Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

I was responding to Vorsch who had made the following comments:

 

Arguments along the lines of Cap is to good to be disarmed so his shield is OIHID hold no water. Rant over, i know this has been discussed before.

 

I wanted to point out that I never claimed Captain America was too good to be disarmed, but had in fact said that he had been disarmed in the past. In contrast to Thor, who can summon his weapon at will (as seen in several places).

 

In response, Hyper-Man said:

 

FYI, I believe that Captain America in Marvel's Universe, like his combat cousin Batman from DCU, is considered to be the best non-superpowered HTH fighter. I've seen many write-ups which have most of his combat stats pegged at normal human maximum of 30 for STR, DEX, CON, etc. with a 6 SPD too. Batman may not be 'quite' as good but he still holds the same place in his world's normal human HTH rankings.

 

In other threads, i've disagreed with how many comic book characters are shown in hero stats. FYI, Lady Shiva and not Batman is considered the best HTH fighter in DCU. I've seen canon references placing several others ahead of him as well. But he is in the top ten.

 

To Dust Raven

I always thought Cap was a super soldier, chemically altered or something like the Silver Avengers in Hero. Not a "normal" but a guy that's gotten a bit more than just training.

 

You are correct. The SSS maintains Cap constantly at the peak of human potential. This has allowed him to do many borderline super-human feats such as resist the effects of poisons, smash brick walls, and scale a five story building in seconds.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a Modifier that says "This Power is part of an object" without necessarily being a Focus with everything that implies. We don't have something that says "This thing is an object that could, in theory, be taken away from the character but in practice almost never is." We instead have OIHID and Focus.

 

I propose altering the Focus Limitation to be something like this:

 

-0 Returnable Object: Power is part of an object that, while it may be removed from the possession of the character, will return to him in some way. This could represent an item that actually physically returns to the character, or it could be an item that the character can magically recreate in some way, or pull out of a magical bag, etc. The item can take up to a full Phase to return; if it takes longer than that, use Extra Time at half value. Note that the return is not automatic; the character must perform an action of some kind (though this can be 0 Phase) to "call" the item back.

 

-1/4 Basic Object: Power is part of an object that, in theory, may be removed or destroyed but in practice almost never is, and should be relatively easy to replace. The player and GM should work together to determine some kind of circumstances under which loss or destruction might occur, but can be rare. A single object may not be both Basic and Returnable.

 

+-1/4 May Be Removed Out Of Combat: Object may be removed from character by an opponent taking a full Turn in combat, or out of combat if the character does not resist

 

+-1/4 Purpose Is Obvious: The object's purpose is obvious to anyone who either recognizes the object's general type or sees it in operation.

 

+-1/4 Easy To Destroy: Object is fairly easy to destroy; assume a maximum BODY equal to Active Points/5, with the ability to trade 2 BODY for 1 DEF (set at the time the Power is built). Not taking this Limitation means that either the player can set the item's DEF and BODY at whatever levels he wishes, or that the item is generally unbreakable (with the "in theory" caveat listed above).

 

+-1/2 Fragile: Object has a maximum of 1 BODY, and either 1 or 0 DEF. (Not stackable with Easy To Destroy.)

 

+-1/4 Real: Object is a "real" object of some kind (this subsumes the Real Weapon Limitation). If this is taken in conjunction with Easy To Destroy, then it is a real object with whatever DEF and BODY are permitted by its Active Points; if not, then it is a real object with whatever DEF and BODY its designer wishes (but is not unbreakable).

 

+-1/4 Difficult Or Dangerous To Replace: If lost or destroyed, the item is difficult or dangerous to replace (in circumstances normally relevant to the campaign; for instance, in a fantasy world, chainmail armor would not be difficult or dangerous to replace, even if the PCs journey to a far off land where it is impossible to obtain chainmail).

 

+-1 Impossible To Replace: If lost or destroyed, the item may not be replaced except by spending additional Character Points.

 

Any Power that has both Restrainable and the -1/4 Basic Object Limitation may be removed from the character as if it matched the definition of an Accessible Focus.

 

Under this scheme, the Powers in Iron Man's armor would take -1/4 Basic Object, and an additional -1/4 Purpose Is Obvious. Captain America's shield would take -1/4 Basic Object, -1/4 May Be Removed Out Of Combat, -1/4 Difficult Or Dangerous To Replace, and -1/4 Purpose Is Obvious, for a total of -1.

 

The basic OAF would be worth -1, but would be derived differently.

 

A computer chip implanted in a character's head would be -1/4 Basic Object, and -1/4 Difficult Or Dangerous To Replace. It could be removed with major surgery, or destroyed with an EMP.

 

Note that the -1/4 Basic Object gives the GM the option to take away the character's Powers, but that it shouldn't be done on a regular basis; the idea is that if it happens, it is part of a plot development rather than GM hose-age. Making it Restrainable puts it back in GM hose-beast territory.

 

Comments?

 

Edit: Added the -0 Returnable Object Limitation.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

In other threads, i've disagreed with how many comic book characters are shown in hero stats. FYI, Lady Shiva and not Batman is considered the best HTH fighter in DCU. I've seen canon references placing several others ahead of him as well. But he is in the top ten.

 

I thought Green Arrow Conner Hawke was considered DC's top HTH fighter after he defeated Lady Shiva in HTH combat a few years back.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Sorry,

My Batman knowledge is about 10 years old. I have never even heard of Lady Shiva.

 

However, I have seen the John Byrne Captain America/Batman teamup set in WWII. In it Batman concedes that eventually he might lose in a fight against Cap but it would take a long time. Also the more recent JLA/Averngers book drawn by George Perez had a similar interaction between the two characters in issue #2 or #3 I think. Batman may not be #1 non-super HTH master in DCU anymore but he is probably the most famous of the lot.

 

BTW, great post by Archer.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

I'm coming to the conclusion that we need a Modifier that says "This Power is part of an object" without necessarily being a Focus with everything that implies. We don't have something that says "This thing is an object that could, in theory, be taken away from the character but in practice almost never is." We instead have OIHID and Focus.

 

Restrainable can be used for this.

 

Your suggestions are interesting. But can all be easily done with a mixture of Focus, OIHID, and Restrainable and no rules changes. I'm cautious about rules changes unless the existing rules lack the structure for what I want. Example: megascale before FReD came out needed a house rule.

 

The power armor thread has a good discussion of this as well.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Restrainable can be used for this.

 

Your suggestions are interesting. But can all be easily done with a mixture of Focus, OIHID, and Restrainable and no rules changes. I'm cautious about rules changes unless the existing rules lack the structure for what I want. Example: megascale before FReD came out needed a house rule.

 

The power armor thread has a good discussion of this as well.

 

Well, here's the thing. If if were that cut and dried, the power armor thread wouldn't be verging on Great Debate status. A Focus acts in certain ways, and if you want something to act differently you're SOL. OIHID, even though it is commonly suggested to represent Iron Man's armor, isn't an object and doesn't act like one; it would be theoretically possible for someone to knock Tony Stark (carrying his armor in a briefcase) over the head and take it, thereby having his armor -- yet OIHID doesn't allow for that. And Restrainable is effectively the same as the Accessible part of an Accessible Focus.

 

Yes, it's a house rule, but the basics of the Focus Limitation haven't changed much since third edition. It might just be time for an overhaul.

 

Edit: Restrainable says "You can stop me from using the Power. But you can't take it away from me."

 

Edit II: The whole point of my posting is this: Tony Stark's armor is not OIHID, because it could be taken away, has been damaged, etc., and none of these are part of OIHID. But it is not OIF, because OIF permits it to be taken away much more readily than Tony Stark's armor ever is. There's no middle ground. What we have here are discreet steps, and what we need is a continuum. What I proposed was intended to address that, and to let the system simulate more and more different kinds of Foci.

 

Edit III: Fixed some typoes.

[SleepyDrug]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Well, here's the thing. If if were that cut and dried, the power armor thread wouldn't be verging on Great Debate status. A Focus acts in certain ways, and if you want something to act differently you're SOL. OIHID, even though it is commonly suggested to represent Iron Man's armor, isn't an object and doesn't act like one; it would be theoretically possible for someone to knock Tony Stark (carrying his armor in a briefcase) over the head and take it, thereby having his armor -- yet OIHID doesn't allow for that. And Restrainable is effectively the same as the Accessible part of an Accessible Focus.

 

Then you need to read our great debate in the power armor thread and digest the rules clarifications therein. You're wrong, however, in that the combination of OIHID & Restrainable CAN allow a item to be taken.

 

OIHID can be taken provided that (1) it happens very rarely, and (2) never for a long time.

 

This can be seen to represent Iron Man who is almost never without his armor. In 83 issues of the current title, it has happened once. Also Tony usually either recovers the briefcase or gets a spare fairly quickly. I disagreed with this in the power armor thread, but it does happen enough that if a GM wanted, he could rule this way.

 

Yes, it's a house rule, but the basics of the Focus Limitation haven't changed much since third edition. It might just be time for an overhaul.

 

What's a house rule?

 

Edit: Restrainable says "You can stop me from using the Power. But you can't take it away from me."

 

Restrainable (at -1/4) says you can reduce or stop me from using my power until I remove the means you did it. This can be an EMP pulse (requiring a reboot), losing the armor (requiring getting it back or a spare), or damage (requiring repairs).

 

I suggest you reread Restrainable.

 

Edit II: The whole point of my posting is this: Tony Stark's armor is not OIHID, because it could be taken away, has been damaged, etc., and none of these are part of OIHID. But it is not OIF, because OIF permits it to be taken away much more readily than Tony Stark's armor ever is. There's no middle ground. What we have here are discreet steps, and what we need is a continuum. What I proposed was intended to address that, and to let the system simulate more and more different kinds of Foci.

 

True, but losing his armor or damage can be part of Restrainable. It should be noted that OIF and OIHID/Restrainable are almost the same limitation and OIHID/Restrainable can be used as a middle step between just OIHID or OAF and OIF.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Then you need to read our great debate in the power armor thread and digest the rules clarifications therein. You're wrong, however, in that the combination of OIHID & Restrainable CAN allow a item to be taken.

 

Certainly you can point me to a page number in FREd that has this information.

 

What's a house rule?

 

My big posting with the Focus variant.

 

Restrainable (at -1/4) says you can reduce or stop me from using my power until I remove the means you did it. This can be an EMP pulse (requiring a reboot), losing the armor (requiring getting it back or a spare), or damage (requiring repairs).

 

Can stop me from using it. Doesn't mean you get to take it, take it apart, analyze it, etc.

 

I suggest you reread Restrainable.

 

I just did. I suggest you reread it. There is nothing anywhere that says that it acts like an object that can be taken away. Focus, OTOH, explicitly states this in several places.

 

True, but losing his armor or damage can be part of Restrainable. It should be noted that OIF and OIHID/Restrainable are almost the same limitation and OIHID/Restrainable can be used as a middle step between just OIHID or OAF and OIF.

 

Again, tell me where in FREd it says under OIHID and/or Restrainable that the power acts like an object that can be taken away.

[Vondy]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

It is the responsibility of the GM, not the player, to exploit limitations.

 

There are a million ways to make it worth -1.

 

A few:

 

1) a character with a firearm, sword, etc. is con-stunnned - does he still have a hold of it?

 

2) a character has to shimmy through a cramped space - can they fit with their bodyarmor on, is their weapon harder to use than an inherent attack power?

 

3) actually attempt a disarm - there are numerous ones - raw strength or martial maneuver, teleport the focus away, etc.

 

4) metal armor can be affected by "heat metal" spells... ouch.

 

5) foci may be stolen while out of combat.

 

6) foci may not be apropos to many situations, esp. social gatherings

 

Ad infinitum.

[Netzilla]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Here we go again. I'm not SleepyDrug, but I was part of that debate which was fairly well & amicably resolved. If you re-read the last couple pages of that debate (start around page 4), you'll see all of this (plus a few other things) covered there as well. However, in order to save folks reading this thread from reading for/through that one, I'll answer your questions here:

 

Certainly you can point me to a page number in FREd that has this information.

 

For taking away OIHID powers: "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." Right there, it says that his suit can be taken away. However, it can't be taken away while he's wearing it & if it does get taken away it will be recovered/replaced faster than a focus would be ('faster' being implied). (HSR 197)

 

Now, I don't recall Tony ever losing his armor for more than a single issue & that was always involved in a multi-issue storyline (i.e. one "adventure"). He's always able to recover or replace his suit before the "adventure" is over. In fact, recovering/replacing the suit becomes a significant point of the storyline. This has happened maybe twice in the 4 years (48 issues not counting Avengers & other appearances) since I've gotten back into the title. Seems to pretty well match with the idea of "never seems to lose his suit for long…"

 

Can stop me from using it. Doesn't mean you get to take it' date=' take it apart, analyze it, etc. [/quote']

 

Taking away something with the lesser version of restrainable: "Removing cyberware typically requires surgery…" and a little later "Since surgery is required to remove cyberware, it's not really a Focus, but it can be considered Restrainable." So, a Restrainable power can be taken, but it requires more effort or special circumstances (skills/powers/equipment) to do so, thus it's harder to take away than even an Inaccessible Focus. (HSR 200)

 

I just did. I suggest you reread it. There is nothing anywhere that says that it acts like an object that can be taken away. Focus' date=' OTOH, explicitly states this in several places.[/quote']

 

See my previous paragraph.

 

Again' date=' tell me where in FREd it says under OIHID and/or Restrainable that the power acts like an object that can be taken away.[/quote']

 

It should also be noted that Restrainable powers can be damaged and targeted separate from the character (as per the examples listed).

 

So, if you have a power/power set that is OIHID and Restrainable (lesser version):

 

1) The change into your Heroic ID can be fairly easily interrupted during the Full Phase Action it requires to change forms ('fairly easily' being implied by the examples listed). (OIHID)

2) It can be taken away before you get into your Heroic ID, but it won't be gone for long. (OIHID)

3) It can be taken away once you are in your Heroic ID, but it requires special circumstances & effort to do so. (lesser Restrainable)

4) It can be damaged by normal combat damage & possibly special effects interactions (lesser Restrainable)

5) It can be targeted separate from the user (at -2 OCV as per the example in lesser Restrainable).

 

Hopefully this clears things up some.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

I thought Green Arrow Conner Hawke was considered DC's top HTH fighter after he defeated Lady Shiva in HTH combat a few years back.

 

Comic book geek nitpick time.... Conner didn't beat her, he fought her to a standstill. If the batfamily hadn't shown up, she likely would have taken him in a long drawn out battle, and yeah either way that is impressive.

 

By other implications Richard Dragon is actually the best DCU MA (well aside from pre-crisis Val who isn't in 20th century continuity anyway).

End nitpick

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

Here we go again. I'm not SleepyDrug' date=' but I was part of that debate which was fairly well & amicably resolved. [/quote']

 

I didn't take part in that whole discussion, and for me it wasn't particularly resolved; I suspect I'm not the only one.

 

Nevertheless, if it is resolved for you, Netzilla, SleepyDrug and anyone else, great. Don't let me tell you you're wrong. The rules as written don't work for me, therefore I came up with alternate rules. If mine don't work for you, then don't use 'em (like you needed me to tell you that ).

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Is OAF worth a -1 limitation?

 

In general, the value of the Focus limitation should be based more on how often it's a problem, rather than the specific mechanics of the focus object.

 

For example, I would allow a character to take Focus at -1/2 for a simple gun, even though it's Obvious and Accessable. You might call this a "Lucky Focus" in that even though it's an OAF, it doesn't get taken, lost, broken, etc., as often as a -1 OAF would be.

 

Give it as much limitation as was paid for. As Dust Raven pointed out, Focus needs some GM work to make it the correct value, unlike many other limitations that don't require any special decisions or actions on the GM's part to make them limiting, such as Activation or Increased END, whose limiting mechanics are built into the actual play.

 

IDHMBIFOM, but if it doesn't already, Focus should be considered to have the ! warning icon on it.