No Frameworks?

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

To me' date=' it's an argument for, because once again, that's how characters work in the comics. Some characters can only do one or two things - Power Man, Spider-Man, Tigra and She-Hulk come to mind. Other characters can do a lot of things, but usually not at the same time, and any individual thing they does is not necessarily more effective than what the one-trick character does. The Human Torch and Hawkeye are examples. Yet, these characters coexist as more or less equals. They only way to effectively build both types of characters for similar point costs is through Power Frameworks.[/quote']

 

I think you'll find that a lot of people might disagree that Spiderman is a one trick pony. In fact I think you'll find that what characters can do is more a function of the imagination of the writers than of the powers.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

It would be, except that the character has nowhere near 750 points of *efficacy*.

 

More than anything else, multipowers and VPPs account for the fact that while a character may be able to do many things, they can only do a limited number of them at a time.

 

...and characters that can only dio a few things can only do a limited number of them at a time, too.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

How about I create thousands of little soldiers and adventurers who are spiritual manifestations of my subconscious. The shieldsmen automatically interpose their shields between my foes and myself while I can order the wizards to cast sleep spells or the swordsmen to slash at my foes.

 

These subconscious manifestations take no time to appear and can be activated instantly, so duplication or summon aren't valid.

I'm not saying that there are no circumstances that would allow an HKA and an EGO Attack to exist in the same EC. In this case, the little soldier guys are an SFX. While you are not using Summon, all the little guys are being summoned.

 

The EC can now be effected by Suppress Summons. I would rule it doesn't work in Water or Vacuums (regardless if you bought those as limitations) since the little guys have lungs.

 

I understand that ECs have a great potential for abuse. We are totally in agreement there. I also agree with you that there are a number of "suspect" ECs out there. I would wager that each and every one of these is the result of an inexperienced GM (or perhaps one without a good player/GM relationship.

 

ECs are around to provide a benefit for those characters whose powers have a weakness from common SFX. If you've got a character with a non-EC HKA and EGO Attack defined as separate SFX they can only be drained/suppressed/etc one at a time. If you've got the same character with a telekinetc HKA and EGO Attack suppress/drain/etc telekinesis totally wipes out this characters effectiveness. This is why ECs provide a bonus.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Let us work an example:

 

40 point MP, using multi slots vs a 40 point cosmic (+2) VPP.

 

More than 7 powers in the MP, and it costs more than the VPP. That is not a huge number.

 

Moreover the real advantage of a cosmic VPP is this: you build the slots as you go. You can't meaningfully put senses in a MP (or at least it is relatively expensive to do so), but you can in a VPP (how? Guess, go on...)

 

It allows you to tailor transforms and drains, dispels and supresses without all those pesky and costly advantages you would otherwise need: you can, in effect exceed campaign active point cost maxima - a transform anything to anything in a 60 point per power campaign means 2d6 major transform. With a VPP, you don't need that +1 advantage that ramps up the cost and you can have 4d6 transform anything to anything.

 

Point is it is cheaper and more useful than a multipower, so if VPP ain't broke, MP is...

 

You know, I started to write out a response based on the numbers game, but I decided not to do that, because ultimately that isn't the issue with why I think Power Frameworks are fine.

 

To me, it comes down to the fact that the current system does a good job of portraying how characters work in most superhero comics, and most particularly, in the sorts of comics the game was developed to represent.

 

So, rather than get more into a numbers argument here, let's hear your ideas of how the rules could better represent what they're supposed to represent. Let's hear you actually make and support an argument of your own, rather than attacking.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I rebuilt Menton that way for my campaign. He's vastly more dangerous that way. .

 

Listen to yourself...'vastly more powerful' built with a VPP. How is that balanced?

 

For purposes of representing the way characters work in comic books' date=' a great many characters should have VPPs, actually - usually very small ones. This represents the number of odd things a super-stretcher like Plastic Man can do, or all the small, mundane uses a character like the Human Torch or Iceman might find for fire or cold. VPPs need not be large to be useful. A character with light/energy/quantum powers can benefit quite a bit in versatility and conceptual soundness by having a 20-30 pt vpp for things like Images, Change Environment, small/gradual Transform effects and the like.[/quote']

 

Nah. Make them buy it with character points; either make players save half their experience to spend when they think of something new to do, or advance the XP when they think of something cool and appropriate. Handing out VPPs left right and centre is lazy design.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I think you'll find that a lot of people might disagree that Spiderman is a one trick pony. In fact I think you'll find that what characters can do is more a function of the imagination of the writers than of the powers.

 

Spider-Man has a fairly limited powerset. He's strong, agile, has spider-sense and webshooters. Over time his web shooters have become sort of a Multipower, and occasionally he pulls up some odd use for them that might qualify as either a small VPP or use of the Powers skill.

 

In comparison, characters like Jean Grey, Magneto and Dr. Fate come up with new abilities virtually every time they show up. Then there are guys like Thor, Iron Man, the Human Torch and the Silver Surfer who ahve about a gazillion powers apiece, most of which are used about twice over several hundred stories. Compared to those guys, Spidey is pretty static. That doesn't make him a bad character at all, but he doesn't have the range of abilities of some others.

[Rapier]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

At the risk of taking this off on further tangents (hey... that is what thread are for, I'm sure...) this bit out "mini-VPPs" is something I take care of with my "Luck Chit" rules... the fate system. It's a matter of taste, I realize, but tacking on a mini-VPP to every character just to offer flexibility is too cumbersome for me. My chit system allows certain chits to be thrown to do SFX appropriate things as a one time action, even if you didn't buy the power. Example: Flame guy wants to try and douse a boiler fire to save a trapped kid, but doens't have "suppress"... if he has the right chit, he turns the Active Points of say his EB into a "Suppress flame" or whatever for one round, and does it.

 

Now... if someone wants a character with more reliable flexibility... they use their powers in a myriad of ways ALL THE TIME and not just special occasions... heck yeah... VPP or every expanding Multi-power is the way to go. It's just with my luck chit/hero point system, I've found that most characters who only need that flexibility once in a while, can get away without them.

I think we are pretty much playing the same side of the court! Instead of using a chit system, I would allow a limited SFX drift for dramatic license without a thought. In this case flame guy is going to suck up all the oxygen in the room by concentrating a flame burst around himself (maybe pushing his EB with an additional x2 END). First time something like this happens, you let it go. Then you give the character (in addition/in lieau) of his regular XP you toss the character a Familiarity (or perhaps a full on) Power Skill. Now he doesn't need to spend chits. Or worry that he won't have a chit when he REALLY needs one.

 

One of the things I really like about FREd is the quantification of the Power Skill. We had been tinkering with Brick Trick skills for a while, but we were inconsistent across characters and campaigns. The Power Skill replaces the need for those 10pt VPPs.

[RDU Neil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

different perspectives point: one man's legitimate EC is another man's rules abuse.

 

Hence my issue with ECs more than anything. They take the objectivity out of character construction. Now, one can argue that there is always a level of subjectivity, and I agree... but the EC, by how it is defined, REQUIRES the GM to make a Good/Bad judgment call based purely on "flavor" and not on something more objective like DC or AP level, etc. It should basically say, "If you use an EC, remember to have a strong argument for it, because the final step in character creation is brow beating your GM into allowing your point raping character to exist!"

 

Nothing else in Hero requires you to have a specific, subjective "SFX" in order to justify putting it on the character sheet. The fact that the EC does, indicates it is fundamentally flawed rule that corrupts the system more than adding efficacy. It's an unfortunate legacy of some flaws in Hero design from 20 plus years ago.

 

It appears to me that ECs were retro-fitted from the beginning because some base assumptions were made. An arbitray 250 point for a starting character was stipulated, THEN they realized they had to tweak some things to allow certain kinds of characters to fit that 250 point cap. (One reason for this is the fact that STR and CON, and to some extent DEX are way too cheap for what they do.)

 

A cleaner concept would have been to back up, reprice some stats, and up some starting point levels a bit. Then you have characters of the same basic power level, but purchased "cleanly" without the need for bending things with the frameworks.

 

A truly revised Hero system would fix this inherent unbalanced issue, but would have the problem of not being backward compatible (as much) to the old rules.

(To add to this, I say that MPs are still clean and effective and stand as positive examples of Frameworks. I'd keep 'em.)

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Listen to yourself...'vastly more powerful' built with a VPP. How is that balanced?

 

I'm not particularly worried about point balancing when I make or run villains. I'm interested in telling interesting stories and challenging the characters. Per his description in CKC, Menton is supposed to be capable of virtually anything - in fact, the write-up *suggested* reconfiguring him using a VPP.

 

Nah. Make them buy it with character points; either make players save half their experience to spend when they think of something new to do, or advance the XP when they think of something cool and appropriate. Handing out VPPs left right and centre is lazy design.

 

Your definition of lazy design seems to comd down to "you don't like it."

 

And, you really think it's a good idea, play-wise/character-wise to force the characters to use XP to do something that is dramatically appropriate, reasonaly falls within character concept and isn't likely to come into play often?

 

I don't think you and I are going to find much to agree on here. I also have to wonder why you bother with the HERO system rules, rather than something that is more rigidly defined.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

You know, I started to write out a response based on the numbers game, but I decided not to do that, because ultimately that isn't the issue with why I think Power Frameworks are fine.

 

To me, it comes down to the fact that the current system does a good job of portraying how characters work in most superhero comics, and most particularly, in the sorts of comics the game was developed to represent.

 

So, rather than get more into a numbers argument here, let's hear your ideas of how the rules could better represent what they're supposed to represent. Let's hear you actually make and support an argument of your own, rather than attacking.

 

You've had lots of good arguments and worked examples, and your argument about the game representing comic books is slowly creeping round to 'comic books I like'.

 

I'll build you a Lemming style flame based character...soon as I get back from walking the dog.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

your argument about the game representing comic books is slowly creeping round to 'comic books I like'.

 

 

Not really. I like a lot of different comics. There are also lots I don't like. I like Silver Age DC and Marvel. I also like PLANETARY and Ellis' AUTHORITY. I don't like IDENTITY CRISIS, even though it features the Silver Age DC characters, because I don't like the tone of the book. I don't think power frameworks are an issue in those likes/dislikes.

 

Fact is, there are relatively few comics which feature characters who can do only one thing, with no variance on that one thing - which, without frameworks, is what one would end up with in Hero.

 

Some characters are less versatile than others. Brick and martial-artist characters essentially do the same things over and over, though some are better at doing their things than others. A lot of characters, though, have a basic, broad power-set, and can do a lot of things within that set. Examples include characters with electrical, weather, super-speed, transmutation or magnetic powers. They always pull up funky ways to use those powers, and which are not well-represented by one or two powers using Hero terms. Finally, there is a subset of characters that can do virtually anything - Green Lantern, Silver Surfer, most comic magi.

 

All of these character types are valid characters, and the HERO system, if it is to mimic the comics at all, should allow for all of them at relatively similar point costs. As is, this is hard to do. Try making a good representation of Power Man and a good representation of Green Lantern on the same 350 points. You'll likely find you get a lot closer to Power Man. Now try doing GL without any sort of power framework. You can't even do the Animated version.

 

Let's take Storm, of the X-Men. Her basic ability is to control weather. We've seen her make it rain and snow, drop temperature precipitously within a discrete area, draw down thunderbolts, create areas of high or low air pressure, summon winds and create em fields that do things like fry out electronic equipment. Try doing that without a framework.

 

HERO has three game mechanics which allow for versatility. First is special effect itself. As noted in FRED, a guy with flame powers can do things like start a small fire or keep his buddies warm if they're stuck in a cooler without having to buy these abilities with points. The Power skill is another game mechanic that allows for unusual, one-time uses of power. Finally, VPPs (and to a lesser extent, MPs) allow this degree of versatility. The first is GM fiat. The second is dependent on a die roll. The third is under the control of the player. I definitely favor the third, though the other two have their uses.

[MitchellS]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

The Power skill is another game mechanic that allows for unusual' date=' one-time uses of power.[/quote']

I would argue the point about one-time use. I know that 5E uses the example of pressing coal into diamonds but in all honesty how often is a player going to press-out diamonds? Making a character pay for something they will use every, or every other, adventure is one thing. Making a character pay for something they will use only a few times a year is something else to my mind. Our games don't limit the Power Skill to single-use power stunts. We just try to go with the flow and only use the skill for special needed tweaks within the game. Maybe our group is just luckier than most in that we are all long-time Champions players and none of us are point crushers; or maybe the GM just does a good job of keeping us all in line.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I would argue the point about one-time use. I know that 5E uses the example of pressing coal into diamonds but in all honesty how often is a player going to press-out diamonds? Making a character pay for something they will use every' date=' or every other, adventure is one thing. Making a character pay for something they will use only a few times a year is something else to my mind. Our games don't limit the Power Skill to single-use power stunts. We just try to go with the flow and only use the skill for special needed tweaks within the game. Maybe our group is just luckier than most in that we are all long-time Champions players and none of us are point crushers; or maybe the GM just does a good job of keeping us all in line.[/quote']

 

 

I have no problem with using the Power skill in that manner either. The book rules state "one-time", more or less, but "passing rare" is good enough for me. On the other hand, some characters are going to try to pull off different funky effects all the time - and for some characters, depending on special effects, this might be quite rational. Magnetism and electricity, for example, can do a lot of different things. If someone is gonna do these sorts of stunts often, I think it's a good idea to have a game mechanic which accounts for them, is not completely dependent on random chance (i.e., a die roll), and allows for some quantification of effects. To me, a small VPP is ideal for that purpose.

[Vondy]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Yes...I think we agree' date=' a VPP is cheaper and more useful than a MP...how can that be right, assuming you advocate balance in your games, and you are not just powergaming frameworks using the 'coherent design' thing as, well, smoke...?[/quote']

 

I require all variable power pools to have clearly defined (and generally narrow) special effects and don't allow the "no skill roll" advantage on power pools that can be changed on the fly, as opposed to "under specific circumstances." If they want to invest points in a high skill, or pay to have the skill roll "no AP penalties" that's fine with me. And power pools are pretty common in my games. I admit, however, that I haven't had to deal with a powergamer in years.

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

All of these character types are valid characters' date=' and the HERO system, if it is to mimic the comics at all, should allow for all of them at relatively similar point costs. As is, this is hard to do. Try making a good representation of Power Man and a good representation of Green Lantern on the same 350 points. [/quote']

 

Oh Lordy, please do not tell me you think that you should be able to?

[Sean Waters]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I don't think you and I are going to find much to agree on here. I also have to wonder why you bother with the HERO system rules' date=' rather than something that is more rigidly defined.[/quote']

 

Now you are going to upset me, and that is not easy to do. I've played over a dozen superhero games, and Champions is the easy winner (The original version of Golden Heroes second, V&V third, M&M fourth, probably...or maybe SuperWorld...). I have played since it came out, and the best games I have run or played in have been Champions games. I played Danger Inc, Espionage, Fantasy Hero, Western Hero and that damn thing with the giant robots. That last one could have done with a polish...

 

Point is (a phrase I've excessively fond of), you can say what you like about my opinions (and more than half the time I'm just playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of it), life would be desperately boring if we all agreed, but I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't think this was a damn good game and care about how it it is used and how it develops.

 

End of rant. Ay thenku.

[RDU Neil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Oh Lordy' date=' please do not tell me you think that you should be able to?[/quote']

 

At the risk of continuing to step in on an argument between you too, let me add one thing...

 

It took me a while, but I realized that of the many divisions in "style" of Hero gamers... specifically Supers/Champions level gamers... one division caused many issue, and was not so clear.

 

I don't have lables for these two play styles or interpretation styles, but I think they can be cleary defined.

 

1) All Heroes Are Created Equal: This camp looks at Hero as a generic system that can adequately simulate "comics" and in fact, allows any concept to be playable in a "generic way" where the point cost and stats are relatively equivalent in effectiveness... and what counts is the SFX and how you use your powers in a descriptive way. To this crowd (and I'm generalizing here...) it is possible to have a 350 point Green Lantern, because he's basically just an EB character with a Multi-power and various "glowing green" SFX. Is he a perfect replica? Nah... but close enough to play and have fun with. Game balance here is generally viewed as "Is everyone having a good time with their character, everyone with an equal chance to contribute?"

 

2) Hero is Game Physics: This crowd sees Hero as a baseline "physics" for a gaming world. The numbers and dice are the building blocks for trying to accurately reproduce a consistent set of effects. They will try to establish a baseline, and factor from there... so if a character concept is a more powerful concept than another (Say GL vs. Luke Cage... or more classically Thor vs. Black Panther) then the high power concept character needs high amounts of points to fully realize his power level. Game balance here is viewed as "if we all play at the same point level, then some character concepts just aren't feasible... like Silver Surfer at 350 points." In some cases, putting a concept down on paper in Hero is like a "reality check" for that character. Sure, in the comics, T'Challah and Thor seem like equals... but when you try to play that out in a quantifiable game, you realize what a crock that is. Thor so totally outclasses Panther it ain't funny. Balance is a matter of "You want that high level of power concept? Pay the points for it, buddy!"

 

(Now, I admit that I'm more of the 2nd group, than the first. I think a game system like Hero is a great way to confront and eliminate some of the not-so-playable genre elements of comics. Concepts like Green Arrow hangin' with the likes of Supes and Wonder Woman. Even Batman doesn't really work, because in the JLA he's basically a "deus ex machina" for the group, not really a character, at that level.)

 

From you comments, Lemming, I'd think you'd be more of group 2, and basically say, "Don't even think about trying to play GL at 350. If we play that level game, we'll start at 1000 points." Jeff sounds more like group one. "Hey, 350 points, appropriate SFX, and everyone focused on emulating certain comic styles... we are good to go." This style, for me, doesn't quite click, but it is very playable... and some would argue, is the original concept behind Hero games. I think the idea of vastly different point levels, deep skill sets, huge expenditures to capture the depth and variety of certain characters... that is a result of years of play and refinement, and currently the supplements drive this because I think Steve and his folks are of the Group Two mentality. Hero 5 is a result of years of play building up layers of complexity on a very simple base concept.

 

The fact that one person thinks you can "simulate" Green Lanter on 350 is just a matter of style and comfort with approximation. It isn't wrong... just different... but it causes a lot of the arguments about the "right way" to play Hero... which is what I see happening here.

 

Just a thought.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Oh Lordy' date=' please do not tell me you think that you should be able to?[/quote']

Make a GL on 350? Nope. But a power framework gets you a lot closer to that - and to gazillions of other comics archetypes - than you're going to get in this system without using one.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

The fact that one person thinks you can "simulate" Green Lanter on 350 is just a matter of style and comfort with approximation. It isn't wrong... just different... but it causes a lot of the arguments about the "right way" to play Hero... which is what I see happening here.

 

As long as you don't mind potentially unbalanced power constructs, a good game mechanic can make you a 350 point Green Lantern or Superman that can pull off most of the stunts you've seen them do in the silver age.

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Make a GL on 350? Nope.

 

You probably can.

 

Blowing out suns costs under 80 points, or even less with a GM's call. It's much more a matter of what you consider a balanced power structure than points.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Now you are going to upset me, and that is not easy to do. I've played over a dozen superhero games, and Champions is the easy winner (The original version of Golden Heroes second, V&V third, M&M fourth, probably...or maybe SuperWorld...). I have played since it came out, and the best games I have run or played in have been Champions games. I played Danger Inc, Espionage, Fantasy Hero, Western Hero and that damn thing with the giant robots. That last one could have done with a polish...

 

Point is (a phrase I've excessively fond of), you can say what you like about my opinions (and more than half the time I'm just playing devil's advocate and arguing for the sake of it), life would be desperately boring if we all agreed, but I wouldn't be here at all if I didn't think this was a damn good game and care about how it it is used and how it develops.

 

End of rant. Ay thenku.

 

 

Well, we've found something we agree on. I've been playing and running Champions since '83, and I still find it by far the best choice for superhero gaming, beating out any of the versions of DC or Marvel games, VnV, GURPS Supers, etc. Part of what makes it work, IMHO, is the combination of flexibility with defined general rules mechanics, and the Power Framework concept is one important component of that.

 

In all the time I've been playing Champions, I've never seen an example of a Power Framework in and of itself being broken or imbalancing to the game. If anything, I think EC in 4th and 5th Edition Champions has become a bit too restrictive, as many valid powers for some sorts of character conceptions (werewolves with Damage Reduction, not vs. silver, for example) cannot be applied in ECs by a straight reading of the rules (and thus, some character types don't get the same benefit some others qualify for). What I *have* seen is munchkiny players taking advantage of the Framework idea, but if you denied them Framworks, they'd just find another way to munch. That's a problem with certain players, which rules can't really fix or address.

[JeffreyWKramer]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Let's go back to a point one of my players, Metaphysician, brought up.

 

Without Power Frameworks, Witchcraft would be something like a 900 pt character. Does anyone really think Witchcraft is an unbalanced character for CHAMPIONS?

[OddHat]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Let's go back to a point one of my players, Metaphysician, brought up.

 

Without Power Frameworks, Witchcraft would be something like a 900 pt character. Does anyone really think Witchcraft is an unbalanced character for CHAMPIONS?

 

For a given value of "balanced".

 

A determined Devils Advocate could easily make the cae that Witchcraft is terribly unbalanced just by making silly assumptions about what the GM will and will not permit. I wouldn't agree, but the case can be made.

 

"Dude, she can like step into another dimension on Phase 12 where time works differently, then reconfigure her VPP to do transdimensional continuous NND attacks that do body and use 'm to kill Takafones 'cause he won't get any actions!"

 

You might respond that only an ass of a GM would permit that, and the Devil's Advocate would argue, and ...

[Demonsong]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

I think that with out power frame works you are going to have lots of bricks in your game.

[zornwil]

Re: No Frameworks?

 

Hence my issue with ECs more than anything. They take the objectivity out of character construction. Now, one can argue that there is always a level of subjectivity, and I agree... but the EC, by how it is defined, REQUIRES the GM to make a Good/Bad judgment call based purely on "flavor" and not on something more objective like DC or AP level, etc. It should basically say, "If you use an EC, remember to have a strong argument for it, because the final step in character creation is brow beating your GM into allowing your point raping character to exist!"

 

Nothing else in Hero requires you to have a specific, subjective "SFX" in order to justify putting it on the character sheet. The fact that the EC does, indicates it is fundamentally flawed rule that corrupts the system more than adding efficacy. It's an unfortunate legacy of some flaws in Hero design from 20 plus years ago.

 

It appears to me that ECs were retro-fitted from the beginning because some base assumptions were made. An arbitray 250 point for a starting character was stipulated, THEN they realized they had to tweak some things to allow certain kinds of characters to fit that 250 point cap. (One reason for this is the fact that STR and CON, and to some extent DEX are way too cheap for what they do.)

 

A cleaner concept would have been to back up, reprice some stats, and up some starting point levels a bit. Then you have characters of the same basic power level, but purchased "cleanly" without the need for bending things with the frameworks.

 

A truly revised Hero system would fix this inherent unbalanced issue, but would have the problem of not being backward compatible (as much) to the old rules.

(To add to this, I say that MPs are still clean and effective and stand as positive examples of Frameworks. I'd keep 'em.)

I remain enthusiastic about a bar that Hugh set as part of a conversation - an EC should have the same unifying factor as an NND, in that what it takes to counter an NND attack is the same bar as that which it takes to create an EC. Therefore an EC, in other words, must have some "reasonably common" method of countering. I would add that it doesn't mean that any Tom, Dick, or Harry, could casually do so, but with a little preparation and a trip to a hardware store in advance, one could concoct a reasonable way to diminish or defeat the powers of an EC. I think that fits with heroid fiction generally as well. If you want, you could just bump this up to say that any super character could devise such a defeat with analagous preparation (a trip to the evil fiend's warehouse supply store and some forethought), to keep it out of the reach of the common man. But either way you can concoct a bar as that, I think.

 

Just a thought.