Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

[Derek Hiemforth]

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.

 

I'm looking at defining the Side Effect as Extreme (-1) and the 60 Active Points of drawbacks it gives me as 12 Negative Combat Skill Levels with Ranged Attacks. (His OCV happens to conveniently be 12 with his arrows, so this would bring his OCV to 0, causing him to miss except in rare cases of blind luck.) The -1 value would be reduced to -1/2; 1/4 less Limitation for the set nature of the effect, and an arbitrary additional 1/4 less Limitation because -- while it affects my character and is disadvantageous -- it doesn't actually harm him directly, and it's only an instant effect.

 

Would you say this is a valid use of the Side Effects Limitation, and that -1/2 is a reasonable amount for it?

[Guest rbezold]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Yes.

 

If you want (your option) you could link this to some unluck. Not only does he miss the intended target, he has a chance of hitting an unintended target (civilians, or the flaming arrow hits the gas station, or whatever)

[caris]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

As a GM I would not allow it as a use of Side Effect, or in any way based off of the reasoning of Side Effect.

 

My first instinct on this is to say that it is a –0 modifier on all the powers that you can use your Indirect Advantage with. It seems too much like double dipping. You are getting the Advantage on multiple powers at a discount already, and letting you increase the amount of the discount on your Requires Skill Roll Limitations normal effect seems a little much for my tastes, and definitely another –1/2 is more than I like.

 

Also conceptually the Limitation is more on the powers that you can use the Indirect Advantage with rather than on the Advantage itself. My second instinct is that if I allowed an additional Limitation at all, I would make it as a –1/4 Limitation applied to the powers that the character may use his Naked Advantage with and an assumed –0 modifier on any other arrow focused powers he encounters in the game.

 

My best compromise with the player would be to tweak the bouncing rules to allow a greater number of attack types to be bounced, and encourage the player to buy Penalty Skill Levels vs. Bouncing.

 

Edit to add in the second option where I am allowing a smaller limitation on the powers that you can use the Naked Advantage with, the penalty to the skill roll would be based on the total active points of the Naked Advantage plus the Active Points Used for the Power.

[Andrew Cermak]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Also conceptually the Limitation is more on the powers that you can use the Indirect Advantage with rather than on the Advantage itself.

 

This is a specious objection. A Side Effect is something bad that happens when you use or attempt to use a Power. The bad thing doesn't have to affect the Power itself. A Side Effect that causes another Power that should have hit to miss seems perfectly reasonable to me.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

what's his power skill roll?

[dbsousa]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

If you are trying to hit something Indirectly, and the Indirect Roll fails, wouldn't you miss anyway?

[caris]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

This is a specious objection. A Side Effect is something bad that happens when you use or attempt to use a Power. The bad thing doesn't have to affect the Power itself. A Side Effect that causes another Power that should have hit to miss seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Possibly, in a general sense, but I was responding to the question in GM mode. Given the nature of Hero having multiple ways of building the same effect, it is always appropriate for the GM to consider if this is the most appropriate way, for their campaign, to build an effect. At no point did I say that the power construct was illegal, just that I as a GM would not allow it and my reasoning for that ruling and the alternative constructs I would suggest to the player. Since the alternative construct connected to the objectionable argument, is likely to give the player a greater cost saving than the proposed method, I don’t feel guilty at all.

 

Now, Derek, a question for you, in the Hero System thread on this you stated this was for a character you are playing in an already existing campaign, why are you asking here first and not asking your GM if he would allow it first?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

Now' date=' Derek, a question for you, in the Hero System thread on this you stated this was for a character you are playing in an already existing campaign, why are you asking here first and not asking your GM if he would allow it first?[/quote']Because I want to feel comfortable that it's reasonable before I present it to him. Even if he allowed something wormy, that doesn't mean I'd want to play it.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

If you are trying to hit something Indirectly' date=' and the Indirect Roll fails, wouldn't you miss anyway?[/quote']Not necessarily. If the reason he's bouncing is to avoid an obstacle, and he has no direct shot to the target, then logically yes, the attack would fail if he couldn't use Indirect. But this character generally uses bouncing to surprise opponents rather than to avoid obstacles... he would usually still have a straight shot at them should he care to take it.

 

However, it does mean that there are some situations in which losing the Indirect would mean he couldn't hit them anyway, and I hadn't considered that initially. It's a valid point.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Opinions requested on an application of Side Effects

 

what's his power skill roll?

13-.