Hero Basic 6th : Destructible FOCUS and Power Armor

[IKerensky]

Hi,

the focus limitation tell that the focus have PD and ED equal to Active Points /5.

My question is : when is a Focus hit ? I suppose if it is into a Area of Effect or specifically targeted.

But what for Power Armor ? did they take hits with the PC ? Did they take hit before/after him ?

Thanks.

[sobran]

Generally speaking, a Focus should only be subjected to damage when it is specifically targeted or the PC is hit with an AoE. In the latter case, SFX are worth considering. A flamethrower may damage Foci, while a spell that drains life energy from the living may not... unless it is a living Focus (a mage familiar, for example).

As for Power Armor, I would consider letting the Armor that the Power Armor grants the character also apply to the Power Armor Focus itself. Between the Armor and the PD/ED it will get from the multiple powers most PAs have, the Focus defenses should be high enough that you shouldn't have to worry about it. If you're curious, compare the Standard Effect and/or Maximum Damage of a few attacks to the total defense of the Power Armor. In most cases, damaging the Power Armor would be more difficult than killing the squishy human wearing it.

In which case, don't bother worrying about damage to Power Armor except in exceptional cases. Checking damage to the PA every time a character got hit would get old really quick.

[tesuji]

"Any Focus that provides defenses to a character
is automatically hit by any attack that hits
the character based on a successful Attack Roll"
pg 379 hero 6e1

Normally an OAF is hit when specifically targetted, taking iirc a -2 to hit against the characters dcv.

Normally OIF and such are not subject to attacks except when out of combat etc. GM discretion applies of course, but the reason oif is less than OAF is the "not targettable in combat" usually.

But the huge exception is for focus which provide defenses and they get a huge whammy because they are always hit when their defenses apply. They lose powers every time they take body bamage past their defenses.

so a powered armor suit with a lot of built in functions can lose one power from any attack that gets body past its defense.
(past just that fosu not the total defenses)

in the past there was an option, perhaps house rule, that had the focus lose 5 ap worth instead of "a power" every time it was breached. this helps the glass armor problem where for instance a bullet proof vest 6 rpd 6red dies as soon as it takes one 7 body hit.

[Sean Waters]

If any Body damage gets through your armour, you don't have armour any more (unless it has other powers too, in which case it might survive the hit). Not a lot of people know that.

[Tom Carman]

If any Body damage gets through your armour, you don't have armour any more (unless it has other powers too, in which case it might survive the hit). Not a lot of people know that.

Which is, of course, such a ridiculous situation that no game that I have ever played in, in any genre or era of the rule set, has operated that way.

[Sean Waters]

Which is, of course, such a ridiculous situation that no game that I have ever played in, in any genre or era of the rule set, has operated that way.


Thems the rules. Are you dissing the rules?

Gloriana: Well I was fighting Mechanon and he hit me with a Stinger. Hardly felt it to be honest, but all my armour fell off. Terribly embarrassing...

[Tom Carman]

Thems the rules. Are you dissing the rules?

Gloriana: Well I was fighting Mechanon and he hit me with a Stinger. Hardly felt it to be honest, but all my armour fell off. Terribly embarrassing...

"The GM may prevent absurdities."

[ghost-angel]

I'll be ignoring that one with great gusto. Makes moderate sense if your Defense is Powered ARmor. Makes no sense if your Defense is a small magic charm I keep in my pocket. . .

If I want my armor to start degrading I'll add Ablative or something.

[prestidigitator]

I'd guess most defensive foci are built as Durable (double PD/ED) or Unbreakable. I'd think you could also consider an object used as a focus as Breakable for some powers and Unbreakable for others without much headache. It would also stand to reason that you could provide some of the drawbacks of a Breakable focus to an Unbreakable one if it has a Real Armor Limitation or something.

[Sean Waters]

My cunning purpose in pointing that one out is that it is an absurd rule, fullstop.

The inexplicably continued existence of 'Penetrating' makes it doubly so. The existence of Unbreakable foci for no additional cost make it triply so.

[tesuji]

the catch with unbreakable is while it doesn't go away routinely from damage when it does go away its gone for a long time.

breakable = easily lost but quickly replaced
unbreakable = rarely lost but hard to replace

so to me those are reasonable trade offs tho imx players hate having unbreakable foci gone for "a long time" so i tend to discourage them.

imo there has been a problem with this since 4e at least, at least thats when i started griping, and repeated cries of "well the gm can ignore ir" leads to just what we have now... the rule still in place unchanged decades later.

so lets fix the damn thing and see if we can get it into 7e

first thing first...

the rule which says the focus is hit by any attack that hits the defense... THATS NOT A BREAKABILITY rule but is actually an ACCESSIBILITY rule.

INACCESSIBLE - not touched in combat
ACCESSIBLE - can be targetted at -2 in combat
UNAVOIDABLE - is hit automatically by any attacks blah blah

UNAVOIDABLE should be an additional +1/2 lim at least.

Breakability

I think the default for breakability should be either:
Lose 5 ap per attack that gets past body def with additional bonus if you want 10 ap per or 20 ap per

or

Activation rolls...

first attack that gets thru causes activation roll 15- for any powers.
next attack drops it to 14-
then 13-
etc.

[Nevenall]

"Any Focus that provides defenses to a character
is automatically hit by any attack that hits
the character based on a successful Attack Roll"
pg 379 hero 6e1


Just for the record, the rest of that paragraph says "To speed game play, and avoid breaking Foci on a regular basis, GMs may choose to ignore this rule. In such a case, Foci are only hit and damaged by attacks that specifcally target them."

[Sean Waters]

Unbreakable: it goes away for a long time. Riiiiight....realistically that isn't going to happen though, except, maybe, in downtime, or a solo campaign, so it is meaningless as an additional limitation balancing the unbreakability.

As for the accessibility/damage conundrum, so what? I aim for the armour you are wearing and destroy it with my 1Kpip Penetrating attack. Now you're naked.

Silliness. We seriously need to look at what 'focus' actually does. We've lived with it for so long we assume it is fine because we accomodate its foibles, but it is evil, I tell you, EVIL!

[Chris Goodwin]

There used to be a rule that an Accessible Focus was automatically outside of any DEF it didn't provide. Does anyone know if that rule is still in effect?

[Sean Waters]

There used to be a rule that an Accessible Focus was automatically outside of any DEF it didn't provide. Does anyone know if that rule is still in effect?

Yes

[Chris Goodwin]

Does anyone know if that rule is still in effect?


Yes

Yes someone knows, or yes you know, or yes it is? ;)

[Sean Waters]

Yes someone knows, or yes you know, or yes it is? ;)

Yes

[Chris Goodwin]

Given that we have Obvious, Inobvious, and Invisible for Powers, why don't we remove that part from Focus entirely? We don't need to explain those parts twice, and an Obvious Power bought through a Focus should give us an Obvious Focus. An Invisible Power bought through a Focus is Invisible, unless you buy it Inobvious or Obvious. (In fact, I think I'm going to house rule it from here on out. Why didn't we have this discussion a year ago? ;))

What that leaves us with is Accessible or Inaccessible. I'm okay with an additional modifier, though I'm not sure what to call it. Tesuji's suggestion of Unavoidable is good, but I'd something that can be applied to other Powers besides defenses. For instance, a magical stick (Accessible) that magically makes your right hand as hard as a brick (+2d6 HA) versus an ordinary stick (Accessible) that you bash someone with (+2d6 HA). Or some kind of weird blaster that refuels from dirt, rocks, junk, etc. but only holds enough for one shot (Blast, 1 Recoverable Charge) versus Captain America's shield (Blast, 1 Recoverable Charge) that must be thrown.

The existence of armor that is difficult to remove (Inaccessible) but otherwise acts in this way (is damaged during use) means that that last quality is not specific to Accessible Foci.

[Ice9]

Not sure unifying focus and power obviousness makes sense. I can easily think of an inobvious focus (amulet), which creates an obvious effect (blazing aura of fire). And while it's less common, there's also the obvious focus (neutron rifle) which creates an invisible effect (neutron beam) - primarily useful for stealthy characters.

Adding an "Unavoidable" category sounds like a good idea. I presume an Unavoidable Focus for an attack power would take damage from Damage Shields? I'm not sure of the limitation value, however. A sword (OAUF) would only occasionally be worse than a staff-of-fist-hardening (OAF) - unless you're facing someone with a powerful damage shield, there's no difference. On the other hand, armor which takes damage from every attack (OIUF) is much worse than a protection amulet (OIF) - maybe as much as -1 worse, depending on how much DEF is has.


For that reason, maybe it should be two separate limitations:
Direct Attack (-1/4?) - Focus of attack power takes damage from defender's damage shield, or any damaging areas in its path (throwing something through a wall of fire, for instance).
Unavoidable (-1?) - Whenever character is physically attacked, focus is also attacked. NOTE: Not just for defense powers, could also apply to an invisibility cloak or diving suit.

[Chris Goodwin]

Not sure unifying focus and power obviousness makes sense. I can easily think of an inobvious focus (amulet), which creates an obvious effect (blazing aura of fire).

Unpossible. From the book:


If a Focus is Obvious, it’s clear to anyone looking at the character that the power comes from the Focus — no PER Roll is necessary.

That's from 6E, but the wording is identical in 5ER. (And 4E -- and 3E, except in the latter two they spell out Perception.)

6E1 126 has a great discussion on the perceivability of Powers. Now that I think about it, it makes way too much sense to do away with Obvious/Inobvious classifications on Foci, especially when you get into questions like "What happens if I buy an Obvious Power with an Inobvious Focus?" IMO, it would be best all around to assume that, if you buy a Power on a Focus, the cost of the Limitation should be based on how Accessible it is, but that by default it is as Obvious as the original Power, and to change that you just buy Invisible Power Effects or Visible. I think it would simplify things greatly, and we wouldn't lose anything.

[Duke Bushido]

I'll be ignoring that one with great gusto. Makes moderate sense if your Defense is Powered ARmor. Makes no sense if your Defense is a small magic charm I keep in my pocket. . .

If I want my armor to start degrading I'll add Ablative or something.

I'm with you.

At first I thought "well, that should effectively end the 'is Iron Man OIF or "Only in Hero ID?' debate," and I was totally cool with it.

Then I thought about a supers character from a fellow player who has a Force Field generated from a belt-mounted gizmo,

and a Fantasy Character who has an FF generated by an enchanted stone in her necklace.

Nope; this rule isn't going to work for us, and will be ignored with extreme prejudice, I think.

[phookz]

Unpossible. From the book:


The section you quote doesn't apply to his example. His example was for an inobvious focus and an obvious effect. Your quote was for an obvious focus.

I could imagine a situation where a character has an Obvious focus with an Inobvious effect: Magic wand with a force field. It's clear the wand is there, and maybe even doing other obvious effects, but the force field is not obvious, it's hidden. This wouldn't work if the focus obviousness derived from the force field.

[Chris Goodwin]

The section you quote doesn't apply to his example. His example was for an inobvious focus and an obvious effect. Your quote was for an obvious focus.

I could imagine a situation where a character has an Obvious focus with an Inobvious effect: Magic wand with a force field. It's clear the wand is there, and maybe even doing other obvious effects, but the force field is not obvious, it's hidden. This wouldn't work if the focus obviousness derived from the force field.

Again, not possible. Obvious Focus means it's obvious the Power comes from the Focus. (The term Obvious applies to the Power, not the Focus.) In your example, the force field with the Inobvious effect would be bought IAF (or IIF), even though other Powers might use the same Focus as an OAF (or OIF).

[phookz]

Again, not possible. Obvious Focus means it's obvious the Power comes from the Focus. (The term Obvious applies to the Power, not the Focus.) In your example, the force field with the Inobvious effect would be bought IAF (or IIF), even though other Powers might use the same Focus as an OAF (or OIF).

That may be true, but I'm not convinced. Maybe the wand glows, so it's clear that it's doing something, but what that something is is not obvious.

The inverse is certainly possible, but wouldn't fit the model you're proposing. As Ice9 suggested, an inobvious amulet that created an obvious effect. Take it a step further, a magic amulet or ring that is not obvious, but allows the character to shoot lasers (friggin' lasers, man) from their eyes. The power is obvious, the focus is not.

[Jhamin]

I'm with you.

At first I thought "well, that should effectively end the 'is Iron Man OIF or "Only in Hero ID?' debate," and I was totally cool with it.

Then I thought about a supers character from a fellow player who has a Force Field generated from a belt-mounted gizmo,

and a Fantasy Character who has an FF generated by an enchanted stone in her necklace.

Nope; this rule isn't going to work for us, and will be ignored with extreme prejudice, I think.

....Or the Fantasy Hero Knight that has actually paid points for his plate mail for some reason. One crossbow bolt later & his armor no longer protects him from *anything*

I don't know that we need to fix this. Or more precisely, I question if any fix we come up with will justify the increase in rules complication. As far as I can tell this is a debate of rules minutia that will require a fix that is likely to get in the way of most players that use the Focus rules quite happily now & never care about the chink in the purity of Hero Logic.

If we have all used the "GM can ignore it" happily for decades, it doesn't generate play issues, and is *isn't* a constant lightning rod of debate, then does it really need fixing?

[Chris Goodwin]

That may be true, but I'm not convinced. Maybe the wand glows, so it's clear that it's doing something, but what that something is is not obvious.

The quote from the book is pretty straightforward.


The inverse is certainly possible, but wouldn't fit the model you're proposing.

In fact, 6E gives lots of different ways to buy Invisibility of Powers. From the book:


Applying Invisible Power Effects to a Power conceals the Activity, Source, Path, Target, Special Effects, and Intensity of a Power (see 6E1 125). It does not conceal the Target Effect or the Source Effect (if any).

Under my proposed model, you would buy your Power through a Focus (Accessible or Inaccessible). The Visibility of the Focus (actually, the Power) would be the Power's initial Visibility type. For instance, you'd buy Resistant Protection 8 PD/8 ED, Inaccessible Focus (-1/4, for the sake of argument). Resistant Protection is already Inobvious, so that build would suffice for concealed body armor. For a force field projector, you'd buy Resistant Protection, Inaccessible Focus (-1/4), Obvious (-1/4). The magic staff that projected an inobvious magical ward would be built as Resistant Protection, Accessible Focus (-1/2); to make it project an obvious ward it would be Accessible Focus (-1/2) and Obvious (-1/4).

If you were to buy Blast, Accessible Focus, it would be Obvious, because Blast is Obvious. You could then buy it Invisible (source only; +1/4), which would mean no one could tell the Blast came from the Focus.

All I'm saying is, take Obviousness out of Focus, and put it in Invisible Power Effects and/or Visible, where it already is.


As Ice9 suggested, an inobvious amulet that created an obvious effect. Take it a step further, a magic amulet or ring that is not obvious, but allows the character to shoot lasers (friggin' lasers, man) from their eyes. The power is obvious, the focus is not.

By RAW, that makes it an Inobvious Focus. In fact, it can be an Inobvious Focus with an Obvious Power (which is what you're describing), but not the other way around.

If it's an Obvious Focus, the Power obviously comes from the Focus. That's RAW. If you don't want it to be obvious that the Power comes from the Focus, buy it Inobvious.

[Chris Goodwin]

....Or the Fantasy Hero Knight that has actually paid points for his plate mail for some reason. One crossbow bolt later & his armor no longer protects him from *anything*

I don't know that we need to fix this. Or more precisely, I question if any fix we come up with will justify the increase in rules complication.

If we have all used the "GM can ignore it" happily for decades, it doesn't generate play issues, and is *isn't* a constant lightning rod of debate, then does it really need fixing?

True enough. Common Sense, Dramatic Sense, and Special Effects have served us pretty well all along.


As far as I can tell this is a debate of rules minutia that will require a fix that is likely to get in the way of most players that use the Focus rules quite happily now & never care about the chink in the purity of Hero Logic.

True enough. I think it's my fault; I've been hijacking the thread; to IKerensky, I apologize. If people want to keep talking about my proposal, I suggest we start another thread.

[phookz]

The quote from the book is pretty straightforward.

I think it is open for interpretation. It's not clear from the book just how someone perceives the actual power. The book states that it is clear the power comes from the focus, but not that you can perceive the power automatically. I can think of examples where this would make sense. Viper agents show up in the middle of the street and start setting up some kind of contraption with a control panel, lots of wires and gizmos, your basic supervillain type contraption. It starts to glow and make noise - clearly something it's doing something, but what that something is is not readily apparent. If it's a mental power, it's automatically invisible to everyone except the target of the attack and characters who have Mental Awareness.

I think there is a place for a focus that is clearly doing something, but not obvious what that something is.


By RAW, that makes it an Inobvious Focus. In fact, it can be an Inobvious Focus with an Obvious Power (which is what you're describing), but not the other way around.

Please read my post again, it clearly stated it was an inobvious focus. My whole point was to show an example of an Inobvious focus with an Obvious power.

That aside, I see now what you're getting at by having a modifier for the source - I didn't see that originally. I'm not convinced that it would be a better way of doing things that what we currently have.

[IKerensky]

That's a lot of information to digest...

... especially as, as I mentionned in the title, I have access only to the basic rules set wich mean I cant make my focus undestructible by limitation.

I was a great Ironman fan... until the whole Civil War/Registration Act sillyness (Bad Tony ! BAADDDD Tony!), and I remember that in the older comics his armors was often damaged and he had to leave fight/ fight with a semi-destroyed armor, while nowadays his second skin seems nearly unbreakable and just a bit on power consumption...

About the Fantastic setting I would tell you that an Armor that did get pierced by a bolt or an Axe or Sword will be totally un-usable until reffited by a worksmith... A modular armor can be adjusted to keep some piece but that is all...

As far as I know this is the same for bullet proof vest, when pierced they have to been replaced (of course usually the guy inside need replacement too... and first ).

[Duke Bushido]

....Or the Fantasy Hero Knight that has actually paid points for his plate mail for some reason. One crossbow bolt later & his armor no longer protects him from *anything*

:rofl:

Sorry-- you flashed me back to the "and then my armor just fell off" quip quoted earlier. Horrible in game play, but funny as a mental image. :)



If we have all used the "GM can ignore it" happily for decades, it doesn't generate play issues, and is *isn't* a constant lightning rod of debate, then does it really need fixing?

Quite right on all points, of course. The "fix" that seems the simplest and doesn't really add complexity is the removal of the rule entirely. After all, it seems the majority of folks-- that is, the majority in this conversation-- are ignoring it anyway. If nothing else, move it slightly out of cannon and into the borders as one of the "optional" rules. I know-- everything is optional, but let's accept that when we discuss the game in general, or the legality of builds, etc-- we are basing it on the core cannon rules and go out of our way to note the use of "optional" rules when they apply.

So if it has to stay in the book (unless, like me, you highlight with a black Sharpie ;) ), let's make it "officially optional." Seems reasonable enough.

[Sean Waters]

I'm with you.

At first I thought "well, that should effectively end the 'is Iron Man OIF or "Only in Hero ID?' debate," and I was totally cool with it.

Then I thought about a supers character from a fellow player who has a Force Field generated from a belt-mounted gizmo,

and a Fantasy Character who has an FF generated by an enchanted stone in her necklace.

Nope; this rule isn't going to work for us, and will be ignored with extreme prejudice, I think.

If you can not destroy the power a focus holds by hitting and damaging the focus then either:

1) it shouldn't be defined as a focus as it doesn't follow the focus rules OR
2) you should reduce the limitation value to reflect the increased utility OR
3) you should treat all foci the same and none of them should be 'destructible' in combat

-1/2 is a pretty big limitation for 'Armour': how much of a problem does it ever actually cause? How often does Defender have his armour stolen and have to go into battle in his underoos? Never? Less than never?

[Sean Waters]

The trouble with focus is that you apply OIF (say) to both the power armour and the power blaster mounted on it. The armour (Resistant Protection) is getting far more of a limitation than the blaster as it was not originally obvious. The Power Blast was.

What does 'focus' actually do? The only thing it does that other limitations don't really do is allow someone to remove the power from you until you can retrieve or re-create the focus. That is possibly worth -1/4 if the focus is obviously the power source and is accessible, otherwise it is probably not worth anything: if you are out of combat and in a position where someone can make you give up your power, you are probably defeated anyway - it isn't going to come up that often, not often enough for a limitation.

You can do 'removable out of combat' with Only In Hero ID: an item that you have to have with you to activate your powers.

You can do 'removable in combat' with 'Restrainable' - although if it is not obvious that the power comes from the focus I'd probably halve the value of 'Restrainable'.

Obviousness of where the power comes from seems little more than sfx - although it will have the noted effect on the value of 'restrainable'.

So...if we made 'focus' a -1/4 limitation with this effect (same as OIHID): you need to have the item with you to activate your powers and, if restrainable, it can be removed from you in combat, butting off your powers.

Then build 'accessible' items with 'restrainable'. If the item is restrainable then it should be clear that the power comes from the object, or you halve the 'restrainable' limitation.

Powers that are already obvious remain so unless bought with IPE. Powers that are not obvious should be bought with the 'obvious' limitation if it is sensible that buying them through a focus would make them so.

If it takes time to put a focus on, like armour, buy 'extra time to activate'.

IIF becomes just Focus (-1/4)
IAF becomes Focus PLUS Restrainable (halved) (-1/2)
OIF becomes just Focus - (-1/4) and maybe 'Obvious' if the power wouldn't have been (like Resistant Protection)
OAF becomes Focus PLUS Restrainable (-3/4) and maybe Obvious too.

There: that's saved about 4 pages :)

[Hugh Neilson]

I was a great Ironman fan... until the whole Civil War/Registration Act sillyness (Bad Tony ! BAADDDD Tony!), and I remember that in the older comics his armors was often damaged and he had to leave fight/ fight with a semi-destroyed armor, while nowadays his second skin seems nearly unbreakable and just a bit on power consumption...

One could interpret this as buying that pesky OIF down to OIHID, of course.

ASIDE: Everyone talks about Civil War, but no one mentions "Teen Tony" from a few years back. I guess that's now considered a positive period for the character's evolution.

[tesuji]

As a different option

remove the book rule as is.

however add to the basic focus rule -
most foci are occasionally subject to damage - sometimes directly as in "that megabeam blew out my scanner" and sometinmes indirectly as in "every time he casts the nether tornado spell my amulet of power overheats". This is part of the focus drawback - another way you sometimes lose the power. At the GMs discretion these powers can fail, perhaps completely, perhaps partially, perhaps acquiring activation rolls until repaired, perhaps requiring extra power to function. Whatever reasonable effect reflecting "the item is damaged and malfunctioning" can be applied at the gms discretion and will persist until the item is fixed - the default being taking about a day in proper workshop.

In other words if you aren't going to detail it them specifically make it a fluffy "anything can happen" kind of thing.

One great example i used for "malfunctioning"

I had an evil groups summoning spell go awry and a wave of chaos magic swept across the city.

Every magic item - specifically items - got tainted and items could not clean themselves like people could. so now every item had a random roll for side effects. the mage's amulet of power - he used once and then didn't - except in an emergency - until he cleaned it.

so he spent the entire session and fight in extremis trying to not use his big gizmo - it was fun for him and quite a challenge. he took the chance once and got semi burned for it but it still saved his bacon.

some people have said i screwed him over because i did not have a villain target his focus irectly and nothing says i can do that to focus... but to me the focus is all about "its an item and items sometimes dont work for you" and so it seemed fine to me.

then again i am willing to give focus on claws that can easily be clipped.

[tesuji]

Unbreakable: it goes away for a long time. Riiiiight....realistically that isn't going to happen though, except, maybe, in downtime, or a solo campaign, so it is meaningless as an additional limitation balancing the unbreakability.


Well thats where we differ - slightly.

Like i said, i discourage the use of unbreakable especially for this reason. But if the player insists on it with full knowledge this means the item will get lost and be gone for some time, then we go with it.

Now obviously a character with all his power in an unbreakable focus would make for an inappropriate PC - since he is effectively shut down during his lost focus period, so i would not allow that. But if the focus were just a part of his power, something he can do without tho its tough, then sure.

like say a guy who loses his magic sword but still has his magic bow and dagger.

mostly though i just push breakable.

[Jhamin]

ASIDE: Everyone talks about Civil War, but no one mentions "Teen Tony" from a few years back. I guess that's now considered a positive period for the character's evolution.

I think there is are the periods the fans disapprove of and the periods the fans refuse to acknowledge at all. :thumbdown

[phookz]

What does 'focus' actually do? The only thing it does that other limitations don't really do is allow someone to remove the power from you until you can retrieve or re-create the focus. That is possibly worth -1/4 if the focus is obviously the power source and is accessible, otherwise it is probably not worth anything: if you are out of combat and in a position where someone can make you give up your power, you are probably defeated anyway - it isn't going to come up that often, not often enough for a limitation.

...

IIF becomes just Focus (-1/4)
IAF becomes Focus PLUS Restrainable (halved) (-1/2)
OIF becomes just Focus - (-1/4) and maybe 'Obvious' if the power wouldn't have been (like Resistant Protection)
OAF becomes Focus PLUS Restrainable (-3/4) and maybe Obvious too.

There: that's saved about 4 pages :)
This is pretty interesting idea, something I'll have to mull over for a while, but I like the approach. I doubt I would use it over the RAW, but it's an interesting approach to redefining them. I'm dubious that you're really saving much in terms of the pages... you still have to explain rules about how things can be taken away etc. Rules that aren't in OIAD and Restrainable because they already are handled by Focus.

I would say that having to give up your focus doesn't mean defeat necessarily; it really depends on how the game is run. Most Fantasy Games I've played required us to give up our weapons at some point (going to see a noble, for example). But you could argue that this is no different than OIAD.

[prestidigitator]

Personally I am going to ignore Armor Piercing and Penetrating for purposes of destroying a Focus. Just because those can punch through defenses to the character beneath doesn't mean they do more damage to the defense itself (I might consider another Advantage that specifically makes a power better at destroying Foci, like treating Durable Foci as normal [EDIT:B]reakable ones or something). And second I think I am going to assume that only Durable or Unbreakable armor automatically gets hit if it provides defenses to the character (and that's only if the Focus is Durable or Unbreakable with respect to the defenses it provides; the Durability of the Focus for the other powers bought through it doesn't affect whether it's automatically hit by attacks). And third I am going to have the Real Armor provide some Breakable aspects to even Unbreakable armor, so that Unbreakable armor makes some sense even in heroic games.

[Sean Waters]

As an inveterate tinkerer, even though I'm arguing against 'focus', one option might be to give powers 'Body', so, for instance, each power in a focus has AP/10 notional Body, and any damage through the defences of the focus would be assigned by the GM to a power (or split between several), which would 'die' when its Body was exceeded. A cunning GM might cause a power that had taken damage to malfuncton (assign a 14- activation when 1/4 damage taken, 11- when 1/2 damage taken and 8- when 3/4 damage taken - or some other unreliability mechanism).

Much more paperwork but you could devolve that to the player (Yes, it IS part of taking the limitation), it adds a definite layer of realism and stops 'penetrating' being as nasty to foci as it currently is.

[prestidigitator]

Or you could just exchange each point of Body past a Focus's defenses into an equivalent (remember each point of Body is worth 2 Active Points for Adjustment Powers) number of Active Points of Drain that must be repaired rather than Fading. That's somewhat equivalent I guess, but a little more direct. Or some other similar conversion, like 1d6 Drain per point of Body, or whatever.

[Sean Waters]

Or you could just exchange each point of Body past a Focus's defenses into an equivalent (remember each point of Body is worth 2 Active Points for Adjustment Powers) number of Active Points of Drain that must be repaired rather than Fading. That's somewhat equivalent I guess, but a little more direct. Or some other similar conversion, like 1d6 Drain per point of Body, or whatever.


Nice.

[NestorDRod]

If any Body damage gets through your armour, you don't have armour any more (unless it has other powers too, in which case it might survive the hit). Not a lot of people know that.

Since when? :confused:

Edit: That's what I get for firing off a response before reading the rest of the post. :doi:

Y'know, I made the joke in another thread about the game's design philosophy being "whenever possible, make it more complicated."

Now I'm starting to wonder who the joke is on... :nonp:

[Duke Bushido]

on a related note, how does 6e address the repair / power restoration of Foci?

[prestidigitator]

on a related note, how does 6e address the repair / power restoration of Foci?

Same as 5E, I believe. That is, it doesn't suggest anything specific other than that it shouldn't cost character points. The rest is comprised of the same vague kind of suggestions we've had all along.

[torchwolf]

Strange thing about Focus, is that Unbreakable ones can have some of the issues that Foci made with the now-obsolete Independent limitation had.
OTOH, there is another aspect: both Accessible and Inaccessible Foci can be targeted. An Unbreakable Foci can of course not usually be destroyed, but at least taken away during combat - even if it is Inobvious (though at a penalty).
That said, I agree the issue needs to be addressed.
These are interesting ideas. :thumbup:

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, Prestidigitator. I thought probably.


Or you could just exchange each point of Body past a Focus's defenses into an equivalent (remember each point of Body is worth 2 Active Points for Adjustment Powers) number of Active Points of Drain that must be repaired rather than Fading.

:rofl: :rofl:

As I was reading through the stuff since my last post, I was thinking something along those lines. Perhaps "time required" could relate to the extent of damage to the Foci:

every 1/4 total AP bumps the repair time a level on the time chart or something? Within reason, I mean. I don't think I'd ever tell a character he had to wait a month to fix his Gizmatic, particularly since, if it was a primary power that he paid points for, I'd willingly accept that he kept a spare back at the lab. ;)

[ghost-angel]

I don't see Unbreakable as an issue. And I don't see the need for "must go away for a long time" either.

Unbreakable - upside: they can't break your focus. downside: you can't break your focus when they steal it.

[Balabanto]

If any Body damage gets through your armour, you don't have armour any more (unless it has other powers too, in which case it might survive the hit). Not a lot of people know that.

This is technically only 85 percent correct. When the armor provides a group of powers, defensive powers are always destroyed last. This includes the resistant defense provided by the focus.

If, by some miracle, the attack does double the body of the resistant defense the focus provides, then the entire focus is destroyed. This is VERY hard to do.

[Duke Bushido]

If, by some miracle, the attack does double the body of the resistant defense the focus provides, then the entire focus is destroyed. This is VERY hard to do.

So I'm clear here:

is this any single attack, or a cumulative value of damage totaling BODYx2?

[Sean Waters]

This is technically only 85 percent correct. When the armor provides a group of powers, defensive powers are always destroyed last. This includes the resistant defense provided by the focus.

If, by some miracle, the attack does double the body of the resistant defense the focus provides, then the entire focus is destroyed. This is VERY hard to do.


So it was correct: if the defensive power is the only one, any hit kills it, if it isn't the defensive power is likely to survive the hit.

For what it is worth, I'm fully cogniscent of the fact that the result this gives is ridiculous. Perhaps 'Focus' should work differently for defensive powers? It should be clear that defences are only 'killed' by something that destroys the whole focus - but the trade off would be a lower focus value, as focus limits defensive powers less. -1/4 less, perhaps.

[Sean Waters]

So I'm clear here:

is this any single attack, or a cumulative value of damage totaling BODYx2?

The answer is not clear. Foci do not have Body and so we're sort of extrapolating from the 'of you do 2x Body you completely kill it/destroy it' and applying that to defences for foci as they are as close to Body as we get. It would be nice to have some way to calculate the Body of a focus. Perhaps AP/10 of the largest power (AP/5 if it is defensive) +1 Body for each additonal power.

Maybe.

[Duke Bushido]

It would be nice to have some way to calculate the Body of a focus. Perhaps AP/10 of the largest power (AP/5 if it is defensive) +1 Body for each additonal power.

Sean, see if any of this helps you:

Champions, 2e; p 33:


Replaceable Foci are breakable an have 1 BODY and 1 DEF for every 10 active points through the Focus. <snip> Foci that are not replaceable should not be breakable.

Nothing in Champions II or III, and I can't find my Almanacs right now; there may have been something in there, but I don't think so.

Champions, 4e (Big Blue Book); p 105


A Breakable Focus has a DEF equal to the (Active Points/5) of the largest Power bought through the Focus; the minimum DEF is 3. For instance, a gun with a 10d6 Energy Blast has a DEF of 10; if the gun also had 50 points in Flight and 20 points in Life Support, it's DEF would still be 10. A Breakable Focus that provides PD or ED o the character (through Armor, Force Field, etc) can use whichever defense is higher (its own or the one it gives the character) to protect itself from damage; the defenses never add.

When a Breakable Focus is hit by an attack, each attack which penetrates the Defense of the Focus destroys one of the Powers bought through the Focus. The amount of Body done is unimportant-- one Power is destroyed whether the attack did 1 BODY or 15.

HERO System, 5e; p 189

Essentially the same as 4th ed, only spread across many, many pages:


DEF equal to the (Active Points/5) of the largest Power ... minimum DEF is 3. <snip>

A Breakable Focus does not generally provide exotic defenses such as Power Defense or Lack of Weakness, though it does if it provides such a defense or the defense is bought specifically for it. <snip>

Any Focus which provides defenses to a character is automatically hit by any attack which hits the character ... (To speed game play, and avoid breaking Foci on a regular basis, the GM may choose to ignore this rule. In such cases, Foci are only hit and damaged by attacks which specifically target them.)

I don't have 6e, or even 5er,

but it seems Foci _did_ have Body once upon a time. Evidently, either 3e or 4e decided to exchange Body for stripping away Powers.

Given that our group still plays 2e, I really hadn't noticed that the BODY score for Foci no longer existed.... :o

[ghost-angel]

5ER p294 (5E p190); A focus is broken when it loses all of it's powers, or when a single attack does 2X it's Defense.

At minimum a Focus has 1 Body per Power, if you want to look at it in terms of Body instead of how much utility is left in it.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm pretty sure the Focus rules were designed more for ease of play than for any kind of verisimilitude. At the least, they don't really survive the kind of scrutiny we're putting them under.

They haven't changed substantially since 3E, and almost not at all since 4E.

[Duke Bushido]

The only change at all seems to have been from 2e to 3e: swapping a BODY score for "lose one power" and effectively doubling the amount of DEF.

Considering that in 2e the Body and DEF were the same, doubling the DEF effectively lets them take roughly the same punishment (I know: BODY ablates; DEF doesn't-- I'm talking over-all results, not turn-by-turn damage) that they could before while still retaining some functionality (which they could not do before). And considering that it takes double the initial damage to achieve any effect, there's a fair case to be made that they are now perhaps a bit stronger than they used to be.

But, as you noted, there's not a lot of backbone or layering to the rules. I suspect that more than playability it is because when everything is said and done, Focus is a limitation, a mechanic, a special effect

more than it is actually crucial architecture for the game overall. But as a GM for a group that predominantly does _not_ play supers, I would like to see it fleshed out a bit more: guns, equipment, etc-- everything that supers can do with Cosmic Power, Heroic level folk have to do with Foci, after all.

[Sean Waters]

I'm pretty sure the Focus rules were designed more for ease of play than for any kind of verisimilitude. At the least, they don't really survive the kind of scrutiny we're putting them under.

They haven't changed substantially since 3E, and almost not at all since 4E.

True.

My issue here is that it is nonsensical for a piece of body armour (assuming that it is built as a focus and that is its only power) to be completely destroyed if the armour is penetrated by Body damage, but if you do not apply that rule then you are substantially reducing the limitation that focus comes with.

Something ought to be done!

:D

[Sean Waters]

The only change at all seems to have been from 2e to 3e: swapping a BODY score for "lose one power" and effectively doubling the amount of DEF.

Considering that in 2e the Body and DEF were the same, doubling the DEF effectively lets them take roughly the same punishment (I know: BODY ablates; DEF doesn't-- I'm talking over-all results, not turn-by-turn damage) that they could before while still retaining some functionality (which they could not do before). And considering that it takes double the initial damage to achieve any effect, there's a fair case to be made that they are now perhaps a bit stronger than they used to be.

But, as you noted, there's not a lot of backbone or layering to the rules. I suspect that more than playability it is because when everything is said and done, Focus is a limitation, a mechanic, a special effect

more than it is actually crucial architecture for the game overall. But as a GM for a group that predominantly does _not_ play supers, I would like to see it fleshed out a bit more: guns, equipment, etc-- everything that supers can do with Cosmic Power, Heroic level folk have to do with Foci, after all.

The focus limitation is a popular one because it works OK in practice and appears straightforward and easily understood, well, it works OK because we tend not to use it for all we can. If someone presented me with a power armour character who has all his powers in the power armour focus, and it was built like the team brick but with 50% more STR, protection etc, I'd tell them where to get off. There is an unwritten rule that you use all those extra points EITHER for scientist skills (which you won't be using much) OR enhanced senses, loudspeakers and a few exotic defences (that you won't be using much). I've never known a power armour character to be called to battle and not have access to his armour, at least in a game where there is more than one player.

In other words I think we have lived with Focus for so long that we subconsciously correct for its problems, not even seeing them any more. That leads me to think that, perhaps, the whole concept needs to be overhauled. There is other evidence for this: the rules for focus are over 4 pages long. That's a lot of rules for a pretty straightforward and easily understood limitation. The thing is is isn't straightforward and easily understood - we just don't read and apply the rules when we use it.

[ideasmith]

(I don't have 6E yet but my 5ER comments maybe relevant.)

I only allow the Focus Limitation if the object actually gets taken away (as strongly implied in 5ER pages 292 and 295). Non-Focus power armor that is part of the hero costume would be Only In Heroic Identity (5ER page 302). Non-Focus power armor that gets broken would Physical Manifestation. (Alas, a version which is not in the book. I hope that Physical Manifestation (5ER page 302) got greatly expanded in 6E.)

I still think that calling the Limitation 'Gets Taken Away' rather than 'Focus' would add much clarity.

[Duke Bushido]

When we started playing, we had the majority of the power armor characters building their suits as Foci. In fact, it wasn't really until the arrival of 4e that anyone in our group questioned the appropriateness of the build. But remember, we had cannon characters who used that same build. Of course, we also had cannon characters using things like "Elemental Control: Alien Physiology" and other things that today simply would not fly. :lol:

After 4e had been out for a while, we picked up a couple of players that had been taught the game via 4e at other tables, and the discussions started. Since then, we've sort of gone two ways with it:

Only in Hero ID and the by-then-traditional OIF. Oh, and we had one guy who built it as a vehicle, which was a bit cumbersome what with the Driving rules at the time.

The problem with the "taken away" or "inaccessible" arguments is that they can be applied to either Limitation: ultimately, few characters are going to be firmly denied access to their super suit within a reasonable time frame more than once or twice across a story arc. But even if they were denied access twice a day, the problem is that the rationalization applies equally to both constructs:

What's the value of OIF? Going by the newest rules I have access to (5e), it's -1/2.
The value of Only in Hero ID is -1/4.

There is a suggested difference in the rules of Only in Hero ID in 5e, p 197, that offers a justification:


OIHID can be used to simulate characters who seem to have a focus but somehow never lose it. For example, the powered armor character described above never seems to lose his suit for long or have it taken away from him while he's wearing it. Therefore, it isn't really a Focus, since if he bought the armor as a Focus, he could lose the armor.

So clearly then, an argument can be made that the traditional metal man of comic books has bought his suit OIHID, paying "extra" points via the lower value of the Limitation specifically so that he can't be deprived of it.

Moreover, OIHID has no option for breaking the super suit (or any other OIHID item) or for someone stealing it and using it for themselves.

Because 4e had similar views on the subject of OIF vs OIHID, I usually make sure the players clearly understand the differences between the two and let them select according to their concept and the type of challenge / adventure they are looking for. If they select OIF, then they can expect more than once to be separated from their technopowers, and may spend a night or two at the lab having repairs made. They might even find an object stolen or replicated at some point.

I really think, after having reread this thread that this is not an issue that is going to be fixed in any realistic way through legislation. The Focus rules don't really appear to be broken or in need of something, at least not with regard to Supers. It's a matter of the GM doing his job and running the universe in such a way that there _is_ a difference between the two Limitations, and letting it come up every now and again the same way that a DNPC or a Hunted does.

The character with OIF gained an additional -1/4 Limitation in exchange for being more limited. Given that, I don't mind the idea that he might be up late tonight fixing his rocket pack or unpacking his spare infragoggles. I don't even mind, after fixing my mind to this, the idea that he might have to make a few PS rolls to repair the BODY damage done to his suit. After all, he could have used those points he saved to make the suit self-regenerating ;)



Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er, and am hoarding my cash for 6e.

[tesuji]

The focus limitation is a popular one because it works OK in practice and appears straightforward and easily understood, well, it works OK because we tend not to use it for all we can. If someone presented me with a power armour character who has all his powers in the power armour focus, and it was built like the team brick but with 50% more STR, protection etc, I'd tell them where to get off. There is an unwritten rule that you use all those extra points EITHER for scientist skills (which you won't be using much) OR enhanced senses, loudspeakers and a few exotic defences (that you won't be using much). I've never known a power armour character to be called to battle and not have access to his armour, at least in a game where there is more than one player.
.

your experiences are different than mine. i have had many powered armor guys in games under me over the years. most followed the book examples of oif. some had oaf on some weapons.

here is how it played.

the typical oif armor powered armor guy spent his extra points on MORE powers not MORE POWER. no he didn't get 18d6 attacks in a 12d6 game but he did get a 12d6 energy blast AND a 12d6 strength punch and so on. Like iron man, he was a brick and a projector and at times fast etc. the more creative had additional stealth suits and so forth.

in other words they became a "wonder tool" characater who was always applicable.

this was due to campaign restrictions. i wouldn't let them spend the points on more potent attacks, so they spent it on alternatives so they ar always "one of the guys".

however it was not a free ride.

i enforced damage to their armor and so power failed as they got hit and hurt. since te suits contained literally a dozen or more powers it was easy to have something valuable fail and so it was frequent that they had someting offline during a combat. this provided not only an in game deficit, not every power all at once but any power frequently, it also gave them a drain on their "downtime" as they were constantly in lab making repairs.

secondly, it was also not infrequent that they had a delay as a sudden encounter went awry so while the others just turned on powers and went at it, the pa guys spent a few actions getting suited up... delaying their arrival until say end of turn 1.

this one was used more sparingly but when it occurred it was a rational outgrowth of the scenario.

i never had a problem with pa oif guys feeling they were being too abused nor other players feeling the oif guys got a free ride.

however dont take that to mean i like focus. most of my handling was handwaving, based on my upfront general descriptions of "i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose". i think focus should be less specific with more generic lists of possible problems .

then again IMO limitations should be defined more generically...

name a frequency in sessions per 10 the problem occurs
name a severity as in how much of the power is lost... say minor, then half then total. then list flavors... as in "player list three sample problems, gm list two."

For example

POWERED ARMOR - Gendarm Suit
Frequency 3 sessions in 10
Severity - MAJOR (50% or more)
come up with a figure
Player list
sometimes damage causes systems to fail
sometimes not in suit and takes a turn to get involved
strong em fields cause unreliability of systems - occasional activation rolls

gm list
sometimes subject to hacking/hidden viruses
sometimes shortage of parts for repairs/reloads/operations

armoed with the above, both player and gm have the same understanding - how often problems will arise, how serious they will be in terms of how much power loss, and also five example flavors the problems will take. sounds to me like a good recipe for collaboration.

of course imo this works for most limitations.

[Duke Bushido]

"i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose".

Precisely perfect, I think :)


Though for the sake of something to do, having resolved my earlier Hit Chart by simply re-defining two hit locations, I am considering running a test with a couple armored suits on the idea of assigning BODY scores to each power in the armor.

While I will stick with picking powers at random for the purpose of this test, the plan is something like this:

Assuming that the armor provides DEF for all OIF or IIF powers the armor provides.

Body that makes it through the DEF is applied to the character as normal, but is _also_ applied to a randomly chosen power.

All Powers have a BODY of AP/10 for this test. If there is enough body to destroy that power, then it is destroyed. If not, it is reduced by the appropriate number. Any remaining BODY will not be allocated to a second power (for the purposes of this test).

Powers that have taken BODY damage will be reduced in effectiveness by the same percentage as the BODY damage they have received. END costs are not similarly reduced, as the damaged equipment is being "taxed."

BODY damage assignation to Powers will remain random, guided by the nature of the strike. Thus, it is possible to have multiple powers reduced, but none completely deprived. When BODY damage from multiple attacks totals enough to remove the power, it is removed.

Repair of the Power is assumed to take one turn for one Body, and moved one step on the time chart for each 10 (for this initial test) BODY damage done to the Power. Access to labs and equipment can affect this time. At no time will any single power require more than one "shift" in the character's own lab or an equivalent. Obviously, when he's home, he can pop in the spare Gizmometer and get back in action, or build one from scratch in a lab sufficiently like his own tech-and-tool wise.

Yes; I suspect there will be a bit of added book keeping, but I also suspect that "front loading" it -- generating a list of Powers and their Body scores as part of the character record-- will greatly minimize the effects that the bookkeeping may have on the game. I don't foresee any negative effects on gameplay, but that's why I plan to run a test. :D Just to be sure. ;)

I feel that this might add some amount of flavor the game, and that it might even be a desirable challenge for the player who has chosen his Power Armor to be OIF instead of OIHID. I also feel that the potential to note lose a power entirely with a single shot might serve as minor benefit to the player as compensation for any additional bookkeeping.

Thoughts?

I'll post back when the initial testing is done. I've got to make a couple of calls and round up some play testers ;)

[Chris Goodwin]

Though for the sake of something to do, having resolved my earlier Hit Chart by simply re-defining two hit locations, I am considering running a test with a couple armored suits on the idea of assigning BODY scores to each power in the armor.

I'm considering doing something like this. In my Never Ending Quest (tm) for the Perfect Mecha Rules (reg. US pat. off.) I'm thinking of using the Object BODY table (6E2 172) with a twist You decide how much BODY a Focus has, but its weight is based on that. There's probably a rule lurking about in there somewhere about how a you have to be able to lift a Focus with your casual STR in order to use it as a carried (i.e. hand) weapon under most circumstances (which would probably NOT be applicable for superheroic games).

[Sean Waters]

your experiences are different than mine. i have had many powered armor guys in games under me over the years. most followed the book examples of oif. some had oaf on some weapons.

here is how it played.

the typical oif armor powered armor guy spent his extra points on MORE powers not MORE POWER. no he didn't get 18d6 attacks in a 12d6 game but he did get a 12d6 energy blast AND a 12d6 strength punch and so on. Like iron man, he was a brick and a projector and at times fast etc. the more creative had additional stealth suits and so forth.

in other words they became a "wonder tool" characater who was always applicable.

That's my experience too - like I said I wouldn't allow +50% on everything just to soak up the points. What I'm trying to say though is that the points have to go somewhere - and we self regulate where they go, so, no, focus is not a problem - because we avoid its consequences.


this was due to campaign restrictions. i wouldn't let them spend the points on more potent attacks, so they spent it on alternatives so they ar always "one of the guys".

however it was not a free ride.

i enforced damage to their armor and so power failed as they got hit and hurt. since te suits contained literally a dozen or more powers it was easy to have something valuable fail and so it was frequent that they had someting offline during a combat. this provided not only an in game deficit, not every power all at once but any power frequently, it also gave them a drain on their "downtime" as they were constantly in lab making repairs.

How valuable is a power if it is one of a dozen? Much less valuable than if it were the main power someone had to rely on. You could lose 3/4 of your powers and still have a decent selection to chose from. I'm not sure how much of a limitation that really is. It is akin to losing slots from a multipower with a dozen slots: you only REALLY miss them when the last few go. You're losing a bit of power until the end, then you lose a lot. It is a limitation but is is -1/2?


secondly, it was also not infrequent that they had a delay as a sudden encounter went awry so while the others just turned on powers and went at it, the pa guys spent a few actions getting suited up... delaying their arrival until say end of turn 1.

this one was used more sparingly but when it occurred it was a rational outgrowth of the scenario.

That is more of a limitation, but I doubt it happens that much, and I doubt if it ever happens for much longer than that. If you think about it it is a limitation on the PLAYER (you don't get to play) and on the other CHARACTERS (they don't have backup). Not sure how much of a limitation it is on the character though. If the villain turns up and they are not suited and get beaten half to death THAT is a limitation on the character.



i never had a problem with pa oif guys feeling they were being too abused nor other players feeling the oif guys got a free ride.

however dont take that to mean i like focus. most of my handling was handwaving, based on my upfront general descriptions of "i will afflict problems commensurate to the lim you choose". i think focus should be less specific with more generic lists of possible problems .

We agree here, I think. We adapt the limitation to use it. Also, whilst I applaud the philosophy that the actual limitation and value do not matter - you'll find a way to make it 'worth' the right amount, it would be a very short section if you were writing it :)


then again IMO limitations should be defined more generically...

name a frequency in sessions per 10 the problem occurs
name a severity as in how much of the power is lost... say minor, then half then total. then list flavors... as in "player list three sample problems, gm list two."

For example

POWERED ARMOR - Gendarm Suit
Frequency 3 sessions in 10
Severity - MAJOR (50% or more)
come up with a figure
Player list
sometimes damage causes systems to fail
sometimes not in suit and takes a turn to get involved
strong em fields cause unreliability of systems - occasional activation rolls

gm list
sometimes subject to hacking/hidden viruses
sometimes shortage of parts for repairs/reloads/operations

armoed with the above, both player and gm have the same understanding - how often problems will arise, how serious they will be in terms of how much power loss, and also five example flavors the problems will take. sounds to me like a good recipe for collaboration.

of course imo this works for most limitations.


...I rest my case :) That is not a criticism - I think limitations could do with a lot more structure, and a more coherent approach, and this sounds like a very good basis to do that :thumbup:

[phookz]

In other words I think we have lived with Focus for so long that we subconsciously correct for its problems, not even seeing them any more. That leads me to think that, perhaps, the whole concept needs to be overhauled. There is other evidence for this: the rules for focus are over 4 pages long. That's a lot of rules for a pretty straightforward and easily understood limitation. The thing is is isn't straightforward and easily understood - we just don't read and apply the rules when we use it.

Another possibility is that the issues with Focus are minor enough to not be a real issue at all for most players. I'll agree that the rules for damaging a focus could use some work, but I'd be surprised if the rules could be more clear with a lower page count. Overall, I think the Focus rules have served us well and could use some minor tweaking for the rules related to damaging them, but don't need an overhaul.


I really think, after having reread this thread that this is not an issue that is going to be fixed in any realistic way through legislation. The Focus rules don't really appear to be broken or in need of something, at least not with regard to Supers. It's a matter of the GM doing his job and running the universe in such a way that there _is_ a difference between the two Limitations, and letting it come up every now and again the same way that a DNPC or a Hunted does.


Well said. I'd rep you but I have to spread it around first.


Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er, and am hoarding my cash for 6e.

Physical manifestation is for powers that are not built as a Focus but that have some physical manifestation that could be attacked. Examples include Flight bought to simulate riding a column of force or skating on an ice-slide.

[Duke Bushido]

The first test is over; I'll try to get the results up as soon as I can streamline them a bit. Looks promising, but it could bear a bit more tweaking. :)



In my Never Ending Quest (tm) for the Perfect Mecha Rules

Oh wow; you too?! :D I've been trying to cypher such a rule set for twenty years. So far, the only thing that works reasonably well is to combine automaton and vehicle rules, then apply them to a device built more or less like a separate character. Still, it's lacking something in terms of feel.... :(


I'm thinking of using the Object BODY table (6E2 172) with a twist You decide how much BODY a Focus has, but its weight is based on that.

If you're interested, I'll see if I can hunt down our house rules on mechs from an old campaign, type them up, and message them to you. Given my workload right now, it'll likely be a week or two, but if you're interested (and be aware that they aren't perfect), I'll be glad to get it worked in.

Options to try regarding weight:

The rules I used in test today assigned BODY based on the 2e rules: AP/10 = BODY of Focus. You might stat out each component that way:

Gatling Gun = 9 Body; Missile Rack = 12 Body; Sensor Array = 4 Body. That sort of thing. One of the tweaks from today's test suggests that for Heroic (or mech) type games, I'll probably make Focus Body = AP/5.


Further, I'd disregard any rule about being able to lift the Focus for a mech, simply because it has it's own STR rating (at least, ours do). Just make sure that the mech itself can lift the Foci casually, and you're golden.

And if you're doing supers or super-science, you might consider altering the formulas for Body-to-weight in the name of advanced alloys, polymers, etc.

[Chris Goodwin]

If you're interested, I'll see if I can hunt down our house rules on mechs from an old campaign, type them up, and message them to you. Given my workload right now, it'll likely be a week or two, but if you're interested (and be aware that they aren't perfect), I'll be glad to get it worked in.

I'd love to see them!


And if you're doing supers or super-science, you might consider altering the formulas for Body-to-weight in the name of advanced alloys, polymers, etc.

I think differences in construction and tech level would probably represent DEF more than BODY. We have three columns on the table (Living/Vehicle, Nonliving, and Complex). I'm perfectly okay with the notion that, for instance, a 100 kilogram wooden grandfather clock and a 100 kilogram computer have the same BODY score. Though if someone (other than me) came up with something good I'd be game to look at it.

[ideasmith]

Ideasmith: can you explain "Physical Manifestation" to me? I don't have 5er, and am hoarding my cash for 6e.

Physical Manifestation as currently written works as follows: When the power is turned on, an object appears which has the DEF and BODY of a Breakable Focus and DCV equal to the character's base DCV. When the object is broken, the power turns off.

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks to both of you.

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character? Wouldn't a large immobile object have a DCV of 0? Certainly no more than 3....

[Chris Goodwin]

Thanks to both of you.

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character?

"...unless the GM rules otherwise based on the size or nature of the manifestation." I have a feeling that's more likely for most Physical Manifestations.

[ideasmith]

Thanks to both of you.

I'm a bit confused, though: an "ice slide"-- which I would assume sort of sits there for a bit, particularly if you're riding it across a river or something-- has the same DCV as the character? Wouldn't a large immobile object have a DCV of 0? Certainly no more than 3....

The ice slide is being formed as the character moves (as per Ice Man of the X-Men), and breaking an old piece of ice slide would have no effect on the power. The portion of ice slide which one needs to hit is moving with the character. (And it's the characters base DCV, not the characters DCV.) Not that stationary objects shouldn't be a possibility, but Ice Man style ice slides aren't effectively stationary, since the portion to be hit keeps moving, even though the ice slides per se are stationary once created.

[Duke Bushido]

Gotcha, thanks. I assume the Limitation aspect will be those occasions like ice-ramping straight up or something, when you could simply cut the beanstalk out from under him?

Or does having a Physical Manifestation successfully target turn the power off for a period of time?

[Sean Waters]

Just thinking aloud...

Virus: (Total: 21 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) Drain BODY 1 point, Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2), Non-Standard Attack Power (+1) (13 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only works v technological armour; -1) (Real Cost: 6) PLUS +4 with any single attack (Real Cost: 8)

Non-living things do not recover from drains...so unless this has power defence (military grade electronic hardening - and adding 2 levels of penetrating only costs 2 more real points) this should take out most devices - even ones with MANY powers in short order. Only works against tech, but for 14 points that is not a bad price.

On the question of re-writing focus, I think we have most of the tools already. I think we could re-write focus in much more compact form and add clarity. Off the top of my head...

Focus: -0 or more

Your power works through a device or object external to you, which means it can be taken from you, or you can be denied access to it.

At the 1/4 level the focus can be taken from you if you are helpless, stolen from you if you are not paying attention or may otherwise be occasionally unavailable (perhaps it requires recharging and is non-functional during the recharge cycle), so expect there to be times when you are denied the use of this power. Details should be agreed with the GM. A focus that is always available (say you can summon the Sword of Mystery from a pocket dimension) starts off at a base value of -0. You may take 'extra time to activate' or a similar limitation (concentration, gestures, incantations etc) with your focus if it is hard to power up or initially activate. Once you have it though, you can use all powers normally without having to go through the preparation again.

For +1/4 the focus can be taken away from you in combat with a grab or, if targeted by an attack, any KB x2.5 is treated as the Body of an opposed STR roll. Targeting a focus usually uses the current DCV of the character +2. A focus that can be taken away cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be recovered or remade.

A focus is considered able to withstand the rigour of combat without damage, although a concerted or major attack may, at the GM's discretion, damage or destroy a focus, it should be considered unaffected by most attacks that do not kill the user.

If a focus can be destroyed in combat then that is worth an additional -1/4. A focus is considered to have a PD and ED equal to the campaign average DC. Although it does not have Power Defence, or any other defence, you can re-distribute the PD and ED to other defences on a 1 point for 1 point basis. A focus that provides a defence may use that defence instead of the allocated defence, if it would be better. For each 2 full points of Body that penetrate through the defences of a focus, the GM may remove access to one power (or more than one if they are linked, unified, or in a framework together) or apply an activation roll (or make any current activation roll worse). Activation starts at 14- and goes down in steps of 2 (14-, 12-, 10-, 8-, 6-). If something has a 6- activation roll and is further damaged it is destroyed. Activation roll, as opposed to destruction, is usually only used for defences, but it is up to the GM - he may chose, for example, to give several powers an activation roll rather than destroying any one of them. The GM can also impose equivalent limitations instead of removing access or imposing activation, but this should not be overused. A focus that can be damaged or destroyed cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be repaired or remade.

For -1/4 a focus can be fragile: it has no defences, even if it provides defences.

A focus with all of its powers beyond access may, at the GM's discretion, be beyond repair and require that it be re-built.

A damaged focus can be repaired out of combat with an appropriate skill roll and sufficient time, but field repairs rarely succeed in repairing all damage unless it is minor. Generally to completely repair a focus requires appropriate powers or a lab/workbench and considerable time (at least an hour).

Many powers built as 'focus' also have the 'real' limitation, meaning they require maintenance and can occasionally malfunction.

Hmm. That covers most of it, I think. Could add in 'bulky' and 'immobile', but otherwise that does everything I think a focus should do. Comments?

[ideasmith]

Gotcha, thanks. I assume the Limitation aspect will be those occasions like ice-ramping straight up or something, when you could simply cut the beanstalk out from under him?

Or does having a Physical Manifestation successfully target turn the power off for a period of time?

I an enemy hits the ice slide and gets through the ice slides defense, the ice the characters 'Running Usable as Gliding' is turned off until the character turns it back on. Since Running and Gliding are Movement Powers, this would be a Half Phase movement action.

As written, Physical Manifestation turns the power off. It does not prevent the power from being turned on again.

This seems a good time to repeat that I do not have 6E yet, and my comments refer to 5ER.

[phookz]

On the question of re-writing focus, I think we have most of the tools already. I think we could re-write focus in much more compact form and add clarity. Off the top of my head...

...

At the 1/4 level the focus can be taken from you if you are helpless, stolen from you if you are not paying attention or may otherwise be occasionally unavailable (perhaps it requires recharging and is non-functional during the recharge cycle), so expect there to be times when you are denied the use of this power. Details should be agreed with the GM. A focus that is always available (say you can summon the Sword of Mystery from a pocket dimension) starts off at a base value of -0. You may take 'extra time to activate' or a similar limitation (concentration, gestures, incantations etc) with your focus if it is hard to power up or initially activate. Once you have it though, you can use all powers normally without having to go through the preparation again.

The same limitation as OIAI and the current IIF. Seems appropriate.


For +1/4 the focus can be taken away from you in combat with a grab or, if targeted by an attack, any KB x2.5 is treated as the Body of an opposed STR roll. Targeting a focus usually uses the current DCV of the character +2. A focus that can be taken away cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be recovered or remade.

I'm curious as to why have a multiplier on the KB of an attack? Wouldn't it be simpler to use the BODY of the attack (which is how it's done for Accessible now)? Since KB is based on BODY anyway, using a multiplier may work well for some ranges, but won't scale well for larger attacks. Is the idea to try and account for the reduced KB from KA?


A focus is considered able to withstand the rigour of combat without damage, although a concerted or major attack may, at the GM's discretion, damage or destroy a focus, it should be considered unaffected by most attacks that do not kill the user.

I like this, but I think it's most appropriate for supers. I think it might be better to have a bit of expansion on this about different campaign/genre types and what would be appropriate.


If a focus can be destroyed in combat then that is worth an additional -1/4. A focus is considered to have a PD and ED equal to the campaign average DC. Although it does not have Power Defence, or any other defence, you can re-distribute the PD and ED to other defences on a 1 point for 1 point basis. A focus that provides a defence may use that defence instead of the allocated defence, if it would be better. For each 2 full points of Body that penetrate through the defences of a focus, the GM may remove access to one power (or more than one if they are linked, unified, or in a framework together) or apply an activation roll (or make any current activation roll worse). Activation starts at 14- and goes down in steps of 2 (14-, 12-, 10-, 8-, 6-). If something has a 6- activation roll and is further damaged it is destroyed. Activation roll, as opposed to destruction, is usually only used for defences, but it is up to the GM - he may chose, for example, to give several powers an activation roll rather than destroying any one of them. The GM can also impose equivalent limitations instead of removing access or imposing activation, but this should not be overused. A focus that can be damaged or destroyed cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be repaired or remade.

I like the idea, but haven't given it enough thought yet as to how well this works out. A think a brief explanation for Focus that already has Activation is in order - any attack that hits the character and fails the Activation roll shouldn't damage the focus, should it? This is different from the Activation roll you suggest, I'm talking about if the character takes the Activation limitation.

I like your proposed rules for damaging a focus. Your suggestion states that if an attack lets 10 BODY through the Focus will now have an Activation of 6-, and 12 BODY destroys the focus (or a power) outright; pretty severe, but not as severe as the RAW, and 10 BODY will drop most Normals, so maybe that's appropriate. I could see a whole set of optional rules for this type of stuff.

I think your proposed Focus damage rules are superior to the RAW. :thumbup:

Just noodling around, off the top of my head and at the risk of overly complicating things, maybe there should be an Activation roll to damage the Focus, with modifiers based on the amount of BODY that get's through? What if any BODY through a Focus has an 11- chance to damage the Focus, with a +1 for every BODY that get's through. The damage applied is then as you suggest - giving Activation rolls of 14-, 12-, etc. Hmm, it's a lot of Activation rolls, but I'm a bit troubled by the notion that any damage through damages the Focus, but maybe that's the point of the limitation anyway. Like I said, just noodling here, throwing out some thoughts to see what people think.


Hmm. That covers most of it, I think. Could add in 'bulky' and 'immobile', but otherwise that does everything I think a focus should do. Comments?

I think it's an interesting start. As I've stated before, I'm not sure the Focus rules are broken, but I would like to see something better for the Focus damaging rules; I'm not sure the rest of it needs to really change. I'm not convinced your costing is appropriate. I like the -1 for OAF, and I think it's a fair cost. Think of all the thugs that have their guns taken away - it's easy to do and it severely limits that power. I think you could argue that -1 is too much (personally I think it's about right), but I think that -1/2 is too little. Perhaps if your rules covered Obviousness that would help.

[Chris Goodwin]

There's already a rule in place that says that a machine (usually a complex item such as a car engine) acquires an Activation Roll when damaged.

[Sean Waters]

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

I'm curious as to why have a multiplier on the KB of an attack? Wouldn't it be simpler to use the BODY of the attack (which is how it's done for Accessible now)? Since KB is based on BODY anyway, using a multiplier may work well for some ranges, but won't scale well for larger attacks. Is the idea to try and account for the reduced KB from KA?

Because I started off trying to convertKB to a nominal STR value (which would be x2.5 (I think) but then realised I'd be better off cutting out the middle man and making it a notional Body value for an opposed STR roll (which SHOULD be /2). Sorry :o




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


I like the idea, but haven't given it enough thought yet as to how well this works out. A think a brief explanation for Focus that already has Activation is in order - any attack that hits the character and fails the Activation roll shouldn't damage the focus, should it? This is different from the Activation roll you suggest, I'm talking about if the character takes the Activation limitation.

You could either do two activation rolls: the 'inherent' activation roll AND the 'malfunction' roll (which would be my preferred option), needint o 'succeed' with both for the power to work or deduct 2 from any existing activation roll.


..............I like your proposed rules for damaging a focus. Your suggestion states that if an attack lets 10 BODY through the Focus will now have an Activation of 6-, and 12 BODY destroys the focus (or a power) outright; pretty severe, but not as severe as the RAW, and 10 BODY will drop most Normals, so maybe that's appropriate. I could see a whole set of optional rules for this type of stuff.

I think your proposed Focus damage rules are superior to the RAW. :thumbup:

Thank you: they were not particularly well considered, and would doubtless need playtesting and tweaking, but I like coming up with new rules :)


Just noodling around, off the top of my head and at the risk of overly complicating things, maybe there should be an Activation roll to damage the Focus, with modifiers based on the amount of BODY that get's through? What if any BODY through a Focus has an 11- chance to damage the Focus, with a +1 for every BODY that get's through. The damage applied is then as you suggest - giving Activation rolls of 14-, 12-, etc. Hmm, it's a lot of Activation rolls, but I'm a bit troubled by the notion that any damage through damages the Focus, but maybe that's the point of the limitation anyway. Like I said, just noodling here, throwing out some thoughts to see what people think.

I could see a focus starting with a notional 'Toughness' equivalent to an 18- roll. Every time Body gets through you have to make a toughness roll on 3d6 with a penalty equal to the amount of Body that gets through AND reduce the toughness by 1 (so there is a cumulative effect but it is not too extreme). You roll for each power each time (so one hit COULD take out several powers if it hits a critical system). Defensive powers have +4 toughness and are only destroyed if there are no other powers in the focus (or remaining in the focus).

Again, needs thinking about but it sounds like it could work...perhaps you then have to repair one toughness at a time (rolling when you repair to bring systems back on line), with a cumulative -2 per point penalty: minor repairs could be done in the field, but major repairs would require a workshop with some BIG skill bonuses :)




I think it's an interesting start. As I've stated before, I'm not sure the Focus rules are broken, but I would like to see something better for the Focus damaging rules; I'm not sure the rest of it needs to really change. I'm not convinced your costing is appropriate. I like the -1 for OAF, and I think it's a fair cost. Think of all the thugs that have their guns taken away - it's easy to do and it severely limits that power. I think you could argue that -1 is too much (personally I think it's about right), but I think that -1/2 is too little. Perhaps if your rules covered Obviousness that would help.

-1 feels appropriate because it has worn a groove in our minds over the years and, well, it is easy to calculate BUT is SHOULD mean the power is only half as useful, or only useable half the time. That just is not the case, in any game I've ever even heard of.

Sure heroes can get a gun of a thug easily but how easily can a thug get a gun off a hero? The hero (probably) has higher CV and STR.

A 60 STR brick with a focus, or a 12 DCV Speedster with a focus is almost NEVER going to get it taken off them - so there needs to be some adjustment IMO.

Also 'obviousness' has changed in the rules: powers used to be visible or not, now they are invisible, inobvious or obvious: the focus rules do not consider that change

[torchwolf]

Just thinking aloud...

Virus: (Total: 21 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) Drain BODY 1 point, Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2), Non-Standard Attack Power (+1) (13 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only works v technological armour; -1) (Real Cost: 6) PLUS +4 with any single attack (Real Cost: 8)

Non-living things do not recover from drains...so unless this has power defence (military grade electronic hardening - and adding 2 levels of penetrating only costs 2 more real points) this should take out most devices - even ones with MANY powers in short order. Only works against tech, but for 14 points that is not a bad price.

On the question of re-writing focus, I think we have most of the tools already. I think we could re-write focus in much more compact form and add clarity. Off the top of my head...

Focus: -0 or more

Your power works through a device or object external to you, which means it can be taken from you, or you can be denied access to it.

At the 1/4 level the focus can be taken from you if you are helpless, stolen from you if you are not paying attention or may otherwise be occasionally unavailable (perhaps it requires recharging and is non-functional during the recharge cycle), so expect there to be times when you are denied the use of this power. Details should be agreed with the GM. A focus that is always available (say you can summon the Sword of Mystery from a pocket dimension) starts off at a base value of -0. You may take 'extra time to activate' or a similar limitation (concentration, gestures, incantations etc) with your focus if it is hard to power up or initially activate. Once you have it though, you can use all powers normally without having to go through the preparation again.

For +1/4 the focus can be taken away from you in combat with a grab or, if targeted by an attack, any KB x2.5 is treated as the Body of an opposed STR roll. Targeting a focus usually uses the current DCV of the character +2. A focus that can be taken away cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be recovered or remade.

A focus is considered able to withstand the rigour of combat without damage, although a concerted or major attack may, at the GM's discretion, damage or destroy a focus, it should be considered unaffected by most attacks that do not kill the user.

If a focus can be destroyed in combat then that is worth an additional -1/4. A focus is considered to have a PD and ED equal to the campaign average DC. Although it does not have Power Defence, or any other defence, you can re-distribute the PD and ED to other defences on a 1 point for 1 point basis. A focus that provides a defence may use that defence instead of the allocated defence, if it would be better. For each 2 full points of Body that penetrate through the defences of a focus, the GM may remove access to one power (or more than one if they are linked, unified, or in a framework together) or apply an activation roll (or make any current activation roll worse). Activation starts at 14- and goes down in steps of 2 (14-, 12-, 10-, 8-, 6-). If something has a 6- activation roll and is further damaged it is destroyed. Activation roll, as opposed to destruction, is usually only used for defences, but it is up to the GM - he may chose, for example, to give several powers an activation roll rather than destroying any one of them. The GM can also impose equivalent limitations instead of removing access or imposing activation, but this should not be overused. A focus that can be damaged or destroyed cannot simply be re-summoned, even if the base level of the power is -0: it has to be repaired or remade.

For -1/4 a focus can be fragile: it has no defences, even if it provides defences.

A focus with all of its powers beyond access may, at the GM's discretion, be beyond repair and require that it be re-built.

A damaged focus can be repaired out of combat with an appropriate skill roll and sufficient time, but field repairs rarely succeed in repairing all damage unless it is minor. Generally to completely repair a focus requires appropriate powers or a lab/workbench and considerable time (at least an hour).

Many powers built as 'focus' also have the 'real' limitation, meaning they require maintenance and can occasionally malfunction.

Hmm. That covers most of it, I think. Could add in 'bulky' and 'immobile', but otherwise that does everything I think a focus should do. Comments?

This far it looks eminently useful. :thumbup:

Examples from 6E2, p171 (much retained from earlier editions):
Heavy Weapon [6 PD/ED, 8-9 BODY]
Pistol [4 PD/ED, 3-4 BODY]
Rifle [4 PD/ED, 5-7 BODY]
Sword [4 PD/ED, 4-6 BODY]
Very large heavy weapon [6PD/ED, 12 BODY]

These numbers roughly correspond to the idea that (Active/5) = BODY.

In your model, this seems to work out to the same, considering:


There's already a rule in place that says that a machine (usually a complex item such as a car engine) acquires an Activation Roll when damaged.

It seems the model partially accounts for this, compared to the examples above (even though these examples are not complex machines but weapons).

[phookz]

There's already a rule in place that says that a machine (usually a complex item such as a car engine) acquires an Activation Roll when damaged.

Hmm, I missed that when perusing the 6E rules. I can't find it under the Focus rules. Is it in another section?

[Chris Goodwin]

Hmm, I missed that when perusing the 6E rules. I can't find it under the Focus rules. Is it in another section?

The Device Malfunction Table. 6E2 p. 172, lower right, above the dinosaur pic.

[phookz]

Because I started off trying to convertKB to a nominal STR value (which would be x2.5 (I think) but then realised I'd be better off cutting out the middle man and making it a notional Body value for an opposed STR roll (which SHOULD be /2). Sorry

I'm still not following you. BODY from STR damage averages 1 pt per 5 STR, not 2, so it seems like the nominal conversion should be 1:1 for BODY done. Using KB will reduce the value on the attack by 2D6, maybe more or less based on the attack type and environmental conditions (like flying). I think the Ranged Disarm (6E2 p61) would work better for this: convert the attack to DC then roll normal damage for that DC. This is a little different than I suggested earlier; I just re-read the rules for Disarm.


-1 feels appropriate because it has worn a groove in our minds over the years and, well, it is easy to calculate BUT is SHOULD mean the power is only half as useful, or only useable half the time. That just is not the case, in any game I've ever even heard of.

Sure heroes can get a gun of a thug easily but how easily can a thug get a gun off a hero? The hero (probably) has higher CV and STR.

A 60 STR brick with a focus, or a 12 DCV Speedster with a focus is almost NEVER going to get it taken off them - so there needs to be some adjustment IMO.

Interesting point. The rules don't really cover basing limitations on other factors of the character, but they do require the GM to make a call for limitations that aren't limiting. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to veto the Accessibility for the very high STR/DCV characters on the basis that it's not really a limitation for them, than to limit everyone, including the low STR, average DC gadgeteer?

I have wondered if the -1 limitation was too much. I always thought the RAW could use a little more symmetry - something like:
Focus starts at -1/4 for IIF, same as OIAI.
Making the focus Obvious: -1/4 more
Making the focus Accessible: -/14 more
So you end up with:
IIF: -1/4
IAF: -1/2
OIF: -1/2
OAF: -3/4

But, again, I never felt strongly enough that it was needed.


Also 'obviousness' has changed in the rules: powers used to be visible or not, now they are invisible, inobvious or obvious: the focus rules do not consider that change

I wasn't aware of this. I quickly perused the new rules, but I'll need time to digest them. I'm still inclined to think that how obvious a Focus is should still be a factor in it's overal limitation value.

[phookz]

The Device Malfunction Table. 6E2 p. 172, lower right, above the dinosaur pic.

Got it now - thanks. I don't think this is designed to work for Focus, Since the Focus rules don't have a concept of BODY, but it might not be a bad place to start for modification to them. Maybe they should have a BODY score, as has been suggested by others.

[Sean Waters]

I'm still not following you. BODY from STR damage averages 1 pt per 5 STR, not 2, so it seems like the nominal conversion should be 1:1 for BODY done. Using KB will reduce the value on the attack by 2D6, maybe more or less based on the attack type and environmental conditions (like flying). I think the Ranged Disarm (6E2 p61) would work better for this: convert the attack to DC then roll normal damage for that DC. This is a little different than I suggested earlier; I just re-read the rules for Disarm.

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

Here's what passed for my thoughts on this:

1. 60 STR will do 12 BODY for a STR v STR contest for removing the item if it is grabbed. i.e. 5 points of STR = 1 BODY

2. If, instead of applying the strength directly, you punched an object, that is going to bes less efficient at removing it - so use KB rules, which have a reduction for KB (although, arguably, that is based on target mass and so there should be no deduction for small, light objects...nonetheless -2d6 feels about right - KB shouldn't be as good at disarming as direct application). 60 STR used to do 12-2d6 INCHES of KB, but it now does twice that in metres i.e. 0-20 m.. Actually I have not looked at the new KB calculation - I probably ought to :) OK, looked: determine as previously then multiply by 2 to get an answer in metres. Cool.

3. To convert KB in metres back to a 'Body' value, you divide by 2 :)

4. KB from other sources works the same way.


EXAMPLE

12d6 EB, rolling 40 stun, 12 Body

KB calculation: 2d6 roll = 5, KB = 12-5 = 7 x2 = 14 m

14m KB = 7 'Body' (or 35 STR) worth of STR v STR

If the KB succeeds, the focus is knocked a distance equal to the original KB.



Of course some foci are not 'held': you might wear a crown as a focus. Such an item would not benefit from any of your STR is someone tried to take it away. That MIGHT be worth an additional limitation...or not if your STR is below average for the campaign. I'd allow a DEX roll to grab at the item to apply your STR to keep it in any event. Trouble is you are getting to limitatiobn values arguably worth less than -1/4 here...



NB if a focus is considered INSIDE the characters defences (say they have a force field) then it generally shuold not be able to be taken away in combat.

[Duke Bushido]

If I can back up to where this conversation got too busy for me to follow ( ;) ):




How valuable is a power if it is one of a dozen? Much less valuable than if it were the main power someone had to rely on.

You raise a reasonable point, but look at it another way:

Without the Limitation, you can't be deprived of the power (short of specific power-removing powers, of course) at all. When you want it, you've got it. Sure, you could chose a different power, but you still have this first one whenever it's the best tool for the job.

So does -1/2 seem too much (you're still paying roughly 75% of the "full price" of the power) for a power that you might have available only the first turn or two of any combat? Or a whole slew of powers that you might have available for less than 75% of your combat?

Of course, that's probability, and a lousy thing to base a hard price on to be sure.

So look at it this way:

Only I Hero ID is another valid way to build Power Armor, and it allows a -1/4 for pricing. Your powers can't be taken away, broken, lost, stolen, or even duplicated short of encountering a massive deposit of Plotadvancium ore.

So is risking the loss of power-- particularly if are far from a lab and won't be returning for a week or three-- or the downtime for repairs (let's say that the other heroes are going to do a little leg work running down leads. A bit of role-playing EXP, maybe, or a chance for a side-story-- while you're locked up in the lab for a day or so... is any of that worth -1/4 above and beyond the scant limitation of "Only in Hero ID?"

Or let's look at your own thoughts:


You could lose 3/4 of your powers and still have a decent selection to chose from.

Right. But you would still be deprived of 3/4 of the powers on which you spent very real points, and you would be deprived of that until you had downtime to fix it. Sure, a reasonable GM isn't going to deprive you of something that you spent points for any longer than is necessary or appropriate, but even at that the situation can deprive you of the power for some time.

Suppose the first power you lose is your Force Field, for example, which comprises 2/3 of your defenses. Even if you're deprived for only one combat scene, it's going to make things interesting. Losing your only offensive multipower would certainly be awkward. It's hard to be heroic with a steady dance backwards, after all.

So is any of that worth -1/4 above and beyond a similar limitation with _no_ drawbacks beyond finding some place to change clothes? How about all of it combined?

:)

[Duke Bushido]

Just thinking aloud...

Virus: (Total: 21 Active Cost, 14 Real Cost) Drain BODY 1 point, Constant (+1/2), Uncontrolled (+1/2), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1), Autofire (5 shots; +1/2), Non-Standard Attack Power (+1) (13 Active Points); Limited Power Power loses about half of its effectiveness (Only works v technological armour; -1) (Real Cost: 6) PLUS +4 with any single attack (Real Cost: 8)



Rename it "Acid" and I'll more readily accept that it can affect BODY. :)

Other than that, nice can opener to open up the team techie! :D

[Sean Waters]

Rename it "Acid" and I'll more readily accept that it can affect BODY. :)

Other than that, nice can opener to open up the team techie! :D

The Body damage is notional as foci don't actually take Body directly, but Acid works too, and on so many more things :D

[phookz]

EXAMPLE

12d6 EB, rolling 40 stun, 12 Body

KB calculation: 2d6 roll = 5, KB = 12-5 = 7 x2 = 14 m

14m KB = 7 'Body' (or 35 STR) worth of STR v STR

If the KB succeeds, the focus is knocked a distance equal to the original KB.


This would make a Western HERO character shooting a gun out of someone's hand's pretty difficult; there simply isn't enough BODY done with most pistols (.45 Colt Peacekeeper is only 2D6K). Of course, we could always build a power specifically for doing this, but I think your suggestion makes it pretty difficult to disarm someone.

[Chris Goodwin]

This would make a Western HERO character shooting a gun out of someone's hand's pretty difficult; there simply isn't enough BODY done with most pistols (.45 Colt Peacekeeper is only 2D6K). Of course, we could always build a power specifically for doing this, but I think your suggestion makes it pretty difficult to disarm someone.

Or, we could just use the Disarm maneuver.....

[Duke Bushido]

Can you settle for shooting them in the hand until they drop the gun? Just a thought, mind you, and the sort of thought that suggests I may be up too late....

[phookz]

Or, we could just use the Disarm maneuver.....

I was presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the suggestion would apply to Disarm as well.

[phookz]

Can you settle for shooting them in the hand until they drop the gun? Just a thought, mind you, and the sort of thought that suggests I may be up too late....

Yeah, or just shoot them in the head so they can't use the gun :)

[Duke Bushido]

Interestingly enough, I think that's an easier shot! :eek:

It's so hard to be a good guy....

:D

[Sean Waters]

I was presuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the suggestion would apply to Disarm as well.

It was just meant for attack KB: a specific ranged disarm would not be changed - it is assumed that you are aiming differently with that :) Thing is not everyone has 'ranged disarm'. This allows anyone to try it...but it will not be as effective.