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

[zornwil]

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

 

Well' date=' if I see an evil man with a Focus, I don't destroy the [i']Focus[/i].

 

KA.

Check!

 

As to CBikle's post above, I've run into that once, although it was built reasonably-enough to fight a normal gadgeteer guy and I let that pass as I had deliberately built him with real foci (Limitation proper and all). But it is something to watch for.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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)' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

That's not your call to make. When it's your PC, you can write it up however you want. If it's not your PC, and they have a gun that does not have the Focus limitation, that's it: it doesn't get taken away (at least, not as easily as it would with the Focus limitation -- one could always Dispel the weapon, using one of the many suggestions in this thread).

 

Why wouldn't a gun (or sword, or staff) be a focus? That would depend on what the player is trying to accomplish. Maybe they have lots and lots of guns, such that taking them away simply isn't practical. Maybe they are just really good at hanging onto their weapon. That is something the player currently filling the role of GM and the player with the gun-toting character would need to discuss, as always, so that everyone is on the same page. But the bottom line is that one player does not get to overrride how another player wrote up her character. It isn't a Focus (or Independent, or on limited charges, or any other Limitation that a real weapon might reasonably have) merely because one of the other players wants it to be that way.

[zornwil]

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

 

Well, I don't agree with how he does it, but it's his game and he has a clear rationale. Not only won't I try to convince him he should change, I don't even think he needs to.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Well' date=' I don't agree with how he does it, but it's his game...[/quote']

 

It's only "his game" if he's the only one playing.

[zornwil]

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

 

It's only "his game" if he's the only one playing.

If he's the only one playing, he'd probably realize he had a problem!

 

Given he has players, well, I dasn't presume.

[jackalope]

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

 

That's not your call to make. When it's your PC' date=' you can write it up however you want. If it's not your PC, and they have a gun that does not have the Focus limitation, that's it: it doesn't get taken away (at least, not as easily as it would with the Focus limitation -- one could always Dispel the weapon, using one of the many suggestions in this thread).[/quote']

 

I am the GM, every single call made is my call to make. That's my job as GM, to make calls. If a player wants to make the calls, he can run his own game. No one is stopping him. But in my campaign, I make the calls. End of story.

 

The attitude you are advocating, that player's should always get their way and that my opinion as the GM is irrelevant, is 100% gaurenteed to get you kicked out - though, honestly, no player with that attitude has ever made it past my screening process.

 

I am a very reasonable GM, and I will discuss and consider anything a player says, but any player who thinks I don't have the right to make changes to their character to fit them into my game is deluding themselves. I am not a monkey here to entertain people, and I am not a computer that will dispassionately run your little adventures. I am a GM, and I have right to run my game the way I want.

[jackalope]

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

 

If he's the only one playing, he'd probably realize he had a problem!

 

Given he has players, well, I dasn't presume.

 

The funny thing about that is: Of my four current players, NONE of them knows how to create a character. NONE of them owns a copy of the rulesbook. NONE of them is interested in learning how to make characters.

 

I designed all of their character, in terms of point builds. I even created the backgrouds of two of them.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Of my four current players' date=' NONE of them knows how... NONE of them is interested in learning how...[/quote']

 

I stand corrected. Apparently it is "your game", after all.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

So what's the upshot of this discussion? That using Dispel against a Power bought through a focus should, or should not, destroy that focus?

 

Personally, I would think that a Dispel would do what a Dispel does: turn the Power off. That's no different for a Power in a focus than it is with any other Power. If you want to destroy a focus, on the other hand, you do damage to it. That's why focuses have Def and Body, and that's why Independent is a separate Limitation. Seems pretty straightforward to me, although I may have overlooked something.

 

(As for the abusive "Penetrating Killing Attack" focus-destroyer, we got rid of the ridiculous (xd6 * (y - z)) mechanic for rolling killing damage, so that's not even an issue for my current group.)

[JmOz]

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

 

Most Internet conversations change nothing

 

Seriously I know for my game it will stay the way you describe (Dispell to stop it from working, RKA to destroy it)

 

BTW, I'm sending you an IM Blackmoor

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Most Internet conversations change nothing

 

Maybe not, but I do get neat ideas from this forum on a regular basis. I hope that I am able to return the favor, from time to time.

 

Seriously I know for my game it will stay the way you describe (Dispell to stop it from working' date=' RKA to destroy it)[/quote']

 

That makes sense to me, but as I said, I may be overlooking something. New information has changed my opinion before, so there's every possibility that it will do so again.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

That makes sense to me' date=' but as I said, I may be overlooking something. New information has changed my opinion before, so there's every possibility that it will do so again.[/quote']

 

I don't like the "focus changes the rules" approach taken to Dispel, so I'm inclined to agree that Dispel turns the power off, and the character can now turn it back on again (IIF meaning "destroyed by Dispel" seems worth more than -1/4 when one considers the other drawbacks the limnitation imposes).

 

At the same time, I doubt I would allow +10 points for 4x the focuses (unless I allowed the same expenditure to quadruple a natural power, or possibly restricted the added foci to being backups not usable at the same time), again because the fact it's a focus shouldn't change the rules. That's a topic from a different thread, but the same issue - the basic rules shouldn't change between foci and natural powers - applies.

 

Perhaps characters should be allowed to take a -1/4 limitation "destroyed if dispelled" if one wishes to achieve this effect.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

Personally, I would think that a Dispel would do what a Dispel does: turn the Power off. That's no different for a Power in a focus than it is with any other Power. If you want to destroy a focus, on the other hand, you do damage to it. That's why focuses have Def and Body, and that's why Independent is a separate Limitation. Seems pretty straightforward to me, although I may have overlooked something.

 

While I may disagree with your take on a GM having the right to ask for changes in PC characters... I do totally agree with your take on Dispel. If you want to break something, use an attack that does Body. Dispel turns stuff off, and as far as I can tell, it is only an arbitrary rule stuck on Foci that says, "Dispel breaks them..." one that I've never actually read myself... or just overlooked in 5th. I disagree with that interpretation, and will not be allowing it in my games.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

At the same time, I doubt I would allow +10 points for 4x the focuses (unless I allowed the same expenditure to quadruple a natural power, or possibly restricted the added foci to being backups not usable at the same time), again because the fact it's a focus shouldn't change the rules. That's a topic from a different thread, but the same issue - the basic rules shouldn't change between foci and natural powers - applies.

 

This another piece of the Focus rules I'd never noticed. I guess I should read 5th more closely... and it is one I totally disagree with. Focus already give a massive point break, and to allow that even more seems, well, foolish.

 

Now... if there were reasoning, within the core Hero rules, that said ANY power purchased could be "copied/doubled" for +5 points, then ok... it works for me. I think it would be unbalanced in terms of using MPA, since all you need to do is buy one, zero END Energy Blast, multiply it by four for only 10 points, then use all four blasts every turn... essentially getting four attacks per action. Yow!

 

Anyway, back to the focus issue... I do think there are some strange, very arbitrary, rules tacked on to the Focus limitation that don't really make sense or need to be there. If you want to change things, change the rules on how much Body and Def a focus has. Something similar, but simpler than what Derek put out before. Like his second suggestion of "once I have a focus, I put a certain number of points into the Body and DEF of the focus" I'm not sure how you would cost that Body and Def (Derek's suggestion was a little too complex... it needs to be simpler) but I like the basic idea.

[zornwil]

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

 

I agree with the last few posts, too, Dispel should not easily destroy a Focus. On the Focus thing, I'd be inclined to not allow the multiple versions although I will say if it's merely a luxury for an easily-replacable Focus anyway, I would just hand-wave that if you still have to go back to base. If you can carry the extras with you, I don't think I'd give a Focus limitation then.

 

(As for the abusive "Penetrating Killing Attack" focus-destroyer, we got rid of the ridiculous (xd6 * (y - z)) mechanic for rolling killing damage, so that's not even an issue for my current group.)

 

Bblackmoor, I think that mechanic in general (regardless of the stun lottery) makes sense in the game. It seems to me that disallowing Penetrating BOD is really limiting flexibility. But it's your game.

[JmOz]

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

 

How about this, really simple fix for standard foci:

 

Decide on a base level (Maybe a ratio, maybe a set limit as a ground level)

Then allow extra defence/body to be bought with a -1 + Foci limit (so for an OAF it would be -2), each gadget then would be (assumption: We use starting levels)

 

Ray Gun Gloves: 8d6 EB (Def 10, Body 5): Active Points 50, IIF: real cost 36 points

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

While I may disagree with your take on a GM having the right to ask for changes in PC characters...

 

I never said they couldn't ask.

 

As for the lack of Body penetration being limiting... well, since that Advantage was introduced, I have never -- and I do mean never, not even once -- seen a Power with Body penetration used as anything other than a cheap way to blow down Force Walls or break focuses. It's not an intrinsically bad idea, but a rule that is used exclusively to cheat is a bad rule.

 

Correction: I have seen Penetrating Body damage used legitimately once. A character with a needle gun had an array of NNDs linked to a 1d6 [old style, (xd6 * (y - z)] Killing Attack, Penetrating. The defense for the NNDs was not taking Body from the Killing Attack.

[Rapier]

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

 

How about this, really simple fix for standard foci:

 

Decide on a base level (Maybe a ratio, maybe a set limit as a ground level)

Then allow extra defence/body to be bought with a -1 + Foci limit (so for an OAF it would be -2), each gadget then would be (assumption: We use starting levels)

 

Ray Gun Gloves: 8d6 EB (Def 10, Body 5): Active Points 50, IIF: real cost 36 points

Obviously all this would be a lot easier in HD. All that extra math. I've been going through an inputting all the old characters into HD (as I'm sure I've mentioned 400 times by now). I can't believe the messy record keeping on some of these character sheets. I know that certain characters are built with stats OIHID. STR cost is listed as 12*, which for us was 12 RPs and there should have been a notation someone * OIHID -1/4.

 

One of the true benefits of HD is that it really simplifies all the extra record/math keeping.

 

Having said all that. I'm getting lost in a bunch of the math here. Could we break it down longhand? Say, similar to how it would go into HD?

 

Ray Gun Gloves: TOTAL 50 AP, 36 RP

- 8d6 EB (IIF: -1/4): xx AP, xx RP

- DEF +x (IIF: -1/4, Focus DEF: -1): xx AP, xx RP

- BODY +x (IIF: -1/4, Focus DEF: -1): xx AP, xx RP

 

Is this what you are referring to?

 

Not to cause a fuss, but sometimes it's hard to reconstruct costs etc when we are talking about rules tweaks. Thanks.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

How about this, really simple fix for standard foci:

 

Decide on a base level (Maybe a ratio, maybe a set limit as a ground level)

Then allow extra defence/body to be bought with a -1 + Foci limit (so for an OAF it would be -2), each gadget then would be (assumption: We use starting levels)

 

Ray Gun Gloves: 8d6 EB (Def 10, Body 5): Active Points 50, IIF: real cost 36 points

 

Where are you getting the base level here? Could we go with the Active Points thing as something like.

 

Active Points divided by 5... divide as you see fit between Body and Defense, minimum 1 Defense and 1 Body.

 

So a 50 Active Point power would range from 9 Def, 1 Body to 1 Def, 9 Body.

 

Or

 

Give a flat fee for Def & Body. All Foci start at 1 Def, 1 Body... you can buy each up at a flat 1 for 2 rate. Advantages and limitations applied as normal to the Def.

 

Again, I haven't thought this through mathematically... just trying to throw out something very simple, that can be applied easily, and avoids the kludginess of vehical rules, and avoids the arbitrary "focus changes the rules" stuff.

 

However it might work out, I really do like the idea of certain foci having more than one body, so they can take a hit or two before being broken, if it fits the concept.

[JmOz]

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

 

Obviously all this would be a lot easier in HD. All that extra math. I've been going through an inputting all the old characters into HD (as I'm sure I've mentioned 400 times by now). I can't believe the messy record keeping on some of these character sheets. I know that certain characters are built with stats OIHID. STR cost is listed as 12*, which for us was 12 RPs and there should have been a notation someone * OIHID -1/4.

 

One of the true benefits of HD is that it really simplifies all the extra record/math keeping.

 

Having said all that. I'm getting lost in a bunch of the math here. Could we break it down longhand? Say, similar to how it would go into HD?

 

Ray Gun Gloves: TOTAL 50 AP, 36 RP

- 8d6 EB (IIF: -1/4): xx AP, xx RP

- DEF +x (IIF: -1/4, Focus DEF: -1): xx AP, xx RP

- BODY +x (IIF: -1/4, Focus DEF: -1): xx AP, xx RP

 

Is this what you are referring to?

 

Not to cause a fuss, but sometimes it's hard to reconstruct costs etc when we are talking about rules tweaks. Thanks.

 

Sure, NP, sorry about that

 

8d6 EB (IIF) 40 32

8 Def+2 6 3

1 Body+4 8 3

----------

54 39

 

Sorry, Brain dumpet and had body costing 1 per point for some reason...

[JmOz]

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

 

Where are you getting the base level here? Could we go with the Active Points thing as something like.

 

Active Points divided by 5... divide as you see fit between Body and Defense, minimum 1 Defense and 1 Body.

 

So a 50 Active Point power would range from 9 Def, 1 Body to 1 Def, 9 Body.

 

Or

 

Give a flat fee for Def & Body. All Foci start at 1 Def, 1 Body... you can buy each up at a flat 1 for 2 rate. Advantages and limitations applied as normal to the Def.

 

Again, I haven't thought this through mathematically... just trying to throw out something very simple, that can be applied easily, and avoids the kludginess of vehical rules, and avoids the arbitrary "focus changes the rules" stuff.

 

However it might work out, I really do like the idea of certain foci having more than one body, so they can take a hit or two before being broken, if it fits the concept.

 

I like both ideas, and you know, they could be combined...

 

Essentialy if you need more you can add more...

 

You could also reduce your def to get so much of it hardened...

[jackalope]

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

 

Now... if there were reasoning' date=' within the core Hero rules, that said ANY power purchased could be "copied/doubled" for +5 points, then ok... it works for me.[/quote']

 

It's based on the Vehicle/Base/Multiform/Duplication system, by which you double the number of Vehicles/Bases/Multiforms/Duplicates for 5 points.

 

I don't use the rule myself, but it doesn't seem too unbalancing. Since each focus is an object, there's a built in limit to how many objects you can use. You might have 16 guns, but you still only have two hands. Likewise, you can only wear one jetpack, or one pair of Hover Boots, or whatever.

[RDU Neil]

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

 

It's based on the Vehicle/Base/Multiform/Duplication system, by which you double the number of Vehicles/Bases/Multiforms/Duplicates for 5 points.

 

I don't use the rule myself, but it doesn't seem too unbalancing. Since each focus is an object, there's a built in limit to how many objects you can use. You might have 16 guns, but you still only have two hands. Likewise, you can only wear one jetpack, or one pair of Hover Boots, or whatever.

 

I figured as much, but I have to say, IMO, when you go into the vehicle/bases/multiform rules... some of the weakest, most kludgy parts of the system... to justify something, that is very, VERY weak ground. I think I'll keep avoiding that particular tack-on rule.

[jackalope]

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

 

I figured as much' date=' but I have to say, IMO, when you go into the vehicle/bases/multiform rules... some of the weakest, most kludgy parts of the system... to justify something, that is very, VERY weak ground. I think I'll keep avoiding that particular tack-on rule.[/quote']

 

I think it would make a lot of sense...if Focuses were built anything at all like Vehicles and Bases. If I used a system like Derek's suggestion (which, btw, was excellent) wherein each focus had statistics you could buy up with points and the like, and it was closer to the 5/1 cost of vehicles and bases, then sure.

[zornwil]

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

 

I never said they couldn't ask.

 

As for the lack of Body penetration being limiting... well, since that Advantage was introduced, I have never -- and I do mean never, not even once -- seen a Power with Body penetration used as anything other than a cheap way to blow down Force Walls or break focuses. It's not an intrinsically bad idea, but a rule that is used exclusively to cheat is a bad rule.

 

Correction: I have seen Penetrating Body damage used legitimately once. A character with a needle gun had an array of NNDs linked to a 1d6 [old style, (xd6 * (y - z)] Killing Attack, Penetrating. The defense for the NNDs was not taking Body from the Killing Attack.

I think you do raise a good point (or expand on one raised earlier, I guess) and deserves it's own thread...which I shall do...