How do YOU handle limitations that are advantageous?

[unclevlad]

Another option would be to define the additional impact in some other ways:

 

--+Nd6 Blast, NND, does Body, defense is don't be the critter type.  More than 2d6 would seem VERY powerful.  0 END again, but you get to toss on No Range and OAF, so it's not too bad on cost, but it's definitely more.  It has the advantage of fitting the notion;  if you hit something with an enchantment specifically targeting that kind of critter, it SHOULD hurt.

 

--You could incorporate something like armor piercing;  the problem is, in principle, your STR typically doesn't have armor piercing, so the DCs added by STR have to be recomputed to account for that.  That's less than ideal.  I might try going with the AP being a +1/2 advantage for the weapon, and saying that does NOT lower the additional damage from STR or martial arts DCs or skill levels added to damage.  Or that might be too much of a mess, and not go this route.

 

--If some monster types use notable Damage Negation, the enhancement could be targeted Reduced Negation.  It won't always help, tho, if sometimes the type has DN and other times not.

[massey]

Of course it's a limitation.  Don't be ridiculous.

 

Bob the Paladin with his Holy Sword is walking through the dungeon.  Out of the darkness, a creature attacks him.  Is it evil?  If it's not, he's going to be wasting his attacks.  Do you want to be involved in a life or death combat, and you don't even know if your weapon will affect your opponent?  You aren't going to know until you spend actions swinging on him.  And depending on the special effect of your sword, you might not even get immediate feedback that your sword isn't affecting it.  If it just bounces off the creature's armored hide, did it do so because it's not evil, or because you just didn't do enough damage?  You could easily spend a full turn getting the crap beaten out of you before you figure out that your sword can't hurt the creature.

 

Again, you guys are imagining some scenario where the player runs around stabbing random people to determine if they're evil or not.  And you're using that (what would basically be a 1 point power, as I demonstrated) to justify calling it an advantage.  "Oh, but the player could swing his sword around inside an elevator without worrying about hurting his friends..."  Pfft.  Like that'll happen.

 

This is at least a -1 limitation.

[MrAgdesh]

On 10/22/2020 at 10:11 PM, dougmacd said:

Or if you're hung up on the Evil part, how about a different limitation: "Only affects individuals wearing black clothing"?

 

 

In GothWorld this is worth +0.

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, massey said:

Of course it's a limitation.  Don't be ridiculous.

 

Bob the Paladin with his Holy Sword is walking through the dungeon.  Out of the darkness, a creature attacks him.  Is it evil?  If it's not, he's going to be wasting his attacks.  Do you want to be involved in a life or death combat, and you don't even know if your weapon will affect your opponent?  You aren't going to know until you spend actions swinging on him.  And depending on the special effect of your sword, you might not even get immediate feedback that your sword isn't affecting it.  If it just bounces off the creature's armored hide, did it do so because it's not evil, or because you just didn't do enough damage?  You could easily spend a full turn getting the crap beaten out of you before you figure out that your sword can't hurt the creature.

 

Again, you guys are imagining some scenario where the player runs around stabbing random people to determine if they're evil or not.  And you're using that (what would basically be a 1 point power, as I demonstrated) to justify calling it an advantage.  "Oh, but the player could swing his sword around inside an elevator without worrying about hurting his friends..."  Pfft.  Like that'll happen.

 

This is at least a -1 limitation.

 

Actually, you're making a stronger argument that trying to apply the limitation to the entire damage is nonsensical, IMO.

[Duke Bushido]

16 hours ago, unclevlad said:

Another option would be to define the additional impact in some other ways:

 

--+Nd6 Blast, NND, does Body, defense is don't be the critter type.  More than 2d6 would seem VERY powerful.  0 END again, but you get to toss on No Range and OAF, so it's not too bad on cost, but it's definitely more.  It has the advantage of fitting the notion;  if you hit something with an enchantment specifically targeting that kind of critter, it SHOULD hurt.

 

This is much more palatable to me, but I've already made my own suggestion.

 

Let's see if we can get the two camps to cooperate:

 

What's the value of the Limitation "doesn't affect good people or teammates?"

 

 

[unclevlad]

22 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Let's see if we can get the two camps to cooperate:

 

What's the value of the Limitation "doesn't affect good people or teammates?"

 

 

Applied to what power?

 

Because if it's on, let's say, a Holy Word like spell...let's say, Blast, with AP, AoE Radius 8 meters...suddenly it's just gained a very nice form of Selective.  The fact that it won't work against some things is more than offset by how it does work.

 

On a single-target Blast or RKA, I honestly wouldn't make it more than -1/4, on the premise that this is what you're looking to fight anyway.  However, this'd also depend on other factors.  Does the character have other, readily available options?  Or is this notably restricting his options, and thereby tying up a significant number of character points?  This might be worth nothing, for example, if trying to satisfy a Variable Limitations, or possibly a fair bit more in a D&D-ish situation with fixed, hard to change charges.

[Duke Bushido]

Let's go way, way out on a limb here and assume I'm talking about the same weapon we've been discussing for a page-and-a-half now.    

[steriaca]

Sometimes you feel like Giorno Giovanni, who hates to repeat himself because it is mudda, mudda mudda mudda.

 

Mudda = useless.

[Duke Bushido]

42 minutes ago, steriaca said:

Sometimes you feel like Giorno Giovanni, who hates to repeat himself because it is mudda, mudda mudda mudda.

 

Mudda = useless.

 

Somwtimes its because your Internet is down and your stuck using the teeny-tiny keypad on a phone.   

 

 

[pinecone]

On 10/21/2020 at 4:05 PM, dougmacd said:

So I was thinking about limitations that technically make a power not work on a whole class of things -- limiting! -- but in practice are always to the player's benefit.  For example:

 

Discount Blade of Zz'ria - 2d6 HKA, OAF (-1), Only affects evil (-1)

 

Putting aside the numeric value of the limitation (which obviously depends on the morality the campaign), you can see how this limitation isn't very limiting.  Captain Goode was never going to use it on a good person, but now she doesn't actually have to be careful: "Ah, Growing Red wasn't affected by my blade; he must not be a bad guy after all!"  If the blade is stolen by her nemesis Hauptmann Schlecht, she can't be cut by it. If she's mind controlled, she doesn't have to worry about using it against her allies. And so on.

 

I'm curious how you folks would model this (and these sorts of "limitations" in general). Do you just make the limitation worth 0?  Put on advantages to reflect the uses above (and if so, how do you decide much are those advantages worth)? Maybe use a simple naked advantage and limit that appropriately?

 

 

Doug

(You can see the inspiring weapon about halfway down https://uncannyxmen.net/characters/kylun; the new guy tries to decapitate poor Nightcrawler, but the sword passes harmlessly through his neck.)

Hero dogma 101 "If it is an advantage, it is an advantage" At Best it is worth No points as "not a dis-ad"

[unclevlad]

I think we have a solid consensus that we have no agreement whatsoever on what it's worth.

 

The discussion of the applicability to other powers is trying to dislodge the mechanical thinking that it's a big disadvantage due to its relatively narrow applicability.  That's a shallow argument, IMO.

[Grailknight]

45 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

I think we have a solid consensus that we have no agreement whatsoever on what it's worth.

 

The discussion of the applicability to other powers is trying to dislodge the mechanical thinking that it's a big disadvantage due to its relatively narrow applicability.  That's a shallow argument, IMO.

 

I still think we need more information from the OP. Mainly,  how does the detection work? Is it subjective or absolute? Infallible or capable of error?  A Power/Skill of the weapon or the wielder?  Does it affect objects? We've been speculating but you're right, we can't come to a consensus because we still aren't certain what we're building.

[steriaca]

2 hours ago, Grailknight said:

 

I still think we need more information from the OP. Mainly,  how does the detection work? Is it subjective or absolute? Infallible or capable of error?  A Power/Skill of the weapon or the wielder?  Does it affect objects? We've been speculating but you're right, we can't come to a consensus because we still aren't certain what we're building.

I'm certain of what the OP asked. It is not my fault that he didn't ask it correctly.

 

It is a limitation because it limits the targets which can be affected by the power. It doesn't matter if the player of that character only uses it when he is sure it will work or not. Bullshit like "it's an advantage cause it can't be used against the heros or the user" is not nessisary a given.

 

Now how much that limitation is worth depends on certain things. Does supernatural evil exist? Does it affect the insane? Does the character have the ability to tell who is good and who is evil? Note: stabbing people with the sword to tell who is what is not the way. In fact, the sword might just turn on the character, cause stabbing people, even if the good can't be harmed, is an evil act.

 

I would say in a normal campaign, without a way to tell who is good or evil, and that supernatural evil exists but your more likely to face VIPER agents than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, then I'll have to give it a -1. But as a game master I make sure to work into the campaign DEMON, Black Palidan, Tailsman, etc, to the game world and campaign.

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, steriaca said:

I'm certain of what the OP asked. It is not my fault that he didn't ask it correctly.

 

It is a limitation because it limits the targets which can be affected by the power. It doesn't matter if the player of that character only uses it when he is sure it will work or not. Bullshit like "it's an advantage cause it can't be used against the heros or the user" is not nessisary a given.

 

Now how much that limitation is worth depends on certain things. Does supernatural evil exist? Does it affect the insane? Does the character have the ability to tell who is good and who is evil? Note: stabbing people with the sword to tell who is what is not the way. In fact, the sword might just turn on the character, cause stabbing people, even if the good can't be harmed, is an evil act.

 

I would say in a normal campaign, without a way to tell who is good or evil, and that supernatural evil exists but your more likely to face VIPER agents than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, then I'll have to give it a -1. But as a game master I make sure to work into the campaign DEMON, Black Palidan, Tailsman, etc, to the game world and campaign.

 

I see a few common threads emerging which I concur with, and steriaca touches on most of them here.

 

By default, the attack works on anyone the character targets and hits.  He can already choose not to attack some targets.  He is limiting viable targets, and that means there is a limitation.  Now we need to value it.

 

The question is how often he will target, or will wish he could target, someone or something that the KA will not work on,  That depends on exactly who it will, and will not, work on, which the player needs to detail.  Object, automatons, animals, entities that believe they are doing good/evil ("this is necessary for my people to survive"), entities that believe they are doing evil ("even if it meant I would starve, I should never have eaten an animal - truly I am irredeemably Evil").  It requires defining exactly what is, and is not, "evil" for this purpose.

 

Next, the GM has to assess how common that "evil" will be in his game.  That may be active ("I have ten years of games planned out, so based on that, your limitation is worth -1/2") or passive ("he took a -1 limitation, so I need to work in a lot of situations where there is a target he'd like to use the sword on, but it won't work").

 

In the course of this, we need to talk to the player - how do you envision this working?  How will your character use the sword?  Don't speculate - ASK the player.  "You don't plan on just randomly stabbing people to figure out who is evil, I hope."  If he does, maybe we need a discussion on campaign tone more than we need a discussion over differentiating a -1/4 and a -2 limitation.

 

Overall, the GM and the player need to get on the same page and understand the vision of this ability FIRST.  Then we can scope out how it interacts with the specific campaign SECOND.  Mechanical design is the THIRD step.

 

Many players, and even Hero posters, are used to games that will have "Weapon Property:  Only Works on Evil Things" already priced out on a list of other abilities.  In those games, the game designer has already set a campaign structure, so he knows how common "evil" will be.  The writeup of the property will (if done well) explain who it will, and will not, damage, and may even discuss the ramifications of random stabbings to determine alignment.  The game designer already has HIS vision for how this will work, so he will design the mechanics around that, and that is what you get. 

 

You wanted a different vision?

 

Welcome to Hero, my friend, where you get to design YOUR vision.  But that means you have to go through all of those steps above, because in Hero, YOU - the player and the GM - are the game designer.  Hero just gives you the tools to build your design, and realize your vision.

[Grailknight]

9 hours ago, steriaca said:

I'm certain of what the OP asked. It is not my fault that he didn't ask it correctly.

 

It is a limitation because it limits the targets which can be affected by the power. It doesn't matter if the player of that character only uses it when he is sure it will work or not. Bullshit like "it's an advantage cause it can't be used against the heros or the user" is not nessisary a given.

 

Now how much that limitation is worth depends on certain things. Does supernatural evil exist? Does it affect the insane? Does the character have the ability to tell who is good and who is evil? Note: stabbing people with the sword to tell who is what is not the way. In fact, the sword might just turn on the character, cause stabbing people, even if the good can't be harmed, is an evil act.

 

I would say in a normal campaign, without a way to tell who is good or evil, and that supernatural evil exists but your more likely to face VIPER agents than the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, then I'll have to give it a -1. But as a game master I make sure to work into the campaign DEMON, Black Palidan, Tailsman, etc, to the game world and campaign.

 

I'm glad you know exactly what the OP wants but why do you then say you need more information to determine the value of the Limitation?

 

And don't you think it would be an Advantage if the sword whispered a warning  to the PC about a disguised demon that had infiltrated his allies without triggering any alarms or suspicion?

 

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

 

I see a few common threads emerging which I concur with, and steriaca touches on most of them here.

 

By default, the attack works on anyone the character targets and hits.  He can already choose not to attack some targets.  He is limiting viable targets, and that means there is a limitation.  Now we need to value it.

 

The question is how often he will target, or will wish he could target, someone or something that the KA will not work on,  That depends on exactly who it will, and will not, work on, which the player needs to detail.  Object, automatons, animals, entities that believe they are doing good/evil ("this is necessary for my people to survive"), entities that believe they are doing evil ("even if it meant I would starve, I should never have eaten an animal - truly I am irredeemably Evil").  It requires defining exactly what is, and is not, "evil" for this purpose.

 

Next, the GM has to assess how common that "evil" will be in his game.  That may be active ("I have ten years of games planned out, so based on that, your limitation is worth -1/2") or passive ("he took a -1 limitation, so I need to work in a lot of situations where there is a target he'd like to use the sword on, but it won't work").

 

In the course of this, we need to talk to the player - how do you envision this working?  How will your character use the sword?  Don't speculate - ASK the player.  "You don't plan on just randomly stabbing people to figure out who is evil, I hope."  If he does, maybe we need a discussion on campaign tone more than we need a discussion over differentiating a -1/4 and a -2 limitation.

 

Overall, the GM and the player need to get on the same page and understand the vision of this ability FIRST.  Then we can scope out how it interacts with the specific campaign SECOND.  Mechanical design is the THIRD step.

 

Many players, and even Hero posters, are used to games that will have "Weapon Property:  Only Works on Evil Things" already priced out on a list of other abilities.  In those games, the game designer has already set a campaign structure, so he knows how common "evil" will be.  The writeup of the property will (if done well) explain who it will, and will not, damage, and may even discuss the ramifications of random stabbings to determine alignment.  The game designer already has HIS vision for how this will work, so he will design the mechanics around that, and that is what you get. 

 

You wanted a different vision?

 

Welcome to Hero, my friend, where you get to design YOUR vision.  But that means you have to go through all of those steps above, because in Hero, YOU - the player and the GM - are the game designer.  Hero just gives you the tools to build your design, and realize your vision.

 

 

And the devil is in those  details. Which is why we need specific info from the OP.

 

I'm not saying  that it isn't a Limitation, I'm just saying that we need to get more information so we can properly go through your 3 steps for designing the power. 

 

Suppose the (in this example sentient) sword cuts supernatural evils and mundane objects like a supercharged lightsaber but normally has no effect on non-capital "E" evil people at all, passing harmlessly through them.  It will slice up the hired goons' weapons, but if they gang tackle and pummel you with their bare hands, then you better get your inner Batman going or else. But it will work on an attacker who is making a conscious choice to do evil in the moment even though it couldn't before the act  nor will it in the future if that person is stopped from falling from grace 

 

So how would you write up this example from a recent work of fiction? 

[steriaca]

A whispered warning is another power (Enhanced Senses: Detect Evil) and not an advantage on the sword.

 

As for the knowing what the OP wants, that is based upon the original post. Like I said, it doesn't affect the value because that has to be discussed between the player and game master. If it was just me, as the game master, I would value it as -1.

 

By the way, I like the sword whispering the fact on what is evil to the user. If it does so at command it is a power.

 

Have you ever thought of creating the sword as a computer, and buying that power on the computer's sheat with "Usable By Others"?

 

Welcome to the Hero System, where the list of building stuff outnumbers the fingers on your hand.

[dougmacd]

The original question was "How do YOU handle limitations that are advantageous?"  Some people addressed it directly, while others focused on trying to model the blades specifically. As there has been increasing complaints about a lack of details from me, I WILL BRING ON THE DETAILS!

 

(Many apologies.)

 

There is no campaign or players.  This is a thought experiment. ("So I was thinking about limitations...")

I only included the power build as a way to frame the question. As such, I don't particularly care about the specific definition of Evil beyond the following scenarios:

• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming an innocent (using the example of "Growing Red")
• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming a teammate ("If she's mind controlled, she doesn't have to worry about using it against her allies")
• Character doesn't have to worry about the focus being used against herself. ("If the blade is stolen by her nemesis...")

Why I consider it advantageous:

• Even a character with the Psychological Complication: Protect the Innocent (VCom, Tot) will start cutting them down when Mind Controlled at EGO+30.  But you can't be forced to use this weapon that way.
• Even though it's ostensibly a universal focus, it can't be used by "bad guys" against the "good guys".
• It could almost be considered a naked Personal Immunity, Usable On Others that the owner, teammates, and all other innocents get for free.

In retrospect, maybe I should have presented it as a vote:

• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth less, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth zero, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" is fine, but you also need to add advantages (e.g., Trigger)
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be built differently to avoid the advantageous uses (e.g., something involving Personal Immunity)
• The advantageous uses of "Only affects X" do not warrant a change to the limitation's value

However, I'm happy with this being a open-ended conversation. I've read a bunch of interesting ideas I don't I would have seen, had I presented it this way.

 

 

Doug

[massey]

A personal focus doesn't cost any more than a universal focus.  Keep that in mind.

[archer]

3 hours ago, dougmacd said:

The original question was "How do YOU handle limitations that are advantageous?"  Some people addressed it directly, while others focused on trying to model the blades specifically. As there has been increasing complaints about a lack of details from me, I WILL BRING ON THE DETAILS!

 

(Many apologies.)

 

There is no campaign or players.  This is a thought experiment. ("So I was thinking about limitations...")

I only included the power build as a way to frame the question. As such, I don't particularly care about the specific definition of Evil beyond the following scenarios:

• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming an innocent (using the example of "Growing Red")
• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming a teammate ("If she's mind controlled, she doesn't have to worry about using it against her allies")
• Character doesn't have to worry about the focus being used against herself. ("If the blade is stolen by her nemesis...")

Why I consider it advantageous:

• Even a character with the Psychological Complication: Protect the Innocent (VCom, Tot) will start cutting them down when Mind Controlled at EGO+30.  But you can't be forced to use this weapon that way.
• Even though it's ostensibly a universal focus, it can't be used by "bad guys" against the "good guys".
• It could almost be considered a naked Personal Immunity, Usable On Others that the owner, teammates, and all other innocents get for free.

In retrospect, maybe I should have presented it as a vote:

• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth less, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth zero, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" is fine, but you also need to add advantages (e.g., Trigger)
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be built differently to avoid the advantageous uses (e.g., something involving Personal Immunity)
• The advantageous uses of "Only affects X" do not warrant a change to the limitation's value

However, I'm happy with this being a open-ended conversation. I've read a bunch of interesting ideas I don't I would have seen, had I presented it this way.

 

 

Doug

 

Don't worry about the lack of details in the original post. You provided more than many people who have a question do.

 

I'll stand by my response to your original post of treating it like a -1/2 limitation for a four-color superhero world which works like I outlined on the previous page.

 

Now responding to the conversation everyone else is having while including your first and second more detailed explanations:

 

 

With the campaign is focused around fighting evil in a not necessarily four-color environment, I'd count it as a +1 advantage.

 

Having it as an OAF means friends or civilians could pick it up and use it without fear of accidentally hurting anyone who they don't want hurt.

 

If the bad guy uses a Takeaway maneuver, he's holding an OAF which does him absolutely no good because he can't use it against you, your friends, or bystanders.

 

Someone else can take it, even for several game sessions. But it only does them any good unless they are pursuing the agenda of the PC.

.

.

The PC never has to worry about damaging someone who doesn't need damaging which takes away a hell of a lot of gray area which the GM could use to play with. The PC never has to worry about the person he's attacking being an innocent who's being mind controlled and stuck into a bad guy costume so the PC gets stuck with a murder rap by the police (someone will have to refresh my memory about what that gambit is called).

 

In theory, the PC and his teammate could kidnap anyone they're even vaguely suspicious of and try to use the OAF against him. If it works, the person is guaranteed to be evil. At SOME point, it's going to occur to the heroes that they could short-circuit the whole adventure and use that as a shortcut. Then as a GM, you're going to have to worry every adventure that the stealth PC is going to sneak into every NPC's bedroom and stab them just to see if they're evil and try to plan around what you're going to do if they choose to do it.

 

Presumably the PC is going to have some mode of attack which isn't the OAF. Each time he's facing some opponent who isn't clearly evil, he's going to have no reason to waste his phases using the OAF on the off chance it might work.

 

Yeah, PC might face some opponent and it isn't clear whether the person is good or evil and he might waste a phase or two using the OAF if the special effects of how it works doesn't clearly display whether it worked or not. But is the PC REALLY going to pick a SFX which leaves it unclear whether the OAF worked or not? My PC's wouldn't build an OAF which left them clueless.

 

The downside to the "only affects evil" is minimal. If the PC is like Taskmaster or Deathstroke the Terminator, not being able to use his OAF sword just means he needs to use one of his other numerous weapons. If the PC is more like Silver Samurai, he's still got his martial arts, armor, and followers.

 

There's a whole lot of upside here. There's also a whole lot of GM headache here. In my games, PC's have to pay for upside and have to pay dearly for any GM headaches they buy (if I allow them to buy the headache at all).

 

Baking in the advantages, disadvantages, and headaches, that's a +1.

 

If the campaign weren't set up as "we're fighting evil" and "the PC's aren't evil", that would affect my valuations. But that was the premise which was pitched.

[Duke Bushido]

3 hours ago, archer said:

an innocent who's being mind controlled and stuck into a bad guy costume so the PC gets stuck with a murder rap by the police (someone will have to refresh my memory about what that gambit is called).

 

 

 

I couldn't tell you who first coined the term, but I believe that is one of a handful of plot-twisting devices that fall under the general title "dick move."

 

 

[steriaca]

7 hours ago, dougmacd said:

The original question was "How do YOU handle limitations that are advantageous?"  Some people addressed it directly, while others focused on trying to model the blades specifically. As there has been increasing complaints about a lack of details from me, I WILL BRING ON THE DETAILS!

 

(Many apologies.)

 

There is no campaign or players.  This is a thought experiment. ("So I was thinking about limitations...")

I only included the power build as a way to frame the question. As such, I don't particularly care about the specific definition of Evil beyond the following scenarios:

• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming an innocent (using the example of "Growing Red")
• Character doesn't have to worry about accidentally harming a teammate ("If she's mind controlled, she doesn't have to worry about using it against her allies")
• Character doesn't have to worry about the focus being used against herself. ("If the blade is stolen by her nemesis...")

Why I consider it advantageous:

• Even a character with the Psychological Complication: Protect the Innocent (VCom, Tot) will start cutting them down when Mind Controlled at EGO+30.  But you can't be forced to use this weapon that way.
• Even though it's ostensibly a universal focus, it can't be used by "bad guys" against the "good guys".
• It could almost be considered a naked Personal Immunity, Usable On Others that the owner, teammates, and all other innocents get for free.

In retrospect, maybe I should have presented it as a vote:

• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth less, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be worth zero, due to its advantageous uses
• The limitation "Only affects X" is fine, but you also need to add advantages (e.g., Trigger)
• The limitation "Only affects X" should be built differently to avoid the advantageous uses (e.g., something involving Personal Immunity)
• The advantageous uses of "Only affects X" do not warrant a change to the limitation's value

However, I'm happy with this being a open-ended conversation. I've read a bunch of interesting ideas I don't I would have seen, had I presented it this way.

 

 

Doug

It is a limitation, NOT AN ADVANTAGE. Just because there are 'advantages' doesn't make it an advantage rules wise. I say the way you explain it, -1/4 limitation. But I personally would value it at -1 because it will only cut the extremely evil. As in physical embodiments of Demons and those who sell their souls to them.

 

I know what your saying, but there is the thing that it can't be used at will. Sure, you can swing the sword any time, but it only damages evil.

 

If you want to be disarmed but your opponent can't use the power, then it is an Obvious Assesable Focus which is Personal. If the only way to remove the sword is to knock the character out, then it is an Obvious Inasessable Focus which is Personal. 

 

But why can't it be an advantage, you ask. Because limiting the target of an attack power is Always A Limitation. Now I know "a limitation which doesn't limit is not a limitation". That doesn't mean it becomes an advantage. If you don't want the sword to be taken away or disarmed, you simply do not buy it with the Focus limitation. It doesn't become an advantage all the sudden. That is by the Rules As Written. 

 

Forgive me for rambling. 

[massey]

If a GM tried to make me pay an Advantage for a weapon that only affected evil, I would leave his game.

 

No one has mentioned this, but there's an economic angle to Advantages and Limitations.  When everyone and their dog take powers with a particular Advantage or Limitation, then it's probably underpriced.  When no one ever takes it, it's overpriced.  I will take my 4D6 HKA one million times out of one million before I will take archer's 2D6 HKA "only vs evil" at a +1 Advantage.  So would every other person on this board.

[pinecone]

17 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

I couldn't tell you who first coined the term, but I believe that is one of a handful of plot-twisting devices that fall under the general title "dick move."

 

 

"Lu wears Chao's hat"?

[steriaca]

There are examples where advantages becomes limitations. Like when you choose to take Attack Versus Limited Defense and define the defense as something more common than normal. A limitation becomes an advantage like Charges, where there 0 END cost outweighs the limited ammunition factor of the attack. Besides, being able to shoot lasers for 500 times without worrying about endurance should be an advantage. 

 

Limited Power shouldn't ever be a limitation which turns into an advantage. No matter how you describe it, it is a limitation because your limiting the targets affected. Limited Power falls under two categories. Category one is who can be affected (does not affect women, only affects red haird people). Category two is when you can use it or not use it (not between 5:45 PM and 6:15 PM, only in churches and synagogues). One affects who is affected. The other affects where and/or when it can affect.

[phydaux]

On 10/21/2020 at 7:44 PM, dmjalund said:

depends on the definition of evil. Can one be truly evil if one is nice to ones mother? how about if they treat hostages with respect?

 

some would say only demons and devils are truly evil.

 

also monsters - especially non-intelligent monsters) are merely following instincts. Does this make them evil?

And Hitler loved his dogs.  

 

But yeah, it's a -1/4 at best.