Focus

[Sean Waters]

Focus

So, idea.

You know how focuses have DEF, but not Body, well….

1. For each power in a focus, calculate Active Points/10 (minimum 1 Body). That is the BODY of THAT power. Add them all up to get the Body of the focus.

2. Every focus has 12 points of resistant defence you can distribute between PD and ED as you se fit (or even other defences, if you like). As usual, if the focus includes defence powers they count in full (but NOT in addition to the base defences) to protect the focus. For example if the focus provides 8rPD/8rED you could allocate your ‘free defence’ to rPD, meaning the focus now has 12rPD/8rED: but you can not increase both rPD and rED (say by making it 10/10) in this case because you use the HIGHEST applicable defence, you do not add them.

3. You can buy extra defences or Body for the focus: you get a -2 limitation on any defences/Body bought that way, but they do not benefit from a ‘focus’ limitation in addition. If you buy extra BODY, that ALWAYS takes any damage before individual systems are damaged.

4. If you buy the focus as ‘Fragile’ it has normal Body but NO defence (and you can not buy defence for it, but you can buy up the BODY)

5. You can not buy a focus as ‘durable’ or ‘unbreakable’ – buy up the defences.

6. When a focus takes damage, the GM has to decide where to apply it, if there is more than one power: if a system was targeted, that usually takes the damage, otherwise the GM decides where the damage goes based on the drama of the situation. The GM can allocate damage over several systems, rather than knocking one out at a time. Generally, defensive powers always take damage LAST.

7. Generally a given power in a focus works until it’s Body score is completely destroyed, then stops working, but a GM may apply penalties to damaged systems: activation rolls, les than optimal performance, side effects, etc.

8. Damage to a focus does not automatically ‘heal’ over time. If someone has an appropriate skill and materials they can repair a damaged focus: this usually takes at least 1 hour per point of Body damage. Alternatively you can use Healing (or, at GM discretion, Transform or other Adjustment powers) to fix damage. A focus can be bought with ‘Self Heal’ or Regeneration ability (which gets the same limitation as defences/Body: -2, as above) to create a self-repairing focus.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Weird - when I edit, that lot above has numbered paragraphs - but they do not show up in normal view. Hmm.

EDIT EDIT - that's fixed it

[Sean Waters]

Whilst I appreciate that it is a tad passe to bump yur own thread, perhaps I should have explained my perceived need for this particular rule.

At present a focus has a DEF (rPD andrED in 6e) based on AP/5 of the highest AP power, or the defences provided by the powers in the focus, whichever is higher. In addition a focus has 1 'sort of Body' per power in it: 'sort of' because one hit can only knock out one power, no matter how much damage gets through.

That means that, certainly for inaccessible foci, you're best off piling all the powers into the one focus, in most cases. In fact you're well served, when buying Power Armour, by buying a bunch of powers you do not need but that do not cost much to increase the armour durability.

In fact, you can just decide that it is twice as tough as normal, or indestructible, thus negating one of the major drawbacks of a focus.

This system allows for a focus to be damaged but not necessarily destroyed, for multiple powers to be taken out in one hit, and for the player to pay for the actual utility received. This is not a game balancing excercise, although it has that effect - it is a useful way, it seems to me, to increase the dramatic potential of focus using characters, and to better realise your concept for a focus. It also allows for better ealisation of interesting concepts - I wanted to create a self repairing exosuit, and found it problematic using the current focus rules, which is what sparked the idea in the first place.

[Markdoc]

I agree with the concept that the current "damaging focii" rules are a bit broken (so to speak), but this seems both over-complex and counterintuitive. Why should a crystal wand be harder to break than a magic anvil "because it has more active points"? I simply use "real life" values for DEF and BOD extrapolated from the breaking things section of the rules and allow foci that provide DEF to use their own DEF if higher. To make an item non-functional, you need to do its BOD, to destroy it totally 2xBOD. If an item has multiple powers, I simply pro-rate that (ie: an item with two powers will lose one of them at half BOD and both of them at full BOD). This has worked admirably for years. One can, for example, game the system, to some extent by only making your foci out of tough materials, but you can't make 'em too much bigger without also making 'em bulky. And making the item out of really hard to find material (adamantium, unobtanium, etc) will create problems crafting a replacement if the item is ever stolen or broken. This actually makes foci slightly more durable at the lower end and slightly more vulnerable at the higher end, with regard to cost, accurately reflecting the price break you get.

cheers, Mark

[the fox]

Sean Waters in the UK, yeah! No need to regret bumping your own thread, your explanations tell me a lot about where your going with these rules, how I can simplify them into their simplest form (mathematically, usually; I had 'Advanced Algebra' in college, but I enjoy basic math) and adopt all or part for my current version of the game.
I really like the "there are no Indestructible Foci" bit, but now how much more defense than a character can a Focus have? Wouldn't that make them nearly indestructable, say at 30 rPD, 30 rED in a 12 to 16 DC campaign setting? May I quote, then ask rhetorical questions?

2. Every focus has 12 points of resistant defence you can distribute between PD and ED as you se fit (or even other defences, if you like). As usual, if the focus includes defence powers they count in full (but NOT in addition to the base defences) to protect the focus. For example if the focus provides 8rPD/8rED you could allocate your ‘free defence’ to rPD, meaning the focus now has 12rPD/8rED: but you can not increase both rPD and rED (say by making it 10/10) in this case because you use the HIGHEST applicable defence, you do not add them.

2. what other defenses would be bought with your minimum 12 resistant defenses? besides resistant/non- power defense, what other defense could a focus use and be able to afford for 12 resistant points, Flash or Mind? Damage Reduction? Sorry, no need to answer all those questions, I think you meant to say how additional defenses may be boght for Foci Also, your system here of applying minimum defenses is rather complicated, with a 'both, sorta' instead of a simple either/or for a simple(st) minimum defense. 6 AD (AD=PD+ED/2) or defenses provided, whichever is higher, is the simplest I can think of. looks like 1/2 of a DC of 12, thus appropriate for that power level, equal to 1/2 DC or more, with extra BODY provided for forthcoming.

3. You can buy extra defences or Body for the focus: you get a -2 limitation on any defences/Body bought that way, but they do not benefit from a ‘focus’ limitation in addition. If you buy extra BODY, that ALWAYS takes any damage before individual systems are damaged.

! 'hit me first' BODY and extra defenses at substantial savings? Aren't defenses cheap enough?

What just struck me is you just might want a limit on the AD of Foci! viola! Max. Foci AD= Max. DC * 1.5 would require the combined might of 4 or more superhumans all boosting their powers to destroy, barring any Vulnerabilties, at around a Max. DC of 12 or so. The higher the Max. DC, the more doubling of effort is required.
Remember Cap's Shield's Vuln. to Sonics? The destruction of Cap's Shield due to sonic attack by Klaw, so let us know Foci have limits and Vulnerabilities, too! aww, poor foci, even the mightest are so easily rent asunder!
peace out, Bruce

[Panpiper]

'hit me first' BODY and extra defenses at substantial savings? Aren't defenses cheap enough?

If you expect the 'extra' defenses to protect the character, then yes, defenses are cheap enough. But these 'extra' defenses do not protect the character, they protect only the focus. And expecting a character to spend a similar number of point on protecting their focus as they do on protecting themselves is very unfair. In fifteen years of gaming, I have never seen a 'focus' specifically attacked. I've seen them grabbed, but not attacked. Buying extra defense 'only usable on this particular focus' should have a limitation of something like negative 20 if you ask me. But if a player in my game approached me wanting to build a focus and wanted to use Sean Waters' system, I would happily let him do so. I agree it is a much better approach.

[Sean Waters]

I agree with the concept that the current "damaging focii" rules are a bit broken (so to speak), but this seems both over-complex and counterintuitive. Why should a crystal wand be harder to break than a magic anvil "because it has more active points"? I simply use "real life" values for DEF and BOD extrapolated from the breaking things section of the rules and allow foci that provide DEF to use their own DEF if higher. To make an item non-functional, you need to do its BOD, to destroy it totally 2xBOD. If an item has multiple powers, I simply pro-rate that (ie: an item with two powers will lose one of them at half BOD and both of them at full BOD). This has worked admirably for years. One can, for example, game the system, to some extent by only making your foci out of tough materials, but you can't make 'em too much bigger without also making 'em bulky. And making the item out of really hard to find material (adamantium, unobtanium, etc) will create problems crafting a replacement if the item is ever stolen or broken. This actually makes foci slightly more durable at the lower end and slightly more vulnerable at the higher end, with regard to cost, accurately reflecting the price break you get.

cheers, Mark

Good points well made, although I would prpbably prefer, if I were going to divorce the investment in the power from how easy it is to destroy it to use a standardised Body and defence (say 6/6 DEF and 2 Body per power), and allow the character to build more protection for the focus that way. i don;t particularly like the idea of allowing them to define the focus as built pretty much how they like (within the boundaries of 'game logic' as that potentially penalises the chap with the crystal wand he's defined as 2rPD and 2rED and 1 Body against the chap who defines HIS crystal wand as 20rPD and 20rED and 10 Body, because he used special magical crystal). I'm suggesting a house rule, but one that might be worth adopting more generally (I hope) so I'm not simply writing it for the people I play with - who are all, obviously, sensible, reasonable people - but for a potentially wider audience who might not all have the same sensibilites.

Having a BODY score for a focus definitely feels right, and lets you do stuff that would otherwise be difficult to simulate (like self healing focuses, or focuses that start to malfunction as their Body drops).

It is all an abstraction anyway: a pistol, according tot eh rules, has 4rPD and 4 Body, which means that every time a pistol gets caught in an 8d6 AoE it should be destroyed, even if the person holding it is not hurt. I doubt anyone plays it that way. I need to think on it more, but you've definitely given me something to think on.

[Sean Waters]

Sean Waters in the UK, yeah! No need to regret bumping your own thread, your explanations tell me a lot about where your going with these rules, how I can simplify them into their simplest form (mathematically, usually; I had 'Advanced Algebra' in college, but I enjoy basic math) and adopt all or part for my current version of the game.
I really like the "there are no Indestructible Foci" bit, but now how much more defense than a character can a Focus have? Wouldn't that make them nearly indestructable, say at 30 rPD, 30 rED in a 12 to 16 DC campaign setting? May I quote, then ask rhetorical questions?

2. Every focus has 12 points of resistant defence you can distribute between PD and ED as you se fit (or even other defences, if you like). As usual, if the focus includes defence powers they count in full (but NOT in addition to the base defences) to protect the focus. For example if the focus provides 8rPD/8rED you could allocate your ‘free defence’ to rPD, meaning the focus now has 12rPD/8rED: but you can not increase both rPD and rED (say by making it 10/10) in this case because you use the HIGHEST applicable defence, you do not add them.

2. what other defenses would be bought with your minimum 12 resistant defenses? besides resistant/non- power defense, what other defense could a focus use and be able to afford for 12 resistant points, Flash or Mind? Damage Reduction? Sorry, no need to answer all those questions, I think you meant to say how additional defenses may be boght for Foci Also, your system here of applying minimum defenses is rather complicated, with a 'both, sorta' instead of a simple either/or for a simple(st) minimum defense. 6 AD (AD=PD+ED/2) or defenses provided, whichever is higher, is the simplest I can think of. looks like 1/2 of a DC of 12, thus appropriate for that power level, equal to 1/2 DC or more, with extra BODY provided for forthcoming.

3. You can buy extra defences or Body for the focus: you get a -2 limitation on any defences/Body bought that way, but they do not benefit from a ‘focus’ limitation in addition. If you buy extra BODY, that ALWAYS takes any damage before individual systems are damaged.

! 'hit me first' BODY and extra defenses at substantial savings? Aren't defenses cheap enough?

What just struck me is you just might want a limit on the AD of Foci! viola! Max. Foci AD= Max. DC * 1.5 would require the combined might of 4 or more superhumans all boosting their powers to destroy, barring any Vulnerabilties, at around a Max. DC of 12 or so. The higher the Max. DC, the more doubling of effort is required.
Remember Cap's Shield's Vuln. to Sonics? The destruction of Cap's Shield due to sonic attack by Klaw, so let us know Foci have limits and Vulnerabilities, too! aww, poor foci, even the mightest are so easily rent asunder!
peace out, Bruce

the fox in the US of A - big shout out, yay!

As Panpiper said, the idea was that defences and Body and even powers bought at the -2 ONLY apply to the focus - not to anyone using it. That means you CAN still buy a (virtually) indestructible focus - as much as anything in Hero can be indestructible - but it will cost more than one that breaks if someone hits it with a spade.

Good point about what you can exchange the 12rdefence for - perhaps the way to do it would be to say 'you've got 18 points you can spend on defences for your focus ONLY - if you want more, buy more.

Maybe, better, you don't get any free points, but we make the limitation better: perhaps -4, so it only costs 1/5 of what it would normally cost: so you could buy 15/15 rPD/rED and 15 points of power defence for a measly 12 points: that makes your focus really hard to damage. Trouble is it penalises 'small power' focuses - it is never going to be worth buying up the defences to a decent level as that will outweigh any saving. Of course that is something of an issue now...again, this is something I need to think more on

[Sean Waters]

If you expect the 'extra' defenses to protect the character, then yes, defenses are cheap enough. But these 'extra' defenses do not protect the character, they protect only the focus. And expecting a character to spend a similar number of point on protecting their focus as they do on protecting themselves is very unfair. In fifteen years of gaming, I have never seen a 'focus' specifically attacked. I've seen them grabbed, but not attacked. Buying extra defense 'only usable on this particular focus' should have a limitation of something like negative 20 if you ask me. But if a player in my game approached me wanting to build a focus and wanted to use Sean Waters' system, I would happily let him do so. I agree it is a much better approach.

Definitely a work in progress, but thanks for the kind words anyway

I suspect the reason that most people do not target focuses is that most people don't think it that fair Anyway the only ones REALLY worth targeting are guns: IR goggles are useful but probably not worth blowing an attack to deprive an oppoent of - and armour tends to be very hard to hurt because of its defences: even though it is easy to build a 'focus killer' attack (1 pip killing, quad penetrating will do for most of them - make it autofire and you can take out half a battlesuit in one hit) people donl;t because, by and large, they are decent human beings.

And, obviously, they fear that the retaliation will be all too swift

[the fox]

Remember Limited Power? Surely they still have it for 6th edition? The idea is, you come up a limitation for a power and a reasonable limitation value for that power/limitation combo,
then you can have 'custom' limitations in a 'standard' game. More flexibility is granted, but one still needs to be mindful of the limitation value; 5th edition gives additional guidelines on coming up with 'reasonable' limitation values. So the rules say; 'sure you can have any limitation, just come up with a reasonable value for it'.

My point is, perhaps this is not going to be a -2 limitation in every case, your suit of regenerating body armor with extra body being an excellent example of a very important focus.
Take your guy with armor and stack him up against 2 clones of himself, without armor but with Teamwork and a mean streak!
If this is a 'fair' fight, than that suit of armor is probably a very important focus!
It puts you in a different power level, such that you can 'take on' 2 or more of your un-armored selves! Of course their defenses are pathetic without their armor, while your defenses are fine! Their only chance is if you/they have a separate weapon system, let us assume a Multipower, OAF BFG. Then they can combine their fire, overwhelm your defenses...
but this fight is going to be over relatively quickly; either they'll 'overwhelm' quickly or get picked off, one by one, not unlike so many agents with their limited defenses!

[Sean Waters]

That might depend on how many points the base character was based on (remember 'Box' from Alpha Flight?) and how many points you's spent on the focus. Any number of Roger Bochs without the focus would lose to one with. That is largely the point though - if you have a 400 point character and you've spend 300 points on a power suit, you've actually used (at least) 550 active points there.

A 550 point character fighting a 400 point character? No contest, really - unless there is actually some 'in combat' disadvantage for putting all those points in a focus.

It might get taken away whilst you're sleeping or, you know, out at a diner party...right...so the only real problem with having a battlesuit focus is if it can be destroyed in combat. Hmm. Come to think of it, most characters can be taken out with 2-4 attacks. That means a battlesuit with a large umber of points in it should be taken out by a similar number of attacks, leaving the squishy contents effectively out of the battle. Otherwise it is just too much of a bargain. In fact (did *rant* mode get clicked on accidentally?) the only reason 'Focus' works at all is because people use those extra points for more options, not more power. SO: indestructible focus - insanity.

What we want from Focus (and here I'm assuming I am the Everyman) is fun from that particular concept. My definition of fun (at least when I'm running games) is giving the players as many opportunities to show how clever they are by putting them in desperate situations. No, really. So, bad things need to happen to battlesuits. Not all the time, obviously, that woudn't be fun - because they would be expecting it. I'm off topic again, aren't I?

[the fox]

No your not off topic, your just reminding me it's about having a good time, about playing the game, all while pointing out more possible 'abuse'!
OIF Battlesuits- ahhh, excusem moi, how often are you going to be caught w/o your suit? So nice of you to design it so that after a small army knocks you out,
I can un-do a couple of clips or something and roll you right of your suit! I'd just have to invoke that accessible out of combat 'Inaccessible' part as much as I could, at every opportunity!

Perhaps an Active Point Limit? 400 pts. + 1/4 overall = 500 pts. sounds fair to all to me; that way you could OIHID transform from a 0 points to 500, and I use this as the basis for the rule; if someone can transform to gain a hundred points, why should I be able to do any more or less? because someone knows how to exploit the rules? SHAZAM!

[Jagged]

*sneaks into thread*

Do foci really need both PD/ED and rPD/rED? Shouldn't it just be r? Maybe thats the difference between normal and fragile?

[Markdoc]

Good points well made, although I would prpbably prefer, if I were going to divorce the investment in the power from how easy it is to destroy it to use a standardised Body and defence (say 6/6 DEF and 2 Body per power), and allow the character to build more protection for the focus that way. i don;t particularly like the idea of allowing them to define the focus as built pretty much how they like (within the boundaries of 'game logic' as that potentially penalises the chap with the crystal wand he's defined as 2rPD and 2rED and 1 Body against the chap who defines HIS crystal wand as 20rPD and 20rED and 10 Body, because he used special magical crystal). I'm suggesting a house rule, but one that might be worth adopting more generally (I hope) so I'm not simply writing it for the people I play with - who are all, obviously, sensible, reasonable people - but for a potentially wider audience who might not all have the same sensibilites.

The way it's worked in our games is that the player who wants a wand made out of crystal is going to take the Fragile limitation anyway. The chap who wants an adventuring wand he can stick in his pocket will make it out of iron Since I'm using "real values" the players don't get to arbitrarily define DEF or BOD (that's the GM's purview) - merely what materials they are going to use.

Having a BODY score for a focus definitely feels right, and lets you do stuff that would otherwise be difficult to simulate (like self healing focuses, or focuses that start to malfunction as their Body drops).

Ayup. There's nothing stopping a player buying powers or extra defences just for his focus, and I usually allow a -2 for that.

It is all an abstraction anyway: a pistol, according tot eh rules, has 4rPD and 4 Body, which means that every time a pistol gets caught in an 8d6 AoE it should be destroyed, even if the person holding it is not hurt. I doubt anyone plays it that way. I need to think on it more, but you've definitely given me something to think on.

Ayup, again. In my case it was building an unarmed martial artist who had, among other abilities a "break sword" maneuver, to allow him to take on those pesky types with lots of levels in sword. It wasn't til we actually played him, we realised just how fragile foci actually are - a single, low damage hit was usually enough to shatter a sword. Needless to say, we rapidly worked out a fix, which is the one we are still using. And I dunno about youse guys, but in my games it's not that unusual for focii to be targeted - my players' premier fighter is currently using her swords, because her greataxe got its handle shattered two sessions ago.

cheers, Mark

[the fox]

Jagged, stop pretending! Since these defenses apply to the BODY damage of Normal and Killing Attacks equally, any PD just might need to be resistant.
Perhaps one must state any PD, ED purchased for Foci must be resistant; unless you assume this is "fairly obvious".

Markdoc, nothing stopping you from from buying extra defenses for your Focus? I'd leave extra powers out of this, as obviously in the rules!

[Sean Waters]

The way it's worked in our games is that the player who wants a wand made out of crystal is going to take the Fragile limitation anyway. The chap who wants an adventuring wand he can stick in his pocket will make it out of iron Since I'm using "real values" the players don't get to arbitrarily define DEF or BOD (that's the GM's purview) - merely what materials they are going to use.

Doesn't this mean that it is very risky to have a single focus with more than one power? Presumably it makes no difference how many powers are in the focus if the DEF/Body is determined by construction materials - anything that destroys the focus destroys the powers in it. Now that is nicely realistic, in some ways, but leads to an undesirable game playing strategy i.e. it favours multiple focii.

It also does not take into account - unless you use a more complicated system - that you SHOULD be able to destroy one power without destroying another in a single focus - take a typical superhero 'armoured battlesuit' - you should be able to take out the boot rockets without destroying the overall integrity, or the wrist cannons, or the flash visor...I suppose the answer is 'even though they all form part of the same focus, buy them as if they were individual focuses...but then the apparent situation (i.e. one battlesuit) is not reflected mechanically - which might cause problems when Professor Pervert wants to use his transformation to turn BattleMaid's armoured exo-suit into molasses....again....

. There's nothing stopping a player buying powers or extra defences just for his focus, and I usually allow a -2 for that.

Although one might argue that if the rule that the focus derives its physical attributes from a game version of the construction material, buying extra defences causes a logical conflict: either those extra defences are justified by the construction of the device - so they should be free - or they are not - so they should not be allowed.

Ayup, again. In my case it was building an unarmed martial artist who had, among other abilities a "break sword" maneuver, to allow him to take on those pesky types with lots of levels in sword. It wasn't til we actually played him, we realised just how fragile foci actually are - a single, low damage hit was usually enough to shatter a sword. Needless to say, we rapidly worked out a fix, which is the one we are still using. And I dunno about youse guys, but in my games it's not that unusual for focii to be targeted - my players' premier fighter is currently using her swords, because her greataxe got its handle shattered two sessions ago.

cheers, Mark

Yes indeed, a sword built as a focus , even something like a 2d6 HKA Greatsword will only have 6 DEF. In 6e a sword would have 4 rPD and rED and 4-6 Body - able to withstand a bigger single hit but even more fragile to multiple blows. It should be relatively straightforward to strike a weapon like a sword when it is being used against you - but even if you apply a -2 'strike focus' OCV penalty in many games it would make sense to destroy an opponent's weapon, so long as they do not have obvious backups - it may not take them out of the fight but it massively reduces their ability to fight. Of course your 'Battle suit' superhero is likely to have a dangerous ranged attack and substantial strength focussed in his battlesuit, at least (as far as offensive powers go): being able to take both out with a single decent hit is far too attractive IMO.