Attacks v.s. Foci

[austenandrews]

I know this has come up before, but what are the major issues with a PC having an attack specifically targeted at an enemy's Focus? Be it a "rust attack" or EMP or super-goo that gums up machinery, I understand that many GMs are wary about such powers. I'm contemplating a PC with such an ability but I don't recall all the sticky parts of the construct or how they relate to 5E.

 

Does anyone have any insight?

 

-AA

[Diamond Spear]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

As a GM I don't have any problems with this kind of power. It helps enforce the limitation a focus gives and since the power itself is limited to being effective only against opponents who use foci it helps keep it balanced.

[Gary]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

As a GM I don't have any problems with this kind of power. It helps enforce the limitation a focus gives and since the power itself is limited to being effective only against opponents who use foci it helps keep it balanced.

 

It depends on how exactly the power is built. I would have a problem with the cheesy 1 pip double penetrating area effect killing attack vs devices. Or a 1d6 NND Does body area effect (defense is not having circuits or electronics), or anything of that nature.

[Bengal]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

What GM would have a problem with this? Maybe a GM who used a preponderance of foci-focused (fnar) bad guys, but in that case, it's just a limitation that's worth a little less.

 

 

On the other hand, if you're making this PC to be a "silver bullet" against a fairly unstoppable bad guy, then the Gm might have issues with it on account of his own sour grapes. Make sure you understand why it's going to be a problem for him to bring this power construct in, and then see if you can't reorganize the power construct to get around any problems the two of you come upon without gutting the power entirely.

 

 

For me, a focus-destroying power is a total must for a superspeedster character- call it "rapid disassembly" for instance. If there's a bomb on a tiumer set to go off inside a building, do you really want your speedster to have to take 30 seconds to use his Demolitions skill to disarm it, when he could just move faster than the electrical impulses inside the device and just pull it apart before it knows to go off? Similarly, one of my PCs carry "freeze capsules" like Nighthawk has, and these are excellent for putting a focus... ahem... on ice.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

I dont mind attacks that attack FOCI directly, but I, like Gary, mind attacks that deliberately loophole the rules to wreck them almost effortlessly. I just consider objects to have infinite hardening vs Penetrating unless they are fragile.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

It depends on how exactly the power is built. I would have a problem with the cheesy 1 pip double penetrating area effect killing attack vs devices. Or a 1d6 NND Does body area effect (defense is not having circuits or electronics)' date=' or anything of that nature.[/quote']

While I frown on things like these, it does help reinforce the fact that Focus is a Limitation.

 

Personally, any of those constructs wouldn't have any decent effect in my games, but I have a house rule that gives objects DEF and BODY. When they take BODY, they are treated as Automatons with the lesser version of Takes No STUN.

 

To better help you out, AA, what kind of foci are you wanting to disable and how?

[zornwil]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

It depends on how exactly the power is built. I would have a problem with the cheesy 1 pip double penetrating area effect killing attack vs devices. Or a 1d6 NND Does body area effect (defense is not having circuits or electronics)' date=' or anything of that nature.[/quote']

 

Ha, that sounds familiar!

 

I don't have too much trouble with it, regardless, if that rationale is reasonable. The PC in my game who does that turns into a cloud and is actually himself drifting over the area, able to be dispelled by wind (though he's nigh-impervious to damage in that state) and the like, so it seems fair in that case.

 

Anyway, to the original question, one thing to bear in mind - many powers are not justified as foci and while it's somewhat metagaming to say "your power didn't work as it's not really a focus" that's the fine line between genre-correct and metagaming. If it's genre-correct, feel free to ignore the attack - the bad guy may not have a "true" focus just for that reason. So long as it's not a "GM cheat" to get around the PC versus a "it looks like a focus, but it never breaks, believe me" genre-thing then I feel okay with explaining such.

 

It also helps if the PCs realize that the precious points they did NOT try to go cheap on by buying foci were well-protected.

 

Unfortunately, though, as GM foci are one thing I forget to go after too often.

[austenandrews]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

To better help you out' date=' AA, what kind of foci are you wanting to disable and how?[/quote']

 

Really I'm not out to be a "focus buster." It's just a natural extension of the power concept. The character has the ability to morph inorganic materials and incorporate them into a "suit of armor." For instance, she can "morph" a car into a protective metal shell, or morph a power line into a handy electricity-thrower. The end result is sort of an Absorbing Man power set.

 

Here's the part that flirts with munchkinry. For the character to gain Armor, she must "absorb" a high-DEF material (the tougher the material, the tougher the Armor). For that reason I'm using Suppress BODY to bypass the normal DEF, or she'll stand there all day just trying to activate her Armor. (Plus Suppress works well for other conceptual reasons.)

 

Now, the Focus rules allow a DEF of Active Points/5. Any attack that does BODY over the DEF knocks out one Power. The rules also say that most Foci don't have special defenses. So the Suppress BODY amounts to an NND attack against a Focus. That's cool; knives, handguns and laser cannon emplacements only have one Power, so I can effectively take them out in one shot. That seems reasonable.

 

However, 2xDEF in BODY can destroy a Focus completely. I'm working in the 3d6 Suppress zone (enough to morph a car in a Phase or two). That averages 10 points of effect, which means in one Phase I can destroy (morph) an entire suit of power armor built with a 50 pt. Multipower. In two Phases, theoretically I could wax a 100-point Multipower (!), and so on. Somehow that feels like exploiting a loophole.

 

One solace I take is that the 2xDEF rule is at the GM's option. Presumably he's not going to opt for my character to strip off Iron Man's armor with a couple of hits (I know he wouldn't be bought with a Focus per se, but still). And I know it's not so bad to make characters pay the price for the Focus point break. But I can't help but feel like a munchkin when I realize what that little 15 pt. Power gives me.

 

-AA

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

If it makes you feel any better Adjustment Powers are all Yield Sign.

 

I am looking over the FAQ as I await Fred and I must say that Adjustment powers are the single most dangerous kind of power out their and are almost but not quite a STOP sign to me.

 

Hawksmoor

[Gary]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

I don't allow Suppress Body attacks as a matter of principal. It's way too easy to outright kill characters if you have it. And you've pointed out the problems with suppressing Foci.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Remember Steve's reply about Surppressing BODY? When the Suppress is turned off, the "victim" immediately returns to life! At the time I made a follow-up post to that ruling stating it'd be an interesting way to write-up a "cold-sleep hibernation" function for a STL starship, more because it would be an interesting alternative to the usual "Longevity, UBO".

[Gary]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Remember Steve's reply about Surppressing BODY? When the Suppress is turned off' date=' the "victim" [i']immediately[/i] returns to life! At the time I made a follow-up post to that ruling stating it'd be an interesting way to write-up a "cold-sleep hibernation" function for a STL starship, more because it would be an interesting alternative to the usual "Longevity, UBO".

 

The target is still easily taken out in one shot, which leaves plenty of time to wipe him out while he's down.

[Dr. Anomaly]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Myself I'd argue that if they have NO Body (it's been Suppressed completely) then you can't do any more Body damage to them, so how are you going to "finish them off"?

 

 

 

Yeah, yeah, I know...they saw off the head, drive a stake through the heart or whatever, then turn off the Suppress; the victim is "alive" again for all of 1 or 2 seconds before they die, this time for real.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Okay, AA, the way you describe the powers, Transfer might work for some of the effects. Granted, the Focus rules don't allow for applicable BODY Transfers, but a DEF Transfer could work (bought as Transfer DEF to (whatever you need) and with the +1 Advantage to Transfer PD, ED, Armor and Resistant Defenses simo).

 

You could also just give some if his abilities the Focus Limitation (needing nearby objects/materials) and a Dispel to kill appropriate Foci if he gets what he needs from such things. There doesn't always have to be a direct relationship between the mechanics as long as they simulate the effect you're looking for.

[austenandrews]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Okay, AA, the way you describe the powers, Transfer might work for some of the effects. Granted, the Focus rules don't allow for applicable BODY Transfers, but a DEF Transfer could work (bought as Transfer DEF to (whatever you need) and with the +1 Advantage to Transfer PD, ED, Armor and Resistant Defenses simo).

 

You could also just give some if his abilities the Focus Limitation (needing nearby objects/materials) and a Dispel to kill appropriate Foci if he gets what he needs from such things. There doesn't always have to be a direct relationship between the mechanics as long as they simulate the effect you're looking for.

 

I'm avoiding Drain/Transfer mechanics because I'm basically taking your second approach. I've got a Multipower with an array of options with a -1/2 Limitation (actually it's -1/4 for OIF "Focus of Opportunity" and another -1/4 "Effect Limited By Material"). The whole MP is bought with Variable SFX.

 

I've got three ways to simulate the character's effect on the environment. The simplest case is just SFX -- usually there's no need to stat out exactly how much of the sidewalk she uproots when she incorporates it into her defenses. I've also put Side Effects on the powers, in case we do need to figure out the numbers. Finally I've got the Suppress power outside the MP, for those cases where it's advantageous to morph something (like a bad guy's getaway car). (Yes, the seed for this character came from the thread a few weeks back about powers that damage the environment.)

 

Dispel is an interesting thought. I'm using Suppress because she can restore the morphed objects when she's finished with them (or they revert automatically if she's knocked out). I'll have to read through Dispel to see if it might help with this concept.

 

-AA

[Dust Raven]

Re: Attacks v.s. Foci

 

Dispel is an interesting thought. I'm using Suppress because she can restore the morphed objects when she's finished with them (or they revert automatically if she's knocked out). I'll have to read through Dispel to see if it might help with this concept.

 

-AA

I was wondering why you were using Suppress for something that effectively destroyed what it used, where Suppress would allow everything to recover from it. This makes sense, although it never have the opportunity to actually destroy something for good.