Jump to content

Options vs Focus in 5e


g3taso

Recommended Posts

Someone in another thread made a comment about not liking Focus (for any of a number of reasons). I agree, and I'm looking for ways to break, remove or temporarily put out of commission Foci of the various types from NPCs we encounter. I'm not talking armor, vehicles and such, but personal IIF, IAF, OIF and OAF stuff.

 

1. Can someone explain Dispel vs Drain effects as it applies to Foci?

2. What other options exist (novel approaches are particularly welcome)?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1a. Dispel versus powers in focus depends on the SFX. So assume that it is a flaming sword and you buy a Dispel Fire powers. If your dice exceed the AP of the fire power on the sword, it turns off. If it has charges, you just expended one. If not, the GM uses common sense or campaign guidelines. It may need to be doused in oil and relighted to work again, for instance. All of that assumes it is a "breakable" focus. If it is defined as Unbreakable, same thing except you multiply the AP of the power by 16 (so a 2d6 HKA flaming sword would be 480 AP) for Dispel purposes. See 5e pg 150 for more details.

1b. Drain works the same as always for Foci, unless you are trying to drain Body or DEF from them. For those purposes, Unbreakable Foci have DEFx4 Power Defense to resist the drain.

 

2a. There are tons of options out there for removing Accessible Foci, they just get expensive. The old standby is simply to disarm them. Next would be to grab them. Next the martial arts equivalents of those. Beyond that you start getting into ranged disarm or grab (TK or stretching or ranged martial maneuvers). Teleport you explored in another thread. Straight up EB or RKA to attack the Foci. XDM to send them to someplace where they will likely never be found. Change environment to build slippery fields where people make dex checks to hold onto things. 

2b. For inaccessible foci you have less options because they are, well, inaccessible. They can be targetted with attacks for -2 OCV and generally have between AP/5 and 2*(AP/5) in DEF, plus their body. So a durable breakable flaming sword above would have DEF of 12. They are not meant to be removed in combat and are thus difficult to affect during it.

 

A word of caution. If you don't like Accessible Foci and design an effective way to eliminate them as a "problem", expect your opponents to do the same to you very quickly.....

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1d6 RKA x4 Penetrating, Autofire 2-3, +2.25

49 Active Points

 

Against normal non-Focus abusing player this is going to do 1 BOD, and would take 10 hits to have ANY effect on the combat effectiveness of even a Normal (in a 6 DEF bullet proof vest). I.e. not practically effective.

 

Against Batmunchkin this can clear out an entire strategic pillar in one hit. One hit will likely either paralyze his movement, neutralize his offensive capabilities, or sunder his armor defenses. It takes out entire Power Frameworks with 1 BOD damage.

 

Mix the multiple for Penetrating with more Autofire or Reduced END depending on how paranoid you are about the GM hardening multiple times. Consider AOE 1 Hex so you ignore the target's DCV (+Autofire= good chance at landing all 3 shots) and more importantly, you strip 1 Power Framework per Focus on the target (and swat the target itself for 1 BOD + 1 STUN).

 

I'd need a rule clarification on whether a full 1d6 would be necessary, or whether a 5-point single pip RKA still does 1 BOD with Penetrating. Even a 10-point d3 would allow up to +4 within 50 Active Points, which could buy Autofire 5, 0 END, & AOE 1 Hex on top of x4 Penetrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in another thread made a comment about not liking Focus (for any of a number of reasons). I agree, and I'm looking for ways to break, remove or temporarily put out of commission Foci of the various types from NPCs we encounter. I'm not talking armor, vehicles and such, but personal IIF, IAF, OIF and OAF stuff.

 

1. Can someone explain Dispel vs Drain effects as it applies to Foci?

2. What other options exist (novel approaches are particularly welcome)?

 

This isn't really much in the spirit of the game. It's kind of munchkinish, and looking for exploits.

 

Like other's have said, if you start to destroy NPC foci. Fully expect that the opposition will start to do the same to your team. Also, if you get too obnoxious about doing it, the GM will just define those foci as Only in Alternate ID, which is what one does for Foci that never seems to be taken away or lost (ie Iron Man's Armor, Thor's Hammer, Falcon's Wings etc). That doesn't mean that I am against disarming OAF users and Restraining Restrainable powers, but you should be looking for fitting abilties for your character. Not looking for abilities that can exploit mechanics.

 

YMMV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1d6 RKA x4 Penetrating, Autofire 2-3, +2.25

49 Active Points

 

Against normal non-Focus abusing player this is going to do 1 BOD, and would take 10 hits to have ANY effect on the combat effectiveness of even a Normal (in a 6 DEF bullet proof vest). I.e. not practically effective.

 

Against Batmunchkin this can clear out an entire strategic pillar in one hit. One hit will likely either paralyze his movement, neutralize his offensive capabilities, or sunder his armor defenses. It takes out entire Power Frameworks with 1 BOD damage.

 

Mix the multiple for Penetrating with more Autofire or Reduced END depending on how paranoid you are about the GM hardening multiple times. Consider AOE 1 Hex so you ignore the target's DCV (+Autofire= good chance at landing all 3 shots) and more importantly, you strip 1 Power Framework per Focus on the target (and swat the target itself for 1 BOD + 1 STUN).

 

I'd need a rule clarification on whether a full 1d6 would be necessary, or whether a 5-point single pip RKA still does 1 BOD with Penetrating. Even a 10-point d3 would allow up to +4 within 50 Active Points, which could buy Autofire 5, 0 END, & AOE 1 Hex on top of x4 Penetrating.

A few quibbles. Against a normal non-Focus using target, this is going to do 0-3 body, depending on how many times you hit. 4 uses would kill a normal if you hit.

 

Against "Batmunchkin" you are at -2 for the first hit (foci target) and then for each additional -2 you hit again on the same focus ("target"). If you target multiple foci, you are at -3 to -5 and make 3 separate rolls. All of this assumes the foci are breakable, unbreakable foci require special means to harm.

 

A 10 point RKA does 1 body with penetrating if you roll a 4-6, 1 pip does nothing with penetrating. 5er, 266.

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't really much in the spirit of the game. It's kind of munchkinish, and looking for exploits.

That is perfectly in line with what g3taso has been trying to do since the first post of him that I saw.

It is kinda like the palindromeadry tagline of Lucius or my distace for Movement, UAA. Just asume every post started by him goes into that direction, saves you time ;)

 

It could be a leftover from previous, more flawed systems with more abuseable loopholes (like D&D, Shadowrun or just about any other system). If so I hope he looses it soon.

You could see this as a try to verify the solidity of the sytem. With non-hero systems I have this instinct to look for absueable loopsholes. Not because I want to use them, but because I want them fixed and I can't really help myself from seeing them - my RL Int is to high to not spot it and can not ignore what I spotted anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by Simon, June 29, 2016 - Insulting other members
Hidden by Simon, June 29, 2016 - Insulting other members

Wow Christopher, someone didn't have time to put their Big Boy panties on this morning. Really, after 8000 postings I am sure that as a veritable demigod of knowledge you are beneath learning how a system works in detail by investigating weaknesses. I wouldn't want to trouble you with attempting to refute anything you might flippantly say, since that would of course be silly. 

 

The way to verify that someone still lives with mom and dad and is looking forward to having sex for the first time is to consider the basis of this arrogant attitude. I am almost positive you would never talk to someone like that in person. Anonymity is so wonderful that way. But of course you know that. It allows someone with nothing to say to say something anyway.

 

Grow up.

Link to comment

That is perfectly in line with what g3taso has been trying to do since the first post of him that I saw.

It is kinda like the palindromeadry tagline of Lucius or my distace for Movement, UAA. Just asume every post started by him goes into that direction, saves you time ;)

 

It could be a leftover from previous, more flawed systems with more abuseable loopholes (like D&D, Shadowrun or just about any other system). If so I hope he looses it soon.

You could see this as a try to verify the solidity of the sytem. With non-hero systems I have this instinct to look for absueable loopsholes. Not because I want to use them, but because I want them fixed and I can't really help myself from seeing them - my RL Int is to high to not spot it and can not ignore what I spotted anymore.

 

The problem IS that Hero is one of the most exploitable system on the market. It's part of it's being a huge tool kit. You can use those abilities to abuse a campaign, or you can go with the Campaign and help make fun play for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tasha:

 

Actually, I'm quite impressed with the non-exploitability in the game generally, with AP limits being a great design. Even the Power Frameworks are pretty evenly balanced (despite my eyes bugging out when I first realized what a VPP was, it's actually not that powerful).

 

Focuses and vehicles seem like a glaring exception because of this otherwise good design, and questioning whether there exists some over-looked detail that balances this aspect is only natural. Penetrating actually dramatically reduces my opinion of the power of Focuses, and it was not obvious to me at first. Though, I do still want to address the imbalance of Focuses and Vehicles more fully in its own topic. 

 

More generally, why engage in any activity with other people unless they occasionally challenge you in unexpected ways? Playing a game with other people lets you experiment with the reactions of another human mind to your own actions. Will they like my joke? I'd imagine being a famous comedian surrounded by sycophants laughing at everything you say would get old. Will he see my tactic? Is my weakness inobvious or will he figure it out? A human mind is incredibly complex and difficult to predict.

 

Maybe some player does see something in the physics of the game the GM does not. Let them learn from each other. I just think this is a case of someone seeing the game say "You don't have to, but you SHOULD be Ironman," and wondering "Really? I thought this was a superhero game?"

 

I'm currently new so I have to get my 10 posts before I don't have to wait for the once or twice a day Mod approval for my posts, so forgive any delayed response. Relatedly: I want to reply to eepjr24's excellent analysis of my previous response in separate post in order to up my post count.

 

Edit: Or maybe I'm already approved. Anyway, just going to do these two sentences and then do a new post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eepjr24:

 

Well, I did say hits. Although I must admit actually it is true: this would be pretty effective against characters that don't buy up BOD.

 

Mostly because the referenced page (266 5er) actually specifically mentions single pip Killing Attacks do 1 BOD, precisely the opposite of what you report ("A 1- point Killing Attack does 1 BODY Penetrating;" column 1 4th paragraph under Penetrating heading). This means up to a +9 in advantages can be applied in a 50 AP setting. I overlooked this (as well as an additional cost for autofire AOE attacks that is only mentioned in the AOE section). 0 END 1 Hex Autofire 5 leaves room for x12 Penetrating, although LOS, Indirect, and IPE should be considered.

 

AOE says directly under the heading "Powers with Area Of Effect affect all targets in an area." (pg. 247 5er, emphasis added). Furthermore, I target a hex with my AOE, not a Focus, therefore no Focus target penalty to OCV. The Focus[es] are just one of the affected targets in the area.

 

Unbreakable Focuses are a little ambiguous in the wording. It is unclear if destroying a power associated with the focus is harmful to the Focus. It may be that reducing the focus to 0 powers or doing DEF x2 doesn't destroy the Focus. In any case, having a limitation that can't be grabbed (because Inaccessible) or attacked (because Unbreakable under a bad interpretation of RAW) doesn't seem too limiting, and therefore should be worthless RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tasha:

 

Actually, I'm quite impressed with the non-exploitability in the game generally, with AP limits being a great design. Even the Power Frameworks are pretty evenly balanced (despite my eyes bugging out when I first realized what a VPP was, it's actually not that powerful).

 

Focuses and vehicles seem like a glaring exception because of this otherwise good design, and questioning whether there exists some over-looked detail that balances this aspect is only natural. Penetrating actually dramatically reduces my opinion of the power of Focuses, and it was not obvious to me at first. Though, I do still want to address the imbalance of Focuses and Vehicles more fully in its own topic. 

 

More generally, why engage in any activity with other people unless they occasionally challenge you in unexpected ways? Playing a game with other people lets you experiment with the reactions of another human mind to your own actions. Will they like my joke? I'd imagine being a famous comedian surrounded by sycophants laughing at everything you say would get old. Will he see my tactic? Is my weakness inobvious or will he figure it out? A human mind is incredibly complex and difficult to predict.

 

Maybe some player does see something in the physics of the game the GM does not. Let them learn from each other. I just think this is a case of someone seeing the game say "You don't have to, but you SHOULD be Ironman," and wondering "Really? I thought this was a superhero game?"

 

I'm currently new so I have to get my 10 posts before I don't have to wait for the once or twice a day Mod approval for my posts, so forgive any delayed response. Relatedly: I want to reply to eepjr24's excellent analysis of my previous response in separate post in order to up my post count.

 

Edit: Or maybe I'm already approved. Anyway, just going to do these two sentences and then do a new post.

 

Foci are balanced when GMs actually set things up for the PC's to not have the use of the focus for one reason or the other. BTW Ironman is more of a Only in Alternate ID, than a OIF because he really is never separated from it, ex when he has to be Tony. OAF is more like Thor's Hammer from the early days of the Thor Comic. When he would lose it at least once a fight and either nearly or fully transform back to his Normal ID. 

 

I would rule that an unbreakable focus is that. Unbreakable. That doesn't mean that one couldn't dispel or Drain the powers that the foci gives. Just that the focus become temporally inert once all of the powers are Drained or Dispelled. I believe that items with their powers dispelled can be turned back on the moment the PC has a phase. Drained powers come back at the rate of powerpoint fade as defined in the Drain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So once you give your character five or six ways of dealing with someone's Focus, what do you do when you then never meet anyone using a Focus?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary thinks some people focus to much on Focuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem IS that Hero is one of the most exploitable system on the market. It's part of it's being a huge tool kit. You can use those abilities to abuse a campaign, or you can go with the Campaign and help make fun play for everyone.

I agree with the abuseability, but I disagree with it begin a fault in the rules for one reason:

6E1 8-11, "The Hero System Philosophy".

Yes the hero systems gives us powers similar to a game designer. But it also gives us the responsibility of one.

 

Yes, we can do about everything. But the system warned us clearly not to create certain broken stuff (like non defensible attacks) - if we do anyway that is not a flaw in the rules, but a flaw in us that used the rules.

If somebody comes along with "a broken build", we can just answer "Of course it is broken, it violates pages 8-11". Wich are also rule 0, as they come before "Basic Rules & Concepts" on page 12. So they overrule anything else in the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eepjr24:

 

Mostly because the referenced page (266 5er) actually specifically mentions single pip Killing Attacks do 1 BOD, precisely the opposite of what you report ("A 1- point Killing Attack does 1 BODY Penetrating;" column 1 4th paragraph under Penetrating heading). This means up to a +9 in advantages can be applied in a 50 AP setting. I overlooked this (as well as an additional cost for autofire AOE attacks that is only mentioned in the AOE section). 0 END 1 Hex Autofire 5 leaves room for x12 Penetrating, although LOS, Indirect, and IPE should be considered.

Apologies, I was reading further down the paragraph where it said +1 did no Body. 5e is probably the rule set I am weakest on, having never actually played a game in it, just 3, 4e and 6e.

 

 

AOE says directly under the heading "Powers with Area Of Effect affect all targets in an area." (pg. 247 5er, emphasis added). Furthermore, I target a hex with my AOE, not a Focus, therefore no Focus target penalty to OCV. The Focus[es] are just one of the affected targets in the area.

I would say this is more ambiguous than the bit on Unbreakable Foci. "All targets", so your typical 1d6 RKA AOE destroys the clothes of everyone in the area, along with all the furniture, anything paper or glass and anything smaller than about a square foot? I generally rule that they will damage PC's and NPC's and anything that attempts to contain the blast (unless they are conforming). YMMV, though, talk to your GM about what they do.

 

As to the wording of Unbreakable, reread the example in the first paragraph.

 

... the armor itself cannot be harmed by attacks.

Are you really trying to say that removing powers from something would not be harmful? Especially since they are the defense of the item (in case of PD, ED, Body, etc). I guess if your GM goes with that, have fun. Of course, if they take away your powers and rules it as not harmful to your character....

 

One last thought on powers. You seem to be concentrating on build, not SFX. Why would something have x12 Penetrating? What is the in character special effect of this foci destroying power? Why, as a GM, would I be even remotely tempted to let something like that come into being without it aligning with your character concept?

 

- E

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of ways to abuse the rules in Hero.  Generally that doesn't make for a very fun game.  It gets the GM mad, and he has more points to play with than you do.  And really, it just isn't very fun unless everyone is on the same page.

 

A focus gives a hefty point discount because it can be taken away.  Assume Iron Man has an OIF for his armored suit.  By taking the focus limitation, his player is telling that it's okay for the GM to take the powers away on occasion.  There will be times that Tony Stark will be in a board meeting or something when villains attack, and he won't be able to get to his armor.  In 4th edition at least, the game recommended not making characters who are useless when their focus gets taken away, because it will get taken away at some point, and then you'll have nothing to do.  Now, Tony Stark in the movies very rarely is without his armor.  Even when Loki throws him off a building, the armor flies to him and he's got it on before he hits the ground.  The guy from the movie probably has a different limitation than OIF, because he doesn't seem to suffer from OIF style restrictions.

 

Most players in our games don't want to take Foci, because they're too easy to take away.  Any villain tough enough to take away your focus is one you definitely want full power against.  So a guy who is focus-based ends up being able to push around weaklings, but when he fights the big bad guy, he seems to be the first one to fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the abuseability, but I disagree with it begin a fault in the rules for one reason:

6E1 8-11, "The Hero System Philosophy".

Yes the hero systems gives us powers similar to a game designer. But it also gives us the responsibility of one.

 

Yes, we can do about everything. But the system warned us clearly not to create certain broken stuff (like non defensible attacks) - if we do anyway that is not a flaw in the rules, but a flaw in us that used the rules.

If somebody comes along with "a broken build", we can just answer "Of course it is broken, it violates pages 8-11". Wich are also rule 0, as they come before "Basic Rules & Concepts" on page 12. So they overrule anything else in the book.

 

FYI, that applies to every "abuse loophole" in every game system. And a good chunk boils down to playstyle.

 

I am in the midst of "re-training" my players (amid much caterwauling, wailing, and tearing of hair shirts) to not break the genre or the GM. I've never had to be so heavy handed as a GM in my life. ::shakes head::

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 10 point RKA does 1 body with penetrating if you roll a 4-6, 1 pip does nothing with penetrating. 5er, 266.

The FAQ has been noted, but frankly, the rule that 1d6 will get 1 penetrating BOD, 2 on a 6 and 0 on a 1, while 1/2 d6 will get one penetrating BOD half the time, but 1 pip just becomes penetrating is in the running for "stupidest rule". +1 STUN will never do BOD, so +1 (or 1 pip) BOD should never be penetrating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With non-hero systems I have this instinct to look for absueable loopsholes. Not because I want to use them, but because I want them fixed and I can't really help myself from seeing them - my RL Int is to high to not spot it and can not ignore what I spotted anymore.

Ironic that with such supposed RL INT and PER that causes you to spot things and be unable to ignore them ... you manage to miss and/or ignore the difference between 'too' and 'to' (and their proper uses) in those statements.  Just saying...  :winkgrin:

 

 

The problem IS that Hero is one of the most exploitable system on the market.

Only if the GM using it allows it to be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A focus gives a hefty point discount because it can be taken away.  Assume Iron Man has an OIF for his armored suit.  By taking the focus limitation, his player is telling that it's okay for the GM to take the powers away on occasion.

I always say:

If you take a complication or limitation, you are demanding of the GM to make it part of the game.

And the GM can veto any limitation/complication, if he is unable to build it into the game.

 

FYI, that applies to every "abuse loophole" in every game system. And a good chunk boils down to playstyle.

 

I am in the midst of "re-training" my players (amid much caterwauling, wailing, and tearing of hair shirts) to not break the genre or the GM. I've never had to be so heavy handed as a GM in my life. ::shakes head::

But how many systems mention that "Philosophy" even before the basic rules?

How many RPG rulebook writers admit they could not anticipate "every possible loophole and interpretation" on page 11?

"As you read and interpret the HERO System

rules, keep two important principles in mind.

First, just because something isn’t explicitly

forbidden doesn’t mean it’s allowed. No game

designer could think of every possible permutation, combination, interpretation, or use of the

HERO System rules, so situations may arise in

your game that the creators of these rules didn’t

foresee. While it’s usually safe to assume that

something which isn’t forbidden is allowed, the

final decision is always up to the GM. If he doesn’t

want to interpret or use the rules the way you want

to, his decision governs.

Second, just because something is explicitly

forbidden doesn’t mean you can’t do it (with

the GM’s permission). Even when the rules say

you can’t do something, the GM can relax that

restriction if he feels it would be justified to do

so. For example, the rules say you can’t apply the

Attack Versus Alternate Defense Advantage to

the Entangle Power. But if a player came up with

an idea for an AVAD Entangle the GM felt was

a good one that didn’t unbalance the game, he

could allow the player to buy that power for his

character."

 

Ironic that with such supposed RL INT and PER that causes you to spot things and be unable to ignore them ... you manage to miss and/or ignore the difference between 'too' and 'to' (and their proper uses) in those statements.  Just saying...  :winkgrin:

Not a native speaker. And I am not that solid in writing my own language either.

Langauge science really needs to figure out how to get a computer to understand language and write for me - it would propably do that better anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the abuseability, but I disagree with it begin a fault in the rules for one reason:

6E1 8-11, "The Hero System Philosophy".

Yes the hero systems gives us powers similar to a game designer. But it also gives us the responsibility of one.

 

Yes, we can do about everything. But the system warned us clearly not to create certain broken stuff (like non defensible attacks) - if we do anyway that is not a flaw in the rules, but a flaw in us that used the rules.

If somebody comes along with "a broken build", we can just answer "Of course it is broken, it violates pages 8-11". Wich are also rule 0, as they come before "Basic Rules & Concepts" on page 12. So they overrule anything else in the book.

 

 

There are a lot of ways to abuse the rules in Hero.  Generally that doesn't make for a very fun game.  It gets the GM mad, and he has more points to play with than you do.  And really, it just isn't very fun unless everyone is on the same page.

 

 

I agree whole completely  with the above quotes. 

 

HERO is neither broken or "abuseable" in my opinion.  

 

It fully accomplishes what it intends to do, therefore is not broken.

It never tried to be completely balanced or abuse-proof so it is not "abuseable".

 

If a person wishes a game system that has built in safeguards to ensure everyone playing is in a fair and balanced game, there are many decent systems out there that try with varying degrees of success.

 

If you want to play a game that inherently trusts the GM and Players to self govern themselves and build characters that meet the style and philosophy of the game they are playing.  Then you have systems like HERO.  

 

From this perspective, the issue stems from GM's and Players not the rules, regardless of the game system played. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say this is more ambiguous than the bit on Unbreakable Foci. "All targets", so your typical 1d6 RKA AOE destroys the clothes of everyone in the area, along with all the furniture, anything paper or glass and anything smaller than about a square foot? I generally rule that they will damage PC's and NPC's and anything that attempts to contain the blast (unless they are conforming). YMMV, though, talk to your GM about what they do.

 

As to the wording of Unbreakable, reread the example in the first paragraph.

Are you really trying to say that removing powers from something would not be harmful? Especially since they are the defense of the item (in case of PD, ED, Body, etc). I guess if your GM goes with that, have fun. Of course, if they take away your powers and rules it as not harmful to your character....

 

One last thought on powers. You seem to be concentrating on build, not SFX. Why would something have x12 Penetrating? What is the in character special effect of this foci destroying power? Why, as a GM, would I be even remotely tempted to let something like that come into being without it aligning with your character concept?

 

- E

 

Thanks for making me look it up. 

 

So, I can't figure out how to manipulate the quotes, so let me address points in order:

 

I vividly remember reading the parts of All Quiet on the Wesern Front which described dead bodies in WWI that were blown out of their clothes. It's such a strange bizarre detail that it paints a picture in your mind. Also, the testicle injury section in the "dressing room".

 

Well, the argument is that powers are only useful to the character, not the focus. But yes, this is a stretch.

 

For your heroic level space setting:

 

22nd century Phaser:

Multipower 25pt reserve

1) Standard Blast: 1 pip RKA (AOE 1 hex, Autofire 5, x2 Penetrating, 0 END +4)

 

2) Cutting Beam: 1 pip RKA (Autofire 10, x4 Penetrating, 0 END +4)

 

3) Wide Field: 1 pip RKA (AOE, Autofire 10, 0 END +4)

 

The Galactic Humanoidist Coalition applied their control of materials on a molecular level to weapons technology early in their expansion. Rather than assaulting the surface of an object with high energy, this new technology "phased" the molecules, weakening the bonds holding the objects together, resulting in the dis-integration of solid objects.

 

For a short period The Coalition's technology provided a dramatic advantage. The more traditional force field and armor of both the Pointy-Eared and Bone-Headed Empires were of no use against this technology. Armor melted away and the forcefield technology of the time experienced enormous stresses when a phasing field was applied. Fortunately for The Coalition: these aggressive empires would have overrun The Coalition were it not for their military superiority. Fortunately for the Empires, the Coalition was not as expansionist.

 

Within a century the evolution of arms and armor had molded the phaser into a more traditional energy projection weapon. As the Empires adapted to the novel technology they found that hardening their force fields and materials against this technique of attack was a relatively simple matter.

 

23rd Century Ship's Anti-phase System: FF 5/5 (x4 Hardened, 0 END +1.5) 25 pts

 

As these anti-phase systems developed, Feder- oops I mean Coalition weapons technology reasearch gradually increase the energy output of Phasers to compensate. Today there is little difference between Phasers and their Disruptor counterparts.

 

Penetrating is not really an issue, although it does open up another line of exotic attack. You would need an exotic defense to compensate, but that already exists with Flash, Mental, and Power defense. Heck, even ED and PD are two completely separate lines of attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A genius gadgeteer I've designed has a "reverse engineering" knack. Transform, personal focus to universal focus. 

 

Potentially one of the most broken powers I've ever designed.

 

I would at least force this guy do body based on the active points of the focus over and above the BODY of the focus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A genius gadgeteer I've designed has a "reverse engineering" knack. Transform, personal focus to universal focus. 

 

Potentially one of the most broken powers I've ever designed. 

 

Without getting into any mechanical complexities, or SFX ("He can use mechanical knowledge to change magic?"), I don't see how this is horribly broken.  Like all other uses of another character's focus, it does not mean he can keep the focus without paying character points for it. It means he can use it for a scene or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...