Inherent: SFX, any? [Archive] - HERO Games Discussion Boards

Hugh Neilson

Oct 24th, '09, 06:42 PM

A player came to me and said that his Luck powers/Skills should all be Inherenent, they can not be taken away.

His Luck is just that, it exists like his ability to see, his ability to breath, and like his arms and legs, it is Inherent to the characters existence.

His arms have STR which can be drained. It is not mechanically Inherent. His Running and Leaping can be drained or suppressed, so they are also not Inherent.

His ability to breathe is a limitation he can buy off with Life Support. I like an old suggestion that a Suffocate power be based on Suppress Life Support: Breathe in Oxygen/Nitrogen atmosphere. Sight can't be Drained or Suppressed, but I have no idea why not. I don't expect it would be much cheaper than Transforming the target to a person who cannot see, especially if the Transformation only lasts as long as END is paid (like Suppress) or recovers every turn (like Drain) rather than having a less common shutdown condition or recovering like BOD.

Very little is truly Inherent, and powers that are can still be stripped away by Transform.

bigbywolfe

Oct 24th, '09, 06:55 PM

I actually have no problem if someone feels their concept justifies Inherent on some or most of their powers. They'll just have to pay for it.

Duke Bushido

Oct 24th, '09, 10:49 PM

Sight can't be Drained or Suppressed, but I have no idea why not.

I suspect that this is a tiny bit of Metarules to balance things out with Darkness. Besides, going from the "suffocate by removing a power build" model would suggest costing out Sight before being able to suppress it. First there's the matter of getting everyone at the table to agree on what it costs (based on what details folks think should or should not be included)....

Actually, that's usually the biggest hurdle. :lol:

And most certainly, if he thinks they should _be_ Inherent, then (with your approval) he should _buy_ them Inherent.

Then of course there's "the other way," but I don' think there's a reasonable GM on earth who is going to let someone get a Power or a Talent as a Disadvantage. :lol:

Hugh Neilson

Oct 25th, '09, 05:38 AM

I suspect that this is a tiny bit of Metarules to balance things out with Darkness. Besides, going from the "suffocate by removing a power build" model would suggest costing out Sight before being able to suppress it. First there's the matter of getting everyone at the table to agree on what it costs (based on what details folks think should or should not be included)....

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.

bigbywolfe

Oct 25th, '09, 01:30 PM

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.
First, we didn't have the point values of senses until 6E, so there wouldn't have even been an option to suppress them until now. Also, what stops the person from simply walking out of the one hex of Darkness? So you need the UAA Advantage to make it stick to the person which is a +1 Advantage (at least that’s how it was done in 5ER). Now that’s still only what? 20 points I think? But the target is, arguably, depending on SFX and how the GM rules it, in the middle of a whole hex full of Darkness making it harder to target the victim of the Darkness.

I'm not really sure what my point here is other than you can't compare apples to oranges, you have to make the Powers actually acheive the same (or at least similar) things to compare pricing.

prestidigitator

Oct 25th, '09, 02:31 PM

Drain/Suppress on Senses steps on the toes of Flash more than it does Darkness. And Flash was totally nerfed starting in 5E, so using another power construct that would actually be remotely effective could possibly be construed as cheating the system. ;)

Vulcan

Oct 25th, '09, 02:40 PM

If the player in the OP wants Inherent for free... my opinion is that he is out of luck. He certainly would be in my games. If he wants his Luck to be Inherent, then he needs to pony up the points along with giving me the reason it should be Inherent.

I don't use Inherent a lot. But when I do, it is because it is necessary to the character. I usually buy Extra Limbs as Inherent. After all, removing it pretty much means lopping it off, and that isn't exactly covered by Drain - that falls under Killing Attack. :D Likewise, Golem is a statue magically given intellect and will. His PD/ED are Inherent, because that is a property of the stone he is made of. Under 5E I would buy Gliding Inherent for winged charcters - unless you lop off his wings, he can at the very least still glide.

Although I note that I have been known to waive the 'undrainable' nature of Inherent powers when it made dramatic sense... say, Gravitar Drains Flight/Gliding by increasing the force of gravity by 10 times. Then it just makes sense.

(Of course, I would hope that since I spent the points the GM wouldn't pull this too often...)

PhilFleischmann

Oct 25th, '09, 04:01 PM

6e says sight costs 35 points. The cost of each sense is listed for purposes of sellbacks, IIRC under the Enhanced Senses section.

Darkness that affects one hex costs a lot less than it would take to suppress 35 points of Sight - 10d6 on an average roll.
And that's just for a normal person's sight. If he's spent more points on various enhancements to his vision, you'll need to suppress even more points to blind him.

Naanomi

Oct 25th, '09, 05:15 PM

Inherent luck is fine... its one of the powers I've seen as working ok inherent in general. If your luck comes from something psychic or mutant or magic... sure, dispel that! If your luck is just 'luck', totally inexplicable... or from the hand of some universal/divine power, good luck getting rid of that.... except for transforming it off I guess.

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

Desolid occasionally is inherent (can't 'dispel' the ghost back into the physical world), likewise some SFX for regeneration are good for inherent (the giant blob doesn't heal so much as it just sticks back together).

Duplication, for duplicants that 'cannot recombine' are almost all 'inherent'... you can dispel the heads of a hydra, or your psychically linked twin.

Lucius

Oct 25th, '09, 07:56 PM

If your luck is just 'luck', totally inexplicable... or from the hand of some universal/divine power, good luck getting rid of that.... .

Good luck getting rid of that....so I can Dispel someone else's good Luck with my own good Luck? ;)

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

If you managed to do so, it would be Stunning News for the Robot

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38961&highlight=stunning+news+for+robots

We should probably make undead Life Support (Undeath Support?) Inherent too...

Lucius Alexander

Inherent Palindromedary

Naanomi

Oct 25th, '09, 08:47 PM

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

Sean Waters

Oct 26th, '09, 12:21 AM

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

Less entertaining but perfectly justifiable.

The thing i ask when someone wants 'inherent' is this: why can't it be taken away?

'Because it is part of what I am' is usually not a good reason IMO. Luck powers that can not be taken away? What if the sfx of the drain are that it makes the target increasingly unlucky? At some point the luck and unluck will cancel out. Even if you've still 'got' your luck powers the surrounding unluck cloud cancels their use.

To a large extent I don't care, of course: 'inherent' on a 60 point power costs 15 points - if you'd spent that on Power Defence all your powers would be hard to drain (of course they would still be relatively easy to suppress....grrr). If you bought 15 character points worth of Power Defence with the limitation 'Only to Prevent Luck Powers being negatively adjusted', assuming you don;t have all your powers in 'Luck sfx' that might be worth -1: that is 30 points of power defence, which is a lot.

No, when I think of inherent, I allow it usually only on things that rare meaningless to the character, for example 'LS: Self Contained Breathing on a character whose metabolic process has nothing to do with breathing: logically you can not take away his ability to not breathe because it is more like an amendment of the basic character template - this is someone to whom breathing is meaningless.

The other thing to bear in mind is that something that is inherent can not be adjusted at all - even aided. Is it logical that the Luck God can not be made luckier with a Luck Spell? If not - no inherent.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 26th, '09, 05:24 AM

If the player in the OP wants Inherent for free... my opinion is that he is out of luck. He certainly would be in my games. If he wants his Luck to be Inherent, then he needs to pony up the points along with giving me the reason it should be Inherent.

Yup - it's not free. In fact, it's generallly more effective to buy Power Defense than pay the freight for the extra +1/4 advantage, unless the power is trivial. Power Defense has the added advantage of defending against "Transform - someone without luck".

I don't use Inherent a lot. But when I do, it is because it is necessary to the character. I usually buy Extra Limbs as Inherent. After all, removing it pretty much means lopping it off, and that isn't exactly covered by Drain - that falls under Killing Attack. :D

Is that a problem for the Extra Limbs power (ie it needs to be inherent) or the Drain (ie you need to tell me how your Drain temporarily removes the Extra Limbs)? Both abilities need SFX.

Likewise, Golem is a statue magically given intellect and will. His PD/ED are Inherent, because that is a property of the stone he is made of.

Most defense adjustments I see rely on reducing the toughness of the object. Why should a character made of stone have inherent defenses if the stone wall he's standing beside doesn't? Again, we're back to the SFX of the adjustment power.

Under 5E I would buy Gliding Inherent for winged charcters - unless you lop off his wings, he can at the very least still glide.

Really? Even through my Gravity Augmentation Field ("suppress movement modes that travel through the air")?

Although I note that I have been known to waive the 'undrainable' nature of Inherent powers when it made dramatic sense... say, Gravitar Drains Flight/Gliding by increasing the force of gravity by 10 times. Then it just makes sense.

But now the character, who paid an extra 10 points for his 20" Flight to be "undrainable" isn't getting what he paid for. Should have bought Power Defense, only to protect flight! Gravitar has a power that justifies Draining flight and gliding, not a power that justifies overriding advantages.

Good luck getting rid of that....so I can Dispel someone else's good Luck with my own good Luck? ;)

Reasonable SFX. Or maybe my goodluck is powered by taking away luck others would access instead.

If you managed to do so, it would be Stunning News for the Robot

The Blue Fairy changes him into a Real Boy (either Drain all automaton powers or a Transform, only one of which is prevented by Inherent anyway).

We should probably make undead Life Support (Undeath Support?) Inherent too...

What SFX justify draining/suppressing Life Support and would not justify draining AfterLife Support?

Life Support is a good one for Inherent... Dispel my Gas Mask: no problem... Dispel my gills? Less entertaining.

Both Sub-Mariner and Aquaman have had their ability to breathe underwater removed at various points in their history. Namor has also encountered scenarios where his ability to breathe air was compromised. So the source material does support these abilities not being inherent, although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.

tesuji

Oct 26th, '09, 06:10 AM

Frankly

I use inherent for things like "i am naturally large so my growth is inherent." or "i am naturally small so my shrinking is inherent" (these might be 5e style i think 6e has templates?) So for instance my elephant cannot be dispelled back to human size.

I also use it for things like some forms of life support - a golem for instance cannot have his "does not need to breath" drained or dispelled. Similar for an android who has no lungs.

those are the kind of things i use inherent for.

For things like "my power comes from higher source" I tend to apply "difficult to dispel" and not inherent. This can usually work to show its "tougher to reduce" but frankly, if we are in a polytheistic environment, why can your god's gifts not be disrupted by another god?

But generally, since inherent is an absolute - and one of heroes tenets is "no absolutes" - I tend to only use it when it is unquestionable - a case of ""the power is less a power than a natural state.

So i don't just allow inherent for anyone who is willing to pay points - you gotta have good reason to get an absolute, especially one so cheap, when i run hero.

tesuji

Oct 26th, '09, 06:35 AM

[/QUOTE]

But now the character, who paid an extra 10 points for his 20" Flight to be "undrainable" isn't getting what he paid for. Should have bought Power Defense, only to protect flight! Gravitar has a power that justifies Draining flight and gliding, not a power that justifies overriding advantages.

this is IMo a problem with the broad uses adjustment powers get.

Gravity vs flight is better, IMO, tho maybe more expensively, bought as an actual opposing force, say a tk. neither power defense nor inherent then play a role and it becomes simply a matter of force vs force.

The Blue Fairy changes him into a Real Boy (either Drain all automaton powers or a Transform, only one of which is prevented by Inherent anyway).

transform can alter the powers of anyone regardless of inherent. change the powersand the issue is moot. might as well change him into a snail.

hat SFX justify draining/suppressing Life Support and would not justify draining AfterLife Support?

here we disagree somewhat. The life support for say a skeleton isn't a "power" thats keeping him from breathing but an utter lack of breathing apparatus. Sure he could be transformed to need to breath but thats not draining his life support is it?

Both Sub-Mariner and Aquaman have had their ability to breathe underwater removed at various points in their history. Namor has also encountered scenarios where his ability to breathe air was compromised. So the source material does support these abilities not being inherent, although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.

In a previous game i whipped up a "gill clogger" area spray that worked vs the "life support breath water' over a large area. It worked great when we did the undersea atlantean thingy. 3d6 std effect drain ranged area etc - fairly cheap for a cloud of nanites that clogged gills.

ghost-angel

Oct 26th, '09, 07:01 AM

Less entertaining but perfectly justifiable.

The thing i ask when someone wants 'inherent' is this: why can't it be taken away?

Depends on if it should be reduced or if it has to be Transformed.

You can't Dispel someone's arms, but you can Transform them into an armless person.

And there's always Damage to remove a body part. "Inherent Body Parts" like Gills, like Naanomi said, are good candidates for Inherent. It's an undeniable aspect of their physiology - like with a fish.

There are plenty of examples you could likely come up with all over the place where it doesn't make sense to "turn off" a Power with Dispel due to the nature of the SFX (and thus requiring the purchase of Inherent).

I think at the meta-level we get stuck with the idea that if it doesn't come with the default template it should be able to get "turned off" in some manner. Or we assume the Player is just trying to get away with something by adding it. Which is a bad way to approach the situation.

Instead of requiring them to justify it just look at the SFX and if it feels like it's an aspect of the characters Being, that's good enough for me. Or you could take the angle "player paid the points, player gets the benefit."

Naanomi

Oct 26th, '09, 07:39 AM

I tried to build a 'wonder twins' style character... a character with an identical duplicant who 'could not recombine', permanently mind linked, yadda yadda.

Dispelling the psychic link, sure... dispelling my twin sister... huh? If the duplicant cannot recombine, where does it go? If I have to struggle more to come up with SFX about my power when dispelled than I did to create it in the first place... good candidate for Inherent.

bigbywolfe

Oct 26th, '09, 10:12 AM

Sean Waters

Oct 26th, '09, 10:26 AM

Depends on if it should be reduced or if it has to be Transformed.

You can't Dispel someone's arms, but you can Transform them into an armless person.

And there's always Damage to remove a body part. "Inherent Body Parts" like Gills, like Naanomi said, are good candidates for Inherent. It's an undeniable aspect of their physiology - like with a fish.

There are plenty of examples you could likely come up with all over the place where it doesn't make sense to "turn off" a Power with Dispel due to the nature of the SFX (and thus requiring the purchase of Inherent).

I think at the meta-level we get stuck with the idea that if it doesn't come with the default template it should be able to get "turned off" in some manner. Or we assume the Player is just trying to get away with something by adding it. Which is a bad way to approach the situation.

Instead of requiring them to justify it just look at the SFX and if it feels like it's an aspect of the characters Being, that's good enough for me. Or you could take the angle "player paid the points, player gets the benefit."

I look at it this way: 'Arms' is not a power: strength is. 'Gills' is not a power: LS: breathe underwater is.

Dispelling/draining your ability to breathe underwater can be accomplished because that is a power, and there is a logical way to explain how it happens: you might, for example, use some sort of gel that coats the surface of your gills, preventing oxygen exchange. The gills are still there, they just don't work.

Transform works differently and would generally not be appropriate for this sort of effect: you could transform someone into a gill-less person or to a person whose gills did not work, but Transform is a catch all and shouldn't be used for stuff other powers do. You shouldn't be using it for 'transform target into same person but just after they've been hit by an energy blast.

A sentient rock is different because, whilst it may well be built with LS: self contained breathing, that's not quite right: the breathing is not self contained - it just doesn't need to breathe. It is not a different way of breathing (which could be taken away) it is the absence of a need to breathe - which can't.

Similarly with 'arms' - no, you can not dispel/drain them, because they are not a power - they are an sfx of STR. Arguably if you drained STR down to nothing* the sfx could be that you remove all muscles and limbs: they just become a blob of jelly - but generally, removing limbs is not something adjustment powers do.

Tesuji mentioned not being able to drain the naturally large or small - absolutely but not because they are built with growth or shrinking - that is not how Hero does permanently large or small characters - size is just an sfx of increased characteristics, and you can drain them.

So I disagree about gills - sure you don't take them away with drain, they are still there looking freaky, but you can take away what they do, perfectly logically, so there is no sense in making them (or rather the LS they represent) inherent. It is like saying your self contained breathing (oxygen creation) should be inherent because drain can't remove your lungs: no - it can't - but it can sure stop you using them, even though they are an aspect of that character's being. Same power - different sfx - a character who simply does not have any lungs or other breathing apparatus because that is not how their metabolism works - no problemo.

In fact I think there is a lot of confusion because you have to be able to justify the build fromt he sfx you have chosen. The real test is this: is it logical, from concept, that the effects of the power can not be adjusted?

If the answer is 'yes' then inherent is what you are looking for.

Incidentally a 350 point character, everything inherent, is a 280 point character with 70 points spent on the advantage (probably - depends on build, but that is about right). For those points you could have 46 points of double hardened power defence: not much is getting through that.

My point is that this is NOT a cost issue: you can be as or more protected only much cheaper, in all likelihood buying PowD instead of inherent BUT there are just some things inherent is RIGHT for - which all comes back to the proper application of concept.

*which, obviously, is impossible under 6e. Storming.

Duke Bushido

Oct 26th, '09, 10:41 AM

Automaton powers are usually inherent... how do you suppress something's lack of stun?

Why,

you teach him a valuable lesson about lying, and then you make him a _real_ boy! :eg:

Of course, with Suppress, it would wear off and he'd be a puppet again in no time.... Reckon that won't do it...

I know that this conversation is about a mechanic, but ultimately, what qualifies for Inherent comes down to a mixture of GM approval and SFX. For example, I wouldn't allow "Monstro, the shape-changing boy" to buy his Growth as Inherent, but I've got no problem with Hill Giant having an Inherent level or two simply because, for them, it's not "Growth," it's who they actually are: they don't get any smaller.

The biggest problem I've ever found with a universal rule for what is or is not fundamentally Inherent is that ultimately, the same results can be gotten with a Physical Limitation: "Phys Lim: fifteen feet tall."

I know: counter this idea with "well I can buy an energy blast as Inherent; that's not a phys lim." But then the whole circle starts again: why is your EB Inherent? Why can't I drain it?"

Which leads in most cases to a discussion of SFX v SFX of what should or should not be Inherent----

which suggests that Inherent itself might be a bit redundant, as clearly-defined SFX tend to resolve the issue case-by-case anyway.

GM approval, etc.... ;)

Though Sean:

I rather like the "can it be Aided" angle. That's intriguingly fresh. :D

Naanomi

Oct 26th, '09, 11:01 AM

Dispelling/draining your ability to breathe underwater can be accomplished because that is a power, and there is a logical way to explain how it happens: you might, for example, use some sort of gel that coats the surface of your gills, preventing oxygen exchange. The gills are still there, they just don't work.

I can make a gel that coats the inside of your lungs so you can't breathe... they are still there, they just don't work for oxygen exchange. Clearly this means I should be able to drain your normal breathing.

Or... The gel doesn't work on Fish because it is the only environment they can breathe in?

Gills are just as much a part of some thing's anatomy as lungs are (or, for that matter, lack of oxygen needs all together)... unless they are not, like they are mechanical or something.

My water breathing gills can't be aided either ;)

CrosshairCollie

Oct 26th, '09, 11:04 AM

I can make a gel that coats the inside of your lungs so you can't breathe... they are still there, they just don't work for oxygen exchange. Clearly this means I should be able to drain your normal breathing.

Or... The gel doesn't work on Fish because it is the only environment they can breathe in?

Gills are just as much a part of some thing's anatomy as lungs are (or, for that matter, lack of oxygen needs all together)... unless they are not, like they are mechanical or something.

My water breathing gills can't be aided either ;)

There's a difference between 'I turn off your Gills power' and 'I'm choking you'. Wrapping my hands around someone's throat and strangling them is definitely not draining their 'inherent ability to breathe'. :) In your example, I would say the power is best built as an NND, not a power drain.

ghost-angel

Oct 26th, '09, 11:05 AM

I look at it this way: 'Arms' is not a power: strength is. 'Gills' is not a power: LS: breathe underwater is.

By that logic... nothing should be able to take Inherent beyond the base template that you start with. What's the point?

Gills- LS: Breathe Underwater is an SFX that should take Inherent.
SCUBA- LS: Breath Underwater is an SFX that should not take Inherent.

Hugh Neilson

Oct 26th, '09, 11:41 AM

You can't Dispel someone's arms, but you can Transform them into an armless person.

Or, as Sean noted, Drain their STR.

And there's always Damage to remove a body part. "Inherent Body Parts" like Gills, like Naanomi said, are good candidates for Inherent. It's an undeniable aspect of their physiology - like with a fish.

My legs are an undeniable aspect of my physiology, but my Running and Leaping can still be Drained.

ghost-angel

Oct 26th, '09, 11:45 AM

Yeah, sure whatever. It's bad logic in my book.

By all accounts of that thinking the Advantage shouldn't exist in the first place - so remove it from your games.

Ice9

Oct 26th, '09, 01:07 PM

Gills should be as inherent as lungs are. While it can certainly makes sense to create a gill-clogging substance, it equally makes sense to create a throat clogging substance. In either case, it's rather abusive for a Drain 2d6 to be an insta-kill.

That aside, there are plenty of cases where Inherent makes undeniable sense. Someone who is a sentient swarm of insects is going to be partially Desolid, and dispelling that makes no sense. See also: many senses, extra limbs, HKAs that represent claws or teeth, and a number of other things.

The bigger issue is that Suppress isn't one really one power, it's two related powers:
1) Block/weaken an ability someone has.
2) Cause someone to be hindered, such that they are worse in a specific area.

For the first form (anti-mutant serum, electromagnetic dampener, etc) it makes no sense to Suppress things like normal running, being naturally lighter than air, or wearing armor. For the second form (high-gravity field, molecular destabilizer, accelerated icing-up), whether a power is natural makes no difference (and often, Power Defense makes no difference, so they should really be AVAD).

ghost-angel

Oct 26th, '09, 01:48 PM

Also - a lot of these "Drains" could really be other Powers.

Duke Bushido

Oct 26th, '09, 02:40 PM

Both Sub-Mariner and Aquaman have had their ability to breathe underwater removed at various points in their history. Namor has also encountered scenarios where his ability to breathe air was compromised. So the source material does support these abilities not being inherent, although adjustment powers versus life support are quite rare.

If it actually removed the ability, it may possibly be constructed as Transform. as opposed to drain. Removing your lymphatic tissue doesn't drain your immune system as much as it "transforms" you into someone with a lousy immune system.

Similar with compromising an ability. Is it actually taking away the ability to breathe underwater-- that is, were the character taken instantly out of that situation, would he be able to breathe underwater again? Or is he instead being NND: Choked (does Body) or something along those lines.

While reading through the thread suggests that I've been wildly scooped while I was out today, there are several people raising a very valid point:

There are more ways to impeded an Ability than Drain or Suppress.

For example:

In a previous game i whipped up a "gill clogger" area spray that worked vs the "life support breath water' over a large area. It worked great when we did the undersea atlantean thingy. 3d6 std effect drain ranged area etc - fairly cheap for a cloud of nanites that clogged gills.

Were this my game, I would rule this construct invalid. The defined SFX is that the gills are being clogged. They still function completely normally: exposed to oxygenated water in sufficient volume, the character can breathe. The basic "breathe underwater" ability isn't removed here; the water is removed.

Building it as an NND: Choke would be valid. In the end, the character can't breathe with either build, but the NND build (defense: filters; SCUBA, or method of breathing other than gills) more accurately portrays the fact that the nature of the gills are not affected in any way.

Rapier

Oct 26th, '09, 03:46 PM

I'm sure that Inherent has many valid uses.

However, the only ones I can ever imagine off the top of my head are things like Extra Limbs and Wings.

Inherent is about taking what would normally be a power (eg something you get that is so useful that you should rightly pay points for it) and turning it into a facet of your being.

If your guy has 6 arms, they can't very well be Drained or Suppressed. He's got six freakin arms! But Extra Limbs isn't always that way. If you are AmoebaLad, maybe you can generate as many arms as you need on a temporary basis. Get hit with some kind of Cell Wall Rigidity Ray and you can't change your shape.

Does Inherent make sense for most powers? I hate to say no. It might seem like an easy out to take your Blast or your STR as Inherent so that you never lose it, but that is kind of why GM review is important.

'Just because you can build it, doesn't mean you should.' - Hero System Mantra

Greywind

Oct 26th, '09, 03:55 PM

...or something so powerful, it can't be suppressed...

Hugh Neilson

Oct 26th, '09, 04:19 PM

There have been a number of references to STR or EB made inherent. Did I miss a change in 6e? I thought Inherent first required 0 END, Persistent and Always On. I don't see a lot of characters applying those modifiers to STR and EB's.

PhilFleischmann

Oct 26th, '09, 05:26 PM

Naanomi

Oct 26th, '09, 06:10 PM

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.
You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.
You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.
You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

How about Wonder Twins? Can't drain their lack of being one person? hehe

ghost-angel

Oct 26th, '09, 06:16 PM

casualplayer

Oct 26th, '09, 06:48 PM

The problem is not so much Inherent as Adjustment Powers, which are highly SFXed up. Plus the Adjustment Power defense, Power Defense :D, is pure SFX because it's almost impossible to come up with a justification for it other than "I don't want people messing with my Stats." Everytime you have dueling SFXs, the GM has to make a call that is going to upset someone. Makes for bad, arbitrary gaming.

Inherent is power insurance; the player wants the serenity that comes from knowing the GM can't mess with that aspect of his character. The advantage probably should be called "Immutable" and should probably just be a gentleman's agreement between player and GM that "Please don't mess with this."

bigbywolfe

Oct 26th, '09, 07:19 PM

And just today, as I read this thread, I think of another way to think about it: What's inherent is really a lack of something:

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.
That's why you buy it Inherent

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.
By RAW you don't make a mouse small by using a Power so this statement has nothing to do with the conversation. You make a mouse small by puting the Char at the appropriate level and by giving it any appropriate Physical Complications as per the size chart.

You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.
That's why you buy it with Inherent.

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.
What Power are you using to define a lack of human physiology? Usually not having human physiology is a Disadvantage for medical things and such. It is often also an excuse for certain powers and stats. Why should Alien STR be harder to drain than Olympic Level Athlete STR? If Powers and Char aren't what makes "alien physiology" then what are you trying to Drain?

Duke Bushido

Oct 26th, '09, 08:48 PM

IMO, The Inherent Advantage has caused more confusion and arguments than it has solve any problems or allowed concepts to be built.

I disagree, but only mildly. The official acceptance of such an Advantage pointed out the indiscriminate and meta-mechanical nature of Drains and such. More than "what's inherent and what's not," the question to me has always been "why allow the complete universality of adjustment attacks?"

Sean Waters

Oct 27th, '09, 01:36 AM

Yeah, sure whatever. It's bad logic in my book.

By all accounts of that thinking the Advantage shouldn't exist in the first place - so remove it from your games.

If a ghost is an immaterial being, and you decide to buy that immateriality as 0 END persistent always on desolidification, it would make sense to have that inherent: becoming desolid is not something the character does, it is something the character is. You can not drain that aspect of the character*.

Inherent is not 'generally' useful, but it definitely has a niche that it fills.

*Or maybe you can - perhaps in that particular game world you can bring ghosts back to the material plane by draining desolid - but that is probably not a common concept.

Sean Waters

Oct 27th, '09, 01:37 AM

Hugh Neilson

Oct 27th, '09, 05:16 AM

IMO, The Inherent Advantage has caused more confusion and arguments than it has solve any problems or allowed concepts to be built. I don't use it at all, as an Advantage. In games I run, it's replaced by Common Sense: If it makes no sense for the ability to be Drained/Suppressed, then it can't be, and you get that "inherentness" for free. If it does make sense that something could Drain/Suppress it, then Inherent is simply not available.

To this, I would add that the power is already 0 END, Persistent and Always On. Those powers are starting to sound pretty Inherent to begin with. Should it be possible to shut them off? Maybe it depends on the nature of the power.

Now I know it sounds like I'm giving away something for free just for having the right SFX, but I'm not. Inherent-ness is a very rare thing.

As well, the adjustment powers that affect inherent powers seem very rare, so how much of an advantage is it, really? If there would never be a Drain Life Support or Drain Extra Limbs power in the game, then Inherent on those powers is not gaining the player any more than KS: Renaissance Italian Literature gains them in a typical Wild West game. It is background, and should not cost points. There might be a Drain Fish Powers, or a Drain Amoeba powers, and those might catch a character's water breathing or extra limbs. But they should, if the drains have SFX to match their build.

And just today, as I read this thread, I think of another way to think about it: What's inherent is really a lack of something:

You can't drain a robot's lack of need to breathe.

Neither can that Robot benefit from an inhaled gas that provides positive adjustments. That Inherent has benefits and drawbacks, both very rare. Sounds like SFX to me.

You can't drain a mouse's lack of being man-sized.
You can't drain a ghost's lack of a solid body.

These come down to game parameters.

Maybe our Ghost Hunter game does have a spell that forces a ghost to become solid. Of course, maybe that spell should be built as a Transform rather than a Drain or Suppress. Given the cost off the ghost's desolidification, the Transform is probably not much different in cost anyway. To Drain 40 points of Desolid on an average roll, I need a 12d6 Drain (120 AP). That would buy 8d6 Major Transform, averaging 28 points. How much BOD do ghosts have anyway?

You can't drain an alien's lack of human physiology.

Again, whatever that grants likely has positives and negatives.

Let's add another example. The character has a flaming Damage Aura, 0 END, persistent, always on. Maybe it can be drained, maybe it can't.

If it can, this is a drawback when he wants it in combat, and a benefit when he wants to investigate the fireworks factory. If it can't, then it is a benefit in combat and a drawback in investigations. Again, seems like it balances out.

Do we really need this advantage, or should Inherent be relegated to the arena of SFX? There are probably a few other +1/4's that could stand a similar analysis (I'm looking at YOU, Personal Immunity).

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 06:27 AM

Were this my game, I would rule this construct invalid. The defined SFX is that the gills are being clogged. They still function completely normally: exposed to oxygenated water in sufficient volume, the character can breathe. The basic "breathe underwater" ability isn't removed here; the water is removed.

Building it as an NND: Choke would be valid. In the end, the character can't breathe with either build, but the NND build (defense: filters; SCUBA, or method of breathing other than gills) more accurately portrays the fact that the nature of the gills are not affected in any way.

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense, tho that is precisely the counter for such an nnd attack. so your preferred build is illegal.

barring gm fiat of course but if invoking gm fiat one shouldn't be tossing around terms like invalid.

second: drains and suppresses are used frequently in published materials for effects which dont remove the ability but stop it from functioning.

i have seen itching powder writte up as drain dex even though the deterity is stilll there but the itching powder makes the character unable to use it.
dont ask for a cite, books packed up. and its a lot of books.

of course, in your game, whatever you say goes.

third issue effectiveness: a 3d6 nnd would have costed similarly and frankly would have been much more effective, knocking them out fairly quickly. and not actually making them choke at all.

fourth issue mechanics and sfx: by draining their water breathing, we actually got to invoke the suffocate rules - cannot recover, losde end, etc.

so the sfx is "they cannot breath" and were i a gm a mechanical effect which caused the actual suffocation rules to be applied to the victim as opposed to simply whacking off more stun would be the more valid build.

i am really curious as to why you think whacking off stun is a more valid mechanical build than invoking the choking/suffocation rules is for an sfx of clogged gills?

i do think many hero players would prefer the gm to let them use the 3d6 area continual nnd as it whacks off stun and is quicker to knock them down.

but as gm the ndd stops affecting you as soon as you leave, while the clogged gill drain clears slowly as you recover the points. that seems more appropriate.

but to each his own. some gms prefer to keep things in stun only effects.

i wanted the power that stopped them from breathing to actually invoke the "not breathing" rules - not just whack off stun.

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 06:51 AM

...or something so powerful, it can't be suppressed...

even by the originator of the power?

i have rarely ran a monotheistic world. where there was one true god over powerful of all else who was actively involved and granting powers.

so even my really powerful sources had rivals and so a power so powerful even my "as powerful rivals" cannot drain it never made sense.

someone or something somewhere in the universe was "as powerful" and so being untouchable by anything never made sense.

if you want a powee thats tougher than normal, buy diff to dispel or the equivqlent.

but to get the absolute - absolutes are not just a "have a bigger stick"

some gms like absolutes more than i do, however.

Greywind

Oct 27th, '09, 11:56 AM

I don't believe in absolutes either, but, let's say a FH god. There is no rational way that a mere mortal would be able, without outside assistance, to syphon the power of that god.

Duke Bushido

Oct 27th, '09, 11:59 AM

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense, tho that is precisely the counter for such an nnd attack. so your preferred build is illegal.

Semantics. Go with "breathe something other than water." Same results.

barring gm fiat of course but if invoking gm fiat one shouldn't be tossing around terms like invalid.

I thought the precursor "were this my game" was not only specifically qualifying, but gut-wrenchingly obsequious. I'm sorry if I managed to offend you after all that, but really, we can only do so much and remain in a discussion that goes somewhere. If endless apologies are needed to keep something on focus, then consider them freely given before and after anything I post.

fourth issue mechanics and sfx: by draining their water breathing, we actually got to invoke the suffocate rules - cannot recover, losde end, etc.

Which you can also do by choking them. I dare say that ultimately, choking is what lead to suffocation rules. You can do it with any attack defined as choking, down to a wiry hand wrapped 'round the throat. You don't need a Drain for that.

and were i a gm

I'm not the only one who thinks this is an appropriate "I'm not picking on anyone; I'm joining the discussion" stipulation. ;)

i am really curious as to why you think whacking off stun is a more valid mechanical build than invoking the choking/suffocation rules is for an sfx of clogged gills?

I don't. I think Draining END and REC are more appropriate. When you run out of END, start whacking off BODY.

However, the point I was discussing was "builds other than Drain," so I offered one.

Duke Bushido

Oct 27th, '09, 12:04 PM

Sorry for the requote, but for some reason I am having the devil's own time doing any editing this afternoon. This had me thinking:

first issue: nnd does not allow you to define a lac as the defense. so i cannot define "doesnt need to breath water" as a valid nnd defense

Then I assume that "Life Support: doesn't need to breathe" as an often-used defense against gas attacks works because of the positive requirement of a power purchase. Is that correct?

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '09, 12:22 PM

Really? Even through my Gravity Augmentation Field ("suppress movement modes that travel through the air")?

But now the character, who paid an extra 10 points for his 20" Flight to be "undrainable" isn't getting what he paid for. Should have bought Power Defense, only to protect flight! Gravitar has a power that justifies Draining flight and gliding, not a power that justifies overriding advantages.

Are you agreeing with me, arguing with me, or just trying to pick a fight?
http://www.herogames.com/forums/images/icons/think.gif

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '09, 12:32 PM

The problem - as I see it - is that Drain should work vs SFX First and Mechanics Second.

I've never liked "Drain Energy Blast" as a build. On the rare occasions I GM a Supersgame (ok, that one time) I would never allow that. Drain Fire - yes.

So for me Drain Life Support is just as hinky a build. There are too many Life Support SFXs for just one measly Drain to rationally cover.

This is the single best point made in this thread. The problem isn't in "Inherent", it is in the abusively over-wide effectiveness of the Drain power.

For example: Drain Flight based on a 10x increase in the force of gravity. Sure, works well on most FX. But what about a blimp? Blimps fly by being lighter than air. Sure, it now weights 10x as much. But so does the air in the area! The blimp should continue to fly - it might be hampered a bit in maneuverability, but it shouldn't fall out of the sky!

And don't get me started on "Drain Superpower"... :mad:

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 12:35 PM

I don't believe in absolutes either, but, let's say a FH god. There is no rational way that a mere mortal would be able, without outside assistance, to syphon the power of that god.

ph so ok so you aren't suggesting using inherent but rather a limited form of inherent...

inherent -s (not drainable by mortals)

where s is a value appropriate for the campaign - depends on how many times godlike beings take such direct involvement.

we are on the same page except that to represent this in my games, first godlike powers are frequently extremely high ap anyway as to make pc level drains rather useless but also, i tend to use dif to dispel or variants thereof to make the drains even more obviously ineffective.

thus the power is practically unassailable by being well powerful, not by being rendered immune.

but either way we both agree it seems on not using inherent as is to represent these. you use a limited form - only vs mortals - while i use other means.

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 12:36 PM

Sorry for the requote, but for some reason I am having the devil's own time doing any editing this afternoon. This had me thinking:

Then I assume that "Life Support: doesn't need to breathe" as an often-used defense against gas attacks works because of the positive requirement of a power purchase. Is that correct?

yes... target has an immunity, in this case, immunity to breathing in essense.

nnd defeated by power purchased - good.

Vulcan

Oct 27th, '09, 12:38 PM

Why should Alien STR be harder to drain than Olympic Level Athlete STR?

Perhaps the alien equivalent of muscles work more like hydraulic cylinders than elastic bands?

SSgt Baloo

Oct 27th, '09, 12:53 PM

As a GM, I'd rule on a case-by-case basis. I see no reason for making Extra Limbs any less Inherent than, say, the Usual Number of Limbs*. A movement power, for example, would probably not default to Inherent, and would have to pay extra for it to be so. Inherent =/= naturally occurring. Inherent is a defense against certain types of attack. As such it should cost something.

*It's the player who wants to buy "Supress Extra Limbs" who I'd have my quibble with.

Greywind

Oct 27th, '09, 12:57 PM

You don't believe in player's being disarming?

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 01:01 PM

[/QUOTE]

Semantics. Go with "breathe something other than water." Same results.

one man's semantics is another man;s rulebook emphasis. they go to special trouble to tell you not to use "lack of" as a key for nnds, so to them it isnt semantics.

I thought the precursor "were this my game" was not only specifically qualifying, but gut-wrenchingly obsequious. I'm sorry if I managed to offend you after all that, but really, we can only do so much and remain in a discussion that goes somewhere. If endless apologies are needed to keep something on focus, then consider them freely given before and after anything I post.

i am not sure where this comes from. i dont think i asked for anapology. are you perhaps confusing my post with someone elses?

Which you can also do by choking them. I dare say that ultimately, choking is what lead to suffocation rules. You can do it with any attack defined as choking, down to a wiry hand wrapped 'round the throat. You don't need a Drain for that.

well, first, i cannot invoke the suffocation rules except by doing something which mechanically does so. i cannot choke someone - causing inability to recover and loss of end etc - with an eb. or an rka. or a flash - mechanically they all do their own thing but they do not choke.

sure i can build an eb and call it "choking damage" with nnd. it will work mechanically much like a meson burst nnd eb or a taser nnd eb.

thats why i bought this one as a drain, even though an effective nnd would cost a little less and frankly be more debilitating. instead of just blasting stunnoff under another label i want to actually get the suffocation drowning rules in effect.

its more of a purist "make the mechanics match the effect" thing.

I don't. I think Draining END and REC are more appropriate. When you run out of END, start whacking off BODY.

by the book, drain doesn't work that way. drain all the end and then it stops draining. are you suggesting a third drain for body? thats now a very very expensive attack, whose cost seems way out of whack compared to its effectiveness. with typical rec scores in the 8-10 you need about 6 dice of drain to get it first go round - that means the power weighs in at about 225 cp instead of 75 after advantages.

lims may reduce it some. but its still going to weigh in at the low hundreds, for a power less debilitating and less likely to knock them out quickly than the 3d6 eb you mentioned earlier.

how is that cost appropriate for the effect?

showing my math

2d6 drain ls: breath water standard effect 6 cp
+1 continuous
+1 aoe4" rad
+1/2 x4 radius 16"r
+1/4 fade 1 cp per turn
75 ap

3d6 eb
+1 nnd "some variant of lack of reath water"
+1 continuous
+1 aoe4" rad
+1/2 x4 radius 16"r
67 ap

6d6 drain recovery std effect 9 pts of recovery
+1 nnd "some variant of lack of reath water"
+1 continuous
+1 aoe 18" rad
240 ap
apply lim for water breathing only which varies by campaign.

However, the point I was discussing was "builds other than Drain," so I offered one.

absolutely, didnt i say something about how many gms like to just whack off stun and players too, its usually the most effective and quickest and often cost effective way to take down an enemy.

i think writing up a choking cloud as a whack off stun will keep you in line with many many players and gms.

myself, i preferred actually having the choking cloud invoke the drowning rules.

different strokes.

neither invalid.

well, at least to my way of thinking.

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 01:07 PM

Naanomi

Oct 27th, '09, 01:15 PM

one more question duke bushido

why is it more appropriate to drain his purchased ability recovery, end and body and inappropriate to drain his purchased ability life support?

is life support more a "natural part of him" or somesuch than his recovery, end and body?

Because the game does not let you 'turn off' some aspects of a character. Their ability to breathe in a normal environment, for example. As cited in your own examples, it is far easier to drain someone's breathing than to try and simulate the effects of suffocation... and I see this as a good thing. This isn't the style of game where building 'power attacks' is really the best way to go.

If you really want a gill-clogger, and really want to get rid of the LS... Transform exists with rules for just that reason (and totally bypasses Inherent). Go ahead and suffocate people away with it, and at least then you spent some reasonable amount of points to do so.

From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 03:21 PM

[/QUOTE]

Because the game does not let you 'turn off' some aspects of a character. Their ability to breathe in a normal environment, for example. As cited in your own examples, it is far easier to drain someone's breathing than to try and simulate the effects of suffocation... and I see this as a good thing. This isn't the style of game where building 'power attacks' is really the best way to go.

i have no idea what type of game you are referring to but did you read the same example powers i wrote?

the most effective attack in terms of getting rid of enemies as quickly as possible was the eb nnd like db suggested as valid. it will clear the area of atlanteans a lot quicker than the drowning "lose an end and cannot take recoveries" does. yet it is cheaper.

sure the hokey drain recovery build is a lot more expensive but thats because it is trying to achieve the same effect in a more round about way.

the cost is in line with its effectiveness, this drain ls, as opposed to the massive cost of the drain recovery then drain end them drain body.

or would you compare drain recovery to 6d6 nnd?

If you really want a gill-clogger, and really want to get rid of the LS... Transform exists with rules for just that reason (and totally bypasses Inherent). Go ahead and suffocate people away with it, and at least then you spent some reasonable amount of points to do so.

so its ok to get rid of ls and drown someone but only if you use transform to do it? it has to cost a whoe lot more than an eb approach that would take out the character in less time?

why?

but we come back to the basic question i agree the game disallows certain things from being drained, but you do realize life support isn;t one of them, right?

a gm might decide "this form of life support is not drainable" and allow it to be bought inherent but barring that, ls is drainable by the rules.

no transform required.

From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.

you do understand that the core rules do not agree with yopu. they allow ls to be drained. right?

certainly it is within a gm purview to declare gills an "innate part of character" or somesuch and undrainable by inherent or by fiat. itsw just not the defult position of the rulebook.

just curious tho, if we were in space and i had a power defined as loosening seals on space suits or some such would you also disallow me buying ls vs self contained breathing or vs immune to vacuum?

would ls bought sfx space suit also be immune to loss by say damage from rka?

how far does the "must protect life support from attack" thing extend?

as for cost, imx characters often have more points invested in ls than they do in recovery, many even including the 5e freebie recovery.

so depending on the scope of ls, it might not be cheaper than drain recovery but certainly would be cheaper than the other complex drain build.

tesuji

Oct 27th, '09, 03:30 PM

[QUOTE=Naanomi;19271
From a balance perspective: LS powers are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain. Like Skills are cheap and thus 'too easy' to drain, no matter how fun it would be to drain someone's language skills for a long time.[/QUOTE]

fwiw

drain int is pretty cheap for most characters and draining int for a long time again seeems to be perfectly legal. draining int will effectively shut down both perception and int based skills.

should int also get the life support protection clause?

what other powers and traits should get this exemption?

PRE is cheap easily drained and feeds lots of skill that losing for a long time would be bad. is pre protected?

i mean saying "skills are protected" but allowing the characteristics that make the skills useful easily drained seems rather short sighted? like saying "its wrong to have a 4d6 drain ls sc breathing plus vacuum" but allowing the same power to be shredded by a 1d6 rka that shreds the spacesuit, wiping out a power per attack.

but seriously can you provide a list of all the things legally allowed to be drained that you feel derserve exemption due to this protection clause? i am curious as to how far it goes.

thanks

Naanomi

Oct 27th, '09, 04:22 PM

I would buy inherent for my gills, which is what this is all about...

Duke Bushido

Oct 27th, '09, 04:39 PM

one more question duke bushido

("Duke" is fine. It's actually my name. :) )

why is it more appropriate to drain his purchased ability recovery, end and body and inappropriate to drain his purchased ability life support?

is life support more a "natural part of him" or somesuch than his recovery, end and body?

Reasoning from effects, in this instance. Looking at what actual strangulation does to a person. It's very brutal, and those who have been choked long enough to actually lose consciousness (which I looked at as a total loss of END rather than STUN) do not spring back from it as they do when knocked silly from a blow to the head or other "STUN" type damage. Even the blow to the head takes time to shake off, but choking really seems take a massive toll on their ability to recover.

And of course, BODY because -- well, no reason to go into that one, I don't suppose.

Greywind

Oct 27th, '09, 04:39 PM

Gills can be clogged or otherwise rendered inoperable.

Sean Waters

Oct 28th, '09, 05:41 AM

The problem here, I suppose, is that the ability to breathe is not specifically costed in Hero and so can not be drained. The invisible template for characters specifies that characters have to breathe (physical limitation/dependence: has to breathe appropriate oxygen nitrogen atmosphere, or near equivalent or take damage) OR that all characters take damage constantly unless they have a form of LS that allows then to breathe and then both that complication and the LS: normal o2/n form part of the invisible template.

I prefer that because then a 5 point LS: normal atmosphere would allow you to suffocate someone.

I do appreciate the point that if you can not drain normal breathing then you should not be able to drain LS(specialist breathing) - it makes a lot of sense. I also think that the whole area needs a bit more of a look at. The need to eat/sleep/drink/breathe and ageing are all 'invisible complications' on the hidden template of a base character. Maybe they shouldn't be.

Ninja-Bear

Oct 28th, '09, 05:55 AM

First, we didn't have the point values of senses until 6E, so there wouldn't have even been an option to suppress them until now. Also, what stops the person from simply walking out of the one hex of Darkness? So you need the UAA Advantage to make it stick to the person which is a +1 Advantage (at least that’s how it was done in 5ER). Now that’s still only what? 20 points I think? But the target is, arguably, depending on SFX and how the GM rules it, in the middle of a whole hex full of Darkness making it harder to target the victim of the Darkness.

I'm not really sure what my point here is other than you can't compare apples to oranges, you have to make the Powers actually acheive the same (or at least similar) things to compare pricing.

Fifth ed rev. pg 351 gives the cost for sight 25 pts. This is equal to phy lim all the time, fully impairing. Just thought you ought to know.

ghost-angel

Oct 28th, '09, 07:17 AM

Gills can be clogged or otherwise rendered inoperable.

that has nothing to do with "turning off the power" and everything to do with some form of attack, or impairment. I say it has nothing to do with Drain and Suppress or Aid and Succor.

Transform, Attacks, and other non-adjustment powers handle that just fine.

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

Hugh Neilson

Oct 28th, '09, 08:21 AM

I don't believe in absolutes either, but, let's say a FH god. There is no rational way that a mere mortal would be able, without outside assistance, to syphon the power of that god.

Similarly, the mortal would presumably be unable to cause physical damage to the god. The god buys enough PD and ED that mere mortals cannot harm him, and enough power defense that they cannot siphon his powers. Depending on the powers, and the caps on mere mortal adjustment powers, that may be more or less expensive than slapping "Inherent" on everything.

Of course, the God might just have some powers that are not 0 END, Persistent, Always On, and cannot be made inherent in any case.

Are you agreeing with me, arguing with me, or just trying to pick a fight?

Probably some each of the first two. None of the latter. Your suggestion was anyone who has wings should have Inherent gliding, because nothing could drain the gliding. Mine was that a gravity-based gliding drain seemed reasonably capable of draining the gliding.

You then indicated you would ignore Inherent for an appropriate special effect. That seems to mean Inherent only protects my powers from adjustment powers that shouldn't have affected them in the first place. Why not police the SFX of the adjustment powers instead? If the character with Drain Gliding has SFX that should not reduce Gliding with wings, then his power should be limited to not reduce gliding provided by wings.

tesuji

Oct 28th, '09, 09:36 AM

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

so are you suggesting that a mage moving underwater with a water breathing spell cannot have his water breathing spell (LS breath water) dispelled or drained by a dispel/drain/suppress magic?

or are you saying that some sfx of LS water breathing get this "cannot be drained" for free by dint of their sfx (natural vs magic)?

Why is LS so protected?

take clinging.

a character can have clinging by dint of a spell.
a character can have clinging by dint of natural ability.

Would you object to a "drain clinging" spell whose sfx was "covers hands and feet and other appendages with coating that makes clinging impossible?

Would you insist that in order to stop gecko man from wall crawling i had to transform him or disable his hands and feet?

if i cannot drain someone's ls water breathing, why can i drain their int or their pre or their jumping or their running?

what is the criteria beyond "what i feel like at the moment" for dividing these by-the-book drainable traits or sfx catehories of traits into safe and not safe for free?

Ninja-Bear

Oct 28th, '09, 09:46 AM

Here is something else which has me befudled with inherent. I get that it is appropriate for extra limbs i.e. tail, I get that it could be used for desolid, i.e. ghost body. but what confuses me is that one person said claws should be inherent, yet because of cost end rule - it shouldn't be. :nonp:

Also Ij justed got to say, that I've been a lurker on these boards for a loooong time. And I don't recall drain extra limbs as being an issue before. Its seems to me that Steve came up with a solution to a (at best) trivial problem. But with the limited explanation of the new defense, opened up a bigger problem than its creation solved.

Anyways my 2 cents also

tesuji

Oct 28th, '09, 09:54 AM

My viewpoint...

Lets say i have a pc - smart guy.

I start his concept and i quickly realize "hey, smart guy can get really messed up by int drains. Int drains are pretty cheap. I wouldn't like it if he got drained of int. So what do i do about it?"

Option 1: LOBBYIST APPROACH

I go to the gm and try and make the case that int drains are too cheap and that he should simply not permit them or maybe not permit them in my case for free because of my sfx which is some form of "something that i dont want drained".

OPTION 2: BUILDER APPROACH

I sit down and see how many different ways i can make it not a problem.

2a - power defense "only to protect int" which ought to weigh in at -2 or so. So for 5 cp i got 15 powdef to block transforms and drains and dispels against my int. That coupled with a reqsonably high int should be sufficient.

2b: Very high int. I buy int like 50 and dont worry about drains too much. Now maybe you might think int 50 is excessive because people rarely buy really superhuman int scores, but hey, are you tougher or smarter? if smarter is more important to this character then why is your stun higher than your int?

2c - I buy a very good int and i buy +3 with int based skills for like 15 cp. Now even if i get drained to int 0 i have 12- with int based skills.

2d - some combo of the above options.

either way using option 2, i can BUILD INTO THE CHARACTER the very protection option 1 is trying to get for free by having the gm ban the attacks.

Now, maybe its me, it definitely is me, but they way i run things when i gm hero and the way i play hero when i play - option 2 is more in keeping with the game as i understand it.

granting invulnerability for free is not to me in keeping with hero's design.

if drain ls automatically killed a character, i could see having balance concerns. but at its base form, it doesn't. it will incapacitate them after a while but not for a while. it may shorten the combat but not end it abruptly.

if hero 6 or 5 had wanted to protect ls, they could have made them defense powers and granted them double cost for draining. they didn't
if hero 6 or hero 5 had wanted to make ls default inherent, they could have. they didn't.

if they had wanted to make some sfx of ls specifically inherent and undrainable they could have, they didn't.

so to my way of thinking - making some sfx of ls undrainable by default is a house rule, not "how the system works" and that is fine as long as you recognize it as such. But as a house rule, the way i design house rules, it needs more structure than "these few things i picked arbitrarily".

The question of "why int drain or running drain if not ls?" and "if i am not allowed to stop gills from working except by actual damage, then why can i drain running without smashing legs?" need answering or my house rule degenerates into "cu i said so".

which is fine if thats how you want your rules to go.

but definietly not to my tastes.

I see no reason an atlantean who has ls water breathing and swimming and strength should be able to have his swimming drained or his strength drained but his water breathing be immune, either by rule, by common sense, by dramatic sense or by sense of balance.

Hyper-Man

Oct 28th, '09, 10:30 AM

...
but what confuses me is that one person said claws should be inherent, yet because of cost end rule - it shouldn't be. :nonp:

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0
5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0
5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0
6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0
6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

Ninja-Bear

Oct 28th, '09, 11:34 AM

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0
5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0
5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0
6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0
6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0

Thanks Hyper-man, but what confused me is the term "inherent". Claws on a bear is inherent to the bear, but mechanically speaking, they cannot be because they cost end. Unless of course you bought them 0 end :eek:. So to be clear, I think one reason this is confusing is the term itself.

P.S. It may be just me, but I would have never have thought of draining someone's tail or claws until this issue of inherent came up.

Sean Waters

Oct 28th, '09, 11:35 AM

that has nothing to do with "turning off the power" and everything to do with some form of attack, or impairment. I say it has nothing to do with Drain and Suppress or Aid and Succor.

Transform, Attacks, and other non-adjustment powers handle that just fine.

you don't Drain someone's ability to breathe or not breathe. You either change the medium (air:chlorine) or attack the appartus (disable the lungs with an attack or such).

You never used to be able to drain someone's ability to see.

The thing is being able to breathe is NOT an ability - that is looking at it back to front. What we have here is someone who NEEDS to breathe or rapidly die - it is a disadvantage/complication. THAT is why you can not drain it, logically, at least 'system logically'.

You can not drain it because the system does not attribute a value to breathing, because the system is humanocentric and only really thinks in terms of characters as a series of changes to a basic human template. That is a self limiting starting point.

Ninja-Bear

Oct 28th, '09, 11:36 AM

Also, I think wings are mentioned in the text as a canidate of inherent, yet I see no examples of it being used.

torchwolf

Oct 28th, '09, 11:38 AM

If you're referring to Wolverine-like claws you would be better off using the Difficult To Dispel Advantage instead. Inherent can only be applied to abilities which are Persistent. Persistent is not legal on the following build because of the CSL's on 2 of the slots (which have the same justification as CSL's built as part of published weapons). Even if you removed the CSL's, Persistent would have to be added to the slots individually (at least within HeroDesigner) and would be a total (+3/4) vs. (+1/4) for DTD.

63 I've Got Claws! v2: Multipower, 75-point reserve, all slots Difficult To Dispel (x2 Active Points; +1/4) (94 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
5u 1) Slash!: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0
5u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6+1 (4d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2) (75 Active Points) - END=0
5u 3) Slash! v2: (Total: 75 Active Cost, 50 Real Cost) Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (70 Active Points) (Real Cost: 47) plus +1 with HTH Combat (5 Active Points) (Real Cost: 3) - END=0

60 I've Got Claws! v3: Multipower, 90-point reserve, (90 Active Points); all slots Restrainable (-1/2)
[Notes: Figured damage totals assume a character with 20 STR.]
6u 1) Slash!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), Armor Piercing (x2; +1), Penetrating (x2; +1) (85 Active Points) - END=0
6u 2) Thrust!: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 3d6-1 (3d6+1 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2) (90 Active Points) - END=0
6u 3) Slash! v2: Killing Attack - Hand-To-Hand 1d6+1 (1 1/2d6 w/STR) (vs. PD), Inherent (+1/4), Reduced Endurance (0 END; +1/2), Persistent (+1/2), No Normal Defense ([Force Field or Force Wall]; +1), Does BODY (+1) (85 Active Points) - END=0
Meta-game-phorically speaking, reasoning from SFX or Difficult to Dispel would probably be how Logan bought them (and his skeleton), since Magneto sometimes had a field day doing funky stuff with his metal skeleton and claws, bending the claws and even Draining the whole thing once.
On that note, Wolverine might now be more reasonably built in 6E, since buying a bit of his BODY and some Resistant Defense as Powers would work reasonably. Other similar builds could be made with superhuman-powers boosted CHAR bought as powers (not necessarily limited) in a campaign where some kind of "superpower neutralizer" might exist. This might be easier than deciding afterwards...
"Hm, I guess about 7 points of DEX comes from my superpowers, as I think my character should have had about DEX 11 without his powers..."
Just deciding that a character without powers have their CHAR reduced by a Normal Characteristic Maxima recosting becomes just silly under any edition, and declaring every character who becomes depowered is at base starting DEX of 10 etc. becomes equally silly.

Sean Waters

Oct 28th, '09, 11:46 AM

Hyper-Man

Oct 28th, '09, 11:53 AM

Thanks Hyper-man, but what confused me is the term "inherent". Claws on a bear is inherent to the bear, but mechanically speaking, they cannot be because they cost end. Unless of course you bought them 0 end :eek:. So to be clear, I think one reason this is confusing is the term itself.

P.S. It may be just me, but I would have never have thought of draining someone's tail or claws until this issue of inherent came up.

re: animal claws
I just checked the Bestiary and you're right. Most claws are built without 0 END or any other Advantages.

I think that has more to do with the sheer volume of the book and decision to not make the builds even more complex. However, I think most cat owners would agree that claws are sharp whether the cat is actively trying to use them or not and would be more accurately modeled as 0 END. Inherent is less likely because natural claws can at least be trimmed. Similarly, the detail for the real weapon write ups in the main rules also fail to account for many 'assumed' ideas we all have about firearms (IPE sight as an example; who has ever actually seen a bullet in flight?).

Re: Draining Tails
I think it's more of a disconnect that sometimes exists with adjustment powers in general. To work effectively in a game they first must have a coherently described SFX that the player (& GM) then use the Hero rules to describe mechanically. We shouldn't be trying to reverse engineer a sfx that fits the mechanic (this is true for everything in HERO but far more important in regards to adjustment powers).

Hyper-Man

Oct 28th, '09, 11:57 AM

... Other similar builds could be made with superhuman-powers boosted CHAR bought as powers (not necessarily limited) in a campaign where some kind of "superpower neutralizer" might exist. This might be easier than deciding afterwards...
"Hm, I guess about 7 points of DEX comes from my superpowers, as I think my character should have had about DEX 11 without his powers..."
Just deciding that a character without powers have their CHAR reduced by a Normal Characteristic Maxima recosting becomes just silly under any edition, and declaring every character who becomes depowered is at base starting DEX of 10 etc. becomes equally silly.

I used this concept with my version of Flash for the exact reasons you point out. :thumbup:

Vulcan

Oct 28th, '09, 12:23 PM

Your suggestion was anyone who has wings should have Inherent gliding, because nothing could drain the gliding. Mine was that a gravity-based gliding drain seemed reasonably capable of draining the gliding.

You then indicated you would ignore Inherent for an appropriate special effect. That seems to mean Inherent only protects my powers from adjustment powers that shouldn't have affected them in the first place. Why not police the SFX of the adjustment powers instead? If the character with Drain Gliding has SFX that should not reduce Gliding with wings, then his power should be limited to not reduce gliding provided by wings.

Ah. Now I get it.

I agree that policing the SFX of adjustment powers makes much more sense. The reason I do it the way that I do on my characters is that the GM I play(ed) with doesn't see things that way. So it's more a matter of self-defense than a good build idea, I suppose. :doi:

Okay, feel free to ignore that suggestion. :o

rreay

Oct 28th, '09, 12:40 PM

Seriously: you're never going to be able to explain it because - and here's the thing - it makes no in-game sense. It has already been said, and I know how abhorrent this may be to some: this is a power concept that HAS to be based on sfx.

Sort out an in-game logical structure for adjustment powers and all your 'inherent' worries will vanish like morning mist.

Yes! I can't rep again unfortunately.

For a while now every adjustment power I've written up has been any power of [some] SFX. It's hard in game logic to justify a drain EB that can drain a fire blast, lightning bolt, and thrown rock, but not a fire blast (RKA). I even argues that this should be the default in 6E.

There are some justifications for draining a single power, but even they break down. I can thicken water to drain swimming whether it's biological (fins and muscles), mechanical (diesel motor and prop), or elemental (water control), but what about the guy who bought TK based flying usable as. I can suppress running in an area with a sticky floor SFX, but not to that guy who has ground gliding (if that still exists in 6E).

Inherent is at the cross roads of SFX. I can't drain extra limbs with my bio stasis power but I can make them useless by draining their strength.

Next time I GM I plan to make adjusment powers work against a single SFX as the default.

rreay

Oct 28th, '09, 12:43 PM

Claws on a bear is inherent to the bear, but mechanically speaking, they cannot be because they cost end. Unless of course you bought them 0 end :eek:. So to be clear, I think one reason this is confusing is the term itself.

Game effectwise you can find an SFX to make the claws do less damage without removing them from the bear. An energy dampening field as a suppress vs HKA should work here.

torchwolf

Oct 28th, '09, 12:49 PM

The simple fact is none of us are ever really going to come up a logical reason for any adjustment power, at least in its basic form, to work: they only ever make 'sense' in a meta game context: you can drain RKAs can you? Whether they are caused by magic or technology or mutant powers or simply a pointy stick? But you can't drain magic, or technology or mutant powers or points sticks? And it doesn't work on Blasts created by magic or technology or mutant powers or pointy sticks (you may have to use the other end)?

Why?

Seriously: you're never going to be able to explain it because - and here's the thing - it makes no in-game sense. It has already been said, and I know how abhorrent this may be to some: this is a power concept that HAS to be based on sfx.

Sort out an in-game logical structure for adjustment powers and all your 'inherent' worries will vanish like morning mist.
Vaguely defined sfx can be especially devastating in this context - if the end result of defining an adjustment power as (bizarre and metaphysically iffy, but assuming the GM agrees to this in a specific campaign):

Enthusiastic & Munchkinny Theoretical Player: "My extra-dimensionally empowered sorcerer character Antiparallaxus can isolate superpowered individuals from the source of their powers, by interfering with their presence in the space-time continuum!"
Equally Theoretical Suspicious GM: "Um. OK, but I feel a little concerned with this character having a 12d6 Drain, any one Power of Earth-dimension derived Powers. How would this relate to, say, the power cells in Armor Man's powered suit?"
Less Enthusiastic Munchkinny Theoretical Player: "Dang."

And even reasoning from sfx might have unintended strange effects; while a Drain or Suppress might represent a character's power to de-age superpowered individual to a point before he had any powers, any mutant born with their powers would reasonably be less affected, and a robot might reasonably be reduced to a pile of unassembled parts.

The only way is the hard way: defining the power, working out the sfx, and thinking about the possible consequences within the GM's campaign, is the only solution that will likely hold water - not everything would need game stats, but a way to represent the effects within the context of the campaign is much, much easier to do beforehand, rather than when it comes up. Plus it might turn up a few reasonable Advantages and Limitations that noone had thought of. ;)

PhilFleischmann

Oct 28th, '09, 02:00 PM

Ninja-Bear

Oct 28th, '09, 05:23 PM

Game effectwise you can find an SFX to make the claws do less damage without removing them from the bear. An energy dampening field as a suppress vs HKA should work here.

My point about hte bear is that the way inherent is described, I think that certain things should then be included; i.e. claws. But mechanically speaking they cannot be made inherent. So now its messy. I think that if he would have called it a variation of hardened and stated that this causes the same effect and the sfx could be that it is intrinsic to the pc such as a ghost having desolid, then there would be less confusion. I think :ugly:

tesuji

Oct 29th, '09, 06:04 AM

As with most things in HERO, you need to look at it from both the target side and the attacker side. It's like the old "absolute immunity" debate. If you buy 72 points of ED, Hardenedx3, only vs Fire, and you never encounter more than 12d6 APx3 Fire attacks in your game, then you are, for all intents and purposes, "absolutely immune" to fire.

IME, >80% of all Drains/Suppresses are against a characteristic (or multiple characteristics), >80% of the rest are bought against a particular SFX ("Any one fire power" or "Any 2 Mutant Powers" etc.), and >80% of the rest are against one or more Movement Powers. I've never seen a character with Drain/Suppress vs. Life Support or Extra Limbs.

If Drain Life Support or Suppress Extra Limbs never comes up in a game, then those powers are already effectively Inherent.

imx most of the obscure drains and suppresses come about as part of vpp.

i have seen life support dispelled when a dispel magic was used to eliminate a groups water breathing spells.

i have seen a suppress extra limbs used in a vpp to create an emp nillifier to temporarily nullify render useless a doc oct clone villain's extra limbs. this actually made his limitation of "str only with limbs" play a role. his allies immediately moved to eliminate the nullifier but it provided lots of drama for a moment.

the suppress life support area gill clogger was also in a vpp, the same vpp that bought self contained breathing gadgets so we could even do the underwater adventure and the swimming boost gadgets.

and once again for all the balance hounds, a 3d6 area nnd costs less and disables the same guys as quickly or faster. this is a case of paying more to get the mechanics to match the effect. only a little more.

in a game with options like vpps, hoping the issue never comes up seems like less than optimal design.

rreay

Oct 29th, '09, 06:58 AM

i have seen life support dispelled when a dispel magic...

i have seen a suppress extra limbs used in a vpp to create an emp nillifier to temporarily nullify render useless a doc oct clone villain's extra limbs.

the suppress life support area gill clogger

These are all examples of adjustment powers based on SFX. This goes back to my point that adjustments should typically be based on SFX rather than power.

These are all a VPP being used to target a specific thing, but if they were bought powers you logically should have been able to

dispel any spell, not just the water breathing
suppress and electrical power, not just the extra limbs
suppress only gills and similar things, not LS based on super breath holding or a sealed diving suit.

Duke Bushido

Oct 29th, '09, 11:46 AM

what is the criteria beyond "what i feel like at the moment" for dividing these by-the-book drainable traits or sfx catehories of traits into safe and not safe for free?

Couldn't tell you what the book has to say about it. As far as published samples, I'm not that interested in those, either. As you yourself pointed out, I can a +10 STR pill as an OAF "by the book."

I can't speak for everyone on the water breathing thing. Personally, I don't have an issue with Draining it. My issue was that a Drain should somehow _remove_ the ability, and not merely interfere with it.

For example: "Drain gills" should somehow _remove_ gills. Barring that, it should fundamentally alter the way the gills actually work as opposed to simply preventing them from working.

The problem there is that this will, for many people, step all over Transform's front porch. After all, that can also be turning someone into a person with no gills.

Now going back to your original "cloud of nanites" build, I have _no_ issues with seeing that built as a "Suppress." By my own interpretations, Drain actually ... well, it gets rid of something; "drains it away." Suppress strikes me as active opposition. The same way you might suppress an uprising with opposing force, or suppress pain and keep playing, or suppress the urge to choke to death that guy in the next office who sings off key and won't stop with the ballads.

In a nutshell, for me, Adjustment powers take heavy supervision simply because in an otherwise SFX-driven game, they are not by-the-book held to SFX. "Drain Flight" drains telekinetic powers, gravity powers, rocket packs, born-under-an-alien-sun powers, and natural-born wings. Short of "it's magic" or "you have pulled on the strings and girders that hold the universe together, and the resulting tear in the backdrop has revealed a bit of the metaverse," it's a glaring contrast.

tesuji

Oct 29th, '09, 02:30 PM

Couldn't tell you what the book has to say about it. As far as published samples, I'm not that interested in those, either. As you yourself pointed out, I can a +10 STR pill as an OAF "by the book."

I can't speak for everyone on the water breathing thing. Personally, I don't have an issue with Draining it. My issue was that a Drain should somehow _remove_ the ability, and not merely interfere with it.

For example: "Drain gills" should somehow _remove_ gills. Barring that, it should fundamentally alter the way the gills actually work as opposed to simply preventing them from working.

The problem there is that this will, for many people, step all over Transform's front porch. After all, that can also be turning someone into a person with no gills.

Now going back to your original "cloud of nanites" build, I have _no_ issues with seeing that built as a "Suppress." By my own interpretations, Drain actually ... well, it gets rid of something; "drains it away." Suppress strikes me as active opposition. The same way you might suppress an uprising with opposing force, or suppress pain and keep playing, or suppress the urge to choke to death that guy in the next office who sings off key and won't stop with the ballads.

In a nutshell, for me, Adjustment powers take heavy supervision simply because in an otherwise SFX-driven game, they are not by-the-book held to SFX. "Drain Flight" drains telekinetic powers, gravity powers, rocket packs, born-under-an-alien-sun powers, and natural-born wings. Short of "it's magic" or "you have pulled on the strings and girders that hold the universe together, and the resulting tear in the backdrop has revealed a bit of the metaverse," it's a glaring contrast.

so, if i read you correctly, in your view, drain strength must actually get rid of muscle? drain int must get rid of brain cells?

for example, you would be just as objecting to a "spell of confusion" defined as an int drain based on "the target is unable to think clearly" and would require the target to be transformed into a lower int person?

interesting take.

round here, the usual bias is to protect the other powers from being tromped over BY TRANSFORm not the other way around.

basically if an effect can be achieved by any other power, it should be done that way in preference to transform.

period.

only use transform when npthing else will do.

simply because transform doesn't need defense, it can already do anything.

at one point i even think they put that in the books.

so to me, if you wantto make someone dumber - drain int. dont transform them into a dumber person.

if you want someone weaker, drain strength, dont transform them to someone weaker.

if you want them to no longer breath water, drain ls.

as for drain vs suppress, we dont see any inherent sfx difference. one is simply the constant version of the other. if it can be drained, it can be suppressed and vice versa. deciding power by power that some can be drained and some can be suppressed and not vice versa ia... unique in my experience.

first time for everything.

tesuji

Oct 29th, '09, 02:34 PM

These are all examples of adjustment powers based on SFX. This goes back to my point that adjustments should typically be based on SFX rather than power.

These are all a VPP being used to target a specific thing, but if they were bought powers you logically should have been able to

dispel any spell, not just the water breathing
suppress and electrical power, not just the extra limbs
suppress only gills and similar things, not LS based on super breath holding or a sealed diving suit.

almost all my adj powers have sfx defined as part of them. indeed the sfx of the powers could lend them to do other things.

but had my gm ruled "extra limbs cannot be drained" it wouldn't have been possible. same with ls.

to me it still comes down to "there are multiple cheap ways to protect against drains and such" so if your concept supports and requires such protection, pay for it. lobbying for bans is usually more problematic.

ghost-angel

Oct 29th, '09, 02:40 PM

or are you saying that some sfx of LS water breathing get this "cannot be drained" for free by dint of their sfx (natural vs magic)?

No I'm saying that's a good reason to buy Inherent. I'll leave it at that at let you go your merry way.

Duke Bushido

Oct 29th, '09, 03:56 PM

so, if i read you correctly, in your view, drain strength must actually get rid of muscle? drain int must get rid of brain cells?

Not necessarily. First, there are more components to STR than muscle fibers. Second, there isn't a link between a number of brain cells and intelligence.

[--other odd attributions and interpretations of what I said removed here--]

basically if an effect can be achieved by any other power, it should be done that way in preference to transform.

Absolutely not. You will find, if you feel like going back through my history here, that I despise Transform perhaps more than any other person alive.

Now I had set here to actually discuss this; I was mistakenly under the impression that you were looking for discussion, and I'm always up for bantering around ideas.

Clearly, you prefer springboards from which to leap to increasingly higher soap boxes. I find no point in continuing to offer answers to your questions.

Sean Waters

Oct 30th, '09, 12:52 AM

OK: OP - how does the luck work?

tesuji

Oct 30th, '09, 04:34 AM

Not necessarily. First, there are more components to STR than muscle fibers. Second, there isn't a link between a number of brain cells and intelligence.
.

Well OK... then perhaps you could provide examples of how your requirement that draining an ability actually remove something applies to things like drain str and drain int. If i have it wrong and some sort of physical loss isn't required, then what is?

and what about the specific example I asked about.

Spell of confusion - drain INT SFX target finds it hard to think straight.

is this an inappropriate drain in your book? Should it be a transform to lower int person?

Absolutely not. You will find, if you feel like going back through my history here, that I despise Transform perhaps more than any other person alive.

Ok so good, we are in agreement here. I wasn't clear on your position. You referenced how some felt it tromped on transform but it wasn't made clear where you stand.

you may find this surprising but i don't know squat about your history here. I have a hard enough time remembering my own posts. :-)

Clearly, you prefer springboards from which to leap to increasingly higher soap boxes. I find no point in continuing to offer answers to your questions.

actually i find your positions here very intriguing. they differ very much from the way we do things around here, and as such finding out the ins and outs of them is fascinating.

like i said, no one around here ever thought of treating suppress and drain differently except as mechanics goes. No one ever suggested that (separate from the costs end conmstant vs instant kind of things) those two have some kinds of "lowering traits" locked into one and not the other.

FYI as an aside... the suppress option would have been cheaper but it did not match the sfx. If the target leaves the area of an area suppress the effect vanishes. with a drain when they leave there is the delay before the points return. That seemed more in keeping with the gill clogger. However, the real answer might be even simpler. this was early BBB days and right now i dont even know if suppress as a drain option were around in early bbb days. :-)

Similarly, no one around here ever insisted that reducing a trait or ability by drain should be mandatorily followed by an actual removal of something. We were fine with a reasonable sfx description of what the lowering resulted from.

The confusion spell described above for instance would be perfectly acceptable to us, even though it doesn't actually remove anything physical (or mental for that matter) and it clearly does represent interfering with rather than removing.

See, around here, drain was just the HERO POWER, the mechanical representation of the result, the effect, not an actual description of the in game world echanism for making the change. Just like +10" running might actuall represent running or it might represent skateboarding and how teleport might represent teleport or it might represent really fast running... so drain ls might represent physically removing gills or it might represent clogging them.

By the way - just as a clarification which might be part of our confusion...

the power would not have been in my game written as "drain gills" as you wrote it. Thats combining the game mechanic and the sfx in a sort of mixed up mishmash.

It would have been written as

"Gill clogger" 2d6 drain life support: water breathing etc etc... the game mechanic power drain linked to the game mechanic target, not the sfx. the sfx helps determine whch powers and lims we use, but don't get mixed up into the mechanics write up. just like i don't write "jet pack +10""

for some, i imagine writing "drain gills" would indeed conjure images of "removing gils" and that could be confusing.

tesuji

Oct 30th, '09, 04:39 AM

No I'm saying that's a good reason to buy Inherent. I'll leave it at that at let you go your merry way.

then you and i are (we find out) mostly on the same page. If you feel sfx warrants being hard to or impervious to drains and suppresses, then pay for the protection.

I normally avoid inherent when possible, since i tend to just not like absolutes in HERO, but to me whether or not the protection is given for free or not (and to which powers and what the criteria for selection are) is more pivotal than "of the various options for protection which do you prefer?"

thanks.

Naanomi

Oct 30th, '09, 07:58 AM

Of course, buy the inherent as appropriate... I wouldn't advocate giving it away free, just to buy it when appropriate. Life Support powers are cheap, which makes dispelling them dangerous... but also makes inherent an inexpensive option.

The only exception is, as often stated in the books, the power that fundamentally alters your character sheet: Take No Stun.

The mechanics behind not having a stun value, then suddenly (maybe?) having it again, and trying to figure out how to do that and what it really means, seems to indicate that this is a good fit to always be inherent.

One could take a -1/4 'dispellable' if you have some bizarre build that would make it that way (though I would be hard pressed to think of one, some power that takes you from normal person to person without Stun Value is probably a (non-inherent!) multiform type power in almost all cases).

Duke Bushido

Oct 30th, '09, 10:20 AM

Afternoon, folks---

just stopped in to apologize to all. As I was playing away here last night, I became increasingly agitated. I wrongly attributed it to the nature of the discussion, diagreements, hard-headedness all around (and no; I did not exempt myself. I'm fifty, and I know who I am ;) ).

As the evening progressed, I became more and more jittery, and it culminated in a migraine. I checked my blood pressure, and then went to the ER.

For those who don't know: I suffer from a permanent spinal injury that resulted, amongst other things, in chronic pain. One of the joys of years and years of chronic pain is the stress associated with it. After a decade of living like this, I suffer from uncontrollable malignant hypertension. (One of the reason I try to go out of my way to be extremely courteous is to avoid raising my own ire. High BP makes the temper rather short :( ).

At any rate, when I signed off last night, my BP was 206 / 170. This is _not_ conducive to life. In fact, I'm told it's conducive to death. :lol: A few hours and three nitro tabs later, my headache was better :rofl: Though I was sort of surprised at how few people in the ER had any practical experience with malignant hypertension. Evidently, they were really expecting that second tab to make me loopy, and were convinced that the third one would knock me out cold. :lol:

Instead, I relaxed a little. :lol: At any rate, I'm in better spirits, and wanted to apologize to all for any untoward behavior I may have exhibited. If it's still active, I will try to rejoin this thread later this weekend. For now, I'm a bit too ashamed of myself. :(

lensman

Oct 30th, '09, 11:04 AM

OK: OP - how does the luck work?

So I have seen the debate rage to and fro over the terrain of SFX, mechanics, alt.mechanics, and trespass into the whimsy.alt.humor.HERO.

The Luck was born of a background for a Fantasy Hero character that is a gambler/Rogue/swashbuckler whose father had been rewarded with a Blessing from a Demi-God of Chance, a product of the Union of a Godees of Love and a mortal . That Blessing lasts for seven generations, the PC is second generation.

Now the Player buys all sorts of Luck powers, as I mentioned in the first post.
The problem, along come s a charcater who is a Duelist but is a Master Duelist, he has crazy NCSL he puts on opponents, suppresses, Drains v Running, Dispels v Combat tricks and loads of Naked moodifiers, talents for doing damage.

Well now the Luck player is expecting to enetr into a Duel with the Blade Master and wants to buy all his Luck powers, esp his Luck 'Armor' as Inherent, planning to thwart the Suppress' and Dispels in advance.

I see no reason why he can't buy Inherent, except that I am not a strict 'black letter' rules guy. The Player can spend the points, he has them. I see how Inherent could be applied to Luck SFX, but I also see how a Blade Master through skill can alter his tactics and adjust and overwhelm Luck with Skill and awesime combat awareness.

That is my dilemma.

Oops, edited instead of quoted, will post to bump

Hugh Neilson

Oct 30th, '09, 11:09 AM

What is OP? I do not see any one poster with those initials.

"Original Poster" - the fellow who started the thread. I believe you will see him if you look in the mirror ;)

lensman

Oct 30th, '09, 02:14 PM

So I have seen the debate rage to and fro over the terrain of SFX, mechanics, alt.mechanics, and trespass into the whimsy.alt.humor.HERO.

The Luck was born of a background for a Fantasy Hero character that is a gambler/Rogue/swashbuckler whose father had been rewarded with a Blessing from a Demi-God of Chance, a product of the Union of a Godees of Love and a mortal . That Blessing lasts for seven generations, the PC is second generation.

Now the Player buys all sorts of Luck powers, as I mentioned in the first post.
The problem, along comes a character who is a Duelist but is a Master Duelist, he has crazy NCSL he puts on opponents, suppresses, Drains v Running, Dispels v Combat tricks and loads of Naked moodifiers, talents for doing damage.

Well now the Luck player is expecting to enetr into a Duel with the Blade Master and wants to buy all his Luck powers, esp his Luck 'Armor' as Inherent, planning to thwart the Suppress' and Dispels in advance.

I see no reason why he can't buy Inherent, except that I am not a strict 'black letter' rules guy. The Player can spend the points, he has them. I see how Inherent could be applied to Luck SFX, but I also see how a Blade Master through skill can alter his tactics and adjust and overwhelm Luck with Skill and awesime combat awareness.

That is my dilemma.

Sean Waters

Nov 2nd, '09, 09:12 AM

Luck is always a problem power because it is the ultimate 'get out of jail free card': some players expect luck to work, no matter what. I can see no problem with making the luck inherent int his case, and it will neutralise some of the BladeMaster's abilities - but only the ones that rely on adjustment powers: it is going to do nothing against his own abilities, like high OCV and all those skill levels he probably has: luck does not counter or wipe out skill - it works in a different way.

A lucky character may slip and fall in combat - but that slip was unexpected and meant that he avoided what would otherwise have been a fatal blow - although he may now have other problems. Similarly a particularly lucky character might have an opponent slip and fall: luck can not reduce the opponent's DCV directly - but it can certainly lay the opponent prone, which might have the same effect (and which he may counter with a successful Breakfall roll).

Bear in mind also that 'luck based defences' don't always work - even when they are active: you get a -1/2 limitation for combat luck - and to me that means there are a significant number of situations in which your luck doesn't help. In a situation where luck can not really play a part then you bleed: the trouble is some players think that Luck can ALWAYS play a part. Fine: don't buy the power with a limitation then.

Personally I am not keen on the 'luck based' limitation on combat luck: it requires a GM call and a GM call may well be interpreted as being unfair to the player (or unfair to the other players!) - if it really is luck based buy it with an activation roll.

Ultimately I would not worry too much about it in advance: you're not there to decide how it WILL go - just adjudicate on what happens. If the character marches up to the opponent with a 'Ha! My Luck will protect me!' attitude, it probably serves him right when he gets stabbed in the guts.

Even if the character's luck is inherent, his running and combat levels won't be - most of the Master Duelist's abilities will work fine against him. Make sure he knows that (even if it is a vision from the Luck God).

Also bear in mind that Luck can work in odd ways. Maybe on the dfay of the duel, he comes down with food poisoning and the Master Duellist's honour will not let him fight a sick opponent - and then, when he's better, the Orcs are invading and all hands are needed to save the town, and then....

The thing is, from one point of view, the food poisoning and the Orc invasion are LUCKY for the character - they stop him getting cut up by the Master Duellist. Luck is more likely to stop the duel taking place at all, because of some intervening occurrence, than it is to turn every stroke of the sword IN the duel.

Luck is not controllable - that is the very essence of luck - and something can be lucky for you (i.e. it might save your life) but not be what you wanted to happen - it depends what 'luck's priorities are - they may not be the same as yours! If the character, knowing he has food poisoning, decides to fight anyway, perhaps after the first few blows he feels a clutch in his guts and suffers diarrohea: the Master Duellist - and the crowd - break down in fits of laughter at the situation. He could take advantage and stab the Master Duellist when he is thus distracted - earning the enmity of the crowd and gaining a poor reputation - or use the situation to back down from the duel.

Either way his luck has saved him - just not quite how he might have wanted it to!

lensman

Nov 2nd, '09, 12:49 PM

Arguements can be made on both sides.

One, Any SFX can have a counter SFX and should not be inviolate to Adjustment powers.

Two, points buy anything the player wants, within reason.

My larger point which has been explored some, is there any SFX which justifies Inherent.

Of course many gamers I know can construct an agruement for almost anything.

My decision is that Luck is not Inherent, it is a force that can ebb and flow and can be subject to other powers. The Luck template the character enjoys is jest that, a template bestowed.

Honestly, this is the first time this question has ever come up. I come down on the side of not allowing absolutes, especially for a Heroic campaign.

Thanks to everyone who posted, helped me roll it over and look at many facets.

Greywind

Nov 2nd, '09, 06:19 PM

Rare cases.

A character like Talisman from the Justice Machine, I might consider his luck inherent.

lensman

Nov 2nd, '09, 10:08 PM

True enough, I don't know if is consistant to say, but for a Superheroic game I would allow it to be bought as Inherent.

Sean Waters

Nov 2nd, '09, 11:48 PM

IIRC, Talisman's Luck was kharmic in nature anyway - so long as he was doing the right thing (usually the right thing for others) things went in his favour - but if he turned greedy or self serving, things went bad.

I'd probably allow a 'God Gift' Luck power to be bought as inherent: with the -0 limitation 'can still be drained by Gods or beings of similar power'.

Don't forget though - Inherent prevents ANY adjustment - down OR up - so once you have your 2d6 luck (or whatever) another player's spell of luck boosting will have no effect on you. I know I said that before but it is worth remembering :)

tesuji

Nov 3rd, '09, 06:08 AM

I'd probably allow a 'God Gift' Luck power to be bought as inherent: with the -0 limitation 'can still be drained by Gods or beings of similar power'.

for me - nah.

If one god can gift a mortal with a power capable of doing X, why cannot another god gift a different mortal with power strong enough to undo or nullify X as well?

Would you allow a "god gift that allows me to throw webs & entangle poeple" to have an entangle that for -0 gets "cannot be broken by mortals"?

If source a can give you the ability to do x, source a can also give someone else the ability to undo X in my games. source a here is god's gifts.

Don't forget though - Inherent prevents ANY adjustment - down OR up - so once you have your 2d6 luck (or whatever) another player's spell of luck boosting will have no effect on you. I know I said that before but it is worth remembering :)

but thats easily handled by buying say 1d6 of "normal luck". so say 6d6 of luck is inherent and invulnerable gods gift but then you also have just regular plain vanilla luck of 1d6 like anyone can buy. This luck can be drained but its only 1d6 wiorth so no big deal. But it can be boosted by any amount, limited by the aid not by the size of the initial power.

i would think someone favored by the luck gods was likely lucky anyway before that, so it isn't an out of concept idea from my pov.

Sean Waters

Nov 3rd, '09, 06:58 AM

for me - nah.

If one god can gift a mortal with a power capable of doing X, why cannot another god gift a different mortal with power strong enough to undo or nullify X as well?

Would you allow a "god gift that allows me to throw webs & entangle poeple" to have an entangle that for -0 gets "cannot be broken by mortals"?

If source a can give you the ability to do x, source a can also give someone else the ability to undo X in my games. source a here is god's gifts.

I meant that the 'inherent' advantage - which you pay for at +1/4 - carries a -0 limitation that it can be drained by beings of godlike power - it is not for free - it takes the justification for buying inherent (mortals cannot drain godly powers) and makes it make sense in game. GodGifts are god powers - and so could interfere with other GodGifts.

but thats easily handled by buying say 1d6 of "normal luck". so say 6d6 of luck is inherent and invulnerable gods gift but then you also have just regular plain vanilla luck of 1d6 like anyone can buy. This luck can be drained but its only 1d6 wiorth so no big deal. But it can be boosted by any amount, limited by the aid not by the size of the initial power.

i would think someone favored by the luck gods was likely lucky anyway before that, so it isn't an out of concept idea from my pov.

Perhaps the Gods granted them luck out of pity at how unlucky they were?

If someone wanted to buy the same power twice in that way, the GM would be justified in saying 'no' because they are sliding round the limitation on 'inherent' that means it is only worth +1/4: if, effectively, you could positively but not negatively adjust a power then the advantage may well be worth a bit more.

tesuji

Nov 3rd, '09, 07:12 AM

Sean Waters

Nov 3rd, '09, 08:25 AM

So then we tend to agree except on the frequency of godlike powers. see, IMX most of the myths and legends around these demigods and god endowed heroes tend to have them FREQUENTLY up against other godly powered foes.

So to me the frequency of "inherent doesn't work against creatuires with similar sfx" is a lot more than -0, those foes will be fairly common, uncommon at best, based on many of the legends.

It would indeed depend on campaign frequency: but also it would depend how often such things came into conflict: bear in mind the only GodGifts that 'inherent' would not work against are those that adjust powers - whilst there are plenty of GodGifts, not that many of them work on an adjustment principle - that is probably the realm f more mortal powers like magic and poison and disease.

so would this mean say someone with "god gift magic armor - like what appears in classical literature - that provides defenses and maybe some strength, or maybe he has magical sandals that give him god's gift extra running - since IMX most god gifts are literally items not powers - but then i am fond of the greek myths -

then would you disallow inherent on those powers/artifacts because they would also have their own natural str, pd/ed, or runni9ng which could be boosted?

there are plenty of concepts along this line - seems odd to ban all of them.

Items are different: built with a focus and made indestructible you'd have a job countering them anyway (well, unless you employ theft or grab). Mind you I don;t think what I'm suggesting is quite the same: buying luck twice is different, at least to my way of thinking, from buying magic sandals that add to your running. I probably wouldn't let the magic sandals take 'inherent' anyway - they add to your running, not grant the ability to run to something that can not run.

tesuji

Nov 3rd, '09, 09:21 AM

Items are different: built with a focus and made indestructible you'd have a job countering them anyway (well, unless you employ theft or grab). Mind you I don;t think what I'm suggesting is quite the same: buying luck twice is different, at least to my way of thinking, from buying magic sandals that add to your running. I probably wouldn't let the magic sandals take 'inherent' anyway - they add to your running, not grant the ability to run to something that can not run.

Well, the classic greek "gift from the gods" like invisibility cloaks and winged sandals and etc etc were the first things that lept to my mind when "gift from the god" as an sfx/source was mentioned. The whole concept of "hep made this and so it is beyond mortals ability to affect" leaps out at me.

Which might be part of why i come down on different sides from others in this discussion so much.

But if i were going to allow inherent much at all, for these kinds of things, the "sword made by hep" would be a poster child.

As for whether the luck twice is the same thing - thats where we definitely disagree.

if its not a balance issue or a game system problem for me to have 6" running for free and say +6" running inherent because the 6" free can be boosted, then i dont see where it becomes a problem with 1d6 "normal luck" vs 2d6 or 6d6 "inherent godly" luck. The same net effect is there - cheap running can be boosted and inherent running cannot but the good side of inherent applies.

either that game mechanic is flawed and produces broken or problematic results or it doesn't. if anything the natural running or the normal pd/ed are a bigger problem than the luck. With the luck example i had to spend 5 more cp for the boostable luck whereas with the running and pd/ed its base free.

but along those lines, if the 1d6 non-inherent luck was from a "lucky charm" ie an item, a focus, would that pass your screening? Would 2d6 inherent godly luck and a 1d6 iif lucky charm be ok?