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

[Rapier]

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

 

Incidentally' date=' a Stun Only EB can be extremely useful if you want to pulverize someone caught in an Entangle without bringing down the Entangle.[/quote']

Yep. In our group an entangled villain is referred to as Mentalist Fodder. I don't have any players with a STUN Only EB, but we've got a couple NNDs that really make being entangled unpleasant.

[Hawksmoor]

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

 

Personally, I run my games more on the comics model. When and only when it is appropriate to hack at a focus do I do so.

 

I cannot remember the last time someone swiped Hawkeye's arrows or Mach-2's Armor.

Much lesss EMPed the darned things. Add into it the destruction of Cap's Sheild or Mjonir and Dispel has problems.

 

I *loathe* the use of Dispel vs. Tecnology. At the very least a +2 Advantage *should* have been applied. Yes I know this neuters Dispel vs. Technology but I hate that power.

 

Before you ask I am a perpetual GM.

 

Hawksmoor

[Derek Hiemforth]

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

 

What do folks think of the following as a house rule...?

 

A Breakable Focus has a default DEF = x/5, where x = the Active Points of the largest Power purchased through the Focus. (If the Focus provides the character with DEF, it may use either that DEF or it's own, whichever is higher.) A Breakable Focus also has a default BODY = x/10, where x = the Active Points of the largest Power.

 

For purposes of calculating DEF and BODY, the Powers in a Power Framework are considered separately. For example, if the Ice Powers Elemental Control from H5E was purchased through a Focus, the DEF and BODY would be 12 and 6 (based on the 60 Active Points in the Ice Darts slot). They would not be 57 and 29 (based on the combined Active Points in the entire Elemental Control).

 

When a Breakable Focus has taken BODY damage (after DEF, of course) equal to its BODY score, then the largest Power is rendered inoperative. When a Breakable Focus has taken BODY damage equal to 2x its BODY score, then all Powers are rendered inoperative, and the Focus is destroyed.

 

For purposes of assessing the effects of BODY damage, a Power Framework is considered a single Power. For example, if the Focus containing the Ice Powers Elemental Control took 6 BODY damage, the entire Elemental Control would be rendered inoperative, not just the Ice Darts slot.

 

The default DEF and BODY of a Focus can be changed in two ways. First, they can be traded for each other in either direction with 2 DEF equalling 3 BODY. So you could lower the DEF by 2 in order to increase the BODY by 3, or lower the BODY by 6 in order to increase the DEF by 4, and so on. The minimum value for DEF and BODY is 1 each.

 

Second, you can purchase additional DEF and BODY. The cost of DEF is 3 points per +1, and BODY is 2 points per +1. These Characteristics are considered part of the Focus, but are purchased separately from other Powers in it. (For example, if a Multipower was the only item in a Focus, the extra DEF and BODY would not be considered part of the Multipower.)

 

Two mandatory Limitations apply to DEF and BODY purchased for a Focus. The first is Only Applies To Focus (-2). The second is an inverse Focus Limitation, where OAF is only -1/4, and IIF is -1. The reason for this inversion is that extra DEF and BODY are actually more useful to a Focus that can be easily identified and attacked, than they are to one that can't.

 

Standard Focus options are affected by this house rule as follows:

• Fragile Foci have 1 DEF, 1 BODY. These cannot be increased.
  
• Durable Foci no longer have any meaning. If you want to increase the DEF and/or BODY, the means of doing so is described above.
  
• Bulky reduces the value of the inverse Focus Limitation on DEF and BODY by 1/2, to a minimum of no Limitation. (So a Bulky IIF would be -1/2 on the cost of DEF and BODY instead of -1, and Bulky OAF, IAF, or OIF would get no Focus Limitation on the cost of DEF and BODY.)
  
• Immobile Foci get no Focus Limitation on the cost of DEF and BODY.
  
• Arrangement and all of the Expendability options have no effect on the cost of DEF and BODY.

[tesuji]

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

 

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.

 

They key is the word "cannot" which is not the case. Instead the definition would be "isn't"... the tech "isn't" taken away, the tech "isn't" destroyed, the tech "isn't" otherwise affected... at least, not often enough to be worth the focus limitation.

 

FOCUS lim does not equate to "an object or device"... it equates to "an object or device which is lost, broken or otherwise unavailable often enough to be worth the lim."

 

They make the distinction iirc between an object the character never seems to be without in the focus lim itself.

 

This is no harder to imagine, for me at least its easier to imagine, than batman buying "armor" which is rationalized as "hero's luck" and so forth or "just a flesh wound." where the very mechanics don't match up but the sfx if accepted.

 

Aside: Do not take this as an endorsement of the foci rules, especially considering the breakage rules themselves, but just as a nod to "no lim" items being fine in genre.

[SCUBA Hero]

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

 

From the FAQ (Limitations - Focus):

 

"Q: As a default, are Breakable Accessible Foci harmed by any Area Of Effect/Explosion attack that affects the character carrying them?

 

A: No. This rule may not be entirely realistic, but it’s much easier to game, and much more fun for everyone involved. It’s also a fairly good approximation of “dramatic realism†as often depicted in movies, books, comics, and so on. Of course, any GM is free to establish different ground rules for his campaign, if he prefers."

 

-SCUBA "Helpful" Hero

[jackalope]

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

 

They key is the word "cannot" which is not the case. Instead the definition would be "isn't"... the tech "isn't" taken away' date=' the tech "isn't" destroyed, the tech "isn't" otherwise affected... at least, not often enough to be worth the focus limitation.[/quote']

 

All I know is that if a player brought me a character with a 2d6 RKA vs PD (SFX: Gun), I'd tell him to put the Focus limitation on it. If he refused, he'd be in for a shock when I treated it like a Focus anyways. Martial Artists will kick it out of his hand, bad guys will take it from him of when he's captured, etc.

 

And when that happens, that player will scream bloody murder, and claim it's not a Focus, it can't be taken away from them, etc. etc. and I will just look at them and keep repeating "You said the power was a gun. Guns can be taken away. End of story." until he gets it or quits my game.

 

And then I'll post something about how I just had to deal with the dumbest player I've ever met.

[zornwil]

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

 

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.

Thanks, Gary, great idea for balancing without creating too much potential system upset. I could similarly see each -1/4 less limitation doing something instead such as changing and then increasing BOD (e.g., each -1/4 less lim gives +8 BOD), so that you could actually build up to an advantage if it's >0 and changes from limitation to advantage. Without reference to specific numbers, just thinking out loud.

 

Derek, I like your idea of building foci similar to Vehicles and Bases, I think as KA says it is something that would depend on the needs. I think you're right that there's a fundamental disconnect, but I think that's appropriate to heroic fiction in terms of how foci work for many stories. And of course a focus can be defined as "Unbreakable".

[Blue]

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

 

Foci have never been a problem here either. My ruling from the beginning was that it it was a unique focus (Like excalibur) then there must be a specific way to destroy it aside form the obvious nuclear bomb or other calamitous event that few things should survive. This mean that a normal duel would never destroy such a blade even if the foe was trying, but of course it could be "destroyed" by the corruption of it's owner or being tossed to the lady of of the lake.

 

So if it was non-unique then the hero/villain could simply go to his forge/lab/etc. and make a replacement. (This predates the "5pts for a duplicate focus" rule.) And something unique would be nearly impossible to trash but once it was trashed it involved some massive undertaking to restore.

 

Destroying a focus was typically a Deus Ex Machina. I had a villain manage to destroy a unique sword of a PC through use of it's mate, a sword quenched in the same lake from which excalibur lay. Both swords shattered but it was all for one purpose; Only the pure of heart could find the lake, and so the villain sacrificed his priceless sword so when the hero's sword broke he could follow them to the lake and capture the lady of the lake. (I think this was Black Paladin, in my first campaign)

 

I still pretty much observe the Unique v. Expendable paradigm that predates the 5pt. duplicate rule. What the dupe rule does is allow the hero to immediately jump back into the game without downtime in development, and I typically don't allow 5pt dupes on unique items (because they are by definition unique), with rare story appropriate exceptions.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that none of my players create foci-breaking powers and neither do my villains unless it's the centerpoint of an adventure. So I've never even had to consider which was better.

 

On the surface, I tend to think something like an EM pulse can be simulated by KA vs. Electronic devices. Either they work after the pusle or they don't. I tend to think that a magic wand struck by a sword would still continue to function up until the moment of destruction, so having it's powers ablate seems useless there.

 

I'd use dispel if there was a specific need to make an item work less effectively as it takes BODY, but in my campaign, has not happened to my recollection. At least if it has happened then it was worked out at the time well enough that I didn't have to make a mental note of the rule.

[zornwil]

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

 

All I know is that if a player brought me a character with a 2d6 RKA vs PD (SFX: Gun), I'd tell him to put the Focus limitation on it. If he refused, he'd be in for a shock when I treated it like a Focus anyways. Martial Artists will kick it out of his hand, bad guys will take it from him of when he's captured, etc.

 

And when that happens, that player will scream bloody murder, and claim it's not a Focus, it can't be taken away from them, etc. etc. and I will just look at them and keep repeating "You said the power was a gun. Guns can be taken away. End of story." until he gets it or quits my game.

 

And then I'll post something about how I just had to deal with the dumbest player I've ever met.

I think it would only be fair of you to tell someone that even if they don't buy something as a focus, thinking that means it does not have the focus limitation of being taken away, you will treat it as a focus anyway. I think that's important as the rules on focus have been specifically discussed to mean a focus that can be taken away as opposed to a focus that cannot be. If I build a character with a weapon I don't want taken away, I don't use focus limitation, and this is pretty much standard. By not telling someone when they refuse is not telling them the "why" of why you made your comment. Obviously, it's your games and your ruiles, so the rule itself I'm not debating, I'm pointing out that what you consider "common sense" is counter to the common sense the game itself imparts, so even (actually more likely) a long-time player would be unfairly surprised at the loss of the item.

 

As a question to your house rule, do you have the focus less-affected if someone doesn't take the limitation but has an item through which a power is delivered? Or do you treat an item the same whether it's a formal focus or not?

 

In any event, I agree that "tech only" would be worth more points if the affected focus can be made to work again in combat or otherwise hastily reconstructed. It's basically the popular myth of the neutron bomb.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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

 

All I know is that if a player brought me a character with a 2d6 RKA vs PD (SFX: Gun), I'd tell him to put the Focus limitation on it. If he refused, he'd be in for a shock when I treated it like a Focus anyways. Martial Artists will kick it out of his hand, bad guys will take it from him of when he's captured, etc.

 

And when that happens, that player will scream bloody murder, and claim it's not a Focus, it can't be taken away from them, etc. etc. and I will just look at them and keep repeating "You said the power was a gun. Guns can be taken away. End of story." until he gets it or quits my game.

 

And then I'll post something about how I just had to deal with the dumbest player I've ever met.

So just out of curiosity, then, how would you build an object that the character (for whatever reason) never lost?

 

Indiana Jones has, say, 3 points of Flash Defense:Sight via his fedora. But Indiana Jones never loses his fedora... it's part of his idiom. Now what?

[KA.]

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

 

All I know is that if a player brought me a character with a 2d6 RKA vs PD (SFX: Gun), I'd tell him to put the Focus limitation on it. If he refused, he'd be in for a shock when I treated it like a Focus anyways. Martial Artists will kick it out of his hand, bad guys will take it from him of when he's captured, etc.

 

And when that happens, that player will scream bloody murder, and claim it's not a Focus, it can't be taken away from them, etc. etc. and I will just look at them and keep repeating "You said the power was a gun. Guns can be taken away. End of story." until he gets it or quits my game.

 

And then I'll post something about how I just had to deal with the dumbest player I've ever met.

 

jackalope,

First, your game, your rules, you can run it however you want.

 

On the surface, this sounds like you either:

a) Dislike technological SFX

Are generally adversarial when GM'ing

c) Are a big jerk

 

However, I hope that it is none of the three.

 

Is it possible that you provide this sort of "unpointed limitation" on all SFX?

 

Right now you are talking about the specific case of Foci, but do you fairly apply this sort of thing to all SFX?

Ex.

Player: "I am Eye Beam Man, my Energy Blast comes out of my eyes."

GM: "That's fine. But if someone throws sand in your eyes, or you get an eye infection, or you go blind, you will not be able to use your EB. No limitation, that's just the way it is because it comes out of your eyes."

 

Player: "I am Ms. Mystic, I can fly by channeling the Spirit of the Eagle."

GM: "That's fine. But if the Spirit of the Eagle decides that you are acting in a way that harms nature, you may not be able to fly."

 

If that is what you do, then, while it might annoy some players, it seems fair enough to me.

 

KA.

[jackalope]

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

 

I think it would only be fair of you to tell someone that even if they don't buy something as a focus' date=' thinking that means it does not have the focus limitation of being taken away, you will treat it as a focus anyway.[/quote']

 

They'd have fair warning. I would tell them unless it is a Magic Gun that instanteously teleports back to their hand, or something along those line, that I will treat it just as if it were a normal gun, because they have described it as a normal gun.

 

As a question to your house rule, do you have the focus less-affected if someone doesn't take the limitation but has an item through which a power is delivered? Or do you treat an item the same whether it's a formal focus or not?

 

It's never really come up, but frankly, I doubt I'd allow someone to buy a focus that isn't a Focus. I tend to run a fairly "realistic" game, and I don't think cinematic guns have much place in my campaign.

[jackalope]

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

 

So just out of curiosity' date=' then, how would [i']you[/i] build an object that the character (for whatever reason) never lost?

 

I probably wouldn't allow such a construction in my game.

 

Indiana Jones has, say, 3 points of Flash Defense:Sight via his fedora. But Indiana Jones never loses his fedora... it's part of his idiom. Now what?

 

Why would a fedora give you flash defense?

[RDU Neil]

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

 

So just out of curiosity' date=' then, how would [i']you[/i] build an object that the character (for whatever reason) never lost?

 

Indiana Jones has, say, 3 points of Flash Defense:Sight via his fedora. But Indiana Jones never loses his fedora... it's part of his idiom. Now what?

 

I think this is an interesting "philosophy of Hero" question. (Maybe "philosophy of gaming" in a more general sense.) While I agree that Indy's hat is part of his idiom... that he almost always seems to have it... I would NEVER require that such a thing be put down on a character sheet in the form of points/rules/etc. This is simply a story telling prop... nothing more, but nothing less. Occasionally Indy can shade his eyes as he walks past a villain, and the villain doesn't recognize him. Just as often, Indy is

noticed in a room by the villain, because "Hey, it's that stupid hat! Get 'im!"

 

To me, his hat is just an interesting tidbit in the character description... not a definitive characteristic or powr. It comes up once in a while as a bit of flavor in the story... not a power, bought with points on a sheet.

 

What goes on the sheet are the things that "define" the character. Indy isn't defined by his hat... it is a character quirk. He is defined by his knowledge and skill and brash action, and use of whip and .38 and incredible toughness and luck.

 

If there was a character who was somehow "defined" by a focus of some kind that they actually never lost... that would be just SFX. Say a magic jewel they have... one that seems to be knocked out the hand or stolen... only to somehow always end up back in his pocket. That isn't a focus... just SFX. Aside from something like that... I would definitely have a discussion with the player during character creation so that they could try and "sell me" on the idea. If there was a gun that never got kicked out of their hand, or if it did, always seemed to drop right where they could get it again, etc. Ok... maybe now I say "Alright, I'll give it OIF, not OAF... so that if you are captured or taken out, they can steal it away, but as long you are conscious and aware, they just "happen" to never get it away from you. Fine."

 

To me it is verisimilitude in concept. Does the SFX makes sense with the way the power is built in game terms? Not all concepts are acceptable for the game being run.

[jackalope]

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

 

Is it possible that you provide this sort of "unpointed limitation" on all SFX?

 

Yep.

 

Like, if you have a "Lightning Blast" and you are standing in an steel armored car, and use your lightning blast to blow the doors off, you better be prepared for a shock. At the same time, you can use your Lightning Blast to jump start a car.

 

If you use a flame blast in an air-tight room, you better have LS: Self-Contained Breathing, because you just used up all the oxygen. Likewise, you can use your flame blast at low intensity to keep a group of normals stranded on an high mountain glacier warm.

 

If you have a gun, it can be taken away. But you can also hand it to someone else, or use it as a hammer, or whatever.

 

I think that Special Effects should have some effect. That's all.

[Vorsch]

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

 

Yep.

 

Like, if you have a "Lightning Blast" and you are standing in an steel armored car, and use your lightning blast to blow the doors off, you better be prepared for a shock. At the same time, you can use your Lightning Blast to jump start a car.

 

If you use a flame blast in an air-tight room, you better have LS: Self-Contained Breathing, because you just used up all the oxygen. Likewise, you can use your flame blast at low intensity to keep a group of normals stranded on an high mountain glacier warm.

 

If you have a gun, it can be taken away. But you can also hand it to someone else, or use it as a hammer, or whatever.

 

I think that Special Effects should have some effect. That's all.

 

My god, someone applying common sense to Hero, are you mad?

 

Bet your the kind of Evil person that wants Shapeshift to mean changing shape. Bad Bad person.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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

 

I probably wouldn't allow such a construction in my game.

Hmm. Okay. I think you're being kind of pointlessly rigid, and rather arbitrarily dismissing huge swathes of effects found in the source material, but... Your game, your rules.

 

 

note to self... don't play in Jackalope's games.

[zornwil]

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

 

Hmm. Okay. I think you're being kind of pointlessly rigid, and rather arbitrarily dismissing huge swathes of effects found in the source material, but... Your game, your rules.

 

 

note to self... don't play in Jackalope's games.

I know your response is light-hearted, but I see where jackalope's coming from, I would just hope he's crystal clear with his players, and he probably is as anytime a GM says "gritty realism" I would tend to assume the game would be as he's described in this thread (guns get taken (and if you're paying points, be sure to get that Focus limit!) and you have to be careful of how those blasts hit). He may be giving SFX a broader role than is orthodox, but that's reasonable.

[tesuji]

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

 

 

All I know is that if a player brought me a character with a 2d6 RKA vs PD (SFX: Gun), I'd tell him to put the Focus limitation on it. If he refused, he'd be in for a shock when I treated it like a Focus anyways. Martial Artists will kick it out of his hand, bad guys will take it from him of when he's captured, etc.

 

And when that happens, that player will scream bloody murder,

to be clear... not me. i would thank you for your time and head off for less adversarial pastures... time is too short, and so forth. Truthfully, I have walked on more than a few GMs, most usually in chargen, so this wouldn't be a problem.

 

A Gm who approves a character with costs and limitations defined and then does as you suggest is not my usual cup of tea. I could understand you refusing to allow a "unrealistic gun" in your campaign, but not permitting it at the higher cost and then backdooring in the limitations of realistic gun, intentionally.

 

Not how i run my games and not how i would play either.

and claim it's not a Focus, it can't be taken away from them, etc. etc. and I will just look at them and keep repeating "You said the power was a gun. Guns can be taken away. End of story." until he gets it or quits my game.

 

And then I'll post something about how I just had to deal with the dumbest player I've ever met.

 

and that would fit into the mold of most of the "dumb player" threads i have seen in that, IMX, most of them say more about the GM than the player.

 

Depending on the genre, "signature items" that, while being items, don't get lost frequently, dont get broken frequently and which are not subject to the same rigors "normal items are" are not IMO/IMX out of line at all. As such, again depending on genre, i don't have an issue with non-focus items where the "issues" would not appear at all as much as they would for a "focus item" but would only very infrequently occur for minor issues enough to match up with other SFX.

 

IE, the gun may be "on the other side of the room" now and again when the action starts, producing as frequent a series of problems as "lightning" does or as "fire" does but no where near as much a problem in frequency or severity as the guy who took -1 OAF and took the 50% cost savings suffers for his.

[Blue]

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

 

Thor's Hammer. I'll apologize if somebody mentioned it and I missed it.

 

Devices that return to their owner's hands, such as Mjolnir, and are pretty much unstoppable in that regard might get no focus limit. In fact, this is where Dispel would figure in really well; Your dispel causes the hammer to be inactive, as if impeded by something. You wouldn't want it destroyed (Like with a KA) because it's a unque and indestructable focus, but Dispel works well here for holding it in check, but then it was never technically a focus.

 

I'm talking myself in circles here. Maybe I should just pull the ripcord and bail out of this thread now

[KA.]

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

 

By the way, for the record, I would like to state that I do not go around destroying foci!

I don't know why people keep saying that I do.

 

KA.

[zornwil]

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

 

By the way' date=' for the record, I would like to state that I [b']do not[/b] go around destroying foci!

I don't know why people keep saying that I do.

 

KA.

If you know what evil lurks in the heart of men, I have to ask, why DON'T you?

[CBikle]

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.

 

A PC built this very device back in 3rd edition. Because it was just a little too effective for its points, I decided that foci had body equal to DEF (unless bought as fragile).

[KA.]

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

 

If you know what evil lurks in the heart of men' date=' I have to ask, [b']why DON'T you?[/b]

 

Well, if I see an evil man with a Focus, I don't destroy the Focus.

 

KA.

[jackalope]

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

 

Devices that return to their owner's hands' date=' such as Mjolnir, and are pretty much unstoppable in that regard might get no focus limit. In fact, this is where Dispel would figure in really well; Your dispel causes the hammer to be inactive, as if impeded by something. You wouldn't want it destroyed (Like with a KA) because it's a unque and indestructable focus, but Dispel works well here for holding it in check, but then it was never technically a focus.[/quote']

 

Magic weapons are an entirely different story. You want a magic weapon that always comes back to your hand and can't be destroyed, that's cool.

 

I thought of another one. In Byrne's run of Superman, there was a fellow named Bloodsport who could teleport weapons to his hands (using Luthercorp tech), and therefore couldn't be disarmed. You could grab his Glock 9mm, and he'd teleport the .45 Automag to his hand. That kind of power I would allow.

 

But that's not a "normal gun that just happens to never get taken away from me".