Extra Limbs

[Cantriped]

Oh he was:

 

Extra Limbs  (2), Inherent (+1/4) (6 Active Points); OIF (-1/2)

Which isn't exactly a problem, the two modifiers are legally combinable. It just isn't the most tactically sound construct because Inherent only prevents the power from being affected by Drain/Dispel Extra Limbs, meanwhile Focus makes the power susceptible to Normal/Killing Damage and Drain BODY (which are much, much more common).

[Ninja-Bear]

Oh he was:

Which isn't exactly a problem, the two modifiers are legally combinable. It just isn't the most tactically sound construct because Inherent only prevents the power from being affected by Drain/Dispel Extra Limbs, meanwhile Focus makes the power susceptible to Normal/Killing Damage and Drain BODY (which are much, much more common).

It is a problem. Inherent is not to be used with focus.

[Cantriped]

Can you cite evidence from the RAW for that assertion Ninja-Bear?

None of the RAW* I have access to says anything of the sort. The RAW never explicitly says you cannot combine Inherent with Focus**. It is only implied that they would commonly be incompatible by virtue of their suggested special effects... but the actual special effect of a game element is defined by the purchaser of the game element, not the ruleset (its one of the core principles of the Hero System that makes it better than every other system in existance).

*(see Inherent: 6e1 334; CC 107; FHC 127)

**(If it did, 6e1 would have explicitly mentioned it in the text for either Inherent or Focus, and in CC/FHC Inherent would have an Applies To entry along the lines of "Persistent Powers not bought through a Focus" instead of "Persistent Powers"

[Christopher R Taylor]

I can't point to a rule but they seem to do opposite things: one makes a power unremovable, the other makes it easier to remove.

[Cantriped]

Not opposite* so much as counterproductive. Which is why I stated above that is wasn't a tactically sound decision; given that the character would effectively just be trading one rare set of susceptibilities for another much more common set. However, the rules don't require we make sound decisions, just that we pay an appropriate opportunity cost for the decisions that we make.

 

*Opposite would be more like trying to take Reduce Endurance Cost and Increased Endurance Cost, or No Range and Line of Sight, on the same power. Thankfully almost every directly opposite combination of Game Elements I can think of is already explicitly prohibited in 6e/CC/FHC.

[Ninja-Bear]

I can't point to a rule but they seem to do opposite things: one makes a power unremovable, the other makes it easier to remove.

It's not as definitive as in 6th but the definition of inherent is to make powers part of the character's natural form. The example is a ghost having desolid as being a ghost plus powers that cost endurance must be 0 END and I believe persistent.

[Ninja-Bear]

Can you cite evidence from the RAW for that assertion Ninja-Bear?

None of the RAW* I have access to says anything of the sort. The RAW never explicitly says you cannot combine Inherent with Focus**. It is only implied that they would commonly be incompatible by virtue of their suggested special effects... but the actual special effect of a game element is defined by the purchaser of the game element, not the ruleset (its one of the core principles of the Hero System that makes it better than every other system in existance).

*(see Inherent: 6e1 334; CC 107; FHC 127)

**(If it did, 6e1 would have explicitly mentioned it in the text for either Inherent or Focus, and in CC/FHC Inherent would have an Applies To entry along the lines of "Persistent Powers not bought through a Focus" instead of "Persistent Powers"

Yes I can. Inherent is supposed to be a part of your character such as a ghost's desolidness plus you must have it 0 end. A focus by nature can be taken away and if it can't, then by definition you shouldn't take a focus limitation. Not sure right now but I believe that the classic metal skeleton is an example of an item that isn't really a focus is in CC.

[Cantriped]

That isn't a RAW citation, that is tangential evidence based upon the suggested special effect of Inherent. Nothing in the actual RAW prevents you from defining a Power as being Inherent to the nature of a Focus, or from purchasing an Inherent ability that requires a Focus to activate. The actual mechanics of Inherent simply make Persistent Powers immune to Dispel and Suppress (and require it also take Always On if appropriate).

 

RAW Legal Examples:

A character who has immutable Combat Luck (defined as Inherent Resistant Protection) so long as he carries his Lucky Four-Leaf Clover (a Fragile IIF).

A character wearing a super-heavy Empowering Juggernaut Suit (defined as Zero END, Persistant, Inherent Density Increase bought through an Unbreakable OIF).

 

GM's Option Examples (because they ignore the 'Persistant' restriction):

A set of mechanical arms which grants Stretching as a inherent quality of their length. You can destroy the mechanical arms (via BODY damage/drain), but you should not be able to make them shorter using the same power you use to deprive Plastic-Man of his Stretching, ergo they should be Inherent.

 

A character could have a "Super-Skill" that allows them to hurl any found object with deadly accuracy. Such an ability might not able to be taken away by putting the character in Power-Draining Alien Bondage Gear, so it would be an Inherent RKA which takes OIF (Found Objects of Opportunity).

[Hugh Neilson]

I would suggest the requirement the power be "always on" precludes it being provided by a Focus - as the focus can be taken off, thereby eliminating the "always on" aspect of the power.

[Cantriped]

"..and [the power] must have the Limitation Always On​ if applicable." (CC 107)

Note the last two words in that quote. Always On is only required if it is actually applicable to the Power in question.

An Inherent Power tied to a focus is an obvious example of a situation where Always On isn't applicable; or at the very least isn't worth points (because you can simply remove the Focus to force the power to turn off).

[Surrealone]

OK so maybe a ¼ limitation?  I mean how often is the character going to have to use his ordinary arms to exert strength with, especially as they're bought inherent?

People seem to be stuck on arms.  The strongest muscles in the body in terms of ability to exert raw force ... are the leg muscles.  Those will be capped at 14 STR (plus anything pushed, of course).

 

 

 

RAW, that is correct. Which is unfortunate because Drain Extra Limbs is almost unheard of to start with (and I generally ban it outright for reasons*). Meanwhile Drain BODY is comparatively quite common (probably the most common form of Drain).

 

*The primary reason being that lots of existing builds forgot to pay the few extra points to make their inherent extra limbs actually Inherent.

Seriously, you protect builds that DID NOT pay for Inherent when they should have (i.e. builds getting something for nothing) rather than letting someone pay for an interesting and rarely-seen ability?  Why do you punish the wrong person in such a case -- i.e. the one who isn't trying (and apparently succeeding in your game) to get away with something ... by paying nothing for something???  (And if you're giving out free points to protected/pet builds that you don't charge for something they should have, then shouldn't you give an equal number of them out to everyone to avoid bias?)

[Cantriped]

Seriously, you protect builds that DID NOT pay for Inherent when they should have (i.e. builds getting something for nothing) rather than letting someone pay for an interesting and rarely-seen ability?  Why do you punish the wrong person in such a case -- i.e. the one who isn't trying (and apparently succeeding in your game) to get away with something ... by paying nothing for something???  (And if you're giving out free points to protected/pet builds that you don't charge for something they should have, then shouldn't you give an equal number of them out to everyone to avoid bias?)

That is a whole lot of aggression and accusation there! You do realize you're getting all bent out of shape about 1 CP right? So please tone it down a few notches. I can honestly say that I've never had a player ask to purchase Drain/Suppress Extra Limbs (or any other Drain/Suppress applicable to Extra Limbs. So I've never actually punished anybody though my inclination to ban it. Nor have I ever had a player purchase Extra Limbs (Inherent or otherwise). So I'm not protecting any pet-builds through my inclination to treat Extra Limbs Inherent in case an NPC build I didn't write forgot to purchase it as such either.

 

Bear in mind, my reasoning had nothing to do with players purchasing Extra Limbs. It had to do with Monsters that have Extra Limbs but might not have purchased Inherent (even though they should have). However upon scouring the Hero System Bestiary for the entries I thought I remembered; I found very few entries with Extra Limbs that weren't Inherent; the Extra Heads template on pg 30, the Amorphous Horror on pg 385, and the Giant Space Amoeba on pg 399. I also found at least one entry that should have had Extra Limbs and doesn't, the Centaur on pg 64, but the Centaur template in FHC doesn't either, so I imagine there is some logic for that which I'm missing.

All of which indicates my quoted reasoning was faulty. Perhaps if it ever came up I'd consider allowing Drain/Supress Extra Limbs, but probably not... I cannot imagine very many appropriate special effects for Extra Limbs that can be 'turned off' that would also be common enough to deserve allowing a character purchase a power dedicated to countering them.

[Ninja-Bear]

Cantriped if you can take away a four leaf clover then it isn't inherent, it's a focus.

 

And people wonder why 6th exploded with rules. (Sarcasm).

[Lucius]

I also found at least one entry that should have had Extra Limbs and doesn't, the Centaur on pg 64, but the Centaur template in FHC doesn't either, so I imagine there is some logic for that which I'm missing.

The Centaur isn't an entry that should have Extra Limbs and doesn't. That's an entry that shouldn't have Extra Limbs and doesn't.

 

The logic you're missing is that while a leg is technically a "limb" in the common sense of the word, it isn't an "Extra Limb" in Hero terms, not even one with Limited Manipulation. In fact, it's easier for a Human to pick up something with their foot than for a Centaur to pick something up with a hoof. What a Centaur has doesn't give the benefits of Extra Limbs so the Centaur doesn't have to pay just to have a differently shaped body. What benefits the Centaur does get are better represented with other Powers, like maybe Knockback Resistance.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says you get what you pay for, and if you're not getting it, you're not paying for it.

[Hugh Neilson]

"..and [the power] must have the Limitation Always On​ if applicable." (CC 107)

Note the last two words in that quote. Always On is only required if it is actually applicable to the Power in question.

An Inherent Power tied to a focus is an obvious example of a situation where Always On isn't applicable; or at the very least isn't worth points (because you can simply remove the Focus to force the power to turn off).

It is inapplicable where it would not actually be disadvantageous (where it would still apply to an Inherent power, it simply would not save any points). You can obviously make any interpretation you want in your game, but in mine (and, I suspect, several of the other posters'), "Inherent" means there is no way to shut it off because it is the character's natural state. It is even more "natural state" than base characteristics (which can be drained or suppressed). It is not a device they can don or remove at will.

 

Bear in mind, my reasoning had nothing to do with players purchasing Extra Limbs. It had to do with Monsters that have Extra Limbs but might not have purchased Inherent (even though they should have). However upon scouring the Hero System Bestiary for the entries I thought I remembered; I found very few entries with Extra Limbs that weren't Inherent; the Extra Heads template on pg 30, the Amorphous Horror on pg 385, and the Giant Space Amoeba on pg 399. I also found at least one entry that should have had Extra Limbs and doesn't, the Centaur on pg 64, but the Centaur template in FHC doesn't either, so I imagine there is some logic for that which I'm missing.

Lucius covered it - the "logic" you are missing is the Hero metarule that you pay for mechanics, not SFX. The centaur does not get the benefits of Extra Limbs, so he does not pay for Extra Limbs The X-Man Beast would pay for Extra Limbs because his feet and hands are equally useful as manipulatory limbs despite having exactly the same number of limbs as a normal human being, because he gets a benefit they do not.

[Surrealone]

That is a whole lot of aggression and accusation there! You do realize you're getting all bent out of shape about 1 CP right?

That wasn't bent out of shape, at all.  Rather, I chose my words to illustrate a point -- disallowing something by player X ... because creator Y failed/forgot to do something ... is punishment of player X while protecting creator Y for his failure.  That seems awfully backward to me.  As for 1 CP ... savvy players can do a lot with 1 CP.

 

Apologies for the digression.

[g3taso]

Seriously, you protect builds that DID NOT pay for Inherent when they should have (i.e. builds getting something for nothing) rather than letting someone pay for an interesting and rarely-seen ability?  Why do you punish the wrong person in such a case -- i.e. the one who isn't trying (and apparently succeeding in your game) to get away with something ... by paying nothing for something???  (And if you're giving out free points to protected/pet builds that you don't charge for something they should have, then shouldn't you give an equal number of them out to everyone to avoid bias?)

?

[Cantriped]

The Centaur isn't an entry that should have Extra Limbs and doesn't. That's an entry that shouldn't have Extra Limbs and doesn't.

...

There are plenty of other entries in the Bestiary that similarly gained no benefit from having an unusual number of limbs, yet they still took Extra Limbs. Such as the Assassin Bug on pg 53, which takes Extra Limbs despite all of them being legs (it also doubled up inappropriately by taking Limited Manipulation as a Modifier on its Extra Limbs, and then Very Limited Manipulation as a Complication). So I don't think that is a very good argument for Centuars not purchasing Extra Limbs as it should have. 

 

Cantriped if you can take away a four leaf clover then it isn't inherent, it's a focus.

 

And people wonder why 6th exploded with rules. (Sarcasm).

It can be both. I never said the power was granted by the focus. Not every focus is the source of the power, some foci (especially expendable foci, or foci of opportunity) are simply necessary components for activation of an ability the character possesses. In this case the power is still an Inherent part of that character's nature (you cannot drain their luck with magic). It just so happens that particular inherent part of his nature requires he have a particular type of item in order to function. Regardless, the power being an immutable natural quality of the character is simply the suggested special effect for why the power cannot be Adjusted. Inherent + Focus is perfectly legal as far as the RAW is concerned (assuming both modifiers are applied to a Persistent Power). There is simply little reason to combine them because they require very particular special effects to make sense.

 

Also your sarcasm is unwarranted, and unappreciated. I'm using Champions Complete​ ​​as my primary rules reference, which has less than half of the page count of Hero System 5th Edition Revised​ (and one-third of the page count of 6e1&2). So no 'explosion of rules' is to blame for our disagreement; we simply have a differing interpretation of what the rules we've read mean.

[Ninja-Bear]

No Cantriped it can't be both. Inherent is to make a power a natural part of the character. Focus by definition can be removed it's either accessible or inaccessible.

[Ninja-Bear]

Hugh - best explanation of extra limbs! It makes sense to me why snake characters have extra limb for tail.

[Cantriped]

No Cantriped it can't be both. Inherent is to make a power a natural part of the character. Focus by definition can be removed it's either accessible or inaccessible.

I am absolutely certain that it can. The only mechanical prerequisite to being Inherent is that the power must be Persistent. Even assuming that the power being an "natural, inherent part of the character's being" were an actual game mechanic*, and not a simply a suggested special effect for justifying why the power cannot be adjusted and must take Always On​ if applicable... There is nothing in the rules explicitly stopping you from having a natural inherent part of your being which you can only benefit from while in possession of a given object (or type of Object for Foci of Opportunity). Just like you can have a suit of Powered Armor which doesn't take Focus because the player decides that his Powered Armor cannot be damaged or taken away by any means.

*(Which it isn't, as that would be in violation of the Core Concept of Game Mechanics And Special Effects; CC 6)

 

Hugh - best explanation of extra limbs! It makes sense to me why snake characters have extra limb for tail.

Are you talking about humanoids with a tail (like stereotypical 'Lizardfolk'), or actual serpents?

Either of which is defined using the rules for building Characters ('creatures' simply being a subset of Characters which often have a more limited set of Everyman Skills). The former would most definitely take Extra Limbs (One Tail), probably with Limited Manipulation; given that they are typically allowed to make Attacks with them defined as Powers (such as a Tail Sweep HA) or using their Strength, but usually cannot wield weapons or defuse a bomb with them. The latter would not, because it has fewer limbs than a Human (which would be considered a Complication not a Power).

 

To further expound upon that reasoning, Centaurs should be taking Extra Limbs because the number of legs they possess affects the number of limbs the attacker needs to be able to Grab or Entangle completely restrain them (and thus prevent them from moving or attacking). By not taking Extra Limbs, the author is saying that you can immobilize a Centaur with just a single set of Leg-Cuffs (instead of the two sets that would realistically be required).

[Christopher R Taylor]

I do usually give Centaur extra limbs, since they can kick etc with their normal legs and still hit with human arms. I do not for, say, a giant centipede though. Those limbs aren't functional as combat implements or in any way to manipulate objects.

[steriaca]

This argument about Extra Limbs and Inherint reminds me of the phrases IYG (It's Your Game).

[Lucius]

To further expound upon that reasoning, Centaurs should be taking Extra Limbs because the number of legs they possess affects the number of limbs the attacker needs to be able to Grab or Entangle completely restrain them (and thus prevent them from moving or attacking). By not taking Extra Limbs, the author is saying that you can immobilize a Centaur with just a single set of Leg-Cuffs (instead of the two sets that would realistically be required).

I am impressed by your reasoning, and may reconsider my position in light of it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says now you have a leg to stand on.

[Ninja-Bear]

I am impressed by your reasoning, and may reconsider my position in light of it.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary says now you have a leg to stand on.

I've used the variable point of origin for stuff like that.