Extra Limbs

[Ninja-Bear]

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

This reminds me of the warning on how some people will take a disadvantage no hand but try to get points for each finger.

[Lucius]

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

I tend to see STR as having Variable Point of Origin by default.

 

You can do damage with a punch, elbow strike, head butt, kick, knee kick....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Variable Palindromedary of Origin

[steriaca]

I tend to see STR as having Variable Point of Origin by default.

 

You can do damage with a punch, elbow strike, head butt, kick, knee kick....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Variable Palindromedary of Origin

Strength itself needs no Variable Orgin Point. But Hand To Hand Attack and Killing Attack - Hand To Hand does. Just look at Cooper Mason.

[Ninja-Bear]

I tend to see STR as having Variable Point of Origin by default.

 

You can do damage with a punch, elbow strike, head butt, kick, knee kick....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Variable Palindromedary of Origin

Maybe not strength per se but I think I put it on a hka for a lion so he can hold you with front paws and rake you with the rear ones.

[Christopher R Taylor]

I think you could make an argument for point of origin for powers defaulting to any and it being a limitation that it can only come from one location (or focus).  That is, The Human Torch can fire blasts out of his toes, but Cyclops has to use his eyes.  Sort of a minor variant of "restrainable" instead of an advantage of flexibility.

[Cantriped]

The rules do indicate that you have to define an origin point when you purchase a power (such as hands, eyes, etc), but that rule gets fudged a lot (much like the rules for perceivability do). Because they've never been worked into any of the standard formats for writing powers I think lots of people just forget that Point of Origin and Perceivability even exist.

 

Point of Origin does totally function as a kind of faux Restrainable though; for example, if you have Heat Vision the rules indicate that you should not be able to use it to free yourself if your hands are tied behind your back (CC 42). 

[DasBroot]

I lean towards giving alterable point of origin on strength dice alone attacks (naked adder?) as GM because even normal people are hardly out of the fight because you grab two limbs (their arms) - they'll kick, step, smash you into a wall, headbutt, knee, elbow, or even bite ... all of which are capable of exerting a great deal of 'strength'.  This means in my game if you want to take someone out of the fight entirely you're going to have to take the penalty to grab four limbs instead (or more if they have extra limbs - to tie this tangent back to the topic)

 

It's mechanically close to using multiple officers subdue a suspect this way - they use Teamwork for the OCV bonus to get the more difficult grab off.

 

Hand attacks of all flavors and martial arts are where origin points come in for melee - if you want to flame up your knee instead of a fist when grabbed you'll have to pay a small cost.  And honestly that's mostly to throw ranged a bone (themetically, there should be a small cost involved in changing your fist based fire blast to a dragon's breath weapon because your arms got grabbed).

[Cantriped]

Your Strength is technically a Characteristic, not a power (even though you can purchase characteristics as powers). So I don't think you should actually have to define a point of origin for your Strength, any more than you should have to define a point of origin for your BODY and STUN scores. Even if you did, there are some game elements for which defining a point of origin would be contrary to the mechanics of the power. For example, defining the point of origin for Resistant Protection in pointless because it protects your entire being unless otherwise noted (regardless of its defined point of origin).

I think in this case the intent of the rule is to add flavor and reasonable restrictions to the use of Attack Powers (and other Effects you project from your character), not to Point-Tax characters unnecessarily.

[Hugh Neilson]

It can be both.

“Inherent” and purchased through a focus.

 

This is where we see the difference between the Complete rules (where explanatory notes thought to be sufficiently obvious that they did not need to be explicitly stated) and the full 6e (where no such assumptions are made). From the FULL 6e rules, V1, p 334 an inherent power must:

 

 

if applicable have the Limitation Always On.

 

The Always On limitation applies only where it is, in fact, limiting. So the limitation would not be applicable if the inability to shut off the power would not be limiting. That does not mean that an Inherent ability can be shut down at will. It means you get no points back for being unable to shut it off. Of course, we always have GM discretion:

 

 

At the GM’s option, a character with an Inherent Power might be able to turn the power

“off” temporarily by paying END. For example, a ghost with Inherent Desolidification might be

able to assume corporeal form for short periods by paying END. The END cost for doing this should vary, but should be expensive enough that the character cannot keep the power turned off for more than about a Turn.

 

Putting down the four leaf clover seems far less imposing than spending END so rapidly as to be exhausted in a turn.

 

We can also look to Always On, which suggests that, if the character can turn the power off, say at 5x END, needing a focus, and/or having to concentrate to do so, a reduced variant of the limitation might be reasonable. But, on p 367, we should also note”

 

 

Characters cannot have conditional Always On powers (such as “Always On at night”); they should construct such a power with the Limited Power Limitation. Nor can characters buy Always On powers through a Focus, or with any other Power Modifier the GM believes is inconsistent with the concept of the power always being active.

 

So a power meeting the preconditions to be inherent cannot be purchased through a focus. Since a power which meets the preconditions to be Inherent cannot be purchased through a focus, it follows that a power which is Inherent cannot be purchased through a focus.

 

So no, it cannot be both.

 

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.

No, the lack of exposition of the implications of the various rules which combine into what makes up an "inherent power", which appears in the 6e full rules and clarifies the summarized rules in Champions Complete, is the cause of your confusion.

 

Sarcasm is an art. Like many arts, it is not appreciated by everyone. There are musical styles and humor styles I dislike - but they remain arts.

 

I am absolutely certain that it can.

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

However, it is also noteworthy that Extra Limbs do not require the Always On limitation to be Inherent (6e v1 p 224), although I attribute this more to the statement that this is because (from the same page) the ability to deactivate the Extra Limbs does not hinder the character. Given the limbs are visible, I suggest that, perhaps, it does hinder them like a Distinctive Feature, and it might be superior to suggest that they are Always On by default.

[Hugh Neilson]

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.

Perhaps it is an argument against the writeup for the assassin bug. Not having the book in front of me, I can’t speak to what it might use its extra limbs for.

 

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

I also thought of noting “similarly, as snakes are in no way limited by having no legs, this is not a complication for a snake”.

 

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).

Certainly, it indicates that the centaur is hobbled if we attack with a bolo which entangles either his front or his rear legs. Do you think he could still maintain his full running speed if one pair of legs is entangled or shackled? I think, rather, that he would be reduce to dragging himself along at a slow crawl, just like a human whose two legs are similarly impeded.

 

This highlights, however, the need to first assess “how do I envision this character’s abilities to work” and then apply the appropriate mechanics. If I Grab a human, can he still head butt or kick me? Is the same true of the character I envision? If so, Extra Limbs is not appropriate. If I consider him to have an advantage (i.e. I want an attacker to have to Grab 7 limbs, rather than 5, to completely immobilize my character), perhaps I should purchase Extra Limbs.

 

Mind you, the standard grab is noted to grab ne or two limbs, but some grab three or more (6e V2 p 65), which is not accounted for in point costs of these maneuvers.

 

Maybe not strength per se but I think I put it on a hka for a lion so he can hold you with front paws and rake you with the rear ones.

The alternative of purchasing two HKAs allows him to claw and rake at the same time without the drawbacks of Multiple Power Attack, so there are plenty of options.

[Lucius]

Certainly, it indicates that the centaur is hobbled if we attack with a bolo which entangles either his front or his rear legs. Do you think he could still maintain his full running speed if one pair of legs is entangled or shackled? I think, rather, that he would be reduce to dragging himself along at a slow crawl, just like a human whose two legs are similarly impeded.

I am impressed by your reasoning, although it occurs to me that a human with legs cuffed or grabbed would find it hard to kick, but a centaur with forelegs or backlegs so restrained would still be able to attack with the free set of hooves.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

A palindromedary is likely to kick before you get the hobbles on

[Cantriped]

Here are some relevent quotes for you Hugh; ones which support your argument (because I am perfectly capable of playing devils advocate to myself):

6e1 128: "Persistent Powers that are Always On (see 6E1 367), or which in the GM’s judgment function in a similar fashion to being Always On, can be made Inherent."

6e1 224: "Extra Limbs doesn’t require the Always On Limitation to take the Inherent Advantage. In fact, characters rarely take this Limitation for Extra Limbs, even though they can’t “turn them off,” since the inability to deactivate them doesn’t hinder the character in any way."

6e1 334: "Inherent (power must already be 0 END, Persistent, and usually Always On)" ... "A power with this +¼ Advantage, which can only be applied to Persistent Powers, is more than just Persistent... and if applicable have the Limitation Always On."

 

The first quote is actually the one most relevant to proving your argument. It is located under the rules defining Durations. In the 6th edition rules, Inherent is treated as its own Duration classification that only "Persistent Powers that are Always On" qualify for (barring GM's option). Conversely, the phrase "if applicable" is not very solid evidence because it allows for conditions under which you would not take Always On (the power being bought through a Foci being a much more obvious candidate to me than the power being Extra Limbs.

 

So given the preponderance of evidence in your favor I'll concede that for the purposes of 6th edition (but not CC/FHC) you are correct.

 

However, 6th edition isn't my primary rules reference for any number of reasons; Champions and Fantasy Hero Complete​ are, and I consider them to be a distinct, albeit very similar edition due to the sheer number of minor rules revisions that they contain.

In CC/FHC Inherent isn't a classification of Duration. It is simply an Advantage which only applies to Persistent Powers, and requires the Power be Always On if applicable​ (amongst its other mechanical effects). The requirement that a power take Always On "if applicable" is not the same thing as requiring that the power be built such that Always On is applicable to the power. The term "if applicable" is an admission that there are can be Inherent powers which do not qualify to be Always On (for whatever reason); so the fact that Focus (or Physical Manifestation) or other modifiers taken by a power might render Always On inapplicable does not also render Inherent inapplicable in CC/FHC.

[Cantriped]

Regarding Extra Limbs itself, and my Assassin Bug example; the assassin bug was simply the first example from the book. There are actually a dozen other creatures from the Hero System Bestiary which take Extra Limbs to define an unusual number of legs.

For example, Basilisk* (56), Giant Crab (69), Giant Scorpion* (160), Giant Spider (161), Monstrous Spider (162), Giant Wasp (163), Leomachus** (169), Scorpion Man* (202), Tomb Scarabs (416), Scorpion* (480), Spider (487), and the Stinging Insect Swarm (489).

*These examples also defined an extra limb (such as tail or stinger) other than their extra legs.

**The Leomachus is especially notable, because they are extremely similar to Centaurs (their top half being a man, their bottom half being a quadruped animal). Yet unlike the Centaur, the Leomachus did take Extra Limbs.

 

Tangent: Another notable example which supports one of your earlier points Hugh: The Chimpanzee (442) took Extra Limbs simply to define its feet as being usable as hands.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Once someone is grabbed, by any number of limbs, they are at best slowed if not stopped in their place, so the centaur's legs being restrained doesn't really deal with extra limbs.  If I grab your arm i can stop you from running away, that doesn't mean you don't have legs.

[dsatow]

Once someone is grabbed, by any number of limbs, they are at best slowed if not stopped in their place, so the centaur's legs being restrained doesn't really deal with extra limbs.  If I grab your arm i can stop you from running away, that doesn't mean you don't have legs.

 

For 90% of the time, I'd agree.  But the GM can always rule your movement is not slowed.  As an example, if Batman grabs the arms of a Superman, this doesn't mean Superman can't just walk around normally unencumbered.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Sure, but whether he will or not is a question of strength and leverage, not extra limbs or not..  The basic principle is in the rules: being grabbed hinders movement even if you buy extra limbs.  Spidey can keep Doc Ock from running away by grabbing just one limb.  So the centaur argument of slowing a horse down with grab on just 4 legs doesn't really apply.

[Cantriped]

It is true that the rules for Grab don't actually care how many limbs the target has for the purposes of determining whether or not they can move (the target cannot use any more of movement while grabbed, except to use Teleport to escape the grab). However, whether or not the target purchases Extra Limbs can determine how many limbs the attacker must be able to grab (and immobilize) in order to prevent the target from retaliating.

A normal character, or a Centaur which foolishly didn't buy Extra Limbs to represent its hind legs, has five limbs with which they can retaliate (1 Head, 2 Arms, and 2 Legs). Meaning you need to make a Multiple Attack Grab (Requiring 4 consecutive successful Attack Rolls at -6 OCV, in addition to the Grab Modifiers)* in order to completely immobilize the target.

*because each limb after the second counts as a separate attack.

The Leomachus, who did buy Extra Limbs to represent its hind legs, has seven limbs with which they can retaliate; increasing the Multiple Attack Grab penalties described above to requiring 6 consecutive successful Attack Rolls at -10 OCV, in addition to the Grab Modifiers.

[Ninja-Bear]

Sure, but whether he will or not is a question of strength and leverage, not extra limbs or not.. The basic principle is in the rules: being grabbed hinders movement even if you buy extra limbs. Spidey can keep Doc Ock from running away by grabbing just one limb. So the centaur argument of slowing a horse down with grab on just 4 legs doesn't really apply.

I disagree with your logic here. Extra limbs do affect if you can move or not. Why do you think that there are rules in Marta arts books which tell you how sweep with a grab? And part of the modifiers are determined if your grab based on how many limbs your grab is bought to grab?

[Ninja-Bear]

double post

[Christopher R Taylor]

I disagree with your logic here. Extra limbs do affect if you can move or not.

 

 

They do but my point is in response to this comment:

 

Certainly, it indicates that the centaur is hobbled if we attack with a bolo which entangles either his front or his rear legs. Do you think he could still maintain his full running speed if one pair of legs is entangled or shackled? I think, rather, that he would be reduce to dragging himself along at a slow crawl, just like a human whose two legs are similarly impeded.

 

 

I disagree, because the number of limbs doesn't change whether someone can be hobbled by a grab or not.

[Hugh Neilson]

I am impressed by your reasoning, although it occurs to me that a human with legs cuffed or grabbed would find it hard to kick, but a centaur with forelegs or backlegs so restrained would still be able to attack with the free set of hooves.

Two issues here.

 

First, the Grabbed human can still head butt or kick as well. Second, and perhaps more importantly, Extra Limbs costs 5 points whether you have one Extra Limb or 100 - the difficulty in Grabbing all limbs has increased markedly, but the cost not at all. Based on this, I do not think the cost of Extra Limbs relates to the marginally increased difficulty of Grabbing all limbs.

 

 

However, 6th edition isn't my primary rules reference for any number of reasons; Champions and Fantasy Hero Complete​ are, and I consider them to be a distinct, albeit very similar edition due to the sheer number of minor rules revisions that they contain.

I cannot speak for FHC. When Derek wrote CC, however, his view was that he was abbreviating, but not changing, the 6e rules, with the sole exception of removing Classes of Mind. With this in mind, any interpretation of the RAW (which I believe arises because, being shorter, they will necessarily be less clear in some places) which is inconsistent with the greater details in the 2 volume detailed rules is not the RAI of CC. I am not sure whether the author of FHC has ever stated his intent vis a vis the 6e rules, so FHC may be different in its intent.

 

As to "Always on, if applicable", taken in context I consider it best interpreted as "where this would be limiting, Always On must be taken as a limitation, and where it would not, the ability must be Always on despite the lack of any limitation" rather than "you can choose any power construct, whether or not Always On, and make it inherent". The latter indicates that reference to Always On is meaningless.

 

Regarding Extra Limbs itself, and my Assassin Bug example; the assassin bug was simply the first example from the book. There are actually a dozen other creatures from the Hero System Bestiary which take Extra Limbs to define an unusual number of legs.

 

For example, Basilisk* (56), Giant Crab (69), Giant Scorpion* (160), Giant Spider (161), Monstrous Spider (162), Giant Wasp (163), Leomachus** (169), Scorpion Man* (202), Tomb Scarabs (416), Scorpion* (480), Spider (487), and the Stinging Insect Swarm (489).

*These examples also defined an extra limb (such as tail or stinger) other than their extra legs.

**The Leomachus is especially notable, because they are extremely similar to Centaurs (their top half being a man, their bottom half being a quadruped animal). Yet unlike the Centaur, the Leomachus did take Extra Limbs.

Any * can be Extra Limbs - legs and tail, or merely a tail. The Crab, Spiders, Wasp, Scarabs and Swarm I believe have equal manipulation with all of their limbs. I suspect the Leomachus has claws on more than two limbs and gains the advantage of expanding its "paws" point of origin for its HKA.  

 

It is true that the rules for Grab don't actually care how many limbs the target has for the purposes of determining whether or not they can move (the target cannot use any more of movement while grabbed, except to use Teleport to escape the grab). However, whether or not the target purchases Extra Limbs can determine how many limbs the attacker must be able to grab (and immobilize) in order to prevent the target from retaliating.

As noted above, having 1 extra limb, 10, 100 or an unlimited number which can be grown and retracted at will all cost 5 points. With that in mind, I do not believe the benefit of being harder to Grab all limbs is one which is priced.

[Ninja-Bear]

I disagree, because the number of limbs doesn't change whether someone can be hobbled by a grab or not.

 

Number of limbs (and how they are defined) do affect how hobbled you are by grabs. Ever see a crab missing legs? Ever noticed it doesn't slow them down?

[Cantriped]

I cannot speak for FHC. When Derek wrote CC, however, his view was that he was abbreviating, but not changing, the 6e rules, with the sole exception of removing Classes of Mind.

That may well have been his goal, but he failed to achieve it. CC/FHC fail the basic litmus test of backwards compatibility with 6th edition; if you cannot take any given game construct (such as an automaton, base, character, vehicle or object) built in one 'ruleset', and use it in the other without modification (and still have it be legal) than they are not members of the same 'ruleset'.

 

Just by removing Classes of Minds and imploding Categorized Skills (not to mention the numerous minor changes made to the definitions of Game Elements) the authors have already made sufficient changes to the previous edition of the ruleset to render CC/FHC their own distinct edition of the ruleset (once again, albeit one that is extremely similar to the previous edition). CC/FHC are members of the "Hero System Sixth Edition" ruleset in name only, a thinly vailed ploy to make us believe our copies of Champions Powers and the Hero System Grimoire​ weren't being rendered obsolete if we chose to use CC/FHC as our primary rules references.

 

Personally I don't view it as a failing of CC/FHC that they are their own distinct edition. I see it as a positive feature, and vastly prefer them to the organizational clusterfucks that are the Sixth Edition Core Rulebooks.

[Ninja-Bear]

Cantriped you really think that changing class of minds and imploding skills vastly change functionality between 6th and CC? I'm not buying it. Btw then by your logic then you can't lump CC together with FHC because they are different authors hence different "editions".

 

CC and FHC are in the same boat as 6th Basic (though they come with more rules). They are a subset of 6th.

[Cantriped]

I'm not unused to holding an unpopular opinion, and everything I write isn't quoted or cited is just that, an opinion. 

Technically they aren't the same edition (CC & FHC that is), in that they also fail the compatibility litmus test. However, except for those things which were omited in one book or included in another they are otherwise almost identical word for word (unlike CC/FHC and 6th edition, whose RAW sometimes contradict one another). So I prefer to think of both of them as subsets of the "Hero System Complete" ruleset, with built-in genre-appropriate supplemental rules.