Does anyone use the Independent Limitation?

[lapsedgamer]

OK. To entertain myself, I'm designing a Fantasy Hero character who is an adventurer/alchemist, and a Champions character who is a super thief who steals magic items so that she can use them to steal other magic items.

So the alchemist has VPP, which is basically different spells with the special effect of "potions and mystical compounds." I write them up as powers with focus and charge limitations, but do they also have to be Independent?

I would instinctively say no. Sure, I can give my teammate a flask of explosive fluid that he/she can use just as well as I can, but do I have to make it Independent. I don't lose the points if the potion is destroyed, as I can make another one. I put a VPP can only be changed once a day, so I think he would have to wait another day or so to get the materials and make a new one and that would cover it. Is that an unfair handwave?

Now on the super-thief, it is a big cost savings to make all of the items Independent. The concept is that she has no innate powers except stats and a skill set similar to Catwoman's. She has a rotating selection of items she has access to. Some are stand-alone, and others are in a VPP. Independent makes more sense here, as she can actually lose an item if she isn't careful, and they are all by nature universal.

But the same thing is true of everything on a VIPER or UNTIL agents character sheet. Shouldn't all those items be Independent? Wouldn't that change a lot of the published write-ups? I don't see this tendency in Champions. Is Independent really just for heroic games?

[jtelson]

When a VIPER agent loses his gear he can go back to the base (hopefully not followed by the heroes) and requisition more. The next time you meet that agent he's got his stuff back - that's a focus but not independent.

If the stand alone items are lost or destroyed and cannot be replaced shy of spending additional CP's then they are both Foci and Independent.

As a GM I'd be loathe to allow things in a VPP to have the Independent Limit. I'd be more inclined to go with an aquired items only limit on the pool. The character starts with a list of what's available (approved by the GM) If an item is lost it comes off the list if one is 'found' it goes on the list.

[mvoncannon]

I use independent for only specific items that can be used as a plot device regardless of genre. If that is your intent, to give your GM plot devices, then by all means. Otherwise, since they are "universal" you could easily replace them, and remove that independent limitation.

[Markdoc]

OK. To entertain myself, I'm designing a Fantasy Hero character who is an adventurer/alchemist, and a Champions character who is a super thief who steals magic items so that she can use them to steal other magic items.

So the alchemist has VPP, which is basically different spells with the special effect of "potions and mystical compounds." I write them up as powers with focus and charge limitations, but do they also have to be Independent?

I would instinctively say no. Sure, I can give my teammate a flask of explosive fluid that he/she can use just as well as I can, but do I have to make it Independent. I don't lose the points if the potion is destroyed, as I can make another one. I put a VPP can only be changed once a day, so I think he would have to wait another day or so to get the materials and make a new one and that would cover it. Is that an unfair handwave?

No, that's perfectly reasonable. It's how I do it myself. As you say when the potion is stolen or used, you don't lose the points. You can always make more.


Now on the super-thief, it is a big cost savings to make all of the items Independent. The concept is that she has no innate powers except stats and a skill set similar to Catwoman's. She has a rotating selection of items she has access to. Some are stand-alone, and others are in a VPP. Independent makes more sense here, as she can actually lose an item if she isn't careful, and they are all by nature universal.

But the same thing is true of everything on a VIPER or UNTIL agents character sheet. Shouldn't all those items be Independent? Wouldn't that change a lot of the published write-ups? I don't see this tendency in Champions. Is Independent really just for heroic games?

Again, no. The Viper agents don't get independent because if they get their blaster smashed up, they can just get another one. It might take them some time, it might be difficult (or it might not) but they can get another one. When the focus is temporarily gone, the agent can't use the powers, but the points are still there. If the nest is out of blasters, he might get a pulsar cannon instead, but whatever.

The same applies - as I read it - to your magical thief. You might use up/lose items from your VPP, but you don't lose the points: you can steal new magics to use those points. However, if you take Independant, and lose or use an item those points are gone. You can't steal a new item to "fill" that point allocation. For items outside the VPP, that might be appropriate (it's also where the savings are biggest). But you have to decide if you are OK with those items going away permanently. If not just describe it as an "unbreakable" focus: meaning the character can't make a new one, but if they lose it, can get the old one back at some point.

I do use independant in my games, but I use it rarely. Ironically, it is seeing quite a lot of use in the current game, where I use it to simulate the old celtic "geas" thing. Players can get magical powers with Independant as a limitation, but also have to take a geas (as a side effect). That makes powers cheap :) But if the player ever breaks the geas, he loses the power, which in game terms, means suffers a significant penalty since those points go away. It also means the players end up with nifty geases like "May never give or receive a gift" "May never mistreat an animal" "Always pass standing stones on the shadowed side", etc, which adds a nice flavour to that particular style of magic.

cheers, Mark

[Vulcan]

OK. To entertain myself, I'm designing a Fantasy Hero character who is an adventurer/alchemist, and a Champions character who is a super thief who steals magic items so that she can use them to steal other magic items.

So the alchemist has VPP, which is basically different spells with the special effect of "potions and mystical compounds." I write them up as powers with focus and charge limitations, but do they also have to be Independent?

I would instinctively say no. Sure, I can give my teammate a flask of explosive fluid that he/she can use just as well as I can, but do I have to make it Independent. I don't lose the points if the potion is destroyed, as I can make another one. I put a VPP can only be changed once a day, so I think he would have to wait another day or so to get the materials and make a new one and that would cover it. Is that an unfair handwave?

Not in my opinion. This is a perfectly reasonable build, and so long as the limitations on the VPP powers are appropriate, then I think Independant is not needed. Univeral Focus should work just fine here.


Now on the super-thief, it is a big cost savings to make all of the items Independent. The concept is that she has no innate powers except stats and a skill set similar to Catwoman's. She has a rotating selection of items she has access to. Some are stand-alone, and others are in a VPP. Independent makes more sense here, as she can actually lose an item if she isn't careful, and they are all by nature universal.

This one is trickier. By concept, this sounds pretty reasonable, but a lot of concepts sound reasonable until I see the actual character build involved. It comes down to a varienty of factors:


What percentage of the charater's points is going to be Independant? (A character with a lot of 'Independant' powers is going to be a lot tougher than one without 'Independant' powers - until the 'Independant' goes away, as it ineveitably will at some point.)
Is there enough character left to be viable once the 'Independant' powers go away? (Or will the player just retire the character and start a new one, neutering the -2 limitation?)
What are the character's relative 'Independant' and non-independant capabilities - and how do they complement each other? (Is the Independant stuff your full combat suite, leaving you lost of points for skills - but unable to fight your way out of a paper bag if they're lost, and that sort of thing.)

But the same thing is true of everything on a VIPER or UNTIL agents character sheet. Shouldn't all those items be Independent? Wouldn't that change a lot of the published write-ups? I don't see this tendency in Champions. Is Independent really just for heroic games?

VIPER and UNTIL agents belong to an organization that provides equipement for them. Likewise, a gun-toting superhero(ish) character likely has sources that can easily replenish his foci.

I suppose the best way to look at Independant is as a limitation on the points, not the item. If an item is Independant and you loose it, you loose the points. If the item is a focus and you loose it, you keep the points.

So if the 'magic cat burglar' has a VPP of magial gear, with a 'museum' where she can change her VPP powers, I would say the VPP is not independant. After all, in a world with magic items available to be stolen - and presumable occasionaly sold as well - there would be a place to buy the more common magic items. Other items that are less easily replaced as individual items could be replaced by other items with similar functions, though. So Independant may not be the way to go here. After all, if you put an Independant item into a VPP and loose it, you loose the points in the VPP as well!http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/shock.gif

[Chris Goodwin]

I suppose the best way to look at Independant is as a limitation on the points, not the item. If an item is Independant and you loose it, you loose the points. If the item is a focus and you loose it, you keep the points.

This is precisely correct.

[Sean Waters]

Independent means that YOU can loose the pouint permanently. Just because someone else has an independent item does not mean you can gain the points (semi) permanently. To a large extent I cannot see anyone, ever, taking the indepndent limitation anything, but that is because I am not thinking like that character. The character is thinking: if I make and sell a dozen of these whozits then I'm set for LIFE!

I think the second character has a VPP that can only be changed by stealing something new (-1 or even -2, depending on the GM). I might - MIGHT - allow a sort of limited independent limitation on the powers in the pool, to simulate sometimes having powerful stuff and sometimes having less powerful stuff.

[Killer Shrike]

I use it in Heroic games where characters pay points for gear (exceptional or otherwise).

[lapsedgamer]

I suppose the best way to look at Independant is as a limitation on the points, not the item. If an item is Independant and you loose it, you loose the points. If the item is a focus and you loose it, you keep the points.


That makes a lot of sense to me. It is a much more succinct explanation than the one in 5ER. Repped.

[Vondy]

As a general rule, I don't use it. Either the game defaults to all equipment being independent by the dint of being purchased for money at no point cost to the character, or it doesn't. I might consider a rare exception, but as a rule, characters who make magic items (or the like) in my games don't take independent because they can replace it by making another - albeit with time and effort. Instead, one of two things happens, depending on the game: 1) they use skill, time, effort, and whatever weird materials they needed to create another (the limitation being narrative time as opposed to points), or 2) they pay points for the item, but take OAF without Independent. I prefer #1, but I've done both.

[DocSamson]

Remember for a limitation to be a limitation, at some point it has to come into play otherwise its not worth any points. That means if you take Independent, you are guaranteeing that at some time in the future you will lose those points.

[Sean Waters]

The -2 you get allows you a lot of points for a little cost, but not little enough IMO. The trade off is that once you lose those points - and you can - they are gone.

Apart from an interesting way to model the effects of aging, or in a game where this is expected for all special items, I can't really see anyone going for it in a rpg, unless they think the GM is such a soft touch they will never do it to them.

[Utech]

You might want to hand out experience as a mix of the following:

Character Points
Skills (especially Skill Levels) and/or Powers (especially Luck) built with Charges that Never Recover
interesting items that are Independent (thus thought of as temporary)

[lapsedgamer]

You might want to hand out experience as a mix of the following:

Character Points
Skills (especially Skill Levels) and/or Powers (especially Luck) built with Charges that Never Recover
interesting items that are Independent (thus thought of as temporary)


The last two are very good ideas I haven't heard or really thought of before.

[Sean Waters]

I've used this as a GM to reward players when I've not wanted to hand out too much XP:

Got to succeed...2 real points (10 active)

+1 Overall (10 Active Points); 1 Charge which Never Recovers (-4)

But I'm not convinced that the limitations are big enough to convince players to spend on them. One use, ever, then it is gone....hmmm...

[GoldenAge]

Remember for a limitation to be a limitation, at some point it has to come into play otherwise its not worth any points. That means if you take Independent, you are guaranteeing that at some time in the future you will lose those points.

Or end up on a quest to get those points back. :thumbup:

[AmadanNaBriona]

I've used this as a GM to reward players when I've not wanted to hand out too much XP:

Got to succeed...2 real points (10 active)

+1 Overall (10 Active Points); 1 Charge which Never Recovers (-4)

But I'm not convinced that the limitations are big enough to convince players to spend on them. One use, ever, then it is gone....hmmm...

not unlike Favors which are essentially:
1 pt Contact 14- (5AP) 1 Charge Which Never Recovers (-4)

which I tend to hand out like Hallowe'en treats in some campaigns ;)

[Killer Shrike]

Remember for a limitation to be a limitation, at some point it has to come into play otherwise its not worth any points. That means if you take Independent, you are guaranteeing that at some time in the future you will lose those points.

"guaranteeing that at some time in the future you will lose those points" is not true at all.

The Limitation takes immediate effect when it is applied by forever divesting the character of some number of points. By virtue of this having been done it also becomes possible for the character to in future have that item permanently removed from them, but it does not in anyway guarantee or mandate that it happen. It CAN happen, not it MUST happen or WILL happen.

The bottom line is all Independent does is subtract points from a character and sequester them into an item as a separate entity. Thus, the power construct is INDEPENDENT of the character. The possessor of the thing which is Independent gains the utility of the construct while they possess it, but the points embedded in it don't actually belong to them.

An Independent item may or may not leave the possession of the original bearer whom the points were extracted from, and it may leave possession and be returned many times. If the character is canny enough to keep the item against any attempts to remove it from their possession then they are never deprived of its use. If the character does lose the item, they can always attempt to get it back and if they do then they regain it's use exactly as if it had never left their possession.

[Vulcan]

True enough.

But unless a GM at least tries to take the Independant item away from the charcter pretty regularly, it becomse a cheap way to get three times as much power.:eek: :idjit:

The reason not to take Independant is the threat of the loss. If the GM doesn't follow through on the threat, then it's the rest of the players who loose, because their characters fall behind the power curve of the character who did take Independant. :thumbdown

[Vondy]

True enough.

But unless a GM at least tries to take the Independant item away from the charcter pretty regularly, it becomse a cheap way to get three times as much power.:eek: :idjit:

The reason not to take Independant is the threat of the loss. If the GM doesn't follow through on the threat, then it's the rest of the players who loose, because their characters fall behind the power curve of the character who did take Independant. :thumbdown

I disagree that life, or gaming, has to be perfectly fair and balanced.

We make choices. We know what the potential benefits and risks are. We live with them.

Character design is like life. You make choices and live with the benefits and risks. What will be will be.

The limitation gives the GM the option of using the independent nature of the item as a story point.

It does not obligate the GM to take punitive action.

And GMs who routinely step on limitations on principle as opposed to doing so in the course of good storytelling tend to be justly regarded as a host of bad things.

If it works as a plot point, all good. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

[Utech]

I'd say a player who takes the Independent Limitation on a Power is saying to their GM: "I want the potential loss of this to be something that challenges my character."

The GM is in no way obligated to ensure the thing is lost. The GM should, however, work with the player to figure out what sort of challenges the player is interested in dealing with.

If the player doesn't want to be limited by the Independent Limitation then it is, of course, not worth any points. If the player wants to be only mildly limited by the Independent Limitation, the GM should lower the value of the Independent Limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem is that Independent only actually impacts the character (and thus limits the powers) if the abilities are taken away at some point. The character has extra power while the item sticks around and reduced power if it does not.

KS' comments make me think of using Independent as a more limited focus. It will be harder to replace, so I'll take it away for longer periods. Now, that is more limiting, and while a different interpretation, enforces that you got an extra -2 limitation, and should have less access to the powers as a consequence. I like that approach.

Still, the Independent limitation says "sometimes I will have considerably more power than my peers, and other times I will have less". The 'standard' model says I get more power until I lose it, then I have less power. The KS model says I get more power when I have it, but I frequently will not have those points. The latter avoids the "lost my item; retire this character and start a new one" tendency.

[Markdoc]

Still, the Independent limitation says "sometimes I will have considerably more power than my peers, and other times I will have less". The 'standard' model says I get more power until I lose it, then I have less power. The KS model says I get more power when I have it, but I frequently will not have those points. The latter avoids the "lost my item; retire this character and start a new one" tendency.

Whenever a player wants to take that limitation, I point out in advance that they can - and at some point, probably will - lose that chunk of points and may, or may not regain it - ever. If they do regain it we're looking at a very long absence. Given that option, most players turn it down. That said, I have had Independant items in the game in the hands of PCs, and it has worked OK. There's the current game where players have magical gifts that they lose if they break their geasa. These are mostly small point items. One player has lost his gift (his geas was "Never receive or give a gift" and he thoughtlessly gave a starving man some coins. So 3 character points went "Poof!"

The other was a PC who carried around his grandfather's skull, which contained said relative's spirit. I never did actually take that away since grandfather was too much fun: I used the "independant" there as licence to torment the player with the spirit's threat to disappear, and Grandfather was, at any rate a cantankerous old sod, often refusing to help, unless outrageously flattered, commenting acidly on the abilities and decisions of modern adventurers compared to those of his day, when men were real men, and women were ... grrr ... real women and zombies were real zombies, etc etc. In that case I felt like I had gotten my money's worth out of the Disad. And judging by the players' reactions, they did too. :D

cheers, Mark

[Korvar]

In a Heroic campaign, where characters can lose Stuff at the GM's whim (and buy it back when they get the cash), I'd be tempted to occasionally dump a few character points and an Independent limitation on the party Mage for them to make a magic item from, in the same way I might drop a magic sword for the Fighter.

[Killer Shrike]

True enough.

But unless a GM at least tries to take the Independant item away from the charcter pretty regularly, it becomse a cheap way to get three times as much power.:eek: :idjit:

The reason not to take Independant is the threat of the loss. If the GM doesn't follow through on the threat, then it's the rest of the players who loose, because their characters fall behind the power curve of the character who did take Independant. :thumbdown

This is only true if a person taking IND for something like say a Magic Item were _unusual_ to the campaign.


If on the other hand it is the campaign standard way to design such anyone can take and use them effects then its not an abuse of the system its a use of the system.

You are assuming that all Limitations are equally valid and used exactly the same way. Some modifiers are general purpose and some are there to provide a way for a particular thing to be modeled without having to make it up yourself.

For instance, OIHID is very specialized and used to model a concept common to a particular sort of game and generally not otherwise. It also has some built in assumptions like a character using it also has a particular Disadvantage (Secret ID).

Similarly Delayed Effect is very specialized and has some assumptions about how a particular concept that uses it is orchestrated.

NCC is very specialized and has some assumptions around what is and isn't possible and on how strict the GM will be.

And so on and so forth. Many modifiers are not universally appropriate and intended to be valid for any particular power construct for any particular campaign in any particular genre. They exist to allow something to be modeled _if it and the assumptions attached to it make sense in the context of the campaign_.


Independent is really not something Joe Blow Character should be taking in a vacuum as a short sighted way to cut points. Its a Limitation that the GM should decide to engage as a way to model the concept of effects that are portable, as something that is even possible in the context of their campaign, and then mandating its use in such cases as part of a broader vision / effort.

[GoldenAge]

"guaranteeing that at some time in the future you will lose those points" is not true at all.

The Limitation takes immediate effect when it is applied by forever divesting the character of some number of points. By virtue of this having been done it also becomes possible for the character to in future have that item permanently removed from them, but it does not in anyway guarantee or mandate that it happen. It CAN happen, not it MUST happen or WILL happen.

The bottom line is all Independent does is subtract points from a character and sequester them into an item as a separate entity. Thus, the power construct is INDEPENDENT of the character. The possessor of the thing which is Independent gains the utility of the construct while they possess it, but the points embedded in it don't actually belong to them.

An Independent item may or may not leave the possession of the original bearer whom the points were extracted from, and it may leave possession and be returned many times. If the character is canny enough to keep the item against any attempts to remove it from their possession then they are never deprived of its use. If the character does lose the item, they can always attempt to get it back and if they do then they regain it's use exactly as if it had never left their possession.
I agree.

Such relics as Arthur's Excalibur, Tarnkappe; Sigurd's magical cloak that made himr invisible, Prince Neferkaptah's Book of Thoth and many yet-to-be-created items could be made as intrinsic yet Independent components of individual characters. Their appropriation by others may always be an issue. But a good GM wouldn't turn to a player and say "Too bad, shouldn't have bought it Independent" he would, rather, give the player the grand option of retrieving his item. Such a quest could lead to the greatest of adventures and eventually restore the item (and experience points) to the character. I can't think of a better motivator. :)

[Killer Shrike]

The problem is that Independent only actually impacts the character (and thus limits the powers) if the abilities are taken away at some point. The character has extra power while the item sticks around and reduced power if it does not.

KS' comments make me think of using Independent as a more limited focus. It will be harder to replace, so I'll take it away for longer periods. Now, that is more limiting, and while a different interpretation, enforces that you got an extra -2 limitation, and should have less access to the powers as a consequence. I like that approach.

Still, the Independent limitation says "sometimes I will have considerably more power than my peers, and other times I will have less". The 'standard' model says I get more power until I lose it, then I have less power. The KS model says I get more power when I have it, but I frequently will not have those points. The latter avoids the "lost my item; retire this character and start a new one" tendency.

It's not "KS's" system. Read the Limitation write up. That's explicitly how it works. Ill take the time to reprint it here to save everyone a trip to the bookshelf.




Independent
Value: -2

An Independent power is unconnected to the character in any way. This has several effects: an Independent power works if the character is unconscious, dead, or across the world; any other character can use an Independent power; and a character can lose the Character Points he spent on an Independent power forever.

Independent is mainly used to create special items -- such as enchanted items in Fantasy campaigns. For example, consider a wizard's magic wand that fires an Energy Blast. In basic terms you can build this wand two ways. First you can define it as a Focus. The wand is just a stick to anyone else, because it's the wizard who knows how to cast the Energy Blast spell; he just needs to have the wand to use the power. IF someone takes away or breaks the wand, the wizard can't use the power again until he finds it or makes a new one. As explained under Focus, making a new wand doesn't cost him any more Character Points.

Second he can build the wand as a power with both the Focus and the Independent Limitations. If the wand is Independent, it means the ability to throw Energy Blasts is part of the wand, not the wizard. If the wizard loses the wand (or its taken from him), anyone who picks up the wand can use it to throw Energy Blasts. The wizard can't use the power again unless he regains the wand or makes a new one. And making a new wand that's Independent costs him the same amount of Character Points he paid for it the first time!

It's this last fact that explains why Independent has such a large value (-2): the character can permanently lose the Character Points spent on the item. If the item is broken, stolen, lost, Dispelled, or otherwise rendered inoperative, the Character Points spent on it are lost forever.

An Independent item can be used by anyone -- a character who obtains it doesnt have to pay any Character Points for it or do anything special to use it (outside of what its Limitations require). Requiring the maker (the wizard, in this case) to pay his own Character Points for each and every one is the only way to ensure that wizards don't form assembly lines and flood the world with magic wands.

A power with Independent is normally controlled by its wielder. For example, a character could build an Independent ring with the appropriate Life Support and could breathe underwater while wearing it. The character could give the ring to someone else, and then that person could breathe water. This is different from Usable On Others, which signifies that the person wearing the ring could touch someone and allow them to breathe underwater without giving them the ring.

Independent powers are normally items (ie they're build with the Focus Limitation; the Focus must be Universal). However, an Independent power doesn't have to be tied to an item. A character could also place an Independent power on a person or place -- this is a good way to simulate a curse for example. Using an Independent power on a location or person would attach the power permanently to that spot or person. The power can be removed if the location itself is somehow destroyed, or with an appropriate Adjustment Power or Transform.

Characters can also use Independent to simulate the inherent natural or magical properties of a substance. For example, in a Fantasy campaign a character could find a material that has magical power (defined as a pool of Character Points) locked inside it -- a magically charged stone from the sky and the body parts of some mythical beast are two possibilities. He could use the Character Points in this material to build an Independent item -- the points could not be added to his abilities.




As a side note I think it is telling that all in text mentions of examples are Fantasy oriented, and only one of the sidebar examples is not Fantasy. My own experience w/ using Independent is IIRC exclusively in Fantasy campaigns.

This is a very specialized limitation which is very good at modeling an externalized kind of power, which is most often found in a Fantasy context and less often found elsewhere. It really isnt a general purpose, safe at all speeds Lim like say Focus or Charges.

[Sean Waters]

I disagree that life, or gaming, has to be perfectly fair and balanced.

We make choices. We know what the potential benefits and risks are. We live with them.

Character design is like life. You make choices and live with the benefits and risks. What will be will be.

The limitation gives the GM the option of using the independent nature of the item as a story point.

It does not obligate the GM to take punitive action.

And GMs who routinely step on limitations on principle as opposed to doing so in the course of good storytelling tend to be justly regarded as a host of bad things.

If it works as a plot point, all good. If it doesn't, it doesn't.

Life doesn't have to be fair, gaming does, for the very simple reason that you don't have to play the game.

There is nothing punitive about taking away a character's independent item. You are not punishing them for taking the limitation any more than you are punishing someone who takes charges by telling them they can only use that power four times a day.

The player walked into that one open-eyed: I want power now at a cost later. It is not the GM's 'fault' that the limitation is there in any sense and, whilst I agree with Killer Shrike's point that the independent limitation does not OBLIGATE the GM to take away the points, the player has to accept that taking the limitation might mean losing the independent power even before there is a chance to use it.

Equally, whilst I agree that these decisions should be story driven, the player can't whine just because the story turned out not to be to his liking.

Having said that, if the GM doesn't use the limitations on a power he is punishing someone alright - the player who did not so limit his character, because he did not want the thing taken away from him and so did not build it like that, and so did not save all those points for other goodies.

It is not always about the person building the character and their 'right' to dictate the story as they see fit. Sometimes it is about averyone else.

To my mind this whole argument illustrates perfectly why using the 'independent' limitation, except, perhaps for XP (and even then only if it is in addition to 'normal' XP awards) is often a bad idea - it is almost certain that everyone will have a different idea as to how it should be used and applied and therefore is far more likely to sow disharmony and hurt the game than help it along.

The GM has an obligation not to be arbitrary with it (although it is, by its very nature, an arbitrary decision), the player has an obligation not to be precious about it and, if we draw a Venn Diagram, I'm betting the intersection is a tiny thing, easily missed, and missing it is bound to upset someone to the detriment of the game.

[Sean Waters]

I agree.

Such relics as Arthur's Excalibur, Tarnkappe; Sigurd's magical cloak that made himr invisible, Prince Neferkaptah's Book of Thoth and many yet-to-be-created items could be made as intrinsic yet Independent components of individual characters. Their appropriation by others may always be an issue. But a good GM wouldn't turn to a player and say "Too bad, shouldn't have bought it Independent" he would, rather, give the player the grand option of retrieving his item. Such a quest could lead to the greatest of adventures and eventually restore the item (and experience points) to the character. I can't think of a better motivator. :)

Whilst I do not want to get obsessive about this, Excalibur, for example, seems more like an indestructible focus. It was with Arthur almost always (althought here are conflicting legends, at least one of which, IIRC, has Excalibur broken at some point) .

The thing about a focus is that it is bought so that it CAN be retreived if lost. An independent item somewhat specifically cannot (or rather the points cannot) once it is gone.

There is often a dynamic tension between the individual and the group. In a group situation, which I assume covers the majority of cases (as opposed to single player play), you have to be fair both to the player and to the other players. It is unfortunate for the player if he loses a chunk of his XP because his independent sword, Demonsheart (which made him perhaps the most powerful/central PC), shattered when he tried to stab someone pure of heart, but I would argue that it is even more unfortunate if he gets the points back at the cost of resentment on the part of the other players.

I have certainly played with people, although thankfully not recently, who are more than willing to accept a bargain but cry foul when it becomes obvious why it was so cheap in the first place.

[Istaran]

If on the other hand it is the campaign standard way to design such anyone can take and use them effects then its not an abuse of the system its a use of the system.

The standard way to build this is a Universal Focus. It has the advantage that allies can take and use the item. It has the disadvantage that enemies can take and use the item. It is not worth any change in point value from a Personal Focus that does not have those traits.

Independant says you get -2 worth of Limitation from the fact that you can permanently lose your points.

One of the horror stories I was told about Hero system gone wrong was about a player who put most of his points into two items: A OAF(gun), Independant built as a multipower with all of his attacks and a OIF(power armor), Independant which I believe was built as an EC. He completely dominated combat, of course, until the GM got fed up and had a villain disarm his gun, and take it and throw it in a lake. After much whining, the GM let him find his gun. The GM then promptly required the player to remove the character from his campaign and never use Independant in his presence again.


Independant should never be allowed if the player is not going to be willing and able to play the character after all those points are taken away. It can be used in responsible and fun ways. But as a general rule, any -2 limitation should be one you really don't want to have on your power. 1 charge per day is really limiting. Independant should be too. But it only is if the threat of losing the points permanently is very real.

[Killer Shrike]

The standard way to build this is a Universal Focus. It has the advantage that allies can take and use the item. It has the disadvantage that enemies can take and use the item. It is not worth any change in point value from a Personal Focus that does not have those traits.


You're wrong. That is not the "standard" way to build it. It is "a" way to build it. Universal Focus + Independent is "another" way to build it. You may want to go read the rules again.



Independant says you get -2 worth of Limitation from the fact that you can permanently lose your points.

It says quite a bit more than that as well.



SNIP a big tangent

Reference my earlier posts on the subject, in full.



{shrug} I've got at least 15 years of experience using Independent in Fantasy campaigns for Magic Items, and a large body of work around it, literally hundreds of Magic Items have seen play using it, and dozens upon dozens of characters have used such items. In fact I have a fully described, formal methodology for handling magic items that includes Independent as a critical feature for permanent items available on my site.

So, given my actual extensive experience with it you'll excuse me if I discount claims that it doesn't work well.

My final word on the matter is: in my opinion it works for what it is intended for as part of an overarching strategy at the campaign level, and it works very well indeed.

And with that, I'm moving on. Good luck to the OP.

[Istaran]

You're wrong. That is not the "standard" way to build it. It is "a" way to build it. Universal Focus + Independent is "another" way to build it. You may want to go read the rules again.

Having reread it (thank you for posting it, as I did not have my book handy), I see nothing in it that makes it more of a thing that is usable by anyone than a Universal Focus. Only that it also makes it so you can permanently lose the points.


It says quite a bit more than that as well.
I see it saying things that are already covered by Universal Focus. I see it listing non-sequitors about mages flooding the markets with wands.



Reference my earlier posts on the subject, in full.



{shrug} I've got at least 15 years of experience using Independent in Fantasy campaigns for Magic Items, and a large body of work around it, literally hundreds of Magic Items have seen play using it, and dozens upon dozens of characters have used such items. In fact I have a fully described, formal methodology for handling magic items that includes Independent as a critical feature for permanent items available on my site.

So, given my actual extensive experience with it you'll excuse me if I discount claims that it doesn't work well.

My final word on the matter is: in my opinion it works for what it is intended for as part of an overarching strategy at the campaign level, and it works very well indeed.

And with that, I'm moving on. Good luck to the OP.

I think the issue I am claiming, as someone admittedly far less experienced than yourself, is that if Independant is used in a lopsided way (i.e. one person has a bunch of Independant on their character sheet) then they are getting a huge point savings which is only plausibly offset if the limitation is brought into play (i.e. there is a real threat of the points being removed. It is not entirely necessary that the points are removed.)

If everyone in the campaign has Independant things on hand, then their power level is simply different than thier point total would indicate. So as an "overarching strategy at the campaign level" it is almost certainly fine. As an individual power purchase made at one PCs discression, it can cause problems.

The OP should probably look at your website for useful info on a way to use Independant in a "overarching strategy at the campaign level" for valuable results.

[Sean Waters]

I think that is a good point. If Independent is used as part of the campaign assumptions to indicate that people can lose their magic/special items but find/quest for others, and so is a mechanism for moving character points round and perhaps focussing the spotlight on one character then the next and so on, then it is useful tool, because everyont gets an equal shot at it. The actual rules don't matter that much so long as they are applied equally to all and, in any event, in many fantasy campaigns, perhaps most, you won't be paying with your own points anyway so it is largely moot.

OTOH if a character is the only one using the limitation in a given campaign then it will give substantial point savings, but the cost of that - the real potential for permanent loss - has to be enforced to make it fair to the other players. The player really should expect to lose whatever they have the points invested in at some point, and not get them back.

IMO Independent is probably largely irrelevant in heroic games as most things that could be built with independent you won't be paying for anyway, and in superheroic games it can be used if the consequences are accepted. I think the Super-thief idea is a good one but better represented by a VPP.

Independent only works well as a mechanism for short term gain, or at least if it thought of that way.

[Tech]

To answer the original question: no, I can't recall ever using it.

[tesuji]

I allowed it for fantasy campaigns for items the character possessed at the start of the campaign but could not remake.

For example -the fighter who wanted a couple healing potions at start of game or the pc with a magic axe he "found" but could not reasonably replaceif lost/damaged.

The part i emphasized was the "renting the power" aspect. I pointed out the similarity between "charges dont recover" and independent and made surre they knew "you will lose this power and when that happens its basically gone, points gone, no refund, etc.

I had similar guidelines in supers but the draw to use it there was less. Mostly there a few guys used to getting away with it under other gms slapped it on lots of things but changed tune quickly when finding out it wasn't a "free extra -2 on foci"

so i have seen limited use.

[prestidigitator]

I use it for magical items in fantasy games. To make a magical item, a wizard must pay for any value above and beyond what the item could normally do (e.g. even if the "echantment" was to change a sword from a 1d6 to a 1d6+1, the extra DC would be paid for), and that is bought with--among other things--Independent (possibly also with Unrecoverable Charges and such, depending on whether it is a consumable item like a potion). However, I also balance it by allowing character points usable for very specific purposes to be "embedded" in rare materials and items. So the party could go on a quest for that ultra rare phoenix feather if the wizard really didn't want to invest his personal experience points into creating a mantle of fiery might or whatever. Also I typically make rituals available whereby the wizard can use the life force (or whatever) of another WILLING character to invest in the creation (which I'd usually only allow if the item were being created initially for the donating character).

The other typical use I give Independent is in a few games where I build D&D-style "Paladins" with powers that can be lost based on the whole faith/intention/actions deal. There's an example where there is NOT also a Focus involved.

I wouldn't limit this to fantasy, but I think fantasy is the most common example. A herioc sci-fi game might also be a suitable example, if a character were to build a really extraordinary new piece of technology, an A.I., or something to that effect. I never allow Independent in superheroic games.

[Chris Goodwin]

However, I also balance it by allowing character points usable for very specific purposes to be "embedded" in rare materials and items.

This is everything that is wrong with Independent.

You penalize the creation of magic items harshly by requiring them to be Independent, then realize it was too harsh and so "fix" it by giving free points away so they don't have to spend their own.

Points are not fungible currency. They're a yardstick. You can't spend inches.

[tesuji]

The other typical use I give Independent is in a few games where I build D&D-style "Paladins" with powers that can be lost based on the whole faith/intention/actions deal. There's an example where there is NOT also a Focus involved.


for these i just tended to use a conditional power lim, with the value determined by how limiting the code was and thus how often it would be a denied power. At -2, the standard for independent, thats a lot of denial time.

:-)

[prestidigitator]

This is everything that is wrong with Independent.

You penalize the creation of magic items harshly by requiring them to be Independent, then realize it was too harsh and so "fix" it by giving free points away so they don't have to spend their own.

Points are not fungible currency. They're a yardstick. You can't spend inches.

I don't see it as a "fix." I see it as a player/party tradeoff. If they want to sit around in their spare time between adventures making magical items they can, but they have to spend some of their hard earned experience (so we don't just have magical item factories sitting around, and so that that uncommon power they attain by such items is measured and really worth something). If they'd like to (more as a group) go on targeted adventures to get them built instead, I like to reward that.

I suppose it is a genre element I like from the old D&D days that you can or must use certain rare items and materials for this sort of thing. That's the way I think of it, not necessarily as a "currency." It's sort of like the Skill Points they recommend (or used to?) for experience awards; if a character has worked the use of a skill creatively into the story, give them some experience points specifically for increasing that skill. As a bonus, not a restriction.

It's not for all games, but I think it works quite well. in mine, and I don't see it as a problem at all. There's nothing I want fixed.

[Chris Goodwin]

I don't see it as a "fix." I see it as a player/party tradeoff. If they want to sit around in their spare time between adventures making magical items they can, but they have to spend some of their hard earned experience (so we don't just have magical item factories sitting around, and so that that uncommon power they attain by such items is measured and really worth something). If they'd like to (more as a group) go on targeted adventures to get them built instead, I like to reward that.

I suppose it is a genre element I like from the old D&D days that you can or must use certain rare items and materials for this sort of thing. That's the way I think of it, not necessarily as a "currency." It's sort of like the Skill Points they recommend (or used to?) for experience awards; if a character has worked the use of a skill creatively into the story, give them some experience points specifically for increasing that skill. As a bonus, not a restriction.

A. There's an easy way to stop wizards being magic item factories: the word No. Actually, there's another easy way: require them to take Extra Time, rare Focus, lots of increased END Cost, etc.

B. D&D is the wrong game to compare it to.

Edit: I mean, come on, in Champions games, we don't see ultratech factories even though most superhero worlds have high tech gadgeteers. And not an Independent to be found.

[prestidigitator]

A. There's an easy way to stop wizards being magic item factories: the word No. Actually, there's another easy way: require them to take Extra Time, rare Focus, lots of increased END Cost, etc.

B. D&D is the wrong game to compare it to.

Edit: I mean, come on, in Champions games, we don't see ultratech factories even though most superhero worlds have high tech gadgeteers. And not an Independent to be found.

Well, like I said it's not for all games. I actually LIKE a D&D type SETTING. I don't like the game system, but I like a lot of the source material (mostly AD&D era and before). I certainly enjoy other fantasy settings as well, and I'm not saying I use this for all of them. I think Independent has its place, and this is a decent example of it.

[CrosshairCollie]

If you always give a character the option to recover an Independent Focus, how is the additional -2 limitation applied? At that point, it's just a focus.

[Korvar]

This is everything that is wrong with Independent.

You penalize the creation of magic items harshly by requiring them to be Independent, then realize it was too harsh and so "fix" it by giving free points away so they don't have to spend their own.

Points are not fungible currency. They're a yardstick. You can't spend inches.

And yet, in a Heroic game, you can get a 1d6 Killing attack just by going to a shop and buying a sword. And you can lose that 1d6 Killing attack if it gets confiscated by the Town Guard or the cops or whoever. And that depends on the character having "money", and it's essentially the GM who decides if you get "money". I don't see much difference between that and the GM handing a player some points and saying "you can make a magic item with these points, but they must have the Independent limitation".

[Markdoc]

A. There's an easy way to stop wizards being magic item factories: the word No. Actually, there's another easy way: require them to take Extra Time, rare Focus, lots of increased END Cost, etc.

However, when the GM has to overwork the word no, it suggests a problem with the rules - particularly if it contravenes common sense. Of the other aspects, END cost and extra time are non-issues when we are talking about PCs constructing things out of adventure time, and rare foci can (and will) be acquired.


B. D&D is the wrong game to compare it to.

Heh. Here, I agree.


Edit: I mean, come on, in Champions games, we don't see ultratech factories even though most superhero worlds have high tech gadgeteers. And not an Independent to be found.

Actually, in Champions games, occasionally an independant item is to be found. I agree the lack of ultratech factories makes no sense, but it's a genre convention, along with things like the Hulk not sinking into the ground when he lifts a tank over his head. Those genre conventions don't obviously always transfer from game to game, however.

Independant fills a useful niche and it doesn't really impact game balance: munchkins are generally game-savvy enough to work out (after perhaps one scarring experience) that setting up a chunk of your points where the GM can take them away forever is not a wining strategy.

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

If you always give a character the option to recover an Independent Focus, how is the additional -2 limitation applied? At that point, it's just a focus.

If the GM intends that the player can always recover the focus, even if he can't make a new one, they should use "unbreakable focus" not independant. The threat of the points going away for ever should be real, or the limitation means nothing.

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

If you always give a character the option to recover an Independent Focus, how is the additional -2 limitation applied? At that point, it's just a focus.

They can always try, but the GM is under no obligation to make it possible. As has been pointed out though, once the points are spent, they're gone. And even with a non-Independent Focus, if it goes away the GM is not even under any particular obligation to let them get the Focus back, though if it's not Independent they do get the points back.

[Istaran]

And yet, in a Heroic game, you can get a 1d6 Killing attack just by going to a shop and buying a sword. And you can lose that 1d6 Killing attack if it gets confiscated by the Town Guard or the cops or whoever. And that depends on the character having "money", and it's essentially the GM who decides if you get "money". I don't see much difference between that and the GM handing a player some points and saying "you can make a magic item with these points, but they must have the Independent limitation".

The one difference I see is that phrasing Independant as a limitation in this way skews the value of limitations on the item itself. For example:

I give you 20 cp to make a magic item. It must have some variety of Universal Focus and has implied Independant (don't factor in the lim):
You can make a 41 AP item as an OAF, or a 25 AP item as an IIF, before other lims. Same ratio as if it was on a Super's sheet as bought with points.

Alternatively, I give you 10 cp to make a magic item. It must have some variety of Universal Focus and also Independant:
You can make either a 42 AP item as an OAF, or a 34 AP item as an IIF, before other lims. IIF just became a much more attractive options, concidering how much less restrictive it is than OAF.

I don't see a need to twist the limitation values when doing something like giving bonus points for item creation. It seems to me like it'd be more balanced to give them more points with a 'implied Independant' limitation.

[Sean Waters]

Hmm.

In a Fantasy campaign anyone with a spell to transform mundane to magical items can do so at no real cost to themselves. I'd expect most GMs to veto this. The sober ones, anyway.

Temporary MIs can be created with UBO or Uncontrolled powers. You can build an MI as a focus and, if you build it as Indestructible then you can lose the points if it is destroyed (albeit you can probably get them back as it is a focus but it would take much longer than usual).

Personally I'm not at all keen on focii being anything other than personal IME enemies might disarm you but only rarely use your stuff against you, whereas a universal focus can be lent to your mate for a while - you are getting UBO/Uncontrolled for free (a particular bugbear of mine - the limitation that rewards, or the advantage that penalises). That's an aside though.

To my mind a -1 should mean that you can't use the power effectively half the time. I doubt most OAF are out of commission anything like that much. I appreciate that a part fo the limitation is there to simulate role playing elements (like having to guard your item from theft) but it seems over generous. Anyway, that's an aside too.

Independent is a -2. Other than as a way to prevent XP inflation I really can't see the use of it. In a game where you buy items with money, the real points are pretty unimportant. In a game where you don't either the GM has to permanently deprive the character of the points at some point, or is rewarding them at the expense of the other PCs.

Here's an idea.

Use the normal focus limtiation (despite what I said above) with the following additional limitation indicating how long it takes to replace a lost focus: for an additional -1/4 it takes a full day to replace a stolen or destroyed focus, and for each -1/4 it takes an additional step up the time table (so -2 would be that it takes a season to replace). Of course you can go and steal it back if someone nicks it off you, and that is not subject to any time limit, just GM fiat - this is a replacement time.

You can also take an additional -1/4 if you requires equipment or materials you are unlikely to have with you to replace an item, or more if the equipment/materials are rare or difficult to obtain (-1/2 up to -1 for practically unique items). Difficult to obtain/rare equipment or materials in teh construction of an items will always substabtially increase the money cost, making it that much more likely that someone will target it for theft.

So a 60 AP item built as a OAF is 30 points real. If it is lost or destroyed you can, in most cases, replace it within a day. A 60 AP items built as an OAF that takes time to replace (takes a season -1) and requires special materials and equipment that are rare (-1/2) is 24 points real. Piling on the limitations tends to be an excercise in diminishing returns, but if you want the extra detail, it seems to work quite nicely, and gives some reasonably firm guidelines as to just what you are getting your character into.