Help Create the Instant Sword Spell Please

[Killer Shrike]

All of the not-in-FRED rules options to the best of my knowledge are "At the GM's option...", because one of the mantra's of the HERO System is you just need the main rulebook to play.

 

However, it's in a published supplement, its in HD v2, and it's a lot more kosher than trying to bend FRED-based modifiers to cover it, IMO.

 

Obviously, Steve either previously knew about or recognized the slight disconnect when trying to use INSTANT Powers in Spells which are supposed to stick around for a while and patched it with 2 different means of handling it, Lingering which is new, or a twist on Continuous (which I dont care for of the two).

 

This whole circumstance comes up so rarely in anyother setting, that it's almost a Fantasy-only case. Very corner-case. I understand that most people are not aware of Lingering or Physical Manifestation, which is why I was demonstrating its use, and provided links to pages describing both as closely as I can without violating HERO Games IP.

 

Here's a hint though for those who dont have either supplement -- 1) both supplements are worth every penny IMO and 2) both Lingering and PhysMan are in HDv2 -- thanx to Dan's crack coding diligence, Charges even automatically convert to Continuing if used with a Lingering Instant Power, and of the same duration as the Lingering to boot.

 

 

As far as UBO is concerned a) Ill check on the wording when I get home -- as I said "IIRC" -- and I dont even really know why you are suggesting it for this particular situation.

 

However, all that aside, I just want to make sure that everyone understands I'm not trying to tell any of you how to do it. Im merely trying to raise an awareness of the legalities of various approaches.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Which is what Demonsong was asking about. How does he limit his basic HKA, which works every Phase, so that it requires a skill roll to activate and can be deactivated by someone else easily?

 

OK, Ill go over this one more time, since its apparantly not sinking in.

 

Instant Powers do not work every Phase. They are ACTIVATED every Phase. When you put RSR or similar Activation-modifying Limitations on an Instant Power, you have to abide by those Limitations everytime you use that Power. Not the 1st time, everytime.

 

This is per FRED and is one of the main differences between an Instant and a Constant Power.

 

Originally posted by archer

You're talking about Advantages when he's looking for Limitations.

An Instant Power which has things like Incants, Gestures, RSR: MSR, Etc that only apply the first time that Instant Power is used doesnt rate a Limitation. It is BETTER than an equivalent Instant power that, in accordance with the rules, has to go thru those Limitations every time it is used. In the HERO System Powers which are BETTER are handled via Advantages, not Limitations.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by archer

In fact you've gotten quite adamant, several times using the phrase "ACTIVATION LIMITATIONS" in all capital letters. That's what he's asking about. So what's his Limitation value?

I'm putting activation limitations in ALL CAPS in certain places because Im typing at work and dont want to take the time to put in the UBB syntax. Its just a low-tech bolding.

 

When I say Activation Limitations (better?), Im talking about any limitations placed on the Power Construct which affects the Activation of the Power. This would include Incantations, Gestures, Focus, Restrainable, RSR, and Extra Time off the top of my head, which change the behaviour of how a Power is turned on.

 

In the case of the Sword Summoning Spell, the original poster indicated that his Spell should have an RSR: Magic Roll Limitation.

 

By placing such an Activation Limitation on an Instant Power, according to the rules, the Wizard or whatever would have to make the RSR: Magic Roll every time they wanted to hit someone w/ the Instant HKA Power.

 

Since the intention was to "Cast a Spell" to "make a sword", not "Cast a Spell to inflict HKA damage on someone once", the need to make a Magic Skill roll with each strike runs against the concept of the Power/Spell. Effectively, the character would cast their Spell, the Sword (or whatever SFX) would appear, they would make an Attack Roll to hit, and then the Sword (or other SFX) would technically cease to exist because it is Instant. The caster would need to "Cast the Spell" again each Phase they wanted to use it. Even if the GM waved the SFX and said that the appearance of a Sword (or other SFX) hung around, the caster would still have to make that RSR: Magic Roll every Phase to activate the Instant HKA.

 

That is the crux of the entire discussion/argument/debate/what-have-you: How to have an Instant Power used via a Spell with RSR: Magic Skill Roll (or by extention any other Limitation that affects how the power is activated) and only have those Limitations apply once, when the Spell is Cast, and then have the effect stick around and be freely usable for a while?

 

Since this exact situation occurs so frequently with "Spells" there is a couple page section in Fantasy HERO, the Genre where Spells are most common, that covers it via the addition of Lingering and an explanation of how to alternately use Continuous to cover it.

 

Im not suggesting he apply a Limitation to his Spell when I use the term Activation Limitations -- Im referring to the circumstance which causes this to be a problem in the first place, which is the application of Activation Limitations to Instant Powers when you dont want to have to use the Activation Limitation every time you use the Instant Power.

Originally posted by archer

And who says the construct Demonsong posted above isn't a spell? KS, it seems like you're taking "what I'd do in my game" and calling it "what you should do in your game".

I didnt say it was or wasnt a Spell. However, in general, any Power Construct without some kind of Limitation flavored to cover the idea of "Casting a Spell" such as Incantation, Gestures, Concentration, RSR: Magic Skill etc isnt really a "Spell" IMO and is more properly like a "Superpower".

 

Im also not talking "what I do in my game" nor telling anyone what to do in their game. Do whatever you want in your own game. Doesnt concern me in the slightest.

 

Im pointing out an aspect of the rules which is being overlooked, and new modifiers provided in supplements which cover the details of the desired effect asked for by the original poster.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

In fact, why not make it something like OIHID and Restrainable? Restrainable means it can be taken away or otherwise deactivated, and OIHID means that you then have to "reactivate" it once it's taken away. If you don't like calling it OIHID, call it "Activation Limitations" at -1/4.

 

OIHID is only disadvantageous if having a HID is in some way difficult for the character. Its primarily only meaningful in a Supers setting, and hardly seems fitting for a Fantasy Wizard whose capable of whipping out spells at anytime, and who is pretty obviously a Wizard the first time he casts a spell. However, if it works for you, go for it.

 

As a side note, Restrainable is basically a Focus which cant be destroyed or taken away but which can be interfered with to stop the use of the Restrainable Power. Applying Restrainable to a "Sword" effect seems a bit off since a Sword could logically be taken away and/or destroyed. Physical Manifestation on the other hand brings an item which can be physically interacted with and destroyed just like a real sword into being. However, Restrainable could be bent for this I suppose -- it's less rule-bending than trying to use Focus at least.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

OK, Ill go over this one more time, since its apparantly not sinking in.

 

Instant Powers do not work every Phase. They are ACTIVATED every Phase. When you put RSR or similar Activation-modifying Limitations on an Instant Power, you have to abide by those Limitations everytime you use that Power. Not the 1st time, everytime.

 

Part of my original point in mentioning Limited Power was that Limited Power is a catchall. What if I want a Limitation that doesn't affect an Instant Power every time I activate it? Assume I don't have FH and don't like the Lingering Advantage as written there. Limited Power can be any damn thing I want it to be. Why can't it be "similar to Limitation X, only different"?

 

An Instant Power which has things like Incants, Gestures, RSR: MSR, Etc that only apply the first time that Instant Power is used doesnt rate a Limitation.

 

Why not? By definition that Power is worse than an Instant Power with no such requirements.

 

Are you seriously saying that you have to pay more points for an Instant Power with these requirements than for an Instant Power without them?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by Demonsong

Cost is not the point here KS. The point is over-complicating a power. This is the 1st time that I have come a crossed a power build (specifically the power advantage Lingering) that I just dislike. I completely agree with you that this is the correct method to do it by the rules. However the power advantage lingering is just too expensive for what it does. Further more I think it is clunky. Unlike many others, I freely admit that I am not an expert on the hero system. And I do not have a better solution. But that does not change the fact that I think it is just an ugly power construct that I am not going to use in my game. I would hope that you can respect that.

 

 

Disclaimer:

Over all I think that the Hero System is by far the best gaming system on the market. And that I mean no disrespect to Steve or any one else at Hero. I just think Lingering need to be re-thought out.

Sure, I can respect it, no problem.

 

BTW, what do you think of "Repeated Use Instant Spells" using Continuous? (also in FH, right after Lingering)

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Part of my original point in mentioning Limited Power was that Limited Power is a catchall. What if I want a Limitation that doesn't affect an Instant Power every time I activate it? Assume I don't have FH and don't like the Lingering Advantage as written there. Limited Power can be any damn thing I want it to be. Why can't it be "similar to Limitation X, only different"?

 

Why not? By definition that Power is worse than an Instant Power with no such requirements.

That might work if most of the Activation Limitations like Incants and Gestures werent already -1/4, which is as low as you can go. Is a Power using -1/4 LimPow where you have to Incant when you first cast an Instant Spell but may then use it over and over again as limited as an Instant Power where you have to Incant (-1/4 Incantations) each time you use the Power?

 

No.

 

Originally posted by archer

Are you seriously saying that you have to pay more points for an Instant Power with these requirements than for an Instant Power without them?

? No. When did I say that?

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

As a side note, Restrainable is basically a Focus which cant be destroyed or taken away but which can be interfered with to stop the use of the Restrainable Power. Applying Restrainable to a "Sword" effect seems a bit off since a Sword could logically be taken away and/or destroyed.

 

Which, per the original poster, happens if the wielder is Stunned or Knocked Out.

 

Physical Manifestation on the other hand brings an item which can be physically interacted with and destroyed just like a real sword into being. However, Restrainable could be bent for this I suppose -- it's less rule-bending than trying to use Focus at least.

 

I don't know what Physical Manifestation is. I honestly don't have USPD.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Which, per the original poster, happens if the wielder is Stunned or Knocked Out.

Ahem...since its an Instant Power and not Persistent that happens anyway. You dont get a Limitation for it.

 

 

 

Originally posted by archer

I don't know what Physical Manifestation is. I honestly don't have USPD.

Check page 1 or 2, I posted a pretty explicit hovering-on-the-edge-of-violating-IP description of it. Its basically a breakable Focus that comes into being via the Activation of a Power, rather than being needed to Activate said power. Like Iceman's Slide, frex. Its not a Focus, but it can be attacked and destroyed, ending his slide effect.

[Killer Shrike]

Here it is again:

 

Taken from Killer Shrike's Default Magic System Default Magic System Guidelines

 

PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION

This option is in effect in my campaigns

Some Spells in addition or instead of requiring physical items to be cast leave behind some physical manifestation which can be attacked, ending the Spell. This could be modeled using the FOCI rules, except that FOCI are normally needed for activation of a Power construct, whereas this sort of manifestation is brought into being by activation of a Power construct.

Fortunately, a new Limitation called Physical Manifestation can be found on page 100 in the UNTIL Superpowers Database. Physical Manifestation is a -1/4 Limitation that essentially is treated as a Breakable Focus brought into being by activation of a Power, with a DCV equal to the Base DCV of the originating character (or logically 0 if left unattended and immobile).

This Limitation is tailor made for making Spells that create a Ward, or a Symbol, or call forth hands of force which may be attacked directly, and similar.

USING PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION

A Physical Manifestation must be accessible, must be attackable, and must be breakable via mundane means. If it is not any one of these things, then it is not really a Physical Manifestation and is just a SFX.

REF: Physical Manifestation, Page 100 UNTIL Superpowers Database, Sidebar

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

All of the not-in-FRED rules options to the best of my knowledge are "At the GM's option...", because one of the mantra's of the HERO System is you just need the main rulebook to play.

 

However, it's in a published supplement, its in HD v2, and it's a lot more kosher than trying to bend FRED-based modifiers to cover it, IMO.

 

Interestingly enough, I don't have HD v2 either. With my current state of finances, I am unlikely to buy either USPD or HD v2 in the near future.

 

As far as UBO is concerned a) Ill check on the wording when I get home -- as I said "IIRC" -- and I dont even really know why you are suggesting it for this particular situation.

 

You can use UBO to grant someone the ability to use a Power. Once you have done so, they can use the Power until certain conditions are met. Using the Differing Modifiers rule, you can, for instance, give someone a Power they can use every Phase with no preparation, but your ability to give them the Power might take, for instance, Gestures, Incantations, and RSR. It would look something like this:

 

Sword of Light: HKA 1d6+1, 20 Base Points. Advantages: 0 END Cost (+1/2) 30 Active Points. Limitations: Restrainable (-1/2). 20 Real Points.

 

UBO With Differing Modifiers: Create Sword of Light, 20 Base Points [note: this is the Real Cost of the Sword of Light]. Advantages: Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4). 25 Active Points. Limitations: Gestures, Only To Activate (-1/4). Incantations, Only To Activate (-1/4), Requires A Skill Roll (Magic) (-1/2). 12 Real Points.

 

Per the rules of UBO, no one pays points for the granted ability. This does break one rule in that it specifically says that you can't use UBO as a cheap way of giving yourself a Power, but I'd allow it myself. If this absolutely rubs you wrong, you can require the character to buy the Sword of Light Power, with perhaps an additional Limitation not reflected in the UBO points (effectively, Linked to Create Sword of Light, which is itself a Constant Power).

 

Alternately, while the following is pure velveeta, it doesn't actually break the rules. It does exactly what Demonsong wanted, no more and no less.

 

SoL Constant Placeholder: Force Field, 1 PD. 1 Base Point. Advantages: Costs END Only To Activate (+1/4), Fully Invisible (+3/4). 2 Active Points. Limitations: Does Not Stop Damage (-2), Gestures Only To Start (-1/4), Incantations Only To Start (-1/4), RSR Magic (-1/2), Deactivates If Sword of Light Disarmed Or Broken (-1/4), 3x END Cost (-1). 1 Real Point.

 

Sword of Light, v2: HKA 1d6+1, 20 Base Points. Advantages: 0 END Cost (+1/2) 30 Active Points. Limitations: Real Weapon (-1/4), Linked to SoL Constant Placeholder (-0). 24 Real Points.

 

Edited to fix Linked and add some formatting. Edited again to fix END cost of SoL placeholder.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Let what go? I dont care what Arthur or anyone else does in their game. However, when a newbie asks "HOW DO I DO X" and people instruct that person how to do it via means that are not legal or correct via the rules, I think it behooves us all to at least be clear about what is book-legal and what is effectively "house-ruled". Otherwise said newbie and perhaps other lurkers are incorrectly educated on how the system works, which can lead to other problems as well.

 

I don't have a problem with pointing out that something is against the rules as written, but you were harping on that quite a bit and seemed to be implying that doing it that way was Hurting Wrong Fun.

 

On the specific issue of newbies, okay, maybe they need to be aware when something is against the rules as written, but then again it can show a newbie how to change or ignore the rules that don't work for him.

 

And what's wrong with someone being incorrectly educated about the rules of the game if the "incorrect" version works for them? Note that said newbie would face the same problem if he played under a GM who used his own house rules. Are you going to say that no GM should ever use house rules because of this?

[Fenixcrest]

Okay- a couple possible suggestions-

 

1) Give it a one day continuous charge, with "behaves like an instant power" (-1/2).

 

2) This one's kinda weird: Make a construct kinda like this one-

"Summon Magic Sword for Up to One Day": PRE +1 **or some other random little weird arbitrary power**. Fuel Charge 1 day (+1/2). 1 Active Point. RSR Magic (-1/2). Side Effects on failed roll (-1/2). Costs END only to activate (-1/4). 1 Real Point. PLUS HKA 1d6+1 / 4 DC. 0 END +1/2. 30 Active. Linked to the above summoning (-1/4). Restrainable (can be disarmed and whatnot, but can't be used by others; -1/2). 17 Real Points. 18 Total points in construct.

 

 

Just a thought.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I guess the summoning would have gestures and incantations, too, just to keep it standard. I dunno. There's prolly a better way to arrange that, but it's a template at any rate.

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

I don't have a problem with pointing out that something is against the rules as written, but you were harping on that quite a bit and seemed to be implying that doing it that way was Hurting Wrong Fun.

I implied nothing, you inferred everything?

 

Originally posted by archer

On the specific issue of newbies, okay, maybe they need to be aware when something is against the rules as written, but then again it can show a newbie how to change or ignore the rules that don't work for him.

Do you mean setting a bad example can lead others to follow suit, or that if we all do it wrong then eventually it will become "right", or do you mean something else by this?

 

There is a difference between saying "Here's the legal way, and heres a few things you might do that arent so legal but might work in the right circumstances" and just saying "Here's my totally illegal interpretation passed off as a way to do it with no mention of the fact that it isnt legal* ".

 

If the later isnt challenged, then its the equivalent of a coach telling little leaguers, "OK, just jump in front of the ball so you get to 1st base. Eventually we'll score.", without explaining how to hit the ball and run the bases correctly. Will it work? Kind of. Is it the best/most correct/legal/least painful way to do it? No...

 

*(usually stemming from the poster not realizing its not legal)

 

Originally posted by archer

And what's wrong with someone being incorrectly educated about the rules of the game if the "incorrect" version works for them?

"Whats wrong with someone being incorrectly educated"? Hmm....Ok, where to start? On second thought, you really cant reason with that kind of thinking, so I think I wont bother.

 

Originally posted by archer

Note that said newbie would face the same problem if he played under a GM who used his own house rules. Are you going to say that no GM should ever use house rules because of this?

Holy Leaping Tangents Batman!

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Interestingly enough, I don't have HD v2 either. With my current state of finances, I am unlikely to buy either USPD or HD v2 in the near future.

Thats too bad; both are quite sweet.

 

Originally posted by archer

You can use UBO to grant someone the ability to use a Power. SNIP

 

Yes I know. What I meant was, I dont see how that has any bearing on the power construct the original poster asked for assistance on. He wanted a Summon Sword Spell for his own use, not to lend out to others.

[Arthur]

Originally posted by archer

Limited Power.

 

Limited Power can limit the Power in any way you want, if you can describe it well enough.

 

I don't see anything at all wrong with saying "Limited Power: Requires A Roll To Activate (-1/4)" or something similar.

[/b[

 

My point exactly. Since I can define any Modifier I want, anything I come up with is "legal by the rules". Just because there may be a complicated set of existing modifiers that does the same thing means little.

 

Granted, if there is a relatively easy way to do it with existing pre-defined Modifiers, it should be done that way.

 

However, the more Modifiers are piled on, the more likely it becomes that the point cost will be wildly out of line. It's just not feasible to playtest every combination.

 

After a certain point, it becomes more - elegant - to just make up your own Modifier. I like to think of it as a variation on Occam's Razor.

 

I guess it's a matter of style.

 

For the record, I started playing Champions just about 20 years ago, give or take a year. KS, that wasn't meant as a slam on you or an "I'm better than you" comment. I'm just trying to say I'm probably at about the same level of expertise as you. Roughly. Please try not to take it as an insult.

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

"Whats wrong with someone being incorrectly educated"? Hmm....Ok, where to start? On second thought, you really cant reason with that kind of thinking, so I think I wont bother.

 

Try these four words: "It's only a game!"

 

Again, what's wrong with someone learning the rules to a game incorrectly, if they are having fun with it and it works for them? It's not like they're going to Hell if they do it wrong.

[devlin1]

Originally posted by archer

It's not like they're going to Hell if they do it wrong.

 

Not going to Hell? What do you call this place?

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Try these four words: "It's only a game!"

Try these four words: "Please dont be condescending"

 

Originally posted by archer

Again, what's wrong with someone learning the rules to a game incorrectly, if they are having fun with it and it works for them? It's not like they're going to Hell if they do it wrong.

Why bother with rules at all then? Just play cowboys and indians, or Amber diceless. Have fun!

[Chris Goodwin]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

Why bother with rules at all then? Just play cowboys and indians, or Amber diceless. Have fun!

 

Shades of Gary Gygax, circa 1979. "If you're not playing according to the rules, you're not playing AD&D!"

[Killer Shrike]

Originally posted by archer

Shades of Gary Gygax, circa 1979. "If you're not playing according to the rules, you're not playing AD&D!"

No, more like "If you arent playing according to the rules, then you are playing House-rules and shouldnt try to pass off your House-rules to newbies as legal when they arent"

 

Check this out: http://www.killershrike.com

 

I play with a ton of house rules, custom magic systems, alternate weapons rules, etc etc etc.

 

I have no problem w/ people doing whatever they want in their own games and have stated that somewhere around 8 times in this topic alone. I play the game with my own mods too.

 

The difference is I dont try to pass of my house rules as gospel/cannon/book-legal when they are not, and point out where I differ from the rules.

 

There is a difference between knowing what the rule is and choosing to do it a different way, and not actually having a clue as to what your doing but just making things up as you go along.

 

One method involves an informed decision and hopefully a contextualized understanding of when and where to bend or ignore the rules for a desired effect, and the other method is just playing a home made system with some cosmetic similarlites to the HERO System.

 

Honestly, I dont know why you are so vitriolic about this. I didnt write the rules, Im just pointing them out to you. If you dont agree with the rules, its not my fault; thats what the rules are and if you dont like it take it up with Steve. But dont make me out to be a bad guy because I can a) read and apply the rules and post a legal construct in response to a "How to" request.

 

So, if you cant 1) prove that the method I recommend isnt a) legal and doesnt exactly model the requested effect or 2) prove that the method that you propose is a) equally legal and does model the requested effect, then there is no point in continuing to post back and forth about it.

 

Whichever, stop attacking me for pointing out the legalities of the rules. If you want to disregard the rules, then just disregard my posts. In fact, do us both a favor and add me to your Ignore list. This will save you the bother of reading my posts, and will save me the annoyance of fending off your attempts to take statement Ive made and conflate them into things I never implied or in any way suggested.

 

Thanx!

[Chris Goodwin]

KS, I'm going to privately e-mail you at some point to try to clear up where I'm coming from. I don't have the time right now to compose an e-mail, but I will later. I'm going to try not to flame or slam you but try to shed light.