5-point Doubling for Innate Powers

[unclevlad]

Yes, it's built in, but in many cases, it's for convenience.  Try buying Mach 1 flight speed without non-coms, and without MegaScale.  Let's assume a 6 SPD, as it's convenient.  Then 1m per phase == 6m per turn, 30m per minute, 1.8 kph, or about 1.1 mph.  Mach 1 is basically 770 mph...so you need 700m per phase.

 

Combat movement is tactical, but non-combat movement is a plot device for the most part.  It shouldn't cost an arm and a leg.  MegaScale's excessive for any continuous movement power...note that from the above, with 1m = 1 km MegaScale, 1m per phase is 1100 mph, or Mach 1.5.  There *needs* to be something in between.  

 

Similar argument applies to Mind Link.  How much more utility is there, going from 1 to 2 links at once, from 2 to 4?  Also, how else do you want to define it?  This is basically how Mind Link scales.

 

In both cases, for the most part, most doublings like this have no combat impact.  They're for a richer, more interesting character...I doubt I'm alone in saying I love high-speed fliers or cross-country teleporters.  In RAW, it's a bit less complex to do this with NCMs;  adders are optional, advantages aren't.  You don't have to jerk the rules around with a multipower...one slot for the combat move, another for the NC...and it doesn't help that the rules only have the ridiculously over-the-top MegaScale, nothing lesser that could actually be *used* with Flight or Running without getting ludicrous.  Combat impact...there, you want to be a lot more restrictive and a lot more specific.  You *don't* want to give something for (almost) nothing...like the bigger defensive powers we've mentioned.  Doubling 50, 60 points of defense for 5 points is clearly abusive, if they can both be used together.  Sure, no argument:  the rules are not merely abusable, they *invite* abuse.  The entire premise of a points-based system SCREAMS "find ways to cut costs to Get More Power."  

 

But that doesn't mean we need to make things TOO easy.  Recognize that the rules have a goal:  to be as flexible as possible.  This is also why they're so easy to abuse, in part.  5E actually shows the mess you get with overly individual rules...I'm particularly thinking of HAs, HKAs, and the mess related to how adding damage works.  ECs is another example...what can you do, what can't you do, what should be allowed, what should not be allowed.  The rules are too long as is, tho.  FAR too long, particularly for a print or PDF version.  Even then, trying to do that creates its own problems...you'll never consistently get things right, and hey, with all the ways to tweak, some will be broken.

 

The doubling rule is fine for lots of things...with caveats.  As we've explored at length.   

 

EDIT:

 

<whaps self>
The point that so many places have a "5 points for x2" core rule *greatly* weakens Hugh's point that it's considered an optional rule.  It's there in so many places, as a basic part of a power, that it's easy to forget that it isn't.  Also:  HD has x2 for +5 points on every power, and on VPPs and MPs, in 6E.  It's not there one characteristics, skills, perks, or talents.  That creates a *clear* presumption that it's an OK thing to consider. 

[Duke Bushido]

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

I don't know if you'd agree with me Duke, but it seems sometimes that the purpose of points in HERO isn't to balance characters

 

Please accept this brief pause in the conversation as a place for me to clarify my position before anyone starts taking anything the wrong way:

 

I dont have an important opinion anything, and at no point should anyone every worry about who they do or don't agree with, becauase-   as far as I have aleays understood-  these boards are for discussion and sharing, and should never be taken as actual arguments of right and wrong.

 

If I have had that backwards for the last couple of decades, well, thqt's on me,I guess, but it still stands that opinions, ideas, solutions, and problems I have offered have never been offered as any sort of truth, gospel, or one true correct path or anything like that.

 

They are offered in equal parts fairness to others who have put forth their own opinions or ideas to create an interesting discussion (why should I not pitch something out for speculation when someone else has taken the same risk on my behalf, or has provided an enjoyable discussion by having done it?)  and the possibility  that it might stir an idea in someone else that oroves in sime way helpful to them.

 

At their very core, though, if they are not actual rules quotes, they are personal opinions, and never offered as more than that.  

 

Short version:  don't sweat what I do ir don't agree with.  If I wasn't ooen to discussing even things I dont agree with, I would be incapable of participating in any conversation except,those discussing topics from pre-Dark Champions in 4e.

 

I come here for interesting ideas and inciteful conversations, and not necessarily agreement.  I have always believed I can disagree with someone and still see validity in some points of their position.  Nothing is so binary as to be all good or all bad, after all.

 

 

 

there.  Moving on.

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

 

so much as to give players the opportunity to feel proud of themselves when they find a clever way to save them.

 

I do agree with that, but I find that is only one purpose of points.  Certainly there is a mini-game of self-satisfaction when a player finds a clever way to buy an ability he might otherwise not have been able to purchase; I have played that minigame myself a thousand times with characters who have never seen the light of day.  However, another way to look at that is that the advantages and limitations systems- systems which improve or reduce both the effectiveness and points cost of an ability, _provide_ a method by which clever and points-savings builds can be constructed.  The finite nature of character points makes that system more attractive, and thus actively encourages players to find those clever builds.

 

  I find there are two other equally-important purposes of points, such as controlling the progression of the character (it is a rare and ancient character who has the points to buy some of everything, and frankly, the roll-your-own Skills System makes skills effectively infinite anyway, adding in a double-layer of impossible (which can be completely removed by the inclusion of Power Pools and Skill Pools, meaning that with these two constructs alone, you _can_ start with everything.  The fact that most people don't is a testement to them).  Players must pick and choose where to spend their points, either spending them in tiny amounts here and there as they trickle in or saving and budgeting for larger more expensive purposes that won't be possible if they continue to spend points as they earn them.

 

The third critical function of character points, as I see it, is control over the character's development.  In level-based games, there is typically a list of specific boons assigned to a character as he passes from level to level.  In use-to-improve games, characters may advance in skills or abikities that they have successfully used X amount of times-- in some, they may get rusty and lose abilities that have gone unused for too long.

 

In points-buy games, though, the player is at all times in charge of the directions in which his character grows: he will buy or improve those abilities he wishes his character to possess, and not those which he doesn't find appropriate for the character as he sees him to be.

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

But, at the same time, the game balance doesn't depend so strictly on points spent that, as long as everyone's mature about it, you can't have characters with wildly different points totals.

 

This is also something I agree with, though understand that this is a minority and largely unpopular opinion, as most of us old folks (not all) have spent forty years believing and trying to prove the exact opposite.

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

The big problem that I can see with doubling for back-up Foci is that the amounts of weapons you're throwing around can get ridiculous very quickly.

 

 

Yes.  I believw we all see that.  What seems to be less-popular to discuss is that other than cumulative targetting penalties, the rules as the exist don't stop a character with 38 guns from attempting to shoot his target with all thirty-eight guns (there is the fall back in "common sense," but that is easily countered with the fallback "dramatic sense," but bear with me here)--

 

There is nothing in the rules to stop a character with thirty weapons from using all thirty--   _nor should there be_.

 

A character can buy sixteen powers and attack a single target with all sixteen powers.

 

A character can buy sixteen foci (without the doubling thing) attacks and use all sixteen of them against a single target.

 

Why?  Because the guy who bought his individual powers as innate non-focused abilities can do it, so the guy who bought his  focused powers individually should be able to do it.

 

The problem is not the number of attacks that can be brought to bear.  The problem is the focus exception.  Even if both character bought identical powers- one through foci and one through innate ability- the character with the foci is enjoying a cost reduction (for the risk), but his power performs in all ways like that of the other character.

 

The innate powers character cannot get double the powers for five points.  The focus guy can.  Effectively, the focus discount gets deeper and deeper.

 

Now someone mentioned innate powers guy being able to fire his innate attack numerous times; I don't know if that applies to the sweep-one-guy maneuver or not, but if it doesn't, then why does he not have access to what the focus guy does?

 

We went through a similar thing years ago, and now we can haymaker fireball.  That argument made way less sense (why can't my energy blast behave like his punch does?) than "if I can have two 16d6 hand cannons for five extra points, why can't I have an extra 10d6 optic blast for 5 pts?"

 

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

 

 

5 points for a second gun probably isn't too much to stress about. Your opponent has to disarm you twice, but that still feels manageable.

 

That depends, to me, on what the player feels to be the purpose of that / those additional weapons.  If it is for the purpose of two-weapon fighting or handing off to someone else every now and again, or some periodic usage or anticipated even- even to scavenge parts should the original take damage-  well, I have no problem with that.

 

If the player sees it as a way to neutralize or mitigate the odds of losing access to the weapon- that is, he knows that every now and again, it will be stolen, inoperative, or something to justify the focus limitation and rebate, but his intention is pull one of the backups from thin air when he loses access to the original....

 

Well, no.  I do not find that to be an acceptable use of this adder.  Doctor Toybox wants to build a wind up tin duckie that walks around and spits thirty bullets from its mouth.  That's cool.  He wants to be able to spill thirty of them from a burlap sack--  that's a great use for this x2 adder.

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

 

50 points for 1,000 guns, though, feels very unfair to the poor henchman who has to take them off you to make the drawback of your Focus limitation apply!

 

Henchman, one thousand lucky glancing blows, one thousand "oops!  I foegot to wind it!"  Whatever.  Though for disarming, at what point does the henchman have to make a search roll to get them all?  How many are left if he fails?

 

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 12:33 PM, Cloppy Clip said:

Like greypaladin says, I wonder if this was really just a niche houserule for a specific kind of game that gets applied to many more situations than it really should be.

 

I feel the same way-   I tend to think this was derived from double locarions and increased Noncombat speeds and such as that and would be used to stock an Amory of mundane weapons (because there are those people for whom- no matter how tthey feel about points as a balancing tool, find determining the total points cost of everyrhing in ther universe and the DEF and BODY of all physical things from starships to mildew-resistant drywall to be its own kind of minigame, (I went through a devase of this myself, early on.  I don't play rules-light, but eventually a light bulb comes on that reminds me 'i need the range and damage dor the slingshot, but  the cost of a 1d plus STR item will never be of consequence)  even in genres where points are not actually paid.  And, as suggested, it just got out of hand.

 

Just one opinion, of course, and worth every penny you paid for it.

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

 If half the discount was 20 points, them the original power must have cost 80 and then become an OAF to save 40.  It would have been 53 as an OIF

 

Right, and heading toward a more correct (for certain opinionated values of correct, admittedly) solution to boot!

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

 

("I have so many backup weapons that you can't really remove them all unless I am helpless"). 

 

And that is where I believe this should be-- if the goal is a workaround for being deprived of the item under all but the most extraordinary of circumstances-- the ultimate back-up weapon-- then the build should be an inaccessible focus.  If the goal is to be almost impossible to be deprived, then the build should not be a focus at all, but an appropriate (and maybe even reasonable) special effect:  "what?  I am so groggy....  Why am I tied to a chair?  Wait!  Where is my knife?  Where is my rifle?  Gone!  They have taken them!  Well, it's a good thing they didnt know about the Kalishnikov I swallowed earlier!  Now to induce vomitting.....")

 

 

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

That's only a 7 point difference.  Of course, if you can fire all 16 all at once that's a bigger issue.

 

What's good for the energy-projecting goose is good for the fun-toting gander.

 

Just like what's good for the haymakering pugilist brick was determined to be good for the energy-projecting gander.

 

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

A specific 5-point adder to the Focused power ("backup") to have a second gun?   Not so big a deal. 

 

 

Agreed-- provided the player knows in no uncertain terms that this does not make him immune to being deprived of the gun.

 

 

On 6/18/2023 at 4:09 PM, Hugh Neilson said:

Cap it at one, or charge 5 points for each backup, and define it as "can't be used in tandem".

 

 

There is more I would like to hash, but I have had this pulled up for three days to get this far.

 

Noone be offended, please, as it is not personal to anyone, but I think it is once again time for me to keave these boards for a while.  I just dont have the time of late, and have been kind of forcing it into my schedule, which really drops the enjoyment factor.

 

 

Thanks to all!

 

 

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The innate powers character cannot get double the powers for five points.  The focus guy can.  Effectively, the focus discount gets deeper and deeper.

 

I don't believe that's correct.  There's nothing that says the innate powers guy can't do it.  Take a Doc Ock notion...but now each limb has a transformable appendage.  Normal hand, ionic blaster, venom injector with 2-3 different types (various Drains).  Give him 6 limbs;  each has them all.  Each can be controlled separately.  That sure sounds like 8x MPs to me.  And they're not foci.

 

Another example:  Quasar, from Marvel.  The quantum bands are not removable, and thus are not foci.  Any cyborg build would follow the same notion.

 

Power stones...perhaps at the chakra points, for an Eastern-mystic interpretation.  D&D 3E Psionics had a Crystal Master class, embedded stones.  There's a tattooed monk;  tattoos would be another method.  All of these can justify the 2x rule cleanly enough.    

 

Foci make it generally *easier* to visualize/conceptualize.  But they aren't implicit.  With this many exceptions, well, it's pretty pointless to try to limit things.

 

 

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I don't believe that's correct.  There's nothing that says the innate powers guy can't do it.  Take a Doc Ock notion...but now each limb has a transformable appendage.  Normal hand, ionic blaster, venom injector with 2-3 different types (various Drains).  Give him 6 limbs;  each has them all.  Each can be controlled separately.  That sure sounds like 8x MPs to me.  And they're not foci.

 

Another example:  Quasar, from Marvel.  The quantum bands are not removable, and thus are not foci.  Any cyborg build would follow the same notion.

 

Power stones...perhaps at the chakra points, for an Eastern-mystic interpretation.  D&D 3E Psionics had a Crystal Master class, embedded stones.  There's a tattooed monk;  tattoos would be another method.  All of these can justify the 2x rule cleanly enough.    

 

Foci make it generally *easier* to visualize/conceptualize.  But they aren't implicit.  With this many exceptions, well, it's pretty pointless to try to limit things.

 

Page 181 opens the 5-point doubling rule section with

 

Quote

At the GM’s option, characters in any type of campaign may double the number of a particular piece of equipment, weapon, or object they have for +5 points.

 

and closes it with

 

Quote

Characters may not apply the 5-point doubling rule to innate powers or abilities.

 

It mentions Followers, but the Vol 1 discussion of followers already provides for that.

 

However, even if we wish to split hairs into "items that are not foci", we have only shifted the goalposts - why can a character whose SFX involve an object double them but a character with innate powers cannot. 

 

Can Captain America spend 5 points to double his SuperSoldier Serum SFX abilities?  Let's give the Human Torch 32x Cosmic Rays?

 

Of course, the spirit of using the doubling rules to pay 15 points and get the same attack 8 times as a Combined Attack is certainly consistent with RulesLawyering exactly what abilities qualify.  But the bigger question is why should any ability NOT qualify?  Why aren't we following the Hero Principle that mechanics are separate from special effects?

[unclevlad]

OK, I was looking for it, but couldn't find it.  Blew my search roll.  My bad.  (I was looking in 6E1.  DOH!  It's in the index, but under "5-point doubling rule"...not "Doubling Rule.")

 

But...yeah.  I think the rules issue for this aspect is more along the lines of your point..."only with an object" is simply terrible writing.  It creates meaningless special cases for no good reason.  It's trivial to adapt a concept while it's under development to account for incorporating non-focus objects, and done right, no one's gonna even be able to say it's NOT in concept.  Heck, I've developed mage-type concepts where part of it is "none of the spells are persistent."  Fine...the persistent ones that are spells-based, have some physical, sustaining framework...an object or tattoo.  They may not be defined as foci.  They might require END to activate for 24 hours...but I'm not taking any kind of limitation, even if it was allowed.  Those are SFX.  

 

 

[dmjalund]

I would treat one level of doubling as (if the user has bought ambidexterity) as a 2 shot autofire.

[Cloppy Clip]

@Duke Bushido Of course, take all the time off from the boards you need, but thank you very much for your input up until now. I know enough by now to realise I won't agree with you on every opinion about HERO (same as how I won't agree with everyone else on this forum), but you always have a well-considered opinion that helps give me a new perspective on the question (same as everyone else on this forum, come to think of it), so I've really appreciated your help over the course of the thread.

 

@unclevlad That list of non-Focus powers raises a good point, because there are lots of powers you can think of that would justify the doubling rule without being Foci if you think about it for a while. It seems a shame that, like Hugh points out, the rules explicitly don't allow this, but we can always rule differently at the table.

 

@dmjalund I think it was pointed out earlier in this thread that you also could do a Multiple Attack with one power for another option besides Autofire. Between those two, are there any use-cases for making lots of attacks that you'd still need the doubling rule for?

[unclevlad]

The rule says object.  It doesn't say focus.  As Duke noted, it's absurd to say you can do this with a focus but not with an object NOT defined as a focus, and then by extension, saying you can't do it on innate powers is absurd.

 

The point isn't to push DOING it.  The point is to advocate for re-writing those rules.  Whether it's a focus or not is completely irrelevant to the issue of how extra copies purchased using the 5-point doubling rule can be used, which is the real bone of contention.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

On 6/21/2023 at 5:35 AM, Cloppy Clip said:

I know enough by now to realise I won't agree with you on every opinion about HERO (same as how I won't agree with everyone else on this forum), but you always have a well-considered opinion that helps give me a new perspective on the question

 

 

Well thank you; that is very kind of you.

 

I confess, I have favorite "sparring partners" here myself, conversationally-speaking.

 

I love discussing things with Hugh because he has a mind for details and unlike most of us, never seems to accidentally contradict himself somewhere down the line and create confusion in so doing.  He will also discuss something as long as you might need him to, and in all the years of fun I have had here, I have only seen him lose his cool twice, and both times it was after someone spent a couple of _days_ being obviously and deliberately obtuse.  Even then, it was a pretty mild thing akin to "I am not going to agree with you for all the reasons given in this conversation but I am open to reasoning more in depth than "I really want you to agree with me" kind of thing.

 

I like LL for his demeanor and his ability to pull from topical knowledge from pretty much all of the published sources seemingly simultaneously.

 

I like Unclevlad-  yes, even though we disagree as often as we agree- because his thoughts are never knee jerk reactions, and because he will explain his reasons.  Just as with Hugh, he will be just as polite to you as you are to him, and he will approach the discussion with the same seriousness or tone that you do.  You have been warned. 

 

I love hearing from Chris Goodwin because he brings an exhuberant joy to his posts, as if every conversation is a fresh and wonderful thing, and that is extremely contagious. 

 

Doc D is great because it is almost like reading my own thoughts if I were  British, and Sean loves tinkering for its own sake, and that is how I ended up with PTO ports on my motorcycles...

 

I could go on and on, but the point here is that I was not always someone to really think about all the ramifications or complications of a problem, or to really think about complications a potential solution might create.  I learned that.  My middle and high school-even college-  didn't offer classes on critical thinking or even have debate teams where you would be taught how to study and how to present and defend a position (and in so doing, often discover that your position wasn't worth defending! Ha!).

 

I learned all that, and I learned most if it here, by the excellent examples set by the members of this board.  If you find anything I have ever said to be reasonable, well-researched, or minimally intrusive into the larger set of rules, I promise you, it wasn't my fault!  Thank the people who were here when I came along (many of whom are still here).  Were it not for them, hearing from me would be like dodging poo at the monkey cages. 

 

 

 

On 6/21/2023 at 10:01 AM, unclevlad said:

The rule says object. 

 

For clarification:

 

Any confusion on object /focus brought into this thread is quite likely my fault.  I know the rules say object (and as someone else noted further down, that is stepping all over the mechanics / sfx division upon which this system is based).

 

I believe at this point everyone is aware that I can only access this board via phone.  I found "focus"  and "foci" much easier to thumb type than "object" and "objects" and so I unwittingly slipped into using the terms interchangeably for most of my posts, assuming everyone would 'get what I meant,' but I admit, doing so kind of walks all over clarity.  Mea culpa, and I apologize for it.

 

 

 

On 6/21/2023 at 10:01 AM, unclevlad said:

It doesn't say focus.  As Duke noted, it's absurd to say you can do this with a focus but not with an object NOT defined as a focus, and then by extension, saying you can't do it on innate powers is absurd.

 

To expand on what Vlad says here:

 

I can declare that my character doesn't have a focus per the focus rules, but he suffered a debilitaring accident and lost his hands.  His powers come from the technology in his cybernetic fingers.  They are not foci, as I want none of the restrictions or drawbacks that the focus rules impose.

 

This chacter buys a 12D6 Energy Blast.  He has a laser built into a finger.  It costs him 60 points.  For 15 more points, he can have one in each finger.  Combine /Multiple / 'Sweep, but only the one guy' rules let him use all 8 of these lasers at once.

 

Now if Lightwave, the Living Laser decides that he shoots a laser from his fingertip, that's that.  He can even decide that he shoots lasers from _any_ fingertip.  But as the rule is written, unless he spends  480 points to buy eight separate lasers, he doesn't have eight at once, while the cyber-hands character _does_ have eight lasers, and for only 75 points.

 

 

 

 

 

On 6/21/2023 at 10:01 AM, unclevlad said:

 

The point isn't to push DOING it.  The point is to advocate for re-writing those rules. 

 

 

At a _minimum_.  i would be just as happy--probably more happy-- to see those rules officially highlighted with black Sharpie.

 

 

Edited June 25, 2023 by Duke Bushido

[Ninja-Bear]

6E2 pg 181 In the interest of game balance, common sense, or dramatic sense, the GM may forbid any uses of the double bought equipment that he deems inappropriate. That statement right there eliminates most of most of the arguments posted.  

[Ninja-Bear]

I agree with Hugh that Combined attacked should’ve been explained better. I did notice though that Combined Attack can have any and all restrictions as a Multiple Attack.

[Ninja-Bear]

Argggh ! I cannot figure out how to link this post. Its labeled Follow-up on Combined Attack by slaughterj June 6, 2014. In the rules question. However Steve Long does answer it! So if someone has the mojo could you repost it here? Short answer is unless otherwise by GM equipment shouldn't use Combined Attack.

[unclevlad]

https://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/69911-combined-attack/#comment-1790437

 

That said, there's a LOT of Steve's writing on this subject, and wading through a lot of it is tricky.  It appears to be contradictory on the surface but that may be looking at partial answers, or answers to narrower questions.

 

Given this level of confusion, throwing out Combined Attack altogether, *except* when it's set up as a Combined Power, would likely make life much easier.  

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

7 hours ago, unclevlad said:

https://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/69911-combined-attack/#comment-1790437

 

That said, there's a LOT of Steve's writing on this subject, and wading through a lot of it is tricky.  It appears to be contradictory on the surface but that may be looking at partial answers, or answers to narrower questions.

 

Given this level of confusion, throwing out Combined Attack altogether, *except* when it's set up as a Combined Power, would likely make life much easier.  

 

 

Thanks for posting the link. 

[Hugh Neilson]

8 hours ago, unclevlad said:

https://www.herogames.com/forums/topic/69911-combined-attack/#comment-1790437

 

That said, there's a LOT of Steve's writing on this subject, and wading through a lot of it is tricky.  It appears to be contradictory on the surface but that may be looking at partial answers, or answers to narrower questions.

 

Given this level of confusion, throwing out Combined Attack altogether, *except* when it's set up as a Combined Power, would likely make life much easier.  

 

 

 

There was a real debate in the past when combined powers first got published.  If you can use 2 or more powers together when they are limited to only be usable together, but not when they have no limitations, it seems like the limitation is also an advantage.

 

You could simplify the game a lot by removing rules, powers, maneuvers, options, whatever. That reduced complexity would come at the cost of reduced simplicity.

 

Combined attack simply allows two or more attacks which are not otherwise restricted from being used simultaneously to be used as a single attack, using the Strike combat maneuver only, against a single target.  That doesn't strike me as one of the more complicated rules in the book.

 

Burying it in the middle of Multiple Power Attacks and not clearly stating the above seems like the bigger issue.

Edited June 29, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Duke Bushido]

23 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

6E2 pg 181 In the interest of game balance, common sense, or dramatic sense, the GM may forbid any uses of the double bought equipment that he deems inappropriate. That statement right there eliminates most of most of the arguments posted.  

 

 

Sorry I havent been back to this;  I have just been drifting into topics randomly the past few days.  I even alluded to it myself a few posts back.

 

At any rate, a small part of me was waiting for someone to post the "common sense / dramatic sense" thing that creates a large portion of the fluff in the last couple of editions.

 

The reason being that I would like to propose that using this bit of fluff as a proof for or against  something is akin to filling your home with tigers to keep out the burglars.

 

If this is a valid proof that a rule can be switched because-  well, let's say "it doesn't work well;"  make that a catch all for "too easy to abuse," "too unclear,"  "too problematic," "not well-thought-out" or whatever; we will just say that this is the new Caution Sign, and it means "be aware that this isn't very good."

 

Then go through (at least, for those of you with PDFs, this will be tedious but easy) and note just hiw many times that exact phrase appears throughout the work-  the main work, the supplemental works-- all of it.

 

Now to be certain, we all have never failed to agree (so far as I can recall, but I have just recently stopped getting younger and more quick-witted each day.  Sad, really...) that any GM or group may strike or otherwise ignore or re-work a rule _in any game, ever_, as a means to improve or prevent problems in his own game.  There is no question that this is permissible and often times desirable, and requires neither overlap, consent, or judgment from any outside source beyond the membership of that particular group.  This is Inviolable.

 

However, I suggest seizing on the author's words of "turn it off if you don't like it" as they appear near the end of a given rule set as the definitive proof that a rule is "problematic" leaves us with a current edition of a couple thousand very problematic rules.  Rather than a rules _set_, the bulk of the Toolkit-  everything down to determining order of combat-- everything short of the math itself- is a unique and unrelated item with regards to the rest of the texts.  

 

Better, I think, that we just acknowledge (as I believe we already do) that we can use or not use what we wish or do not wish from the work as a whole instead of suggesting that a particular phrase of the author is the key indicator that particular rule "does not work well."  After all, it cannot be both an indicator of problem and an indicator of no problem.  Best, I think, to consider  it a badly-placed reminder that one does not need all the rules to play the game.

 

If one instead uses it as a house full of burglar-eating tigers, I suspect he will very soon be quite unhappy with what the tigers have done to his home.

 

 

 

Now then, all that being said, and acknowledging that we are all in agreement that ultimately _any_ rule is optional should not be a reason to avoid discussing what we find is wrong it as-written, or possible ways to improve it, or even reasons that one may feel it cannot be improved.

 

For example, were it still thirty years ago, I might have used it to stay out the weapons in a keep's armory: build one sword, one axe, one flail, one shield, and bought multiple copies, and then "known the points cost of that armory."  Now today that is more of a "meh.  2d6 plus STR, fifteen pieces," and "6rDEF, eighteen pieces," etc, because hey-  the points on mundane items just don't matter to me anymore.

 

I might allow a not-outrageous Focus to be one of a pair for 5 points, a mundane or improved-mundane weapon to have a 5-point backup, or- more likely- a lesser version for 5 pts that could be handed off to another character briefly:  "cover me!" or "I have them pinned down out here; take this and secure the back door!"

 

There is a _huge_ amount of "the game at hand" that goes into what and where I would allow or why.

 

As such, I find just dumping this in as a core rules very much "this rule doesn't work well," because it is clearly problematic in any game where one could have a powerful gadget and or a powerful innate ability yet it only applies to the guy with the gadget.

 

I find this rule doesn't work well because at its core it mandates SFX and denies others.

 

As something for consideration as part of the Focus rules, I think it has potential, but I would have to play with that quite a bit to make an informed decision on that.

 

Specifically, I think as a tool for a GM who must know the points costs of a pool of mundane weapons found in a keep or a trove--  essentially just an accounting tool or rapid cloning device for the GM in a hurry, in a non-supers genre....

 

I find it has potential for some folks, even if it have zero interest for me.  I would much prefer to have seen this in one or more genre books, or The Ultimate Base, or something like that, but not just dropped in as something that is going to allow Batman to have a thousand pairs if kryptonite handcuffs.

 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

I was just reading Ninja Hero errata. While looking for something else I came across where it’s recommend for SuperHeroic to use the +5 point doubling. Also he has a warning that if someone does this so that he can lend out a weapon to everyone the GM should quash that. And if you don’t like this option, he gives another Paired Weapon (-1/4) as a Focus option. Interesting.

[Duke Bushido]

2 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

I was just reading Ninja Hero errata. While looking for something else I came across where it’s recommend for SuperHeroic to use the +5 point doubling. Also he has a warning that if someone does this so that he can lend out a weapon to everyone the GM should quash that. And if you don’t like this option, he gives another Paired Weapon (-1/4) as a Focus option. Interesting.

Thanks, N-B!

 

Which edition and page?

 

Thanks!

.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 8/20/2023 at 12:24 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks, N-B!

 

Which edition and page?

 

Thanks!

.

Fourth Edition of Ninja Hero however the errata is something I downloaded from the Red October (RSS?) So it’s not an “official” publication. 

[Duke Bushido]

3 minutes ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Fourth Edition of Ninja Hero however the errata is something I downloaded from the Red October (RSS?) So it’s not an “official” publication. 

I see.   Thank you, Sir.

 

Is the five-point doubling part of the errata, or in the book?

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

3 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

I see.   Thank you, Sir.

 

Is the five-point doubling part of the errata, or in the book?

 

 

It’s in errata. When I get home I’ll check to see if it’s in the book. Also I’ll see if I can send the errata file.

Edited August 22, 2023 by Ninja-Bear

[Ninja-Bear]

Here it is @Duke Bushido

NINFIX13.ZIP

[Duke Bushido]

Thanks, N-B.

 

And while it might not have been distributed through formal company channels, it is by Allston; I think I would treat it as being just as official as if it had been bound and printed with the HERO logo on it. 

 

 

[Ninja-Bear]

14 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

Thanks, N-B.

 

And while it might not have been distributed through formal company channels, it is by Allston; I think I would treat it as being just as official as if it had been bound and printed with the HERO logo on it. 

 

 

I forgot to say, yay it’s the original author so it has more weight than being published. It’s neat if you take a chance to read on the whole thing because of some of his thought processes are laid out. Interestingly he notes how Choke Hold is a misprint BUT then Steve Long modified it so it works the way it’s printed and he’s ok with it. Also he had a rule but didn’t make in (Tai Chi can push multiple people) until again Mr. Long asked him for the rules. Oops. I myself want to try sometime the S-Damage rule and see how that works out instead of NND. Again, I dig on how and why he came up with that optional rule.