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

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

The rules are chock full of abusive stuff. Stuff that makes this look tame. It's up to the GM to apply common sense to maintain game balance.

 

As Gary says, the rules are easy to abuse. That's why the game is an RPG, not a computer game. Anything Goes? Hugely overpowered constructs quickly emerge. Independent Arbitrator Oversees? Characters are balanced.

 

As an object lesson, if you take your 350 point character, perfectly balanced in your game, to 100 other 350 point games, I'd be ready to guarantee that, in some, he'll be horribly overpowered, and in others he'll look like a 100 point agent when you play him.

 

Assume your game has 12 DC and 20 DEF as the norm. When you go to a game where the norm is 15 DC, 30 DEF and less versatility, CRUNCH!!! In a "Mutant X" game, where characters tend to have a single power, andmany have no bonuses to DEF, your 12 DC attack and very high defenses will make you vastly overpowered. [Mind you, Mutant X is likely done on well under 350 points anyway.]

[zornwil]

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

 

Heck that "easy to abuse" is the virtue for many groups. And if they have fun, then so be it, that's great.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Anything Goes? Hugely overpowered constructs quickly emerge. Independent Arbitrator Oversees? Characters are balanced.

 

You're far too trusting. There is no guarantee that any one player (your "indepedent arbitrator") will be more ecompetent than any other. Besides, anyone who thinks they should be able to review other people's characters can't be trusted to do it. It's kind of like being President, or an executioner: no one who wants the job should be allowed to have it.

 

What works, and is fair, is for the players to form a consensus on where the boundaries are. That way you don't have one player going off into left field, or (even worse) one player imposing her "vision" on all of the rest.

[PhilFleischmann]

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

 

Disclaimer: I haven't read this whole thread. I'm trying to same myself some time.

 

IMO, Dispel vs. Focus means the Focus's power (the one being dispelled if there is more than one) fails to work that time.

 

Dispel my gun - >click< "Hunh? What happened?"

Next phase, I pull the trigger again - >BANG!<

 

Drain my gun - It fails to work for as long as it takes to recover from the drain. And will be at reduced effectiveness when partially Drained/recovered.

 

Dispel should not be more effective than a power that costs more, namely Drain.

 

There is nothing in the description of the Focus limitation that says "If a power with a Focus is Dispelled, the power is permanently gone."

 

RKA vs Focus - If one pip of BODY damage gets through the focus's DEF, the power is destroyed. But the rules say that this can be ignored at the GM's option. Is there any GM out there that doesn't exercise this option?

 

I'm wearing 15 PD Armor, OIF, and I take a 16 BODY hit. Ouch. I'm hurt a little. I'm sure glad I was wearing that armor or I'd be dead rather than slightly wounded. But now my Focus is completely useless, because the only power it provided (15 PD Armor) no longer functions, due to that one pip of BODY. Does this make sense to anyone? Does anyone play this way? And with non-defense providing foci, it's even worse because they have much lower DEF.

 

"Gadgetman survived the blast easily without a scratch on him, but all of his gadgets were completely destroyed."

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

You're far too trusting. There is no guarantee that any one player (your "indepedent arbitrator") will be more ecompetent than any other. Besides' date=' anyone who thinks they should be able to review other people's characters can't be trusted to do it. It's kind of like being President, or an executioner: no one who wants the job should be allowed to have it.[/quote']

 

Notwithstanding this, I remain of the view that part of the GM's job is to review characters. It is no other player's business what abilities or disadvantages my character has. While a GM is certainly capable of making mistakes, this is part of the game.

 

Certainly, I don't expect the GM to vet all the oppositions' character sheets past me, or any other player, so he's going to be reviewing a lot of character sheets on his own. He's the only one who will know what will be overly effective in his campaign.

 

I agree to some extent with your view that the GM is "one of the players". However, he is a player whose role and responsibilities are very different from those of the other players.

 

What works' date=' and is fair, is for the players to form a consensus on where the boundaries are. That way you don't have one player going off into left field, or (even worse) one player imposing her "vision" on all of the rest.[/quote']

 

The GM creates the entire campaign world. It is difficult to envision the ability to do so without "imposing" his vision on the campaign world. If a player can't live with that viewpoint, he need not play in that game. If the players as a whole cannot, the GM will have no game.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

I agree to some extent with your view that the GM is "one of the players". However' date=' he is a player whose role and responsibilities are very different from those of the other players.[/quote']

 

Not that different: the player currently filling the role of GM simply has more of them, for that game session.

[Rapier]

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

 

Notwithstanding this, I remain of the view that part of the GM's job is to review characters. It is no other player's business what abilities or disadvantages my character has. While a GM is certainly capable of making mistakes, this is part of the game.

 

Certainly, I don't expect the GM to vet all the oppositions' character sheets past me, or any other player, so he's going to be reviewing a lot of character sheets on his own. He's the only one who will know what will be overly effective in his campaign.

 

I agree to some extent with your view that the GM is "one of the players". However, he is a player whose role and responsibilities are very different from those of the other players.

 

The GM creates the entire campaign world. It is difficult to envision the ability to do so without "imposing" his vision on the campaign world. If a player can't live with that viewpoint, he need not play in that game. If the players as a whole cannot, the GM will have no game.

Well said.

[Christougher]

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

 

Haven't read the entire thread, so apologies if this has already been considered.

 

One of the problems with Dispel is with it destroying foci instead of simply turning off the appropriate power(s). While trying to build a dispel based power specificaly designed to disable electronic equipment, I also wanted the power to do some small degree of normal damage. Rather than link an attack to the Dispel, I simply swiped the "Does Body" advantage from NNDs and applied it to the dispel. Ergo, by definition, my Ion Rifle (5d6 Dispel All Electronics(+2) Does Body(+1)) Does ~5 body and breaks any electronic power of ~21 AP.

[Vorsch]

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

 

Does body is for attacks that have NND applied to them. ie they did body originally.

 

Dispel never does body, it is not a "attack" it merely stops powers from working temporarily.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

Dispel should not be more effective than a power that costs more, namely Drain.

 

There is nothing in the description of the Focus limitation that says "If a power with a Focus is Dispelled, the power is permanently gone."

 

1) It isn't. Drain isn't all or nothing:

30 10d6 Dispel RKA (On Avg, can break up to 35 AP worth of RKA. Does nothing to, say, an Artillery Piece. EVER).

30 3d6 Drain RKA (On Avg, removes two DCs/phase. Can eventually shut down the Death Star Turbolaser)

 

Vs non-foci (see:DD), Dispel DOES only work for a phase (apparently he has redundancy...).

 

2) It does, however, state (in the rules) that Dispel vs Focuses, if successful... breaks them.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

30 3d6 Drain RKA... Can eventually shut down the Death Star Turbolaser

 

Only if you spend a lot of points buying up the max and the return delay.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

Only if you spend a lot of points buying up the max and the return delay.

 

Uh, no. Drain has no upper limit on what it can take away, and 10pts/[hase trumps 5pts/Turn.

 

More to the point, the Drain will affect a 60 AP "SuperGun". The Dispel won't.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Drain has no upper limit on what it can take away

 

(open H5 book. read. read again.)

 

Sonavabitch. You're right. Hmm.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

1) It isn't. Drain isn't all or nothing:

30 10d6 Dispel RKA (On Avg, can break up to 35 AP worth of RKA. Does nothing to, say, an Artillery Piece. EVER).

30 3d6 Drain RKA (On Avg, removes two DCs/phase. Can eventually shut down the Death Star Turbolaser)

 

Vs non-foci (see:DD), Dispel DOES only work for a phase (apparently he has redundancy...).

 

2) It does, however, state (in the rules) that Dispel vs Focuses, if successful... breaks them.

 

1. Consider Cumulative Dispel. At +1, that's 5d6 Dispel, with a maximum of 240, I believe. Breaks the focus, no recovery, and acts faster (5d6 vs. 3d6).

 

2. So what? We're discussing whether the rules are, in fact, appropriate.

 

3. Simulating the genre - Iron Man's armor reboots after being shut down by an EMP.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

1. Consider Cumulative Dispel. At +1, that's 5d6 Dispel, with a maximum of 240, I believe. Breaks the focus, no recovery, and acts faster (5d6 vs. 3d6).

 

2. So what? We're discussing whether the rules are, in fact, appropriate.

 

3. Simulating the genre - Iron Man's armor reboots after being shut down by an EMP.

 

1. Has no effect until it does.

 

2. "There is nothing in the description of the Focus limitation that says "If a power with a Focus is Dispelled, the power is permanently gone.""

-This argument is only valid if you say 'a rule must be HERE to be relevant'.

 

3. Iron Man isn't in an OIF. It does NOT break that often. Only in Hero ID, tops. And yes, that is how it should be handled... most things DO NOT reboot. The exception should be just that.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

3. Iron Man isn't in an OIF. It does NOT break that often. Only in Hero ID' date=' tops. And yes, that is how it should be handled... most things DO NOT reboot. The exception should be just that.[/quote']

 

Whether Iron Man (or any Power Armor character) is in an OIF is a matter of judgement. It may be that it doesn't break very often because the focus is permitted to use the DEF of any defensive power it provides - and IM's armor is tough. Certainly, there have been several occasions where it has been unavailable to him, like any other focus may be.

 

The fact is that most comic book characters don't lose their foci all that often. If we take the definition based on being broken frequently (or even unavailable frequently), where does that leave:

 

- Batman's utility belt

- Cap's shield

- Hawkman's wings and AG belt

- Hawkeye's bow and arrows (and how often does he run out of charges either?)

- Wonder Woman's lasso

- Dr. Strange's cloak of levitation

- Green Lantern's ring

- Spidey's web shooters

 

All of these are available and functional virtually all the time, with the knowedge they can be rendered ineffectual, taken away or broken in some circumstances.

 

Oh, and if IM's not using a focus, he should be able to reactivate his armor next phase after an EM pulse.

[Kristopher]

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

 

2) It does, however, state (in the rules) that Dispel vs Focuses, if successful... breaks them.

 

And that's one of, if not THE, worst rule ever published for HERO. Ever.

 

As I said before, this is something I would instantly elimate in any game I ran.

[Vorsch]

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

 

There are many worse rules, all vigourosly supported by various board posters.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Oh' date=' and if IM's not using a focus, he should be able to reactivate his armor next phase after an EM pulse.[/quote']

 

That depends on how the EMP is purchased; whether Iron Man's armor is a focus is not terribly relevant.

[Hugh Neilson]

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

 

That depends on how the EMP is purchased; whether Iron Man's armor is a focus is not terribly relevant.

 

Depends. If it's a dispel, it can't reboot at all (or it can reboot next phase, if the "focus broken" rule is discarded).

 

Actually, I can't think of a means off the top that the armor is completely negated for, say, a minute, then reboots at full power, while better systems reboot faster and lesser systems reboot slower.

 

Regeneration for the focus which has to fully heal before there's any discernable effect seems a little kludgy, but I suppose it could work.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

2) It does' date=' however, state (in the rules) that Dispel vs Focuses, if successful... breaks them.[/quote']

 

Don't suppose someone could give me a page reference on that one...?

[Gary]

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

 

Don't suppose someone could give me a page reference on that one...?

 

 

Page 99. It says that dispelling objects means that the object must be repaired or rebuilt to turn on again.

[Guest bblackmoor]

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

 

Don't suppose someone could give me a page reference on that one...?

 

There might be some other mention of it, but I think what people are referring to is the off-hand mention of how Dispel affects objects. This is in the Dispel description in the Powers section (H5, p99). It goes on to say that Independent powers which are in objects are destroyed by a Dispel, and can't be repaired unless the GM allows it to be.

 

It does not explicitly say that this applies to focuses, and there is normally a distinction between focuses and "found" objects, but it does specifically mention the Independent limitation, which rather implies that the objects being referring are powers bought with the Focus limitation. I could, course, be wrong.

[Sean Waters]

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

 

Page 99. It says that dispelling objects means that the object must be repaired or rebuilt to turn on again.

 

Got it now, thank you.

 

Arguably a focus dispelled can be repaired as quickly as any other power can be switched back on after being dispelled. It is only independent powers/foci that are ‘properly’ destroyed. I daresay someone already said that…this is a long thread!

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

And that's one of, if not THE, worst rule ever published for HERO. Ever.

 

As I said before, this is something I would instantly elimate in any game I ran.

 

Actually, I think it's one of the most elegant rules... it makes Dispel useful for more than two things.

 

I won't go so far as to say your view makes you a bad GM (many good GMs have... odd... house rules), however.