen (Valdorian). They're different settings that interpret foci & utilities differently; the system needs to support both sides, from "Gen Giant picks up a Man-Portable Rail Gun" to "Gen Giant buys Density Increase as a power."

I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with, my ninja. I agree with you that a thing that exists doesn't necessarily mean someone, somewhere paid points for it. I think the Independent Limitation as written requires someone to have paid points for a thing (in fact, they've "exchanged" their points for the thing as a fungible commodity). In fact, the only person who pays poin