Jump to content

Consciously not using powers


Doc Democracy

Recommended Posts

Not true. Read the old Superman comics - how often could he have dealt with a threat to his secret ID if he could shut off his rPD so, for example, his hair and fingernails could be trimmed, or he could receive an injection without breaking the needle? That was a plot point in a DC comic many years back when Power Girl (I think) was badly injured and required surgery. So where's the scalpel that will work for the surgery?

 

If you take a -1/4 limitation because your PD cannot be shut off, that means it not only cannot be turned off, but that inability to turn it off will create challenges for the character in-game.

 

 

So what is a Sound Flash by literal definition? Would you also prohibit "Teleportation, must pass through intervening space"? Really Combat Luck is dodging, not defenses. Hyper-Man sums it up perfectly:

 

 

Superman didn't have to trim his hair or his fingernails Pre-Crisis, because they didn't grow in Earth's atmosphere.

 

Superman likely had a minor disadvantage, perhaps a Distinctive Feature, regarding his invulnerability being on display at times.  rPD doesn't stop you from getting an injection.  A needle isn't a killing attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difference between PD and Speed is that the former is passive and the latter is active.  That is, PD just is, it doesn't do anything, it reacts to impact by protecting you; its just there.  Speed is you taking actions so you can take many or few actions, up to the maximum speed you have, as you wish.  Strength is active, stun is passive (you can't voluntarily make yourself easier to knock out).  Other stats are a bit harder to puzzle out; is Intelligence active or passive?  Even if you try to be less perceptive you still will notice things, but you can actively attempt to remember things.  Recovery is the same stat all the time: you can't choose to recover with a lesser stat, but you can choose to not recover by taking actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Superman likely had a minor disadvantage, perhaps a Distinctive Feature, regarding his invulnerability being on display at times.

Isn't Always On a minor limitation on a Persistent power? The line between minor limitations and complications/disadvantages can get pretty blurry at times.

 

rPD doesn't stop you from getting an injection.  A needle isn't a killing attack.

 

How would you write up a needlegun, perhaps one that fires off syringes injecting something into the target? 6e under Drain suggests one must hit an unarmoured area - does Supers have such a target? Discussion of AVAD suggests the same for a gun firing Knockout Darts. The high velocity dart can't penetrate his skin, but a similar device powered by a light human touch does? Oddly, Sleep Poison Darts under the Damage over Time discussion does not have a rPD related restriction.

 

So, would a cobra break its fangs on the invulnerable character, but Dr. Death could inject the same cobra venom into our rPD super with a syringe?

 

some may argue this point

I see what you did there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does sound to me rather like we are trying to argue game mechanics from special effects perspectives. Ultimately I think that there is a decision to be made from players, pointing out the pros and cons of whether they can voluntarily lower their PD or not.

 

It is probably a +0 limitation/advantage, but I don't think there is anything mechanically that says ANY of these characteristics or powers cannot be lowered at will unless they are bought that way in a manner that disadvantages (or advantages) or it is decided they are that way in a manner that neither enhances or limits the power.

 

Whether we can think of comic book examples that support one or the other matters not a jot. Yeah?

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CC/FHC, Always On only applies to Zero END, Persistent Powers, and is a -1/2 limitation. Barring that modifier, per RAW, any persistent power can be turned off by the user. That you can come up with comic book examples of characters with Inherent, Always On defenses just means those characters bought their defenses Inherent and Always On; not that the mechanics of those game elements somehow transfer to all persistent powers of similar special effect.

 

So, would a cobra break its fangs on the invulnerable character, but Dr. Death could inject the same cobra venom into our rPD super with a syringe?

That depends entirely on how Dr. Death built his cobra venom syringe, but yes possibly. Most poisonous animals have their venom attacks built to be conditional to the animal's bite (or other poisonous attack) causing BODY. If Dr. Death's syringes are built to work on characters with high rPD, it is up to his creator to explain why his attack is different from a cobra's. For example, perhaps his "syringes" are actually miniature teleportation devices (which can only teleport small amounts of fluid very short distances) and don't use needles at all. Or perhaps the needles are made from some quasi-dimensional metal that phases through solids but not fluids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does sound to me rather like we are trying to argue game mechanics from special effects perspectives. Ultimately I think that there is a decision to be made from players, pointing out the pros and cons of whether they can voluntarily lower their PD or not.

From a game mechanics perspective, we need a default. For example, mental powers are Invisible and LoS by default, while Blast is visible and suffers range modifiers. Either can be altered, but pricing the alternatives requires setting a default. That may be +0, or could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on the specific game, but a default is needed.

 

Whether we can think of comic book examples that support one or the other matters not a jot. Yeah?

I think whether the game can emulate the source material matters quite a bit. I have, in the past, suggested we consider decoupling STR and HKA, but this has always been considered too great a disconnect from the source material to implement (a valid argument). We permit "LS: Immune to Heat" for a character who has a 2 (or sells back to 0) ED, despite the logical disconnect.

 

Mental powers are probably the best example. They are invisible and LoS by default because, by golly, that's how they generally appear in the source material, so that's the default here. But we don't price them in accordance with those advantages (rebuilding Mental Attack from Blast demonstrates that readily), and we point to any player seeking to leverage those "sniper" advantages as a munchkin to be mercilessly slapped down.

 

By default, STR costs END and other stats do not because that is how they work in the real world and, by extension, the source material defaults.

 

It does not matter if the default mechanics reflect the source material, other than the desirability of a default that is common, rather than rare, in the source material, and that only for simplicity. It is important we define a default, and be able to vary it to emulate the source material, priced equitably for balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

In CC/FHC, Always On only applies to Zero END, Persistent Powers, and is a -1/2 limitation. Barring that modifier, per RAW, any persistent power can be turned off by the user. That you can come up with comic book examples of characters with Inherent, Always On defenses just means those characters bought their defenses Inherent and Always On; not that the mechanics of those game elements somehow transfer to all persistent powers of similar special effect.

They don't have to be Inherent - that means they can't be Drained or Suppressed (say by Kryptonite or red sun radiation). Always On is also quite clear that it can be worth -0 instead of -1/2 (implying a -1/4 middle ground, but never stating this), so it is not clearly defined as a -1/2 limitation by the rules - quite the reverse, it is defined as not always having that value.

 

That depends entirely on how Dr. Death built his cobra venom syringe, but yes possibly. Most poisonous animals have their venom attacks built to be conditional to the animal's bite (or other poisonous attack) causing BODY. If Dr. Death's syringes are built to work on characters with high rPD, it is up to his creator to explain why his attack is different from a cobra's. For example, perhaps his "syringes" are actually miniature teleportation devices (which can only teleport small amounts of fluid very short distances) and don't use needles at all. Or perhaps the needles are made from some quasi-dimensional metal that phases through solids but not fluids.

Or perhaps it is up to Superman's player to properly define his steel-hard skin, which cannot plausibly be shut down, so that it is equally effective in blocking the cobra bite, Dr. Death's SyringeGun and an ordinary flu vaccination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think whether the game can emulate the source material matters quite a bit.

I think the key word in that sentence us CAN, especially as HERO /= Champions. :-). I think we could find source material for one or more different reasons to allow or forbid things. As such, to allow for the widest emulation, we should not be too prescriptive on how game mechanics play in game.

 

I do agree with the default requirement and I think HERO has slowly been stripping itself down to those defaults, taking out the elements that scream specific special effects and grouping the powers that duplicated effects into decent all-purpose powers.

 

We will maybe get there by 10th edition. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always On is also quite clear that it can be worth -0 instead of -1/2 (implying a -1/4 middle ground, but never stating this), so it is not clearly defined as a -1/2 limitation by the rules - quite the reverse, it is defined as not always having that value.

Always On, per the sources which I cited (Champions Complete & Fantasy Hero Complete), does not have any such clause regarding having a circumstantially reduced value. In CC/FHC Always On is always worth -1/2, and only applies to Zero END Persistent powers (CC 96; FHC 115).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would challenge the word ALWAYS. Hero limitations come with the meta-rule that limitations that do not limit are worth no points. So any limitation may be applied that the GM may rule is worth no points. If the value can be taken all the way down to zero, then surely you can see times when a GM might compromise with a player and provide a halfway house of 1/4?

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would challenge the word ALWAYS. Hero limitations gave the meta-rule that limitations that do not limit are wort no points. So any limitation may be applied that the GM may rule us worth no points. If the value can be taken all the way down to zero, then surely you can see times when a GM might compromise with a player and provide a halfway house of 1/4?

 

Doc

I can see times when a [-1/4] value makes sense.  However, I can think of absolutely no times where a player would want to bother with a [-0] value -- becauase at that point the Always On Limitation has no value because there's also no tangible limitation associated with it ... so why bother taking up space on the character sheet with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see times when a [-1/4] value makes sense.  However, I can think of absolutely no times where a player would want to bother with a [-0] value -- becauase at that point the Always On Limitation has no value because there's also no tangible limitation associated with it ... so why bother taking up space on the character sheet with it?

 

In a game with Mind Control I can see a character with defenses that are Always On (-0) getting some of the value that would otherwise require Inherent.

 

Example:  Brainiac 5 of the Legion of Superheroes has a force field belt that provides defenses comparable to those of Kryptonians and Daxamites.  Saturn Queen can use Mind Control to force Brainiac 5 to turn off the belt.  She can't do the same with Superboy or Mon-El.

 

HM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a game with Mind Control I can see a character with defenses that are Always On (-0) getting some of the value that would otherwise require Inherent.

 

Example:  Brainiac 5 of the Legion of Superheroes has a force field belt that provides defenses comparable to those of Kryptonians and Daxamites.  Saturn Queen can use Mind Control to force Brainiac 5 to turn off the belt.  She can't do the same with Superboy or Mon-El.

 

HM

There are simply cases where you should technically buy "Inherent" or "Always On"". But do not bother, because it does not affect the average game that much.

I mean, how the heck is it negative if you can not turn off your persistent defenses? How the heck is it positive, if the question does not come up?

In both cases it would be a +0 or -0. And I do not bother writing a lot of -0 or +0 stuff down.Why would I, that would just make the sheet more complex.

 

The 0th rule of any Power Modifier value is:

"This asumes a certain standart scenario in a standart game."

 

That "hacking people to turn off thier powers" question, really just deviates for that standart game.

You just create a setting in wich being (mentally) forced to turn off a power, would be a weakness that can be regularily exploited*.

So not being able to turn off your power, suddenly turns out ot be more off a benefit. It shifts the whole "Always On" Power Modifier more towards positive effect (Advantage) and away from a Negative Effect (Limitation). In a scenario where it was a minor limitation to -0 Limitation to begin with.

 

The first question for mental powers is always "what level of EGO+ did you archieve?"

If you got Ego+30, you can totally force a person to torture thier soulmate to death, or something comparable he is "Violently Against".

Turning off your defenses in a fight (wich presumes there is a enemy that tries to hinder him) to save said loved one, would be equally something he was "Violentely Against". Same if he knew (or was convinced) said loved one migth become suicidal if he dies/is defeated.

Turning off your defenses when there is no perceived threath, that would be a EGO+0 or EGO+10, maybe.

 

Casting multiple times on the same person (like a Mental Illusion to make him think there is no danger, then MC to turn his powers off), should follow the existing rules for "Complimentary Mental Powers". The actuall situation is quite different from what the Mental Powers try to get him to act on. And I do not have the exact rules in my head.

 

 

*Especially true if a Player has this ability. Nothing shifts the "average scenario" as much as a player power. Rewriting every villain sheet to: 1) "Have that advange" and 2) "reduce points elsewhere to afford it" would be too much of a hassle, really. And unless the villain appears more then one time, there really is no point for it.

If this is a villain power and he does not come up more then once, why bother writing it down on the player side either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are simply cases where you should technically buy "Inherent" or "Always On"". But do not bother, because it does not affect the average game that much.

I mean, how the heck is it negative if you can not turn off your persistent defenses? How the heck is it positive, if the question does not come up?

In both cases it would be a +0 or -0. And I do not bother writing a lot of -0 or +0 stuff down.Why would I, that would just make the sheet more complex.

 

The 0th rule of any Power Modifier value is:

"This asumes a certain standart scenario in a standart game."

 

Well, this is exactly where a lot of the conversation swirls Christopher.  I think that the question that sits there, and where my head is currently, is that all powers, unless explicitly stated may be switched off, either to convenience the character or if forced to through mental powers exercised by an opponent.

 

Some powers, depending on their SFX, may be bought as Always as a +0 modifier to the cost of the power.

 

If this is not noted, then the default is that the power can.  

 

I would expect GMs to be pretty flexible with a lot of this and there will be lots of times when it is obvious that the player's vision for a power was for it to be always on, for good or bad, but there will be margin cases and it is worth having a good knowledge of where the default is in the rules...

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this is exactly where a lot of the conversation swirls Christopher.  I think that the question that sits there, and where my head is currently, is that all powers, unless explicitly stated may be switched off, either to convenience the character or if forced to through mental powers exercised by an opponent.

As a clarification -- I would expect that 'Always On' and 'Inherent' powers qualify as 'explicitly stated' in the above.  Yes?

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...