Limitations Issues

[Steve Long]

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

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

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


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

[Simon]

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

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

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

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

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

[Just Joe]

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

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

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

[Chris Goodwin]

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

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

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

[Edsel]

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

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

[Lord Liaden]

I have a couple of concerns about the Focus Limitation.

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

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

[Zeropoint]

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

[Chris Goodwin]

I have a couple of concerns about the Focus Limitation.

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

Hear, hear!

[Enforcer84]

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

[Xotl]

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

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

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

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

"ditto"

[BobGreenwade]

I do have a specific thought regarding Focus.

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

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

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

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

Inobvious Inaccessible Focus (basic): -.2

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

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

(And so an OAF is still -1.)

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

[Chris Goodwin]

I just want to point out my post here, as it addresses Limitations as well as Advantages.

[ajackson]

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

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

[Lord Liaden]

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

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

[Opal]

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

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


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

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

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


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



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