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 points for it is its creator; after they're gone, the points are tied up in the item, and suddenly you have an item that somehow a character gets to keep but hasn't spent points on (and, in fact, can't spend points on -- I'm still not sure on this, because even after over 20 years I still can't wrap my !@#$%ing mind around how Independent is supposed to interact with spending points!) because it's Independent and the points are already spent. (Unless someone is suggesting that two people need to spend their points on it, in which case Independent becomes a points sink, a black hole at the center of the galaxy of Character Points -- okay, somebody stop me now. At the very least it's a logical impossibility).


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

The same thing could be accomplished by dividing the Real Cost of all items by 3, similarly to how it is an official suggestion in Fantasy Hero that you do that with spells.

[PhilFleischmann]

I just mentioned this on the Advantages thread, but I realized it should be written as a Limitation instead:

Defensive Power which Costs END based on the Attacks it Takes. This could be take on a Defensive Power that costs END (such as Force Field or Force Wall), or that doesn't cost END (such as Armor or Damage Reduction), and can be combined with Reduced END (which would apply only to the normal END cost, not to the additional END cost represented by this Limitation).

For example, one could have a Force Field that would cost, say 4 END per phase normally. With this Limitation, it would cost additional END each time the character is hit. The exact amount would depend on the amount of damage his FF absorbs. Say 1 END per BODY, or 1 END per 10 STUN, or something like that, the exact details to be worked out by Steve, or someone who's getting paid for this stuff. :D

The above Force Field could also have Reduced END: 0 END on it, which would mean that the character wouldn't have to pay the normal 4 END per phase. He could keep the FF going for as long as he wanted, without ever spending END, until he actually gets hit.

This is a way to build "star ship shields" - a topic which comes up once in a while.

[IndianaJoe3]

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.
Crunching the numbers, a -1/2 limitation on half the power works out to about the same cost as a -1/4 lim on the whole power (give or take a point). A -1/10 AP penalty on half the power and a -1/20 AP penalty on the whole power give the same penalty. So, a -1/4 RSR should have the penalty of -1/20 AP, and let the power go off at half effect if the roll fails. (Current 5e rules state that -1/20 AP is a -1/4 lim, with no change in the effects of a failed roll.) We can do it that way now with a partially limited power, but it's awkward.

[Vondy]

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.

On its face it seems that way. But advantages and limitations don't always work out that way. This is an art, not a science. When creating a new one you have to look at similiar ones already in the system (and those don't always line up comfortably), and consider the overall effectiveness in the specific campaign where it will be used before slapping a value on it. This can be impacted by playstyle and the way the GM does business as well. In this case I would ask: what is the character's speed as well? Overall - without more information to settle it in just right - I would probably peg it at - 1/2.

[Dr Archeville]

Wanted to toss in my vote for having Independent go far, far away.


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.
Isn't it? Is it not the GM's job to make sure the Limitations a Player has chosen for his character actually bite him in the ass at sometime?

[CTaylor]

I've always viewed your job as a GM with limitations to take reasonable advantage of them as the story dictates, not be held in bondage to them. In other words: if someone is likely to steal or take away an independent item then it can happen, rather than "he bought it for independent, I have to get it from him somehow."

[BobGreenwade]

I've always viewed your job as a GM with limitations to take reasonable advantage of them as the story dictates, not be held in bondage to them. In other words: if someone is likely to steal or take away an independent item then it can happen, rather than "he bought it for independent, I have to get it from him somehow."Quite so. I've always considered that it's not entirely necessary to make the character feel the full brunt of a Limitation or Disadvantage to make it worthwhile. Often just the threat of the full effect, such that it affects the character's choices, is enough. If the character (or player) starts to become cavalier about it, then it's time to ramp things up.

In the case of Independent, the object doesn't have to leave the charcter's possession permanently. It can, instead, be taken away for a period of time and then returned. During that time the character will be less powerful than his fellows, because he can't just go out and replace the ability the way he could a regular Focus -- but he can go out and get the original back. He may need to embark on a quest of some sort, but he can get it.

[Tonio]

I just mentioned this on the Advantages thread, but I realized it should be written as a Limitation instead:

Defensive Power which Costs END based on the Attacks it Takes. This could be take on a Defensive Power that costs END (such as Force Field or Force Wall), or that doesn't cost END (such as Armor or Damage Reduction), and can be combined with Reduced END (which would apply only to the normal END cost, not to the additional END cost represented by this Limitation).

For example, one could have a Force Field that would cost, say 4 END per phase normally. With this Limitation, it would cost additional END each time the character is hit. The exact amount would depend on the amount of damage his FF absorbs. Say 1 END per BODY, or 1 END per 10 STUN, or something like that, the exact details to be worked out by Steve, or someone who's getting paid for this stuff. :D

The above Force Field could also have Reduced END: 0 END on it, which would mean that the character wouldn't have to pay the normal 4 END per phase. He could keep the FF going for as long as he wanted, without ever spending END, until he actually gets hit.

This is a way to build "star ship shields" - a topic which comes up once in a while.

I, too, would like to see something like this.

One way to build something like it right now would be to make the FF (or Wall, or whatever) Instant, then buy a Trigger for it, which resets automatically, yadda yadda. That way, the FF isn't really "up" (so it's not costing any END) until it's about to be hit (when it does go UP), but it's Instant, so it only protects against that hit. Being hit again trips the trigger again, incurring more END cost, etc.

[M-3]

On Independent: I think it should stay. Unmodified. For the following reason: If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Removing it from the game entirely just removes an option and HERO won't be improved by removing options.

I think RSR should distinguish between skills that have some utility other than activating a power (Acrobatics, Mechanics) and skills that don't (the standard "Magic Skill").

On a more general note, I think it might be worth at least considering changing the way ads and limitations work to modifying a power's "cost per level" (which would require some small changes to the structure of powers as well) so that, for example, if an EB costs 5 pts per level and it's taken with 2 pts of ads and 3 pts of lims, it costs 4 pts per level.

The advantages of this would be:
a: It's easier and removes division from buying powers entirely
b: Every point worth of limitations is worth as much as the last. As it stands, each point if limitations effectively redices the worth of all the other limitations. (As it stands, if I purchase a 30 AP power with -1 wort of limitations, it ends up with a real cost of 15 - each point of limitation has effectively saved me 15 pts. If I buy it with -2 pts of limitations, it'll cost 10 pts - each point of limitations has saved me 10 pts.)

I think it's worth looking into.

[BobGreenwade]

On Independent: I think it should stay. Unmodified. For the following reason: If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Removing it from the game entirely just removes an option and HERO won't be improved by removing options.This, I think, is the best possible argument for keeping it.

[CTaylor]

I have a radical idea for powers: base the END Cost on the Real Cost of the power instead of the active cost. Why? Because most of the time, limitations on a power actually reduce it's effectiveness and real power. Sure, it's a 15D6 blast, but it only works on mice and during the full moon. Just a thought. I base mana in my fantasy hero game off the real cost of spells.

[nexus]

Suggestion: A variation or extension to Side Effects called After Effect for powers that have lingerings effects on the character (aside from damage) or Side effects that don't kick until after the power is used. Powers that that create temporary disadvantages might fall under this as well.

[Opal]

On Independent: I think it should stay. Unmodified. For the following reason: If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Removing it from the game entirely just removes an option and HERO won't be improved by removing options. I have to agree. I'd like to see some more discussion of how to use the requirement of Independent in designing a setting, and how equipment works in a campaign, to go with it.


I think RSR should distinguish between skills that have some utility other than activating a power (Acrobatics, Mechanics) and skills that don't (the standard "Magic Skill").It's pretty minor compared to the point savings for RSR, but it's worth thinking about. I'd think 'Magic Skill' should come up for things like figuring out what another magical effect is or how an artifact works or whatever. That is, they should just all be usefull skills.


a: It's easier and removes division from buying powers entirelyOK, yeah.

b: Every point worth of limitations is worth as much as the last. As it stands, each point if limitations effectively redices the worth of all the other limitations. I think this is more feature than bug. Adding another limitation to a heavily limitted power really doesn't reduce it's utility as much as adding the same limitation to a non-limitted power.

Besides, a power couldn't cost 0/increment, so you'd still reach a point where further limitations would be meaningless.

[GamePhil]

On Independent: I think it should stay. Unmodified. For the following reason: If you don't like it, you can ignore it. Removing it from the game entirely just removes an option and HERO won't be improved by removing options.


How is that a good reason, in and of itself, for the Hero people to waste word count if they should deem it not a good rule? Not only that, but with the way magic items are built, if I want to "just ignore it" I need to go through and rebuild any official magic items I want to use, making books where they're built that way less attractive to me. Hardly the simple fix you make it out to be.

Mind you, I actually would prefer Independent kept, but modified, perhaps heavily. I have no problem with keeping Independent as long as it is better discussed, releases its stranglehold on heroic level magic items, isn't used for items no one paid for, and is made more generally useful across genres. More options for it are probably in order, possibly some optional things that it could mean within a setting to have your points separated from you (if they were, indeed, your points). If that's not done, I suppose I've got some work ahead.

[casualplayer]

Isn't anyone going to address the Focus as an Advantage brouhaha? The Doubling Rule should be removed. Buying my powers through a particular special effect should not give me access to reduced cost duplication of those powers.

Any Power with a Power-specific Limitation is a good sign that the power should be turned on a lathe until only the core power remains and then you should build up from there.

I love me some RSR, which allows me to add modifiers to the Skill Roll not the least of which is attacking the characteristic that the Skill Roll is based off of. Have you ever INT Suppressed a mage who has RSR? It's vicious. Applied PRE Attack modifiers to the enemy mage's Magic Skill Roll? Complimentary Skills? It's too versatile a tool to give up.

[nexus]

I love me some RSR, which allows me to add modifiers to the Skill Roll not the least of which is attacking the characteristic that the Skill Roll is based off of. Have you ever INT Suppressed a mage who has RSR? It's vicious. Applied PRE Attack modifiers to the enemy mage's Magic Skill Roll? Complimentary Skills? It's too versatile a tool to give up.

Agreed completely.

[ajackson]

I love me some RSR, which allows me to add modifiers to the Skill Roll not the least of which is attacking the characteristic that the Skill Roll is based off of. Have you ever INT Suppressed a mage who has RSR? It's vicious.
If a mage has a 17- (modified) roll, you'll have to chop 30 points off of his Int to get him down to an 11- roll. Depending on the build, he may not even have that much Int, and as far as I know skills cannot be suppressed.

An attack nasty enough to chop off 30 points of Int is likely also nasty enough to render the mage unconscious, which is much more effective than simply screwing up his spell roll.

[nexus]

I think RSR should distinguish between skills that have some utility other than activating a power (Acrobatics, Mechanics) and skills that don't


This doesn't sound like a bad idea.

[casualplayer]

If a mage has a 17- (modified) roll, you'll have to chop 30 points off of his Int to get him down to an 11- roll. Depending on the build, he may not even have that much Int, and as far as I know skills cannot be suppressed.

An attack nasty enough to chop off 30 points of Int is likely also nasty enough to render the mage unconscious, which is much more effective than simply screwing up his spell roll.

With his 11-, if the mage tries casting anything but a cantrip he's playing with fire.

[ajackson]

With his 11-, if the mage tries casting anything but a cantrip he's playing with fire.
Only if he has Side Effects. Other than wasting an action, there's no particular cost to failing a skill roll on a power with RSR.

[CTaylor]

Well, you use END/Mana/what have you, but there's no innate damage. Most spell systems have side effects fairly common, however.

[nexus]

And blowing your action is not quite as trivial as it's being made out to be especially when magic slinging is the character's major contribution.

[ajackson]

And blowing your action is not quite as trivial as it's being made out to be especially when magic slinging is the character's major contribution.
It's not trivial, but blowing an occasional action is a lot more trivial than being unconscious.

[nexus]

It's not trivial, but blowing an occasional action is a lot more trivial than being unconscious.

If your roll is significantly reduced it's not an "occasional" action particularly if other penalties come into play. Downplay it as much as you want but IME it's a major gimp even for a mage as focused on the one being used is this example. It is as bad as being unconscious? No but that's not as bad as being dead and not being able to pull of action such as casting defensive magic can result in your character quickly being one of those previously mentioned states. RSR usually imposing a penalty to the skill roll based on the Active points of the power the character is trying to use.

[ajackson]

If your roll is significantly reduced it's not an "occasional" action particularly if other penalties come into play. Downplay it as much as you want but IME it's a major gimp even for a mage as focused on the one being used is this example. It is as bad as being unconscious? No but that's not as bad as being dead and not being able to pull of action such as casting defensive magic can result in your character quickly being one of those previously mentioned states.
Either you already had your defenses up when you got hit by the power, in which case you don't need a roll to keep them up, or your defenses were down when you got hit by the power, in which case they could have just swatted you with a big killing attack.

It's not obvious to me that Suppress is legal vs stats anyway, but if it is, Suppress Stun will generally take out a mage faster than Suppress Int.

[nexus]

Either you already had your defenses up when you got hit by the power, in which case you don't need a roll to keep them up,


Unless your are stunned, they are dispelled, the charge expiries, you need to cast another type of defense, etc...



or your defenses were down when you got hit by the power, in which case they could have just swatted you with a big killing attack.


That depends on the nature of their attacks that situation at hand. You may have had better physical defenses than against magical defense so that is why your target chose to gimp you. The character has also lost their much of their offensive punch most likely so now their opponents magical and otherwise have little to worry about and you abilty to respond, enhance your defenses, etc. is limited. Or if they have a "big killing attack" in the first place or are they trying to soften up the mage for something up or reduce his ability to act as fire support/ tactical assistance for the rest of the team.

So lets just say my play experience differs from your supposition.




It's not obvious to me that Suppress is legal vs stats anyway, but if it is, Suppress Stun will generally take out a mage faster than Suppress Int.

I think it is since it's been used in official constructs but it doesn't have to be Suppress.

And if your opponent has it, sure but EDM usable against others will take our the mage even faster. We can play "What if" and "If/then arguments all day long but that doesn't prove Suppressing Int (or whatever) doesn't screw with a character with an RSR power based on the affected Attribute. One attack being "better" doesn't render everything else useless.

[casualplayer]

My point was that RSR encourages interaction, both for good and ill, that you don't get from a pegged Activation Roll and thus it should continue to be included in the Limitation section.

[nexus]

My point was that RSR encourages interaction, both for good and ill, that you don't get from a pegged Activation Roll and thus it should continue to be included in the Limitation section.

Yep, requires a skill roll function differently from Activation roll both mechanically and game wise. Activation, IMO, works best for simulating powers that are for some reason unreliable in a manner that is constant and outside the character's control (Partial armor, unstable mutations, etc). You have to make Activation rolls phase by phase or use by use. RSR works better for abilities that real on the character in a more internal way, magic spells being the classic example. It's another tool in the kit and I don't feel it should be ditched because there is a similar one that suits other jobs better.

[CTaylor]

DELAYED USE: At present there's no real clear and clean way in the rules to have a power that only works every x time period. This is a gap, particularly in fantasy settings. The limitation shouldn't be too much, but it should matter; after all its -2 to use a power once a day, so there's your maximum structure.

RESISTABLE: Also useful for fantasy games; this allows the character to ignore part or all of a power based on a roll in addition to their defenses. Suggestion:

Ego Roll Negates -1
Ego Roll halves effect -1/2
Ego Roll -1/10 active points in power
1/2 limitation

SIDE EFFECTS: This should be looked at again, at present low powered games are really penalized with this limitation: my 2D6 flash makes me take a 10D6 blast?? There needs to either be a sliding scale based on the power level of the game (complicated) or just lower the point value max (thus, if your game is high power, the powers will trigger the "half the power level" part, but lower power level games will trigger the "minimum point" part).

[nexus]

DELAYED USE: At present there's no real clear and clean way in the rules to have a power that only works every x time period. This is a gap, particularly in fantasy settings. The limitation shouldn't be too much, but it should matter; after all its -2 to use a power once a day, so there's your maximum structure.

RESISTABLE: Also useful for fantasy games; this allows the character to ignore part or all of a power based on a roll in addition to their defenses. Suggestion:

Ego Roll Negates -1
Ego Roll halves effect -1/2
Ego Roll -1/10 active points in power
1/2 limitation


I suggest a means to make the resisting characteristic different (I could see Con and Int in particularly) maybe even a Skill.

[CTaylor]

Sure, EGO is just a suggested stat, I was just trying to give a suggestion for structure.

[BobGreenwade]

RESISTABLE: Also useful for fantasy games; this allows the character to ignore part or all of a power based on a roll in addition to their defenses. Suggestion:

Ego Roll Negates -1
Ego Roll halves effect -1/2
Ego Roll -1/10 active points in power
1/2 limitation


I suggest a means to make the resisting characteristic different (I could see Con and Int in particularly) maybe even a Skill.Saving throws! :D
SIDE EFFECTS: This should be looked at again, at present low powered games are really penalized with this limitation: my 2D6 flash makes me take a 10D6 blast?? There needs to either be a sliding scale based on the power level of the game (complicated) or just lower the point value max (thus, if your game is high power, the powers will trigger the "half the power level" part, but lower power level games will trigger the "minimum point" part).This is already done, isn't it? The amount of a Side Effect is based on the Active Points in the Power, up to a certain maximum.

[ideasmith]

Saving throws! :DThis is already done, isn't it? The amount of a Side Effect is based on the Active Points in the Power, up to a certain maximum.

Nope. Reread pages 307-308 of 5ER. The amount of a Side Effect is based on the Active Points in the Power, subject to a certain minimum.

[CTaylor]

Well there is a version, but it's too big for low end campaigns: you take the highest of two options (half or equal to the power or x) and the x is too high for low end games. I'm arguing that the x needs to either be on a sliding scale or significantly lower. Failing your saving through as a beginning mage trying to give yourself +1 DCV shouldn't blow you to smithereens.

[Gary]

I think many Power Limitations would be better reflected as Physical Limitations. Such as OIHID, Focus, and Non in X or Only in X. It would remove the scenario of a Character who is terrifyingly powerful most of the time and a weakling part of the time. This works fine in comics and stories, but is very unsatisfying in actual roleplaying IME.

[BobGreenwade]

Nope. Reread pages 307-308 of 5ER. The amount of a Side Effect is based on the Active Points in the Power, subject to a certain minimum.Quite so. I stand corrected on that.

Actually I'd just get rid of any fixed minimum/maximum on that altogether. The standard campaign damage levels will generally be reflected in the damage/effect level of the Power itself anyway.

[ajackson]

I think many Power Limitations would be better reflected as Physical Limitations. Such as OIHID, Focus, and Non in X or Only in X. It would remove the scenario of a Character who is terrifyingly powerful most of the time and a weakling part of the time. This works fine in comics and stories, but is very unsatisfying in actual roleplaying IME.
I've seen this done in several other games. It has a fairly significant problem of granularity (do you get the same limitation if you have 10 points in powers you lose, or 500?), and what it does is change the scenario to be 'moderately powerful most of the time and a weakling part of the time'.

One of the benefits of a Complication system is that, in theory, the extra hero points you get for having your Complication triggered will somewhat make up for the penalties you've acquired, and thus you'd be able to shine somewhat without having your powers. In practice, I'm not sure that actually works.

[Gary]

I've seen this done in several other games. It has a fairly significant problem of granularity (do you get the same limitation if you have 10 points in powers you lose, or 500?), and what it does is change the scenario to be 'moderately powerful most of the time and a weakling part of the time'.

One of the benefits of a Complication system is that, in theory, the extra hero points you get for having your Complication triggered will somewhat make up for the penalties you've acquired, and thus you'd be able to shine somewhat without having your powers. In practice, I'm not sure that actually works.

I think moderately powerful most of the time causes significantly fewer balance issues than terrifyingly powerful most of the time.

I will also suggest limiting the additional points from Disads to only combat related ones. Such as physical limitation, susceptibility, or vulnerability. Possibly Unluck. I don't expect many characters to have more than 50 or so pts of combat Disads, and getting more pts for a physical limitation has a real impact.

Under the new system, a starting character might have 300 + combat Disads. Non-combat disads tend to help a character as much as it hurts him since he gets more airtime if his disads come into play and it helps define the character better.

Obviously there are some issues with pricing, but that should easily be thrashed out with some thought and playtest.

[pinecone]

I think moderately powerful most of the time causes significantly fewer balance issues than terrifyingly powerful most of the time.

I will also suggest limiting the additional points from Disads to only combat related ones. Such as physical limitation, susceptibility, or vulnerability. Possibly Unluck. I don't expect many characters to have more than 50 or so pts of combat Disads, and getting more pts for a physical limitation has a real impact.

Under the new system, a starting character might have 300 + combat Disads. Non-combat disads tend to help a character as much as it hurts him since he gets more airtime if his disads come into play and it helps define the character better.

Obviously there are some issues with pricing, but that should easily be thrashed out with some thought and playtest.

That has some interesting thoughts...maybe use the "Hero points" type Disadds for the personal tragidy lims and use traditional lims for "Combat" lims....that might help with the Heroic vs Super issues with lims....If Atom smasher is hunted by a evil mastermind, thats business as usual. But if Biff O'Malley is hunted by an evil org he is Toast. Heroics are so much more fragile that they just can't live through many of the lims, so they can take the less fierce "Hero points" type lims and stay alive...

[ajackson]

Even for combat disads, there's something to be said for Complications, mostly because frequency of appearance is hard to measure for many disadvantages. Disad systems work best for problems that are likely to show up in most sessions.

[nexus]

Sure, EGO is just a suggested stat, I was just trying to give a suggestion for structure.

Sorry, guess I was getting a little pedantic there.

[MPT]

A number of points on Extra Time

I think that an option is needed where the character must spend a certain amount of time to activate the power but they do not have to use that time continuously.

For instance, if you need to create a voodoo doll of someone to make a power work we may say that this takes a full turn to do. Now if they are attacked during this time there is no reason why they could not attack back and then finish making the doll afterwards - their attack has not made the doll suddenly disintigrate, it is still as it was before the attack.

This seems to be equivalent in some ways to a 'can not be interrupted' option for this Limitation which I think would be a 1/4 less limitation, or possibly a -1 Step.


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).

I have been following this discussion and wonder if this could be handled as an option for the 'Extra Time' limitation that already exists? Where it seems to differ is...

a) With 'Extra Time' you must declare that you are activating the power on one phase but it does not activate until later.

b) During the 'Extra Time' the power can be disrupted.

This, to me, could be done by a x1/2 Modifier to the existing Limitation...

Cooldown: (x1/2) Once the power has been activated and the power has finished acting (e.g. a Continuing Charge has ended), the character may not start to activate the power again until the period of time selected on the Extra Time Table.

If the delay can be disrupted in some manner then increase the value on the Extra Time Table by 1 step. (e.g. If it takes 1 Minute to cooldown (normally -1 1/2) and this can be disrupted then use the 5 Minute value (-2) instead.

If a character want the activation to also take Extra Time then add together both values in 'real time' and use that value for the Extra Time Table (e.g. If the Cooldown period is 4 Segments the activation time is 8 segments then this is 12 segments in total so the '1 Turn' value is used.)

[MPT]

Charges

I like the idea of removing the '0 END' aspect of them and adding it on as an option.

Breakable Foci

I think that this should be an extra limitation as it means that there is another way in which the character can loose the use of that foci for the period of the current combat. I think it should be a +1/4, the equivalent of an 'Accessible' foci.

Independent Foci

I say keep the 'Independent' option as I think that it gives an extra option to the players for 'artefact' type devices. If you don't like it, don't allow it, but keep it around for those of us that do.

Inaccessible Foci

Maybe it is just my bad GMing but I have never found this limitation to be an actual limitation. For it to become relevant generally means that the character must either be ambushed away from all the other characters (which means that the other players have less to do whilst the combat takes place) or the character is in a party in which every member of that party is killed or knocked out (hardly ever happens).

I am coming to the conclusion that an Inaccessible Foci should not affect the Foci cost, unless it can be destroyed in some way during combat, and should only be included in 6th as a foci option without a cost benefit.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Breakable Foci
I think that this should be an extra limitation as it means that there is another way in which the character can loose the use of that foci for the period of the current combat. I think it should be a +1/4, the equivalent of an 'Accessible' foci.
This is already handled by the Durability aspect of Foci.

- Klaus

[PhilFleischmann]

Another Limitation for inclusion in the main rulebook:

The "Window of Opportunity" Limitation from FH (IIRC).

[Klaus Mogensen]

Even for combat disads, there's something to be said for Complications, mostly because frequency of appearance is hard to measure for many disadvantages. Disad systems work best for problems that are likely to show up in most sessions.
Exactly. I think you should only get character points for disads that make you weaker; not for things that complicate your life. Complications should either give hero points or nothing at all (it is reward enough to get more air time).

In earlier posts I have suggested going one step further and not distinguish between Complications and Perks. The same background trait can work as both complication and perk; e.g. having a contact or group affiliation can have its advantages, but the contact or group may also make demands of you. You would get hero points whenever such a trait caused complications and have to pay hero points whenever you want an advantage from it.

- Klaus

[casualplayer]

Triumphing, despite your limitations, is the definition of a hero.

[nexus]

You would get hero points whenever such a trait caused complications and have to pay hero points whenever you want an advantage from it.

- Klaus

I've adopted a similar system but only for minor bits I call Quirks. Full blown Disadvantages still get points at char gen and are rarely if every "Positive". Quirk are fairly neutral and can go either way if the Player wants to receive a Hero Point or pay one.

[CTaylor]

At the beginning of the advantages section, Steve Long asked if Time Delay should be dumped since it's little more than a glorified trigger. I think it should be folded into trigger as an example, but the name could be kept for a concept I mentioned and was discussed earlier but didn't get into detail on.

A concept that is rare in superheroic genres but is more common in sci fi, pulp, and fantasy is the power that can be used only so often. Not necessarily limited in times per day, but by a delay before re-use. Such as the gun that needs a few seconds to cool down before firing again, or the dragon that can only breathe fire once every minute.

This is worth something of a limitation, but needs to be patterned close to charges because it is a very similar concept, from the other direction. In fact, it could be a subsection of charges, depending on how it was done.

I suggest this kind of pricing as a base:
-1/4: Once per phase (only for any power that ordinarily can be used more than once a phase)
-1/2: Once per turn
-3/4: Once per minute
-1: Once per five minutes
-1 1/4: Once per twenty minutes
-1 1/2: Once per hour
-1 3/4: Once per Six Hours
-2: Once per day

And so on. This limitation could be halved for continuous powers. Any power that has reached this time limit can be used at once, but need not be, once it is used, the time limit counter starts again, and it can only be used the phase following the time limit. As you can see, the limitation ends up at once per day exactly the same as charges.

[Tonio]

At the beginning of the advantages section, Steve Long asked if Time Delay should be dumped since it's little more than a glorified trigger. I think it should be folded into trigger as an example, but the name could be kept for a concept I mentioned and was discussed earlier but didn't get into detail on.

A concept that is rare in superheroic genres but is more common in sci fi, pulp, and fantasy is the power that can be used only so often. Not necessarily limited in times per day, but by a delay before re-use. Such as the gun that needs a few seconds to cool down before firing again, or the dragon that can only breathe fire once every minute.

This is worth something of a limitation, but needs to be patterned close to charges because it is a very similar concept, from the other direction. In fact, it could be a subsection of charges, depending on how it was done.

I suggest this kind of pricing as a base:
-1/4: Once per phase (only for any power that ordinarily can be used more than once a phase)
-1/2: Once per turn
-3/4: Once per minute
-1: Once per five minutes
-1 1/4: Once per twenty minutes
-1 1/2: Once per hour
-1 3/4: Once per Six Hours
-2: Once per day

And so on. This limitation could be halved for continuous powers. Any power that has reached this time limit can be used at once, but need not be, once it is used, the time limit counter starts again, and it can only be used the phase following the time limit. As you can see, the limitation ends up at once per day exactly the same as charges.

This can currently be done by using an END Reserve. Buy the Reserve to have exactly enough END in it for a single use of the power, and exactly enough REC so that it all comes back by the time limit desired (if the frequency of use is measured in Phases (rather than Turns or longer), the GM option to pro-rate the recovery is useful). Take the Double Endurance Cost Limitation on the power if it's not meant to be 0 END.

For example:

75 Breathe Fire: Energy Blast 15d6, Area of Effect (16" Cone; +1) (150 Active Points); No Range (-1/2), Double Endurance Cost (-1/2) [Endurance Cost: 15]
16 Endurance Reserve (15 END, 15 REC) (16 Active Points)

That's usable at any point in time, but then requires a Turn to recover enough to be usable again.

Workable, but clunky. I definitely agree this should be made into its own Limitation, especially considering how badly this works for low-END-cost powers (because of the 1/10 cost of END Reserve's END).

[AnotherSkip]

The main reason I don't like buying a power to in essence limit another power is because you are in essence paying points for a limitation, not wise when you can get "more" by paying "less".

[Chris Goodwin]

The main reason I don't like buying a power to in essence limit another power is because you are in essence paying points for a limitation, not wise when you can get "more" by paying "less".

"Paying to suck."

[ajackson]

The main reason I don't like buying a power to in essence limit another power is because you are in essence paying points for a limitation, not wise when you can get "more" by paying "less".
You can typically save points if you buy the power with increased END cost; a 60 active point power at x10 END cost, plus a 60 point END reserve with a recovery of 1, costs 19 points (vs 20 points for 1 charge) and is usable every 12 minutes. However, this tends to require ugly math in character creation and is probably abusive, so a cleaner method would really be nice.

[Tonio]

The main reason I don't like buying a power to in essence limit another power is because you are in essence paying points for a limitation, not wise when you can get "more" by paying "less".

I can see why it'd look like that, but what you're really doing is shifting some of the points from the power to the END Reserve. You're getting a Limitation on your power (Double Endurance Cost), which is getting you points back, some of which you're spending on an END Reserve. A standard 15d6 EB, AoE: Cone, No Range would cost you 100pts. The "limited version", which takes a Turn to recover, built with Double Endurance Cost and an END Reserve, costs 91pts, total (75 for the EB, 16 for the END Reserve). So you're not really paying more. Of course, if you leave out the Double Endurance Cost, you'd be paying 16 more points... but then you'd have a power which doesn't cost you any personal END to use, so you'd have to compare it to a 0 END power (125 pts for the Cone EB above... compared to 116 for the "1 Turn cooldown" version).

I'm still not defending this as "the Right Way", partly because it's a little more complicated than it should (I don't mind this too much, but I can see how it could be undesirable), but mostly because of the coarse granularity with END Reserve's 1:10 cost.

[Hugh Neilson]

I can see why it'd look like that, but what you're really doing is shifting some of the points from the power to the END Reserve. You're getting a Limitation on your power (Double Endurance Cost), which is getting you points back, some of which you're spending on an END Reserve. A standard 15d6 EB, AoE: Cone, No Range would cost you 100pts. The "limited version", which takes a Turn to recover, built with Double Endurance Cost and an END Reserve, costs 91pts, total (75 for the EB, 16 for the END Reserve). So you're not really paying more. Of course, if you leave out the Double Endurance Cost, you'd be paying 16 more points... but then you'd have a power which doesn't cost you any personal END to use, so you'd have to compare it to a 0 END power (125 pts for the Cone EB above... compared to 116 for the "1 Turn cooldown" version).

I'm still not defending this as "the Right Way", partly because it's a little more complicated than it should (I don't mind this too much, but I can see how it could be undesirable), but mostly because of the coarse granularity with END Reserve's 1:10 cost.

There's probably a sweet spot with higher Increased END multiples in there somewhere...

3x END means the Eb costs 60. Now I need a 45 point battery (5) and 45 REC (45).

Nope - 110 points

But if it's a 30d6 EB (also 150 points), I make it 2x END (-50 points), 30 point battery (3) with 30 REC (30) for a 17 point savings instead of your 9 point savings.

[CTaylor]

Or :) you could just come up with a limitation like I built that saves points because the power is less useful.

[ajackson]

The sweet spot for END cost, assuming an END reserve, no multipower, and no other power limitations, is dependent on (10* charges recovered/turn + 1* charges available), and is:
34+: x1
17-33: x2
10-17: x3
4-9: x4
3: x6
2: x8
1: x10

[Tonio]

Or :) you could just come up with a limitation like I built that saves points because the power is less useful.

Oh certainly! Like I said, I'm not suggesting the Limitation is a bad idea because you can currently do this. I'm saying you can currently do this (like, for example, if you want to build a power like this now, and are reluctant to make up a Limitation for it, like I am (I'm weird like that, I know :()), but it's clunky, and a new Limitation would be much better. =)

[PhilFleischmann]

I realize there's another reason for possibly re-thinking the way Advantages and Limitations are applied, and it deserves mention on this thread, since it directly pertains to the effect of limitations.

Many Limitations on a single power have rapidly diminishing returns, even when each one is just as limiting as it would be by itself. I note many of the spells listed in the FHG 1&2, and powers in USPD.

For example, a spell might be constructed as a 60-AP power, with several limitations: OAF, RSR, G&I, Conc, etc. Let's see how much these Limitations "cost":

60 Active

Lims Cost Savings
-0.25 48 12
-0.5 40 8
-0.75 34 6
-1 30 4
-1.25 27 3
-1.5 24 3
-1.75 22 2
-2 20 2
-2.25 18 2
-2.5 17 1
-2.75 16 1
-3 15 1
-3.25 14 1
-3.5 13 1
-3.75 13 0
-4 12 1
The last -0.5 of Lims would cost only 1 point to buy off, even though they're just as limiting as the first -0.5 which takes 20 points to buy off. There are many examples in the published books like this.

On thing that might help to aleviate this problem is to allow Advantages and Limitations to "cancel out". Thus if you have a power of say 60 base points, +0.5 in Advantages and -2 in Limitations, it would be treated as 60 points with -1.5 Limitation.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Many Limitations on a single power have rapidly diminishing returns, even when each one is just as limiting as it would be by itself.
(...)
On thing that might help to aleviate this problem is to allow Advantages and Limitations to "cancel out". Thus if you have a power of say 60 base points, +0.5 in Advantages and -2 in Limitations, it would be treated as 60 points with -1.5 Limitation.
A method that includes that includes this is to use a logarithmic table of multipliers and divisors like described here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571357&postcount=275) (the second table). This will make a 30-point power with a +1 and a +½ advantage cost the same as a 60-point power with a +½ advantage. It will also get rid of the diminishing returns of multiple limitations.

- Klaus

[Hugh Neilson]

I realize there's another reason for possibly re-thinking the way Advantages and Limitations are applied, and it deserves mention on this thread, since it directly pertains to the effect of limitations.

Many Limitations on a single power have rapidly diminishing returns, even when each one is just as limiting as it would be by itself. I note many of the spells listed in the FHG 1&2, and powers in USPD.

For example, a spell might be constructed as a 60-AP power, with several limitations: OAF, RSR, G&I, Conc, etc. Let's see how much these Limitations "cost":

To some extent, these also have diminishing impact. If you don't have your OAF, then you have lost nothing if you can't gesture and incant, and you won't be concentrating since you can't activate the power anyway. In other words, having that OAF also limited the frequency with which the other limitations will come into play.

[PhilFleischmann]

A method that includes that includes this is to use a logarithmic table of multipliers and divisors like described here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571357&postcount=275) (the second table). This will make a 30-point power with a +1 and a +½ advantage cost the same as a 60-point power with a +½ advantage. It will also get rid of the diminishing returns of multiple limitations.

- Klaus
Yes, I remember that. It's pretty much like just applying each Limitation (or Advantage) separately. Two -1 lims would be [X/(1+1)]/(1+1).

[Balabanto]

Focus and Powered Armor might need to become separated. Many people think that Focus doesn't adequately represent more "modern" suits of powered armor.

Below, I present some alternative solutions

1) Powered Armor takes a -1/4 limitation. This limitation effectively says as follows: These powers can be destroyed as per the focus limitation, and follow the rebuilding rules for it.

2) The variant of above: Powered Armor takes a -1/2 Limitation. This limitation effectively says as follows: These powers are always attacked, as per the rules for the focus limitation. Every shot hits the character, so every attack needs to be compared against the resistant defense of the armor to determine if powers are destroyed. (I actually use this. It's really quite balanced. Plus, it actually creates a lot of the scenes that you see in comics where the powered armor character is fighting with damaged armor, etc.)

3) Powered Armor is a special effect. That's all. Take disadvantages to represent what happens when the character is not in armor.

[Markdoc]

Yes, I remember that. It's pretty much like just applying each Limitation (or Advantage) separately. Two -1 lims would be [X/(1+1)]/(1+1).

Yeah, but however geek-chic it might be, I find myself doubting that a requirement for log tables or formulae like this are going to broaden Hero system's appeal.

cheers, Mark

[ajackson]

Yeah, but however geek-chic it might be, I find myself doubting that a requirement for log tables or formulae like this are going to broaden Hero system's appeal.
Well, if you can replace the multiplication and division with addition, subtraction, and a fairly easy lookup table, you might get away with it.

[ideasmith]

1) Powered Armor takes a -1/4 limitation. This limitation effectively says as follows: These powers can be destroyed as per the focus limitation, and follow the rebuilding rules for it.

How would this differ from Physical Manifestation?

[Balabanto]

Because physical manifestation does not follow the rules for focus. :)

The rules for focus are consistent and not broken. That means you have to aim at the character with a -2 penalty if you want to destroy his "Device."

If they take the -1/2 version, there is no penalty if you want to destroy his device, you just compare the body total against resistant defense if the attack hits.

[ideasmith]

Because physical manifestation does not follow the rules for focus. :)

The rules for focus are consistent and not broken. That means you have to aim at the character with a -2 penalty if you want to destroy his "Device."

If they take the -1/2 version, there is no penalty if you want to destroy his device, you just compare the body total against resistant defense if the attack hits.

So far, the only differences between your suggested new modifier and physical manifestation are a -2 penalty to hit and an new -1/2 version. One shouldn't add a new modifier when expanding an old one will do the job. I still don't see why expanding physical manifestation doesn't do the job.

[Balabanto]

Because Physical Manifestation is broken. :) It does not accurate simulate what Powered Armor does, namely, cover a man in an object.

Technically, the -1/4 version of this would be very rare, as it would be armor with built in self repair, or armor with some sort of redundancy backup circuits, and ablative limitations are kinda silly.

What you want to do is defeat the "Powered Armor is Broken" whiners (Of which every GM does at some point or another), while at the same time undoing the flaw in the focus limitation, which is the -2 to hit. You can't have a penalty to hit if hitting any part of the armored character at all creates the same result, because powered armor has a tendancy (See Iron Man if you don't believe me) to cover the character's entire body. Under the current rules, half the scenes in Iron Man can't happen, because direct hits don't deal damage to the armor frame. This balances the fact that having a -1/2 limitation on almost everything is very powerful, yet keeps things in line with everything else, AND uses common sense.

The real problem here is that under the current rules (And pretty much since 4th edition), Powered Armor is "An Object Which is Not a Focus." Physical manifestation is not for objects, it's for energy sources and effects.

[ideasmith]

Because Physical Manifestation is broken. :) It does not accurate simulate what Powered Armor does, namely, cover a man in an object.

Technically, the -1/4 version of this would be very rare, as it would be armor with built in self repair, or armor with some sort of redundancy backup circuits, and ablative limitations are kinda silly.

What you want to do is defeat the "Powered Armor is Broken" whiners (Of which every GM does at some point or another), while at the same time undoing the flaw in the focus limitation, which is the -2 to hit. You can't have a penalty to hit if hitting any part of the armored character at all creates the same result, because powered armor has a tendancy (See Iron Man if you don't believe me) to cover the character's entire body. Under the current rules, half the scenes in Iron Man can't happen, because direct hits don't deal damage to the armor frame. This balances the fact that having a -1/2 limitation on almost everything is very powerful, yet keeps things in line with everything else, AND uses common sense.

The real problem here is that under the current rules (And pretty much since 4th edition), Powered Armor is "An Object Which is Not a Focus." Physical manifestation is not for objects, it's for energy sources and effects.

Buried in this post are a couple of points which you might have mentioned earlier in this conversation.

Yes, power armor should take damage when the character gets hit. However, the Limitation which does this should be called something like 'Takes Damage When Character Hit', rather than something that implies a specific special effect.

Yes, power armor shouldn't be a Focus just because the armor is an object. This exemplifies why Power elements shouldn't be named after specific special effects. If Focus had been called 'Gets Taken Away', there might not have been any power armor problem.

On the other hand, going by the examples on page 302 in 5ER, Physical Manifestation most definately is for objects.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Well, if you can replace the multiplication and division with addition, subtraction, and a fairly easy lookup table, you might get away with it.
I have one (or rather two) here (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1571357&postcount=275).

- Klaus

[BobGreenwade]

I'd keep the Focus rules as-is for the main rulebook, at least regarding powered armor; let this new rule, or something like it, show up in The Ultimate Armor (or the Hero System Book of Armor, or whatever it ends up being called).

[Balabanto]

Buried in this post are a couple of points which you might have mentioned earlier in this conversation.

Yes, power armor should take damage when the character gets hit. However, the Limitation which does this should be called something like 'Takes Damage When Character Hit', rather than something that implies a specific special effect.

Yes, power armor shouldn't be a Focus just because the armor is an object. This exemplifies why Power elements shouldn't be named after specific special effects. If Focus had been called 'Gets Taken Away', there might not have been any power armor problem.

On the other hand, going by the examples on page 302 in 5ER, Physical Manifestation most definately is for objects.

A suit of armor usually requires the power Armor, which usually has the additional requirement of being visible. A limitation that is not a limitation is worth no points, so no, you can't use Physical Manifestation to represent it.

[Chris Goodwin]

A suit of armor usually requires the power Armor, which usually has the additional requirement of being visible. A limitation that is not a limitation is worth no points, so no, you can't use Physical Manifestation to represent it.

:confused: Physical Manifestation is more than just Visible. It's got its own set of issues. I'd say yeah, you can use Physical Manifestation for Armor.

[Tonio]

A suit of armor usually requires the power Armor, which usually has the additional requirement of being visible. A limitation that is not a limitation is worth no points, so no, you can't use Physical Manifestation to represent it.

First off, Armor isn't Visible by default. Second, neither Focus nor Physical Manifestation make a power Visible. A character whose skin becomes hard as metal when he's wearing a magical amulet has Armor, with a Focus, without Visible. A character who is covered by an invisible field of force, which can be attacked, and break, has Armor, with Physical Manifestation, without Visible. A traditional Powered Armor, though, is probably not Physical Manifestation, since a power whose Physical Manifestation is broken can simply be re-started, while a Powered Armor would be broken, and would need to be taken back to the shop to fix.

Powered Armors are fun to build as Vehicles, though!

[ideasmith]

A suit of armor usually requires the power Armor, which usually has the additional requirement of being visible. A limitation that is not a limitation is worth no points, so no, you can't use Physical Manifestation to represent it.

Let's see...

1. There is no rule requiring the special effect 'armor' to be represented with any particular power.

2. The power Armor is by default Invisible, no matter what special effect it is intended to represent.

3. Physical Manifestation has no effect on a powers visibility. A broken physical manifestation requires a 0-phase (at least)to turn back on. This limits the power whether it is visible or not.

As far as I can tell, your statement here makes no sense whatsoever.

[Balabanto]

First off, Armor isn't Visible by default. Second, neither Focus nor Physical Manifestation make a power Visible. A character whose skin becomes hard as metal when he's wearing a magical amulet has Armor, with a Focus, without Visible. A character who is covered by an invisible field of force, which can be attacked, and break, has Armor, with Physical Manifestation, without Visible. A traditional Powered Armor, though, is probably not Physical Manifestation, since a power whose Physical Manifestation is broken can simply be re-started, while a Powered Armor would be broken, and would need to be taken back to the shop to fix.

Powered Armors are fun to build as Vehicles, though!

A character who is covered in an invisible field of force should have a 0 END Persistent Force Field. A power should never be allowed to substitute for a different power. That's gaming the system.

You should never allow someone to build their powered armor as a vehicle. That is also gaming the system.

As for Ideasmith's comments:

Let's not focus on the rules for a minute. Let's focus on common sense. Stop gaming the system and start playing the game.

1) If Armor is invisible, what sense groups is it visible to? Read the rules carefully. It has to be visible to three.

2) This statement is inherently fallacious. The power "Armor" is persistent. That doesn't mean it's inherently invisible. Invisible Power effects are a power advantage. You have to pay for that. This is why a guy who has an invisible force field has to pay for Force Field. O End. Persistent, Invisible to all sense groups.

3) This is not a sufficent enough limitation for a powered armor character, as when the armor is broken, he can't repair it right away. Everything you've talked about so far games the system instead of playing the game.

A limitation that is not a limitation is worth no points. By your logic, I should be able to take a -1/4 limitation and gain several points worth of advantages for free. The system doesn't work this way. Stop farming the math.

The reason why it can't work this way is this simple. You have to aim at a focus at -2 to hit it. However, powered armor covers the character's entire body, so by definition, every shot that hits the armor has to be applied against the character's resistant defense. If that number is exceeded, things in the armor break. The reward for playing a cool comic book archetype is a free elimination of a penalty? That defies common sense, too. And this would mean that technically, I would have to aim at the armor (Which encases the character) instead of the character. With 99 percent of the attacks in the game, any GM will tell you that you are crazy, that the system cannot possibly work this way, and start making house rules.

This is why Powered Armor needs to be it's own limitation, or set of limitations, because the penalties tend to outweigh the rewards of it if the rules are taken exactly as written.

[nexus]

As far as Armor and Visibility goes

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1600365&postcount=2

Just to confirm. Of course, anyone can agree or disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to use Armor to represent an invisible skin tight "force field" sfx. IIRC, it's been done in official characters. No Power has an innate special. Another point for removing sfx connotations from mechanical terms if at all possible.

Personally, I think the "visible" limitation needs to be reworded or loosened up. It leads to a lot of confusion. Generally, in practice it seems to mean "the effect/source of the power is obvious to casual observation" Casual in this sense meaning that it doesn't require special abilities (such as enhanced senses, detects or skill use) to confirm. Three sense groups should probably more more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, IMO.

[Tonio]

A character who is covered in an invisible field of force should have a 0 END Persistent Force Field. A power should never be allowed to substitute for a different power. That's gaming the system.

You conviniently ignore half of my power description... the field can break when attacked. A 0END Persistent Force Field doesn't break when attacked. Moreover, Armor more accurately describes Invisible, Persistent Resistant defenses, since FF is neither Persistent (it's not even 0 END) nor Invisible. You shouldn't get hung up on the names of Powers... "Force Field" isn't a field of force, it's Resistant Defenses which are Visible and cost END.


You should never allow someone to build their powered armor as a vehicle. That is also gaming the system.

How is that gaming the system? How is it any different than building any other sort of vehicle? If your concept allows for the disadvantages of building the suit as a vehicle, why is it somehow bad?

[CTaylor]

This is drifting a bit far afield from limitations discussions, maybe you might want to slip the conceptual discussion of armor to just plain hero discussion or champions.

[Balabanto]

You conviniently ignore half of my power description... the field can break when attacked. A 0END Persistent Force Field doesn't break when attacked. Moreover, Armor more accurately describes Invisible, Persistent Resistant defenses, since FF is neither Persistent (it's not even 0 END) nor Invisible. You shouldn't get hung up on the names of Powers... "Force Field" isn't a field of force, it's Resistant Defenses which are Visible and cost END.



How is that gaming the system? How is it any different than building any other sort of vehicle? If your concept allows for the disadvantages of building the suit as a vehicle, why is it somehow bad?

There is NO disadvantage to building the suit as a vehicle. A x5 cost multiplier is not a disadvantage, ever. The character can't even take damage himself, he's effectively invulnerable and invincible, and as long as the suit has 1" of teleport, defensive only, no one can teleport in and yank him out of the vehicle either.

The real disadvantage to that is "Fellow players will kill you." I know no one in my group wants to play when your character is 350 points and the other guy has 150 points of skills, characteristics and a 1000 point vehicle. But that's not built into the system, that's built into the type of people you play with.

The system was not meant to be gamed that way. I don't know of a single champions GM (and I know many) who would allow someone to buy their powered armor as a vehicle. You're the first person I've ever heard of who would willingly allow that construction. I would really love it if Steve Long would say:

DO NOT BUILD YOUR POWER ARMOR AS A VEHICLE, IT'S UNFAIR TO YOUR FELLOW PLAYERS.

But it's unlikely that he will.

In order to "Break" a power in Champions, you must exceed it's resistant defense and deal one point of body to it, according to the rules under the Focus limitation. In order to break a defensive power, you must deal double the resistant defense of the object and deal a point of body to it.

By the way, this also proves why building your powered armor as a vehicle is broken, because you roll on the vehicle hit location table for what happens to your vehicle. The powered armor guy who doesn't build his flight as a vehicle, if he gets hit, he loses his flight. It cuts out, pfft, gone. The guy who builds it as a vehicle loses 5" of movement when the Vehicle Hit Location Table is used, and he doesn't actually suffer any damage from the attack, except the bleedover points of body if he actually manages to punch a hole in the vehicle. This is made even more broken by the fact that the vehicle can have a separate force field for the people inside, which basically insures that the powered armor guy who builds his character as a vehicle never takes a single point of damage. I've run Champions since 1981, and run the same game world since 1987. Trust me when I say this is broken.

This is why Power Armor needs to have a separate limitation value. Without it being a focus, technically, you can't break it at all. This is a contradiction in the rules vis a vis destroying Foci, which is why I put it here rather than somewhere else.

[ideasmith]

Let's not focus on the rules for a minute. Let's focus on common sense. Stop gaming the system and start playing the game.

1) If Armor is invisible, what sense groups is it visible to? Read the rules carefully. It has to be visible to three.

2) This statement is inherently fallacious. The power "Armor" is persistent. That doesn't mean it's inherently invisible. Invisible Power effects are a power advantage. You have to pay for that. This is why a guy who has an invisible force field has to pay for Force Field. O End. Persistent, Invisible to all sense groups.

3) This is not a sufficent enough limitation for a powered armor character, as when the armor is broken, he can't repair it right away. Everything you've talked about so far games the system instead of playing the game.

Since this discussion has become clearly innapropriate for this thread, I will reply at this link: http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1601005#post1601005.

[Tonio]

There is NO disadvantage to building the suit as a vehicle. A x5 cost multiplier is not a disadvantage, ever. The character can't even take damage himself, he's effectively invulnerable and invincible, and as long as the suit has 1" of teleport, defensive only, no one can teleport in and yank him out of the vehicle either.

Sure there's a disadvantage... vehicles can break, they can be taken away, etc. Just like any other vehicle. And if adding 1" teleport, defensive only, is unbalancing, then don't allow it.


The real disadvantage to that is "Fellow players will kill you." I know no one in my group wants to play when your character is 350 points and the other guy has 150 points of skills, characteristics and a 1000 point vehicle. But that's not built into the system, that's built into the type of people you play with.

So don't allow a 1000 point vehicle. I don't know many GMs who'd allow a 1000 point vehicle, whether it's a Powered Armor or a Batmobile, in a 350pt game.


The system was not meant to be gamed that way.

Your opinion... hardly a fact.


I don't know of a single champions GM (and I know many) who would allow someone to buy their powered armor as a vehicle. You're the first person I've ever heard of who would willingly allow that construction. I would really love it if Steve Long would say:

DO NOT BUILD YOUR POWER ARMOR AS A VEHICLE, IT'S UNFAIR TO YOUR FELLOW PLAYERS.

But it's unlikely that he will.

Yup, very unlikely.


In order to "Break" a power in Champions, you must exceed it's resistant defense and deal one point of body to it, according to the rules under the Focus limitation. In order to break a defensive power, you must deal double the resistant defense of the object and deal a point of body to it.

You're describing the rules on Focuses losing powers. Not the same as breaking the physical representation of a power, which can be restarted immediately (Physical Manifestation). A focus that breaks and loses a power needs to be repaired in order to restore that power. Different effects.


By the way, this also proves why building your powered armor as a vehicle is broken, because you roll on the vehicle hit location table for what happens to your vehicle. The powered armor guy who doesn't build his flight as a vehicle, if he gets hit, he loses his flight. It cuts out, pfft, gone. The guy who builds it as a vehicle loses 5" of movement when the Vehicle Hit Location Table is used, and he doesn't actually suffer any damage from the attack, except the bleedover points of body if he actually manages to punch a hole in the vehicle. This is made even more broken by the fact that the vehicle can have a separate force field for the people inside, which basically insures that the powered armor guy who builds his character as a vehicle never takes a single point of damage. I've run Champions since 1981, and run the same game world since 1987. Trust me when I say this is broken.

So building a Powered Armor as a vehicle is broken because if it's hit, it behaves as a vehicle? I'd think this'd be a good thing... A Powered Armor protects you as long as it's there. You should only be taking hits that go through it (bleed through). If you think adding a separate force field for the people inside is too much, then don't allow it.

And if the Powered Armor guy ends up taking no damage, but with a broken Power Suit so he's effectively disabled... is he any better off than the other guy, who took some BODY, lots of STUN, and is now recovering his STUN, getting ready for the next fight? Nah, unless he has the resources to fix his suit, he's worse off.


This is why Power Armor needs to have a separate limitation value. Without it being a focus, technically, you can't break it at all. This is a contradiction in the rules vis a vis destroying Foci, which is why I put it here rather than somewhere else.

Without it being a focus you can break it, if it's a Vehicle (in which case you'd need to repair it), or if it's a Physical Manifestation (in which case you'd need to "restart" it).

[Balabanto]

Mechanically speaking, your argument is still fallacious. When a character builds his power armor as a vehicle, all damage up to the resistant defense of the vehicle is automatically stopped. The character doesn't take any, because he exists in the hexes inside the vehicle. Bleedthrough in any campaign where the GM balances things will be minimal to none.

Because there's no bleed through, the character never takes a point of stun, ever. You can't ego attack them, and they never need to pay for mental defense, either. How can that be? Well, a vehicle blocks line of sight, so a mentalist can't see inside the vehicle, and mind scanning for someone in their powered armor when they're right in front of you is JUST as stupid as never being able to take any damage.

That's why I'm arguing for a separate power limitation. That's why this argument cannot leave this thread. That's why defining one power as another power in order to gain a huge cost advantage is worth no points.

Should armor be visible in order to differentiate it from Force Field and Damage resistance? Absolutely. While SFX may be king, it is not necessary to break the rules and twist them to do so. See why on the powers list in just a short click and a hop away.

[Tonio]

Mechanically speaking, your argument is still fallacious. When a character builds his power armor as a vehicle, all damage up to the resistant defense of the vehicle is automatically stopped. The character doesn't take any, because he exists in the hexes inside the vehicle. Bleedthrough in any campaign where the GM balances things will be minimal to none.

Because there's no bleed through, the character never takes a point of stun, ever. You can't ego attack them, and they never need to pay for mental defense, either. How can that be? Well, a vehicle blocks line of sight, so a mentalist can't see inside the vehicle, and mind scanning for someone in their powered armor when they're right in front of you is JUST as stupid as never being able to take any damage.

Minor nitpick... my argument is not fallacious. I'm not saying anything that's not true. You might disagree with my opinions and judgement calls (and that's fine), but I'm not basing my argument on any false statements. You might think my argument's weak, or unconvincing, or full of holes, but that's not the same thing as "fallacious".

I'd certainly rule the character is visible as concerns Mental attacks. I don't think that's even a stretch... you could certainly establish LoS through windshields in a car; I'd say a body-hugging, one-man vehicle wouldn't be a barrier to LoS, just like clear winshields aren't.

You could always give a the vehicle lowish DEF (which will allow frequent bleed-through), and then have it provide a FF defense to its passenger to grant the actual defenses you want. That way you'll get the suit being hit and damaged often, but still have the wearer relatively well protected. You can play around with these values until you get something you're comfortable with.


That's why I'm arguing for a separate power limitation. That's why this argument cannot leave this thread. That's why defining one power as another power in order to gain a huge cost advantage is worth no points.

I'm not defining one power as another, I'm building a set of powers/abilities with an established game mechanic.


Should armor be visible in order to differentiate it from Force Field and Damage resistance? Absolutely. While SFX may be king, it is not necessary to break the rules and twist them to do so. See why on the powers list in just a short click and a hop away.

FF is visible. Armor being invisible is one of the things that differentiate it from FF.

[Tonio]

Thinking about this Powered Armor issue, specifically the disconnect on building it as a Focus which somehow doesn't get hit, which also applies to all sorts of Foci, I'm thinking a Limitation on Foci which specifies which Hit Locations is "covers" would be great.

Right now, you're holding a gun built as a Focus, and even if you're hit in the hand, the attack won't hit the gun. Likewise for a bracer, or a breastplate, or boots, or a bucket helm (ok, any sort of helmet, but it had to begin with a "b"). Saying the gun "covers" Hit Location 6, One Side, the bracer "covers" Hit Location 7, One Site, the boots cover Hit Locations 17-18, Both Sides, and the bucket helm covers Hit Locations 3-5, would work. Whenever the character is hit in that Hit Location, the Focus is also hit (or hit instead). This wouldn't necessarily eliminate the rules for targetting a Focus independently (for example, hitting a sword in someone's hand isn't the same as hitting their hand, you can target the sword w/o hitting their hand). A full Power Suit could then be built as a regular Focus, specifying it covers all Hit Locations (which should carry a heft Limitation value!).

[ideasmith]

Thinking about this Powered Armor issue, specifically the disconnect on building it as a Focus which somehow doesn't get hit, which also applies to all sorts of Foci, I'm thinking a Limitation on Foci which specifies which Hit Locations is "covers" would be great.

Right now, you're holding a gun built as a Focus, and even if you're hit in the hand, the attack won't hit the gun. Likewise for a bracer, or a breastplate, or boots, or a bucket helm (ok, any sort of helmet, but it had to begin with a "b"). Saying the gun "covers" Hit Location 6, One Side, the bracer "covers" Hit Location 7, One Site, the boots cover Hit Locations 17-18, Both Sides, and the bucket helm covers Hit Locations 3-5, would work. Whenever the character is hit in that Hit Location, the Focus is also hit (or hit instead). This wouldn't necessarily eliminate the rules for targetting a Focus independently (for example, hitting a sword in someone's hand isn't the same as hitting their hand, you can target the sword w/o hitting their hand). A full Power Suit could then be built as a regular Focus, specifying it covers all Hit Locations (which should carry a heft Limitation value!).

Some adjusting would be needed for groups that don't use hit location.

[Tonio]

Some adjusting would be needed for groups that don't use hit location.

Well, I see two options. Either use Hit Locations just for this (probably not a very popular option), or in campaigns that don't use Hit Location, only allow the "covers all hit locations" option (that is, either you choose that option, or it's a regular focus). Or maybe use some variant of Activation (if you're hit, roll "Activation", if it "works", the focus is hit).

[JmOz]

something entirely different, I think we should drop the inherent advantages in the Charges limitation, I am refering to the 0 endurance and uncontrolled aspects of the power. A power could buy a gun 0 endurance, then apply charges to it.

This would of course require a restructuring of the cost of charges

[AnotherSkip]

Focus and Powered Armor might need to become separated. Many people think that Focus doesn't adequately represent more "modern" suits of powered armor.

Below, I present some alternative solutions

1) Powered Armor takes a -1/4 limitation. This limitation effectively says as follows: These powers can be destroyed as per the focus limitation, and follow the rebuilding rules for it.

2) The variant of above: Powered Armor takes a -1/2 Limitation. This limitation effectively says as follows: These powers are always attacked, as per the rules for the focus limitation. Every shot hits the character, so every attack needs to be compared against the resistant defense of the armor to determine if powers are destroyed. (I actually use this. It's really quite balanced. Plus, it actually creates a lot of the scenes that you see in comics where the powered armor character is fighting with damaged armor, etc.)

3) Powered Armor is a special effect. That's all. Take disadvantages to represent what happens when the character is not in armor.

Wouldn't every AOE/explosion/hex filling attack attack deal to both the target and the armor?

[Balabanto]

Every explosion attack, my argument goes, should hit the armor and the target anyway. Under the current rules, that doesn't happen, the armor merely acts as a defense against the explosion, the same as it would if any other attack was applied against any other defense.

This is why I argue for a longer time necessary to peel someone out of their powered armor, because if you do this, there's no tradeoff. And realistically, in more heroic level games, the day you can get someone out of full plate armor in twelve seconds?

Hahahhaaaa! You've gotta be kidding me.

[PhilFleischmann]

This is why I argue for a longer time necessary to peel someone out of their powered armor, because if you do this, there's no tradeoff. And realistically, in more heroic level games, the day you can get someone out of full plate armor in twelve seconds?

Hahahhaaaa! You've gotta be kidding me.
This is something I've mentioned many times before: You don't necessarily need to be able to *remove* the focus in one turn. You only have to be able to render the focus irrelevant in one turn. The guy is lying on this back like a helpless turtle, on less tha 12 seconds you can wedge the point of your sword between two plates and skewer him at you leisure. You've managed to put PowerArmorMan down, and in 12 seconds, you can remove his battery pack, or the control unit that runs the thing, turning that hi-tech piece of equipment into an inert piece of metal.

Yes, focuses can be removed, stolen, or broken, but they can also be disabled, disassembled, or bypassed.

[captainNeda]

This is something I've mentioned many times before: You don't necessarily need to be able to *remove* the focus in one turn. You only have to be able to render the focus irrelevant in one turn. The guy is lying on this back like a helpless turtle, on less tha 12 seconds you can wedge the point of your sword between two plates and skewer him at you leisure. You've managed to put PowerArmorMan down, and in 12 seconds, you can remove his battery pack, or the control unit that runs the thing, turning that hi-tech piece of equipment into an inert piece of metal.

Yes, focuses can be removed, stolen, or broken, but they can also be disabled, disassembled, or bypassed.

Heh heh. Reminds me of when I first started role playing, back when I was doing D&D and how my game master taught us to think outside the box. One player who had virtually impenitrable plate armor was overcome by goblins. He was pleased his armor held up and that they goblins could do nothig to penetrate it. Upon discovering this, they him to the river armore and all and drowned him.

[ideasmith]

Something like the following has been suggested as an alternative to EC, however, it would be useful even if EC is kept:

Connected

Value: -1/4

If a power with this Limitation loses effectiveness to an Adjustment power, all you powers with this Limitation are effected as if they were in the same Elemental Control. (The powers with this Limitation will normally have closely related special effects.)

Applying Connected to Frameworks:

Connected may be applied to Frameworks or portions thereof only as follows:

If Connected is applied to an Elemental Control, it only reduces the base cost, but all the slots are affected.

If Connected is applied to a Multipower, it only reduces the reserve cost, but all the slots are affected.

If Connected is applied to a Variable Power Pool, it only reduces the control cost, but all the slots are affected.

[Vulcan]

I think that 'linked' on attack powers should be expressly allowed only for MPA's, with all the attendant penalties.

Buy skill levels of you don't want the pentalties.

[Vulcan]

There already is a mechinic in game for slowly recovering charges automatically. It's called "END Reserve"

[ideasmith]

I think that 'linked' on attack powers should be expressly allowed only for MPA's, with all the attendant penalties.

Buy skill levels of you don't want the pentalties.


I hope you only intended that to apply if the power was Linked to another Attack Power. Otherwise, The Wasp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp_%28comics%29#Fictional_character_biography) couldn't Link her 'wasp's stings' to Shrinking, since there is no way to make Self-Only Shrinking part of a MPA.

[Vulcan]

I suppose that WAS a bit unclear of me, wasn't it. Yes, I meant that it should only that way if two (or more) ATTACK powers were linked.

[Vulcan]

As for Power Armor:

OIF Power armor is viable. This means that someone can, within one turn, do something that renders all powers with this limitation useless. Pull the battery, unplug control lines, whatever.

Likewise, if an attack manages to do more body than the Focus has DEF, then things start to break.

If you (the power armor character) don't want these things to apply to you, take OIHID.

[Vulcan]

Independant vs. Unbreakable Focus:

Nowhere in the Independant description have I seen that something bought Independant is automatically Unbreakable. If it is bought as a Focus (and lets face it, most of the time it SHOULD be), then making it Unbreakable as well is an option.

Unbreakable, however, is not exactly an absolute. According to the rules, there must still be a way to destroy the item (sort of like there is always a way to reverse a transform). It can be, and usually is, ridiculously hard, but it must be there. Along the same lines, an Unbreakable focus is also by definition harder to replace than a breakable one at the same level of limitation.

Now, someone posted earlier about Foci: "I expect the GM to take this power away from me occasionally." (A paraphrase, not an exact quote.) If the Focus is unbreakable, then the player has to retrieve the item, not go to the store and get a new one. If the item ends up being destroyed or otherwise permanently lost, one would reasonably expect either a) a replacement to come along within a reasonable period of time, or b) the GM would allow you to re-spend the lost points on something new.

The follow-up comment about taking Independant was along the lines of "I expect to loose this power, and the points I spent in it, entirely at some point." Loosing the Independant power means that it is gone from your character sheet. That's why you're getting the WHOPPING -2 limitation on it.

[ideasmith]

As for Power Armor:

OIF Power armor is viable. This means that someone can, within one turn, do something that renders all powers with this limitation useless. Pull the battery, unplug control lines, whatever.

Likewise, if an attack manages to do more body than the Focus has DEF, then things start to break.

If you (the power armor character) don't want these things to apply to you, take OIHID.

Or Physical Manifestation + Always Hit When Character Hit; Or just make the armor a special effect.

[Beast]

easiest way to fix RSR it to simply buy the power at the activate level that you feel the skill should work at


example
your analyze Chi skill is 14-
you put a 14- activate on your Chi based powers

13- might be hard or just take it at the 14- level and treat it as 13-



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.

[Beast]

then your martial artist could never disarm the foe with a gun at your DNPC'e head
no brick with a code vs killing could destroy the villians death ray because it would now be the villan who is the death ray
no longer would the color yellow impede the hero with the power ring that does not affect yellow
no longer would the son from a distant planet get powers from a yellow sun because they would all have superpowers
or the magnetic villan toss the adamantium laced mutant around he would get everybody now to toss around

I see this as a lazy GM not wanting to make sure the players characters are balanced or somebody who can't work a 4 function calulator that you could get for under 0.99$

active is how much it costs with all the bells and whistles
real is what you pay with all the defects included


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.

[/list]

[Hugh Neilson]

I think that 'linked' on attack powers should be expressly allowed only for MPA's, with all the attendant penalties.

Buy skill levels of you don't want the pentalties.

What penalties? "You have to have levels with both to use them"?

[Vulcan]

Or Physical Manifestation + Always Hit When Character Hit; Or just make the armor a special effect.

The rules on a breakable OIF cover this just fine, in my opinion. But in keeping with the Hero System tradition, it's fine with me to have multiple ways to do the same thing.

[Vulcan]

What penalties? "You have to have levels with both to use them"?

Very rarely is linking one attack power to another actually going to be a limitation.

Player: "Hmm, let's see, I can hit the guy with one attack, or I can hit him with two at the same time, with no penalties because I put a limitation on one of them..."

GM: "What was that?"

I don't see too many circumstaces where being 'forced' to use two attack powers at the same time is a limitation. Sure, there are a few (the linked power is the only one that will hurt the target - but the other attack feeds his 'Aid to Stun; you're really low on end and the linked power stands the best chance of saving your butt), but for the most part. getting to use two attack powers at the same time is an advantage, not a limitation.

See Trigger

[Hugh Neilson]

Very rarely is linking one attack power to another actually going to be a limitation.

Player: "Hmm, let's see, I can hit the guy with one attack, or I can hit him with two at the same time, with no penalties because I put a limitation on one of them..."

GM: "What was that?"

You can use a multiple power attack to use the two attacks at the same time if you didn't make them Linked. The limitation does not add the choice of firing both together - it removes the option of firing only one.

Maybe I'd like to Blind my mind controlled teammate without injuring him - can't do that if my EB and Flash are Linked.

If my EB is Drained, I can still use my Flash - no wait, I can't because the EB and Flash are Linked.

Two easy examples off the top.

[Vulcan]

You can use a multiple power attack to use the two attacks at the same time if you didn't make them Linked. The limitation does not add the choice of firing both together - it removes the option of firing only one.

Maybe I'd like to Blind my mind controlled teammate without injuring him - can't do that if my EB and Flash are Linked.

If my EB is Drained, I can still use my Flash - no wait, I can't because the EB and Flash are Linked.

Two easy examples off the top.

I didn't say there weren't any examples of where it would be a limitation (I threw out two myself). But -1/2 - a full 1/3rd off the price - seems a bit extreme for somthing that is actually an advantage much of the time.

....

Must make a confession, since my GM doesn't allow MPA's I was unfamiliar with the MPA rules... just read them through. While I can see the logic - especially since it encourages people to buy at least some of their attack powers outside power frameworks - I can see why my GM threw them out for his games.

Okay, if you use MPA, then I can see where linked makes sense. If you don't, then it's probably going to be a balance issue.

[AnotherSkip]

Every explosion attack, my argument goes, should hit the armor and the target anyway. Under the current rules, that doesn't happen, the armor merely acts as a defense against the explosion, the same as it would if any other attack was applied against any other defense.

This is why I argue for a longer time necessary to peel someone out of their powered armor, because if you do this, there's no tradeoff. And realistically, in more heroic level games, the day you can get someone out of full plate armor in twelve seconds?

Hahahhaaaa! You've gotta be kidding me.

Well actually the way plate is constrcted I can in 12 seconds do WORSE than take it off of you, ill make it a hinderance to you for the rest of combat by cutting the straps that hold you in properly. after those 12 seconds you will be better off out of the Unbalanced Unareodynamic object that is dead weight in the wrong places.

[Vulcan]

Well actually the way plate is constrcted I can in 12 seconds do WORSE than take it off of you, ill make it a hinderance to you for the rest of combat by cutting the straps that hold you in properly. after those 12 seconds you will be better off out of the Unbalanced Unareodynamic object that is dead weight in the wrong places.


Imagine dents in your elbow cops (the rounded pieces that cover the outside of your elbows) and your breastplate around your knees...

[BobGreenwade]

Imagine dents in your elbow cops (the rounded pieces that cover the outside of your elbows) and your breastplate around your knees...Oh, a wiseguy, huh? *bonk*

Whoopwoopwoopwoopwoop....

(It's so hard to channel Curly Howard in text....)

[AnotherSkip]

*Uses his 3 Stooges style matial arts*
"you numbskull!!!!"
*attacks with his 'poke to the eyes'*
*Preps an abort to a knife hand face block*

[PhilFleischmann]

*Uses his 3 Stooges style matial arts*
"you numbskull!!!!"
*attacks with his 'poke to the eyes'*
*Preps an abort to a knife hand face block*
I've actually partially written up this style in HERO terms. I call it "Stujutsu". Weapon elements include:
household and carpentry tools
long objects of opportunity
pies

[BobGreenwade]

In any case I think this image needs to be in the Art List, for placement near the Real Armor and/or Focus Limitations. :D

[BobGreenwade]

Someone over in the Characteristics thread mentioned a greater codification of Characteristic Rolls. I think that could be exemplified by adding a new Limitation, which for the sake of discussion we can call Saving Roll (please put down the sharp instruments; no, I'm not trying to turn Hero into D20). This could be described very briefly as a Limitation that allows the target of an attack, even an Area Of Effect attack, to avoid damage with a Characteristic Roll -- say, -1/4 to halve the damage with an unmodified Roll, with alterations based on things like penalties for the Active Points in the Power, and doubling the value if the target can avoid damage altogether with a successful Roll. The whole description shouldn't take more than a half-page including the Modifiers Table, and would illustrate how raw Characteristic Rolls can be made a more integral part of the game.

The text could, potentially, even be rolled into the Requires A Skill Roll Limitation, though that might be confusing.

And yes, I know this kind of thing is most commonly associated with fantasy realms, but it can also be applied to some poisons and toxins in modern-day or futuristic games -- the target making a CON or BODY roll could mean that he only gets sick, while failing it could be fatal.

[Vulcan]

Not bad. Someone just made a point in the Characteristics thread that poison/diseases affect characters with high CON's just as readily as characters with low CONs. This sounds like a good answer.

[CTaylor]

The cost of Gradual Effect seems a bit off to me, at least at the low end. Waiting a turn for the power to go off entirely is worth more than a 1/4 limitation in my opinion. Perhaps it should start with 1/2 and go up by 1/4 increments or something like that.

Seriously: with 60 active points you can buy a 12D6 blast that hits now, or a 12D6 blast that takes a turn to go off. That's worth only a 1/4?

[BobGreenwade]

The cost of Gradual Effect seems a bit off to me, at least at the low end. Waiting a turn for the power to go off entirely is worth more than a 1/4 limitation in my opinion. Perhaps it should start with 1/2 and go up by 1/4 increments or something like that.

Seriously: with 60 active points you can buy a 12D6 blast that hits now, or a 12D6 blast that takes a turn to go off. That's worth only a 1/4?While I don't entirely disagree with the conclusion, the 12d6 EB doesn't take a Turn to go off -- it takes a Turn to complete. It still does 1d6 every Segment (and the target's defenses only apply to the overall damage done, not each die as some others have assumed in the past).

[CTaylor]

the 12d6 EB doesn't take a Turn to go off -- it takes a Turn to complete

Sigh, I guess I should have seen that coming. Yes, I know gradual effect doesn't wait then go off all at once, sorry I didn't put it exactly and precisely the way the rules do.

[SteveZilla]

Sorry if this has been hashed out already -- I'm about halfway though this thread and my shift is coming to an end.


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.

#1's OCV level could take Linked as well as the OAF Limitation.

#2, being a seperate Focus, will have a lower DEF as it doesn't benefit from the Active Points of the HKA (presuming breakable foci).

[ideasmith]

Concerning the Power Limitation called Focus:

As far as I can tell, the only reason 'Gets Taken Away', 'Bulky', 'Expendable', 'Breakable', and 'Universal' are the same Modifier is that the likely special effects are related. That is not sufficient reason, and I think that separating them would improve clarity.

The way I imagine this:

'Breakable' would be combined with an expanded and clarified 'Physical Manifestation'.

'Universal' would be a form of 'Usable By Others' (Probably +0).

'Gets Taken Away', 'Bulky', and 'Expendable' would handle the rest of the ground currently covered by 'Focus'.

[Talon]

Fuel Charges: Fuel Charges are broken IMO. They effectively turn Continuing Charges back into normal Charges -- and a lot more normal Charges than you would otherwise get. (A 1 Minute Fuel Charge gives you 60 Phases -- since each Phase counts as a second -- of use for a -3/4 Limitation!)

END Reserves seem like they do the same thing, so I'd like to see more effort put into making END Reserves more appropriately costed.

END Cost: I agree that END cost and Charges should be decoupled. This does mean re-costing the Limitation, since the current chart is built around the thought of replacing END use. (Since it also tops out at -2, which seems a bit low for 1 Charge, this might not be a bad idea.)

Re-Costing Charges: IMO, a power which can be used once per day (with whatever END cost it normally has) is worth more than a -2 Limitation. -4 seems more appropriate to me.

On the other end, at what point do Charges which cost END become a -0? (Presumably they never become an Advantage any more, since END use is out of the picture.) I think that focusing on Instant Powers (i.e., attacks) is the best metric (for Constant Powers, worry about Continuing Charges). Since END is going out of the Charges table, I would start with around 32 and create a table like this:

1 Charge: -4
2 Charges: -3
3 Charges: -2
4 Charges: -1.5
5-6: -1.25
7-8: -1
9-12: -3/4
13-16: -1/2
17-32: -1/4
33+: -0

(This is definitely a situation where more granularity would be helpful; if Limitations were at the .1 grain, we could go up to at least 64 if not 128.)

Recharge Rates: Opal has an interesting idea in post #15: base the cost of charges on # of charges plus time/difficulty to recharge. The rules already have modifiers for recharging in more than 1 day (-1/2 per level); for charging faster, I think about the only thing that works is -1 level on the Charges chart per level (with common-sense caveats; 2 Charges / Turn is not worth anything if you are SPD 2).

I think that difficulty in recovery could be anywhere from an extra -1/4 to an extra -2 or more (for Charges never recover).

[Talon]

Inobvious: Many of the examples for Inobvious are for concealed weapons which, once used, are obviously the source of the attack. While there should be an option for Foci which are not obvious when not in use, that is not what an Inobvious Focus should be.

One option would be to grant -1/4 less Limitation for each of these (i.e., a Focus which is not obvious at any point would be -1/2 less value).

Item of Opportunity: Because there is no granularity for how common the "class of items" is, I think that this should be pulled out of Focus and put into Limited Power or its own Limitation. (Also, you are not choosing any of the other Focus attributes like uniqueness, Obviousness, etc.)

Breakable: As has been pointed out, very few people use this rule as it stands. Also, Foci should have BODY so that they work like other objects (and also to avoid "NND Does BODY" silly Focus destroying powers).

There are a couple of design goals here:

Rather than a formula for specific DEF, there should be levels of Breakable:

Fragile: 1-2 DEF, -1 more Limitation
Weak: at least 1 less DEF than standard campaign DC limit; -1/2 more Limitation.
Normal: 1.0 - 1.5x campaign limit in DC (see below); -0 more Limitation
Tough: more than 1.5x campaign limit in DC; -1/4 less Limitation.
Unbreakable: cannot be destroyed, cannot be replaced; -0 more Limitation

BODY is equal to DEF unless GM rules otherwise. Having BODY equal to one level up the chart (for example, giving a Fragile Focus up to campaign DC limit minus one in BODY) is 1/4 less Limitation.

For "Normal" DEF, the GM should pick a single value that all Foci are assumed to have by default (see the next paragraph for the logic behind this). If Killing Attacks stay the way they are, this value should be enough to handle the variance that Killing damage produces -- in a 6 DC game, DEF 8 might work, while in a 12 DC game, 15 DC is about right. I would aim for 40% of attacks causing BODY damage, but this is up to the GM.

I would state clearly that the DEF and BODY given here may not correspond to that of the actual materials; they represent the "dramatic reality" that Foci and equipment don't break that often during combat. Outside of combat, Foci should be easier to break (based on the DEF of the material they are made of). A GM could require the Weak option to be taken for Foci made of less durable materials for more realistic campaigns.

The amount of BODY and DEF is generally obvious (may require a PER roll); if the character wants to conceal this, buy Images or some other Power.

When a Focus takes damage, make a roll using the Device Malfunction Table (5ER p. 449); if the roll is failed one power is lost (or more at the GM's discretion, for Foci with a lot of Powers in them). At 0 BODY the Focus is non-functional; at -BODY it is completely destroyed.

When a character with multiple Foci is hit, the GM should determine which Focus is hit based on the following rough priority (altered as the GM sees fit):

-- Focus used to defend against the attack (armor, weapon used to Block, etc.)
-- Focus with large coverage (spacesuit, costume, etc.)
-- Focus being used extensively
-- Obvious Focus

If Hit Locations are being used, the location of the attack should limit what Foci can be hit.

For different types of campaigns, there could be different rules for Focus damage:

1) Superheroic: Foci do not take damage unless specifically targeted (including AOE attacks). Characters can take an extra -1/2 modifier "Focus is always hit", or for -1/4 specify reasonable circumstances under which the Focus is hit.

2) High Heroic: Foci take damage only when specifically targeted or on an Attack Roll of "3". "Focus is always hit" is worth -1/4; for -0 the character can specify a different condition (that is as likely as the default condition) under which a Focus is hit.

3) Low Heroic: As High Heroic, but Foci are hit when an Attack Roll is made by half or more.

Arrangement: This seems like it could be done as Extra Time.

[Talon]

Limiting CSLs: I like the idea in post #49 to create a "not universally applicable" Limitation for CSLs. For that matter, address the "5 point is the minimum CSL that can have Modifiers" issue; it causes a lot of problems.

Active Cost: Rather than having Limitations affect Active Cost (if you want to do this, go with Opal's "two tier" suggestion from the Advantages thread), try to re-cast Limitations as modifiers to the base Power. For example, Desolid "not through physical objects" could be a -20 Adder or something.

Only vs. SFX: The "only vs. Fire" Limitations do not provide enough Limitation value at present. For a Very Common SFX ("bullets"), a -1/2 or -1/4 seems right. For a Common SFX ("fire"), -1; for an Uncommon SFX ("sonic"), -2 or even more. (Often a PC's possession of a given SFX will ensure that values of more than -2 are not appropriate.)

Limitation Values: Now is the time to re-calibrate Limitation values; for example, "raising the ceiling" so that values of more than -2 are considered normal.

Finding Limitations: As others have said, ALL the Limitations should be listed in one place (same is true for Advantages).

Activation: I agree that the value should be tweaked here (Phil's table in post #53 seems like a good starting point). In particular, low Activation rolls should be worth a pretty big Limitation most of the time.

I also see the argument for making Burnout cost the same as normal Activation, as losing the Power is pretty harsh. If anything, Burnout becomes more of a Limitation as the roll gets harder to make.

It would also be nice to see a "only to activate" modifier for Activation; just like with Extra Time, this should only be worth a Limitation if activating the Power requires some sort of preparation and the Power is not 0 END / Persistent (or the like). This would make Activation and RSR work a little better together. Halving the Limitation value seems like a possible starting point.

Duration Limitations: Non-Persistent should be -1/2 and stack with Costs END (so making a Persistent Power cost END is -1).

END Limitations: Costs END to start is not worth a Limitation unless the END cost is higher than normal.

Extra Time: As per the discussions in this thread, it would be nice to see variants of Extra Time that do the following:

1) Extra Time is applied after the Power is used (I would say that the power must remain activated during this period; no switching out MP slots, for example). Cost: -1/4 less Limitation.

2) Other Attack Powers can be used during the Extra Time period. Cost: Halve the Limitation.

Obviously, if you allow Charges to recover faster than once per day, this option may be unnecessary (or if used, should align roughly in cost).

Gradual Effect: The Limitation value for 1 Turn seems low; in 1 Turn many combats will be over and the chance to instantly damage someone is pretty valuable.

Independent: I don't think Independent should be in the main rulebook for three reasons:

1) It explicitly provides significant Advantages (Usable By Others)

2) It is pretty much only used in one genre

3) The space it uses would be better devoted to Resource Point Pools, which seem like a much more generally applicable solution for equipment.

No Conscious Control: This Limitation should have a table of "Degree of Control" or something and a range of values from -1/4 to -2 (or more).

Physical Manifestation: This should use the same Focus DEF rules that I suggested for Foci.

Range Limitations: I don't have a good solution here, but I will note that the Limitation values are a bit compressed in this area.

Requires A Skill Roll: The only reason for players to take this instead of Activation is the "only roll once" aspect; otherwise, Activation is strictly better as it doesn't require you to sink a ton of points into a Skill. (This isn't a bad thing -- RSR works very well as a GM-imposed Limitation.) As mentioned under Activation, it would be nice if it had the same "only roll once" option.

Many people have commented that the -1 per 10 Active aspect of RSR tends to produce Skill Rolls that are inordinately high (i.e., higher than any other Skill a character has). I would also point out that the Active Point based penalties are imperfect -- for example, in fantasy games, Force Field and Armor are far cheaper than they should be for the genre, so defense spells end up being trivially easy since they are based on far fewer Active Points than other spells.

I would like to see this addressed by a more generic "Difficulty Modifier" variant for RSR: rather than Active Point penalties, the GM assigns a difficulty to the power (based on Active Points and whatever other campaign-specific details are relevant; for example, fire spells might be difficult in one campaign and easier in others). A campaign would specify a basic pattern for modifiers which the GM would apply to specific spells as they were designed.

Restrainable: Rather than saying "don't take this with Focus", the text should say that Restrainable is only worth -1/4 when added to Focus (and then only when the Focus is Inaccessible).

Side Effects: I agree with several people who have pointed out that the minimum effect really hurts low-powered games and powers.

Also, I would rather the Side Effect worked as normal (getting defenses), but the Limitation was valued based on how much the character was hurt by the attack (i.e., a high-defense character gets fewer points for Side Effects that go against their defenses, while an NND might still be high value). As it stands, buying normal attack Side Effects are a losing proposition -- with unconventional Side Effects, the extra points you are paying to bypass defenses end up working in your favor.

Visible: As mentioned elsewhere, there should be a distinction between powers that are Invisible, visible but allow the use of Stealth, and visible with massive PER bonuses / Stealth penalties.

[Vulcan]

Unbreakable: cannot be destroyed, cannot be replaced; -0 more Limitation

If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent (-2 more Limitation). Even an unbreakable focus can be replaced, it just isn't easy. But then, it isn't easy for someone to destroy it either.

If I take the Focus limitation on a character, I am telling the GM that (for the cost break I am receiving) I expect him to take the focus away occasionally. How often depends on how big of a limitation. But I also expect at some point to get the focus back, in some form or another (maybe not the exact same item, but at least get the points back to buy a replacement).

It's only when I take the Independant limitation that I am telling the GM it's okay to take this away and give me nothing in return. That's why it's Independant.

[Vulcan]

Only vs. SFX: The "only vs. Fire" Limitations do not provide enough Limitation value at present. For a Very Common SFX ("bullets"), a -1/2 or -1/4 seems right. For a Common SFX ("fire"), -1; for an Uncommon SFX ("sonic"), -2 or even more. (Often a PC's possession of a given SFX will ensure that values of more than -2 are not appropriate.)

Agreed. My wife has played an electrical character for three years and has never had a chance to use her Damage reduction vs. electricity, because electrical-attack villians always seem to find someone else to shoot at. ("She's electrical too, I know I'm resistant to electricity, why bother?") Talon's sample seems about right to me.


Independent: I don't think Independent should be in the main rulebook for three reasons:

1) It explicitly provides significant Advantages (Usable By Others)

2) It is pretty much only used in one genre

3) The space it uses would be better devoted to Resource Point Pools, which seem like a much more generally applicable solution for equipment.

Independant does not give Usable by Others. It is automatically a universal focus, in that can be used by anyone. Signifigant difference.

For example, a gun is a universal focus. Anyone can pick it up and shoot it. That does not mean all guns must be bought Useable By Others. Give the gun some sort of biometric scanner so it will only shoot for it's onwer, it becomes a personal focus.

If it is independant, the character who bought it cannot get another one easily and must pay points for a new one - for example, a M2 machine gun would be very hard for a street-level characer to get. A character might start with one, but buy it independant to reflect the extreme difficulty of getting another if this one should be stolen/broken.

And given the number of magicians in Champions, I would not say it is solely for the Fantasy Hero genre... Mostly, but not entirely.


No Conscious Control: This Limitation should have a table of "Degree of Control" or something and a range of values from -1/4 to -2 (or more).

I suspect a fair number of GM's (mine included) already have house rules for this. Some sort of standardization would be nice.


Many people have commented that the -1 per 10 Active aspect of RSR tends to produce Skill Rolls that are inordinately high (i.e., higher than any other Skill a character has). I would also point out that the Active Point based penalties are imperfect -- for example, in fantasy games, Force Field and Armor are far cheaper than they should be for the genre, so defense spells end up being trivially easy since they are based on far fewer Active Points than other spells.

I would like to see this addressed by a more generic "Difficulty Modifier" variant for RSR: rather than Active Point penalties, the GM assigns a difficulty to the power (based on Active Points and whatever other campaign-specific details are relevant; for example, fire spells might be difficult in one campaign and easier in others). A campaign would specify a basic pattern for modifiers which the GM would apply to specific spells as they were designed.

Agreed. -1 per 10 AP makes for either a unrealistically high skill level or a highly unrelaible power, far more limited than a 14< activation roll (which the base level is equivalent to).


Visible: As mentioned elsewhere, there should be a distinction between powers that are Invisible, visible but allow the use of Stealth, and visible with massive PER bonuses / Stealth penalties.

Definitely needed.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re-Costing Charges: IMO, a power which can be used once per day (with whatever END cost it normally has) is worth more than a -2 Limitation. -4 seems more appropriate to me.

On the other end, at what point do Charges which cost END become a -0? (Presumably they never become an Advantage any more, since END use is out of the picture.) I think that focusing on Instant Powers (i.e., attacks) is the best metric (for Constant Powers, worry about Continuing Charges). Since END is going out of the Charges table, I would start with around 32 and create a table like this:

1 Charge: -4
2 Charges: -3
3 Charges: -2
4 Charges: -1.5
5-6: -1.25
7-8: -1
9-12: -3/4
13-16: -1/2
17-32: -1/4
33+: -0

(This is definitely a situation where more granularity would be helpful; if Limitations were at the .1 grain, we could go up to at least 64 if not 128.)
This is similar to the alternate Charges table I came up with. I also agree that 1 charge would be better costed at -4.

[PhilFleischmann]

Limitation Values: Now is the time to re-calibrate Limitation values; for example, "raising the ceiling" so that values of more than -2 are considered normal.
Yes! :thumbup: Of course, values of more than -2 are already normal, but somehow we tend to forget this.


It would also be nice to see a "only to activate" modifier for Activation; .... Halving the Limitation value seems like a possible starting point.
I agree.


No Conscious Control: This Limitation should have a table of "Degree of Control" or something and a range of values from -1/4 to -2 (or more).
Right again! And as Vulcan says, I've also had a house rule onthis for years.


Requires A Skill Roll: ....
Many people have commented that the -1 per 10 Active aspect of RSR tends to produce Skill Rolls that are inordinately high (i.e., higher than any other Skill a character has). I would also point out that the Active Point based penalties are imperfect ...
I would like to see this addressed by a more generic "Difficulty Modifier" variant for RSR: rather than Active Point penalties, the GM assigns a difficulty to the power (based on Active Points and whatever other campaign-specific details are relevant; for example, fire spells might be difficult in one campaign and easier in others). A campaign would specify a basic pattern for modifiers which the GM would apply to specific spells as they were designed.
One possible starting point for this "Difficulty Modifier" might be the Real Points of the power, rather than the Active Points. Especially for fantasy spells which often have to be built with fairly high Active Points, but come with so many standard magic/spell limitations that their overall power is much more accurately reflected by the Real Points.


Side Effects: I agree with several people who have pointed out that the minimum effect really hurts low-powered games and powers.
I've used a house rule on this for years, which I recommend for 6E: The minimum values presented in the book (15, 30, 45, and 60) are for superheroic games only - games that have starting characters at 250 or more points. For lower-powered games, say between 100 and 250 points for starting characters, the minimum values should be 7, 15, 22, and 30. For power levels even lower than that, <100 points, they'd be 5, 10, 15, and 20. And also, the minimum sideeffect points should be eliminated entirely for Side Effects that Always Occur.

[Markdoc]

If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent (-2 more Limitation). Even an unbreakable focus can be replaced, it just isn't easy. But then, it isn't easy for someone to destroy it either.

If I take the Focus limitation on a character, I am telling the GM that (for the cost break I am receiving) I expect him to take the focus away occasionally. How often depends on how big of a limitation. But I also expect at some point to get the focus back, in some form or another (maybe not the exact same item, but at least get the points back to buy a replacement).

It's only when I take the Independant limitation that I am telling the GM it's okay to take this away and give me nothing in return. That's why it's Independant.

I'd agree wth everything except the statement that "If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent". If you don't take independant, but do take "cannot be replaced" you are essentially saying "it's OK to take this away and I realise I will be expected to go to some trouble to get it back". Not "When it's gone, it's gone".

Thor's Hammer in Marvel comics is a good example: it occasionally gets taken away - sometimes for extended periods - but it's never going to get "really" destroyed or lost. Thor is always going to get it back at some point. That's "Focus, OAF, unbreakable", but not "Independant".

In one of our Champions games, the character Artemis had found the bow of the legendary goddess, which conferred great powers, yadda, yadda. That was an unbreakable OAF focus. At one point her nemesis arranged to have it stolen and we ended up with a 4 adventure mini-arc "Recover Artmesis' bow" during which the character was depowered. But we were never concerned that having gotten the bow, the villians would destroy it - not being independent, we knew that it was bound to turn up at some point.

cheers, Mark

[Talon]

If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent (-2 more Limitation). Even an unbreakable focus can be replaced, it just isn't easy. But then, it isn't easy for someone to destroy it either.

If I take the Focus limitation on a character, I am telling the GM that (for the cost break I am receiving) I expect him to take the focus away occasionally. How often depends on how big of a limitation. But I also expect at some point to get the focus back, in some form or another (maybe not the exact same item, but at least get the points back to buy a replacement).

It's only when I take the Independant limitation that I am telling the GM it's okay to take this away and give me nothing in return. That's why it's Independant.

By "cannot be replaced", I mean that if the Focus is stolen, the character has to go get it back -- they can't just build another one. This has been part of my balance between breakable and unbreakable Foci for a long time (the rules may have encouraged this, or not...I don't remember :)). I definitely didn't mean "you lose the points" a la Independent.

[AnotherSkip]

Agreed. My wife has played an electrical character for three years and has never had a chance to use her Damage reduction vs. electricity, because electrical-attack villians always seem to find someone else to shoot at. ("She's electrical too, I know I'm resistant to electricity, why bother?") Talon's sample seems about right to me.



Independant does not give Usable by Others. It is automatically a universal focus, in that can be used by anyone. Signifigant difference.

For example, a gun is a universal focus. Anyone can pick it up and shoot it. That does not mean all guns must be bought Useable By Others. Give the gun some sort of biometric scanner so it will only shoot for it's onwer, it becomes a personal focus.

If it is independant, the character who bought it cannot get another one easily and must pay points for a new one - for example, a M2 machine gun would be very hard for a street-level characer to get. A character might start with one, but buy it independant to reflect the extreme difficulty of getting another if this one should be stolen/broken.

And given the number of magicians in Champions, I would not say it is solely for the Fantasy Hero genre... Mostly, but not entirely.

Definitely needed.

I often Consider some Bionics to be Independant in many superhero games, there just are not enough trustable cybersugreons out there to easly replace the bionic/human interfaces. and hacking your own brain is really a bad idea. as well as the sheer amount of pain you would go through..... generally, from a player persepctive buying independant on your bionics would mean back to character generation after they went away. Because realistically you would be a hopeless cripple.

[AnotherSkip]

By "cannot be replaced", I mean that if the Focus is stolen, the character has to go get it back -- they can't just build another one. This has been part of my balance between breakable and unbreakable Foci for a long time (the rules may have encouraged this, or not...I don't remember :)). I definitely didn't mean "you lose the points" a la Independent.

I think that forcing the character to get it back is not the only solution, you seem to be muddling together some of the foci stuff. If Iron Man has his suit stolen he builds another one, same with batmans bat belt, Spidey's web shooters, etc... IF that would be easier than getting it back. Unbraekable may mean you prefer to get it back because that is easier than geting the dwarves to forge and enchant a new hammer, re-create the experiment that made your shield etc.... but it isn't impossble and in many cases keeping it a sceret/unique may be more important to the character than worrying about replacements.

[AnotherSkip]

Fuel Charges: Fuel Charges are broken IMO. They effectively turn Continuing Charges back into normal Charges -- and a lot more normal Charges than you would otherwise get. (A 1 Minute Fuel Charge gives you 60 Phases -- since each Phase counts as a second -- of use for a -3/4 Limitation!)

END Reserves seem like they do the same thing, so I'd like to see more effort put into making END Reserves more appropriately costed.

.
Perhaps this issue could be solved by having an activation/deactivation requirement on fuel charges after all you still need to shut the engine off on the car to stop waasting gas.

[Chris Goodwin]

If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent (-2 more Limitation). Even an unbreakable focus can be replaced, it just isn't easy. But then, it isn't easy for someone to destroy it either.

If I take the Focus limitation on a character, I am telling the GM that (for the cost break I am receiving) I expect him to take the focus away occasionally. How often depends on how big of a limitation. But I also expect at some point to get the focus back, in some form or another (maybe not the exact same item, but at least get the points back to buy a replacement).

It's only when I take the Independant limitation that I am telling the GM it's okay to take this away and give me nothing in return. That's why it's Independant.

Technically, no.

Independent has nothing to say at all on whether you get the Focus back. It has everything to say about whether you get the points back.

Replaceability, etc. of the Focus is unrelated to Independent. You could, for instance, buy a S&W Model 41 revolver Independent. The fact that you can go to the gun shop and buy one has no bearing on what happens to the points you have invested in it.

[Vulcan]

I'd agree wth everything except the statement that "If a focus cannot be replaced, it becomes Indepenent". If you don't take independant, but do take "cannot be replaced" you are essentially saying "it's OK to take this away and I realise I will be expected to go to some trouble to get it back". Not "When it's gone, it's gone".

The point I was trying to make is that it a focus is truly irreplacable once it's broken/stolen then it should be Independant. If it is not Independant, then the GM should be ready to return/replace it somehow, at some point after its loss.

[Vulcan]

I often Consider some Bionics to be Independant in many superhero games, there just are not enough trustable cybersugreons out there to easly replace the bionic/human interfaces. and hacking your own brain is really a bad idea. as well as the sheer amount of pain you would go through..... generally, from a player persepctive buying independant on your bionics would mean back to character generation after they went away. Because realistically you would be a hopeless cripple.

Yeah, but with cybernetics, to steal the stuff you pretty much kill the character. Than means it doesn't even count as a focus, much less Independant.

[Chris Goodwin]

The point I was trying to make is that it a focus is truly irreplacable once it's broken/stolen then it should be Independant. If it is not Independant, then the GM should be ready to return/replace it somehow, at some point after its loss.

If the Focus is irreplaceable after being broken or stolen, and it is broken or stolen, then the character gets the points back to spend on something else. Again, Independent has nothing to do with whether the Focus comes back or not. Independent is all about the points.

And with that, I've finally figured out what's been bothering me for all these years about Independent.

Independent is not a Limitation against the Focus. It's a Limitation against the points.

[AnotherSkip]

Yeah, but with cybernetics, to steal the stuff you pretty much kill the character. Than means it doesn't even count as a focus, much less Independant.

not all Bionics, many a limbless character is coming back from Iraq and living often better than previous war casualties. Bionics Independant would put someone who lost the Bionic Limb (not having had every scrap of metal pulled out of their body) on about thier footing.

Tony Stark is an example he lost his heart (well not really) the bad guy pulls it out and he still survives, that movie showed an integral bionic part Independant. And it made for some good scenes/roleplaying.

You could cut out the six million dollar man's bionic eye and he might be able to get it back or replaced (it would probably change his name to the seven million dollar man....) or everyone might just start calling him patch.

And what happens if you buy a power Independant but not through a focus?

There is no requirement to do so. Something like the magics in Thieves World or possibly Bionics would do the trick.