Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Here is the problem with that' date=' the GM can do whatever he needs to do to tell a good story. Here's where it becomes meaningful - if, in the course of a scenario, a [b']player character[/b] removed the cybernetic gear from a bad guy, didn't have character points to spend, but had a contact with a superscientist/doctor - would you let the character get all cybered up? How would you explain him losing something surgically attached to him?

 

If a character takes a Focus from a bad guy is he allowed to keep using it indefinately (to make it equivalent to having cybernetics implanted) without paying any points for it?

 

If someone takes your character's Power Armor from you, are they able to immediately use it or do they have to spend time defeating it's security and learning the piloting controls? If they can use it immediately, then that's going to require some limitation above and beyond Restrainable. I don't dispute that. If they can't, then if it's a Focus (depending on meeting other criteria), it has to be a Personal Focus.

 

I'm not so sure it takes hours and specialized skills. I haven't heard any examples one way or the other. I have heard assumptions and one poster claimed he had seen someone take Iron Man's armor from him.

 

Again, a matter of character interpretation. Since I've had a chance to go back over some of my old issues, the few times I've ever seen someone else control the armor were someone to whom Tony gave access, a couple of villains that were known for extremely high technical savvy who took days or hours setting up the process of overriding the IM security system and one instance in which Tony had created the armor's computer system so well that it became sentient by accident.

 

Here's another problem with your restrainable argument - if it's so hard to take off it should be hard to put back on. How fast does Tony Stark put his armor on?

 

Something that can be taken away and then taken back and put on in seconds is NOT restrainable.

 

Where in the rule book are you getting that it has to be hard to put back on? The only limits placed on restrainable are in how easy it is to remove or disable. There is nothing that limits how hard it is to put in place or enable. By that logic, higher active point Foci should be harder to repair or replace than lower active point Foci because they are harder to destroy. You can house-rule it that way, but it's not a book ruling.

 

Read some of the earlier posts from those who refuse to EVER let a player use OIF for power armor.

 

I did and the vast majority were saying that it depends on in what ways you expect the armor to be limited (in relation to getting it taken away & damaged in pretty much every case). One person did say that 'most' were better built as OIHID but then offered several caveats to go with it. That was the most anyone had objected to OIF when you came in to the thread saying, "You guys really seem to be married to one aspect of what constitutes a focus." Some time after that, someone else mentioned the possibility of abusing the rules of OIF by building a power framework that way and thus concluded that OIHID is better from a game balance standpoint unless all the Focus rules were enforced. Those were the strongest objections to OIF that I recall. I certainly don't recall a single instance of anyone claiming that OIF should never be used for power armor. Perhaps you can provide a quote.

 

As you yourself have said there is more to an OIF than damage' date=' and power armor generally is better described using OIF when you consider those other issues. [/quote']

 

Depends on the armor. Obviously, in Iron Man's case, I don't agree. I'm of the opinion that you should meet all of the criteria for a Limitation before you qualify for that Limitation's points discount. Iron Man fails the Focus criteria in 2 areas in my opinion.

 

I have read stories of Tony Stark being very worried about someone getting his armor. That's telling to me.

 

In every case that I recall seeing that, he was worrying about someone with the proper technical know-how stealing his armor. I don't recall him ever worrying about it from someone who didn't have that kind of expertise.

 

If you look over the 30+years Iron Man has been around' date=' at least the majority of the time someone would have to say that the armor COULD be taken by someone and Tony COULD use it fairly quickly if he retrieved it. [/quote']

 

But the only times I've seen it taken, it was by someone with the proper time & expertise to defeat the armor's security, Tony's help or was a unique circumstance.

 

But the transformation in OIHID is stopped by some sort of control - not by removing an object o' power.

 

I fail to see a significant difference. In one case, Captain Stupendous manages to get untied or have the gag taken away. In the other, Tony Stark manages to retrieve his briefcase from whoever stole it or get back to the lab for another suit. Either way, the time frame is variable (and your objection was initially based on time), both can potentially be done alone but would be easier with someone else's help and both completely prevent our hero from getting into ID at all Can you provide an example of what you think makes the two scenarios significantly different?

 

Has it? I've played a number of games with players whose characters are in OIF power armor. They never lost their armor. They had trouble with malfunctions' date=' people attacking the armor, or not having their armor in a place that made it easy to change for their secret identity - [b']but they never had their armor taken from them.[/b] They played effectively and avoided that possiblity - but it was still a possibility.

 

In the case of your campaign, we have solid evidence the power can be easily taken away out of combat because it's right there on the character sheet and in the rules. There is no equivalent for Iron Man. We've seen no solid evidence suggesting that Iron Man's armor is anything close to easy to take away from him. Since we can't read the authors' minds we have to go by what's been printed and draw conclusions from that. Every instance I've seen in which the IM armor has been taken has involved proper technical skills and time, Tony Stark's help or a unique circumstance.

 

The Hulk can suffocate on mint-apple jelly as easily as ocean water if the amount is sufficient.

 

While being suffocated does qualify as "exposed to", "exposed to" requires neither suffocation nor does it imply it. Simply standing next to something qualifies as "exposed to". Your interpretation of my example is far too narrow.

 

Your position is that extreme. The idea that Tony Stark's armor can't be taken away from him because it hasn't been taken away from him just doesn't make sense' date=' especially when that was a big concern of his in many of the stories I read about him some time ago. [/quote']

 

If your only argument requires an extreme circumstance (someone who can't be killed by an elephant gun) to counter my position, it's a bad argument. You're going to have to come up with a better example if you wish to prove my point of view is that far out there.

 

If we've never seen a comic book character eat pickles, we have no way of knowing if it's because they're allergic or they simply don't like pickles unless it's printed somewhere. We only have enough evidence to know that we've never seen them eat pickles and no where near enough to make any conclusions as to why.

 

On the other hand, we've seen examples of how difficult it is to take IM's armor away, what kind of people haven't been able to do it in spite of trying & Tony being helpless and endless paragraphs of Tony's internal monolog about his security system and why it has to be the best in the world. That suggests that you have to beat the security system to get access to the armor and that it's not going to be an easy task.

 

You're right. The way Iron Man's armor loses powers one at a time doesn't fit for OIF. It doesn't fit for Restrainable either. It best works as a vehicle.

 

The only problem with using the damaging rules for Restrainable powers is that they aren't defined in any concrete way. So, you have to make something up. On the other hand, at least you're not changing rules that way. In both cases you're "just making stuff up", but if you're actually changing rules, the build becomes less 'cross-GM compatible' IMO since you must also justify not using the existing rules.

 

In any case, these days, IM's armor probably is better done as a Vehicle with a built-in Computer. After all, it can be remotely controlled by Stark, has the ability to perform limited self-piloting and a whole host of things that better follow the Vehicle rules than OIF, OIHID or Restrainable. I haven't concerned my self with Vehicle builds for powered armor because the potential for abuse would pretty much get that build rejected out of hand by most GMs.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

First off this was my idea, it was in response to the fact that some people felt OIHID was better than foci and others kept bringing up the damage issues of OIHID (In otherwords it is not fair to say Cap Marvel does not loose powers while Iron Man goes). I personaly use OIF for this type of suit.

 

One interesting NPC I made had a couple of his powers bought OIHID and then others as OIF.

 

It was something like this

OIHID

Armor

Life Support

HRRH

 

OIF

Flight: Boot Jets

Attack MP: Weapon modules/guantlets

Radar

 

Both represented one battlesuit, just certain parts could be damaged/disabled others could not

 

One important thing about Foci that seem to be forgoten in the 12 second rule: It is the ability to disable not take away, a subtle difference...

Hey, it makes sense to me if it's in concept.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

If a character takes a Focus from a bad guy is he allowed to keep using it indefinately (to make it equivalent to having cybernetics implanted) without paying any points for it?

It's a time issue and it goes to the Iron Man argument. I could see a villain taking his armor and using it in fairly short order. I can't see a villain taking Deathlok's cybernetic parts and using it in fairly short order.

 

If someone takes your character's Power Armor from you' date=' are they able to immediately use it or do they have to spend time defeating it's security and learning the piloting controls? If they can use it immediately, then that's going to require some limitation above and beyond Restrainable. I don't dispute that. If they can't, then if it's a Focus (depending on meeting other criteria), it has to be a Personal Focus.[/quote'] Since foci can be personal or universal, I've always assumed they can be in-between as well. If the object can be used immediately you might as well call it focus, huh?

 

 

Again' date=' a matter of character interpretation. Since I've had a chance to go back over some of my old issues, the few times I've ever seen someone else control the armor were someone to whom Tony [b']gave[/b] access, a couple of villains that were known for extremely high technical savvy who took days or hours setting up the process of overriding the IM security system and one instance in which Tony had created the armor's computer system so well that it became sentient by accident.

And none of that really applies to restrainable.

 

Where in the rule book are you getting that it has to be hard to put back on? The only limits placed on restrainable are in how easy it is to remove or disable. There is nothing that limits how hard it is to put in place or enable. By that logic' date=' higher active point Foci should be harder to repair or replace than lower active point Foci because they are harder to destroy. You can house-rule it that way, but it's not a book ruling.[/quote']If it requires surgery or somethinig else to be as complicated to remove why would it be easy to put on?

 

I did and the vast majority were saying that it depends on in what ways you expect the armor to be limited (in relation to getting it taken away & damaged in pretty much every case). One person did say that 'most' were better built as OIHID but then offered several caveats to go with it. That was the most anyone had objected to OIF when you came in to the thread saying' date=' "You guys really seem to be married to one aspect of what constitutes a focus." Some time after that, someone else mentioned the possibility of abusing the rules of OIF by building a power framework that way and thus concluded that OIHID is better from a game balance standpoint unless all the Focus rules were enforced. Those were the strongest objections to OIF that I recall. I certainly don't recall a single instance of anyone claiming that OIF should [b']never[/b] be used for power armor. Perhaps you can provide a quote.

Now you are arguing to argue. There were people overreaching. You were fighting your own fight but I wasn't too clear about that for a while.

 

Depends on the armor. Obviously' date=' in Iron Man's case, I don't agree. I'm of the opinion that you should meet [b']all[/b] of the criteria for a Limitation before you qualify for that Limitation's points discount. Iron Man fails the Focus criteria in 2 areas in my opinion.

I'm of the opinion that Iron Man's armor meets the criteria for focus MORE effectively because Restrainable does not adequately address enough aspects of the armor. Actually, you guys have convinced me that it more likely should be bought as a vehicle to mirror what happens to in comic books.

 

 

In every case that I recall seeing that' date=' he was worrying about someone with the proper [b']technical know-how[/b] stealing his armor. I don't recall him ever worrying about it from someone who didn't have that kind of expertise.

So? He has universal armor with a proviso on the skills of the user.

 

But the only times I've seen it taken' date=' it was by someone with the proper time & expertise to defeat the armor's security, Tony's help or was a unique circumstance.[/quote']Read my last response.

 

I fail to see a significant difference. In one case' date=' Captain Stupendous manages to get untied or have the gag taken away. In the other, Tony Stark manages to retrieve his briefcase from whoever stole it or get back to the lab for another suit. Either way, the time frame is variable (and your objection was initially based on time), both can potentially be done alone but would be easier with someone else's help and both completely prevent our hero from getting into ID at all Can you provide an example of what you think makes the two scenarios significantly different?[/quote']The obvious difference is this. There isn't anything that Tony Stark can do to get his powers to work without going to them. The OIHID merely needs to have an opportunity to "change" - If you don't think that's a difference then you haven't played in the same types of games I have.

 

In the case of your campaign' date=' we have solid evidence the power can be easily taken away out of combat because it's right there on the character sheet and in the rules. There is no equivalent for Iron Man. We've seen no solid evidence suggesting that Iron Man's armor is anything close to easy to take away from him. Since we can't read the authors' minds we have to go by what's been printed and draw conclusions from that. Every instance I've seen in which the IM armor has been taken has involved proper technical skills and time, Tony Stark's help or a unique circumstance.[/quote']This is like saying we can't do anything because we haven't seen it done. This might be more believable if you said the Hulk can't fly because he hasn't but you're applying this argument to a suit of armor that someone can take on and off. If he can take it on and off and it isn't magic then it can be taken away.

 

While being suffocated does qualify as "exposed to"' date=' "exposed to" requires neither suffocation nor does it imply it. Simply standing next to something qualifies as "exposed to". Your interpretation of my example is far too narrow.[/quote']You are running off into a pointless exercise in semantics.

 

If your only argument requires an extreme circumstance (someone who can't be killed by an elephant gun) to counter my position' date=' it's a bad argument. You're going to have to come up with a better example if you wish to prove my point of view is that far out there. [/quote']That's not particularly extreme in a comic book, but I think you got my point.

 

If we've never seen a comic book character eat pickles' date=' we have no way of knowing if it's because they're allergic or they simply don't like pickles unless it's printed somewhere. We only have enough evidence to know that we've never seen them eat pickles and no where near enough to make any conclusions as to why. [/quote']Yep, and we have no way of knowing if a villain is competent of taking Stark's armor until one does. Doesn't mean they can't though.

 

On the other hand' date=' we've seen examples of how difficult it is to take IM's armor away, what kind of people haven't been able to do it in spite of trying & Tony being helpless and endless paragraphs of Tony's internal monolog about his security system and why it has to be the best in the world. That suggests that you have to beat the security system to get access to the armor and that it's not going to be an easy task.[/quote']But can it be done? I bet a writer would allow it if it wouldn't cut off more stories they were writing. In game, things tend to be more free-wheeling. The excitement of games is that they can take you places a writer woulnd't go even though they are in concept.

 

The only problem with using the damaging rules for Restrainable powers is that they aren't defined in any concrete way. So' date=' you have to make something up. On the other hand, at least you're not [i']changing[/i] rules that way. In both cases you're "just making stuff up", but if you're actually changing rules, the build becomes less 'cross-GM compatible' IMO since you must also justify not using the existing rules.

'kay.

 

In any case' date=' these days, IM's armor probably is better done as a Vehicle with a built-in Computer. After all, it can be remotely controlled by Stark, has the ability to perform limited self-piloting and a whole host of things that better follow the Vehicle rules than OIF, OIHID or Restrainable. I haven't concerned my self with Vehicle builds for powered armor because the potential for abuse would pretty much get that build rejected out of hand by most GMs. [/quote']I agree, although I wish "most GMs" would look at the finished product of a character instead of reacting in a knee-jerk fashion.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It's interesting so many people don't want to allow OIF because Stark rarely seems to lose his armor so he shouldn't get a -1/2 limitation and save "all those points", and then see the proposed solution is an OIHID and a Restrainable (limited) which total the same -1/2 limitation which saves the same amount of points.

 

If we're giving the guy -1/2 way, why don't we just call it "Limited Power - Powered Armor Limitations, -1/2" and move on?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

This is what I call a "Star Fleet Battles" argument: people spending so much time and energy arguing over semantics and fundamentalist interpretations of every stupid phrase in the rules that any reasonable gamer will have long ago walked away to play something else.

 

Trying to shoehorn every possible "supersuit" character into the word-for-word description of two or three Limitations is not only unreasonable, it's impossible. Some supersuits will be easier to take off than others. SOme will take longer to put on than others. Some will be easier to disable than others. It varies, and you can't expect the game rules to cover the minute details of every single character in painful detail. Nor should they: this is a role-playing game, not a thesis on organic chemsitry.

 

Writing up powers is not a big deal. It goes like this:

 

1) Describe what the powers do, in a general sense. Make sure the GM and the player agree on how they work.

2) Find the most straightforward combination of Powers and Limitations that comes closest to representing how the powers are described.

3) Pay the points.

4) Get on with the game.

 

That's all there is, folks.

[JmOz]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It's interesting so many people don't want to allow OIF because Stark rarely seems to lose his armor so he shouldn't get a -1/2 limitation and save "all those points", and then see the proposed solution is an OIHID and a Restrainable (limited) which total the same -1/2 limitation which saves the same amount of points.

 

If we're giving the guy -1/2 way, why don't we just call it "Limited Power - Powered Armor Limitations, -1/2" and move on?

 

Funny thing about that, and I quote myself when I suggested restraianble

 

You people are funny.

 

Iron Man's Armor:

OIHID (-1/4), Restrainable (-1/4 may be damaged per Foci Rules) OR OIF (-1/2).

 

Funny how the two even out

 

this was post #29

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It's a time issue and it goes to the Iron Man argument. I could see a villain taking his armor and using it in fairly short order. I can't see a villain taking Deathlok's cybernetic parts and using it in fairly short order.

 

I really don’t see any precedent for thinking they can do it ‘in short order’.

 

Since foci can be personal or universal' date=' I've always assumed they can be in-between as well. If the object can be used immediately you might as well call it focus, huh? [/quote']

 

That depends on if it follows the Durability rules, the Accessibility rules and if it is detectable in some way. If those three criteria are met, then yes, Focus is a valid choice. If one of those criteria aren’t met, it’s not a Focus. I don’t think you disagree with this, but I wanted to state it for clarity’s sake.

 

And none of that really applies to restrainable.

 

Someone using their computer hacking skills over the course of hours or days to bypass the armor’s security systems in order to remove it seems to be at least as complex as surgery and thus Restrainable does apply. The armor becoming sentient is the equivalent of a one-time GM-fiat creation of a new supervillain. Stark giving someone else access to the armor is doable by either making the armor Independent or Usable by Others in addition to Restrainable. None of those things violates the limitations that Restrainable place upon the character: Can be damaged in combat or specific special effects, can be targeted separately from the character, can be removed against the character’s will by a complex & time-consuming process. So far Restrainable still applies.

 

If it requires surgery or somethinig else to be as complicated to remove why would it be easy to put on?

 

That depends on the special effects defined by ‘something else’. It might take hours to override the security system without the passcodes, but the passcodes provide an obvious shortcut. As for cybernetics, it still depends on the exact special effect. A cybernetic hand might be wired into a mount on someone’s forearm. The hand may require surgery (or possibly electrician work) to remove but could be fairly quick to replace depending on if the mount was damaged in the process and how familiar the cyber-tech was with your case. I still haven’t seen a rulebook quote stating the requirement you’re suggesting.

 

Now you are arguing to argue.

 

No, you’re the one who insisted that other people were saying never to use OIF. I’ve simply pointed out that no one else made that claim. If your purpose here is to counter that argument, you’re here for the wrong reasons. That’s all I was saying.

 

There were people overreaching. You were fighting your own fight but I wasn't too clear about that for a while.

 

By my reading of the thread, I don’t think people were reaching as far as you thought they were, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

I'm of the opinion that Iron Man's armor meets the criteria for focus MORE effectively because Restrainable does not adequately address enough aspects of the armor. Actually' date=' you guys have convinced me that it more likely should be bought as a vehicle to mirror what happens to in comic books. [/quote']

 

I’m not sure that OIF is a better fit than Restrainable. I say IM’s armor fails the Focus test because of Accessibility (every known instance of the armor being removed against Tony’s will took far longer & more skill than simply 12 seconds out of combat) and Durability (the armor’s powers are frequently not destroyed outright by combat damage and are regularly repaired in combat). You say it fails the Restrainable test because other people can take it away significantly easier than surgery (unsupported by the source material), can be used by others (which does not invalidate Restrainable but does require the application of either UBO or Independent) and that it can be easily put back on (not part of the Restrainable Limitation one way or the other). Do you have further arguments against Restrainable that I’ve missed?

 

So? He has universal armor with a proviso on the skills of the user.

 

It’s not just a matter of using the armor that requires technical expertise. It’s also the case for simply removing/disabling the armor. That has nothing to do with a Focus’s Applicability.

 

The obvious difference is this. There isn't anything that Tony Stark can do to get his powers to work without going to them. The OIHID merely needs to have an opportunity to "change" - If you don't think that's a difference then you haven't played in the same types of games I have.

 

There’s nothing Captain Stupendous can do to get his powers to work without saying the magic words. If he’s rendered mute (physically or psychologically, permanently or temporarily) he can’t change forms. If Captain Stupendous is rendered mute by a spell that can only be removed via a counterspell or eating a certain plant root, does that mean he couldn’t possibly have qualified for buying his powers OIHID? How about if he gets sick and loses his voice? What if he gets amnesia and can’t remember the command word?

 

The only difference I see is a matter of physical location. You need to show me how being denied the ability to speak the magic words is significantly more limiting than being denied access to your power armor. Either way it’s going to take a variable amount of time & effort to get your powers back.

 

By the way, are you claiming that the book was wrong to use powered armor as an example for OIHID or that said power armor could never be taken out of the character’s reach because the character would have to travel to get to their powers?

 

This is like saying we can't do anything because we haven't seen it done.

 

Not even close. I’m saying that because we haven’t seen it done that we can’t assume that it can be done. I’m also saying that, since all of the instances of it being done so far required more effort than removing an Inaccessable Focus, that it is more difficult to remove than an Inaccessable Focus.

 

This might be more believable if you said the Hulk can't fly because he hasn't but you're applying this argument to a suit of armor that someone can take on and off. If he can take it on and off and it isn't magic then it can be taken away.

 

My argument is about how easy the armor has to be to take off by someone else against the character’s will in order to qualify for OIF. I’ve seen no evidence presented to support the idea that Iron Man’s armor can be removed as easily as an OIF by anyone, let alone everyone. An OIF can be removed by anyone taking a turn out of combat. That’s already been shown false in the comics.

 

You are running off into a pointless exercise in semantics.

 

No. I was pointing out how you changed my example. I would have called it a Straw Man argument had I thought you had done it intentionally.

 

That's not particularly extreme in a comic book' date=' but I think you got my point. [/quote']

 

You’ve failed to get mine. My position (it hasn’t been shown, so we cannot assume it can be done) does nothing to suggest that Hawkeye can’t be killed by an elephant gun. Just like we cannot assume that Hawkeye is immune to elephant guns, we cannot assume it’s easy to take Iron Man’s armor from him (let alone use it). We have seen Hawkeye shot and injured and we know he tries to avoid getting killed. That proves he’s not immune to bullets and suggests that he can be killed. We have seen Tony Stark separated from the Iron Man armor but thus far it has always required more effort than would be required for an OIF. That suggests that it takes more effort than taking away an OIF.

 

Yep' date=' and we have no way of knowing if a villain is competent of taking Stark's armor until one does. Doesn't mean they can't though. [/quote']

 

Irrelevant to my point. A focus can be taken away by anyone taking a turn out of combat. Special skills are not required for that. That is separate from the use issue.

 

I agree' date=' although I wish "most GMs" would look at the finished product of a character instead of reacting in a knee-jerk fashion.[/quote']

 

Certainly true. My only suggestion on that part would be to give your GM fair warning well ahead of time. Showing up to the game with a vehicle-based power armor character at the last minute and expecting to be able to run them is just asking for a denial. Just a side statement and I’d be really surpised if you disagreed.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It's interesting so many people don't want to allow OIF because Stark rarely seems to lose his armor so he shouldn't get a -1/2 limitation and save "all those points", and then see the proposed solution is an OIHID and a Restrainable (limited) which total the same -1/2 limitation which saves the same amount of points.

 

If we're giving the guy -1/2 way, why don't we just call it "Limited Power - Powered Armor Limitations, -1/2" and move on?

 

Just for the record, I've never made any objections based on the value of the limitation. I'm only interested in which game mechanics best fit the special effects of the IM character.

 

The one person I do remember basing their argument on cost, never suggested the use of Restrainable. If someone else did object based on cost & then suggested an equivalently valued construction, then I agree. That's just silly.

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

This is what I call a "Star Fleet Battles" argument: people spending so much time and energy arguing over semantics and fundamentalist interpretations of every stupid phrase in the rules that any reasonable gamer will have long ago walked away to play something else.

 

Hey! Who said this had anything to do with 'reasonable'.

 

Trying to shoehorn every possible "supersuit" character into the word-for-word description of two or three Limitations is not only unreasonable' date=' it's impossible. Some supersuits will be easier to take off than others. SOme will take longer to put on than others. Some will be easier to disable than others. It [b']varies[/b], and you can't expect the game rules to cover the minute details of every single character in painful detail. Nor should they: this is a role-playing game, not a thesis on organic chemsitry.

 

Well, yeah, I basically said that in post 77 or 79. I would have stayed off this thread had it not appeared that my ideas were being missinterpreted.

 

Writing up powers is not a big deal. It goes like this:

 

1) Describe what the powers do, in a general sense. Make sure the GM and the player agree on how they work.

 

And when they don't agree, you get arguments like this one.

 

2) Find the most straightforward combination of Powers and Limitations that comes closest to representing how the powers are described.

3) Pay the points.

4) Get on with the game.

 

That's all there is, folks.

 

You, sir, are pooping on this party. 'Reasonable' indeed. Like 'reasonable' has any place on the internet.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

It's interesting so many people don't want to allow OIF because Stark rarely seems to lose his armor so he shouldn't get a -1/2 limitation and save "all those points", and then see the proposed solution is an OIHID and a Restrainable (limited) which total the same -1/2 limitation which saves the same amount of points.

 

If we're giving the guy -1/2 way, why don't we just call it "Limited Power - Powered Armor Limitations, -1/2" and move on?

As long as we call it Limited Power - Iron Man Power Armor Limitations, -1/2...

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

 

Originally Posted by Hugh Neilson

It's interesting so many people don't want to allow OIF because Stark rarely seems to lose his armor so he shouldn't get a -1/2 limitation and save "all those points", and then see the proposed solution is an OIHID and a Restrainable (limited) which total the same -1/2 limitation which saves the same amount of points.

 

If we're giving the guy -1/2 way, why don't we just call it "Limited Power - Powered Armor Limitations, -1/2" and move on?

 

As long as we call it Limited Power - Iron Man Power Armor Limitations, -1/2...

 

I can live with that.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I really don’t see any precedent for thinking they can do it ‘in short order’.

 

 

 

That depends on if it follows the Durability rules, the Accessibility rules and if it is detectable in some way. If those three criteria are met, then yes, Focus is a valid choice. If one of those criteria aren’t met, it’s not a Focus. I don’t think you disagree with this, but I wanted to state it for clarity’s sake.

 

 

 

Someone using their computer hacking skills over the course of hours or days to bypass the armor’s security systems in order to remove it seems to be at least as complex as surgery and thus Restrainable does apply. The armor becoming sentient is the equivalent of a one-time GM-fiat creation of a new supervillain. Stark giving someone else access to the armor is doable by either making the armor Independent or Usable by Others in addition to Restrainable. None of those things violates the limitations that Restrainable place upon the character: Can be damaged in combat or specific special effects, can be targeted separately from the character, can be removed against the character’s will by a complex & time-consuming process. So far Restrainable still applies.

 

 

 

That depends on the special effects defined by ‘something else’. It might take hours to override the security system without the passcodes, but the passcodes provide an obvious shortcut. As for cybernetics, it still depends on the exact special effect. A cybernetic hand might be wired into a mount on someone’s forearm. The hand may require surgery (or possibly electrician work) to remove but could be fairly quick to replace depending on if the mount was damaged in the process and how familiar the cyber-tech was with your case. I still haven’t seen a rulebook quote stating the requirement you’re suggesting.

 

 

 

No, you’re the one who insisted that other people were saying never to use OIF. I’ve simply pointed out that no one else made that claim. If your purpose here is to counter that argument, you’re here for the wrong reasons. That’s all I was saying.

 

 

 

By my reading of the thread, I don’t think people were reaching as far as you thought they were, but that’s neither here nor there.

 

 

 

I’m not sure that OIF is a better fit than Restrainable. I say IM’s armor fails the Focus test because of Accessibility (every known instance of the armor being removed against Tony’s will took far longer & more skill than simply 12 seconds out of combat) and Durability (the armor’s powers are frequently not destroyed outright by combat damage and are regularly repaired in combat). You say it fails the Restrainable test because other people can take it away significantly easier than surgery (unsupported by the source material), can be used by others (which does not invalidate Restrainable but does require the application of either UBO or Independent) and that it can be easily put back on (not part of the Restrainable Limitation one way or the other). Do you have further arguments against Restrainable that I’ve missed?

 

 

 

It’s not just a matter of using the armor that requires technical expertise. It’s also the case for simply removing/disabling the armor. That has nothing to do with a Focus’s Applicability.

 

 

 

There’s nothing Captain Stupendous can do to get his powers to work without saying the magic words. If he’s rendered mute (physically or psychologically, permanently or temporarily) he can’t change forms. If Captain Stupendous is rendered mute by a spell that can only be removed via a counterspell or eating a certain plant root, does that mean he couldn’t possibly have qualified for buying his powers OIHID? How about if he gets sick and loses his voice? What if he gets amnesia and can’t remember the command word?

 

The only difference I see is a matter of physical location. You need to show me how being denied the ability to speak the magic words is significantly more limiting than being denied access to your power armor. Either way it’s going to take a variable amount of time & effort to get your powers back.

 

By the way, are you claiming that the book was wrong to use powered armor as an example for OIHID or that said power armor could never be taken out of the character’s reach because the character would have to travel to get to their powers?

 

 

 

Not even close. I’m saying that because we haven’t seen it done that we can’t assume that it can be done. I’m also saying that, since all of the instances of it being done so far required more effort than removing an Inaccessable Focus, that it is more difficult to remove than an Inaccessable Focus.

 

 

 

My argument is about how easy the armor has to be to take off by someone else against the character’s will in order to qualify for OIF. I’ve seen no evidence presented to support the idea that Iron Man’s armor can be removed as easily as an OIF by anyone, let alone everyone. An OIF can be removed by anyone taking a turn out of combat. That’s already been shown false in the comics.

 

 

 

No. I was pointing out how you changed my example. I would have called it a Straw Man argument had I thought you had done it intentionally.

 

 

 

You’ve failed to get mine. My position (it hasn’t been shown, so we cannot assume it can be done) does nothing to suggest that Hawkeye can’t be killed by an elephant gun. Just like we cannot assume that Hawkeye is immune to elephant guns, we cannot assume it’s easy to take Iron Man’s armor from him (let alone use it). We have seen Hawkeye shot and injured and we know he tries to avoid getting killed. That proves he’s not immune to bullets and suggests that he can be killed. We have seen Tony Stark separated from the Iron Man armor but thus far it has always required more effort than would be required for an OIF. That suggests that it takes more effort than taking away an OIF.

 

 

 

Irrelevant to my point. A focus can be taken away by anyone taking a turn out of combat. Special skills are not required for that. That is separate from the use issue.

 

 

 

Certainly true. My only suggestion on that part would be to give your GM fair warning well ahead of time. Showing up to the game with a vehicle-based power armor character at the last minute and expecting to be able to run them is just asking for a denial. Just a side statement and I’d be really surpised if you disagreed.

Didn't the Oz man recently post that the focus can be disabled in 12 seconds, not necessarily taken away in 12 seconds? I ask you to answer this because I am too lazy to look it up in the book myself. If he's right, most of your restrainable case flies out the window.

 

As far as the whole 12 seconds, buying UBO and all that - Wouldn't it be easier just to buy it as a focus, not have to explain anything about restrainable to your gm, and then explain it takes more time than 12 seconds to take it off?

 

And on the hacking into and controlling the armor, if it's an OIF that's defined as a power someone else bought and that issue goes away as far as building the armor character is concerned.

 

Edit: And I don't remember using the words "never use OIF"

 

And no one advocating the OIHID over the OIF in a general way has offered an opinion as to why the Game Designers don't use it more often than OIF.

 

And I don't have a problem with OIHID being used instead of OIF if it's in character concept. I disagree with its use with Iron Man.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

I can live with that.

Huzzah!

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

Didn't the Oz man recently post that the focus can be disabled in 12 seconds' date=' not necessarily taken away in 12 seconds? I ask you to answer this because I am too lazy to look it up in the book myself. If he's right, most of your restrainable case flies out the window.[/quote']

 

Fortunately, I just got home and have access to the book. The book reads, "However, someone taking one Turn out of combat can take an Inaccessible Focus away from a character." (HSR 188)

 

As for Restrainable, the book reads, "...which can be restrained or disabled by means other than Grabs." (HSR 200)

 

So, it's the Restrainable that says 'disable' and Focus that specifies 'take away'.

 

As far as the whole 12 seconds' date=' buying UBO and all that - Wouldn't it be easier just to buy it as a focus, not have to explain anything about restrainable to your gm, and then explain it takes more time than 12 seconds to take it off? [/quote']

 

That depends on how familiar the GM is with the Restrainable Lim and if the GM is willing to wave the Accessability rules for a Focus. Too case-specific to say across the board. In my group, I'd guess more of our GMs would prefer Restrainable + UBO instead of a Focus that's less limiting than it's supposed to be by the book. We're a harsh lot, but fair.

 

And on the hacking into and controlling the armor' date=' if it's an OIF that's defined as a power someone else bought and that issue goes away as far as building the armor character is concerned.[/quote']

 

I'm confused by your wording and not sure what you're getting at here.

 

Edit: And I don't remember using the words "never use OIF"

 

"Read some of the earlier posts from those who refuse to EVER let a player use OIF for power armor." Post 99

 

Perhaps you came across stronger than you meant. (Hey! We don't have a shrug smiley! We need a shrug smiley! Who do I complain to about that?! )

 

And no one advocating the OIHID over the OIF in a general way has offered an opinion as to why the Game Designers don't use it more often than OIF.

 

You'd have to ask Steve Long that. Besides, I, personally don't agree that OIHID is always a better build for power armor. I'd suggest that anyone who doesn't realize it's a case-by-case basis hasn't considered the situation closely enough.

 

And I don't have a problem with OIHID being used instead of OIF if it's in character concept. I disagree with its use with Iron Man.

 

Iron Man (these days) most certainly doesn't qualify for OIHID. I'll happily refer anyone who does to Post 79 for my reason why.

[Agent X]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

 

Fortunately, I just got home and have access to the book. The book reads, "However, someone taking one Turn out of combat can take an Inaccessible Focus away from a character." (HSR 188)

 

As for Restrainable, the book reads, "...which can be restrained or disabled by means other than Grabs." (HSR 200)

 

So, it's the Restrainable that says 'disable' and Focus that specifies 'take away'.

 

 

 

That depends on how familiar the GM is with the Restrainable Lim and if the GM is willing to wave the Accessability rules for a Focus. Too case-specific to say across the board. In my group, I'd guess more of our GMs would prefer Restrainable + UBO instead of a Focus that's less limiting than it's supposed to be by the book. We're a harsh lot, but fair.

 

 

 

I'm confused by your wording and not sure what you're getting at here.

 

 

 

"Read some of the earlier posts from those who refuse to EVER let a player use OIF for power armor." Post 99

 

Perhaps you came across stronger than you meant. (Hey! We don't have a shrug smiley! We need a shrug smiley! Who do I complain to about that?! )

 

 

 

You'd have to ask Steve Long that. Besides, I, personally don't agree that OIHID is always a better build for power armor. I'd suggest that anyone who doesn't realize it's a case-by-case basis hasn't considered the situation closely enough.

 

 

 

Iron Man (these days) most certainly doesn't qualify for OIHID. I'll happily refer anyone who does to Post 79 for my reason why.

There is more to restrainable than "restrained or disabled" and I don't believe that it was intended to be so broadly interpreted based on the choices made in character descriptions.

 

I have to say, taking more than 12 seconds out of combat for the baddie to take off the armor isn't much of a gimme to a player.

 

Yeah, that one statement was confusing. What I was getting at is that I could just as easily say that Iron Man's armor is an OIF and the villains who can take over or interfere with his armor are using various cyberpathic or cyberkinetic powers THEY bought.

 

I could swear one guy said he wouldn't give full value to the OIF limitation. That's probably where the EVER came from.

[JmOz]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

On the disable/take away:

 

I am away from my book right now, but I remember the description of foci talking about a cloak that could be easily torn and loosing it's powers should be considered an OAF even though the character would still have it on...

 

And yes I did make the comment Agent X, though I did not do it as a quote and it is possible that my house interpretations got in the way of the written word...

[Netzilla]

Re: Powered Armor: OIF versus OIHID

 

On the disable/take away:

 

I am away from my book right now, but I remember the description of foci talking about a cloak that could be easily torn and loosing it's powers should be considered an OAF even though the character would still have it on...

 

And yes I did make the comment Agent X, though I did not do it as a quote and it is possible that my house interpretations got in the way of the written word...

 

I assume you're thinking of this paragraph:

 

"Similarly, an ordinarily Inaccessable Focus can be defined as Accessible if it's easily damaged or destroyed, even if it cannot easily be taken away from the character. A magical robe might be hard to take off of a character, but if it can easily be torn, burned or otherwise ruined (so that it no longer provides any powers) it is, in effect, Accessable." (HSR 188)

 

So, you're partly right, but that it's talking about making something apparently Inaccessable into something game-mechanically Accessable.

 

FYI, just for the sake of completeness, the previous paragraph had guidelines for taking something apparently Accessable and making it game-mechanically Inaccessable.

 

Later,