[Splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

[JmOz]

 

Snip as it was unnessesary to this discusion

 

 

Dispel vs Focuses is well-established by precedent in published products, and drain vs focuses makes little or no sense at all.

 

For example, some bricks have a trick called Breaking that functions as dispel vs focused powers. They grab the focus and crush it, and the power is useless until the focus is replaced. A drain wouldn't make any sense, since a drain has a return rate and isn't all-or-nothing. I mean, if I crush your gun in my hand, it makes no sense at all for the gun to be okay again after a few minutes.

 

Also, dispelling Persistent powers is nowhere near as effective as draining them. Dispelled non-focus powers can be turned back on immediately, drained powers cannot be. Dispell is all-or-nothing, drain is incremental.

 

They are very, very different powers, and in many cases dispels make far more sense than drains.

 

 

My problem with the dispell Foci: it overstates the mandate of dispell

 

Dispell: The power to stop another power from going off, to turn off a power

 

Drain: To temperarily remove the ability of a power or set of powers to function

 

KA: To cause body damage

 

Which one seems more apropriate to destroying a focus to you?

 

to side step some of the debate, I know what has been published before, I know this is how Steve likes to do it. However ask yourself the following question:

 

Why would it/wouldn't it work on a character who defines his powers as tech but takes no limitation on it...

[jackalope]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Which one seems more apropriate to destroying a focus to you?

 

Dispel, for one very simple reason: a destroyed focus should not regenerate at the rate of 5 AP/turn. That doesn't make any sense at all. If a focus is destroyed, it should stay destroyed.

 

Though in some cases, I can see using a KA instead. The problem with KA is that it can't be used to simulate things like an "Anti-Tech Spell" or "EMP Pulse" that simultaneously removes all tech powers (since it would have to target every single focus simulataenously), and that using a KA on a Focus is called shot while using a Dispel Vs Focus is not a called shot.

 

Why would it/wouldn't it work on a character who defines his powers as tech but takes no limitation on it...

 

A better question is "How would a player justify defining their character's powers as tech that cannot be destroyed, taken away, or otherwise affected?"

 

I'd want to see how that question is answered first.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

{BEGIN RADICAL OPINION}

 

The problem, IMO, lies in the nature of Focuses. "Focus" should not be a Power Limitation. A Focus should be a "mini-character" (like a Vehicle, Base, Automaton, etc.) that you define separately from the character, and which the character then pays a lessened cost for.

 

Under this paradigm, a Focus would be defined as having whatever DEF and BODY you give it (as opposed to these traits being auto-defined by the Active Cost of the powers in it), plus whatever Powers, Skills, etc. it needs to have. The owning character would then pay points for it, much as they would for a Vehicle or Computer. Characteristics like Accessible vs. Inaccessible, Obvious vs. Inobvious, Breakable vs. Unbreakable, and Personal vs. Universal could either be Disadvantages that lower the cost of the Focus, or cost divisors on what the character pays for the Focus.

 

For example, going the Disadvantage route, we might say that a Focus defaults to the "less-restrictive" of each pair of traits described above (Inaccessible, Inobvious, Unbreakable, and Personal), and each of the more restrictive traits (Accessible, Obvious, etc.) would be a Physical Limitation for the Focus if taken. Likewise, this would allow Foci to have things like Reputations, Vulnerabilities, etc.

 

Going the cost divisor route, we might say that the character pays something like 4 points for every 5 points in the Focus's total cost by default. Then each restrictive traits lowers it by one. So it might be 4 to 5 for an IIF, 3 to 5 for an IAF or an OIF, 2 to 5 for an OAF, etc. This appears to make a Focus slightly cheaper than under the current rules, but remember that they will be more expensive to start with, since you'll have to give them DEF and BODY.

 

{END RADICAL OPINION}

 

Anyway, even if this isn't the exact right approach to take, I do think it points out the real problem. The real problem is that the HERO System treats Focuses differently from any other kind of inanimate object, even if it's exactly the same thing in the game world..

 

For example, a giant who throws boulders as ranged attacks. If he simply finds a boulder in the environment, it has 5 DEF, 13 BODY. But if he buys a boulder as a Power through a Focus (8d6 EB, OAF, 1 Recoverable Charge, Range based on STR), now suddenly, the same boulder has 8 DEF, but essentially only 1 BODY (since only one Power comes from the Focus). This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

If Focuses had their own DEF and BODY like normal things, then you could destroy them the same way you'd destroy anything else: exceeding their BODY score (after DEF) renders them inoperative, and exceeding 2x their BODY score destroys them completely.

 

Just my .02...

[KA.]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Wow, great topic!

 

In no particular order:

 

Derek,

I really like your ideas about a "constructed" focus, with Disadvantages, etc.

I think this would be really good for "major" foci, like Powered Armor, or something like Stormbringer or Excalibur. I don't kow if I would want it for more common foci like Blaster Pistols. I think the ideal thing would be to have both options available so that they could be used when they fit the concept.

 

JmOz and Jackalope,

I don't really have a problem with the way Dispel currently works, because, a Focus isn't like other objects. A Focus is a game construct that limits a characters options in exchange for a point savings.

Saying "a rock is a rock" is sort of like saying "money is just paper", they may be physically similar, but they have different uses and value.

One problem that GM's often face when dealing with characters with Foci is how to make them limiting.

You can only have them stolen so often, or it turns the campaign into "How can I steal the Focus/How can I protect my Focus".

I see letting Dispel work the way it does as another way to help balance the point-break for Foci.

 

KA.

[OddHat]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Derek,

Great idea, and one I've been thinking of using. All Foci would be by default OAF, unless they purchased their powers as invisible and/or purchased appropriate skills and powers to keep themselves hidden. One problem is that it would vastly change the nature of gadget pools and such. Recently I've tended to define many Foci recently as OIHID or Physical Manifestations instead.

 

The Dispell Issue:

Foci have Def and Body for a reason. I have no problem letting characters in my campaigns use placed shots or buy l Hex RKAs that only effect Foci (With Indirect and Penetrating as well for tricky cases) to short out Doc Schmengie's Mighty Armor. However, I would post those characters to the boards with the power written as a dispell; that's the accepted method under The Reign of Steve (TRS).

[Rapier]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Derek...wow.

 

IIRC this is how builds are done for sentient weapons etc, neh? While I think this is a worthwhile idea, I also think it is too kludgy for actual use. Focus is probably THE most common limitation. For every Focused item there is going to be a character sheet. Maybe if there was some kind of quick/easy way to define a focus...it does bear some thought though.

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Dispel' date=' for one very simple reason: a destroyed focus should not regenerate at the rate of 5 AP/turn. That doesn't make any sense at all. If a focus is destroyed, it should [b']stay destroyed[/b].

 

Though in some cases, I can see using a KA instead. The problem with KA is that it can't be used to simulate things like an "Anti-Tech Spell" or "EMP Pulse" that simultaneously removes all tech powers (since it would have to target every single focus simulataenously), and that using a KA on a Focus is called shot while using a Dispel Vs Focus is not a called shot.

 

A better question is "How would a player justify defining their character's powers as tech that cannot be destroyed, taken away, or otherwise affected?"

 

I'd want to see how that question is answered first.

 

I agree that drain does not make sense for destroying a foci at the base level (but an argument could be made for one that has bought up it's return rate to hours)

 

RE: KA: I disagree, a -1 lim Tech only, done.

 

RE: Dispel: except this oversteps it's mandate. It cannot do this unless the power is bought as a foci (or theoreticaly a restrainable), this seems wrong to me,

 

RE: Question: Internal Cybernetics, or in a higher cinimatic game it just never happens (Yes I do allow 0 end normal guns)

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

{BEGIN RADICAL OPINION}

 

The problem, IMO, lies in the nature of Focuses. "Focus" should not be a Power Limitation. A Focus should be a "mini-character" (like a Vehicle, Base, Automaton, etc.) that you define separately from the character, and which the character then pays a lessened cost for.

 

Under this paradigm, a Focus would be defined as having whatever DEF and BODY you give it (as opposed to these traits being auto-defined by the Active Cost of the powers in it), plus whatever Powers, Skills, etc. it needs to have. The owning character would then pay points for it, much as they would for a Vehicle or Computer. Characteristics like Accessible vs. Inaccessible, Obvious vs. Inobvious, Breakable vs. Unbreakable, and Personal vs. Universal could either be Disadvantages that lower the cost of the Focus, or cost divisors on what the character pays for the Focus.

 

For example, going the Disadvantage route, we might say that a Focus defaults to the "less-restrictive" of each pair of traits described above (Inaccessible, Inobvious, Unbreakable, and Personal), and each of the more restrictive traits (Accessible, Obvious, etc.) would be a Physical Limitation for the Focus if taken. Likewise, this would allow Foci to have things like Reputations, Vulnerabilities, etc.

 

Going the cost divisor route, we might say that the character pays something like 4 points for every 5 points in the Focus's total cost by default. Then each restrictive traits lowers it by one. So it might be 4 to 5 for an IIF, 3 to 5 for an IAF or an OIF, 2 to 5 for an OAF, etc. This appears to make a Focus slightly cheaper than under the current rules, but remember that they will be more expensive to start with, since you'll have to give them DEF and BODY.

 

{END RADICAL OPINION}

 

Anyway, even if this isn't the exact right approach to take, I do think it points out the real problem. The real problem is that the HERO System treats Focuses differently from any other kind of inanimate object, even if it's exactly the same thing in the game world..

 

For example, a giant who throws boulders as ranged attacks. If he simply finds a boulder in the environment, it has 5 DEF, 13 BODY. But if he buys a boulder as a Power through a Focus (8d6 EB, OAF, 1 Recoverable Charge, Range based on STR), now suddenly, the same boulder has 8 DEF, but essentially only 1 BODY (since only one Power comes from the Focus). This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

 

If Focuses had their own DEF and BODY like normal things, then you could destroy them the same way you'd destroy anything else: exceeding their BODY score (after DEF) renders them inoperative, and exceeding 2x their BODY score destroys them completely.

 

Just my .02...

 

Interesting idea, realy interesting...but I think it might be a little kludgy, I could see however increasing the limitation value to -1, -1 1/2, -2 and making all foci Def 1, Body 1 and then the character could increase them by a factor of 2 for each +1/4 (or some such, system would need to be tweeked)

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Wow, great topic!

 

In no particular order:

 

Derek,

I really like your ideas about a "constructed" focus, with Disadvantages, etc.

I think this would be really good for "major" foci, like Powered Armor, or something like Stormbringer or Excalibur. I don't kow if I would want it for more common foci like Blaster Pistols. I think the ideal thing would be to have both options available so that they could be used when they fit the concept.

 

JmOz and Jackalope,

I don't really have a problem with the way Dispel currently works, because, a Focus isn't like other objects. A Focus is a game construct that limits a characters options in exchange for a point savings.

Saying "a rock is a rock" is sort of like saying "money is just paper", they may be physically similar, but they have different uses and value.

One problem that GM's often face when dealing with characters with Foci is how to make them limiting.

You can only have them stolen so often, or it turns the campaign into "How can I steal the Focus/How can I protect my Focus".

I see letting Dispel work the way it does as another way to help balance the point-break for Foci.

 

KA.

 

Thank you.

 

I see your point KA (always a pleasure reading your thoughts), I do however disagree: It is no harder to give a character a KA than a dispell and usualy will make more sense. If you want add Pen and watch the fun.

 

Also Foci have never really been a problem in my campeign...

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Derek,

Great idea, and one I've been thinking of using. All Foci would be by default OAF, unless they purchased their powers as invisible and/or purchased appropriate skills and powers to keep themselves hidden. One problem is that it would vastly change the nature of gadget pools and such. Recently I've tended to define many Foci recently as OIHID or Physical Manifestations instead.

 

The Dispell Issue:

Foci have Def and Body for a reason. I have no problem letting characters in my campaigns use placed shots or buy l Hex RKAs that only effect Foci (With Indirect and Penetrating as well for tricky cases) to short out Doc Schmengie's Mighty Armor. However, I would post those characters to the boards with the power written as a dispell; that's the accepted method under The Reign of Steve (TRS).

 

RE: Steve: I disagree with to many of his rulings to have that matter to me anymore.

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Derek...wow.

 

IIRC this is how builds are done for sentient weapons etc, neh? While I think this is a worthwhile idea, I also think it is too kludgy for actual use. Focus is probably THE most common limitation. For every Focused item there is going to be a character sheet. Maybe if there was some kind of quick/easy way to define a focus...it does bear some thought though.

Agreed

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

My views on the three powers

 

I will use examples as it helps to illustrate to me

 

Dispell

spell: Instantanious break in power, power returns as soon as you turn a dial, reshoot, etc...

Tech Device: Might blow a fuse (0 phase action to replace) or just temporarily upset the energy output, etc...

 

Drain

For somereason it drains the power (Item must recharge) small break (Simple fixes, but may take a while based on Drain)

 

RKA: You are destroying the item...

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

With regard to the current paradigm regarding Foci, the reason Dispel destroys them is not because Dispel is so great. It's because that's part of the Focus Limitation. Given the current rules for Foci DEF and BODY, using Killing Attack as the standard means of destroying them would be too effective. 1d6 RKA, Penetrating, Only vs. Foci. Presto. Instant Focus-ruiner.

 

By making it part and parcel of being a Focus that Dispel can destroy them, it subtlely nudges people away from the "1d6 Penetrating KA" method. The Dispel method isn't cheaper... it's actually more expensive.

[OddHat]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

With regard to the current paradigm regarding Foci' date=' the reason Dispel destroys them is not because Dispel is so great. It's because that's part of the Focus Limitation. Given the current rules for Foci DEF and BODY, using Killing Attack as the standard means of destroying them would be [i']too[/i] effective. 1d6 RKA, Penetrating, Only vs. Foci. Presto. Instant Focus-ruiner.

 

By making it part and parcel of being a Focus that Dispel can destroy them, it subtlely nudges people away from the "1d6 Penetrating KA" method. The Dispel method isn't cheaper... it's actually more expensive.

 

Much more expensive, foolishly so, especially for bricks that are meant to be crushing the things. Makes Focus even less of a limit than it already is.

[Gary]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

With regard to the current paradigm regarding Foci' date=' the reason Dispel destroys them is not because Dispel is so great. It's because that's part of the Focus Limitation. Given the current rules for Foci DEF and BODY, using Killing Attack as the standard means of destroying them would be [i']too[/i] effective. 1d6 RKA, Penetrating, Only vs. Foci. Presto. Instant Focus-ruiner.

 

By making it part and parcel of being a Focus that Dispel can destroy them, it subtlely nudges people away from the "1d6 Penetrating KA" method. The Dispel method isn't cheaper... it's actually more expensive.

 

 

An idea to limit the abusiveness of Penetrating RKAs is to give 'major' foci effectively 9 'Body' each. This would sorta work the same way as the Ablative rules. The first body hit on a 'major' focus will give it an Activation Roll of 15-. Each additional Body lowers the Activation by 1, until it's destroyed when the Act roll reduces to less than 8-.

 

The GM can handwave what's considered a 'major' focus (5 Flash Defense OIF mirrored shades would not be), or he can require a player to take -1/4 less limitation for a focus to use these rules rather than the default.

 

This idea would make Penetrating RKAs still dangerous, but balanced.

[jackalope]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

RE: KA: I disagree' date=' a -1 lim Tech only, done.[/quote']

 

Actually, I think Tech Only should be an advantage. Here's why:

 

Assume there is a Minion with a 15 AP Pistol, a 5 AP Nightvision Visor, and 4 other 5 AP gadgets. He is facing a Super Mage with a spell that destroys any post-Industrial Revolution technology, which for simplicity's sake we will call Technology. The Minion's 15 AP Pistol has 3 DEF and 1 Body. The five 5 AP gadgets each have 1 DEF and 1 Body.

 

Here are two different versions of the Anti-Tech Spell:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 (vs. ED), Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2); Only Affects Technology (-1) (30 Active Points)

Cost: 15

 

Compare that with the standard build:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Dispel Technology 5d6 (standard effect: 15 points), all Technology SFX powers simultaneously (+2) (45 Active Points)

Cost: 45

 

I'm sure you see the problem. One build allows a character to wipe out all of and opponents tech for 15 points, the other for 45 points...and it's the 45 point that is game approved. Not only that, but Dispel requires a normal hit roll, and the RKA build requires a roll vs DCV 3.

 

I don't see how Tech Only limits a character. It seems to give them a signifigant advantage.

 

So I think this is more reasonable:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 (vs. ED), Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Only Affects Technology (+1) (45 Active Points)

Cost: 45

 

RE: Dispel: except this oversteps it's mandate. It cannot do this unless the power is bought as a foci (or theoreticaly a restrainable), this seems wrong to me,

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Breaking gadgets and ruining focuses are listed uses of Dispel in FRED. It's in the first paragraph of the power description. What is this mandate, if not this?

 

RE: Question: Internal Cybernetics, or in a higher cinimatic game it just never happens (Yes I do allow 0 end normal guns)

 

Cybernetics should be Restrainable, and treated like focuses. If you allow characters to buy guns without buying them as focuses, then you have to figure something else out. How do you deal with people using the disarm manuever against a non-focused power with the special effect "Gun"? Same problem.

[Gary]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

So I think this is more reasonable:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 (vs. ED), Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Only Affects Technology (+1) (45 Active Points)

Cost: 45

 

 

This doesn't make sense. A Penetrating RKA that affects Technology and people would cost 30 pts, while the same RKA that affects Technology only costs 45 pts?

[JmOz]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Actually' date=' I think Tech Only should be an [b']advantage[/b]. Here's why:

 

Assume there is a Minion with a 15 AP Pistol, a 5 AP Nightvision Visor, and 4 other 5 AP gadgets. He is facing a Super Mage with a spell that destroys any post-Industrial Revolution technology, which for simplicity's sake we will call Technology. The Minion's 15 AP Pistol has 3 DEF and 1 Body. The five 5 AP gadgets each have 1 DEF and 1 Body.

 

Here are two different versions of the Anti-Tech Spell:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 (vs. ED), Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2); Only Affects Technology (-1) (30 Active Points)

Cost: 15

 

Compare that with the standard build:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Dispel Technology 5d6 (standard effect: 15 points), all Technology SFX powers simultaneously (+2) (45 Active Points)

Cost: 45

 

I'm sure you see the problem. One build allows a character to wipe out all of and opponents tech for 15 points, the other for 45 points...and it's the 45 point that is game approved. Not only that, but Dispel requires a normal hit roll, and the RKA build requires a roll vs DCV 3.

 

I don't see how Tech Only limits a character. It seems to give them a signifigant advantage.

 

So I think this is more reasonable:

 

Anti-Tech Spell:

Killing Attack - Ranged 1d6 (vs. ED), Penetrating (+1/2), Area Of Effect (One Hex; +1/2), Only Affects Technology (+1) (45 Active Points)

Cost: 45

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean. Breaking gadgets and ruining focuses are listed uses of Dispel in FRED. It's in the first paragraph of the power description. What is this mandate, if not this?

 

 

 

Cybernetics should be Restrainable, and treated like focuses. If you allow characters to buy guns without buying them as focuses, then you have to figure something else out. How do you deal with people using the disarm manuever against a non-focused power with the special effect "Gun"? Same problem.

 

What I mean by mandate is it's general function, outside of any other modifier (Including foci). Only when dealing with foci are you suppose to let dispell have lasting effects, it is simply put an exception that does not need to exist.

[jackalope]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

This doesn't make sense. A Penetrating RKA that affects Technology and people would cost 30 pts' date=' while the same RKA that affects Technology only costs 45 pts?[/quote']

 

AoE attacks don't normally affect focused powers, AFAIK.

 

More importantly, having played Champions for years and years, I feel certain saying that being able to blast all of a minions gear without scratching them is a tremendous advantage. YMMV.

[Gary]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

AoE attacks don't normally affect focused powers, AFAIK.

 

More importantly, having played Champions for years and years, I feel certain saying that being able to blast all of a minions gear without scratching them is a tremendous advantage. YMMV.

 

 

1) I don't know where it actually says that, although it would be a reasonable house rule.

 

2) Would you charge a +1 advantage for Stun Only on an EB or RKA? Knocking a minion out without scratching them should be even more useful than blasting their gear.

[jackalope]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

1) I don't know where it actually says that' date=' although it would be a reasonable house rule.[/quote']

 

Yeah, I don't know where it say that either, but I've never seen anyone play any other way.

 

2) Would you charge a +1 advantage for Stun Only on an EB or RKA? Knocking a minion out without scratching them should be even more useful than blasting their gear.

 

No, but it takes far more damage to knock out the average minion. A 9d6 Stun Only EB (45 AP) won't knock out the average minion in one shot, while the Anti-Tech Spell will destroy most of an agents gear in one shot, and will remove a power a turn from most battlesuits, etc.

[Gary]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

Yeah, I don't know where it say that either, but I've never seen anyone play any other way.

 

 

 

No, but it takes far more damage to knock out the average minion. A 9d6 Stun Only EB (45 AP) won't knock out the average minion in one shot, while the Anti-Tech Spell will destroy most of an agents gear in one shot, and will remove a power a turn from most battlesuits, etc.

 

 

A 9d6 EB has an excellent chance of Stunning the average minion. And at 12d6, it'll reliably knock them out. Yet Stun Only is a -0 limitation, and certainly not worth a +1 advantage.

[jackalope]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

A 9d6 EB has an excellent chance of Stunning the average minion. And at 12d6' date=' it'll reliably knock them out. Yet Stun Only is a -0 limitation, and certainly not worth a +1 advantage.[/quote']

 

I agree that Stun Only isn't worth +1, but that doesn't change my opinion that Technology Only on a Penetrating AoE RKA is worth +1, or possibly even more.

 

Now, if the attack were not a Penetrating AoE, I might think Tech Only was a -0 or even a -1/2.

 

Also, this is highly campaign dependent. In a campaign where most of the bad guys do not use technology based powers, because theya re mutanst or super mages or whatever, then it would be worth less.

 

In every campaign I've been in through, a 9d6 Stun Only EB is fairly useless, while a 1d6 Penetrating AoE:1H RKA that only targets the victim's gear would be tremendously useful.

[Rapier]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

AoE attacks don't normally affect focused powers' date=' AFAIK.[/quote']

I'm with ya. I'm fairly certain its a rule but would be hard pressed to prove it. But it does make a certain sense, otherwise any AOE attack would be slamming FOCI too. It would make FOCI a much greater limitation than their point value would warrant.

 

Flamey O'Napalm blasts the GunSlinger with his AOE Fire Bomb Attack. The Gunslinger is standing there starkers with his short and curlies smoldering slightly. Turns out all of his equipment (which was, of course, foci based) was damaged by the attack.

 

Makes a lot of sense that foci must be specfically targetted in unaffected by AOE. Doesn't make logical sense, obviously, but its about the only way the game could function.

[Gary]

Re: [splinter thread] I have a problem with the way it is done: Dispel Foci

 

I agree that Stun Only isn't worth +1, but that doesn't change my opinion that Technology Only on a Penetrating AoE RKA is worth +1, or possibly even more.

 

Now, if the attack were not a Penetrating AoE, I might think Tech Only was a -0 or even a -1/2.

 

Also, this is highly campaign dependent. In a campaign where most of the bad guys do not use technology based powers, because theya re mutanst or super mages or whatever, then it would be worth less.

 

In every campaign I've been in through, a 9d6 Stun Only EB is fairly useless, while a 1d6 Penetrating AoE:1H RKA that only targets the victim's gear would be tremendously useful.

 

 

I agree that it's highly campaign dependent. And the AoE Penetrating RKA is extremely effective. However, what would happen in any campaign with a decent GM is that this attack would only work when the GM wanted it to. It's trivial and makes sense for any important villains to harden their foci, while mooks would have their normal crappy technology unless their leader gives them better stuff. How hard is it for most villains or minions to purchase a 6/6 Force Field Hardened 0 End anyway? Or you can go with my suggestion and make every Body that gets through merely Ablate the technology away. That would make the Penetrating RKA useful without destroying game balance.

 

Incidentally, a Stun Only EB can be extremely useful if you want to pulverize someone caught in an Entangle without bringing down the Entangle.