Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

The recent discussion here is why I started this with Dr Doom and Iron Man.

 

Doom has power armor that he almost never loses. Presumably he takes it off at his castle, but whenever out in public he is in villain id. Doom's armor has truely only been damaged by the most powerful of enemies such as Molecule Man, the Beyonder, and the Dreaming Celestial. It has only been neutralized by incalcuable power such as the Power Cosmic. Doom is clearly a case of OIHID, if he deserves any limit at all.

 

I'm of the opinion that he doesn't deserve any limitation as his being without his armor is so exceptionally rare that it doesn't happen often enough to warrant a -1/4 limitation.

 

Iron Man' date=' on the other hand, does meet all the requirements for a focus. He can be caught with out the armor (such as when it was tossed out of the helicarrier or when the Espionage Elite ambushed him), [/quote']

 

Covered by OIHID.

 

The armor is breakable and has been damaged from common foes such as the Melter and Firebrand as well as world class foes such as Fin Fang Foom and the Mandarin.

 

I'm not familiar with Firebrand or Melter. I mostly read IM in the late 80s (up through Armor Wars) and only picked it up again a couple years ago. However, were any of his powers completely knocked out for the rest of the fight, temporarily disabled until Tony could 'Reboot' or whatever to restart the power, or simply reduced in power?

 

The armor can be targeted by EMP devices or hacked or manipulated by magnetic powers.

 

No real bearing on if something is a focus or not. After all, Colossus can be manipulated by magnetic powers & he's certainly not a focus. Some energy-based characters can have their powers neutralized by EMPs without buying them through a Focus. Other characters have had control their powers taken away (hacked) without their being bought through a focus. This falls under the heading of Special Effects.

 

The only counter to the OIF argument is the difficulty in removing the focus. But this is not entirely accurate. Netzilla claimed that an OIF must be removable in 12 seconds. This is not true. We've seen many canon OIF foci that cannot be removed in 12 seconds; almost any head to toe uniform fits this bill which doesn't even mention items like the Armadillo armor.

 

When I get home, I'll quote the passage in the book that states that even an Inaccessible Focus must be removable in 1 turn out of combat. Just because the descriptions of these characters (like Armadillo) do not state how the power may be removed in that time frame, does not mean that it cannot be done. It's simply left up to the GM, but by the game mechanics it has to be possible.

[BrandonQ]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I'll do the quote for you, since I checked and you are in fact right:

"However, someone taking one Turn out of combat can take an Inaccessible Focus away from a character. An Inaccessible Focus cannot be removed from a character who is struggling or resisting."

 

Note that this is /outside/ of combat, and generally doesn't work unless the target is letting you do so. I'd consider this to be the invocation of 'quick release' safeguards, ripping off clothes, and otherwise removing stuff from a willing victim very very quickly.

 

I.e., it's an exception to how long it needs to take to remove something (the absolute fastest time), as opposed to "everything that's accessible can be removed in one combat turn."

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Iron Man's armor would take more than 12 seconds to take off but it is breakable AND it can be taken away from him. Sounds to me like he has a focus with a power (THAT HE BOUGHT) that slows down removing the armor - OR - his armor should be bought as a vehicle. His armor isn't an OIHID because the armor is more limited than an OIHID.

 

You guys are engaged in proving your conclusion instead of thinking through the process.

 

Iron Man, hmmm. Sometimes he doesn't wear his armor when the adventure happens. Some villains are powerful enough to damage his armor. Some villains might be able to incapacitate him long enough to take his armor from him. It takes a while to get his armor off of him.

 

OIHID would work for armor that isn't worn when the adventure begins but it does not apply to the rest of the description. The two options that would work to fit this description is Focus and a power like "strength zero endurance continuous uncontrolled no fig cha only to resist attempts to take off armor" OR buying the armor as a vehicle.

 

In Dr. Doom's case, it isn't even an OIHID, if my knowledge of the character is correct, because he's never been caught without his armor on. Doom doesn't have to worry about changing form and, if what you guys are saying about his armor is true, it can't be broken. I could swear in the old days that Doom's armor was suffering from a grab by the Hulk but that's 25 years ago.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Let's read the last little bit of the OIHID description in FRED since you want to bring it up' date=' "Therefore, it isn't really a focus, since if he bought the armor as a Focus, he could lose the armor. Instead armor is better defined as a special effect of the OIHID limitation." The book specifically recommends using OIHID for power armor [b']when the character CANNOT lose the armor[/b] and alll the OIHID description says is that the character has difficulty changing forms. It doesn't say that someone else can take your OIHID away!

 

If the source of your powers can be lost to you, either because someone removes it from you or they break it (not drain it cuz that's temporary), then your source is a focus.

 

All an OIHID is, is a limitation that says it takes a while to change forms. If you want the OIHID to be more than that then the character needs to have an Accidental Change Disadvantage.

 

Well, if you want to look at the exact wording in the rulebook, it does say a bit more than that.

 

What you're quoting is part of one example of an OIHID given in the book. Let me transcribe the lines just before your quotation. (Bold lettering mine for emphasis):

 

"A Power usually cannot take both OIHID and a Focus Limitation. Howver, OIHID can be used to simulate characters who seem to have a Focus, but somehow never lose it. For example, the powered armor character described above never seems to lose his suit for long or have it taken away from him while he's wearing it."

 

This seems to allow some leeway for an OIHID to be more than just a restraint on ability to change forms; it's clearly not a recommendation that the OIHID abilities cannot be lost under any circumstances. I believe there is some room for GM interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

[Pegasus]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

well' date=' given i normally advise all my players to take, seriously, a 25 pt disad for "Steve is my GM" on their characters... you are not too far wrong.[/quote']

 

I could certainly list some former players who thought having me as GM was a distinct disadvantage. As an evil GM, I love this idea.

 

It reminds me of the cleric in DnD whose chosen deity was "The DM." He was a priest of sycophancy. It was fun.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Iron Man's armor would take more than 12 seconds to take off but it is breakable AND it can be taken away from him. Sounds to me like he has a focus with a power (THAT HE BOUGHT) that slows down removing the armor - OR - his armor should be bought as a vehicle. His armor isn't an OIHID because the armor is more limited than an OIHID.

 

Just for clarity's sake, I will point out that I never claimed that the only limitation on IM's armor be OIHID. In fact, I've noted that using the Restrainable lim is debatably possible. Now that I've had a chance to look it up in the book, the description of Restrainable does read, "Removing cyberware typically requires surgery, but it can often be disabled or incapacitated if damaged (visible cyberware can usually be targeted at -2 OCV) or exposed to various types of electromagnetic radiations, and these weaknesses are well-known. Since surgery is required to remove cyberware, it's not really a Focus, but it can be considered Restrainable. In this case Restrainable is only a -1/4 Limitation, since disabling the body part is harder than usual or requires special equipment." (HSR, 200)

 

Given that, Restrainable does seem applicable in this case. So, I would agree that Restrainable is a valid addition to or replacement for OIHID in Iron Man's case.

 

You guys are engaged in proving your conclusion instead of thinking through the process.

 

While I don't believe you intended insult with that statement, it is most certainly and unfair and inflammatory accusation. I don't believe you have any evidence to support that idea. Simply because we have disagreed with you does not mean that we are not thinking critically here. In fact, the opposite is supported by the fact that we have both presented arguments supporting our side and countering yours.

 

Iron Man' date=' hmmm. Sometimes he doesn't wear his armor when the adventure happens. [/quote']

 

Covered by OIHID.

 

Some villains are powerful enough to damage his armor.

 

Debatably covered by OIHID. Certainly covered by Restrainable.

 

Also, the way that IM's armor is damaged is inconsistent with the way Foci are damaged: "…each attack which penetrates the DEF of the Focus destroys one of the Powers bought through the Focus. The amount of BODY done is unimportant -- one Power is destroyed weather the attack did 1 BODY or 15." A couple lines later: "For this purpose, a Multipower counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of its reserve, +1 point for each slot); an Elemental Control counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of the Active Points in the largest Power in the EC, +1 for each additional Power);…" Finally, a couple paragraphs later: "A character can repair, rebuild or replace a Breakable Focus with some effort. This usually involves acquiring or building a replacement." (HSR, 189-190)

 

IM has managed to do repairs in the middle of combat (which violates the above rules on damaged Foci) and has had powers simply reduced or work intermittently rather than destroyed by damage.

 

Some villains might be able to incapacitate him long enough to take his armor from him.

 

Debatably covered by OIHID. Certainly covered by Restrainable.

 

It takes a while to get his armor off of him.

 

Too long to qualify for Focus as Foci must be removable inside of 12 seconds out of combat.

 

OIHID would work for armor that isn't worn when the adventure begins but it does not apply to the rest of the description. The two options that would work to fit this description is Focus and a power like "strength zero endurance continuous uncontrolled no fig cha only to resist attempts to take off armor"

 

That second power seems rather kludgy to me and would be very hard to run past most GM's I've met. It's a legal constructions but certainly uglier than OIHID, breakable (-1/4) or OIHID (-1/4) plus Restrainable (-1/4), which are also legal constructions. I am unconvinced that Focus is either more appropriate or more desirable a build for IM.

 

OR buying the armor as a vehicle.

 

Also very hard to justify to a GM.

 

In Dr. Doom's case' date=' it isn't even an OIHID, if my knowledge of the character is correct, because he's never been caught without his armor on. Doom doesn't have to worry about changing form and, if what you guys are saying about his armor is true, it can't be broken. I could swear in the old days that Doom's armor was suffering from a grab by the Hulk but that's 25 years ago.[/quote']

 

This I most certainly agree with.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I am also beginning to agree that adding Restrainable to OIHID could be a fair way to define the kind of PA construct we've been debating here. It adds up to the same amount of Limitation as OIF, but functions differently.

 

Good suggestion.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Well, if you want to look at the exact wording in the rulebook, it does say a bit more than that.

 

What you're quoting is part of one example of an OIHID given in the book. Let me transcribe the lines just before your quotation. (Bold lettering mine for emphasis):

 

"A Power usually cannot take both OIHID and a Focus Limitation. Howver, OIHID can be used to simulate characters who seem to have a Focus, but somehow never lose it. For example, the powered armor character described above never seems to lose his suit for long or have it taken away from him while he's wearing it."

 

This seems to allow some leeway for an OIHID to be more than just a restraint on ability to change forms; it's clearly not a recommendation that the OIHID abilities cannot be lost under any circumstances. I believe there is some room for GM interpretation on a case-by-case basis.

I think you guys are guilty of trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here. If your argument boils down to the words "for long" and "while he's wearing it" justifies extending the bulk of the rules for an OIF to an OIHID then I hope you can see my concern. What is happening is that you are essentially "making stuff up" and, that's okay, but it's a house rule not something in the rulebook. Show me one place in the book that suggests it's advisable to use focus breaking rules or rules concerning someone taking away the source of your power to an OIHID.

 

As to restrainable arguments, that may or may not wash depending on the concept. Iron Man's example, it doesn't fit, IMO, as the armor doesn't work for him if it's taken from him, regardless of cybernetic implants (unless there had been a radical change in the character over the past decade).

 

I ask you. What's simplest? Using a limitation's mechanics FOR that limitation and expressing a very small deviation from that limitation with the purchase of a power OR taking the bulk of the mechanics for one limitation and calling them by another limitation's name. One is totally within any interpretation in the book and the other is drawn from a conclusion based on a conclusion. I'm hearing an awful lot about what OIHID is intended for and yet, when I read it's description, it appears to be a pretty narrow limitation.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I am also beginning to agree that adding Restrainable to OIHID could be a fair way to define the kind of PA construct we've been debating here. It adds up to the same amount of Limitation as OIF, but functions differently.

 

Good suggestion.

 

Well, I can't take credit for it as JmOz first mentioned it.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Agent X, when I read the description of OIHID it doesn't seem quite as narrow to me as how you read it. It's clearly not the same thing as a Focus, but I've never been one to say that because the rulebook doesn't say that you can do something, it means that you can't.

 

That said, I understand where you're coming from, and I wouldn't declare you outright wrong. I think this is one of those "agree to disagree" moments.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

*Shrug*

 

When I read the description it doesn't seem quite as narrow to me as how you read it. It's clearly not the same thing as a Focus, but I've never been one to say that because the rulebook doesn't say that you can do something, it means that you can't.

 

That said, I understand where you're coming from, and I wouldn't declare you outright wrong.

The rulebook is the "common tongue" for Hero System Discussions. When someone is bringing up what amounts to a House Rule and is trying to say that it is the best way to do things - I think the burden is on them to show that has some sort of advantage over an interpretation of the rulebook that practices some "judicial restraint." I don't see the advantage. It seems to boil down to folks thinking that power armor characters have a huge edge on everyone if they get a -1/2 limitation for their armor. Sounds to me like the limitation isn't implemented effectively in the games they are playing.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I think you guys are guilty of trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin here.

 

Are you deliberately attempting to come across in an inflammatory way? Why don't you stick to debating the points as they come up rather than throwing around accusations like this?

 

If your argument boils down to the words "for long" and "while he's wearing it" justifies extending the bulk of the rules for an OIF to an OIHID then I hope you can see my concern.

 

While I think that 'the bulk of the rules' is over-stating your case, I can understand your concern. However, I would rather a limitation be more limiting than is intended than less. You apparently feel the opposite way.

 

What is happening is that you are essentially "making stuff up" and' date=' that's okay, but it's a house rule not something in the rulebook. Show me one place in the book that suggests it's advisable to use focus breaking rules or rules concerning someone taking away the source of your power to an OIHID. [/quote']

 

I'd say we're doing more than just "making stuff up". We're attempting to come to the best build to represent powerd armor characters like Iron Man. Different builds have been suggested and debated. Thus far almost all have been found lacking in one way or another, yours included (and not just on the issue of time to remove the armor). You still have not addressed the fact that IM's armor does not follow the Focus damage rules as stated in the book.

 

As to restrainable arguments' date=' that may or may not wash depending on the concept. Iron Man's example, it doesn't fit, IMO, as the armor doesn't work for him if it's taken from him, regardless of cybernetic implants (unless there had been a radical change in the character over the past decade). [/quote']

 

Cybernetics don't work for you if they're taken away from you. That's the point of that version of Restrainable. There is a way to take your power away from you that is more difficult than what is implied by Focus. Cybernetics were simply an example. Having to defeat IM's security systems to remove his armor from his unconscious form falls into the same category. In addition, Restrainable powers can be damaged, and not necessarily by the same rules as Foci.

 

BTW, if you were confused by the example and thinking of a cybernetic control interface for the armor, some of that has been added & Tony has been able to remotely contol the armor recently.

 

I ask you. What's simplest? Using a limitation's mechanics FOR that limitation and expressing a very small deviation from that limitation with the purchase of a power OR

 

More than one deviation (as you still haven't address the damage issue) and 'very small' is a subjective term I don't agree with here.

 

taking the bulk of the mechanics for one limitation and calling them by another limitation's name.

 

Again, I disagree with that we've suggested 'taking the bulk of the mechanics' for Focus. We've taken 2 aspects of it, Durability and Accessability. We have not taken Obviousness, Mobility, Expendabiltiy or Applicability into it. That's 2 out of 6 components for Focus. Not to mention that that OIHID does cover Accessability to the point that the armor cannot be taken while the character is wearing it (which is something I've never seen happen to IM; perhaps you can provide a counter-example).

 

One is totally within any interpretation in the book and the other is drawn from a conclusion based on a conclusion. I'm hearing an awful lot about what OIHID is intended for and yet' date=' when I read it's description, it appears to be a pretty narrow limitation.[/quote']

 

Your build, is IMO kludgy and not likely to get past many GMs. After all, you're making a Focus that circumvents a primary component of being a Focus, the ability to remove it out of combat. Plus your build requires a way of changing how the Durability rules for Foci work. Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with you on how narrow the focus of OIHID is; especially as the book gives an example of powered armor as valid special effects for it.

 

OIHID mainly requires the addition of a Durability-like rule, as I don't recall IM's armor ever being taken from him while he was wearing it; only damaged in several non-Foci like ways.

 

Different folks are going to have different oppinions on what is simpler. For some it's simply porting durability-like damage rules into OIHID. For others its taking a power that circumvents a primary component of Focus & creating new durability rules for Focus.

 

The best option, thus far suggested, does seem to be:

OIHID

*covers the fact that Tony can be kept separate from his armor ("there must be other difficulties or ways to prevent him from changing identities.")

[HSR 197]

 

plus Restrainable

*covers the fact that the armor can be damaged ("can often be disabled or incapacitated if damaged")

*is vulnerable to anti-technology attacks like EMPs and the such ("…or exposed to various types of electromagnetic radiation…")

*can be removed out of combat with great effort ("harder than usual or requires special equipment")

*and can be targeted independent of the wearer at -2 OCV

[All quotes and -2 OCV on HSR 200]

 

Near as I can tell, this does seem to fit all the criteria presented for Iron Man thus far.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Are you deliberately attempting to come across in an inflammatory way? Why don't you stick to debating the points as they come up rather than throwing around accusations like this?

Accusation? You are a tad too sensitive if my point about angels and the head of a pin causes this response from you. If my saying that I think you guys are overreaching and that's inflammatory then I guess there really can't be a debate without some sort of... inflammation.

 

While I think that 'the bulk of the rules' is over-stating your case' date=' I can understand your concern. However, I would rather a limitation be more limiting than is intended than less. You apparently feel the opposite way.[/quote']I like my limitations just like my porridge, just right.

 

I'd say we're doing more than just "making stuff up". We're attempting to come to the best build to represent powerd armor characters like Iron Man. Different builds have been suggested and debated. Thus far almost all have been found lacking in one way or another' date=' yours included (and not just on the issue of time to remove the armor). You still have not addressed the fact that IM's armor does not follow the Focus damage rules as stated in the book.[/quote']How is my explanation lacking, besides the issue of time? It is amazing that focus covers more of the qualities we're talking about and OIHID only deals with difficulty in changing identities but it's better to add paragraphs to OIHID than to work with the established rules.

 

Cybernetics don't work for you if they're taken away from you. That's the point of that version of Restrainable. There is a way to take your power away from you that is more difficult than what is implied by Focus. Cybernetics were simply an example. Having to defeat IM's security systems to remove his armor from his unconscious form falls into the same category. In addition' date=' Restrainable powers can be damaged, and not necessarily by the same rules as Foci.[/quote']You're not getting it. If the cybernetics are only giving Tony the ability to operate armor. They are only limiting when he is in the armor. If the armor can be taken away, that's the a priori limitation because the cybernetic problem doesn't matter. Now, if he can control his armor from a distance, then the cybernetics make sense. However, you probably oughtta buy the armor as a vehicle at that point.

 

BTW' date=' if you were confused by the example and thinking of a cybernetic control interface for the armor, some of that has been added & Tony has been able to remotely contol the armor recently.[/quote']Well there you go. I guess it ought to be a vehicle because duplication would just be silly.

 

More than one deviation (as you still haven't address the damage issue) and 'very small' is a subjective term I don't agree with here.

What are all the deviations? I've noticed one brought up in the discussion. Please list the others. What damage issue? Iron Man's armor takes damage, just like a focus.

 

Again' date=' I disagree with that we've suggested 'taking the bulk of the mechanics' for Focus. We've taken 2 aspects of it, Durability and Accessability. We have not taken Obviousness, Mobility, Expendabiltiy or Applicability into it. That's 2 out of 6 components for Focus. Not to mention that that OIHID does cover Accessability to the point that the armor cannot be taken while the character is wearing it (which is something I've never seen happen to IM; perhaps you can provide a counter-example).[/quote']I didn't think we had to state the obvious. Iron Man's armor is obvious, mobile, not expendable, and is a personal focus with a twist. It inaccessible and it's breakable, BUT it's got high active points so you best have a big attack to break it.

 

Your build' date=' is IMO kludgy and not likely to get past many GMs. After all, you're making a Focus that circumvents a primary component of being a Focus, the ability to remove it out of combat. Plus your build requires a way of changing how the Durability rules for Foci work. Similarly, I'm not sure I agree with you on how narrow the focus of OIHID is; especially as the book gives an example of powered armor as valid special effects for it.[/quote']The primary purpose of a focus is that you can remove it out of combat? Focus is a tool, a descriptor that helps you make decisions in game. It doesn't have one overriding purpose. The main reason a focus is limiting because its use can be interfered with. One method of interference isn't any more important than the other.

 

My build doesn't change a thing about how to determine damage on a focus.

 

The book gives power armor as an example where they specifically bring up that if the armor doesn't take damage AND can't be taken away it's an OIHID. Not one or the other.

 

OIHID mainly requires the addition of a Durability-like rule' date=' as I don't recall IM's armor ever being taken from him while he was wearing it; only damaged in several non-Foci like ways.[/quote'] Is it possible that a limitation that a good player copes with effectively to prevent the worst-case scenario is stil worth points?

 

Let me put it this way: Could you write a story where someone takes Iron Man's armor from him after beating him in battle? I think the answer is yes. That means it is possible to take his armor away. Just because Stark is too good to get into that situation doesn't change the way you would describe the armor.

 

Different folks are going to have different oppinions on what is simpler. For some it's simply porting durability-like damage rules into OIHID. For others its taking a power that circumvents a primary component of Focus & creating new durability rules for Focus.

You know, DCV circumvents the vulnerability disadvantage. The guy is spending points to protect against an element of a limitation. So?

 

What new durability rules? I need you to explain so I can see how you are misreading me or the rulebook.

 

The best option, thus far suggested, does seem to be:

OIHID

*covers the fact that Tony can be kept separate from his armor ("there must be other difficulties or ways to prevent him from changing identities.")

[HSR 197]

No, the best option is to not make up rules when there are rules in place that handle it without having to explain to every new GM or player what your house rule is. The way you are reading ,"there must be other difficulties or ways to prevent him from changing identities." - why have any foci at all?

 

plus Restrainable

*covers the fact that the armor can be damaged ("can often be disabled or incapacitated if damaged")

*is vulnerable to anti-technology attacks like EMPs and the such ("…or exposed to various types of electromagnetic radiation…")

*can be removed out of combat with great effort ("harder than usual or requires special equipment")

*and can be targeted independent of the wearer at -2 OCV

[All quotes and -2 OCV on HSR 200]

Restrainable is okay in some power armor design.

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Fair warning to all comers: Agent X will engage in point-by-point debate for as long as you're willing to keep it going. He enjoys this sort of thing.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Let's read the last little bit of the OIHID description in FRED since you want to bring it up' date=' "Therefore, it isn't really a focus, since if he bought the armor as a Focus, he could lose the armor. Instead armor is better defined as a special effect of the OIHID limitation." The book specifically recommends using OIHID for power armor [b']when the character CANNOT lose the armor[/b] and alll the OIHID description says is that the character has difficulty changing forms. It doesn't say that someone else can take your OIHID away!

 

Right, then lets consider that most classic power armor types (including Iron Man) have had their armor taken away. Also, the armor can operate independently of Stark.

 

Neither fits OIHID

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Right, then lets consider that most classic power armor types (including Iron Man) have had their armor taken away. Also, the armor can operate independently of Stark.

 

Neither fits OIHID

You seem to be more up on Iron Man than I am. Apparently, in my hypotheticals and in SleepyDrug's experience with Iron Man - he's got OIF.

 

C'mon guys. If your main complaint is OIF gives too many points than you are comfortable with just say so. Please don't pretend that OIHID was intended to be used as a method of placing a -1/4 limitation on an OIF.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Fair warning to all comers: Agent X will engage in point-by-point debate for as long as you're willing to keep it going. He enjoys this sort of thing.

I really was trying to be lazy but if they really want to go that route, we can get all precise and quote chapter and verse. I'm game. I work at my buddy's game store one day a week in the summer so I have the time.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Actually as far as Damaging the Iron Man Armors it is going to be a tough nut to crack you've got at least 30rDEF in that baby plus some Ablatives on top.

 

Dispel IMO is a Cheezy, abusive, broken trick,just like the 1 pip RKA NND does Body. You wanna disrupt a focus? Do it the old fashioned way...Hurt it with a regular attack!

 

Hawksmoor

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Accusation? You are a tad too sensitive if my point about angels and the head of a pin causes this response from you. If my saying that I think you guys are overreaching and that's inflammatory then I guess there really can't be a debate without some sort of... inflammation.

 

It's a comments like that in conjunction with your earlier accusation of our not thinking critically simply because we don't agree with you. There's no point in making comments like that. Simply deal with the points as they're raised, and leave the snide remarks out of it.

 

I like my limitations just like my porridge' date=' just right. [/quote']

 

Unfortunately, your example isn't just right. I have explained why in this and other messages. I guess I'll have to do it again.

 

How is my explanation lacking' date=' besides the issue of time? It is amazing that focus covers more of the qualities we're talking about and OIHID only deals with difficulty in changing identities but it's better to add paragraphs to OIHID than to work with the established rules. [/quote']

 

And it's amazing that I started advocating Restrainable in addition to OIHID several messages ago. So, basing your arguments against using only OIHID without taking Restrainable into account as well is pointless.

 

You're not getting it. If the cybernetics are only giving Tony the ability to operate armor. They are only limiting when he is in the armor. If the armor can be taken away' date=' that's the a priori limitation because the cybernetic problem doesn't matter. Now, if he can control his armor from a distance, then the cybernetics make sense. However, you probably oughtta buy the armor as a vehicle at that point. [/quote']

 

You're confusing the example with the ruling. The cybernetics are an example of a special effect for Restrainable. They are not the entirety of the Restrainable rule. The effects of the lesser Restrainable are: Something that can be restrained or disabled by a means other than a Grab or Entangle, can be targeted separate from the character, can be damaged and/or may have specific things its vulnerable to. The remote controlling of the armor has nothing to do with any of that. The cybernetics example was the book's example and has nothing to do with IM. Feel free to look it up. It's on page 200 of the HSR.

 

What are all the deviations? I've noticed one brought up in the discussion. Please list the others. What damage issue? Iron Man's armor takes damage' date=' just like a focus. [/quote']

 

On page 4 of this thread, you'll find this in one of my replies to you:

 

Also' date=' the way that IM's armor is damaged is inconsistent with the way Foci are damaged: "…each attack which penetrates the DEF of the Focus [b']destroys[/b] one of the Powers bought through the Focus. The amount of BODY done is unimportant -- one Power is destroyed weather the attack did 1 BODY or 15." A couple lines later: "For this purpose, a Multipower counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of its reserve, +1 point for each slot); an Elemental Control counts as one Power (with Active Points equal to the value of the Active Points in the largest Power in the EC, +1 for each additional Power);…" Finally, a couple paragraphs later: "A character can repair, rebuild or replace a Breakable Focus with some effort. This usually involves acquiring or building a replacement." (HSR, 189-190)

 

IM has managed to do repairs in the middle of combat (which violates the above rules on damaged Foci) and has had powers simply reduced or work intermittently rather than destroyed by damage.

 

I didn't think we had to state the obvious. Iron Man's armor is obvious' date=' mobile, not expendable, and is a personal focus with a twist. It inaccessible and it's breakable, BUT it's got high active points so you best have a big attack to break it. [/quote']

 

I brought up the other parts of Focus because of your accusation our 'taking the bulk of the mechanics' of the Focus limitation and applying it to OIHID. One-sixth of the rules for Focus is not the 'bulk' of those rules. You're over-stating your case.

 

The primary purpose of a focus is that you can remove it out of combat? Focus is a tool' date=' a descriptor that helps you make decisions in game. It doesn't have one overriding purpose. The main reason a focus is limiting because its use can be interfered with. One method of interference isn't any more important than the other. [/quote']

 

I said 'a primary component', not 'the primary purpose'. In other words, you are circumventing one of the primary components of an object being a Focus, it's ability to be removed within 12 seconds out of combat. Focus is not merely a descriptor; it is a collection of game-mechanics. In order to qualify as a focus an object must:

1. Be detectable by either common senses (Obvious) or some other power/skill/circumstance (Inobvious). (HSR 187)

2. Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat (Inaccessible) or grabble in combat (Accessable) (HSR 188)

3. Breakable either by the normal Focus rules (Breakable) or in one specific way (Unbreakable) (HSR 189 to 190)

 

If a power is not one of those 3 things, it's not a Focus. The IM example fails on points 2 and 3 as has been pointed out in this and other messages on this thread.

 

My build doesn't change a thing about how to determine damage on a focus.

 

But it needs to if it's going to simulate the way IM's armor takes damage in the books. See above.

 

The book gives power armor as an example where they specifically bring up that if the armor doesn't take damage AND can't be taken away it's an OIHID. Not one or the other.

 

Incorrect. OIHID does not mention damage at all. As to accessibility, it only limits the accessibility of the power armor while it's being worn. I still haven't seen an example of IM losing his armor while wearing it.

 

Is it possible that a limitation that a good player copes with effectively to prevent the worst-case scenario is stil worth points?

 

Let me put it this way: Could you write a story where someone takes Iron Man's armor from him after beating him in battle? I think the answer is yes. That means it is possible to take his armor away. Just because Stark is too good to get into that situation doesn't change the way you would describe the armor.

 

If you're going to use IM as an example, you have to use him as he's been written in the official Marvel publications. After all, I can imagine a story in which Tony replaces his armor with biogenetic implants, making all of his powers intrinsic to himself. That's definitely not a Focus.

 

You know' date=' DCV circumvents the vulnerability disadvantage. The guy is spending points to protect against an element of a limitation. So? [/quote']

 

DCV does not circumvent a Vulnerability. Vulnerability has no effect at all on how likely one is to be hit. Its only effect is on the damage you take after you’ve been hit. That's not a good analogy.

 

Your build, "strength zero endurance continuous uncontrolled no fig cha only to resist attempts to take off armor" falls into the same category as:

 

Light Powers Multipower (Do not work without a source of light)

u)Power A

u)Power B

u)etc…

Images, 1" radius, only to create light, No Range, zero END, Continuous, uncontrolled

 

Your build isn't quite this abusive, but it's headed that direction. That's why I'm leery of that part of your suggestion.

 

What new durability rules? I need you to explain so I can see how you are misreading me or the rulebook.

 

Quoted above, with page references.

 

No, the best option is to not make up rules when there are rules in place that handle it without having to explain to every new GM or player what your house rule is. The way you are reading ,"there must be other difficulties or ways to prevent him from changing identities." - why have any foci at all?

 

Restrainable is okay in some power armor design.

 

Now, can you explain, with rulebook page references, how IM's armor violates the combination of OIHID plus Restrainable? Show me where rules need to be made up in that case. I've already shown where you'll need to make up new Durability rules for Focus.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Focus is not merely a descriptor; it is a collection of game-mechanics. In order to qualify as a focus an object must:

1. Be detectable by either common senses (Obvious) or some other power/skill/circumstance (Inobvious). (HSR 187)

2. Be removable within 12 seconds out of combat (Inaccessible) or grabble in combat (Accessable) (HSR 188)

3. Breakable either by the normal Focus rules (Breakable) or in one specific way (Unbreakable) (HSR 189 to 190)

 

If a power is not one of those 3 things, it's not a Focus. The IM example fails on points 2 and 3 as has been pointed out in this and other messages on this thread.

 

Good Points. Lets review:

 

OIF Argument (foci has 6 elements, pg187):

1) Obviousness (187) -- lets go with everyone excepting this here.

2) Inaccessible (188) -- cannot be hit with a grab in combat, but can be targetted separate of the character, can be taken away in one turn out of combat from a character who is not struggling -- this is a hard one for power armor types. many comic book power armors include a locking mechanism (IM's is polarity reversal to weld the armor together) and the logical thing says to buy a persistent power so that the armor 'struggles' even if the character is knocked out. that would fit the comic portrayal of IM and many others and satisfy the rule.

3) Mobility -- can we agree this is not an issue?

4) Expendibility -- not part of most power armor

5) Durability -- most comic book power armor is breakable but enjoys the advantage of the armor's defenses. -- in Iron Man's case those defenses are significant but have been overcome foes as 2nd rate as the Melter.

6) Applicability -- this has certainly been an issue for many comic book power armor types. armor controls have been hacked, the IM armor was used by at least 9 people and Stark designed specific protocols against this eventually.

 

So, the first question is does power armor in general and IM power armor (the archtypical example) fit these six descriptors? Yes, on all counts.

 

OIHID & Restrainable:

1) difficulty changing forms -- some yes, some no -- IM & Beetle II both could change into their armors as what could only by described as a half phase action; IM in mid-leap at times recently.

2) Ways to Prevent the change or make it difficulty -- this fits

3) does not apply to any "focus" that can be lost -- well, this is a some yes and some no. The IM armor has definately been lost.

1r) when grabbed, entangled, or otherwise restrained power does not work. when free of the restraint the power works normally again.

2r) the above includes emp pulses, and possibly damage.

 

Restrainable does apply fully. But OIHID is clearly a case by case (and not most cases) instance for comic book power armor. The key is losing the armor. With OIHID, this can NEVER happen. But it does to most.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Personally, I'd give a character like Iron Man, whose armor is (for all practical purposes) never taken away from him, Hero ID Only. Period. People get too caught up in niggling little details. Life is too short for that. Pick what seems appropriate and get on with the game.

 

As for him being able to control it remotely, that's an entirely separate issue. If it happened once, I'd just call it SFX by GM fiat. If he used it all the time, I suppose it'd be a form of Duplication. But that's not really relevant to the OIF vs. Hero ID Only question, so dwelling on it just derails the topic with a red herring.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

OIF Argument (foci has 6 elements, pg187):

1) Obviousness (187) -- lets go with everyone excepting this here.

 

Yep.

 

2) Inaccessible (188) -- cannot be hit with a grab in combat' date=' but can be targetted separate of the character, can be taken away in one turn out of combat from a character who is not struggling -- this is a hard one for power armor types. many comic book power armors include a locking mechanism (IM's is polarity reversal to weld the armor together) and the logical thing says to buy a persistent power so that the armor 'struggles' even if the character is knocked out. that would fit the comic portrayal of IM and many others and satisfy the rule. [/quote']

 

Certainly a legal construction, but the persistent power leaves me a tad uneasy. I'd rather find a way of building it that didn't involve something as potentially abusive as a 0END, Continuous, Uncontrolled power. Also, it's debatable that there is a "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances which will turn it off." (HSR 175) for Iron Man's armor. Defeating the armor's security systems may be obvious, but does it count as common? Maybe. That's something that will vary from campaign to campaign.

 

3) Mobility -- can we agree this is not an issue?

 

Agreed.

 

4) Expendibility -- not part of most power armor

 

Certainly not in IM's case, so agreed.

 

5) Durability -- most comic book power armor is breakable but enjoys the advantage of the armor's defenses. -- in Iron Man's case those defenses are significant but have been overcome foes as 2nd rate as the Melter.

 

That may be, but as I've mentioned in other posts, the effects of how the armor is most often damaged (reduced in power or intermittent working rather than destroyed) and the ease with which Tony has been able to make repairs both violate the mechanics of Durability for Focus.

 

6) Applicability -- this has certainly been an issue for many comic book power armor types. armor controls have been hacked' date=' the IM armor was used by at least 9 people and Stark designed specific protocols against this eventually. [/quote']

 

Largely a non-issue here as Personal Foci can only be used by those characters that meet the powers special requirements for use. Those who have managed to make use of the actual IM armor (not just its technology in other suits) have generally had to be given or have stolen the security codes. Personal seems to account for this fairly well, so I don't see any real disagreement here.

 

So' date=' the first question is does power armor in general and IM power armor (the archtypical example) fit these six descriptors? Yes, on all counts. [/quote']

 

I still dispute counts 2 and 5 for the above reasons.

 

OIHID & Restrainable:

1) difficulty changing forms -- some yes, some no -- IM & Beetle II both could change into their armors as what could only by described as a half phase action; IM in mid-leap at times recently.

 

Actually, OIHID does not say that it requires an action it change forms. It simply states "the change must take at least a Full Phase". Full Phase is a measurement of time, not necessarily Actions. If you look at similar limitations, not allowing the character to do anything else during the activation time is worth an additional limitation. I have posted a question to the 'Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions' Forum for clarification on this issue. Also, considering Stark is probably at least SPD 4 (maybe 3 but I doubt it), a Full Phase is only about 3 seconds. That's fairly reasonable for a single panel of a comic book.

 

2) Ways to Prevent the change or make it difficulty -- this fits

 

Agreed.

 

3) does not apply to any "focus" that can be lost -- well' date=' this is a some yes and some no. The IM armor has definately been lost. [/quote']

 

This portion is only true for OIHID. The lesser version of Restrainable can be lost, just not as easily as a Focus would be. It requires special circumstances along the lines of surgery, breaking past security systems, overcoming magical wardings, etc.

 

1r) when grabbed' date=' entangled, or otherwise restrained power does not work. when free of the restraint the power works normally again. [/quote']

 

This is true only for the full -1/2 version of Restrainable. The -1/4 version cannot be Grabbed or Entagled.

 

2r) the above includes emp pulses' date=' and possibly damage. [/quote']

 

This is specific to the lesser Restrainable as alternatives to being Grabbed or Entangled that occur less frequently.

 

Restrainable does apply fully. But OIHID is clearly a case by case (and not most cases) instance for comic book power armor. The key is losing the armor. With OIHID' date=' this can NEVER happen. But it does to most.[/quote']

 

With Restrainable, an OIHID power can be lost. Also, an OIHID power can be lost, but it's easier to recover/replace than a Focus would be.

 

BTW, this is the kind of post that helps us get somewhere. It's well thought-out, organized and sticks to the topic at hand. Well posted, SleepyDrug.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Yep.

 

 

 

Certainly a legal construction, but the persistent power leaves me a tad uneasy. I'd rather find a way of building it that didn't involve something as potentially abusive as a 0END, Continuous, Uncontrolled power. Also, it's debatable that there is a "reasonably common and obvious set of circumstances which will turn it off." (HSR 175) for Iron Man's armor. Defeating the armor's security systems may be obvious, but does it count as common? Maybe. That's something that will vary from campaign to campaign.

 

I would say, given the commonness of EMP pulses, super-computer hackers, and magnetic manipulators that IM meets the definition of common. Our own HERO games may differ from the Marvel U.

 

 

That may be, but as I've mentioned in other posts, the effects of how the armor is most often damaged (reduced in power or intermittent working rather than destroyed) and the ease with which Tony has been able to make repairs both violate the mechanics of Durability for Focus.

 

I would disagree here. And i've rarely seen him make "easy repairs". Usually he needs to return to base and get a new armor.

 

I still dispute counts 2 and 5 for the above reasons.

 

Which are items we see differently. You say his armor is hard to damage and easily repairable. I haven't seen this.

 

 

Actually, OIHID does not say that it requires an action it change forms. It simply states "the change must take at least a Full Phase". Full Phase is a measurement of time, not necessarily Actions. If you look at similar limitations, not allowing the character to do anything else during the activation time is worth an additional limitation. I have posted a question to the 'Hero System 5th Edition Rules Questions' Forum for clarification on this issue. Also, considering Stark is probably at least SPD 4 (maybe 3 but I doubt it), a Full Phase is only about 3 seconds. That's fairly reasonable for a single panel of a comic book.

 

True, but if I can take a half move...and change form. Thats not a full phase shift.

 

 

This portion is only true for OIHID. The lesser version of Restrainable can be lost, just not as easily as a Focus would be. It requires special circumstances along the lines of surgery, breaking past security systems, overcoming magical wardings, etc.

 

My first several comments were directed towards OIHID. But if you have separate limits on a power, they all must apply in full. So I can address being lost as a matter of just OIHID

 

With Restrainable, an OIHID power can be lost. Also, an OIHID power can be lost, but it's easier to recover/replace than a Focus would be.

 

Could you clearify this? I didn't read OIHID this way.

 

BTW, this is the kind of post that helps us get somewhere. It's well thought-out, organized and sticks to the topic at hand. Well posted, SleepyDrug.

 

Thank you for the compliment.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Sorry for any difficulty reading the above post. How do you split up your quote boxes like you do?

[Vorsch]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Insert {quote}.......{/quote} in any text you want to break up, use square brackets not curly.