Breaking an OIF

[Ninja-Bear]

If I understand it, you cannot per the rules Disarm an OIF. However in combat you can target an OIF to break it. Am I right?

[LoneWolf]

Assuming it is a breakable focus, not all of them are.     

 

The rules specifically state you can target and damage an inaccessible focus.  You do take a -2 OCV for doing so.  

Edited July 5, 2023 by LoneWolf

[Ninja-Bear]

13 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

Assuming it is a breakable focus, not all of them are.     

 

The rules specifically state you can target and damage an inaccessible focus.  You do take a -2 OCV for doing so.  

Thanks! I should’ve pointed it out that it was Breakable. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

If I understand it, you cannot per the rules Disarm an OIF

 

That is subject to some clarification.  You can, depending on the special effect.  If its an OIF defined as "weapon of opportunity" you can indeed disarm the OIF, since it is defined that way to allow a character to always have something on hand to use in most circumstances.  Yeah, you disarmed the broomstick, but Jackie Chan can grab a ladder and beat you with it, too.

 

But yeah, you can break any breakable focus, whatever its defined as.

[Word Sensei 515]

Wouldn't most weapons of opportunity be an OAF? But if it's an OIF, doesn't that then mean it's Inaccessible? What if what their holding is 'Inaccessible'?

[unclevlad]

If a weapon of opportunity is "just something I grabbed"...yeah, it's AF by my lights too.  I feel strongly that special effects simply do not trump the language of rules mechanics.  An improvised weapon isn't OIF, it's IAF;  it's not obvious that it is a weapon.  Until you start using it.  This'd also be the proper category for a spring-loaded sleeve knife, for example.

[Christopher R Taylor]

By the rules, a weapon that can too easily be replaced or can be represented by any local, handy replacement is OIF; you cannot really be disarmed because you can always pick up something else to do the same thing. OAF is my favorite pistol.  OIF is Jackie Chan using everything in reach as a weapon.

[Hugh Neilson]

The use of OIF came from it being obvious in its usage, but not possible to take away for long.  OK, he's disarmed.  So what? There is no loss of actions to grab a different weapon of opportunity, provided one is readily available.  It doesn't matter what you call it - at one time, Restrainable was "OIF".  A -1/2 limitation is the mechanical result in any case.

Edited July 5, 2023 by Hugh Neilson

[Word Sensei 515]

You want replacement even easier than reaching into hammerspace; no half phase or END cost? What are the limitations? Availability of items? Suitability of objects? How far away are they, what's the delay then? I actually see a lot of minor 'limitations', but these have to be consistent & defined, I can't just assume some number.

Until you can list & define somewhat or fully these disadvantages I can't give you any points for that 'disadvantage'.

Focus limitations do this one specific item at a time. If you want a focus, fine, it's one specific item, not a class of items.

 

 

 

[Word Sensei 515]

Restrainable would be acceptable, that's an actual limitation. Actually, 1st edition would feature this just for that purpose.

Gremlin had 'OIF" wings that are a part of her, a 'breakable' focus that you can 'take away' from her temporarily. Later on this became 'Restrainable'.

That's a lot simpler & easier case than saying all manner of objects are all going to do so much additional damage, taking extra time & only being so readily available as to warrant a limitation all the time, that'd be your average limitation but it isn't, nowhere even close the first time he uses it would be no limitation at all & how easy is it for his opponents to take this away when he can just grab something else or just use it with no additional half-phase cost?

ORF instead of OIF shows that Obvious shouldn't be a limitation, a -0 limitation if both of them are to be -1/2.

I guess I'll do it my way, I was going to revise everything anyway.

 

[unclevlad]

It's one of the cases where the rules language is just using convenient terminology and not caring it's seriously misdescriptive...because everything means whatever they want it to mean at the time.  

[LoneWolf]

A focus can be considered inaccessible if it is difficult to take away.  For example, you could have could be carrying so many weapons that they have to practically do a strip search to find them all.  If you have to spend more than at least a turn out of combat to take away all the weapons that is considered an inaccessible focus.     What it really comes down to is how much effort it takes to take away the power.  

[Ninja-Bear]

Hi (Fire) from the villain group Yoshoo has a sword defined as OIF because though you can disarm it. It teleports back into the villains hand. Then range was 10” if I remember correctly.

 

Btw my brother has a modified version of Powrhouse (same stats mostly except his Growth is at a lower level) and he wanted to break Sledge’s hammer. I said sure cause I wanted to see those rules in action.

[unclevlad]

14 hours ago, Ninja-Bear said:

Hi (Fire) from the villain group Yoshoo has a sword defined as OIF because though you can disarm it. It teleports back into the villains hand. Then range was 10” if I remember correctly.

 

That is not a focus at all.  We've had that discussion before...with SFX almost exactly like this.  The return to hand invalidates the notion of being disarmed/removed.  At best, it might count as Physical Manifestation.

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah it would have to be a teleport that had limitations on it that can make it possible to remove the sword.  Like a short range, or it has to be visible, etc.

[unclevlad]

The range is a small factor;  disarming doesn't send the blade a long distance away.  The visibility...no, that's not relevant, IMO.  The key point is that it's largely recoverable as a zero phase action..."get back here!"  And that will be possible in MOST circumstances.

 

Push comes to shove, how different is "I can call it back from 10 meters away" than "I create it with my power"?  In game mechanics, the biggest factor is that the created blade is utterly indetectable...it doesn't exist...until you create it.  The recoverable blade does exist, it has to be on your person.  It can be detected, should that matter.  The chance that it gets disarmed, then kicked 10 meters away?  Ehhh, that feels rather rich, doesn't it?

 

So you can probably get away with Physical Manifestation;  in fact, it's one of the optional uses, since HA or HKA is in that weird mixed class of Ongoing Instants.  

 

Note that OIF disallows Grab.  The teleport negates Grab *and* Disarm.

[Hugh Neilson]

Why the focus on Disarm?  You can't Disarm a suit of armor or a magic ring.  If I can summon the weapon back when it's close by, that sounds pretty similar to any other Focus that can't effectively be removed in combat.

[Grailknight]

Because weapons of opportunity were brought into the discussion, and expanded the scope of the original question.

[Hugh Neilson]

Sure - but the ability to just snap up a new weapon of opportunity after the first is disarmed, or to have the weapon return to the user's hand provided it's still nearby isn't any less limiting than an inability to be disarmed in the first place.

[Ninja-Bear]

On 7/7/2023 at 12:10 AM, unclevlad said:

The range is a small factor;  disarming doesn't send the blade a long distance away.  The visibility...no, that's not relevant, IMO.  The key point is that it's largely recoverable as a zero phase action..."get back here!"  And that will be possible in MOST circumstances.

 

Push comes to shove, how different is "I can call it back from 10 meters away" than "I create it with my power"?  In game mechanics, the biggest factor is that the created blade is utterly indetectable...it doesn't exist...until you create it.  The recoverable blade does exist, it has to be on your person.  It can be detected, should that matter.  The chance that it gets disarmed, then kicked 10 meters away?  Ehhh, that feels rather rich, doesn't it?

 

So you can probably get away with Physical Manifestation;  in fact, it's one of the optional uses, since HA or HKA is in that weird mixed class of Ongoing Instants.  

 

Note that OIF disallows Grab.  The teleport negates Grab *and* Disarm.

I was wrong as to which character has that sword, it wasn’t Fire. Based on my faulty knowledge now this time, the T-porting back does require a new phase. So the character is deprived of it for a little length of time. Depending of course when it was disarmed and speed of the opponent(s). Green Dragon disarms him and GD most likely (can’t remember if said character is SPD 5 or 6) has a phase coming up again before the character can summon back the blade. Also if a Speedster does a Flying Grab, he could move the sword out of T-port range in a single phase. Also (and I probably didn’t make this clear), said character has to he conscious to summon it. Therefore if he’s Stunned, someone can remove it and move it far enough to not make it summonable. 

[steriaca]

On 7/5/2023 at 5:09 PM, Word Sensei 515 said:

You want replacement even easier than reaching into hammerspace; no half phase or END cost? What are the limitations? Availability of items? Suitability of objects? How far away are they, what's the delay then? I actually see a lot of minor 'limitations', but these have to be consistent & defined, I can't just assume some number.

Until you can list & define somewhat or fully these disadvantages I can't give you any points for that 'disadvantage'.

Focus limitations do this one specific item at a time. If you want a focus, fine, it's one specific item, not a class of items.

Sounds like you would just LOVE Mouse from Ranma 1/2. He is one character who shouldn't have a Focus limitation at all, but a Variable Special Effects advantage, a "Can Be Disarmed" limitation (-1/4 at most), and maybe a zero point "Subject To Running Out In Moments Of Funny" (-0).

 

Optionally it could be an excuse for a Variable Power Pool as a "Hidden Weapons And Tools (Kept Inside Robe Till Needed)" Pool.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by steriaca

[MrAgdesh]

[MrAgdesh]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:22 PM, Christopher R Taylor said:

By the rules, a weapon that can too easily be replaced or can be represented by any local, handy replacement is OIF; you cannot really be disarmed because you can always pick up something else to do the same thing. OAF is my favorite pistol.  OIF is Jackie Chan using everything in reach as a weapon.

However,  you do have to pick a new ‘weapon’ up, perhaps do a half or full phase more to acquire a new weapon - and more importantly have one present. 
So you can be disarmed I think - albeit temporarily. Weapons of opportunity may also break far more easily and require frequent replacing with actions as they aren’t meant to be used to beat people up of course. I’d lean towards OAF myself.

[Hugh Neilson]

1 hour ago, MrAgdesh said:

However,  you do have to pick a new ‘weapon’ up, perhaps do a half or full phase more to acquire a new weapon - and more importantly have one present. 
So you can be disarmed I think - albeit temporarily. Weapons of opportunity may also break far more easily and require frequent replacing with actions as they aren’t meant to be used to beat people up of course. I’d lean towards OAF myself.

 

The OAF can be disarmed or broken and, while replaceable, can't be replaced in combat and generally takes some time outside combat.  A typical OIF is much harder to target in combat, but if broken or removed, takes similar time to replace.  A Weapon of Opportunity is more easily disarmed than a typical OIF, but also much easier to replace than a typical OIF or an OAF.  To me, that suggests the -1/2 limitation is reasonable.

[MrAgdesh]

Actually, looking at 6E1 pg 377, you're quite correct.