One Power, two foci

[Richard Logue]

The archer thread elsewhere brings up a point for me, and I'd like to discuss it some.

 

The bow, the arrows. One Power (or Multipower construct if you like) bought with 2 Foci. The bow itself would/could be an OAF. If its taken away, the arrows are no good even though you still have them. The arrows would/could be an OIF (they are secure in the quiver). If they are taken away or damaged, the bow is not very useful.

 

The Power requires both Foci to function. Does it make sense, or no? Consider this archery Multipower. "Archer" Stanton carries with him his bow, and a quiver. In the quiver are 16 shafts and a multitude of heads (no more than 4 of each). The debate of charges aside, I'm wondering more toward the idea of a Power that might require more than one Focus to use.

 

10 Bow and Arrows: Multipower, 30-point reserve, 16 Charges (16 Shafts; +0) (100 Active Points); all slots OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

1u 1) Broadheads: RKA 2d6 (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

1u 2) Boom! 'Head: EB 6d6 (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

1u 3) Smoke Out 'Head: Darkness to Sight Group 3" radius (30 Active Points); OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2) 3

1u 4) Bang! 'Head: Sight and Hearing Groups Flash 5d6 (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

1u 5) "You're Soaking In It" Glue Goo 'Head (In memory of Madge): Entangle 3d6, 3 DEF (30 Active Points); 4 Charges (-1), OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Focus - Arrowheads Power loses about a third of its effectiveness (OIF; -1/2), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

1u 6) Ladder 'Head: Clinging (normal STR), Usable By Other (+1/4), Ranged (+1/2) (17 Active Points); Limited Power - Only to ascend, and only 1" Power loses about half of its effectiveness (-1), 4 Charges (-1), OAF Durable (Focus - Bow; -1), Extra Time - Attaching the arrowhead to the shaft (Extra Segment, -1/2)

[Solomon]

The rules for Multiple Foci (p. 190) should handle this nicely. I would call it an OAF Multiple Focus (-3/4). The arrows are to all intents Inaccessible, but if the bow is grabbed the power can only be used in close combat.

[Derek Hiemforth]

I generally consider arrows to be Accessible, and I usually build bow-and-arrow Multipowers as:

 

Multipower, OAF Arrows (-1), Only Ranged When Used In Combination With A Bow (-1/4).

[PhilFleischmann]

If the power requires both foci to use, the limitation is at least as much as the greater of the two. If you stop my power by taking away an OAF, I should get at least -1 Lim. If there is an additional focus, I might get even more of a limitation for it, but never less. If a power requires two OAFs for instance, I'd probably give it -1.5. If it required an OAF and an OIF, -1.25. If it was an OAF and an IIF, I think it would only be worth -1.

[Richard Logue]

Originally posted by Solomon

The rules for Multiple Foci (p. 190) should handle this nicely. I would call it an OAF Multiple Focus (-3/4). The arrows are to all intents Inaccessible, but if the bow is grabbed the power can only be used in close combat.

 

Holy cow! I didn't even know that existed. I should pay more attention. Thanks Solomon.

 

[Oruncrest]

Bow & Arrow: Two, two, two Powers, Not One

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to write the Arrows as OAF (-1) Limited by STR (-¼), and the Bow as Extra STR, ½ END, OAF (-1), Only for Throwing (-2), Only with Arrows (-2)?

 

An alluminum arrow has a masss of .096 grams, requiring a STR of -40 to pick up. A normal man has 10 STR, meaning he could throw the arrow some 22" (145') with a Standing Throw (the only kind of throw I'd allow with this). Assuming his bow added +40 STR, then the arrow could be shot out to 36"(237').

 

Admittedly, I'm not an Archery fan, so if those numbers are low tweak the bow to your taste.

[JmOz]

Easier to buy off the range based on Str with an OAF

[Pegasus]

On my current character, Madstone, I've experimented with three different methods of the bow and quiver question. In my case, it’s a slingshot and his “bag of tricks,†which is only slightly different. The only real difference is that the ammo is not kinetic dependent, so range based on STR works for each slot.

 

Method 1)

*Multipower: Bag of tricks, OIF, 60 active points, Range based on STR.

*Separately: Slingshot, OAF, extra STR, only to throw ammo

Problem with this: Slingshot STR should be independent of user, not add. (Bricks shouldn’t get additional STR, frex.) Plus, range never really felt adequate.

 

Method 2)

*Multipower: Bag of tricks, OIF, 60 active points, Range based on STR.

*Separately: Slingshot, OAF, buy off Range based on STR lim (15 active points)

Problem with this: There seems to be some argument over whether a naked advantage should be allowed for a multipower. (Isn’t this what Rainbow Archer uses? I don’t have the new write up.) In other words, requires GM permission.

 

Method 3)

*Multipower: Bag of Tricks OIF {-1/2}--multiple foci: Requires second focus (OAF Slingshot) or reduced effectiveness (Range based on STR) {-0}

Problem with this: That multiple foci adjustment is normally +1/4, but I made a ruling that since the second required focus is an OAF, which is a much bigger limitation than another OIF, that -0 would be more appropriate. In other words, this would require GM permission again. I think this is cleaner, but more expensive than the other two (since you don’t get the separate Range based on STR lim).

 

I like method 2 best so far. Umm…how many GMs out there would allow this? Discuss.