How do YOU handle limitations that are advantageous?

[pawsplay]

It may be sometimes advantageous. But it still limits its utility, against robots, police dogs, etc. But it's probably not worth -1/2. It affects a lot of opponents, and against other opponents, you probably still have the rest of your ability set.

[massey]

It’s worth at least a -1.  Possibly a -87.

 

Hey, this is fun, I can just spout off commandments like I am Moses with stone tablets, or Pharoah.

 

So let it be written, so let it be done.  (I think I’m going to end all of my text messages and emails this way from now on.  It sounds more official.)

[archer]

18 hours ago, massey said:

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.

 

 

Thank you.

 

You got my point.

[Hugh Neilson]

14 hours ago, pawsplay said:

It may be sometimes advantageous. But it still limits its utility, against robots, police dogs, etc. But it's probably not worth -1/2. It affects a lot of opponents, and against other opponents, you probably still have the rest of your ability set.

The fact that you spent points on other abilities does not make this one less limited.  Having a 12d6 Blast does not make a 4d6 KA cost less because you will not use it as often.  Why should it reduce a limitation value on the 4d6 KA?

[steriaca]

2 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The fact that you spent points on other abilities does not make this one less limited.  Having a 12d6 Blast does not make a 4d6 KA cost less because you will not use it as often.  Why should it reduce a limitation value on the 4d6 KA?

Quite true. It only limited that power, not all powers your character possesses. 

[Jhamin]

It sounds like we are getting into specifics.  So for what it's worth:

Samurai Jack's magic Katana had this exact limit, The sword worked fine on inanimate objects and animals, just not against the truly good.  It comes up like half a dozen times across multiple seasons of the show (Once when an evil clone tried to use it on *him*).  As such I think *he* maybe got a -1/4 for the limit.

I had a player that ran an Angelic PC for years in a Champions game that had a "smite" type power which only affected "the Guilty".  As the character was pretty christian it worked on those who were guilty in a non-denominational religious sense and it didn't work on robots or inanimate objects (Or, to her frustration a couple of zealous fanatic villains she kept running into).  She got a -1/2 on it as it affected *most* of the enemies she ran into but there were enough robots and such running around that it limited the power a fair amount.

To take another tack: In the Film Excalibur, the titular weapon shatters when King Arthur strikes Lancelot with it.  It refuses to harm a good and holy man (which Lancelot still is at this point of the story) and can only be repaired when Arthur repents for misusing the holy weapon to win a fight out of pride.  The fact that mis-using the sword can break it probably does raise this to a -1/2 or even a -1.

[steriaca]

Samurai Jack's sword does have the Limited Power limitation, but it is phrased as "Not Usable Against The Good", which in deed should be -1/4, as it does affect most everyone he comes across. The OP phrased it as similar to "Only Affects Evil", which is definitely more limited then not affecting the good. So, depending on the campaign it would be anything from a -1/2 to a -1. I don't see it at -1 and 1/2, and definitely not -2. But ultimately it is a game master's call.

 

And, of course, the game master is always free to reject the power using any reason he sees fit. From "there is no such evil beings in my universe" to "I don't want to determine the value of something today".

[pawsplay]

11 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

The fact that you spent points on other abilities does not make this one less limited.  Having a 12d6 Blast does not make a 4d6 KA cost less because you will not use it as often.  Why should it reduce a limitation value on the 4d6 KA?

 

The Charges modifier, same question. A Limitation that is less limiting is worth less of a value. If the user could purely control who was affected, that would actually be an Advantage, Selective on the Area Effect.

[Oruncrest]

4 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

The Charges modifier, same question. A Limitation that is less limiting is worth less of a value. If the user could purely control who was affected, that would actually be an Advantage, Selective on the Area Effect.

 

So if you had a character whose only means of attack had 4 charges, you'd give them an extra -1 to the limitation to compensate? Or if he had another power with 4 charges alongside the first, would you take away the -1 on both limitations because 'you can switch to the other one'? Of course you wouldn't! A limitation is valued only by the effect it has on that power (unless of course, the limitation is on a power framework, in which case, the framework is the 'power').

[Oruncrest]

And concerning the original post, while everyone else was wondering about whether or not the attack could discern between the varying shades of Gray, I was wondering how the attack is deciding whether the target is evil or good in the first place. Evil is not a Special Effect (which are observable), but a Character Alignment (which aren't).

 

If the Chris Claremont Magneto (Anti-Hero) were to fight the Grant Morrison Magneto (Mad old Terrorist T***), the MOTT! Magneto's attacks aren't going to be any different from AH! Magneto's. They shouldn't be colored differently. They won't give off any eeevil vibes. It's just magnetic attacks hurled by the same character at different points in his life.

 

The main 'advantage' of this limitation is that it's getting Detect Evil (a 12pt. power) for free.

[pawsplay]

11 hours ago, Oruncrest said:

 

So if you had a character whose only means of attack had 4 charges, you'd give them an extra -1 to the limitation to compensate? Or if he had another power with 4 charges alongside the first, would you take away the -1 on both limitations because 'you can switch to the other one'? Of course you wouldn't! A limitation is valued only by the effect it has on that power (unless of course, the limitation is on a power framework, in which case, the framework is the 'power').

 

I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

[massey]

22 hours ago, pawsplay said:

 

I honestly don't know what you're getting at here.

I think I know what he means.

 

Limitations affect powers, and should be priced based on how they affect the power they're applied to, generally without regard to other things the character can do.  For example, if Superman purchases a hang-glider (10" of Gliding, OAF bulky, big turn mode, lots of other restrictions), then he still gets the full value of the limitations on the Gliding power, even though he's got 50" of Flight x250 noncombat.  His Gliding isn't more expensive just because he's got a backup power that's just as good if not better.  He's paying points for both powers.  His limitations don't become less limiting overall just because he spent more points elsewhere.

 

If Captain Swordsman has 5 different magic swords, each with its own weird limitations (only affects evil creatures, only vs vampires, does not affect those blessed by a priest, only vs dragons, etc), it doesn't matter that he's got backup weapons.  Those limitations are still real.  He bought each of those weapons individually, and they all cost points.  He shouldn't be paying full price for 5 different swords.  That's way worse than just paying for one sword that does everything.

 

Now... there are certain circumstances where a character is obviously designed with powers that negate his limitations.  The Mind Mole has 10" of Tunneling through 10 Def material (with the ability to close the hole behind him), N-Ray Vision, and an Ego Attack.  His tactic is that he tunnels down into the ground, looks up at you through the Earth with N-Ray, and then brain-zaps you over and over again.  He has an OAF magic wand that lets him do this, and an OAF magic hat that gives him 30 points of Mental Defense.  Unless he runs into a very specific enemy build, his limitations will probably never come into play.  This is a situation in which the GM is justified in saying "I can't think of any way this limitation will ever come up, so for you it isn't worth any points".  Doctor Destroyer's powers all come through his armor, but because it can't be damaged and he never takes it off, he doesn't get any points back.

[pawsplay]

Ok, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a Limitation is generally priced according to how it affects your options. A power that harms evil, but doesn't harm non-evil, is not as limited because there are few situations where you want to harm non-evil beings but not harm evil ones. Assuming evil opponents are common in the campaign. And no, it's not really equivalent to Detect Evil, because you can't detect evil without doing some damage. That would be like saying Fiery Blast is a free detect on characters who are invulnerable to flame.

The situation "I'm being attacked by a bunch of non-evil dogs" just isn't that likely to come up, and if it does, you would employ some other tactic. In my view it's very similar to Lockout in that respect, which is worth a -1/4.

[steriaca]

35 minutes ago, pawsplay said:

Ok, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a Limitation is generally priced according to how it affects your options. A power that harms evil, but doesn't harm non-evil, is not as limited because there are few situations where you want to harm non-evil beings but not harm evil ones. Assuming evil opponents are common in the campaign. And no, it's not really equivalent to Detect Evil, because you can't detect evil without doing some damage. That would be like saying Fiery Blast is a free detect on characters who are invulnerable to flame.

The situation "I'm being attacked by a bunch of non-evil dogs" just isn't that likely to come up, and if it does, you would employ some other tactic. In my view it's very similar to Lockout in that respect, which is worth a -1/4.

But you do agree it is a Limitation. Finally we are on the same page.

[massey]

1 hour ago, pawsplay said:

Ok, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying a Limitation is generally priced according to how it affects your options. A power that harms evil, but doesn't harm non-evil, is not as limited because there are few situations where you want to harm non-evil beings but not harm evil ones. Assuming evil opponents are common in the campaign. And no, it's not really equivalent to Detect Evil, because you can't detect evil without doing some damage. That would be like saying Fiery Blast is a free detect on characters who are invulnerable to flame.

The situation "I'm being attacked by a bunch of non-evil dogs" just isn't that likely to come up, and if it does, you would employ some other tactic. In my view it's very similar to Lockout in that respect, which is worth a -1/4.

 

I think you and I are close then.  Obviously “only affects people I want to hurt” isn’t a limitation.  But I also remember flipping through the Monster Manual and being disturbed at the number of monsters that wanted to eat your face off that were said to be Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.

[steriaca]

1 hour ago, massey said:

 

I think you and I are close then.  Obviously “only affects people I want to hurt” isn’t a limitation.  But I also remember flipping through the Monster Manual and being disturbed at the number of monsters that wanted to eat your face off that were said to be Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.

Hunger is a great motivator. Besides, animals (even monsterous animals) don't do what they do out of malice. Next time, drop a ration of meat before you pull out your sword.

 

Especially if it is a sword which only cuts evil. It won't hurt them, so feed them.

[Greywind]

To a lot of things you aren't equal to a meal. A ration would, at best, be an appetizer.

[massey]

What if it isn’t hungry?  What if you invaded its territory, threatened its cubs, or interrupted its mating season?

[steriaca]

6 hours ago, massey said:

What if it isn’t hungry?  What if you invaded its territory, threatened its cubs, or interrupted its mating season?

Then get the hell out of dodge. Your already going to do that, right? Get your ass out of there territory as soon as possible?

[unclevlad]

On 10/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, massey said:

If Captain Swordsman has 5 different magic swords, each with its own weird limitations (only affects evil creatures, only vs vampires, does not affect those blessed by a priest, only vs dragons, etc), it doesn't matter that he's got backup weapons.  Those limitations are still real.  He bought each of those weapons individually, and they all cost points.  He shouldn't be paying full price for 5 different swords.  That's way worse than just paying for one sword that does everything.

 

 

Not if there's no time needed to switch between them.  Not if it's crafted into a multipower where you're getting OAF on all of em, and probably a Variable Limitation.  So if each gets a -1 targeting, then every slot will be at -2, and the MP itself at -1 1/2.  So let's stay it's 2d6 HKA, 1/2 END...37 active.  The MP is 15, the slots are 12 so 1 each.  PLUS, this feels like it makes the whole notion of OAF highly questionable...disarm one, he'll just grab another.

 

If I had a VPP that was, let's say, Blasts only, 1/2 phase to switch, requires a skill roll to switch...would you be giving big limitations on the blasts I build for targeting, when it's so trivial to switch?  Because what you'd be allowing me to do is a pool size of 20 (-1 targeting limit, -1/2 requires a skill roll) with a 50 point control size (+1/2 for half phase to switch, -1/2 for blasts only, -1/2 requires a skill roll as a common modifier, -1/2 for -1 Variable Limitations as a common modifier)...35 points for 10d6 Blast that maybe costs me a half phase every now and again.  Plus I retain full flexibility to make it an AoE or an NND, whichever seems best against any given opponent.  

 

The context of how it fits into the ENTIRE powers set DOES matter.

 

 

[Lorehunter]

I can see both sides. I have seen characters with 100 MPs with 10 fixed slots and each slot was set up to handle a different situation. Ok so far, but the limitations that were applied were things that, due to game mechanics, would have already been in play. Lockouts on all other slots when all the slots were instant and used the whole pool. Only usable at full power when all the slots were fixed slots. That type of stuff. New a storm posted character who's power only worked outside. She would just wait for the bad guys to make break for it and then pick them off. So yeah I guess all this rambling is just me saying that limitations are applied to powers in a vacuum but that then that power needs to be evaluated as part of the whole.

[Hugh Neilson]

"Must be used at full power" on all slots in your Swiss Army Multipower?

 

OK.

 

The President is possessed by a demon.  He has 2 PD, 1 ED, 8 BOD, 16 STUN and a heart condition ("SUSC:  2d6 BOD per phase if reduced below -10 STUN).  He is opening the Nuclear Football.  What do you do?

 

Oh, just as an aside, the Demon has vast powers of illusion, and you are the only person in the world, as the president is broadcast over international television, who can see that he is not holding the medal your character is being awarded for saving the world, but rather is holding the nuclear football.

 

Spoiler for language

Quote

The right of a GM to be an asshole is directly proportional to the extent to which the player is an asshole in designing a character for the GM's campaign.

 

[Duke Bushido]

Thank you for bumping this thread, guys.  I had forgotten about it, even though I spent a lot of time thinking on it after one particular exchange:

 

 

 

On 10/22/2020 at 5:11 PM, dougmacd said:

It seems I phrased my question poorly. How would you implement an advantageous limitation like "Only affects Evil"?

• One intended to have no effect if used against its good owner or good teammates.
• One intended to have no effect on normals (who aren't capital-E Evil).
• One intended to have no effect on non-sapient things (like animals or objects).

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

 

 

Doug

Conveniently, everyone on Team Awesome wears all-white uniforms!

 

 

On 10/22/2020 at 6:15 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Ah; thats helpful; thank you.

 

I would make it an advantage: affects no one but intended target.

 

If you dont have pricing ideas for it, or don't feel that it falls in line with the rules, I would suggest looking at "skip over sprayfire" to see that the idea of  "I only hit who I want to" is indeed part of the modern rules, is considered advantageous, and to perhaps get a feeling of its value in your campaign.

 

 

 

I didn't quote all that to try to bring that discussion back to life.  I posted it because enough time has gone by I felt it would help explain why I am thanking dougmacd.

 

How many years have gone by since the publication of 5e?  I don't recall off the top of my head, and it's not really necessary to know, but it is the exact number of years that I have _hated_ the idea of Skip over Sprayfire," screaming on the inside that this was little more than the legitimizing and codification of powergaming:  I can disgorge my full power into any crowd, without fear of having to suffer the consequences of hitting something I don't want to hit!

 

Frankly, I _still_ hate it, and _still_ don't allow it.

 

But at least, owing to that single exchange with dougmacd, I can see value to the idea behind it.

 

 

Thanks, Doug.

 

[pawsplay]

19 hours ago, Lorehunter said:

 Lockouts on all other slots when all the slots were instant and used the whole pool.

 

That just doesn't sound legitimate. -0 Limitation.

[Tech]

On 10/29/2020 at 4:22 PM, massey said:

I think I know what he means.

 

Limitations affect powers, and should be priced based on how they affect the power they're applied to, generally without regard to other things the character can do.  For example, if Superman purchases a hang-glider (10" of Gliding, OAF bulky, big turn mode, lots of other restrictions), then he still gets the full value of the limitations on the Gliding power, even though he's got 50" of Flight x250 noncombat.  His Gliding isn't more expensive just because he's got a backup power that's just as good if not better.  He's paying points for both powers.  His limitations don't become less limiting overall just because he spent more points elsewhere.

 

If Captain Swordsman has 5 different magic swords, each with its own weird limitations (only affects evil creatures, only vs vampires, does not affect those blessed by a priest, only vs dragons, etc), it doesn't matter that he's got backup weapons.  Those limitations are still real.  He bought each of those weapons individually, and they all cost points.  He shouldn't be paying full price for 5 different swords.  That's way worse than just paying for one sword that does everything.

 

Now... there are certain circumstances where a character is obviously designed with powers that negate his limitations.  The Mind Mole has 10" of Tunneling through 10 Def material (with the ability to close the hole behind him), N-Ray Vision, and an Ego Attack.  His tactic is that he tunnels down into the ground, looks up at you through the Earth with N-Ray, and then brain-zaps you over and over again.  He has an OAF magic wand that lets him do this, and an OAF magic hat that gives him 30 points of Mental Defense.  Unless he runs into a very specific enemy build, his limitations will probably never come into play.  This is a situation in which the GM is justified in saying "I can't think of any way this limitation will ever come up, so for you it isn't worth any points".  Doctor Destroyer's powers all come through his armor, but because it can't be damaged and he never takes it off, he doesn't get any points back.

I agree...   except for what you said about Dr. D. I suppose it depends on the campaign but I've kept Destroyers' armor at OIF because it has been damaged for being a suit of power armor, regardless of how powerful it is. I don't believe his armor is indestructible.