Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

I did. I'm aware that the SE for an ordinary Power would be worth -1. I'm also keeping in mind the Hero meta-rule: a Limitation that does not Limit is not worth points. Exactly how limiting is taking a Power that is not likely to hit and making it so that it definitely won't hit? Not -1 IMO.

No, it starts at -1 and is modified downward for set affect and no direct harm to -1/2.

[JMHammer]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Derek,

Where are you getting that it's not likely to hit? He has a 12 OCV in a world where DCVs are usually 5 or 6...

I think these objections are coming because of the nature of the advantage being applied. If you're trying to use Indirect, that often – not always, but often – means that you can't hit the target without Indirect because there's something preventing a direct-fire shot, usually a wall or something like that. Therefore, if Indirect doesn't snap on because you fail the skill roll, you still take the shot but the arrow will just impact and stop at the surface which the special effect would have defined as your first "bounce point" for the attack if the Indirect had been successful. Therefore, in many cases (admittedly not all cases), the attack is going to miss the target automatically even without the Side Effect you are proposing.

 

Maybe you would consider adding another Limitation to the Naked Advantage, something like, "Indirect only for purposes of defining an origin and direction for the attack (from the surface of the final bounce of the special effect), but cannot be used to get around anything blocking direct line of sight between the attacker and the target." That might get more positive reviews for your idea.

 

Best wishes,

John H

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

I think these objections are coming because of the nature of the advantage being applied. If you're trying to use Indirect' date=' that often – not always, but often – means that you [i']can't[/i] hit the target without Indirect because there's something preventing a direct-fire shot, usually a wall or something like that.

Ah, okay. Now I get it. That hadn't occurred to me. The character in question doesn't usually "bounce" arrows to avoid obstacles... he does it to take opponents by surprise. So I just wasn't thinking along those lines.

 

Maybe it would be easier for me to simply say that if he fails his Skill Roll, it just means can't find a good angle to bounce from, and has to shoot straight instead. No Side Effect; no automatic failure of the attack if he blows the roll...

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Dont let the naysayers talk you out of it.

 

It's legal, it makes sense mechanically via the timing of attack resolution, and it works to model your desired effect. It's totally logical in it's execution.

 

Its even more expensive than just buying extra levels for bouncing, so it's not even like you are trying to cheese something out.

 

Its a solid build. Go forth and fight crime with it.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

True. But the other advantage of doing it as Indirect is that it allows me to bounce attacks (like Entangle' date=' Drain, and Dispel, all of which he has) that you can't normally bounce using the Bouncing An Attack rules. Given his SFX, the GM might let me bounce them anyway, but if I buy it as Indirect, then there's no question. [/quote']

That, and you don't "require" a reasonably bouncable surface to use it. It's just part of the SFX in this case.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Maybe it would be easier for me to simply say that if he fails his Skill Roll' date=' it just means can't find a good angle to bounce from, and has to shoot straight instead. No Side Effect; no automatic failure of the attack if he blows the roll...[/quote']

Of course it would be easier, it's one Limitation less.

 

I don't want to convince you of one way or the other, but keep your concept. Do you see him as making that RSR as part of his attack (won't know if the attack will bounce until it does or doesn't) or as part of planing his attack (does or doesn't find a place to bounce his attack)? If you want the former, SE at the -1/2 value is perfect for it.

[pinecone]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

My take on it is that side effects always have to be worse than a failed activation roll.

 

I would probably let the attack go off with a relatively high chance that it finds a target other than the intended one...

 

friendly fire, isn't.

I concur I'd probibly suggest that the SE is No cons controll so it Does bounce the attack but the GM chooses where it goes (cue:evil laughter)

[Basil]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

I've got an archer character. I'm going to buy him Indirect as a Naked Advantage that can be applied to any of his arrows. (SFX: He's so good at bouncing attacks, he doesn't need to burn Combat Skill Levels to do it.)

 

On the Naked Advantage itself, I want to have Requires A Skill Roll (his Power: Incredible Archery skill), and Side Effects. The Side Effect would be that if he misses his Power Skill Roll, he failed to bounce the attack correctly, so the attack virtually always misses the intended target.

{snip}

 

I'd get away from Side Effect. Turn the limitations into Requires A Skill Roll and Must Shift Point Of Aim Away From Intended Target (-0). Ordinarily, the second one of those would be considered part of the SFX/appearance of Indirect, but in this case the character is forced to "aim aside" in order to try to have Indirect. Since he might fail to get Indirect (due to failing the Requires A Skill Roll), he is therefore forced to miss the target entirely.

 

This takes what MitchellS (and others) pointed out was a based-on-common-sense result, and puts in place a game mechanic to handle it.

 

IOW, instead of just assuming a fail-to-Indirect would be a clean miss, and instead of the is-it-enough-negative-OCVs-to-force-a-miss problem, you have a clear statement that yes, failing the RSR blows the shot.

 

Since shifting the point of aim is almost certainly needed for Indirect anyway, I'd give the Limitation no more than -0. YMMV.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

You are confusing the timing of this.

 

All Indirect really is, in game terms, is a mechanical advantage.

 

Failing the RSR on the Indirect NPA does one thing and one thing only minus the SE -- it deprives the attack of the mechanical benefits of Indirect.

 

We are not talking two different shot paths here; we are talking 1 shot path and two different forms of resolution, one with the benefit of Indirect and the other without. The character declares the attack, then makes the RSR, then makes the Attack Roll. The RSR will determine what resolution path the subsequent Attack Roll adheres to.

 

So if the character declared the attack as bouncing off a rock or whatever and then rolls the RSR, if they succeed the ensuing Attack roll is resolved as Indirect, and if they dont then it is resolved as non-Indirect, which is to say as a normal bounced shot with all rules thereunto pertaining.

 

Thats the normal outcome minus the SE on the NPA. However in this character's case the Side Effect on the NPA imposes flat NCSLs on the character to indicate a flubbed attack, massively reducing the odds of the character succeeding in the normal bounced shot resolution.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

I'd get away from Side Effect. Turn the limitations into Requires A Skill Roll and Must Shift Point Of Aim Away From Intended Target (-0). Ordinarily' date=' the second one of those would be considered part of the SFX/appearance of Indirect, but in this case the character is forced to "aim aside" [u']in order to try to have Indirect[/u]. Since he might fail to get Indirect (due to failing the Requires A Skill Roll), he is therefore forced to miss the target entirely.

 

This takes what MitchellS (and others) pointed out was a based-on-common-sense result, and puts in place a game mechanic to handle it.

 

IOW, instead of just assuming a fail-to-Indirect would be a clean miss, and instead of the is-it-enough-negative-OCVs-to-force-a-miss problem, you have a clear statement that yes, failing the RSR blows the shot.

 

Since shifting the point of aim is almost certainly needed for Indirect anyway, I'd give the Limitation no more than -0. YMMV.

 

Two issues arise out of this.

 

First, the "common sense result". Is this the only logical result? The character achieves Indirect by bouncing his attack. The RSR roll could certainly be taken to mean "He fires his arrow, and it takes a bad bounce because the character miscaculated the angles". In that case,it makes sense for a failed RSR to equal a failed attack (charge and phase lost).

 

However, the RSR could also be taken to mean "The Archer glances arund for a suitable surface off which to bounce his attack, however he finds none suitable for his archery. He must either fire a direct shot or select a different action". In this case, the ability to fire directly after a failed roll makes sense.

 

IOW, as with most things Hero, what makes common and dramatic sense depends greatly on the SFX of the ability.

 

Second, the point issue. I find it perfectly reasonable to say "because this is the logical result of the ability you describe, you must take this limitation". It does not follow that this limitation should be free (-0) as a result. "How limiting is the limitation?" is the question. Without this limitation, our Archer can try to line up an Indirect shot, fail and still have (IIRC) a full phase remaining to him. He could use a half move to get a better atack line, then fire. With this limitation, the attempt to use Indirect reduces the character's options. As such, it is limiting. I'm not sure HOW limiting, but it is limiting.

 

My gut feel is that this is a -1/4 limitation, but maybe -1/2. A -1/2 side effect could be a 3d6 DEX drain which would impact OCV, DCV and skill rolls for many phases afterwards. It will average 11 points (say 4 DEX), so a -1 OCV and DCV is virtually assured, lasting a couple of turns as it gradually recovers. Whether -12 OCV for 1 phase is equal depends a lot on Speeds, but for a heroic level (speeds of 3-4), losing 1 OCV and DCV for a turn or two seems roughly equivalent to a loss of 12 OCV for 1 phase. So I conclude my gut feel is wrong and say -1/2.

 

Reasonable interpretations may vary, of course. -1/4 would still not be out of the question, in my mind. At -0, I have to ask why, in game mechanic terms, the player should take this extra limitation. Yes, it's logical for the power. It's also logical that the special effects of the character's attack powers mean he can't fire an arrow if his bow has been taken away, and he gets a limitation for that. If, rather than the side effect, derek threw "tales 1/2 phase for the attempt" as he carefully computes the angles, this would also be logical, and would clearly merit a limitation.

 

PS - Basil: "I hurt therefore I must be"

[Basil]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

{snip}

Two issues arise out of this.

 

First, the "common sense result". Is this the only logical result? The character achieves Indirect by bouncing his attack. The RSR roll could certainly be taken to mean "He fires his arrow, and it takes a bad bounce because the character miscaculated the angles". In that case,it makes sense for a failed RSR to equal a failed attack (charge and phase lost).

 

However, the RSR could also be taken to mean "The Archer glances arund for a suitable surface off which to bounce his attack, however he finds none suitable for his archery. He must either fire a direct shot or select a different action". In this case, the ability to fire directly after a failed roll makes sense.

 

Your second scenario doesn't really apply. Please note this from the originating post

I've got an archer character. I'm going to buy him Indirect as a Naked Advantage that can be applied to any of his arrows. (SFX: He's so good at bouncing attacks, he doesn't need to burn Combat Skill Levels to do it.)

 

On the Naked Advantage itself, I want to have Requires A Skill Roll (his Power: Incredible Archery skill), and Side Effects. The Side Effect would be that if he misses his Power Skill Roll, he failed to bounce the attack correctly, so the attack virtually always misses the intended target.

 

Thus the idea is: if the RSR is missed, the attack mis-bounces.

 

Second, the point issue. I find it perfectly reasonable to say "because this is the logical result of the ability you describe, you must take this limitation". It does not follow that this limitation should be free (-0) as a result. "How limiting is the limitation?" is the question. Without this limitation, our Archer can try to line up an Indirect shot, fail and still have (IIRC) a full phase remaining to him.

Only if you assume your second scenario. Since the OP talked about a mis-bounce, this is a not-actually-*limiting* "Limitation", written down in the power's description for the sake of clarity. (and, to be honest, to prevent a "take-back" by a player -- "Well, I didn't *really* aim away from the intended target.")

 

 

PS - Basil: "I hurt therefore I must be"

Was that a request for a translation? If so, I'd go with "Laedo ergo sum."

 

Unless you mean "I am being hurt, therefore I am" (i.e., you want the subjunctive); that would be "Laedor ergo sum."

 

You could replace "sum" with "me oportet esse" or "debeo esse", but those have the sense of "must" meaning "am required to, am obbligated to." Since I believe you mean "must" in the sense of "it is an inescapable conclusion that", you'd best stick with "sum" which in Latin is more forceful than "am" is in English.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Your second scenario doesn't really apply. Please note this from the originating post

 

Thus the idea is: if the RSR is missed, the attack mis-bounces.

 

Only if you assume your second scenario. Since the OP talked about a mis-bounce, this is a not-actually-*limiting* "Limitation", written down in the power's description for the sake of clarity. (and, to be honest, to prevent a "take-back" by a player -- "Well, I didn't *really* aim away from the intended target.")

 

OK, if you go back through my post, you'll see I have set out two different special effects for "naked indirect, RSR". Under one (which Derek proposes to take), the character would logically face a severe penalty, if not automatic failure, to the attack he planned on undertaking if his skill roll failed. In the other (differing from Derek's character) there would logically be no penalty to a direct attack if the skill roll failed.

 

My conclusin is that Derek's special effects mandate a further limitation (ie that a failed SR means severe penalties or loss of the attack) which another special effect would not mandate. Thus, Derek's construct is limited beyond the RSR alone. As it is more limited, he should have a greater cost break

 

Put simply, "This is a logical limitation on your power, based on SFX" does not equal "You cannot receive any point break for this limitation." A limitation is something that the mechanical power could have done, but which the power being designed can do. Mechanically, a character with Naked Indirect RSR who fails the skill roll simply cannot use the Indirect advantage, and must choose another alternative. Derek's character suffers more severe consequences if he tries, and fails, to use Indirect. This is a further limitation, and not an insignificant one, on his character's Indirect RSR.

 

Consider the classic SuperGun (call it a 4d6 RKA, OAF Supergun, 16 charge). I can shoot a 2d6 blast, if I wish to avoid hurting my target so severely. I can use the 6 DC's I left off to spread and increase my OCV. Now, assume the character's SFX make this more or less a rifle - he can't change the velocity of the bullet to do lower damage, nor can he make it wider to spread his attack. This is a logical limitation given the SFX of the power. It is also a -1/4 limitation (Beam effect).

 

Was that a request for a translation? If so' date=' I'd go with "Laedo ergo sum."[/quote']

 

It's an addendum to your sig (and one that makes as much or more sense than Descartes' original.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

My take on this is that I wouldn't allow the Side Effects limitation at all. The definition in FRED says side effects have to be disastrous or harmful, and being likely to miss on this one shot if you fail a skill roll is can not properly be defined as either.

 

Can you still hit if you fail the skill roll? Depends. If the target is under full cover and you were trying to bounce the attack off a post behind them, no: you couldn't have hit if you did not have the indirect and had not spend skill levels to bounce. If you were just trying to avoid an OCV penalty, yes, you can hit if you would have done with the penalty applied.

 

Also I take it the arrows are in a multipower? Well in that case you can't apply the naked power advantage to more than one slot, if you look at the rules for multipowers as a naked advantage is considered to be a seperate special power (FRED208)

 

The naked power advantage example in FRED is misleading: I always read it that would apply in a heroic game where you were not paying points for the firearms, just picking them up and using them, not so much when you are buying your powers. I usually don't allow naked advantages if they would, in effect, allow a character to exceed the active point campaign limit.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Also I take it the arrows are in a multipower? Well in that case you can't apply the naked power advantage to more than one slot' date=' if you look at the rules for multipowers as a naked advantage is considered to be a seperate special power (FRED208)[/quote']

Rules FAQ:

Q: Can a character purchase a naked Power Advantage or Adder that adds to more than one power, such as to any slot in a Power Framework?

 

A: Generally, no, but it really depends on the nature of the powers and special effects involved and the GM’s judgment regarding game balance, common sense, and dramatic sense. For example, a character with a “Quick Shot†power (defined as Autofire, applicable to any non-Autofire gun) who had a Multipower of different guns should probably be allowed to apply the naked Advantage to any of those guns. On the other hand, an energy projector with the same Multipower, but no Focus Limitations, probably shouldn’t be allowed to do that, since there are no restrictions on the use of the naked Advantage.

A Multipower of different arrows is essentially similar to a Multipower of different guns.

 

However, it's irrelevant now, because I decided not to do it this way.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Rules FAQ:

 

A Multipower of different arrows is essentially similar to a Multipower of different guns.

 

However, it's irrelevant now, because I decided not to do it this way.

 

Interesting topic, though. Pre FRED I always liked the bow and arrow idea using a multipower for arrows (all bought at zero range, so you could stab people with them if you liked), then a naked focussed power advantage to provide range (the bow). It was a bit potentially munchkinistic, in that it was cheaper to do than just buying the powers with range in the MP, but I liked it because it more accurately modelled the feel of a bow being a seperate bit of kit that could be taken away or broken, and arrows still being nasty pointy sticks even if you didn't have a muscle multiplier to hurl then vast distances.

 

I'm always a bit ware of naked advantages, but thanks for drawing my attention to the FAQ. GM fiat rules (or whatever it is s/he's driving...).

 

BTW my take would have been to buy penalty skill levels to negate cover. Not technically upping your OCV...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Pre FRED I always liked the bow and arrow idea using a multipower for arrows (all bought at zero range' date=' so you could stab people with them if you liked), then a naked focussed power advantage to provide range (the bow).[/quote']This is actually close to the way my character has it. He has a Multipower that consists entirely of Powers with range (either inherently or because they have the Ranged Advantage), and the Multipower has the Limitations, "OAF Arrows (-1)" and "Only Ranged When Used In Combination With A Bow (-1/4)."

 

The value of the -1/4 Limitation is based on the logic that it's similar to the point savings of taking a No Range Limitation, and buying that Limitation off via OAF Bow. It's just listed as a -1/4 Limitation because it's simpler and easier to deal with that way.

 

So if you take his arrows away, he can't use them at all. If you just take his bow away, he can still try and stick you with the arrows (although some slots and combat levels wouldn't logically apply to such attempts).

BTW my take would have been to buy penalty skill levels to negate cover. Not technically upping your OCV...

The issue with that, for this character, would be that he doesn't normally use this "bouncing" effect to strike enemies behind cover (although of course he could). He normally uses it to surprise enemies. One of the arguments presented in this thread against the idea of the "automatic miss" being any kind of Limitation if the Indirect failed was that an Indirect attack would often "miss" anyway if it wasn't Indirect, simply because it couldn't reach the target due to barriers, cover, etc. When this point was bought up, I admitted it was a valid concern, and one that had just failed to occur to me, because that's not why the character in question usually bounces attacks.

 

Ultimately, I talked to the GM about it, and he said he'd allow the character to use the Bouncing An Attack rules for any of his arrows due to their SFX, even though some of the Powers the arrows represent aren't normally ones you'd consider "bounceable" (Drain, Entangle, etc.). So I just bought 5-point Combat Skill Levels with RSR and "Only For Bouncing Attacks (-1)"

[Rapier]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

However' date=' the RSR could also be taken to mean "The Archer glances arund for a suitable surface off which to bounce his attack, however he finds none suitable for his archery. He must either fire a direct shot or select a different action". In this case, the ability to fire directly after a failed roll makes sense.[/quote']

ah! Something I had not considered. I agree with your interpretation. If the RSR on the Indirect is "looking for a bounce point," failing the skill roll simply means he can't find a bounce point and he's got to make a straight on attack. While this is a great effect and one I am probably going to steal, this is not what Derek is looking for.

 

I am rather fond of this little tidbit, Derek. I had not considered a naked Indirect advantage for my archer guy. This is a great construct. It was always bothersome that he couldn't bounce and entangle or such...a fresh pair of eyes, eh?

 

Don't let these guys poo-poo you! I love the RSR with the SE. It describes exactly the effect you are looking for, is without cheese of any sort and is completely by-the-book legal.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

This is actually close to the way my character has it. He has a Multipower that consists entirely of Powers with range (either inherently or because they have the Ranged Advantage), and the Multipower has the Limitations, "OAF Arrows (-1)" and "Only Ranged When Used In Combination With A Bow (-1/4)."

 

Ultimately, I talked to the GM about it, and he said he'd allow the character to use the Bouncing An Attack rules for any of his arrows due to their SFX, even though some of the Powers the arrows represent aren't normally ones you'd consider "bounceable" (Drain, Entangle, etc.). So I just bought 5-point Combat Skill Levels with RSR and "Only For Bouncing Attacks (-1)"

 

Sweet reason, eh? Like the idea for the bow and arrow combination. Appearing soon in a game I'm in...

[Sean Waters]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

ah! Something I had not considered. I agree with your interpretation. If the RSR on the Indirect is "looking for a bounce point," failing the skill roll simply means he can't find a bounce point and he's got to make a straight on attack. While this is a great effect and one I am probably going to steal, this is not what Derek is looking for.

 

I am rather fond of this little tidbit, Derek. I had not considered a naked Indirect advantage for my archer guy. This is a great construct. It was always bothersome that he couldn't bounce and entangle or such...a fresh pair of eyes, eh?

 

Don't let these guys poo-poo you! I love the RSR with the SE. It describes exactly the effect you are looking for, is without cheese of any sort and is completely by-the-book legal.

 

...but of course, if it is looking for a bounce point, it doesn't make sense for the -12OCV: failing to spot a bounce point doesn't make the base shot any harder, unless you define it as throwing a hissy fit if he can't find anything to bounce off. Still reckon SE need to have more of an effect on the character than a reduced hit chance (however much it is reduced by!). It should entail some damage or more lasting effect, I believe. I'm not suggesting there was any intentional cheese: Derek was striving for an effect, I just don't think that the SE was bad enough.

[Basil]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

{much snippage occureth}

Ultimately, I talked to the GM about it, and he said he'd allow the character to use the Bouncing An Attack rules for any of his arrows due to their SFX, even though some of the Powers the arrows represent aren't normally ones you'd consider "bounceable" (Drain, Entangle, etc.). So I just bought 5-point Combat Skill Levels with RSR and "Only For Bouncing Attacks (-1)"

 

Well, that does make things simpler.

[Basil]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

{much snippage occurs}

Was that a request for a translation? If so, I'd go with "Laedo ergo sum."

 

Unless you mean "I am being hurt, therefore I am" (i.e., you want the subjunctive); that would be "Laedor ergo sum."

 

::Sigh:: There's a major brain-fart.

 

"Laedor" is correct--not because it's the subjunctive, which it isn't, but because it's the passive.

 

Sorry if I caused any confusion.